4a 4-18-2005 | Summary Minutes of Public Hearing

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.

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

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

Council Members Sally Greene and Cal Hill were absent, excused.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Senior Planner Phil Mason, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Mayor Foy noted that he wanted to begin today’s meeting by reminding people that many of our Town employees were multi-talented. He said the Manager had informed him that the Town Information Officer, Catherine Lazorko, had today finished the Boston Marathon in three hours and 56 minutes. Mayor Foy offered her the Council’s congratulations.

Item 1 – Public Hearing: Zoning Atlas Amendment for Proposed

Rezoning of the Greenwood Neighborhood

Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland stated that on February 28 the Council received a report from the Manager concerning an application for a minor subdivision in the Greenwood neighborhood. He said the Council had determined that the current “tear-down and subdivide” possibilities in that neighborhood warranted an immediate response. Mr. Sutherland said accordingly, tonight’s public hearing was called to consider a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone the neighborhood.

Mr. Sutherland said property owners were notified, and no protest petitions were received. He displayed a slide showing the current zoning designation for Greenwood as Residential-1 (R-1). Mr. Sutherland said that R-1 required a minimum lot size of 17,000 square feet, noting that this neighborhood had 163 lots. He displayed a slide that showed that 112 of those lots are more than twice the minimum size and so could potentially be subdivided.

Mr. Sutherland said the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) contained a Residential-1A (R-1A) zoning designation that required a minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet. He noted that 33 of the existing 163 lots are more than 50,000 square feet and could potentially be subdivided if the neighborhood were rezoned R-1A.

Mr. Sutherland stated that LUMO also contained a Residential-Low Density-1 (R-LD1) zoning designation that required a minimum lot size of one acre, or 43,560 square feet. He said that seven of the existing 163 lots are more than two acres in size and could potentially be subdivided if the neighborhood were rezoned R-LD1. Mr. Sutherland added that if a rezoning to R-LD1 were to take place, 67 of the 163 lots would become non-conforming.

Mr. Sutherland said a non-conforming lot was a lot that was lawfully established prior to amendment of the LUMO and did not meet the minimum land area requirement. He noted that if a non-conforming lot were vacant, the owner would still be able to construct a single-family house if the single-family house already existed on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Sutherland said if the single-family house already existed on a non-conforming lot, the house could be used, expanded, and rebuilt if destroyed.

Mr. Sutherland stated that they believe that the R-LD1 zoning was the most suitable existing zoning district to protect the character and appearance of the existing residential neighborhood because it minimizes potential subdivision. He added they believe that rezoning the neighborhood to the R-LD1 district was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the LUMO. Mr. Sutherland noted that the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was that the Council adopt Ordinance A approving the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone the neighborhood from R-1 to R-LD1.

Darryl Gless, a resident of Greenwood Road, thanked the staff, Manager, Planning Board and the Town Council for taking this issue seriously. He said a zoning change needed to occur now to prevent further damage to the neighborhood by additional subdividing of lots. Mr. Gless said further subdividing would destroy the character of the neighborhood, destroy its forested nature, and destroy its historical character. Mr. Gless said the neighborhood was in support of the Manager’s recommendation.

Mr. Gless noted that the staff report on page 2 mentioned a second step be considered to create a Neighborhood Conservation District in the Greenwood neighborhood. He said the neighborhood was very much in favor of that, noting that the rezoning was an “important stop gap” that would limit damage until they could have a Neighborhood Conservation District designation. Mr. Gless said such a designation would better protect the neighborhood and meet the needs of current and future owners over the long term.

Mr. Gless said the neighborhood had requested that it be considered for a Neighborhood Conservation District designation, adding they had recently started a petition drive and currently had 96 signed petitions.

Lee Buck, a resident of Greenwood Road, said they see rezoning as an important step and one not taken lightly. He stated that although it was an important step it was not perfect, noting that the neighborhood saw the Neighborhood Conservation District process as a much better long-term solution to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Buck said it was worth noting that the 112 lots that could potentially be subdivided would become more valuable when subdivided and sold than the structures that rest upon them. He said that might send the message that we want the vast majority of houses in Greenwood torn down and rebuilt. Mr. Buck said that was fundamentally in conflict with the values set out by the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Buck pointed out that the term “community” was used somewhat loosely, noting sometimes it meant a geographic area or an arbitrary collection of people. He said he was “touched and impressed” that when Greenwood neighbors talked about community, they were talking about people who had a shared vision and shared values about something precious to them, their neighborhood. Mr. Buck said he understood the balance in zoning between individual rights and the rights of the community, but he hoped that the Council would recognize as it had in the past that in this case, there was something special at work both in terms of the geography and the social unit of the neighborhood.

Mr. Buck said if the words in the Comprehensive Plan meant anything, and if the goals that the Council had set forth for preserving the character of the Town and the community meant anything, then they had no better partner that those in the Greenwood neighborhood and no better opportunity to embrace that than now.

Tom Tucker, a resident of 715 Greenwood Road, said he had previously filed an application for a minor subdivision of property he owned in Greenwood. He distributed a GIS map of 10 lots that were adjacent to his lot, noting that some of these lots had been split up and some were no flag lots. Mr. Tucker said he was surprised that no one had mentioned how these lots affect the appearance and the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Tucker said his point was that the premise of the “de facto moratorium” on subdivisions in this neighborhood was not fair, stating that the fact that a lot was split had nothing to do with the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Tucker said when he purchased his home he immediately began renovations, but soon discovered that the house was not suitable for renovations. He said he had submitted an application for a minor subdivision in good faith and at great expense based on the current laws and zoning guidelines in place at that time. Mr. Tucker noted that the language in the rezoning request stated that the Council was trying to act on a rezoning prior to acting on his previous application for a minor subdivision, and this seemed “underhanded.”

