SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2005 AT 7:00 P.M.

 

 

Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Council members present were Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

 

Council Member Sally Greene was absent, excused.

 

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Senior Planner Phil Mason, Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

 

Item 1 – Public Hearing: Bradley Green Preliminary Plat Application

 

Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo noted that this was an application for a major subdivision with eight residential lots on the 7-acre site.  He said the project was located east of Sunrise Road, north of the Chandler’s Green Subdivision, and at the east end of Ginger Road.  Mr. Poveromo displayed an area map and pointed out the location of the project, noting it was the site of the Potted Plant Nursery.

 

Mr. Poveromo noted that a portion of the site was within the Resource Conservation District, and was located outside the Town limits but within the Urban Services Boundary.  He said the applicant was proposing to extend water and sewer to the site.  Mr. Poveromo said the applicant was proposing about 96,000 square feet for open space, and a payment-in-lieu of providing a recreation area.

 

Mr. Poveromo displayed an aerial map, pointing out that the applicant was proposing an extension of Amesbury Drive to provide access to the site.  He noted that the site was outlined in red on the aerial map.  Mr. Poveromo pointed out the location of the Duke Power utility easement that went through the site.

 

Mr. Poveromo noted that the Planning Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission had reviewed this project and their recommendations were included in the Council’s materials.  He said that the Community Design Commission and the Council had reviewed this project as a Concept Plan, and those materials could be found beginning on page 39 of the materials.  Mr. Poveromo said the Transportation Board had reviewed this project yesterday, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board was scheduled to review it on October 25.

 

Mr. Poveromo exhibited the proposed site plan, and noted that there were two key issues concerning this proposed development.  First, he said, was Ginger Road and the level of improvements to it, and the second was the housing floor area restrictions.  Mr. Poveromo said that because this was a major subdivision with five lots or more, it was subject to the Housing Floor Area Restriction requirements in the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO).

 

With regard to Ginger Road, Mr. Poveromo stated that the Manager was recommending that the existing gravel road be improved from 10 feet in width to twelve feet.  He said that in the staff’s opinion, this eight lot subdivision did not warrant paving Ginger Road, but that it should be improved for easier access by emergency or other vehicles.  Mr. Poveromo said that during the applicant’s presentation, he address that issue.

 

Mr. Poveromo said that in regard to the Housing Floor Area restrictions, the Manager was recommending that the applicant comply with those restrictions which would require a minimum of two homes on the site that would not exceed 1,350 square feet.  He said the applicant would present another proposal in lieu of that requirement.

 

Mr. Poveromo said the preliminary recommendation was that the Council adopt Resolution A, noting that this was tentatively scheduled to come back to the Council on November 9.

 

Kelvin Green of Millennium Commercial Properties, LLC, the applicant, noted that Gary Wallace and Warren Mitchell were also present to answer questions the Council might have.  He stated that this development was an extension of the existing street of Amesbury Drive to a cul-de-sac.  Mr. Green noted that they would be extending water and sewer service from the Chandler’s Green development to the south, and providing a road stub on land to the north owned by Habitat for Humanity.

 

Mr. Green said they had worked extensively with their neighbors in Chandler’s Green and with Habitat to coordinate this new development proposal to meet the desires and needs of both groups.  He noted that the Planning Board and the Transportation Board had both recommended approval of this project, but with slightly different suggestions on a couple of issues.

 

Mr. Green said after speaking with representatives of Chandler’s Green and Habitat, their proposal was to have extraordinarily deep sewer lines and to pave the existing Ginger Road to a 22-foot-wide road.  He said that in order for them to provide those savings to the Habitat development and these benefits to the Chandler’s Green community, we ask that these improvements be viewed as satisfying the affordable housing component, recognized as a possibility by the Transportation Board.  Mr. Green noted that the Planning Board recommended approval, noting they agreed that Ginger Road should remain as a gravel road and widened to 12 feet.

 

Mr. Green said they would agree to construct two size-restricted homes to satisfy the affordable housing component if the Council required it, even though they did not believe it would be an efficient use of resources.  He said in order to allow greater future accessibility, they would be willing to pave a 12-foot-wide section of the existing gravel road and still construct the two size-restricted houses.  Mr. Green said they would do that to remain good neighbors to the Chandler’s Green neighborhood.

 

Mr. Green said he believed there would be citizens speaking tonight to tell the Council that paving the gravel road was not universally believed to be a benefit to the neighbors.  He said they would leave that decision up to the Council.

 

Mr. Green said their first preference would be to substitute the in-kind savings by building a full-sized Ginger Road and designing their sewer system to a depth that would eliminate a sewer pump station and force main now required by the Habitat development in lieu of building sized-restricted housing in the Bradley Green development.

 

Mayor Foy asked if the Council had a recommendation from the Planning Board.  Mr. Poveromo replied yes, adding that the Planning Board had made nine recommendations that had been incorporated into the Manager’s recommendation. He said the only difference between the Town Manager’s recommendation and the recommendation of the Planning Board was that the Planning Board recommended that construction traffic would be prohibited from using Chandler’s Green during the initial construction of the subdivision.  Mr. Poveromo noted the Manager had a concern that such a stipulation would direct all of the construction traffic to Ginger Road, and if that was a 12-foot wide gravel road that it would be too dangerous to have dump trucks and concrete trucks using that road as the only means of access to the development.

 

John Sehon, President of the Board of Habitat for Humanity, said they had been particularly interested in development that would take place to the south of their development, Sunrise Ridge, because of the possibility it presented for them to eliminate the need for a pump station.  He said that if they were required to put in a pump station, it would cost Habitat about $200,000.

 

Mr. Sehon said that if the developer of Bradley Green dug its sewer deeper so that it would serve Habitat’s property and perhaps extend it to their property they would realize a significant cost savings, which they viewed as a significant contribution to affordable housing by the developer.  He said that as they moved forward in the development of Sunrise Ridge, not all had agreed with Habitat.  But, Mr. Sehon said, there was one thing that they all agreed on, and that was that it would benefit the community if the developer of Bradley Green would pave Ginger Road to Town standards.  He said the developer in a letter to the Planning Board proposed that, and had agreed to dig the sewer deep in exchange for a payment-in-lieu.

 

Mr. Sehon said that the affordable housing component in LUMO left a developer only one affordable choice.  He said if a developer is to have a chance at a profitable venture, he has to build two homes of less than 1,350 square feet.  Mr. Sehon said these homes would probably sell in excess of $300,000 each, more than twice the price of an affordable house as defined by the current guidelines.

 

Mr. Sehon said if the developer built two homes selling for over $300,000 instead of paving Ginger Road and digging the sewer deeper, he believed all would lose.  He asked the Council to look beyond the guidelines in this case and accept the developer’s proposal.  Ms. Sehon said that this would allow Habitat to build affordable homes rather than infrastructure.

 

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Sehon to explain why paving Ginger Road would be of assistance to the proposed Habitat development.  Mr. Sehon replied that when they come forward with their proposed development, he believed there would be significant opposition from the neighbors due to the increased traffic through the neighborhood.  He said if Ginger Road were paved, there was a greater chance that traffic would take that road rather than traveling through the neighborhood.

 

Mayor Foy asked if Mr. Sehon had an idea of the dollar value to Habitat of the deeper sewer proposed and its extension to the Habitat property.  Mr. Sehon said they had estimated the cost of a pump station to be $200,000, and the deeper sewer lines as proposed by the Bradley Green developer would eliminate the need for the pump station at Habitat’s development.

 

Donna Benjamin, a resident of Justin Place, said she was speaking for three families who opposed the paving of Ginger Road.  She said their homes border Ginger Road, and if it were paved then they believed it would be necessary to put various traffic calming devices in place such as speed bumps and sidewalks.  Ms. Benjamin said they believed that paving the road would increase safety hazards for the 15 children who live on Justin Place.

 

Ms. Benjamin said they also opposed the paving because it was an unnecessary destruction of green space.  She said she understood that taking into consideration the size of the road that close to a 60-foot swath would be cut to provide for the paving.  Ms. Benjamin reminded the Council that the Bradley Green development would contain only eight houses, and eight houses did not warrant the paving of Ginger Road in their opinion.

 

Sandra Cummings, a resident of Sweeten Creek Road, offered her compliments to the developer, noting the receptivity for the neighbors’ concerns.  She said she was concerned about construction traffic, and asked that it be prohibited in her neighborhood and directed to Ginger Road.

 

Ms. Cummings said her other concern regarded the water detention pond which was located directly behind her home.  She asked that as wide a buffer as possible be required between her property and the pond, noting that many trees would have to be cut.

 

Doug Schworer noted he had three points to make, the first of which was that he supported Habitat and the proposed payment-in-lieu of affordable housing by providing a deeper sewer line which would eliminate the need for Habitat to install a pump station.  He said he also supported the paving of Ginger Road, and he provided a brief explanation of his reasons, which included access for emergency vehicles.

 

Mr. Schworer said his last point was that he believed Habitat had understated their savings, because a lower sewer line would result in not having to run lines down Sweeten Creek Road to Carol Woods.  He said for that reason, he believed Habitat’s savings would be somewhat higher than stated.

