SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Edith Wiggins, and Jim Ward.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Principal Planner Kay Pearlstein, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Item 1 - Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan.
Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland pointed out that multi-modal transportation is a key goal of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Developing a bike and pedestrian network was a key action of that plan, he said. Mr. Sutherland reviewed the process thus far and explained that the emphasis had been on creating connections among residences, workplaces, recreational areas, and schools. He noted that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had referred the Draft Action Plan to the Council, and the Council had referred it to the Town Manager and to various boards and commissions for review.
Mr. Sutherland summarized the Action Plan's purpose, objectives, recommended actions, and the issues to date. He displayed a map showing priorities for sidewalk construction using the Town's adopted sidewalk ranking system. Mr. Sutherland outlined an implementation process and presented the staff's recommended next steps through November 22, 2004.
Kenneth Hurst, representing the Lake Ellen Homeowners Association, pointed out that the portion of Dixie Drive between Cynthia and Seminole Drives contained steep banks and shoulders of only three and five feet. That section would require reinforcement to provide enough space for construction of the sidewalk, he said. Mr. Hurst remarked that Collins Road and Cynthia Drive would serve the Town's purposes just as well while avoiding that narrow section of Dixie Drive.
Mr. Hurst expressed concern about the plan to include curbs, gutters and drains as part of the sidewalk construction. These features would concentrate rainfall into focused paths, which would lead to an increase in runoff entering Lake Ellen, he said. Mr. Hurst urged the Town to construct sidewalks without curbs, gutters and drains regardless of which route it chooses through the Lake Ellen neighborhood.
Biker Wayne Pein strongly objected to the notion of regulating cyclists with bike lane stripes. This would introduce several problems, he said, and he noted that he had expanded on those problems in papers that he would make available to the Town. Mr. Pein recommended enhancing bike lanes by widening them where feasible.
Glendale Drive resident Evelyn Brinich expressed concern about the proposed "hard surfaced off road path" within the Battle Branch Greenway Trail. If this means paved, she said, she would oppose it because that trail is one of the last natural hiking paths in Chapel Hill and is home to many wild animals and birds. Paving that trail would be costly, Ms. Brinich pointed out, and it would require the destruction of trees, which would violate the Town's tree ordinance. She argued that cyclists already could get to the University of North Carolina (UNC) campus via Franklin Street and various other paved paths though Town.
Glandon Drive resident Glenn Wilson requested that the Town leave one natural place just for people. He said that the slope on Battle Park was severe and that paving a trail would invent a hazard. Mr. Wilson wondered who would police such a hazard. He was not opposed to bicycles, he said, but only to having Battle Branch Park turned into a thoroughfare.
Glenwood Drive resident Martha Schiltz remarked that Battle Branch Park's appeal and success lie in its "unique remove." She expressed concern that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan promoted the following two fallacies: paving the park would cut down on vehicular use in Town; and, there would be increased bike access. Ms. Schiltz said that providing a paved segment would be at the expense of the last undisturbed, forested park in the heart of Chapel Hill. She urged Council members to consider carefully before they "pave paradise to put up an isolated biking spot."
Franklin Street resident Laura Underkuffler spoke against paving Battle Branch Trail, stating that the land was heavily forested and steeply sloped and that the natural path runs up and down a steep hill. She added that the path follows a changing narrow corridor that weaves around rocks and small cliffs within a few feet of the creek. To pave that area, the Town would have to cut down scores of trees, she said, including 200 year-old trees that lie in the path. Ms. Underkuffler said that such an action would violate the Town's Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) by paving within ten feet of a perennial stream and cutting into steep hillside slopes.
Ms. Underkuffler warned that stormwater runoff would destroy the creek and wildlife habitats. She said that Battle Branch Trail was not a realistic biking corridor and told Council members that Dr. Peter White, Executive Director of the Botanical Garden, was opposed to the paving project. Ms. Underkuffler said that Mr. George Hogan, who was born in Chapel Hill 82 years ago, had asked her to tell the Council that Battle Branch land was sacred ground. Mr. Hogan was in support of improvements to the trail, Ms. Underkuffler explained, but he was against allowing more asphalt or concrete in Chapel Hill. He had argued that the Town had a duty and an obligation to protect the woods, she said.
Glendale Drive resident Caroline Lindsay, who uses Battle Branch Park, expressed support for what previous speakers had said in favor or preserving that land.
Glendale Drive resident Paul Lindsay spoke against paving Battle Branch Trail, stating that he agreed with the remarks made by the previous speakers. Mr. Lindsay commented that there was a lack of clarity in the Action Plan and an inconsistency with regard to the Battle Branch improvements. He recommended that the Council take no action before walking the trail themselves from the Forest Theater to the Community Center. Mr. Lindsay described Battle Branch as a quiet and beautiful place that the Town should preserve.
.
Franklin Street resident Wayne Bowers said that the previous speakers had stated what he wanted to say about preserving Battle Branch Park.
.