Mr. Tucker said had someone requested that he withdraw his application until the matter was resolved, he would have considered doing so. He noted that to proceed with the rezoning in this way was not fair. Mr. Tucker said he believed his application should be grandfathered, or the Council should adopt the R-1A option and allow him to move forward with his application. He said that it had been proven that the lots that have already been split, one of which Council Member Strom currently lived on, had not adversely affected the character and appearance of Greenwood.

Mr. Tucker said if his application were approved, he would be happy to sit down with the neighbors to review the plans for the homes proposed to be built to make sure the homes are consistent with the “character and appearance” of Greenwood. He added he would most likely be living in one of those proposed homes.

Mr. Tucker said his final point was that he was not sure that the historical character and appearance of Greenwood was what he wanted those houses to reflect. He noted that the neighborhood, created by Paul Green and his wife Elizabeth Lay Green, had never intended for him [an African-American] to live there. Referring to his handout, Mr. Tucker noted that time and again the Greens had made references to the covenants in place at that time that is “vastly” different from those of today. He pointed out references to livestock and fowl kept on the premises, and quoted specific language that stated “buildings constructed in this area shall be limited to ownership and occupancy by members of the Caucasian race.” Mr. Tucker said a large majority of the covenants were outdated and obsolete.

Mr. Tucker commented that what was happening with the situation regarding minor subdivisions was largely based in part on economics, but reiterated that the minor subdivision itself did not detract from the character and appearance of the neighborhood. Rather, he said, it was what was built on the lot that may potentially do that. Mr. Tucker said that although he was being personally affected by this should the Council decide to set aside his application for the good of the neighborhood, he asked that they consider as well the issue of fairness. He said this did not happen overnight, that he had filed his application in good faith and had been working on it for some time prior to the filing.

Mr. Tucker said his last point was in reference to the “damage” the neighborhood had suffered. He said he had been involved in the Neighborhood Conservation District in Northside, and there was “absolutely” no way to compare the “damage” in Greenwood to what had occurred in the Northside neighborhood, noting duplexes and student rentals. Mr. Tucker said there was not one house of the 163 in Greenwood that had suffered anything similar to what had occurred in Northside, yet now we were contemplating rezoning the entire neighborhood because of one house. He said the Northside neighborhood was far larger with far more pervasive problems that had prevailed for years, and now we have one house in Greenwood that the neighbors did not like so the entire neighborhood was rezoned and his application was thrown out. Mr. Tucker said he did not believe that was fair.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 25. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked the Attorney what happened over time with restricted and protected covenants such as the ones referenced by Mr. Tucker? Mr. Karpinos said that they become either more or less enforceable over time. He said that obviously there were covenants that would not be enforceable because of current law, and there were time limits the courts sometimes looked to impose on them. Mr. Karpinos said generally after some period of time they expire of their own accord, and part of it depended on the extent to which the neighborhood saw fit to enforce them upon themselves. He said that if they did not choose to enforce them, then over time the courts may conclude that they were no longer enforceable at all.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the neighborhood could pick and choose which ones they enforced. Mr. Karpinos replied that covenants were not something enforceable by the Town, noting it was up to the neighborhood and those parties that were possibly not complying to settle disputes through the courts if necessary.

Mayor Foy noted that the covenants state that they expire January 1, 1975 unless extended, and we would have to determine if they were extended. Mr. Karpinos stated he did not know if they were.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 2 – Public Hearing: Dobbins Hill Development Phase II Application

for a Special Use Permit Modification

Mr. Horton said the Council was familiar with this issue, noting that this request for a modification to an SUP Application was “joined at the hip” with the Wilson Assemblage application due to conditions imposed by the Council.

Planning Director Roger Waldon displayed an area map noting the location of the development, and offered a brief description of the property. He displayed an aerial photograph noting the location of the recently approved Wilson Assemblage in relation to the proposed Dobbins Hill Phase II development. Mr. Waldon pointed out the five existing buildings, the access road off of Dobbins Drive, and the circular driveway area with parking arranged to serve the five buildings. He stated that the Concept Plan for the improvement and expansion of Dobbins Hill proposed the addition of two buildings, one in the northwest corner of the site and one in the southwest corner.

Mr. Waldon reminded the Council that the Wilson Assemblage applicant was asked to address the affordable housing objectives and goals, and the applicant brought forward the idea of packaging that development with Dobbins Hill and then adding tax credit units to the Dobbins Hill site. He noted that tax credits are a “very fine” type of affordable housing, stating it was one of our best examples of providing affordability over time, and came with some significant subsidies from outside the Chapel Hill community in the form of tax credits from the NC Housing Finance Agency, and it was rental housing which was the type we needed.

Mr. Waldon said the Manager had mentioned that the two developments were “joined at the hip,” noting it was a good description. He said many issues were common to both, noting both vehicular and pedestrian access gong back and forth and coordinated stormwater management. He stated that in the approved resolution for Wilson Assemblage, a number of conditions linked going forward with Wilson Assemblage to the eventual approval and construction of Dobbins Hill Phase II. Mr. Waldon noted the same was done with the proposed resolution of approval for Dobbins Hill Phase II, stating it contained stipulations linking it back to the Wilson Assemblage approval. He said either they both go forward, or neither goes forward.

Jack Smyre, principal of The Design Response, Inc., noted he was representing the developer, Crosland, Inc., regarding the proposed application for a SUP modification. He said they were here tonight due to the Council’s encouragement during the Wilson Assemblage process to find a way to contribute to the affordable housing stock in Chapel Hill. Mr. Smyre said they believe they have done so.