 

Martin Mascianica, a resident of Amesbury Drive, stated that he was representing a group that was petitioning the Council regarding access to the proposed Bradley Green development through the Chandler’s Green development.  He said they were opposed to construction traffic traveling through Chandler’s Green, noting that it was a family neighborhood with many children, and such traffic would be a safety hazard.

 

Mr. Mascianica displayed a map of the Chandler’s Green development, noting that the owners of the lots colored in blue supported the contention that Ginger Road should be opened and formalized as a road for the safety reasons that he had outlined.  He said his family as well as all the other families would be impacted by the traffic, and supported the construction traffic traveling to the north of his property.

 

Mr. Mascianica said they also supported the paving of Ginger Road by the developer, noting he had expressed a willingness to do so, and then cited other reasons for the paving including that it would save taxpayers’ dollars by not having to pave it at a later date, and that Amesbury Court should be a secondary access only.

 

Mr. Mascianica said that speaking for himself, he supported the contention made earlier by Habitat that the accommodation suggested by the developer was a fair proposal in lieu of the affordable housing requirements.

 

Council Member Harrison asked, if Bradley Green were approved would it eventually become part of the Town.  Mr. Horton responded that it would eventually be annexed and be incorporated into the Town.

 

Eleanor Howe, Chair of the Transportation Board, stated that the Board had met last evening and two recommendations were noted.  She said the first was that the Board supported paving Ginger Road and expanding it to 22 feet.  Ms. Howe said the other concern regarded the affordable housing, noting that the Board supported the proposal for a deeper sewer line so that Habitat would not have to install a pump station to serve their development.

 

Ms. Howe said that eventually Ginger Road would have to be improved, noting nearby property that would be developed sometime in the future.  She said it would be shortsighted not to improve it at this time, noting that if it remained unpaved that could be used as an argument to prevent future construction that would need access to Ginger Road.

 

Ms. Howe said the Board had also noted a discrepancy in the proposed Resolution A in Stipulation #10, Stub-Out Signage and Notification.  She noted that the stipulation stated “That the signage shall indicate that the roadway will be extended for future development.”  Ms. Howe said that stipulation goes on to state “Future development of the adjoining property may include extension of the stub-out on the north property line.”  She commented that the words “will” and “may” were contradictory, and recommended that both statements read “will.”

 

Ms. Howe said, speaking for herself as a citizen, that Resolution A did not support affordable housing.  She said two homes selling in excess of $300,000 were not affordable.  Ms. Howe asked the Council to support the developer’s original proposal to provide the extra deep sewer line and widening the road.

 

Mayor Foy asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos to respond to the Transportation Board’s statement regarding the discrepancy in Stipulation #10.  Mr. Karpinos noted that, according to the language, the sign would say that the road would be extended for future development and the plat would say that future development may include extension of the stub-out.  He said he was comfortable with the way that stipulation was worded, noting that just because the sign read that the road would be extended did not necessarily mean that it would be because it would depend on whether the nearby property was ever developed.

 

Mayor Foy reminded the Council that this was a plat application, not a request for a Special Use Permit.  He said the Council needed to express its thoughts to the developer regarding the conditions that were in contention or anything else that should be considered regarding the plat of this property, as well as any proposed conditions that might be different for that proposed in Resolution A. He confirmed with the Manager that the developer was in agreement with the stipulations as noted in Resolution A.

 

Council Member Verkerk said she was convinced that Ginger Road needed to be paved, reminding the Council of the number of times subdivisions had been approved and then several years later the Town was asked to pave the roads or provide traffic calming.  She said she supported the paving of the road, as well as the deep sewer lines.

 

Council Member Verkerk said she was curious as to why the Town was not asking for a sidewalk along Ginger Road.  Mayor Foy said that the Town could so.  Mr. Horton said his recommendation was that Ginger Road be widening from 10 feet to 12 feet.  He said he did not believe the Town had sufficient grounds to require any more than that.  Mr. Horton said if the applicant would voluntarily build something more than that, then the Council could include that as a stipulation of approval.

 

Mayor Foy said the applicant was saying that rather than fulfilling the requirements of the Small House ordinance or otherwise dealing with the affordable housing requirements, they would be willing to pave Ginger Road and install the deep sewer lines that would serve the Habitat development.  He asked the Manager or Attorney for their view of why that may or may not meet the Town’s ordinance requirements and what discretion the Council had to waive the requirements or to consider that proposal.  Mr. Karpinos responded that because this was a subdivision and not a Special Use Permit, the flexibility of the ordinance for Special Use Permits that the Council would normally have was not present.  He said that basically the developer could either provide the affordable housing or could provide a payment that would be used for affordable housing.  Mr. Karpinos said the payment was for affordable housing, and not a payment-in-kind to be used in some other way.

 

Mr. Karpinos said there was a possibility that in order to make this payment-in-kind, that is that deeper sewer line and the pavement of Ginger Road constitute something that would facilitate the affordable housing, the Town could enter into a contract with the developer where this money would be paid to the Town as a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing.  He said the Town could then enter into an agreement with the developer whereby the money would be used for the deeper sewer lines that would facilitate the affordable housing.  Mr. Karpinos said the trouble he had with that was that suppose the money was received by the Town as a payment-in-lieu and we then returned it to the developer to install the deeper sewer lines.  He said we did not yet know if the Habitat project would be built, that the property might be purchased by someone else and used for some other purpose.  Mr. Karpinos said we could not be sure that the money to install the deeper sewer line would actually facilitate affordable housing.

 

Mr. Karpinos said one possibility to solve that issue would be that the money be provided to the Town for the work to be done for the deeper sewer line, but that the money would not return to the developer until such time that the Town knew that the Habitat project would be built.  He said from the developer’s point of view the risk was that he would have given the Town the money for that purpose, they would go to the expense of putting in the deeper sewer lines, but the Town would not be obligated to return his money until it knew that it would facilitate affordable housing.  Mr. Karpinos said if the Habitat site were transferred to someone else, then the Town would have an obligation to use that money to facilitate affordable housing somewhere else.

 

Mayor Foy asked, since Habitat did own the property and Habitat engaged only in the business of providing affordable housing, could the Town simultaneously enter into a contract with Habitat that if for some reason they did not build affordable housing on that property, that they would either reimburse the Town or demonstrate that they were investing it to provide affordable housing.  Mr. Karpinos said that was an opportunity for the Town to sit down with the applicant and Habitat to develop some agreement whereby we could assure that this would in fact happen.  He said as things now stood, the Town could not be sure of any of those things happening.  Mr. Karpinos said before this issue came back to the Council, it might be possible to structure such an agreement, being mindful that the Council would have an obligation to review both this proposal and any proposal for the Habitat site in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

 

Mayor Foy said he was not in favor of the small houses on this property, noting he did not believe it would provide any gain for the Town.  He said he was in favor of some kind of payment-in-lieu, which he believed would be of more value.  Mayor Foy said he would like to move in that direction if possible.

 

Council Member Strom said he would like to see a proposal come back that provided for the 22-foot paved roadway and the use of the developer’s offer to install the deeper sewer line to benefit Habitat’s development.  He said he was not sure that the issue of construction traffic was adequately addressed in the proposed resolution.  Council Member Strom stated he would like the comments made about that tonight to be specifically address when this issue came back to the Council.  He said he was in favor of it being directed to where it was the least disruptive.

 

Council Member Harrison agreed with Council Member Strom, noting the Council needed to hear from the developer whether the approach suggested by the Attorney was acceptable.

 

Mayor Foy proposed that the Attorney work with the landowners, noting that although Habitat was one of the landowners that did not mean that the Council agreed that affordable housing would be built there.  He said what the Town would agree to would be that if it constructed a deal as proposed that it would enhance the value of Habitat’s property.  Mayor Foy said the Town needed to make sure that funds dedicated to affordable housing were used for affordable housing.  He said if Habitat sold the land then someone else could benefit from it.

 

Mayor Foy said such an arrangement could not be negotiated now.  He said the Town Attorney would have to see if he could work something out that would accommodate all of the needs of such an agreement.  Mayor Foy said it may not be possible to have this come back to the Council on November 9th, noting the Attorney may need more time.  Mr. Karpinos agreed that extra time would be necessary to negotiate such a deal.

 

Council Member Harrison said he believed it should be a high priority to get a construction traffic stipulation here, noting he believed the Council could require that a construction traffic plan be provided.  He noted he had lived on a street that had accidentally become a construction traffic route, even though it was a dead-end road.  Council Member Harrison said such traffic had a major impact on a working street, and we needed a stipulation that addressed that. He added that seemed to be a high priority for many of the residents as well.

 

Council Member Ward said he agreed that the Town must achieve something greater than the Small House Ordinance in terms of making progress on affordable housing. He said he was glad to see an interested and willing property owner that would make this significantly easier for the Town.  Council Member Ward encouraged the Town Attorney to work with the two property owners to come to some agreement.