Glendale Drive resident William Peck thanked those on the Parks and Recreation Committee who had preserved Battle Branch Park twenty years ago. He shares the park with more than 100 runners and hikers everyday, he said. Mr. Peck described the park as one that had remained quiet and peaceful despite the number of people using it. It is a real nature trail, he said, and he emphasized the importance of preserving such small natural areas as population increases.
Glenhill Lane resident Linda Passman said that others already had addressed her concerns. Irene Gaye declined to speak for the same reason.
Weaver Dairy Road resident Pearson Stewart told the Council that he had lived in the Battle Branch area for 40 years and continued to own property adjacent to Battle Park. He had donated land in the Greendale which provides additional access to Battle Park area, he said. Mr. Stewart concurred with the Greenway Commission's recommendation that a plan for the Battle Branch area be developed by the Town and University working together. Major portions of the Battle Branch area should not involve people at all, he said, but he stated that some portions of it were suitable for hard-surfaced and paved trails. Mr. Stewart advised Council members not to vote until after giving thoughtful consideration to all aspects in consultation with the University.
Kings Mill Road resident Loren Hintz, the Transportation Board's liaison to the Bikes and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, spoke in favor of the Action Plan, describing it as "the missing piece in our transportation puzzle." Mr. Hintz recommended that some recommendations be implemented this year. These include connecting pieces of sidewalks, a bike lane on Cameron Avenue, and additional crosswalks at a number of intersections, to name a few. Mr. Hintz pointed out that recent DOT changes to roads had made it more difficult for cyclists and pedestrians. He asked the Town to have sidewalks wind around trees and to plant shade trees where trees are missing. Mr. Hintz listed several items that he asked the Town to address and noted that the Greenways Commission's mission was to connect various parts of Town.
Ridgecrest Drive resident Valerie Bateman noted that part of the of the Action Plan's objectives was to facilitate travel among neighborhoods, key recreation centers, shopping and Downtown. She pointed out that Franklin Street created a barrier to those on its northern side who wanted to reach University Mall, Village Plaza, the Community Center, and Elliott Road. Ms. Bateman suggested that the Town consider putting an additional crosswalk in that area.
Stephen Keith, Natural Areas Curator of the NC Botanical Garden, explained that the Garden had taken over the management of Battle Bark on July 2004. He was its first curator, he said, adding that he had officially begun his duties on September 6, 2004. Mr. Keith explained that UNC had funds to begin restoring the trails at Battle Park. These plans were not associated with Town or Greenway Commission plans, he said.
Mr. Keith stated that the Botanical Garden was opposed to cutting old growth trees, increasing impervious surfaces, and opening up the canopy. The Garden was committed to restoring the natural areas of the trails and of the Piedmont Forest, he said. Mr. Keith explained that the Botanical Garden was also committed to working with neighbors and the greater community on this and other issues. He announced an open information meeting at the Cotton Center on Tuesday, October 5, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Botanical Garden representatives would introduce draft plans for restoration of the pedestrian trails, Mr. Keith said, and he invited the public to attend and bring comments, questions and concerns.
Dixie Drive resident Andrea Rohrbacher pointed out that there was no pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Westminster Drive and Airport Road. Pedestrians from the Parkside neighborhood use that intersection heavily, she said. Ms. Rohrbacher told council members that there were no crossing lines or markings on the pavement to indicate to drivers that pedestrians cross there. She recommended that improvements be made to provide a safer crossing, noting that many parents with small children cross at that location. Ms. Rohrbacher also expressed support for the Lake Ellen Homeowners Association's earlier statement regarding the sidewalk on Dixie Drive.
Glendale Drive resident Gifford Scott spoke against the proposed plan for Battle Branch Trail because it is narrow, fragile and steep. He pointed out that the neighbors are the ones who maintain the trail and who are there every weekend picking up the trash. The neighbors also are the ones who maintain public access to the trail through their private property, he pointed out. Mr. Scott said that the neighborhood was not interested in isolating the park from the general public but "just do not want to see it paved." He said that the neighborhood had made the same presentation to the Greenways Commission in May 2004. Why would paving Battle Branch Trail be "a magic solution for bike traffic from Estes into the UNC campus," he asked. Mr. Scott asked Council members to explain why they do not strike the proposal from the Action Plan.
Stagecoach Road resident Andy Sacks abstained from speaking.
Highview Road resident Linda Davis agreed with those who had opposed paving Battle Branch Trail. She is a cyclist, she said, adding that she had ridden her bike all over Chapel Hill but had never taken it into Battle Branch Park until the previous Sunday. By doing so, she had violated her own code of ethics and had had a terrible experience because of how that Park is with its own dignity and rights, Ms. Davis explained. She asked Council members to study ways of protecting that area more, not less.
Marilyn Lane resident Coalter Lathrop noted that there was no existing or proposed crosswalk on Franklin Street between Estes Drive and Boundary Street. He presented the Council with a petition that he had gathered that morning in 45 minutes from people who "fear for their lives" when they cross at Elizabeth Road. Mr. Lathrop stated that it was he who had proposed the Greenways master plan change regarding the Battle Branch Trail. He was a near neighbor, he said, and he runs there everyday and loves it dearly. But it appeared to him to be the only route that the Town had available to get from its multi-million dollar greenways system into Downtown and UNC, Mr. Lathrop explained.