Mr. Smyre provided a brief history of the project, noting the Council had approved a tax credit affordable housing project in May of 1993 originally developed by Crosland, Inc., and its target was 60 percent of median income. He noted that it was currently functioning at close to 50 percent of median income. Mr. Smyre said the existing conditions were: 55 dwelling units; 100 parking spaces; playground and picnic areas; a clubhouse in Building #1; access from Dobbins Drive; and, that a dedicated right-of-way existed along Dobbins Hill’s northern border. He displayed an aerial photograph of the proposed site, as well as photos of the current buildings, the dry stormwater detention basin, and the playground.

Mr. Smyre said to achieve the additional affording housing that was discussed during the Wilson Assemblage project, that have submitted a tax credit application to the NC Housing Finance Agency that would add 32 new affordable housing units to Dobbins Hill, which would target families earning 50 percent of the area’s median income. He said the Council was aware of the time sensitivity of that application, noting that in order for the tax credit application to be processed by the May 6 deadline, regulatory approval must be obtained prior to that date. Mr. Smyre said for that reason the Council in January had granted the project expedited review, and tonight we would hear from citizens and advisory boards with the expectation that the project would be voted on at the Council’s April 25^th meeting.

Mr. Smyre said the development would add two new buildings with a total of 32 new permanently affordable housing units, add 54 new parking spaces, add a second point of ingress/egress from the north, relocate the existing playground, add a second clubhouse, and add a second recreation area. He said the related improvements to be constructed off-site as part of the adjoining Wilson Assemblage project were an improved stormwater management facility, and a new public street to provide access to Sage Road and the new traffic signal.

Mr. Smyre provided a brief description of the two new buildings, their location, the parking provided, and the relocation of the stormwater facility and the playground. He mentioned that an alternate parking lot driveway entrance was being discussed to satisfy a requirement by Duke Power regarding placement of overhead power lines, noting that the alternative was acceptable to the staff. In addition, Mr. Smyre described the relocation of the playground area, the location of speed tables in the parking lots, and the location of the new clubhouse.

Mr. Smyre stated the final results of both Dobbins Hill Phase I and II were:

· 87 permanently affordable units;

· 150 parking spaces;

· two clubhouses;

· two recreation areas;

· part-time manager would become full-time; and

· second point of ingress and egress added, enhancing public safety.

Mr. Smyre stated they were requesting three modifications of the regulations:

1. Floor area: maximum is 74,152 square feet; they were proposing 95,500 square feet.

2. Unit density: maximum is 10 units per acre; they were proposing 11.8 units per acre.

3. Building height: Building A exceeds the primary height by 8 feet at setback and a portion of its roof protrudes outside the building envelope by up to 3 feet.

During the Concept Plan phase, Mr. Smyre noted that Council members had expressed an interest in internal pedestrian connections being developed between the two neighboring communities of Wilson Assemblage and Dobbins Hill, in additional to the public sidewalk system. To respond to that, he stated they had developed three internal connections:

· Northern pedestrian connection – connects the new proposed parking lot in the northwest corner of the Dobbins Hill site to the Wilson Assemblage’s northern “quad.”

· Southern pedestrian connection – connects the existing clubhouse in Dobbins Hill Apartment Building #1 to the central portion of the Wilson Assemblage site.

· Eastern pedestrian connection – connects existing buildings #4 and #5 to the Howell property and Sage Road.

Mr. Smyre stated the Council had also expressed concern for the safety of pedestrians at potential sidewalk crossing locations and in the vicinity of the relocated playground area. In response to that, he noted that speed tables had been included throughout the site to slow traffic and a fence had been added around the recreation area inside the buffer to provide further distance and material between the defined playground area and the street.

Mr. Smyre noted that the Council had expressed a desire to have this project coordinate with the public transit system, and in response to that he noted that a bud stop currently existed on Dobbins Drive, but with the construction of the new public street there would be multiple locations that transit could be rerouted to in order to provide more access. Mr. Smyre stated that the current bus stop on Dobbins Drive had no shelter, and the applicant had agreed to make a payment-in-lieu of $6,175 that could be used to improve the existing bus stop or to construct a new bus stop on the new public street. He stated that the applicant would like to request a five-year release mechanism if this payment-in-lieu had not been utilized.

Robert Dowling, Executive Director of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, noted that the Board of Directors offered their support of this project. He said that although the Board had not had an opportunity to review the site plan, their feelings were that tax credit rental housing was so valuable to this community that they should endorse the plan.

Mr. Dowling reminded the Council that Crosland, Inc. would give the Land Trust the right of first refusal to purchase the two new buildings, which was a right that they had on the existing five buildings. He stated the right to purchase the first five buildings, assuming the owners chose to sell, would come about in approximately four and a half years. Mr. Dowling said for the two new buildings, their right to purchase would come due in 15 years. He stated the tax credit accountants had projected the value of the tax credit buildings at less than $700,000 for 32 units, yet they were costing about $3.2 million to building. Mr. Dowling noted that was obviously an advantageous price.

Mr. Dowling reiterated that if Crosland, Inc. received approval from the Council, they would apply for the tax credits, which he said were not easy to obtain. He noted that five were turned down for every one that was accepted, and the NC Housing Finance Agency raised the standards each year. Mr. Dowling said these two new buildings would be more attractive, built to better standards, and contain more amenities. He encouraged the Council’s approval of the application.

Mayor Foy said in the copy of the current options agreement, it stated that “Specific terms and conditions of the option to purchase the Project will be contained in a separate agreement…” He asked if the terms and conditions were the same for these two new buildings as for the first five. Mr. Dowling responded he did not know, although he believed the same IRS provisions were used in both.