 

Council Member Ward said, regarding the traffic calming, he believed the Town Manager’s advice was not to do it at this time.  He said he would like to see whether there was a way we could estimate a typical cost of what would be appropriate associated with this type and scale of development, and put that amount of money in an escrow account that would be held for whatever period of time was appropriate, then determine its usefulness.  Council Member Ward said the Council had seen so many requests for traffic calming that he could anticipate such a request associated with this development.  He said it seemed appropriate that a developer should assist the Town in paying for that in a window of time, such as 24 months, after a Certificate of Occupancy was granted.

 

Council Member Ward asked what the status was of the right-of-way at the end of Ginger Road if it were designed as indicated on the current map.  Mr. Poveromo said it was a public right-of-way, and the staff had suggested that the applicant approach the Council and request that it be abandoned, which would result in half of the property falling to a nearby lot owner and the other half to the proposed developer.

 

Council Member Ward asked if the property owner to the east would benefit from that in any way.  Mr. Poveromo said a right-of-way on Amesbury Drive had been abandoned in the past that benefited that property owner.

 

Council Member Ward said that over the last 10 years the stormwater detention ponds that Engineering indicated were acceptable were never close to holding the water that they could, even during bad weather.  He asked that beginning with this property the Town take a closer look at how it is engineering and sizing these ponds, noting he believed they were out of scale to the water that was retained in them.

 

Council Member Ward voiced support for pedestrian connectivity on Ginger Road so that pedestrians could safely navigate that stretch from the Sunrise development to other developments nearby.

 

Mayor Foy agreed with Council Member Ward’s remarks.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins agreed with what many of the Council members had said.  She said she was happy to see that it appeared the Sunrise Coalition was finally agreeing with Habitat on some issues.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 21ST.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

Items 2 & 3 – Public Hearings: Land Use Management Ordinance Text

Amendment - Modification to the Definition of a Residential Support Facility;

Family House at UNC Hospitals Special Use Permit

 

Senior Planner Phil Mason noted that this item was a companion to Item 3, the Public Hearing on the Family House at UNC Hospitals Special Use Permit, and introduced both items.

 

Mr. Mason noted that Item 2 was in regard to an application for a text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) to amend the definition of a Residential Support Facility to change the maximum accommodation for families from 30 to 40.  He stated that the Manager’s recommendation was for enactment of Ordinance A which would amend the definition by raising the occupancy level to 40 families.

 

Mr. Mason said that Item 3, the Family House at UNC Hospitals Application for a Special Use Permit, was contingent upon the Council’s approval of the Modification to the Definition of a Residential Support Facility in LUMO to 40 families.

 

Mr. Mason said the surrounding zoning was Residential-1 to the north and south, and Office-Institutional-2 to the east and west.  He stated that the Manager’s recommendation was for approval of Resolution A with conditions, noting that Resolution B would deny the application.

 

Mr. Mason noted that a change to the Manager’s preliminary recommendation had been distributed to the Council this evening that would delete Stipulation #4 requiring a left turn lane on Old Mason Farm Road.  He said they had received additional information from the applicant regarding traffic showing that the left turn lane was not necessary.

 

Mayor Foy asked if there was currently a left turn lane on Old Mason Farm Road for the Ronald McDonald House.  Mr. Mason responded that currently there was no left turn lane.

 

Mr. Mason displayed an aerial photo of the site, and pointed out the location of the surrounding neighborhoods and the Ronald McDonald House.  He described the topography of the site, noting it was currently vacant.  Mr. Mason pointed out the location of the site on the site plan, noting it was located on Old Mason Farm Road adjacent to the existing Ronald McDonald House and south of the Highland Woods neighborhood.  Mr. Mason said the applicant proposed to encumber a 6.15-acre portion of a 19.73-acre lot with a Special Use Permit.   He said the applicant proposed to build a 34,140 square-foot Family House with 59 parking spaces for 40 families who have family members at the UNC Hospital system.  He noted that the proposal included six bicycle parking spaces as well as a caretaker unit.  Mr. Mason pointed out the main point of access as well as a utility driveway for service vehicles

 

Mr. Horton corrected the earlier statement that the information regarding the deletion of the stipulation had been provided to the Council.  He said they had provided the stipulation to be deleted, but not the information that they had based the recommendation on.  Mr. Horton said that information would be distributed to the Council.

 

Greg Kirkpatrick, Director of Development for the Family House at UNC and speaking for the Applicant, noted that the Family House was a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which was distinct from UNC Hospitals.  He said the Family House would provide affordable, supportive housing to critically ill patients, their families, and caregivers who travel some distance to UNC Hospitals for evaluation and/or treatment.

 

Mr. Kirkpatrick noted that the land the Family House would be built on was owned by the University and would be leased to the Family House.  He noted that most of the families they would serve at Family House faced serious financial constraints, adding that more than 50% of UNC Hospitals’ critical care patients rely on Medicaid and Medicare, 10% have no medical insurance at all, and the average stay for a critical care patient was eight weeks.

 

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that Family House intended to charge $30 per person per night, and anticipated that at least half of those people would have to be subsidized and some fully subsidized.  He said that the Council’s actions would have a significant impact on their ability to make Family House affordable to all of its guest families.

 

David Clinton of MHA Works, Inc., the architect for the project, noted that the Council had already received the necessary information regarding these two issues.  He said he was pleased to see that the staff recommendation was for approval of the text amendment to raise the maximum number of families from 30 to 40.

 

Mr. Clinton said regarding the site, they had endeavored to listen to the staff, the various advisory boards, and the neighbors to make their proposal as acceptable as possible.  He displayed a map and pointed out the location of the parking and their efforts to retain as much of the natural tree buffer as possible.

 

Mr. Clinton said they did request that they be allowed to keep a wider service drive, which came out onto the most visible point on Old Mason Farm Road.  He said there would be times when local charitable groups would visit the Family House in catering vehicles to provide meals for the up to 40 families residing there.  Mr. Clinton said they would likely need the space to move past each other, and a single lane drive would not allow for that.  He indicated that requirement was in Stipulation #7, and they would like to have that removed.

 

Mr. Clinton said that landscaping and buffer requirements had been met, and they would supplement that so that neighbors in the Highland Woods neighborhood could look out their windows and see trees rather then their building.  He said in addition, most of the proposed building would be below the site line of the Highland Woods neighborhood because of the hill on the back of the site, and they had lowered the room wings on the back of the building to minimize its impact to that neighborhood.  Mr. Clinton said one of the neighbors’ requests was for high cut-off lighting which would be provided, with no more than low landscape lighting in the back of the facility.

 

Mr. Clinton displayed a floor plan of the facility, and indicated the location of the living areas as well as the public areas.  He then exhibited elevation and construction drawings, noting they had attempted to keep a traditional look to the building and make it feel like a place that everyone would feel welcome.

 

Gary Richmond, a resident of the Highland Woods neighborhood, said there were two issues he wanted to highlight.  The first, he said, was the landscape plan. Mr. Richmond said from what he had seen in the materials and heard tonight, that plan either met or exceeded their needs.  He said the other issue of concern was the lighting plan, adding that the neighbors were not sure exactly what high cut-off lighting was or how it might affect them.  Mr. Richmond said they were anxious to make sure that the lighting had minimum spillage into the neighborhood, and asked if they could perhaps see an example of what it might look like.

 

Mr. Richmond said he believed that both of these issues were adequately covered in the Special Use Permit and was anxious to see the final details of those.  He said generally, they were happy to have the Family House as a neighbor and were looking forward to it being there.

 

Mayor Foy noted that this issue had been before the Council more than once, and the Council was familiar with the proposals.

 

Council Member Ward said there was a pedestrian island within the parking lot that separated the two main parking areas for the Family House with a sidewalk that went through it.  He said it seemed to him that where it went from west to east, that on the eastern end if it bent down instead of up and put it opposite the painted zone where the handicapped parking was located that it would provide a natural area where the island was for people to walk and cross. Council Member Ward said pedestrians would then come out in the stripped zone area rather than behind a vehicle.  He said that would be a more straightforward link for pedestrians, if it was shifted to the south by one parking space.

 

Council Member Ward said it was unclear in the drawings what kind of ramping would be associated with the sidewalks at various intersections.  For instance, he asked, at the entrances along Old Mason Farm Road and at the main entrance and the service entrance, would those have ramps so if you had a wheelchair or a stroller you could navigate those.  Mr. Horton responded that they would routinely make that requirement.

 

Council Member Ward said he understood why there might not be a rational nexus for an entire length of turning lane from the intersection of Old Mason Farm Road and Fordham Boulevard up to this site.  He said he believed there was a need for a center turn lane to help facilitate the flow of traffic and improve safety issues for traffic moving in and out of the site.  Council Member Ward said he would like to understand from an engineering perspective what could be done more site specific to address that turning traffic.  He said Old Mason Farm Road was beginning to be used more and more by people to get east and west and around Chapel Hill.  Mr. Horton said they could report on that when this item came back.