Mr. Lathrop discussed the problem of having paved trails from one end of Town to the other that do not connect to the center of Town. For the citizens of the entire Town, Battle Branch needed to be utilized to its most efficient purpose, he said. Mr. Lathrop commented that Battle Branch was not a trackless wilderness but an OWASA right-of-way that was fairly flat for most of its length. Until there is some way to get off that million-dollar trail and into Town and the University it makes no sense to build anymore trail, he said. "If you think you've got opposition to this, try getting people along Franklin Street to give up ten feet of their front yard for a bike lane."
Glendale Road resident and cyclist Steve Shafroth spoke in opposition to paving the Battle Branch Trail. He noted that one way to get from the Community Center to Downtown on a bike was to take the Bolin Creek Trail to Airport Road and ride into Town via Airport Road.
Hillsborough Street resident Clarke DeWitt cautioned about surface water runoff, stating that the greenway trail from Elizabeth Street to the Community Park was "environmentally dubious." He also questioned the suggestion to pave the other side of Umstead Drive going up Bolin Creek. That piece of the road floods nearly every year, he said. Mr. DeWitt stated that bringing in additional fill on that part of the road would not help the occasional flooding and suggested doing an environmental impact analysis of that as well.
Mayor Foy verified with Mr. Horton that this would come back to the Council on October 27, 2004.
Council Member Verkerk asked to add a sidewalk from Highway 54 to the UNC Farm instead of stopping at Finley Forest.
Council Member Harrison suggested adding schools that are outside the Town limits. He also wondered about prioritizing some very short key segments, such as crosswalks, to eliminate "pinch points," such as crossing Franklin Street at Elizabeth Road. Connections between neighborhoods and to important places such as University Mall could be made, he said. Council Member Harrison noted that neighborhood associations would have to work together to do this. He recommended that such private action be a provision within the plan.
Council Member Hill spoke in favor of signing routes. He agreed with speakers that some of the seven DOT repaving projects had gone in the wrong direction and that the Town had lost width for bicycling.
Council Member Harrison suggested that the Battle Branch Trail be pulled out and studied as a special case that needed some committee work to arrive at a consensus.
Mayor Foy inquired about when the Town uses Chapel Hill gravel rather than pavement for sidewalks. Mr. Sutherland replied that Chapel Hill gravel was used, in the Historic District in particular, when there were issues related to tree roots. Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that she had walked the Battle Branch Trail. She agreed with how tonight's speakers had described it.
Mayor Foy asked Council members if they agreed with Council Member Harrison's suggestion to remove the Battle Branch Trail section from the Action Plan for separate treatment.
Council Member Ward, noting that he was employed by the Botanical Garden, recommended against removing it at this point. The Botanical Garden and UNC could resolve the issue prior to October 27, 2004, he said.
Council Member Harrison clarified that he had not meant to suggest banishing the issue from the planning process but was suggesting handling it in a special way.
Council Member Verkerk stated that she had recently walked the trail and had observed that it was close to the creek and very hilly. The Council could ease people's minds if they set that trail aside as something that needed to be worked out with the University, she pointed out. Council Member Verkerk praised the Action Plan in general, and recommended moving the rest of it forward.
Council Member Strom praised the effort and thanked all of those who had participated in developing the Action Plan. His home was near Battle Branch Park, he pointed out, and he used the trail regularly. Council Member Strom noted that UNC owned such a large strip of that land that the Town had to engage in a process with them. The Town must understand exactly what the Garden proposes and what the Town can do to work with and improve UNC's "pretty low impact" vision for that land, he said. Council Member Strom agreed with other Council members' recommendation to hold it out and treat it separately from the rest of the plan. He asked Council Member Ward for more information about what might be accomplished before October 27th.
Council Member Ward replied that the Botanical Garden and UNC had been working on this project since before July 2004 and that their joint vision for the trail system had been well thought out. He emphasized that this really was a University decision and said that the Botanical Garden and UNC appeared to be reaching a vision that they would soon articulate to the community. Council Member Ward remarked that that such a joint vision could be incorporated into this Bike and Pedestrian Action Plan and that the October 5th workshop at the Garden would provide details on what that vision is. Between now and October 27, the Garden could meet with Town staff, the Greenways Commission, and the Bike & Pedestrian Board, he said. Council Member Ward recommended highlighting Battle Branch Trail for intense conversation rather than pulling it out of the Plan. The goal, he said, would be to reach a unified Town/University vision.