Mayor Foy asked if Orange Community Housing and Land Trust would be purchasing the buildings and the land. Mr. Dowling responded that was correct. Mayor Foy stated he assumed that was a formula used to figure how much the Land Trust would pay for the tax credit units. Mr. Dowling replied the formula basically was all outstanding debt plus any applicable taxes, noting that income taxes would be invoked only if there were a positive operating income. He added that currently Dobbins Hill operated “at the bone,” so there was very little or no operating income.

Mayor Foy asked the Manager if these options were incorporated into the Special Use Permit. Mr. Horton replied it was not part of the actual SUP, but was part of the offering that had been made by the applicant. Ms. Culpepper added that stipulations 4 and 5 referred to the tax credit aspect and the right of first refusal by the Land Trust, so that the options were incorporated by reference.

Council Member Verkerk stated that Mr. Smyre was to be admired for the network of sidewalks provided within and between the two developments. She said her only concern was that because of that network, they had created a network to approach Sage Road. Council Member Verkerk stated that the shopping area across US 15-501 from Sage Road would be an attractive destination for pedestrians but there was no safe way to cross that roadway. She noted that South Estes Drive and East Franklin Street was a prime example of this, were there was a shopping area on one side of a five-lane roadway and housing on the opposite side.

Council Member Verkerk asked if Mr. Smyre had studied the pedestrian amenities at Sage Road and US 15-501. Mr. Smyre replied that he was fairly certain that there was a condition in the Wilson Assemblage SUP that required payments from Crosland to supplement the existing funds held from a contribution by Lowe’s for pedestrian crossing signals to be added.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said when the Council had last discussed the Wilson Assemblage, there were tenants of the current Dobbins Hill who had concerns about the new construction. She asked had any discussions been held with them to address their concerns. Mr. Smyre said a meeting was held approximately three weeks ago to talk about the project and to gather input from them on the recreation and clubhouse elements. He said some concern had been expressed regarding parking arrangements, and they had specifically addressed that. Mr. Smyre said that everyone present had agreed that there was enough parking for every car, although the parking was not necessarily arranged exactly the way they might want.

Mr. Smyre noted that because of the placement of dumpsters, there was not as much opportunity for “spill-over parking” for all the units as there might be for some. He said the residents had agreed to meet among themselves and try to work out a system so that at least one space was assigned to each unit close to the building, with spill-over on a first-come, first-served basis.

Mr. Smyre said that residents had also expressed concern regarding pedestrian crossings, and believed that the addition of the speed tables had “gone a long way” toward addressing those concerns.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was concerned about the connection to the new public street noted as “A” on the map. Mr. Smyre said there had been mixed feelings, stating that some had expressed concern about cut-through traffic that might occur with two entrances, although they did see the convenience of being able to travel both ways. He said there was consensus that the northern entrance was good for everyone because of the recognition that the traffic signal on Sage Road was a “very much needed” improvement. Mr. Smyre said that would leave the question of whether to keep the southern entrance open. He noted they had studied the traffic patterns and could not determine that anyone external to this site would cut through it. Mr. Smyre said it was not a path you would logically follow from Sage Road to Erwin Road, and public street “A” would deliver the same pattern. He said it was their belief that the nature of the private drives and the number of speed tables eased those concerns.

Council Member Ward agreed that the speed tables “went a long way” towards traffic calming and appreciated the embellishment of the pedestrian connectivity, but asked that they go further. Referring to the speed table at the southern terminus of the current entrance, he stated it seemed to be a good opportunity to connect the sidewalks in that area so that the speed table could be used as part of the sidewalk. Council Member Ward said those two speed tables were particularly important because of the parking on that street, and for that reason it would be especially important to give pedestrians a clear, safe, and expected point of crossing. Mr. Smyre asked if he was referring to the public sidewalk along Dobbins Drive. Council Member Ward replied he was talking about the internal speed table half-way up the entrance. Mr. Smyre said there were sidewalks on either side of the speed table.

Council Member Ward said he appreciated the efforts to connect this community to the one to the east. He said he hoped they could site a universal access route that did not require steps. Mr. Smyre said the southern access would accomplish that, but the northern side would be studied during the Zoning Compliance Permit process, adding it contained a retaining wall. Council Member Ward said he would prefer that it be done.

Mayor Foy asked what the dotted lines on the map indicated. Mr. Smyre replied they were not specific corridors chosen as yet. He said that stipulations in the SUP would require the corridors, and the dotted lines were meant to show the approximate locations. He added that at the construction plan level, their exact location would be specified.

Mayor Foy said it appeared that Council Member Ward was suggesting a speed table/sidewalk connection at Dobbins Drive, and asked it that would be considered. Mr. Smyre said he was hesitant to agree because there may be a good public works reason not to place speed tables at driveway entrances. He said if nothing else it could also be a delineated crosswalk via paint.

Council Member Strom stated he agreed with Mr. Dowling that tax credit rental housing was a vital need of the community, and appreciated Mr. Smyre following through on this. He said he hoped that Mr. Smyre would tell his friends in the development community about the “lightning speed” with which the Council had responded to this application.

Council Member Strom asked the Attorney and Mr. Dowling to take a careful look at the options and the conditions regarding the opportunity that would be available in four and a half years to acquire some of this property. He said it appeared to be a good time to alert the Council as to those requirements prior to making this approval. Council Member Strom said he wanted to make sure they understood the terms, noting it may be an opportunity to make a minor adjustment if warranted. He noted he wanted that information when this came back to the Council.