 

Council Member Harrison said he was assuming that the new information that was to be distributed would justify not having a turning lane.  He said he used Old Mason Farm Road on occasion and saw the need for a turn lane.  Council Member Harrison said whether the trips to be generated by this development fit in with the peak trips that he and Council Member Ward had observed he could not yet determine, but since they were exempted from the TIA as they should have been it might be hard for the staff to determine as well.  He said he would like to have that addressed when this comes back as well.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO NOVEMBER 9th.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

Item 4 – Public Hearing: Homestead Aquatic Center Building

Special Use Permit Modification

 

Mr. Poveromo noted that this was a modification to the Homestead Park Special Use Permit, which would allow the construction of the Aquatic Center Building.  He said the proposal was to construct a 27,400 square-foot facility with two swimming pools, locker rooms, and office space.  Mr. Poveromo said the applicant was also proposing the addition of 18 parking spaces at Homestead Park.

 

Mr. Poveromo exhibited an aerial map and pointed out the parks location, noting it was north of Homestead Drive and west of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.  He pointed out the location of the new Resource Conservation District (RCD) limits, and noted that because this was a modification of an existing Special Use Permit it was subject to the larger RCD requirements.

 

Mr. Poveromo said this application was reviewed by the Community Design Commission (CDC) and the Council, and the applicant had provided responses to the issue raised during those reviews.  He said those comments began on page 32 of the Council’s materials.

 

Mr. Poveromo stated that the Town Manager’s recommendation was for adoption of Resolution A.  He noted this item was scheduled to return to the Council on November 9.

 

Mr. Horton noted that Mr. Poveromo’s presentation was on behalf of the Town in its regulatory role.  He noted that Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin would make a brief presentation on behalf of the Town in its role as the applicant.

 

Mr. Heflin, speaking for the Town as the applicant, said that since the Council last saw this proposal there had been some changes to the site.  He said it had been made smaller and reoriented to save funds, and actually aided in the Town’s sustainable development goal by orienting the building to allow better daylighting and solar gain.

 

Mr. Heflin said that Town staff had generally tried to comply with earlier requirements laid out by the Council in the building program, and requested only one modification to a board recommendation having to do with parking.  He said the Town boards, the CDC in particular, had proposed that they provide buffer requirements to all parking that fronts on a public right-of-way.  Mr. Heflin said they were asking that there be an exception to that because the only place that requirement would apply was on the road fronting the ball fields and the park.  He said they believed the buffering that had been provided that actually applied to the Aquatics Center was substantial and adequate.

 

Mr. Heflin asked that the Council to support the project and the Manager’s recommendation as stated.

 

Council Member Ward asked where the proposed bicycle parking was located.  Mr. Horton replied that had not yet been determined.

 

Council Member Ward asked for clarification on the pedestrian crossing on Homestead Road.  Mr. Horton responded that they were not recommending that the crossing be included.  He said that was a recommendation made by an advisory board.

 

Council Member Ward asked if the design of the entryway where the drop-off loop was located in the front of the building included a curb.  He said he did not want a curb in that entryway.  Mr. Heflin said that was a curb and gutter section, but it would have handicap accessibility with a ramp up to the sidewalk.  Council Member Harrison said it appeared to him that it should be more universally accessible along that front rather than having a small curb cut at the far end of it.  He encouraged that such a modification be made.

 

Council Member Ward said there were two sidewalk gaps, one that would connect this project to the existing sidewalk at the northern end of the parking lot.  He said there was an existing sidewalk but there was not a sidewalk from this project connecting to that.  Council Member Ward said he would like that gap filled, noting it was the kind of thing the Town would require of other projects.  Mr. Horton said the staff would be glad to look at that and report back when this item came back to the Council.

 

Council Member Harrison said on the bicycle parking, he advocated for some basic shelter for at least some of the parking.  Mr. Horton said they would comply with the ordinance requirements, which required that a portion of the bicycle parking be sheltered and lighted.

 

Council Member Harrison said that bicycle access was not good to that area at this time from the south, and asked when the Town expected the facility to open.  Mr. Horton said from the date of approval of the SUP, he believed it would be two years.  Council Member Harrison said he would hope that Homestead Road would have some facilities for bicycles at some point soon after that, which would help access and usability of that facility.

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 9th.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

Item 6 – Concept Plan:  UNC Hospitals Clinical Facility

 

Mr. Horton noted that Item 6 would be considered at this time to allow the applicant for Item 5 to arrive.

 

Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper noted that is was Concept Plan for the UNC Hospitals Clinical Facility, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Raleigh Road and Finley Goal Course Road.  She said it was a 2.3-acre parcel located at 1352 Raleigh Road, the current site of the Aurora Restaurant and the McLean Building Company.  Ms. Culpepper said the proposal would involve demolishing the existing 10,281 square foot building and construction a two-story, 30,000 square-foot building with 117 parking spaces.  Ms. Culpepper said the site is adjacent to the proposed University Village Mixed-Use Development which was another Concept Plan on the Council’s agenda tonight.

 

Mary Beck, Senior Vice-President for Planning at UNC Hospitals, said they were very early in the planning process for the Clinical Facility and the current businesses would be able to continue operation for the next 18 months to two years.  She said that Fred Wolters of Brown Jurkowski Architectural Collaborative (BJAC) was present to answer questions if necessary.

 

Ms. Beck displayed an area map and pointed out the location of the site.  She noted the following:

 

·              Clinical Service Facility would be designed to provide accessible, convenient health care services to Chapel Hill citizens and surrounding areas.

·              The Facility would be a single building designed to meet the needs of patients requiring diagnostic testing and other clinical services.

·              UNC Hospitals was in the early stages of planning and the program to be developed on the site was still evolving.

·              The Facility would be designed in conformance to all existing regulations.

 

Ms. Beck noted that the existing conditions on the 2.29-acre site consisted of the 250-seat Aurora Restaurant, that most of the site was void of vegetation except for the Finely Golf Course Road boundary and the western perimeter, and that the site was covered by a parking lot which was almost all impervious surface.

 

Ms. Beck said the site housed the one and a half story existing 8,600 square-foot Aurora Restaurant, which was built in 1975, along with some outbuildings.  She said there was an easement granted to OWASA in the mid-1990s to extend a public sanitary force main across the site.  Ms. Beck said this was a well drained site with adequate infrastructure.  She noted that Mr. Wolters with BJAC would provide an overview of the site.

 

Mr. Wolters noted a concern expressed by the CDC regarding the slope of the site. He said that overall from a technical viewpoint, there was a two percent slope which meant there was about a three and a half foot differential from one end of the site to the other end.  Mr. Wolters displayed a photo that demonstrated the slope of the site, noting it was almost flat.  He stated the photo depicted how the site rose in relationship to the adjacent site, and it could be seen that the main grade difference started at the edge of the site at the rear of both of those properties.

 

Mr. Wolters noted another question that related to site drainage.  He displayed a drawing that exhibited the site drainage and how this site would work with the neighboring site.  Mr. Wolters said they were working on the premise that each site would drain within the confines of its own site so that one would not be dependent on the other.  He said the closest point of site drainage from an adequate site was where some of the existing storm sewers were located.

 

Mr. Wolters indicated the location of a swale which ran in line with the OWASA easement of a sanitary forced main, so that drainage would run in that direction in line with the natural swale.  He said that any collective system would be developed underneath the parking lot before it drained into the sewer system.

 

Ms. Beck reiterated that they planned to provide clinical services on this site and that the proposed building would be two stories with approximately 15,000 gross square feet per floor.  She said the facility would allow for a mobile clinical unit to provide for MRIs or CT radiology to be accommodated adjacent to the building and tucked away from general view.  Ms. Beck said that regarding entryway preservation:

 

·              The project would respect the entryway character of Highway 54 into Chapel Hill.

·              A portion of the oaks and pines would form a backdrop for the clinical structure.

·              New screen planting, landscaping and the building setback would reinforce the desired streetscape and Town entryway character.

 

Ms. Beck stated that the building would be designed to fit Chapel Hill’s vernacular and landmarks of the area, and the design would include levels of architectural detailing to maintain a sense of human scale and a welcoming environment. Regarding transportation, she noted that the site provides access for alternate transportation systems and parking to meet patient needs.  Ms. Beck said the visual impact of the proposed parking area would be minimized by the building position on the site as well as the landscape screening.

 

Ms. Beck said that the management of stormwater runoff would be an integral part of the proposed development.  She said that management techniques under consideration included pervious pavement areas and subsurface retention/filtration for stormwater.  Ms. Beck said that the existing stormwater management requirements would be met, and no variances would be requested.

 

Ms. Beck stated that the new facility was projected to have 117 patient parking spaces plus provisions for bicycle racks and storage.  She said they would use landscaping around the new building to provide more green space than was currently present.

 

Ms. Beck said at the request of the CDC they had moved the building over somewhat in order to save some trees, although it made the building a little less useable for them.  She said moving the building placed the edge of the building on one side directly adjacent to the impervious surface area of the parking lot.  Ms. Beck stated when they moved the building they had lost some of the parking area, noting that parking was always a problem for clinic buildings. She said that placed them below the parking minimums, and they may revise the site somewhat to improve that situation.

 

Mayor Foy asked to see the slide that showed the site from NC 54.  He asked which trees were targeted for saving.  Ms. Beck pointed out the stand of trees to the right of the parking area.  She said they had talked with the University Village developers and they were going to attempt to save the trees located on that property.  Ms. Beck pointed out where their building edge was proposed to be.