Mayor Foy emphasized that Battle Branch clearly was the major area of concern for citizens. Everything else in the plan seems to conform to what the Town wanted to do, he pointed out. Mayor Foy recommended that the Council ask the Manager to focus on this aspect of the plan and bring back a recommendation on October 27, 2004. If the Manager can work out something to present to the Council then the Council would consider it, said mayor Foy. "Otherwise, we will proceed with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan minus this aspect of it until it gets resolved." Mr. Horton replied that the staff would welcome the opportunity to bring back a recommendation.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REFER TONIGHT'S COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND STAFF FOR A REPORT BACK ON OCTOBER 27, 2004. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 2 - Chancellor’s View Cluster Subdivision:
Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper described the proposed 25-lot cluster subdivision on 32 acres. The plan includes six, size-restricted homes on lots that would be dispersed throughout the subdivision, she said. Ms. Culpepper recommended approval of Resolution A with a small adjustment to Stipulation 13 on page 20 such that Zapata Lane would be accepted for maintenance prior to "final platting," rather than prior to a "Zoning Compliance Permit." This would allow the developer to fix any road problems that construction of the new roadway might cause, she said.
Civil Engineer Phil Post, representing the applicant, Capkov Ventures, LLC, expressed gratification for the strong support from Town advisory boards. All had agreed to the change regarding Stipulation 13, he said. Mr. Post noted that only small adjustments, such as moving mailboxes, remained to be done to bring Zapata Lane up to DOT standards. The developer had been working with the neighborhood on that, he said. Mr. Post stated that the developer supported Resolution A in its entirety, including the revision that Ms. Culpepper had suggested. He asked Council members to adopt Resolution A.
Old Lystra Road resident Peter deLeeuw expressed concern about spillover lighting from Chancellor's View. He had initiated the petition that was in the Council's packet regarding that, he said. Mr. deLeeuw noted that the Chapel Hill lighting ordinance did not specifically address light spillover into the sky, which would be an issue in his neighborhood. Spillover lighting wastes energy, destroys the heritage of the starry night sky, and harms the diverse woodland community, he said.
Mr. de Leeuw stated that it was possible and not difficult to create lighting that illuminates only what is intended. The Orange County ordinance would be adequate to address that, he said, but noted that Orange County's light ordinance does not apply to Chandler's View. Mr. de Leeuw asked the Town Council to execute the kind of care that is due and to ensure that lighting be done in manner that would meet the County's lighting requirements as well as the Town's.
Zapata Lane resident Paul Johnston concurred with what Mr. deLeeuw had just said regarding light spillover. In addition, Mr. Johnston expressed concern about traffic at the dangerous intersection of Zapata Lane and Old Lystra Road. He reported that people drive down Old Lystra Road so fast that he was surprised there were not more accidents. Mr. Johnston also questioned the positioning of the footpath, wondering if it would be paved and if trees would be lost due to construction traffic during paving. He asked if it would be a nature trail, a walkway, or for a path for cyclists.
Ms. Culpepper replied that it would be a natural trail and it would not be paved. Mr. Post concurred, adding that the trail would be built by hand, would wind through trees, and would not require any clearing of trees.
Old Lystra Road resident Michael Cox expressed opposition to the subdivision, arguing that it would fundamentally changes the character of the neighborhood. He was particularly concerned about traffic impact, he said, and he agreed with Mr. Johnston that speeding on Old Lystra Road was a serious problem. Mr. Cox said that more than half of the cars on Old Lystra Road were speeding and that he was concerned about his children's safety. He strongly encouraged the Town to lower and/or enforcing the speed limit more vigorously.
Mr. Cox also pointed out the limited sight distance, due to an overgrowth of vegetation, for cars turning left from Old Lystra Road onto Mt. Carmel Church Road. One really has to get out into the road to see, he said, noting that an increase in the number of cars would make matters even worse. He stated that Scroggs Elementary School already was overcrowded and he expressed support for Mr. deLeeuw's petition regarding light spillover. Mr. Cox stated that he did not want to help pay for any extension of utilities down Old Lystra Road. He already had water and sewer and did not need that service, he pointed out.
Council Member Greene commented that the Planning Board had also expressed concerns about light spillover and had mentioned Orange County's ordinance. She suggested that the Town look into that, noting that the County's ordinance was stronger than the Town's. Chapel Hill might even want to adopt it on a long-term basis, she said. Council Member Greene noted that there had been a change from the developer's offer of three affordable houses. Six small houses are not truly affordable, she said, and she asked why there had been such a "radical change." Mr. Post replied that the developer thought the affordable houses that he had first proposed would have fit, architecturally and functionally, into the streetscape of Old Lystra Road. But that had received a poor reaction from advisory boards, the Council, the Town Manager and staff, and the neighborhood, he pointed out. Mr. Post said that, in view of that reaction, the developer had decided to comply with the ordinance and provide interspersed small houses.
Council Member Greene pointed out that the developer had been encouraged to integrate the affordable houses into the plan, but had not done so and had proposed small houses instead. Mr. Post replied that the economic burden of affordable housing would be too heavy on such a small subdivision with only 24 lots. Also, since this is a transition area between densely developed areas of Town and much more rural areas that do not have water and sewer, it is correctly zoned for one unit per acre, he said. "At that level of density disparity there are less resources for affordable housing," Mr. Post remarked.