Council Member Harrison said he understood that the modification for floor area was about 29 percent above the standard, and about 18 percent above standard density. He asked if the overall parking was also that much above what current zoning would permit. Mr. Smyre said the parking was driven by the actual number of units proposed, since it was on a bedroom count basis. He said he did not believe he could relate it to zoning, since it rested on the actual number of bedrooms provided. Council Member Harrison asked if he could tie it to floor area. Mr. Smyre replied it was somewhat related to floor area, since more floor area would allow more bedrooms, but parking was still based on the bedroom count. He said if a developer was proposing all one-bedroom units, their parking maximum would be much lower than the same number of units that contained two or three bedrooms.

Council Member Harrison asked if this development had adhered to the maximum 10 units per acre rather than 11.8, how the parking would be affected. Mr. Smyre said he was providing parking for 11.8 units per acre, again based on the number of bedrooms. He said he was providing the minimum number of parking spaces required based on the number of bedrooms in the 87 units they were prosing. Council Member Harrison said then the difference in parking was roughly equivalent to the difference in units. Mr. Smyre said that was roughly correct.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 25. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 3 – Public Hearing: Holy Trinity Lutheran Church

Application for a Special Use Permit

Mr. Horton noted that Holy Trinity Lutheran Church had submitted an application for an SUP for a new 11,540-square-foot sanctuary building and classrooms to be constructed at the location of the former Theta Chi Sorority House. They proposed to demolish the existing 6,108-square-foot building, he said.

Senior Planner Phil Mason stated that the Holy Trinity Church was located at 227 East Rosemary Street between Cottage Lane and Friendly Lane, across the street from Pickard Lane and the existing Holy Trinity Lutheran Church. He said the current zoning was Residential-6.

Mr. Mason displayed an area map indicating the location of the site, as well as photos of the current structure and the existing sanctuary. He displayed a site plan map as well, indicating the applicant’s proposal for the new sanctuary, demolition of the existing sorority house, and the reduction from 30 to 28 parking spaces.

Mr. Mason said the staff was requesting a 20-foot street with a five-foot wide sidewalk, noting this was a key issue. He stated that currently the street was a variable width between 17 and 22 feet, but has only a ten-foot right-of-way. Mr. Mason said they were requesting a consistently 20-foot wide street with a five-foot wide sidewalk, with a right-of-way that encompasses all of that.

Mr. Mason said the applicant was requesting modification to regulations as part of the SUP application: the proposed secondary building height of the sanctuary, which would exceed the limit; and one of the proposed building setbacks and landscape buffers minimums on Cottage Lane. He said the applicant was requesting an additional modification this evening regarding floor area, related to the right-of-way width requested by staff.

Dan Jewell of Coulter Jewell Thames, and David Clinton of MHA Works Architects, spoke for the applicants.

Mr. Clinton noted not much had changed from a year ago except that the Church was down to 10,500 square feet in an attempt to make it fit onto a smaller piece of land. He presented a series of photos depicting the area surrounding the church. Mr. Clinton noted that they wanted to keep the church in town, but allow it to grow. He said they were fortunate to have found the property across the street and were pleased they could fit a church within that property. Mr. Clinton said they wanted a site that was walkable and addressed stormwater, and believed they would benefit the neighborhood by tearing down the existing structure.

Mr. Clinton displayed a location map, pointing out the proposed site, the nearby historic district, and other properties. He also displayed a map showing the existing conditions on the site, and their proposal for redevelopment on the site. Mr. Clinton noted the footprint of the existing building was about 6,600 square feet, although the entire building was about 10,000 square feet, noting the proposed new building was not much larger. He added there were three churches within 1,000 feet that had spires taller that what they were proposing for the new building.

Mr. Clinton displayed a series of photos of traditional Lutheran churches, noting the steep roofs and towers. He said such churches seemed to have fit into neighborhoods very well. Mr. Clinton said the exterior of the proposed building would be gothic in style, adding that there was gothic residential located within a block of the site. He said they had paid attention to massing of houses in the neighborhood, and attempted not to get too large in scale for the surrounding community. Mr. Clinton stated that since the Concept Review phase, the massing had changed very little except that the structure was now a little smaller. He said it did relate to the houses on the left and right of the site.

Mr. Clinton displayed the architect’s rendering of the appearance of the planned structure, noting the tower, windows and roof line, as well as landscaping. As well, he displayed photos showing the scale and detail of the planned structure to the surrounding neighborhood.

Mr. Jewell said that Mr. Clinton had gone into detail regarding the architecture of the planned structure due to the interest of the neighborhood, the Historic District Commission (HDC), as well as the Council. He said the look of the structure was critical, and they had been meeting with neighbors and the HDC since 2003. Mr. Jewell noted that the HDC was important but the neighbors were the most important, adding that comments received during the neighborhood meetings were reflected in the SUP.

Mr. Jewell noted that the Bell family owned the property immediately to the west, and they had expressed concern about what a narrow landscape buffer would look like against a church. He stated that they would be working with the Manager and staff as well as the Bells to resolve that concern.

Mr. Jewell pointed out that on the last page of the materials he previously had distributed it showed a slightly different location for the sanitary sewer manhole in the back parking lot. He said that the new location was advantageous for the Bell family to provide access to their three houses.

Regarding the other neighbors, Mr. Jewell noted they believed they had their support as well as the full support of the Planning Board. He said a few days before the Planning Board meeting the neighbors realized that the plans called for a widening of Cottage Lane to 20 feet and to add a five-foot sidewalk. At that point, Mr. Jewell said, the neighbors became concerned. He said at the Planning Board meeting the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the SUP, but noted had they been given more information about the neighbors’ concerns they may have modified their recommendation. Mr. Jewell said that although the Planning Board did not recommend revising the stipulations, other advisory boards had included in their recommendations that modifications be made to stipulations #4 and #6, stating that Cottage Lane should remain 15 feet wide.