 

Mayor Foy asked how far back from Raleigh Road was the building set, and was it further back than the current parking lot.  Mr. Wolters responded it was set back according to zoning requirements, which he believed was 35 or 40 feet.  He said the current parking lot was only about six to eight feet from the road.

 

Mayor Foy asked if they were planning to provide access to the building from the front.  Ms. Beck replied that pedestrian access would be from the parking area and into the back of the building, not from the front.  She pointed out the drop-off loop.  Mayor Foy said this site was on a transportation corridor and the proposal next door was for a relatively dense development.  He said it would be preferable to put the building closer to the road and encourage pedestrian access from the road.  Mayor Foy said he understood that patients may not do that, but certainly employees would.  Ms. Beck stated they could provide a pedestrian access from the road for people who may ride public transportation.

 

Mayor Foy said as a general philosophy, any building that turned its back to the main road served to kill off any kind of pedestrian activity on the main road that might otherwise be encouraged.  Ms. Beck said that the left side of the building was planned as a waiting area, and they could create sidewalks and access into that waiting area.  She said their experience was that when people were sick they would most likely come to the facility using vehicles.

 

Mayor Foy said he understood the reasoning, but encouraged them to think about how the building actually presented itself and functioned.  He said there were buildings in Town with false facades.  Ms. Beck said they did not want it to appear that what faced NC 54 was the back of the building, but wanted it to be warm and inviting and a place that people would want to come to.

 

Mayor Foy said he did not know what the setback requirements were, but he encouraged them to think about pulling the building closer to the road.  Ms. Beck said they would be happy to do that, noting it would enable them to do some other things on the site.  But, she pointed out, they did not want to do that and then later in the process be told that the Council did not like it.  Mayor Foy said he did not know that the building was designed not to be accessible from the front, but if it was designed to be accessible from the front then he did not believe it needed to be set back from the front.  He said that would say to people that they were not supposed to go in there.  Mayor Foy said it if seemed you were suppose to enter the building from the sidewalk, then people would go in there.

 

Council Member Hill said, to reinforce what Mayor Foy had said, if someone was leaving the building and wanted to go to a nearby location for lunch or whatever, they could come out onto the sidewalk and take the bus or walk down the street.  He said having a real entrance from the street, even if it was not the main entrance, would assist in making that part of Town, as it transitioned from what it was now to a much denser area, more in line with what the Council wanted.

 

Council Member Harrison asked if the existing trees denoted as circles on the site map would be saved.  Ms. Beck said they were working to do that.  Council Member Harrison said the trees to the right of the existing parking lot provided the most shade to the Aurora Restaurant.  He said he believed they could have a more energy efficient site if they were able to save those trees.  Council Member Harrison said those trees were not only attractive but provided deep shade.

 

Council Member Harrison said this property was currently part of the tax base, and asked what arrangements had been made in the past in terms of mitigating the loss of a property from the tax base.  Mayor Foy suggested that Council Member Harrison could get question addressed by the staff at some other time.  Council Member Harrison agreed.

 

Council Member Ward said he supported the CDC’s suggestion that the building be shifted to the east to save those mature trees on the western portion of the property. He echoed what Mayor Foy had said about how this building would relate to pedestrian traffic off NC 54.  Council Member Ward said it was important that it have a functional, significant entrance either off NC 54 or off Finely Golf Course Road, and not off the parking lot.  He stated if the entrance were located in the area Ms. Beck had indicated, then perhaps it could have an entrance on both sides.  Council Member Ward said he hoped this project would not require people on foot or on a bicycle to travel to the back of the building.  He said it would be preferable for people who may live in the area to enter the building from the sidewalk in the front of the building.

 

Council Member Ward said the significant item he believed they should work on over the next months was the auto and bicycle connectivity needed between their parking lot and that the project to the west.  He said it was hard to know how well that would translate, but encouraged them to make sure that connectivity worked well.  Council Member Ward said he hoped that this project would come back with improved bicycle and pedestrian crossing ability at NC 54 and Finely Golf Course, with pedestrian and bicycle activated signals to help people negotiate the heavily used NC 54.

 

Council Member Verkerk said to be clear, she agreed that they should move the building up on the site and provide a real pedestrian entrance from NC 54.

 

Council Member Verkerk said because they should anticipate transit riders, people would have to cross NC 54 at Burning Tree Drive.  She said from experience she knew that unless a car pulled up to the intersection at Burning Tree or Finely Golf Course Road, a pedestrian would find it hard to get a light in order to cross. Council Member Verkerk said she would like to see that remedied if they were truly serious about transit riders using their facility.

 

Mayor Foy asked if there would be any interaction among staffs at the Hospitals with this proposed facility and the facilities at Meadowmont.  Ms. Beck replied most likely there would not be any, noting that what they had at Meadowmont was cardiology and GI clinics, and that staff would remain there.  She said the staffs on the other side of NC 54 at the Hedrick Building primarily were administrative functions such as billing, collections, human resources, and purchasing, and they would stay at that site.  Ms. Beck said the proposed building would be providing clinical services to the community and the region, and the medical staff would most likely move back and forth from here to the hospital.  She said the other staff, such as radiology or whatever services were ultimately provided, would remain there.

 

Ms. Beck said this would be a specialty-oriented community-based clinic, so that people would not have to face the challenges of visiting the campus.  She said they were outgrowing their capacity for providing some existing services such as these clinic services on the campus, resulting in the reason why they were looking for alternative locations.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins commented that the concept of taking clinics out into the community was a wonderful concept, because those who had to visit the Hospital for clinic appointments could attest that it was not a pleasant experience. She said she had recently taken a friend to an appointment at an eye clinic near Southpoint Mall, and it was very easy to access with plentiful parking. Mayor pro tem Wiggins added that she supported the feedback provided by other Council members this evening.

 

Council Member Ward asked if Ms. Beck had said that staffs would travel between this facility and the Hospitals.  Ms. Beck responded that the nurses and other staff would not, but the doctors most likely would.  She added that had not been decided so she could not say for sure.  Council Member Ward said he had brought this up in an effort to encourage the University to enrich the transit service between this site and the Hospitals along Finely Golf Course and Old Mason Farm Roads. He said that it would help this facility, and would assist the Ronald McDonald House and the Family House as well.  Council Member Ward said he was aware that a shuttle service was now provided.  Ms. Beck responded that if warranted, the shuttle service could be expanded, although she did not believe the number of people would increase that much.  Council Member Ward commented it might be a matter of revising the route rather than adding a new one.  Ms. Beck agreed.

 

John Anderson, a resident of Rogerson Drive, asked about the vehicular traffic between this new development and what would be happening to the University Inn property.  He asked if that road would carry a lot of traffic.

 

Mayor Foy asked if Ms. Beck new what the traffic projections were between this property and the University Inn property.  Ms. Beck said that no traffic projections had been made as yet because they did not know what the Inn property would be used for.

 

Mr. Anderson stated that he was concerned about the overall traffic flow around the entire area, and where cars would enter and leave the University Village property.

 

Scott Radway, a member of the CDC but speaking as a citizen, said the CDC had strongly encouraged the University to find a way to locate a building to the front of the site and still save the trees on the edge of the property.  He thanked the applicant for responding to that concern, and said he hoped that a solution would be found that would save the trees.

 

Mr. Radway observed that in pulling the building forward ten feet, a lot of the objectives discussed by the Council could be met as well as regaining seven to nine parking spaces behind it.  He said lastly as an observation this was the first chance to have two projects coordinatively going through, talking about a new edge to the roadways into and out of Town and new ways of looking at how that street edge worked with parking in the rear.

 

Mr. Radway said there were examples in the downtown where it worked well for buildings to be at the front of a site, and that Meadowmont also had good examples as well.  He said this was an opportunity of how to coordinatively do something that would affect us for many years, which was going to be the redevelopment of these corridors over the next 20 to 50 years.  Mr. Radway said this was a good first place with two good applicants to get it right, and the Town should focus on that as we move forward with these projects.

 

Council Member Ward asked what would be gained or lost if they flipped the orientation of the building so that the patient access point would be on the right edge of the building rather than the left, so that they could bring the flow of patients into the building right next to that grove of trees.  He said that might be a beneficial aspect to how people viewed the building and they came and went.  Ms. Beck said that the CDC had suggested that, and they would do it if that was want the Council.  But for them, she said, in order to create the access for the loading area and the mobile unit then that really had to flip to the other side.  Ms. Beck said that was a more visible side, and that needed to be more of a solid wall.  She said the flow was better for them clinically, but if the Council asked that they flip the building, it would mean that visitors would be directed along the roadway.

 

Council Member Ward said at this stage it was hard to visualize what people would see of the loading area.  Ms. Beck said they were going to enclose it with a wall so you would not see trucks.  She said above that area would be the second story of the building.  Ms. Beck said flipping the building would mean a trade off for them in terms of their internal operations and the way it would look to the public.

 

Council Member Ward said not knowing what the visual impacts would be, flipping it may not be a good idea.  Ms. Beck said they would study it.  Council Member Ward said he did not want them to feel that they were required to do that.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-2.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY    (8-0).

