SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin 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, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Acting Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, Engineering Design Specialist Mike Taylor, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Mayor Foy noted that a group of citizens had brought a petition regarding The Highlands. Even though the Council does not typically hear petitions at public hearings, they had agreed to make an exception tonight since the petitioners were present, he said.
Brian Voyce, representing The Highlands, presented a petition from nearly 200 homeowners representing about 100 properties. He asked the Council to put the petition on the agenda for the next Council meeting. The Highlands citizens wished to be annexed into the Town of Chapel Hill rather than Carrboro, Mr. Voyce explained. He said that Carrboro had been striving to seize the subdivision against their unanimous will. Mr. Voyce asked Mayor Foy and the Council to honor choice over coercion. The Highlands residents were willing to sit down and discuss any questions that the Town might have, he said.
Mayor Foy ascertained from Acting Town Manager Bruce Heflin that this item would come back to the Council on November 8, 2004.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0) TO COME BACK ON NOVEMBER 8, 2004, FOR A RESPONSE FROM THE COUNCIL.
Item 1 - Concept Plan: Habitat-Sunrise Road
Mr. Heflin pointed out that Town staff does not analyze concept proposals. They present concept plans to the Council as the applicant has presented them to the Town, he said. Town Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that this Council had seen this concept before since citizens had brought concerns about it to the Council's attention. The Mayor had appointed a Council Committee to address those concerns, he said, and the full Council had sent ideas to the applicant for consideration. Since there already had been much discussion and consideration of Habitat's proposal, tonight's presentation probably would be more advanced than what the Council typically hears at the concept plan stage, Mr. Waldon said.
John Tyrell, president of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, outlined Habitat's vision and goals. He provided statistics on Habitat’s success with providing affordable housing in the community. Mr. Tyrell mentioned a document that Board Member Glen Greenstreet had prepared for the Community Design Commission (CDC) and said that it was being submitted to the Council tonight. He noted that the plan being presented tonight was the same as that presented to the CDC. Habitat would respond to the CDC's comments, Mr. Tyrell explained. He noted that it made sense, however, to hear the Council's suggestions as well before modifying the plan.
Mr. Tyrell pointed out that the concept plan relates the project's design elements to 17 points that the Mayor's Committee had prepared and that the Council had adopted last year. He noted Point #1 (to retain the present zoning) and Point #3 (to consider clustering properties) and stated that tonight's concept plan illustrated a clustered neighborhood built under existing zoning provisions. Mr. Tyrell gave a brief overview of Habitat for Humanity and listed the following design objectives for the Sunrise Road Subdivision:
· Create a desirable neighborhood.
· Provide affordable homeownership for a variety of income levels.
· Protect environmental quality.
· Incorporate community feedback into the plan.
· Build within existing zoning and land use ordinance.
· Further the goals of the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan.
· Steward public and private resources responsibly.
Project Manager Warren Mitchell said that he felt honored to be chosen as Habitat's engineer for the Sunrise project and for their 12 new homes on Rogers Road. He described the 17.1-acre site, its location and features, and highlighted its connectivity opportunities to the north and south. The site lends itself well to a cluster development, Mr. Mitchell said. He explained that approximately half of the project would be developed and that the other half would be preserved except for the access road.
Landscape Designer Michelle Kempinski reviewed some of the natural and proposed landscape elements of the project. She said that about 75% of the specimen trees could be preserved within the proposed cluster design layout. Ms. Kempinski noted three vegetated bio-retention areas for stormwater management. She indicated tree plantings along the street, screening and shading of the parking areas, and a recreational space in the community's center. Ms. Kempinski noted that there were also other opportunities for recreational space. A low-impact trail system would connect those areas and could potentially connect the development with the Chapel Hill greenway system, she said.
Planning and Design Consultant Scott Radway discussed design principles, noting that Habitat had added to the 17 principles that the Mayor's Committee had recommended. He discussed the following principles:
· Recreation and Open Space
· Public Streets Meet Town Standards
· Pedestrian Scale with Sidewalks and Paths
· Streetscape Amenities
· Home Scale Appropriate to Neighborhoods
· Traditional Home Architecture
Ha Ngo, with GGA Architects, addressed the architectural principles of the cluster plan. She explained that larger homes would be organized along the main road with smaller homes along the secondary street. Front doors and porches would all face the street, said Ms. Ngo, and she showed preliminary examples of single-family, detached homes and triplexes. Ms. Ngo explained that the goal was to have duplexes and triplexes look like single-family homes.
Mr. Radway noted that the single-family homes, duplexes and triplexes would all have a two-story appearance. He reviewed the site features and showed an artist streetscape rendering of how homes would be set back 20-25 feet from the property line. Homes would face each other across the street and would have sheltered parking between them, he said. Mr. Radway explained that there would be both off-street and on-street parking. He displayed photos of Southern Village as an example of what on-street parking would look like.
Council Member Harrison inquired about a building indicated on the map. Mr. Radway explained that it had belonged to The Potted Plant but had been removed since the map was drawn.
Mr. Tyrell read Habitat for Humanity's mission statement and told Council members that Habitat had worked diligently to incorporate the 17 points.
Attorney Michael Brough, representing the Sunrise Coalition, expressed concerns about the concept plan. He said that Coalition members were not opposed to development there but only to the density which they believe was inappropriate for the site. Mr. Brough stated that there were a series of environmental issues that concerned the Coalition. These include the RCD, soil drainage, wetlands, noise, and safety issues regarding limited sight distance where the entrance would be located, he said.