Mr. Jewell said they wanted to make sure the neighbors were satisfied, and noted that the Manager had included some alternate language in Resolutions A, B, and C regarding Cottage Lane. He said that Resolution A would widen Cottage Lane to 20 feet with a five-foot sidewalk and the necessary right-of-way, Resolution B would also widen the street with rather than a right-of-way dedication there were be a maintenance easement, and Resolution C would allow for a slightly narrower street. Mr. Jewell said that any reduction in the planned 20-foot street would be used for additional landscaping.

Mr. Jewell said there may be one other modification requested in addition to those mentioned by Mr. Mason. He said if the Council chose to support the Manager’s recommendation and asked them to dedicate the additional right-of-way to the full 25-foot width that would lower their land area to the point that their building was a little larger than the floor area ratio would allow. Mr. Jewell said if they were required to dedicate that additional land, they would be about 400 to 500 square feet over the permitted floor area ratio. He said that would mean a modification to the SUP that would allow an exception to Section 3.8.1 in LUMO.

LeAnn Brown, representing the Bell family, said they had worked with Mr. Jewell regarding their concerns and were appreciative of his efforts. She noted they were comfortable that they would be able to work with the church and the HDC to make sure whatever was done to the property was appropriate. Ms. Brown said that was a good example of the efforts the property owner had gone to in order to work with them.

Ms. Brown said the Bell family and the church were comfortable that the alternative buffer approach would work well, given the limited lot sizes. She said the Bell family believed the church had worked well with them and would continue to do so as this project moved forward. Ms. Brown said the Bell family was enthusiastic about the project, and supported approval of the SUP.

Paul Cheek, a resident of Cottage Lane since 1946, stated he supported the church’s efforts to tear down the current structure and improve the neighborhood. He said his only objection was the proposed widening of Cottage Lane, noting he could not see an advantage. Mr. Cheek noted they had full access for emergency vehicles and garbage and recycling vehicles, and would prefer that it remain as it is.

Council Member Harrison noted that on page 4 of the staff report, several alternatives to improve Cottage Lane were noted. He asked Mr. Cheek if any of those alternatives appealed to him. Mr. Cheek replied those alternatives still did not answer the question of “why” make improvements at all. He said he could find no reason why the staff was suggesting that the road be widened.

Lynn Igoe, a resident of Cottage Lane for 40 years and the owner of two houses there, said she was fully in support of the church’s proposal, adding that anything would be better than what was there now. She said she was also fully against any widening of Cottage Lane, noting she did not see any reason for it. Ms. Igoe said the street went nowhere, it was one block long, would only be used on Sunday by church goers, and widening would have an adverse effect on the neighbors So why do it, she asked.

Council Member Harrison stated that the Council would have to adopt something, and asked Ms. Igoe, and he had Mr. Cheek, which alternative would she prefer. Ms. Igoe said she would prefer the most modest of the alternatives. Council Member Harrison suggested that she, Mr. Cheek, and other residents meet with Mr. Jewell and write an alternative that the Council could consider.

Jennifer Gierish, a resident of Cottage Lane for 14 years, said that Cottage Lane was a very small and close neighborhood, which she believed was rare and “incredibly special.” She said part of the special feeling was the aesthetics of the neighborhood, which included the small lane they lived on. Ms. Gierish said the width of the lane was adequate for all users, including city vehicles, and she saw no advantage to widening the street.

Ms. Gierish said she believed that Resolution C was the closest to what the neighborhood wanted, noting it was the most modest proposal. She asked to Council to consider that.

Mr. Jewell said the survey showed that the road was 15 to 17 feet wide by the church property and was about 13 feet at the end by Mr. Cheek’s property. He invited a member of the Town staff to meet him at the property and measure exactly the width of the road in different locations. Mr. Jewell said he believed after that, their joint recommendation with the neighbors would be to not make it any wider than it is right now.

Mayor Foy asked the Manager if it would be his recommendation to have staff, the neighbors and church representatives work on this. Mr. Horton said they would gather additional information and would be pleased to work with Mr. Jewell to determine the exact facts. He said they did have safety concerns and would like to have an opportunity to have the Fire Chief and the Engineering Director to consider the issues raised by the neighbors, examine the site, and safety concerns of the Town. Mr. Horton noted their principal safety concern is two vehicles meeting each other, as well as getting a fire truck into the area. He said they would bring a report back at the next Council meeting.

Council Member Ward asked at what point the floor area ratio conflict came into play, and was there some point where more right-of-way could be absorbed. He asked that this be addressed when the item comes back.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO MAY 9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 4 – Public Hearing: Issues Regarding Duplexes and Accessory Apartments

Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper noted there was a four-part item before the Council tonight. The first two items, she noted, regarded changes to duplex provisions and the last two were reports that pertained to possible changes in minimum lot sizes and possible changes to accessory apartment provisions. Ms. Culpepper said that Items A and B were initiatives of the Community Design Commission (CDC), noting those items reflected the ideas the CDC had to improve the duplex provisions.

4a. Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments – Changes in Duplex Provisions

Ms. Culpepper said the first hearing related to LUMO provisions, stating that the CDC was recommending that language be added to specific regulations. Ms. Culpepper called the Council’s attention to Attachment 1, which detailed the recommended changes by the CDC.

Ms. Culpepper said the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was adoption of Ordinance A, as recommended by the CDC.