Council Member Kleinschmidt pointed out that the applicant had agreed to build affordable houses as long as they were segregated from the rest of the development. If they could absorb the cost then why couldn't they do so now, he asked, noting that it would be the same number of units absorbing the same amount of cost. Mr. Post replied that the developer believed it was difficult, given the relatively short street and small number of units, to have a highly different house style and had stated so at the concept plan hearing. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that he would rather hear the applicants state that they really do not want to integrate the affordable houses that that there had been no support in Town for the affordable units or that 24 units cannot absorb three affordable houses. The development had been able to absorb those units at the concept stage, as long as they were segregated, he remarked.
Mr. Post agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt that the developer did not want the affordable units integrated and will use the small house option instead of the affordable house option.
Council Member Kleinschmidt described the small house option as being like a large house "kit," where one could buy a small 1,300 square-foot house and make a huge profit by enlarging it later on. He asked Mr. Post if the developer's choice of narrower lots was part of a strategy to ensure that the small houses would not be expandable. What efforts was the developer making to help the Town achieve its affordability goals, Council Member Kleinschmidt asked. Mr. Post replied that even though the small houses might not be affordable to a highly defined segment, they would serve another niche of moderate-priced housing. He stated that a number of faculty, professionals and young families were under-served and needed moderate-priced housing such as the proposed small houses.
Developer Scott Kovens also replied that not every small house would be expanded into a large house. But, it would not be a "terrible thing" if a person of lesser means bought a small house and expanded it into a larger one down the road when they had the means, he said. Mr. Kovens noted that he had been willing and financially able to put affordable houses on Old Lystra Road but had received much opposition and no support for that plan. The small house really does serve a very under-served segment of the community, he said.
Council Member Ward asked how those small houses could be made affordable by Town standards. Mr. Kovens replied that the way they are positioned on the lots would make it difficult to expand them. Council Member Ward clarified that there had been support for the affordable housing design that the applicant had previously proposed. The objections had been to segregating those lots, he pointed out.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Kovens to indicate on the map where the three affordable homes with the common drive had been proposed. He verified that the original proposal had been for those three plus 21 interior lots. Mr. Kovens remarked that there would be other opportunities on larger pieces of land to bring more affordable housing to Chapel Hill. He had some exciting plans for the future, he said, but explained that it was difficult to create affordable housing on this particular site because of its natural constraints. Mayor Foy asked Mr. Kovens if he would be willing to put some restrictions in size limit on the property. Mr. Kovens replied that he would not want to deprive a buyer of the opportunity to augment or change his/her house.
Council Member Hill determined that the average house would cost between $500,000 and $800,000, with the small houses costing about $300,000. Mr. Kovens noted, however, that the price of materials might change before the houses have been completed. Council Member Hill commented that the population served would be those who want to live in a $500,000 to $800,000 neighborhood but who only have $300,000. Mr. Kovens replied that one could look at it that way but that he did not think that was true.
Council Member Hill stated that the problem was with the ordinance. Mr. Kovens was doing what he was allowed to do, but it was not what the Town Council wanted, he pointed out. Mr. Kovens countered that the Town, as well, was doing what it wanted to do because it was serving a diverse population. Council Member Hill noted that this situation demonstrated that the Council needed to do something about the ordinance. Mr. Kovens asked the Council to consider how few developers were building homes in the $200,00-$300,000 range in Chapel Hill. Single-family lots in Chapel Hill were selling for $250,000 just for the lot, he said.
"I'm not questioning the nobility of your enterprise," Council Member Hill replied. "I think what you're doing is wonderful for the Town. But this isn't what we want in the way of supplying affordable housing." Council Member Hill suggested that the Council think about changing the ordinance.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins pointed out that there was another a new subdivision in Town where affordable housing was interspersed among the market housing and was working. She suggested that Mr. Kovens talk with the Larkspur developer. Mr. Kovens noted the difference in topography and cost of land at Larkspur. Mayor pro tem Wiggins suggested that it could be done through working with Orange Community Housing and Land Trust. Mr. Kovens replied, "I would be surprised if it reached the community that you actually think it's reaching."
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that a $300,000 home is not that affordable for a new professional and would not reach the niche that Mr. Kovens said he was trying to reach. Mr. Kovens replied that there might be some in the $200,000 range. But the lots alone cost more than $120,000 to build, he said. Mr. Kovens reminded the Council that he had been building homes in Chapel Hill for 30 years and had built affordable houses in Carrboro.
Council Member Ward determined noted that the developer could reduce the lot size in the interest of reducing costs and achieving affordable housing. Mr. Kovens again mentioned the topographical constraints on the property.
Mayor Foy encouraged Mr. Kovens to look more closely at his proposal since he was not sure that it met the requirements that the Town needs to meet. "I'm not sure that we want to see a cluster subdivision here," said Mayor Foy, referring to the neighborhood concerns about traffic impact. Mr. Kovens replied that he had met with DOT and with homeowners regarding sight triangles. Mayor Foy replied that he was saying he had problems with this subdivision and he'd like Mr. Kovens to take a closer look at it. "Do you think we could calm the traffic with a little affordable housing," Mr. Kovens replied. Mayor Foy stated that the developer had not addressed the traffic impact issue and that he was not sure he was prepared to vote on this. Mayor Foy repeated his request that Mr. Kovens take another look at it.