 

Item 5 – Concept Plan:  University Village

 

Ms. Culpepper stated that this Concept Plan was for the University Village Mixed-Use Development proposed on NC 54 between Finley Golf Course Road and Hamilton Road.  She said the proposal involved demolishing the University Village Motel and an office building at the corner of Hamilton Road and NC 54.  Ms. Culpepper stated the Concept Plan proposed 477,900 square feet of retail, office, hotel and residential floor area on 11.2 acres, with 922 parking spaces.

 

Ms. Culpepper said the Council had seen this Concept Plan in September of 2004, but since that time the boundaries of the proposal had changed.  She noted that the differences between the 2004 proposal and the proposal before the Council this evening were detailed on page four of the memorandum

 

Council Member Strom asked Ms. Culpepper to identify on the map the area reserved by the Triangle Transit Authority for Phase II to pass through this area.  Ms. Culpepper pointed  that out on the map, noting that it would run along the south side of Prestwick Road.  She noted that Prestwick Road itself had been generally identified as a potential corridor, stating that when the Prestwick Place development went through the SUP process, 20 to 30 feet beyond the right-of-way was reserved as potentially adding to that corridor.

 

Mayor Foy asked if that was 20 feet on the south side of the Prestwick Place property.  Ms. Culpepper responded yes, as well as the north side of Prestwick Road.  She stated that during the Prestwick Place SUP process, the Council had required that the additional reservation of land be added to the north side.

 

Council Member Harrison said he understood that in Meadowmont, there was also a reservation of land with a provision that it be dedicated at the appropriate time in the process.  Ms. Culpepper said she was not able to confirm that.  She said the Meadowmont developer was present tonight and may be able to answer that.

 

Council Member Harrison said he, as well as Mayor Foy and Council Member Strom, had brought that up to Durham during TAC meetings, since Durham had not been talking about dedication at all.  He said they would like to know just what example the Town was setting.

 

Roger Perry, speaking as the Applicant, said there were three substantive changes to this project as compared to the September 2004 project.  He said they had expanded the site to the west to include the corner site where the office/medical building was.  Mr. Perry said during the 2004 discussion the Council had indicated it wanted the building edge moved towards the street, and they had done so.  He said the third change from the 2004 proposal was that rather than the majority of the parking being underground, we have changed that subtly to include a parking deck as well as underground parking because of the large amount of site work, earth-moving and environmental impact to the site that would have occurred by putting all of the parking underground.  Mr. Perry noted that the percentage of at-grade parking and surface parking were not substantively different as a percentage of the total square footage from the original proposal.

 

Mr. Perry displayed a site plan of the revised site, and pointed out the buildings and their setbacks.  He indicted which buildings were planned for retail, hotel, office, and residential space.  Mr. Perry noted that the Community Design Commission (CDC) had suggested that the proposed location for the hotel space was not ideal, and indicated that there was some flexibility between several of the buildings if the Council wanted to consider moving that space.

 

Mr. Perry said the addition of the parking deck was unique in that they proposed to set two floors of residential housing on top of that deck, and that the parking deck on its northern, eastern, and western face be articulated in a manner similar to the overall architectural character of the entire project.  He said they were suggesting an open space area to the front of the project that would meet their open space requirements, and which would preserve a significant stand of trees on the site.

Mr. Perry exhibited a slide of the proposed underground parking.  He said they had eliminated the parking in the central corridor previously proposed due to the structural requirements needed to support delivery and other heavy vehicles. Mr. Perry noted that the cost of providing all parking underground had become cost-prohibitive, which was why they had revised the proposal to include structured parking.

 

Mayor Foy asked if the area indicated in yellow on the map was the underground parking.  Mr. Perry responded yes.  He said you would enter that parking from the far western side of the property as well as from the eastern side from a curb cut on Prestwick Road.  Mr. Perry said from the underground parking, you could access a ramp up to the structured parking.

 

Mayor Foy asked how many stories of parking were provided in the deck.  Mr. Perry responded that there was one story below grade, then three stories of parking above grade with two stories of residential above that.

 

Mr. Perry displayed an alternate site plan that showed a relocation of Building One that may allow them to preserve an additional large specimen tree, possibly two.  He said they would be interested in the Council’s comments on that alternate plan.

 

Mr. Perry then exhibited a diagram of the total gross area of square footage and how it was distributed.  He stated that they proposed the residential portion at 228,215 square feet including 30 percent for “for sale” affordable housing, the retail at 64,185 square feet, the office at 115,500 square feet, and the hotel at 70,000 square feet, for a total of 477,900 square feet.  Mr. Perry stated that the parking required by ordinance for this site was a minimum of 976, noting that their proposal was for 922, 54 spaces below the required minimum with the understanding that the Council had expressed a desire to go below those minimum requirements in certain situations.

 

Mayor Foy asked about the parking spaces depicted on Prestwick Road on the site plan.  Mr. Perry replied those were parallel parking spaces.  He said that the transit corridor was on the southern edge of Prestwick Road, and that the University had reserved the southern side of Prestwick Road for that corridor. Mr. Perry said this proposal was based on the assumption that the transit corridor was on the southern edge.

 

Mayor Foy said Prestwick Road was a public road and unpaved.  Mr. Perry said their proposal was to pave Prestwick Road and provide parallel parking on the road as well as sidewalks on both sides.  He said in the past nearby Glenwood School residents had requested that Prestwick Road not extend to Hamilton Road.  Mr. Perry said they were prepared to close it at the edge of their property, or extend to on to Hamilton Road to provide inner-connectivity with Hamilton, depending upon the Council’s wishes.  He said they believed and good planning suggested that they should be inner-connected.  Mr. Perry said this had in the past been a contentious issue, and they were willing to work with that.  He said regardless it should be a pedestrian corridor to Hamilton Road and to the Glenwood School.

 

Mayor Foy asked if this proposed project connected to Hamilton Road.  Mr. Perry responded that their property did not connect to Hamilton, noting that the Town’s fire station was between their property and Hamilton Road.  He said they did not have a curb cut from Hamilton Road that would allow access to the hotel.  Mr. Perry said the hotel would be accessed through a right in-right out entrance from NC 54, or from the median cut to the east.  He said if they had a curb cut from Hamilton Road to the hotel, it would present stacking problems to the intersection since it was too close to it.

 

Mr. Perry then presented a summary of the project, noting the following:

 

·              They were committed to providing 30% of affordable housing, which was double that required.

·              All of the buildings would be built to LEED silver standards at a minimum.

·              They proposed to preserve the area where the significant stand of trees was located.

·              The proposal was for mixed used, to include residential, retail, office, hotel, and structured parking.

·              This was an infill/redevelopment site, which would encompass a majority of the entire block.

·              The structured parking would be a combination of underground parking and a 4-story parking deck.

·              The site would have multimodal transportation in addition to regular vehicular traffic.

·              The site was zoned for 235,570 square feet of retail space, noting that their proposal would generate 28 percent fewer trips per day than what was allowed by zoning.

·              The proposed impervious surface area was approximately 20 percent below the allowed area, noting that increased density was offset by a large green space, underground parking, and the parking deck.  The stormwater retention and detention structures would be “best practices” and would be underground collection and retention storage facilities.

·              The architectural design incorporated classical design principles of proportion, order, symmetry, and composition to provide a functional and aesthetically pleasing environment, adding the total design would create a harmonious and pleasing architectural solution that was an asset to the Town.

·              They were requesting that the allowable floor area ratio be increased from 43 percent to 98 percent.

·              They were requesting that the allowable building height be increased from 34 feet to 75 feet.

 

Mr. Perry briefly spoke about the two compromises they were asking the Town to make.  He said that the increase in allowable floor area ratio from 43 percent to 98 percent was more than double the allowable ratio because this project was very intense and dense.  Mr. Perry said this was necessary in order to allow them to achieve the 30 percent of affordable housing as well as the LEED silver certification.  He said they could not get that to work without a significant variance on the floor area.  Mr. Perry said additionally, the increase in allowable building height was necessary in order for them to achieve those results.

 

John Anderson, a resident of Rogerson Drive, commented his street was right across from the entrance noted on the original plan.  He said there were many good things about this proposed development, but he was concerned about the two compromises Mr. Perry was proposing regarding the increase in allowable floor area and building height.

 

Mr. Anderson said the entrance to the current hotel was directly across from Rogerson Drive, and if you made a left turn onto NC 54 going towards campus there was no cut-through provided by the State.  He said it was difficult to see traffic coming from Hamilton Road, and when traffic volume was high or moving fast it was difficult to get across at that location.  Mr. Anderson said with increased traffic it would become worse.

 

Mayor Foy asked if Mr. Anderson was saying that when he wanted to come out onto NC 54 and turn left, he may be forced to cross halfway and sit in the median until traffic allowed him to turn.  Mr. Anderson said that was correct.  Mayor Foy said he believed it would be worse if someone were exiting from University Inn.  Mr. Anderson said that was correct, because if they did not use a turn signal you did not know where they might go.  He described that situation as “terrible.”