Mr. Brough argued that the proposed development was completely incompatible with the nature of the surrounding development. The Sunrise subdivision should be evaluated in the same manner as other developments were, he said. Mr. Brough stated that the goal of affordable housing was important, but he pointed out that it was not the only goal in the Comprehensive Plan. He emphasized that his clients' opposition was to the density, not to affordable housing, and he asked that the Council analyze density without regard for who the developer is. Mr. Brough asked Council members to urge Habitat to join the Sunrise neighbors in a mediated effort to resolve their differences. There had been no give and take on the issue of density, he said.
Civil Engineer Michael Neal, representing the Sunrise Coalition, stated that the proposed development would not meet the Town's stormwater management requirements as defined in the LUMO. He had calculated that the volume of runoff would increase by approximately 115 cubic feet on one 3,500 square-foot lot for the two-year storm. This small lot would have to store and retain an equivalent of sixteen 55-gallon barrels of water on site, he said, and the bio-retention basin would require a surface area of about 100 square feet. So, every five or six small units would have a retention basin of 500-600 square feet, Mr. Neal said. He predicted that rate, volume and quality issues would be problematic.
Sandra Cummings stated that the Coalition did not dispute the need for affordable housing in Chapel Hill. Nor did they question Habitat's contribution to Orange County affordable housing or oppose having a Habitat development in their neighborhood, she said. But they have legitimate concerns about this particular concept, she said, and they want those concerns to be addressed in Habitat's final plan. Ms. Cummings argued that the location was inappropriate for the high-density housing that was being proposed. She showed on a map how much denser housing would be on this footprint than on the surrounding neighborhoods. Ms. Cummings stated that the area had limited services, with the nearest convenience store and bus stop being a half mile away. The nearest shopping and retail stores were more than two miles away, she pointed out.
Sunrise Road resident Kerry Henry told Council members that her home was adjacent to the southwest corner of the proposed development. She showed slides of three other adjacent properties and noted that they all had wells and septic systems and one to three acres of land. Ms. Henry showed a photo of her house, which she and her husband had worked on extensively to make match and reflect its natural surroundings. She did not want to see that change, she stressed. Ms. Henry said that she would support affordable housing, but with larger lot sizes than had been proposed. She showed photos of stormwater on her property and noted that eliminating trees would compound the problem that already exists.
Amesbury Drive resident Doug Schworer explained that the Sunrise Coalition
believes there is an intermittent stream on the Habitat property that was not
identified in the materials that Habitat had submitted. Clear-cutting the area
and adding such high density would create more runoff and might increase noise
from Interstate 40, he said. Mr. Schworer proposed that the concept plan and
the overall design account for those environmental factors. Chapel Hill needed
single family affordable homes, he said, pointing out that 75% of the proposed
homes would be duplexes or triplexes.
Pinetree Lane resident Steve Herman expressed regret that Habitat and the Sunrise Road neighbors had failed to agree on a concept plan. He stated that Habitat's concept was fundamentally flawed in the ways that previous speakers had summarized. Mr. Herman told Council members that Habitat had systematically excluded neighbors from any substantive role in the planning process. Concerns that they had expressed at the charrette had been summarily dropped from consideration, he said. Mr. Herman argued that Habitat's plan was flawed because they had insisted on placing the maximum number of units on the site.
Rob Nelson requested that the Council seriously consider the Sunrise Coalition's offer for mediation. That could help achieve everyone's goal of more affordable housing in a much shorter timeframe, he said.
Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, encouraged the Council to examine whether the Habitat project met the social, economic and environmental sustainability goals for the Town. The Chamber sees affordable housing for the Town's workforce as a critical part of that sustainability, he said, noting that 40% of those who work in Chapel Hill drive to work from somewhere else. Mr. Nelson stated that the Habitat project was important to the Chamber; however, the Chamber had not taken a position on the specific issues that were before the Council tonight, he said.
Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (OCHC), noted that Habitat's objective was to broaden the income range they normally serve. OCHC had been eager to partner with Habitat and fully supported the project, he said, adding that they had not committed to being a full partner for financial reasons only.
Mr. Dowling stated that he understood the neighbors' concerns about noise and stormwater. But Habitat had not asked for any exemptions to the fairly stringent LUMO, he pointed out. He said that Habitat did not want exemptions because they want to do the right thing for their homeowners and for those who lives in the vicinity.
Mr. Dowling disagreed with the Coalition's assertions that this was a high-density project. He pointed out that affordable units on Legion Road and at Meadowmont were far denser than this would be. Even market-rate developments coming before the Council were far denser than they had been in the past, he said.
With regard to the proposed development's distance from stores and bus stops, Mr. Dowling pointed out that most of those who would live there were traveling much greater distances now. He noted that the original proposal had been for 100 units and said that Habitat had listened to the neighbors. Habitat was proposing 50 units, which is somewhat less than the 68 they are allowed by the ordinance, he stressed. Mr. Dowling described the site as "a pretty crappy piece of land," and said that this was why Habitat had been able to purchase it for only $400,000. If it were a prime piece of land it would have cost $2 million and there would not be any affordable housing on it, Mr. Dowling remarked.
Council Member Verkerk commented on the 15-foot buffers, explaining that she had thought they would be 20-30 feet. She also requested more information from the staff about the intermittent stream and stormwater.
Mayor Foy noted that some parking seemed to run into the buffers. He asked if those were true buffers or just not building sites.