Mr. Kovens stated that he had met with the DOT and had inquired about more signage. But he did not have a lot of control over that, he pointed out. Mayor Foy asked about the possibility of installing a traffic light. Mr. Post replied that the Town's traffic study had found that this subdivision would have no impact on traffic safety or level of service. The problems identified by the neighbors and in the traffic study were existing problems, he said. Mr. Post explained that the DOT and the Town's Traffic Safety Department were working together to calm the existing traffic on Old Lystra Road.
Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed surprise that there was no potential degradation of level of service from this development. Council Member Strom asked how the utility plan had changed as a result of integrating the three previously affordable houses back into the development. Mr. Post indicated on a map where the sewer line no longer had to be extended. Council Member Strom pointed out that this was another significant financial benefit to the developer.
Council Member Ward verified that public use of the open space would be permitted. He suggested stipulating that four permanent signs be placed along the roads. The signs should state that the land may be used and the Homeowners Association should maintain the signs, he said. Mr. Kovens replied that this already had been suggested and was in the plan.
MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 11, 2004. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 3 - Montclair Subdivision: Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
Town Planning Director Roger Waldon outlined the proposal for a 13-lot subdivision on 11 acres along Culbreth Road. The Council had seen this application as a Concept Plan, he pointed out, and he displayed the project on a map with its current and proposed roads. The main issue that had arisen, according to Mr. Waldon, concerned the applicant's compliance with the Town's small house size restrictions. The applicant was requesting that the Town approve their request for 15% affordable rather than 25% small houses, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that this would result in one affordable unit.
Council Member Harrison asked for an indication on the map of where the trail, or right-of-way, from Westbury Drive to the open space would be. He noted that the tract immediately to the north was being discussed by the Council’s Conservation Easement Committee for the first such easement initiated by the Town on its own land.
Mr. Post, representing the applicant, Cazco Inc, described the subdivision as "a donut hole that's being filled in." It was the last parcel being developed in an area where all connections and stub-outs had already been decided, he said. Mr. Post showed where an affordable house would be opposite the homeowner open space. He noted that there would be a dedicated right-of-way as well as public pedestrian use of the tract.
Council Member Greene expressed regret that 1.95 had been rounded down to one affordable house. Developers were doing what the ordinance allows them to do, she said, "but it sure is a shame" that there were not two affordable houses there. Council Member Greene suggested that the Council address problems with the ordinance. Council Member Ward also expressed disappointment and he asked the developer to provide two affordable houses rather than one.
Developer Carol Ann Zinn replied that it was not economically feasible to provide two affordable houses. She was essentially donating that one lot, she said, adding that affordable housing does not work in a small neighborhood in the way it did at Larkspur. She explained that she had been able to build 13 affordable houses at Larkspur because there were 86 total lots. Ms. Zinn stated that it was impossible to make any sense of such a loss with such a small number of units. She was following the ordinance, she said, and was doing so at a great cost and was unwilling to go any further. Ms. Zinn agreed that the ordinance needed to be changed. She asked to participate in that discussion, stressing that she had proven with Larkspur that she supports the concept of affordable housing.
Mayor Foy thanked Ms. Zinn for offering to build an affordable house rather than using the small house option. He asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos if it would be possible to add a lot and have two affordable houses. Mr. Karpinos replied that this would be a planning and engineering issue.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that the developer had proposed 16 units in her Concept Plan. There had been an entirely different option for affordable housing proposed then, he said, explaining that he was bringing this up only to point out that the site had been divided differently before.
Council Member Strom commented that this proposal underlined why the Town needed to make time for the planning staff to work through affordable housing issues and modify the ordinance to meet Town goals.
Mr. Post stated that the applicant supported R-A, not R-B.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 11, 2004. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4 - Concept Plan: University Village Mixed-Use Development
Roger Waldon reviewed the Concept Plan for a series of building in a mixed-use design at a 9.11-acre site on Highway 54. There already was development on a little more than half of the site and grass on the remainder, he said, but the entire area was the subject of this application. Mr. Waldon reminded Council members that the staff had not yet evaluated the proposal. This Concept Plan stage was an opportunity for the Council give feedback to the developer regarding the proposal, he said.
Developer Roger Perry, owner of East West Partners Management Co., Inc., pointed out that the property was well served by public transportation. The carrying and intersection capacities on Highway 54 were adequate to accommodate the proposed plan, he said. Mr. Perry proposed 337,500 square feet of mixed-use, residential, office and commercial development. This was "considerably in excess of the floor-area ratio (187,265 SF) that was currently allowed on the site," he pointed out. Mr. Perry noted that the site was zoned commercial. He could theoretically ask the Town for a SUP that would include 187,000 SF of retail space, he said. Instead, he requested a mix of uses that would include 60,000 square feet of retail, up to 113,000 square feet of office space, and a minimum of 164,500 square feet of residential space. That this would yield 137-191 multi-family homes on the site, Mr. Perry explained.