4b. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Design Guidelines – Changes in Duplex Provisions

Ms. Culpepper said that the second hearing had to do with Comprehensive Plan Design Guidelines as they related to the appearance of duplex development. She said the CDC was recommending modification of those guidelines, as noted on page 2 of the staff report. Ms. Culpepper said the CDC was suggesting that changes be made to place more emphasis on fitting the design into existing neighborhoods, as well as lighting and landscaping. She said the CDC was also recommending eliminating the guidelines that duplexes resemble single-family houses, and eliminate references to front-yard parking since an ordinance was already in place.

Ms. Culpepper said the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was adoption of the resolution as recommended by the CDC to include the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan.

4c. Report on Possible Changes in Minimum Lot Sizes for Two-Family Land Uses

Ms. Culpepper said the report was on possible changes that would reduce minimum lot sizes for duplexes, noting that this was a Planning Board initiative. She said the Council had asked staff to study the impact of such a change. Ms. Culpepper said they were not able to conduct a Town-wide study, but did study one neighborhood, noting they had chosen Colony Wood because it was an older neighborhood and one that might be subject to conversion to duplexes.

Ms. Culpepper said the area they studied had 119 lots in the Residential-2 zoning district. She said with the current minimum lot sizes for duplexes, 16 of these 119 lots would meet the minimum land area requirements for duplexes. Ms. Culpepper said if the minimum land area requirements for duplexes were reduced to 15,000 square feet as recommended by the Planning Board, the number of lots that would be eligible for conversion to duplexes would jump from 16 to 74 of the 119 lots, or 62 percent of the lots in that study area.

Ms. Culpepper said they were not recommending pursuing this reduced land area proposal. She said now that they have the benefit of the study, they were proposing that this report be referred to the Planning Board for further consideration. Ms. Culpepper noted that was Resolution-1 in the Council’s materials.

4d. Report on Possible Changes to Accessory Apartment Provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance

Ms. Culpepper noted the last item was a report on possible changes to the Accessory Apartment provisions of LUMO. She noted this report was a result of discussions by the CDC regarding duplexes and accessory apartments following a workshop they conducted last summer. Ms. Culpepper said specifically the CDC was suggesting that accessory apartments which were allowed in most single-family homes in most zoning districts be limited to 500 square feet in floor area, reduced from the current 750 square feet. She said the CDC also suggested that the residents of accessory apartments be limited to no more than two unrelated occupants, noting the current regulations would allow up to four unrelated occupants.

Ms. Culpepper noted that items 4c. and 4d. were not part of the public hearing, but as they had considered these items they had become increasingly persuaded that the second item as recommended by the CDC would be reasonable to reconsider, specifically reducing occupancy limits in accessory apartments to two unrelated persons. Ms. Culpepper noted the concerns regarding occupancy translate to vehicles, traffic, and parking.

Ms. Culpepper said they were recommending that the Council adopt Resolution-2 which would call a public hearing for September 19, 2005, to consider changes to accessory apartment occupancy limits.

George Cianciolo, speaking for the CDC, provided a brief description of the modifications to regulations as proposed by the CDC, and called the Council’s attention to the staff report for more detail. Mr. Cianciolo said it appeared from the information gathered by the Planning Department that there was a correlation between the duplexes that experienced the most parking problems and the ones that were poorly designed and the most obnoxious in terms of how they were presented to the neighbors. He noted that the CDC believed that if you allowed an excess of parking, then a developer saw it as an opportunity to build a rooming house.

Mr. Cianciolo said that during the duplex moratorium there were a number of homes built which developers were not anxious to convert into duplexes by virtue of accessory apartments. He said what the CDC was trying to accomplish with the proposed amendments was to make those as attractive as possible particularly to the neighbors. Mr. Cianciolo said that had led to the suggestion that the size of the accessory apartment be limited, as well as the number of unrelated persons who reside there, which would in turn address the parking issue.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how if he believed it was now epidemic. He asked were there homes with eight unrelated persons living in them with 16 cars parked in front of them. Mr. Cianciolo said there were a number of duplexes with eight parked cars, but he could not say how many persons were living there or whether or not they were related.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how many of these situations involved students. He said it was his belief that when students left the campus, it was not to live in a crowded environment but to have their own room. Mr. Cianciolo said he thought that may be true, but it was also true that when you have a two-bedroom apartment, it was possible that four unrelated persons would reside there.

Lynne Kane noted she had no personal interest in duplexes, either through ownership or rental. She said she was concerned about the previous discussions about garages not facing the street. Ms. Kane related an incident where she was alone and followed by a car to her home. She said that had her garage not faced the street, she believed she would have been in trouble.

Ms. Kane said that appearance was not everything, and having a garage that you could drive into directly from the street was important to many people. She asked that the Council allow front-facing garages in duplexes.

Martin Feinstein, a resident of Coolidge Street, complimented the CDC on its handling of the aesthetic issues, but there was one he wanted to comment on. He said the CDC had made a recommendation that as few cars as possible be parked on the street in front of duplexes, but he suggested that the language be quantified. Mr. Feinstein said the Council had recently instituted a regulation on Coolidge Street that vehicles could not occupy more than 40 percent of the space in front of a home, and believed that a similar regulation should be considered for duplexes.

Mr. Feinstein noted there was a difference between a duplex in a planned development, and duplexes that spring up in established neighborhoods due to renovations. He said in the case where a duplex was being built in a single-family neighborhood, there ought to be strict regulations regarding cars parking in front of the duplex.

Mr. Feinstein said that there were two categories of duplexes discussed, those that are built as part of a planned development, and those that spring up in residential neighborhoods. He suggested that there was a third category, which was when several lots were used to build multiple duplexes. Mr. Feinstein said that was what had happened on Coolidge Street, noting there were three lots at the end of the street and six duplexes had been built on them, forming what he termed as an apartment complex. He said that should be prohibited or at least regulated, especially when lots are in close proximity.