Council Member Strom commented that the concept plan seemed to be very responsive to the Mayor's Committee's 17 goals and principles, which the Council had voted in favor of. He asked for more specifics on why Habitat thinks the road would be in the most environmentally responsive location, since it looked as though it was running through the RCD. Council Member Strom also recommended making sure that the internal roads could handle a Chapel Hill bus and that Chapel Hill Transit has a chance to look at the concept plan early on. He acknowledged that many environmental questions had been raised, but pointed out that the plan would go through the SUP process and be subjected to LUMO. Council Member Strom stated that he felt confident that the process would improve and verify many of the Coalition's concerns.
Council Member Ward also expressed faith in the LUMO to address various issues and to ensure that the plan could be achieved under Town regulations. He would eventually like to know the mitigation strategies for ambient indoor/outdoor noise, he said, such as how expansion of Interstate 40 would affect quality of life. Council Member Ward asked that attention be paid to sight distance at the entrance, and he requested more demographic information such as numbers and ages of residents. He suggested reorienting one house to create a better connection to the proximate development. Council Member Ward also asked for information on how a neighboring development had been getting water and sewer.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Habitat representatives to explain how they believe they had been responsive to neighbors' concerns. Mr. Tyrell replied that Habitat had been criticized in the fall of 2002 for not conveying its thinking regarding the property to neighbors. So, Habitat had arranged and held a series of meetings with contiguous homeowners, nearby neighborhoods, and any other concerned citizens, he said. They then had a meeting with the Town Council and the Council eventually appointed a Mayor's Task Force, which then drafted 17 Points that incorporated many of the neighbors' suggestions. Mr. Tyrell explained that Point 17 had asked Habitat to continue the dialogue with neighbors and interested parties. So they had held a couple of design charettes in October 2003, he said, and had then submitted four design concept plans.
Mr. Tyrell pointed out that the final plan acknowledges that Habitat had intended to build 100 units on the property. He expressed pride in the work that Habitat's board and staff had undertaken, stressing that they had tried to hear what Coalition members said. He noted that many neighbors had been satisfied with the changes that Habitat had made. Mr. Tyrell explained that Habitat had then met with the Sunrise Coalition to present the same concept plan that was before the Council tonight. There had been a difference in opinion about the number of units that this property can support, he said. Mr. Tyrell pointed out that, in their role as steward of the public and donor funds, Habitat tries to get a reasonable yield out of their projects.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Tyrell to elaborate on Mr. Dowling's reference to a partnership between OCHC and Habitat for Humanity. He asked Mr. Tyrell to also explain a comment that Mr. Dowling had made about possible tiered levels of income up to 100%. Mr. Tyrell replied that conversations between the two organizations had been ongoing for about a year. They both recognize the importance of building an economically diversified neighborhood, he said, but he pointed out that Mr. Dowling works with a different and less flexible financial model. Mr. Dowling was concerned about the financial aspects of a partnership, Mr. Tyrell said.
Mayor Foy asked if it would be a 50/50 arrangement between OCHC and Habitat. Mr. Tyrell replied that they had discussed having Habitat do about two-thirds with the other third having different ranges of economic strata higher than Habitat levels. With regard to Mr. Dowling's comment about including market rate housing, Mr. Tyrell pointed out that the 17 Points had removed consideration of that for the Sunrise project. In the future, he said, he would love to see a diversity and range of economic homes in any given neighborhood.
Mayor Foy inquired about homeowners' fees. Mr. Tyrell replied that Habitat was in the process of determining what those fees might be.
Attorney Michael Brough stated that there had not really been give and take between Habitat and the Sunrise Coalition. Habitat had already decided on 50 homes before meeting with the Coalition in January 2003, he said, referring to a letter that Habitat had written in 2002.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Brough if he was suggesting that the Council ignore the interaction that Habitat had had with the entire neighborhood and be concerned only about its relationship with the Sunrise Coalition. Mr. Schworer pointed out that Habitat had sent the letter to which Mr. Brough had referred before the Coalition had formed.
Habitat Director Susan Levy explained that she had participated in writing the letter to which the Coalition was referring. It had been written to potential donors, she said, explaining that Habitat had thought at the time that they would build about 50 single-family homes and that OCHC and others would build additional homes. Habitat had not been writing about the entire property, she said. Ms. Levy commented that picking out a fund-raising letter to make a point was irrelevant since Habitat had been responsive to the neighbors.
Mr. Tyrell stated that Mr. Schworer was the person with whom he'd had the longest contact. He quoted from a recent letter by Mr. Schworer to the Durham Herald. The letter stated that Habitat had once proposed building 200 units on the land. "If we had, we sure came down a lot," said Mr. Tyrell. He emphasized that this was not the case and that Habitat had listened and responded to neighbors' concerns by lowering the density and eliminating rentals.
Mayor Foy asked how the sanitation and recycling crews would service the area if cars were going to be parked on the streets. Mr. Radway explained that the Town could pick trash up at the curb, as they do in older neighborhoods. Or Habitat could design a full-size, solid waste container as is used in apartment complexes, he said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked Mr. Brough how many people remained in the Sunrise Coalition. Mr. Schworer explained that not all members of the community were members of the Sunrise Coalition, Inc. Sunrise Coalition, Inc. consisted of about 100 people from different parts of the surrounding area, he said, adding that some were from the other side of Weaver Dairy Road. Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed interest in seeing a list of members, and Mr. Schworer indicated that he would provide that.