Mr. Perry said that the project would include a variance from the height limitation with buildings potentially as tall as 68 feet. He wanted to know if the Council might look favorably on these significant variances from the existing zone in exchange for the other components of the project. The project proposes 631 parking spaces, with 501 underground and 130 above ground where they currently were at the University Inn. Noting that this project would increase traffic on Highway 54 by 6,351 trips per day, Mr. Perry noted that it would still be less than 10% of the carrying capacity of Highway 54.
Mr. Perry said that his proposal would not ask for variances on Town regulations, other than floor-area and height. They would retain stormwater runoffs using underground vaults, he explained. Mr. Perry argued that the site deserved higher density because of its transportation connections. He proposed that 30% of all residential units be affordable and placed into the Land Trust. These would be the same size as the market rate units, he said, and they would be interspersed among the buildings. In addition, Mr. Perry proposed designing all buildings to meet the Silver Certification level of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEEDS] Program. He also pointed out that the project would have significant positive impacts on the tax base.
Council Member Strom commented that this was exactly what the concept review process was intended for. He had no problem with the project's intensity, he said, given its proximity to the TTA. However, Council Member Strom suggested turning the structures and building them closer to the street. He asked for more information about the positioning of buildings.
Mr. Perry replied that the buildings had been positioned back from the road in an attempt to preserve the existing green area along the entryway corridor. They were not facing Highway 54 in the interest of creating a more "village type concept," he said. Mr. Perry stated, though, that he would be glad to reconsider that if the Town Council felt that the entryway area and trees were not as important as building an urban edge along Highway 54. He had presented it this way because he thought it would be the Council's preference, he said.
Council Member Verkerk also expressed a preference for a more urban look. She suggested turning Building Three and moving it closer to the road. That would be "a retailers dream," she said, noting that hundreds of people would come off the S bus at that location. Council Member Verkerk noted that there were no neighbors surrounding the proposed project, and suggested that the developer be "a little more bold."
Council Member Harrison determined where a signalized intersection might be added and where entrances and exits from the project would be placed. He verified that there would be a bike and pedestrian connection. Council Member Harrison agreed that pulling buildings closer to Highway 54 would serve as an overall traffic-calming measure. He ascertained that the transit corridor would run along the south side of Preswick Road. Council Member Harrison pointed out that there would be many transit users and a potential for regional connections.
Council Member Ward expressed appreciation for the plan's "wonderful aspects," such as LEED certification and affordability. He inquired about the buildings' uses and asked for more details regarding their various heights. Council Member Ward pointed out that the residents across Highway 54 probably would respond if the buildings were brought up closer to the road. He spoke in favor of keeping some of the current vegetation, and asked about recreation space for young children.
Mr. Perry replied that the intent was to have both passive and active recreation in the open space area. He pointed out that the homes would be very small (1,000-1,400 square feet) and probably would attract singles, couples, and single parents. There probably would not be a huge number of small children, he said. Council Member Ward stressed that some three-bedroom units, in particular, could have two or more children. Mr. Perry agreed to look at that, emphasizing that he wanted to meet the recreation requirement on site rather than giving a payment-in-lieu.
Mr. Perry explained that Building One would be a four-story building with retail on the bottom and three stories of office and/or residential above. Building Three would be the "mini-anchor," and Building Two would be five stories with retail on the ground floor and mostly residential above. Buildings Four and Five were all-residential four-story buildings, he said. Mr. Perry noted, though, that they were not intransigent about any of that and were willing to look at a different mix.
Council Member Hill described the plan as ambitious and wondered if there was a bigger underground parking garage anywhere in North Carolina. He determined that the tallest building would be off the road and that the developer was able to offer 30% affordable housing because of the amount of density. "If you'll let us put more density, we'll do more affordable," Mr. Perry remarked. Council Member Hill verified that Mr. Perry's intent was to sell all of the units. Mr. Perry guessed that the market rate units would sell for $200,000-$250,000. Council Member Hill verified that Preswick Drive had not been paved and connected to Hamilton Road because of the potential effect of doing so on the Glenwood Elementary School. Mr. Perry said that the proposed development would work better with that connection but that it works fine without it.
Council Member Hill noted that there was no pool in the plan. Mr. Perry replied that they had not planned that far ahead but had discussed building a rooftop park on Building Two. He agreed that there probably would be a swimming pool for a project of this size. Council Member Hill ascertained that Mr. Perry did not see this development as interfering with Downtown retail market needs. Mr. Perry proposed that it probably would positively impact Downtown because it would be so easy to get there without a car. Council Member Hill explained that he had once lived in the area and spoke in favor of keeping the green look. "I would probably expect myself to be the most negative person on the Council toward this and I don't feel that way at all," he remarked.