 

Council Member Hill clarified that there was a cut there at Rogerson Drive.  Mr. Anderson said that was correct, but there was no left turn cut to go into the University Inn.  He said there was a median cut, but with all the traffic flow that was a big concern for him.

 

Mr. Perry agreed with Mr. Anderson that the current situation was not ideal.  He said he anticipated having to add turn lanes in that median cut, as well as traffic signals.  Mr. Perry said in their projections they had assumed they would bear the cost of those improvements.

 

Council Member Harrison asked if that meant that Rogerson would be signalized as well. Mr. Perry said yes, that the intersection would include Rogerson Drive.

 

Council Member Hill said it was interesting that three of the projects discussed this evening were related, and the interesting thing about this one was that it was dense.  He suggested he would like to see this project built without a stoplight and without any access onto NC 54.  Council Member Hill said that Prestwick Road might well be the only road in Chapel Hill with no residences on it so there would be no complaints from residents.

 

Council Member Hill said the project as proposed would generate a lot of traffic onto Finley Golf Course Road.  He said the Council had just indicated to the applicant of Family House that they did not need to provide left turn lanes, yet with this development they would become necessary.  Council Member Hill said with these two projects, all traffic would not leave the site by moving up or down NC 54. He said the reality was that traffic would also use Finley Golf Course Road, which would make it a major thoroughfare.

 

Council Member Hill said Mr. Perry had anticipated what the Council would want and had included it in his proposal.  But, he said, he did not want any more new stoplights in Town if at all possible.  Council Member Hill said the idea of a right-in/right-out cut by the hotel onto NC 54 was not as problematic, but he believed the entrance into University Village at Rogerson Drive would become a major intersection.  He said that could all be eliminated if the two accesses onto NC 54 were cut out and all of the property was accessed from Prestwick Road.  Council Member Hill noted that might be too much for Prestwick to handle, but it would make the effects of this development all borne by the development itself.  He said he did not know if that was doable, but was an idea he wanted to explore.

 

Mr. Perry said that was an interesting perspective.  He said that if the cuts onto NC 54 were removed and the cuts were placed on Prestwick Road, then traffic on Finley Golf Course Road would be increased.  Mr. Perry said the cuts onto NC 54 were “pressure valves” that would release traffic in and out.  He commented that he was not sure they could make Prestwick Road wide enough to accommodate the traffic because of the amount of right-of-way available.

 

Council Member Hill said the Hamilton Road/Glenwood School situation was real.  He said until around eight a.m. the area was “crammed,” but he believed that was the case around every elementary school.  He said he could not imagine how this was going to work without Prestwick Road connecting to Hamilton Road.  Mr. Perry agreed with that comment.

 

Council Member Strom said he believed this was an appropriate site for this type of density, adding it was unfortunate that we were not further allow with TTA plans so that an actual station would be included.  He said this project should interface well with future TTA line.

 

Council Member Strom said this project proposed about 200 residential units, which would include about 60 affordable units.  He asked if that would spread out in one, two, and three-bedroom units.  Mr. Perry said that Robert Dowling of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust had indicated that there did not seem to be a significant demand from his clientele for three-bedroom units.  He said they did not believe there was a significant demand from the general market for three-bedroom units in this type of configuration.  Mr. Perry said based on that, it was his guess that the residential units would be a mix of one and two-bedroom units, and they would be interspersed throughout the buildings.

 

Council Member Verkerk said she agreed with Council Member Hill that the connection at Hamilton Road and Prestwick had to go through.  She said concerning Rogerson Drive, the Council had previously approved the placement of a semi-diverter on that road because they did not want vehicles coming off of NC 54 using Rogerson Drive as a cut-through.  Council Member Verkerk said it may be that the Council would need to rethink that, adding she was not in favor or a traffic light at that intersection.  Mr. Perry suggested that if you were exiting from University Village onto NC 54, you could build the intersection in such a way that traffic would not be allowed to go straight across.  He said you could turn right or left onto NC 54, but not move across to Rogerson Drive.

 

Mayor Foy asked how someone would exit from Rogerson Drive.  Mr. Perry said that was the challenge, figuring out how to do that.  He said he believed it was doable, noting it could be designed to allow someone to come off of Rogerson Drive and cross over into University Village, but not back.  Mr. Perry said with the appropriate design he believed it could be done.

 

Council Member Verkerk said she believed the Council was pleased that this development would be so transit oriented.  She said she wanted to remind people that unlike a car, when you use a bus you have to use both sides of the street.  Mr. Perry responded that there would have to be a pedestrian crossing with cross-signalization.

 

Council Member Verkerk asked if Mr. Perry was concerned about the noise generated by the fire station.  She noted that the trucks made a lot of noise when they exited the site on a fire call.  Mr. Perry said those events did not happen often and he did not believe they would be an impediment to a retailer or for an office complex.  Council Member Verkerk said that was something Mr. Perry may want to give some thought to.

 

Council Member Ward encouraged Mr. Perry to talk with the Fire Chief to discover if there was some synergy that its proximity may provide them and/or him.  He said he would prefer that the development not just be blocked off with screening, rather than the two of them look for alternatives.

 

Council Member Ward asked about continuing the ten-foot-wide bike lane that was in place to the east of this site.  He asked if Mr. Perry envisioned pulling that across the frontage of this development.  Mr. Perry said they had not as yet focused on this issue, but he thought it was a great idea to do that.  He said one of the significant problems with Meadowmont was that the linkages to campus were not complete, and it would be a shame for that to happen to this existing bike lane.  Mr. Perry said he believed Council Member Ward’s suggestion was a good one and they would work to incorporate it into their plans.  Council Member Ward suggested articulating that to UNC Hospitals so they would be aware of those plans.  Mr. Perry stated it would affect the setbacks somewhat.

 

Council Member Ward encouraged Mr. Perry to maintain the connection with Prestwick and Hamilton.  He said on the site map, both Buildings 1 and 2 come very close to two trees, and encouraged Mr. Perry to modify his plans somewhat to pull the buildings away from the trees to provide them a good chance to survive.  Mr. Perry said moving buildings was problematic, and they had assumed that those two trees would not be saved.  He said they were willing to take another look at that. Council Member Ward said he believed using the alternate configuration for Building 1 would save one of the trees.  Mr. Perry replied that was correct, noting it was easier to save that one than it was the other one.

 

Council Member Ward said he hoped that Mr. Perry would work with the University to clearly identify what had been set aside for the transit corridor, and exactly where the expectation was on their part as well as the Town’s and how that worked with Prestwick.  He said we needed to make sure we were not cutting off an opportunity in the future.  Mr. Perry said they had already begun working with the University regarding the inner-connectivity of the two sites and how that would work.

 

Council Member Ward reiterated his desire that one day that transit corridor would be activated, and he wanted to make sure these plans were adaptable enough to receive those plans seamlessly and still work well for Mr. Perry.  He said as he had earlier mentioned in regard to the UNC Hospital’s development, bicycle and pedestrian crossings all along the perimeter of this property needed to be highly enriched so that it encouraged people to move around Town on a bike or on foot.  Mr. Perry responded he agreed, noting one of their real challenges was how people would cross from University Village to the north side of NC 54 to catch the bus into Town.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed that a connection to Hamilton Road was necessary. He said that although Council Member Hill’s suggestions were interesting, he did not believe they were workable.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed a stoplight would be necessary at the intersection.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said regarding how this development interfaced with the one next to it, did the site plan show that the top left corner of the site was all surface parking.  He said that appeared to be unattractive to him and it did not seem to follow the same principles that apply to the rest of the development and its relationship to the other two developments.  Mr. Perry said that was a challenge, but noted that the parking was “double loaded” on each side with a large green space towards the inside.  He said they would revisit that issue.  Council Member Kleinschmidt referred to it as “a horrible space.” Mr. Perry agreed that it may be if it remained as it was, reiterating that they would focus some attention to that.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked what the controversy was of having a hotel at the corner of Hamilton Road.  Mr. Perry responded that there had been a comment received from a member of the CDC that they felt that was an inappropriate use for that corner.  He said they did not know of any fact that comment was based on other than opinion.  Mr. Perry said they believed placing a hotel there was the best use of the space, noting that the corner and the building needed to make a significant architectural statement and their planned hotel would do that. Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed that a hotel at that site was appropriate and was a better use than a residential or other building would be.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if there were plans to “touch base” with any of the people or groups that may have been “contentious” at the prior discussion regarding this development, to discuss any concerns they may have if Prestwick was connected to Hamilton Road, including any school officials.  She said that would allow Mr. Perry to include mitigating aspects to his proposal that would ease those expressed concerns.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said for example, a right turn lane would accommodate school buses turning in and out of the school lot, as well as parents dropping off and picking up their children.  She said any kind of consideration he could take into account as he planned that connection would be helpful.  Mr. Perry said that the CDC had commented that at the point they reviewed the Concept Plan, it had not been addressed by the neighbors.  He said they were at the concept stage of their plans and were only getting comments from the Town at this point.  Mr. Perry said they had a long history of working with neighborhoods and would continue to do so, although they might not always agree.  He said they would approach the different constituents in the area, including the Rogerson and Oaks neighborhoods as well as the school.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said regarding the connectivity between this site and the UNC Hospitals project, was there any concern by Mr. Perry or by Ms. Beck that persons visiting one facility may park in the parking area for the adjoining facility.  Mr. Perry replied that there were some logistics to work out, but there were some countercyclical advantages to these spaces.  He said he was not concerned that what Mayor pro tem Wiggins had suggested would be a problem.