Council Member Harrison, referring to comments by the Design Commission and citizens, commented that design standards were quite high. Any development on this property would have about the same road alignment and footprint as this one due to LUMO constraints, he said. Council Member Harrison wondered about the ease of bus service and expressed hope that traffic calming devices would consist of speed tables. Buses can handle that better than bumps and humps, he said.
Council Member Harrison wondered what the number of lots would be if the average lot size were 5,500 square feet. Noting the CDC's remarks about highway noise, he agreed that Habitat should do a noise study. With regard to citizen comments about a possible intermittent stream being a wetland, Council Member Harrison stated that the Town would have to accept the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers’ designation of wetlands, because they “make the call” in North Carolina. He agreed with the CDC that the common area should be maintained. Council Member Hill suggested that the 15-foot buffer be doubled. He expressed support for mediation as long as the Town did not have to pay for it.
Council Member Greene recommended investigating the intermittent stream. She noted that a Morgan Creek situation had redefined intermittent stream. Such streams do not necessarily need to be channelized to be classified as intermittent if there are other factors present, she said. Council Member Greene commented that Habitat had been very responsive to environmental issues at their Rogers Road development. The Council would continue to hold them to standards as high as any other developer, she said. She pointed out that she had participated in the charrettes and had witnessed much give and take. Council Member Greene remarked that the tension they were witnessing tonight was almost inevitable due to the limited amount of land in Town for any housing, affordable or otherwise.
Council Member Greene pointed out that building affordable housing was a Council priority. She commended Habitat for Humanity for addressing all of the points in the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Greene agreed that the proposal was denser than some of the surrounding areas. But Southern Village is denser than Dogwood Acres and Heritage Village and Meadowmont is denser than Morgan Creek, she said. Council Member Greene expressed hope that the neighbors would be cooperative.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SUNRISE ROAD SUBDIVISION (2004-10-08/R-1)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Sunrise Road Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for 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 October 18, 2004, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 18th day of October, 2004.
Item 2 - Public Hearing:
Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District,
Land Use Management Ordinance.
Mr. Heflin summarized the proposal to consider changes to the Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) zoning district. He recommended that the Council consider following the process that had been used in 2000-2001 when the original zoning district was created. That process included a series of discussions between some Council members, UNC officials, and Town and University staffs to produce the groundwork for creation of the OI-4 district.
Mr. Waldon noted that there were eight proposed changes to OI-4, which was the current zoning for UNC's central campus. He listed the changes had been brought to the Council's attention in one form or another:
1. Require that a Concept Plan be presented for Council consideration prior to submittal of an application for Development Plan or Modification of a Development Plan.
2. Allow more time for Council action on an application for a Development Plan or Modification of a Development Plan. The current requirement is that the Council take action on such an application within 90 days of the date of Town acceptance of a complete plan.
3. Allow more time for Council action on applications that involve a Perimeter Transition Area.
4. Specify that the Planning Board make a recommendation on such (Development Plan) applications, rather than a requirement that the Board review applications; allow time for two Planning Board meetings to consider such applications, similar to what is specified now for Special Use Permit applications.
5. Establish a system of quarterly meetings with University representatives to review the status of projects in construction, and offer a preview of projects that are planned.
6. Add a finding that the Council must make in order to approve a Development Plan or Development Plan Modification: "That the University's plan/modification comply with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan."
7. Add a finding that the Council must make in order to approve a Development Plan or Development Plan Modification: "That the University's plan/modifications comply with all applicable regulations."
8. Include a section in OI-4 that would establish public Town reviews of projects to see if the developers are adhering to the standards of the Comprehensive Plan as a way of protecting adjacent and nearby neighborhoods.
The Manager's overall recommendation was that the Council invite UNC to enter into discussions regarding these issues, Mr. Waldon said. If the Council decides to move forward with the proposals as outlined then the staff would bring this back at a November meeting with separate ordinances for each item, he explained.
Council Member Strom inquired about the protest petition mentioned on page 7 of the memorandum. Mr. Waldon explained that State law allows property owners (and some adjoining property owners) to protest the rezoning of land. If that protest petition is considered to be valid then it raises the threshhold voting requirement for the Council, he said. Mr. Waldon said that the Town had received a valid protest petition from UNC, and a Council action on any of the above items would require seven affirmative votes.
In response to a question by Council Member Strom, Mr. Waldon explained that under State law a protest petition must be submitted a certain number of days before the public hearing is opened and convened.
Mayor Foy asked about the definition of "perimeter transition area.” Mr. Waldon explained that the informal definition was anything close to the edge of campus. But the more specific definition states that the Council would designate which edges are perimeter transition areas during consideration of a development plan, he said. If the Town makes the change, Mr. Waldon said, the language defining what a perimeter transition area is might need to be tightened.
Council Member Harrison said that he had never encountered a petition against a text amendment. He asked if the protest was against the ordinance language as presented in the draft before the Council. Mr. Waldon replied that the Council had called this meeting on a specific set of changes. The protest petition was related to the changes that had been advertised as the topic of this hearing, he said.
Council Member Hill verified with Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos that petitioners did not have to specifically state which items they were objecting to. Mr. Karpinos said that the protest petition had been filed with respect to all proposed amendments to the ordinance.
Council Member Verkerk verified that the Council would vote on each one separately, and those which receive seven affirmative votes would pass. Mr. Karpinos explained that each one would be subject to the protest petition unless that petition were withdrawn with respect to any of them.