Council Member Greene praised the positive aspects of plan and expressed support for Council Member Hill's wish to maintain a suburban look. She asked if any soil testing had been done to learn how feasible the underground parking would be. Mr. Perry explained that excavation would be minimal due to the slope of the site. He planned to study it more, he said, but felt comfortable with the plan. With regard to the recreation requirement, Council Member Greene stated that she would entertain at least a partial payment in lieu because community parks always need funds.
Council Member Kleinschmidt praised the Concept Plan, stating that he was very excited about it for all the reasons that everyone else had expressed. He described targeting the market for the residential units to Town, UNC Hospital and UNC employees, as somewhat ambitions, however, given the price range. Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed concern about the potential for "Funtown USA" for UNC sophomores. He wondered how that could be prevented in such a development. Mr. Perry pointed out that students would not qualify for the affordable units. He did not know of any way to preclude a parent from buying a unit for his children, he said, but added that not much of that had occurred in Town. Mr. Perry said that he would consider deed restrictions against occupancy by undergraduate students.
Council Member Kleinschmidt replied that he was not in favor of deed restrictions. He pointed out that the type of retail, design of the units, numbers of bathrooms in the three bedroom units, and so forth would help prevent such a problem. "Don't build them for student housing is what you're saying," Mr. Perry replied, and he stated that the plan was to design them with a family orientation.
Mayor Foy thanked Mr. Perry for the Concept Plan, noting that this was the first project the Council had seen with 30% affordable housing. He pointed out that the developer was able to offer that much affordable housing because of the project's density. This helps the Council understand some of the financial dynamics, said Mayor Foy.
Mayor Foy commented on the conflicting opinions among Council members with regard to the urban character of the location. He did not think that trees were in competition with the potential character of the site, he said. Mayor Foy proposed incorporating trees into the design without turning the development in on itself as it does in the Concept Plan. He agreed with the suggestions to pull it closer to the sidewalk, facing the street. That would make it look more like a Town than a highway, he pointed out. Mayor Foy proposed that some of the spectacular trees could be protected without diminishing the urban character of the design.
Mr. Perry stated, in summary, that the Council wanted the development to be outwardly focused and that most of them preferred to maintain the trees if possible. He agreed to go back to the architect and look at that challenge. Mr. Perry asked if he could leave the meeting tonight with the "a strong feeling from you that this significant variance on floor-area ratio in exchange for the other aspects of this project is something that you all feel good about. It's a project you like."
Mayor Foy determined that this project would be denser than Glen Lennox but that there were many more bedrooms and residents at Glen Lennox than there would be here. He asked about the point at which neighbors would be come involved. Mr. Perry replied that UNC would meet with the neighbors if they receive a favorable direction from the Council. They had already met with the owner of the nearby doctors' office and with UNC, he said.
Mayor Foy asked for more information about the possibility of redeveloping the doctors' office. Mr. Perry explained that he had discussed that but had become nervous about including it in the project because of the Hamilton connection. He had been concerned about citizen reaction if he made a more intensive use of the corner where the crosswalk is, he explained. Mr. Perry stated that he would take the Council's guidance on that as well.
Mayor Foy concurred with the rest of the Council that in exchange for greater density of affordable housing they were receptive to the Concept Plan. They see it as a more urban design, however, but would like to maintain the trees, said Mayor Foy. Mr. Perry agreed to find a way to creatively accomplish both those goals by reshaping the buildings.
Council Member Ward asked if there were examples of similar developments that he could see. Mr. Perry suggested looking at The Fountains and The Warehouse as examples of scale. Council Member Ward questioned the traffic impact, noting that it was "a mess out there at some times of the day." Mr. Perry remarked that the Town needed projects such as his that would get folks to ride buses and trains.
Council Member Ward suggested having a "Weaver Street East" at Building Four where people could eat outside under the trees. He asked Mr. Perry to consider keeping Preswick open or making it one way because it might become a traffic option. Mr. Perry said that he would accept the staff's and Council's recommendation on that. He and the staff were in favor of connecting it, he said, but he would take the Council's lead.
Council Member Harrison roughly estimated that the number of trips per day, but Mr. Perry pointed out that the number did not contemplate anyone riding the bus or train or walking from their home. That would be factored into a traffic study, he said. Council Member Harrison asked if this development would be done by rezoning or variance. Mr. Waldon explained that it was zoned in a manner that would allow these uses. But the clearest way to go would be to suggest a modification of floor-area and height regulations for the site, Mr. Waldon said. Mr. Perry displayed an example of what the development would look like, including the five-story building.
Council Member Greene recommended talking with parents of children at Glenwood Elementary School about the connection. The Council agreed that there were pros and cons to leaving it open. "Done," Mr. Perry replied. Mayor Foy said that it made sense to him to have it open.
THE COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION R-1 BY CONSENSUS.
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR UNIVERSITY VILLAGE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (2004-09-20/R-1)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council for the University Village; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations from the applicant and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on September 20, 2004, and reflected in the minutes of that meeting.
This the 20th day of September, 2004.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.