 

Council Member Harrison said he and Council Member Strom had brought up the issue of the transit corridor, and Ms. Culpepper had referred them to Mr. Perry as the expert on what was done with the Meadowmont SUP.  Council Member Harrison noted that Town Transportation Planner David Bonk had indicated that it was reserved with the ability to have it dedicated.  Mr. Perry replied that was correct, and noted that transit corridor was now a dedicated easement.

 

Council Member Harrison asked if there were plans to do that with this project.  Mr. Perry responded that he was reasonably comfortable that the intent was that TTA and UNC Hospitals would place the transit corridor on the south side of Prestwick Road.  He said that was where the lines had been drawn and where it remained.  Mr. Perry said it would be problematic if for some reason he was required to dedicate an easement on the north side of his project, noting that the site was tight front to back.  He said that issue needed to be resolved before this project was approved.

 

Council Member Harrison said he believed the Council would support the connection to Hamilton Road.  He commented that we do not know where the transit station would be placed, but obviously we would want a fully connected street system to service that.

 

Council Member Harrison agreed with Council Member Ward’s statements regarding the bicycle facilities, adding he biked in that area to visit Glen Lennox.  He said he was experienced with riding on major roads but many people were not, particularly children in the area.  Council Member Harrison said that optimizing the safety in that area for bicycles was a good idea, noting he could get good advice from the advisory boards on that issue.  Mr. Perry noted several months ago they had visited Charlotte to look at several similar urban redevelopment projects, and there were some significant things that could be done regarding bicycle storage and bicycle rooms, and creating bicycle-friendly situations. He said they intended to incorporate those kinds of things into their plans. Council Member Harrison noted that the roadway itself should be addressed.  Mr. Perry replied they understood that was important.

 

Council Member Harrison said he was pleased that the Planning Department had responded to the Council’s interest in having detailed CDC comments.  He said that perhaps the best expressed comment was received from Mark Broadwell who was familiar with this area.  Council Member Harrison quoted Mr. Broadwell as follows: “You attempt to improve transitional scale between the proposed development and nearby neighborhoods.”  Council Member Harrison said where that comment struck him was that it appeared that the highest buildings were towards the inhabited neighborhoods and not towards the transit corridor.  He wondered if it would be better to have height reduced right on NC 54 and the higher buildings stepped back.  Council Member Harrison said no one lived on Prestwick Road, so there would be no complaints.

 

Mr. Perry said they had looked at that, as well as the juxtaposition of each side of the project.  He said in terms of the building heights, NC 54 was an extraordinarily wide six-lane corridor, and the scale of the buildings on their side of the road versus what was on the opposite side was significantly mitigated by that.  Mr. Perry said they had pushed these buildings in order to be able to provide 30 percent affordable housing, which was their goal and intent, and they would do so without any subsidy from the Land Trust.  He said they planned to sell these affordable units without subsidy for less than $100,000 each.  Mr. Perry said they had pushed the height to the point where structurally any additional height would result in significant building costs. He said that was problematic, but they would take another look at that.

 

Mayor Foy stated he wanted to revisit the issue of how close the buildings were to NC 54.  He said the Council had told Ms. Beck that on her development they needed to pull the building closer.  Mayor Foy said as he was thinking about how the retail building might function, as well as the hotel, he concluded that NC 54 was “not that pleasant” to walk on.  Mr. Perry said they had pulled the buildings up with some trepidation.  He said the amount of pedestrian traffic that would access this site from NC 54 would be limited, but nonetheless they intended to do a double storefront on all of the buildings.  Mayor Foy asked if that meant you would have access at the front of the buildings.  Mr. Perry responded that access would be provided from either side.

 

Mayor Foy suggested that instead of pulling the buildings up, perhaps we could consider pushing the sidewalk back away from NC 54.  He said he liked what Mr. Perry had done at Meadowmont.  Mayor Foy said by pushing the sidewalk back, pedestrians would have direct access to the storefronts without having to leave the sidewalk and travel to each individual store.  Mr. Perry said that was a good idea, noting there was a bus stop at one location and moving the sidewalk would make that area more pedestrian friendly.  He said then a vegetative buffer could be included between the curb and the sidewalk.  Mayor Foy agreed, noting that would give pedestrians a feeling of protection from NC 54.  Mr. Perry added that would allow them to include the bike lane that Council Member Ward had suggested.

 

Mayor Foy supported Council Member Ward’s statements regarding the fire station, and thinking about how that property might be integrated into the area so that it was not “just a corner.”  He said the developments planned for that area were quite large, and potentially the fire station could become a part of that in some way.

 

Mayor Foy commented that Mr. Perry had offered the Council an alternate site plan to consider, noting he preferred the first site plan configuration rather than the alternate plan.  He said he did believe that Rogerson Drive was a problem that needed to be solved, and he encouraged Mr. Perry to focus on that.

 

Mayor Foy said he believed that Prestwick needed to be connected to Hamilton Road.  He said he was curious what Mr. Perry’s view was regarding the line drawn from the UNC Hospitals site into his project, which appeared to be a road. Mayor Foy asked was that an internal circulation road.  Mr. Perry said it was designed to be used as secondary circulation, but not primary.  He said that road was intended to be a way into UNC Hospitals’ facility, but not necessarily into his facility, since they had provided plenty of access otherwise.  Mr. Perry said depending on the Council’s wishes, they would emphasize or de-emphasize that point.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if Mr. Perry wanted an indication from the Council tonight about their feelings regarding the two exceptions being requested to the regulations, or did he feel that he had gotten that.  Mr. Perry said he believed from the Council’s comments that they embraced the concept of this level of density and floor area ratio on the site in exchange for what would be provided.  He said if there was any opposition to that he would like to know it now.  Mr. Perry said their ability to provide the level of affordable housing planned as well as the structured parking and other things was contingent upon them having this type of density and floor area ratio.

 

Mayor Foy said he believed what the Council was doing this evening was looking at the changes made to the project since the September 2004 Concept Plan, with the fundamental concept remaining the same.  Mayor Foy said he had no problem with the fundamental concept.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if a traffic light were installed at Rogerson, would that mean a light at each end of the block as well as the middle of the block.  She asked if that was not, in effect, traffic calming?  Council Member Kleinschmidt replied the lights would be timed.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said this was an area where people continually commented that traffic moved too fast, and that a traffic light in the middle of that block would serve to slow traffic down if it were timed with the others.

 

Council Member Ward said the reality was that the access point off of Finley Golf Course Road that went through the UNC Hospitals’ site would end up being very attractive to motorists.  He said you would be able to move straight, left or right when you get off of Finley Golf Course Road and onto NC 54, whereas the main entrance as designed here would allow one thing only and that was a right turn.  Council Member Ward said since one allowed three moves and the other only one, he believed the traffic ratio would be the same.  Mr. Perry said they were suggesting that a left turn be allowed as well.

 

Council Member Ward said he had some concern about how the two entrances from Finely Golf Course Road would work for Mr. Perry’s project as well as for Prestwick Place, since he believed it would become attractive to motorists.

 

Council Member Ward said his last comment was not directed at just this project.  He said the Council had talked about strategies to more comprehensively identify places were we could direct additional density in our community, and it looked like this was one project where a significant increase in density was appropriate for the site.  Council Member Ward said he wanted the Council to use this project and their conversations regarding a focused Comprehensive Plan revision to help them identify other places where high density could be encouraged.  He said that would include conversations with OWASA, since he did not believe OWASA’s projections have anticipated the added density and related water use.  Council Member Ward said he did not want such situations to be a surprise to OWASA, in that we were cognizant of what their plans were in regard to their ability to provide water to this community, and what would put their projections at risk in terms of their service to the community.

 

Council Member Ward said he was pleased this would be a LEED community and would have a relative reduction in water use as a result of that.  He said that was a strategy that would help get us through the period before the new quarry was on line, although that was some years away.  Council Member Ward said until then we would be on the edge of having enough water.  He said that was not a comment to Mr. Perry, rather it was to the Council so that as we discuss projects with higher densities we could keep that issue in mind.

 

Mr. Perry said that since the project was so close to the wastewater treatment facility, it would be a good place to use recycled groundwater for irrigation, sanitary needs and similar uses.  He said he believed it would be a worthwhile conversation to have with OWASA, although it was expensive to do that.  Mr. Perry said the project’s close proximity to the wastewater facility’s discharge point might be something to think about, and he may want the Council’s help with that.

 

Mr. Perry said before they move forward, he wanted to ask if all members of the Council were indeed comfortable with the two exceptions they were requesting regarding the allowable building height and the floor area ratio.  Mayor Foy responded that given the comments from the Council this evening, they were comfortable with the Concept Plan including the two exceptions noted by Mr. Perry.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).