Council Member Verkerk inquired about the technical difference between commenting upon an item and making recommendations. She noted that the Planning Board often makes recommendations. Council Member Greene replied that OI-4 states that the Planning Board shall review the content of applications.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Karpinos if there would be any legal consequences to changing that. Mr. Karpinos replied that enacting a change would mean that the Planning Board would be required to provide a recommendation.
Mayor Foy asked if making a recommendation would mean that the Planning Board would have to follow certain procedures that they would not have to follow when making a comment. Mr. Karpinos pointed out that Planning Board had set up their own rules and regulations, and had always provided an opportunity for public comment in their agenda materials. If the ordinance were changed, the Planning Board would be obligated to make recommendations, which they are not obligated to do now, he said. Mayor Foy verified that there was no legal significance to a recommendation versus a comment and that it would be up to the Council to decide what weight to give it.
Planning Board Chair Tim Dempsey stated that the Board had disagreed with the Town staff on some items. With regard to #8, he said, Planning Board and staff disagreed with the original recommendation. He discussed #2, explaining that the Planning Board had agreed (9-1) to increase the limit to at least 100 days. The Board was confuse about #4, he said, and they had reached unanimous decisions on #6 and #7, which he described a "no-brainers for us." Rather than legislate for conflict the Town should legislate for trying to align the Comprehensive Plan and UNC's vision, Mr. Dempsey said. He proposed making exceptions when and if an exception arises during the process, and addressing the intent rather than the exceptions.
Council Member Ward wondered how the Town would be able to address the exception if it added the finding that a plan/modification must comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dempsey replied that the Town could make exceptions to the ordinance. Council Member Ward remarked that he would not want to approach it thinking that he would not follow it, however. That does happen, he said, but it would be difficult for him to identify an exception where he would not follow a rule that had been changed and incorporated into OI-4.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Dempsey to provide more information about the unanimous decision on #8. Mr. Dempsey replied that the Planning Board was in favor of trusting the process, which works most of the time.
Mayor Foy said that he was having a hard time understanding #7 because it seemed to him that OI-4 was the applicable regulation. He asked Mr. Dempsey what he thought that statement added to the process. Mr. Dempsey replied that the Board had not delved into its complexity but had thought that, the way it was written, it was a "no-brainer." He suggested asking the staff why they do not approve it.
Council Member Greene agreed that there was an instinct to say that LUMO should of course apply to OI-4. But it was a little more complicated than it appears, she remarked. Council Member Greene quoted from a letter written by UNC Vice Chancellor Suttenfield, which mentioned items covered under OI-4. Council Member Greene suggested that the Town might craft a way to state that LUMO rules apply to everything that is not covered in the OI-4 regulations. Mr. Dempsey agreed that the Council should look at it this way.
Council Member Kleinschmidt inquired about a staff comment regarding "significant substantive change." Mr. Waldon explained that most other changes would be procedural in nature. But this one was substantive because OI-4 is different from any other zoning district in the ordinance and has its own sets of standards, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that including language that might pull another part of the ordinance into the review of a development plan was substantive and not just a redundancy. It means taking all of the other standards of the ordinance that might not apply in the OI-4 district and making them apply in the OI-4 district, Mr. Waldon said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked why, if they don't already apply in the OI-4 district, they would not be inapplicable regulations by definition. Mr. Waldon replied that this language introduces the possibility of the argument being made that the other regulations in the ordinance should apply to OI-4. The staff does not believe that was the intent, he said. So, if it opens up the opportunity for that discussion and difference of opinion without adding anything, then the staff thinks it is not a good idea, Mr. Waldon explained.
Mr. Karpinos added that during discussions with the Manager the point had been made that there was not sufficient detail at the development plan stage to know the answer to that question. And the question of compliance with the specifics is dealt with at the next stage, he said. Like the difference between a master plan and a SUP, there is a difference between a development plan and a site development permit, Mr. Karpinos said, and Mr. Waldon agreed.
UNC Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield, speaking on behalf of the University and the UNC Healthcare System, summarized the University's concerns about the proposed OI-4 text amendments. She noted that the University and the Town had worked together at the highest levels to develop the new OI-4 zoning. Several of the proposed changes would reverse jointly developed review procedures, she said. Ms. Suttenfield stated that UNC agreed with the text amendments to improve the process but maintained a strong objection to the proposed amendments that would reverse previously agreed upon provisions for findings, standards, and approval timeframes. The UNC Healthcare System shares these objections, she said. Ms. Suttenfield noted that UNC had submitted a protest petition but said that they remained willing to work cooperatively with the Council and staff on these and other issues.
Williams Circle resident Michael Collins said that the proposed amendments on OI-4 represent a good starting point for discussions on modifying OI-4 zoning. He voiced support for recommendations 3a, 6a and 8a in particular. Mr. Collins urged Council members to adopt the recommendations and to include them in a revision to the OI-4 zone. If that is not workable, he said, the Council should strive to find some acceptable middle ground that will result in greater protection for neighborhoods and perimeter areas.
Ruby Sinreich noted that the Town and UNC share a common destiny and common needs. She commented that the Town's careful and deliberative process is long and sometimes expensive but that the end product is worth it. "So, how can we justify spending less than six months on much larger proposals," she asked, adding that UNC’s plan would have a much greater impact on the Town than 10-12 other development proposals put together. Ms. Sinreich questioned the wisdom of reviewing the biggest development in the Town’s history in 90 days or less. It was becoming clear that OI-4 was not working well for the University or the Town, she said, and urged Council members to make the strongest possible reforms to OI-4.