Council Member Harrison said we were trying to come up with physical solutions to problems with lot size, parking, and number of occupants. He said it was hard to be objective since he lived in a neighborhood where what was basically a rooming house had been placed upon them. Council Member Harrison stated that he went home to a neighborhood of small houses and small lots, and the house next to him had 10 people living in it with four or more cars, multiple roll-out cans, with cars parked on the street, next to the fire hydrant, or in the yard. He said he could not find a Town ordinance to prevent that sort of over-occupancy from happening.

Council Member Harrison said he would hope that the Town would find some way to prevent this from happening. He said such a situation should not be taken lightly, noting these were not students who had moved off campus to get their own rooms. Council Member Harrison said in this case, it was 10 people, but no more than four unrelated, living in a three-bedroom home in an established single-family neighborhood. He said he was glad the Council had a few months to think about this issue and hoped they would be creative in responding to this issue.

Council Member Kleinschmidt commented that this was not about students, that it was an occupancy issue. He said if the issue was cars in the front yard, then we limit the number of cars, and if people were parking by fire hydrants, then the ordinance regulating that needed to come into play. Council Member Kleinschmidt said it demonstrated a lack of creativity and understanding of some of the issues that pushed people into living in homes that were not designed to accommodate them. He said he imagined the issue of recent immigrants intersecting this issue and we needed to consider the realities of that growing community. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that would be the new challenge to the occupancy issue.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said it if we could not solve all of the problems through regulating parking and the number of bedrooms, then they would have to start thinking more creatively. He said he believed it demonstrated a failure to come up with solutions that really solved the problems that caused these situations to exist.

Council Member Ward said he had similar concerns in attempting to address the problems by limiting the number of unrelated persons. He said he believed that was unenforceable, and we needed to come up with strategies that were enforceable and that did not interfere with people’s personal lives. Council Member Ward said most of the problems were with the visual pollution of many cars and how they degrade the area around the home if they were clogging streets or parked in front yards. He said then the solution would be to have and enforce appropriate intensity of vehicle regulations associated with duplexes and accessory apartments, and not with whether people were related or unrelated.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she remembered when a BP Station applied for a permit to include a “mini-mart” on its property, and that there was a regulation that applied to how much distance was required between gas stations. She said such a regulation could be considered when duplexes are added to established residential neighborhoods. She said such a stipulation would have addressed the problem Mr. Feinstein had noted of having six duplexes built side by side on three lots. Mayor pro tem Wiggins suggested an ordinance could regulate how many duplexes could be located within a block or within so many feet of each other.

Ms. Culpepper said Mayor pro tem Wiggins was remembering a regulation that restricted the distance that a driveway for a gas station must be from an intersection, rather than the distance between gas stations. She said that regulation would make it difficult to have a gas station on a corner, since the regulation required a distance of 350 feet from the intersection for a driveway.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that spacing as a concept could still apply to address these issues. Mr. Horton responded they would explore that concept, noting there were other types of uses that in some cases had distance or spacing requirements, for instance adult businesses.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1 TO REFER THE ITEM TO THE PLANNING BOARD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION REFERRING REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD (2005-04-18/R-1)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby refers the Report on Possible Changes to Minimum Lot Sizes for Two-Family Land Uses, dated April 18, 2005, to the Planning Board for further consideration.

This the 18^th day of April, 2005.

Council Member Strom noted that the Planning Board had not supported the CDC’s recommended changes to the accessory apartment provisions in LUMO. He said he would like to hear a synopsis of the Planning Board’s discussion before the Council voted on R-2.

Ms. Culpepper commented that the Planning Board had not supported the recommendations regarding the reduced floor area, nor had they supported a reduction in the maximum number of unrelated occupants. She said the Board had felt comfortable with the current regulations, and did not feel a public hearing was necessary to look into the issue.

Council Member Strom said if we proceeded with making the recommended changes, would we be supporting a non-conforming use of accessory apartments larger than 500 square feet. Ms. Culpepper said the resolution before the Council that was recommended for adoption by the Council did not relate to that square footage issue, but was focused on the occupancy issue. She said if the Council did choose to call a public hearing regarding the square footage of accessory apartments, she was not sure how those apartments would be located and determined to be non-conforming, although they believed it would be many.

Mayor Foy said the CDC recommended reducing the floor area of accessory apartments from 750 square feet to 500 square feet, but the staff did not recommend it. He said the Planning Board did not recommend reducing the occupancy from four to two unrelated persons, and he was not sure the Council even wanted to discuss that.

Council Member Strom said he would feel more comfortable holding off on calling a hearing until we hear some more innovative ideas and responses to the remarks made by Council members. He said we may be better served by keeping the issues together and coming up with a better approach.

REGARDING ITEMS 4A AND 4B, MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO MAY 9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 5 – Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Designate

Potential School Sites on Chapel Hill Land Use Plan

Planning Director Roger Waldon stated that the item to be considered was a technical amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said that currently the Town had six potential school sites designated on the Land Use Plan, and that designation carried with it some regulatory provisions that allowed a delay or deferral of consideration of applications related to those properties while the School Board had an opportunity to discuss whether or not it wanted to acquire the properties.

Mr. Waldon said the law enabling that provision changed during the last legislative session to extend the time that would be permitted for that deferral from 12 to 18 months. He said in January, the Council had amended the ordinance to make it conform to the new law. The next step, Mr. Waldon said, was to go back and re-designate those six sites on the Land Use Plan in the context of the new regulatory language.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO MAY 9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.