Elaine Barney, speaking on behalf of the Coalition of Neighbors Near Campus (CNC), read a statement listing changes to OI-4 that CNC had asked the Council to adopt in April 2004. She said that those changes were listed in the Manager's memo tonight as #2, #6, and #8. CNC still strongly supports those proposals, Ms. Barney said, adding that CNC disagrees with the Manager's recommendations on all three and with the Planning Board's recommendation on #8.
Ms. Barney stated that CNC thought #1 had merit, provided that there were strong protections in the wording of the proposal to guarantee meaningful public participation and further possible Council suggestions once an application has been submitted. They also support #3, #4, and #7, she said, and but disagree with the Manager's recommendations on #4 and #7. Ms. Barney requested inclusion of a citizen's request that several Council members had supported in April but which had not been included in tonight's proposal. That request had asked that UNC present an annual transportation report to the Council of 10 pages or less, which is clear and concise and used language that the general public can easily understand.
Ms. Barney explained that CNC had concerns about the process by which decisions had been made in creating OI-4. The Manager had referred to a request by UNC regarding the Comprehensive Plan and to the Council’s decision to accommodate that request, Ms. Barney said. She asked the Council to hold an open discussion as to how and why that decision had been made and why citizens had not been informed until now.
Council Member Harrison remarked that UNC’s only objection to the Manager's recommendation was with regard to the review period for applications in the perimeter transition area. He pointed out that discussions regarding the Cobb Chiller Plant had taken more than 150 days. The Council hopes that requiring a concept plan would alleviate that, he said. Council Member Harrison praised the staff report, but he noted the references to accommodating UNC that Ms. Barney had just mentioned. He expressed interest in knowing what the Council actually said on the record about the two issues.
Council Member Ward stated that the current process was not working for the Town Council, the Town, or the University. He understood UNC's desire to have a date certain, he said, but he pointed out that the 90-day period had lead to an extremely adversarial process. Council Member Ward proposed that it was in everyone's interest to come up with a process that works significantly better and does not generate ill will.
Council Member Ward noted that UNC's modifications varied in size. Some might be addressed in 90 days while others might require additional time due to their complexity, he said. Council Member Ward pointed out that investigating the scope of a modification would have a bearing on how well that modification could be articulated to the community. It would help identify impacts and determine mitigations, he said.
Council Member Greene contrasted the findings that are required under a SUP with those that are necessary under OI-4. She noted that the burden of proof with an SUP is on the applicant. But it had been negotiated to be the other way with OI-4, she said, noting that the Town must approve the application unless it does not achieve specific goals. Council Member Greene said that she understood why this significant difference had been negotiated. It makes sense when addressing relatively minor changes, she said, but pointed out that the first modification application had been a major one.
Mayor Foy explained the underlying rationale for that compromise. UNC had needed a measure of certainty, he said, so a development plan, once in place, was viewed as being similar to a master plan where the concept would be relatively specific. So, if UNC followed the terms of the development plan then they should be allowed to proceed unless the Council found that they were not doing so, he explained. Mayor Foy noted, however, that the Council was not under any obligation to find that the burden, even though it has been shifted, had been met. And the Council was not under any obligation to approve a development plan modification in 90 days, he said. Mayor Foy pointed out that the shift did not mean that the Council could not achieve its goals or deny a proposal. The Council retains its authority but does give greater assurance to UNC that the Town will not make a mid-course change, he said.
Council Member Greene remarked that this did seem like another reason why the Council needed extra safeguards, such as a longer time period and Planning Board review, to reach the right decision.
Council Member Hill described the University's reluctance to extend review time as "stringent" on their part. It further underlines the idea that UNC is not interested in cooperating with what people in Chapel Hill want, he said. Council Member Hill noted that issues such as LUMO and the Comprehensive Plan would take more discussion than the Council could give it tonight. But extending the review period would be an easy way for UNC to be a good citizen and set an example, he said.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Council Member Ward if he had been saying that 90 days might be sufficient for some projects but that the Council might need different time limits for others. Council Member Ward pointed out that UNC's second modification had gone through the process much faster than the first one and had never raised the same kinds of concerns. UNC wants a date certain, he said, and he pointed out that adding 30 days would be a minor change.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins suggested that the Council set up a process to sit down with UNC and try to come up with some "date certains" depending on scope.
Mayor Foy asked Ms. Suttenfield if she knew when UNC would submit another plan modification or a new development plan. Ms. Suttenfield replied that the University had no definite plans to submit modification #3. But they were discussing individual projects that would likely require modifications, she said.
Council Member Ward recommended continuing the collaborative process that had lead to OI-4, and not making unilateral changes.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins agreed, adding that she would hate to vote without such discussions.
Council Member Strom agreed as well, but suggested setting a deadline for a Council vote. The Council had "sprinted" to accommodate UNC's needs when they crafted a new zone in very short order, he said, pointing out that the Council had passed OI-4 and had completely lifted a square footage building cap. So he did not feel bad about asking for changes, he said, adding that doing so would mean a big step toward repairing damaged feelings. Council Member Strom asked for more information from the staff regarding where in the OI-4 negotiations the Council or the Council Committee had discussed the Comprehensive Plan issues.
Council Member Harrison stated that the Council seemed to agree that they want a Comprehensive Plan review. He thanked Ms. Barney for mentioning the fact that there had been a request for a short, easy to understand transportation report. Council Member Harrison recalled that former Council Member Joyce Brown had made that request. He would also like to see such a report from UNC and would find it useful in dealing with projects, he said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed support for a process of discussions with UNC. But, he added, he did not want it to go on indefinitely and recommended setting a goal for completion.
Council Member Greene commented that section 1.5 of the LUMO states that LUMO implements the Comprehensive Plan. So there is a fair reading to be made that since OI-4 is in LUMO then it falls under the Comprehensive Plan, she said. Council Member Greene noted that UNC had said, when discussing its development plan, that their master plan and planning goals were consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan was not binding in many ways, adding that she did not understand UNC’s resistance to applying it.
Mayor Foy recommended putting this item on the next business meeting agenda with options for the Council to take formal action about appointing a committee or otherwise proceeding. They could set a timeline at that point, he said.
Council Member Ward proposed informing UNC that the discussion needed to be completed before the next modification came in.
Council Member Strom stated that the Council should be able to work through this rapidly and finish it before summer recess.
Council Member Verkerk inquired about stipulation #9, which she described as subjective. Opinions can vary on what "clear and concise" means, she pointed out.
Mr. Heflin informed Council members that this item would come back on December 6, 2004.
Item 3 - Public Hearing:
Closure of a Section of Laurel Hill Road Right-of-Way
Council Member Ward recused himself from this discussion because he is employed by the applicant (Botanical Garden).
Engineering Director George Small explained that this hearing would be one step in a process that the State required for closing public rights-of-way. UNC had requested closing a segment of Laurel Hill Road that was entirely surrounded by UNC property, he said. Mr. Small pointed out that the road was managed by the Botanical Garden but owned and maintained by the Town of Chapel Hill. He said that UNC's reasons for requesting the closure were as follows: to improve safety for visitors to the Botanical Garden; to unify Garden lands; and, to improve the Garden's ability to teach and serve its customers.
Mr. Small stated that school buses, police and fire services would not be adversely affected by the closure. He explained that utility companies had requested a blanket easement for utility and storm drainage purposes if this right-of-way were to be closed. In response to neighbors' concerns, Mr. Small explained, UNC had agreed to do the following: reconstruct a T-intersection at Coker Drive; install a right turn lane at the Manning Drive/Fordham Boulevard intersection; and, provide a bike and pedestrian access easement between the Coker Drive/Laurel Hill Road intersection and Mason Farm Road. The Manager's preliminary recommendation was for closure, said Mr. Small.
Botanical Garden Director Peter White stated that the request included a number of actions to mitigate the impact of the proposal. The Botanical Garden accepted the recommended stipulations, he said, adding that they would take no action to close the road until those stipulations had been met. Dr. White expressed support for studying safety at the Morgan Creek, Oteys Road, and Kings Mill Road intersections. He stated, however, that the proposed closing of a portion of Laurel Hill Road would not significantly impact those intersections.
Dr. White explained that the Botanical Garden sought to unify their lands, provide a pedestrian sanctuary within their outdoor display gardens, and create a smooth transition from human to natural gardens. This would improve teacher effectiveness and the overall visitor experience and would provide safety for visitors, he said. Dr. White pointed out that traffic counts were low and said that rerouting traffic would not cause problems at intersections.
Dr. White said that the Garden's proposal reflected input from neighbors and Town staff. It had been reviewed by the Town’s Fire and Police Departments as well as the School System’s Transportation Department, he said. He provided details of the proposal, including those related to three stipulations regarding intersections.
Dr. White also advocated for four additional improvements: a signalized crossing at Manning Drive/Old Mason Farm Road, an underpass under the Bypass, a public bus stop on Old Mason Farm Road, and a pedestrian/bike corridor through the abandoned golf course. Dr. White said that the proposal would allow the Botanical Garden to grow in a positive way for the entire community while also mitigating neighbors' concerns.
Laurel Hill Road Extension resident Willis Brooks expressed opposition to closing the road. He said that creeping down Laurel Hill Road was sometimes the only way to get in and out during icy winter conditions. Mr. Brooks argued that closing the road would be contrary to the public interest and would deprive individuals of ingress and egress to their own property. There appeared to be no precedent for closing a residential street to create a purely pedestrian way, he said.
Sourwood Circle resident Robert Huls said that the Botanical Garden was asking for too much at a time when UNC was building housing for 400 families at the end of Mason Farm Road. People will have to turn south on Highway 15-501 and make a U-turn at Kings Mill Road or Morgan Creek if they want to go north, he said. Mr. Huls predicted that drivers would begin making left turns into the neighborhood and would meander down to the Manning Drive stoplight. "A section of our neighborhood would just become an elaborate U-turn for maybe 400 cars a day," he said.
Mr. Huls suggested that the Garden reach at least some of their goals by narrowing, adding bricks, or scoring the pedestrian portion of the road. He said there was an "inherent contradiction" in wanting to keep the top part of Laurel Hill Road open, so that the Botanical Garden would have access to their staff parking lot, while not compromising and letting the neighborhood retain access to Highway 15-501. Neighbors might even be willing to have a gate there that closed much of the day, Mr. Huls said.
Kings Mill Road resident Nelson Minnich urged the Council to oppose the road closing. He uses Laurel Hill Road on a regular basis, he said, explaining that it was the most logical and safest egress for people living in the neighborhood. Mr. Minnich expressed admiration for the Botanical Garden in general but argued that tonight's proposal sounded like "a land grab under the cloak of safety concerns." He stated that very few people were on the road during the day and virtually no one was there from dusk to dawn. There had been no accident reports and very few hazards, he said. Mr. Minnich suggested solving safety concerns with modest measures, such as a stop sign at the crosswalk from the parking lot to the gardens, calming devices, or a chain on weekends from 10a.m. to 5p.m.
Kings Mill Road resident Loren Hintz expressed support for the road closure. Doing so would make visits to the Botanical Garden safer and much more enjoyable, he said. Mr. Hintz told Council members that he had witnessed near misses on that road. He said that little, if any, time was saved by using Laurel Hill Road rather than Manning Drive. The Botanical Garden project was worth the slight inconvenience of having to turn on Coker Drive at Manning, Mr. Hintz argued, adding that it would greatly improve bike/pedestrian access to have the Botanical Garden connect to other bike routes and paths. He suggested that the Council add a stipulation to study the larger area. Many of the concerns about the closing could be addressed by such a study, he said. Mr. Hintz displayed a map showing the hilly topography and distances between streets, and he noted that the distance lost would be minor.
Bartram Drive resident George Entermann stated that the closing would inconvenience him and his wife but that they supported the plan because it would enhance the natural area, provide some protection from "the kinds of incursion that the University loves," and minimize traffic on Kings Mill Road. Mr. Entermann urged Council members to let the Botanical Garden proceed with the closing, with appropriate oversight.
Laura Moore, president of the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Homeowners Association, said that the Association had been working proactively with the Gardens for three years. They were optimistic that the proposed expansion would be successful and that the new education center would be an asset to the neighborhood, community and State, she said. Ms. Moore reported that the Board had supported the closure (9-4) with the following four conditions: a right turn lane added to Manning Drive; complete redesign and construction of Laurel Hill/Coker Drive; unrestricted pedestrian and bicycle access through the Botanical Garden; and, a commitment by the Botanical Garden for snow and ice removal on Laurel Hill Road.
Woodbine Drive resident Betsy Malpass expressed enthusiasm about the Botanical Garden's plans, but voiced reservations about the road closing. Ms. Malpass said the Botanical Garden had acknowledged that closing the road was not essential to their plans and that it would put more pressure on remaining intersections. She spoke in favor of adding a gate and asked the Town to work with the State to have the sound wall in front of the Botanical Garden extended along Fordham Boulevard south of Manning Drive and parallel to Woodbine Drive. Ms. Malpass also requested that the highway guardrail be extended all the way down to the Manning Drive intersection. If the project is approved, Ms. Malpass said, she would like assurances that construction traffic would not travel through her neighborhood and that any bus routes connecting the Botanical Garden to the UNC campus would travel on Old Mason Farm Road and Fordham Boulevard.
Woodbine Drive resident H.R. Malpass opposed the road closing on the grounds that it would increase the potential for more accidents at what "must already be the most dangerous intersection in Chapel Hill." Closing the road would oblige many neighbors to use a more dangerous intersection, he said, adding that new sources of increased traffic would compound the problem at Manning Drive. Laurel Hill Road belongs to the citizens of Chapel Hill, said Mr. Malpass. He argued that it was in the public interest to keep it open.
Bartram Drive resident Heidi Chapman said that three of the five entrances to the neighborhood were impassable at rush hour. Manning Drive and Laurel Hill Road were the only routes out of the neighborhood, she said. Ms. Chapman pointed out that this situation would get worse. She asked the Council to look at the traffic picture on a larger scale and expressed concern that the neighborhood would end up "completely landlocked."
Nancy Tripoli spoke in favor of the closing, but expressed concern that her neighborhood had been polarized over this issue. Not having an emergency egress frightens people, she pointed out. Ms. Tripoli wondered if there was any way to retain the road without having it look like a road.
Morgan Creek road resident Dave Morgan read a statement written by Kate Torrey, who resides at the Kings Mill Road/Coker Drive intersection. Ms. Torrey expressed support for the Botanical Garden's request, arguing that it would reduce the number of cars cutting into the neighborhood looking for shortcuts to avoid congestion onto Highway 15-501. Ms. Torrey wrote that the Botanical Garden had been a good neighbor and had helped the neighborhood solve other problems. She supported the road closing because the Botanical Garden had assumed responsibility for traffic engineering studies in the area and had agreed that the road would not be closed until the other stages of the process had been completed, Ms. Torrey said.
Coker Drive resident Bill Daniell, chair of the Neighborhood Association subcommittee, said that the Botanical Garden had responded constructively to all the Association's concerns and had offered improvements that went beyond neighbors' expectations. Discussions had continued for more than two years, he said, and, in the end, the subcommittee had recommended the closing. Mr. Daniell stated a preference for leaving the road open. But all of his concerns had been addressed, he said, and he had concluded that the improvements to the Garden represented a benefit that exceeded the convenience.
Botanical Garden Foundation Board Member Bill Bracey said that the Botanical Garden's project would be better with the road closed. There were special needs children and other vulnerable citizens there, he said, and they do not see the Garden as an environment where one expects to encounter cars. Mr. Bracey urged Council members to close the road.
Kings Mill Road resident Gregory Georges expressed support for the closing. It would increase greenspace rather than removing it, he pointed out.
Mason Farm Road resident Diana Steele said that Laurel Hill road could be frightening sometimes because cars are rare and one does not expect them there. She expressed enthusiasm for the Botanical Garden's proposal to build a sidewalk under Highway 15-501.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DEFER COUNCIL COMMENTS TO THE NEXT MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting recessed at 11:26 p.m.