SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005 AT 7:20 P.M.

 

 

Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.

 

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

 

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

 

Item 1 – Public Hearing:  Orange County Senior Center Application

for a Special Use Permit Modification

 

Ms. Culpepper stated that this was a request for approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) Modification from Orange County for a new 25,000 square foot Senior Center with 103 parking spaces to be constructed at the location of the Orange County Southern Human Services Center at 2501 Homestead road.  She noted that it was a 34.5-acre site located on the south side of Homestead Road between Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and the railroad tracks.  Ms. Culpepper displayed a site map and an aerial map and indicated the location of the project.

 

Ms. Culpepper said they were recommending approval of the SUP Modification with adoption of Resolution A.  She noted that the applicant had not yet arrived.

 

Mayor Foy suggested holding further discussion of this item until later in the meeting. Mr. Horton noted that the applicant for the second hearing had not arrived as yet.  Mayor Foy suggested moving to Agenda Item #3 and delaying Items 1 and 2. The Council agreed by consensus.

 

Mr. Horton noted that he believed the staff had made an error by estimating that this portion of the tonight’s meetings would not begin until 8 p.m., and apologized for the error.

 

Mayor Foy asked if any of the applicants were present for any of the hearings.  Ms. Culpepper noted that the applicant for Chapel Hill North, Item #5, was present and ready to proceed.

 

NOTE: From this point forward, the Council considered the hearing items out of order, therefore are noted here in the order in which they were discussed.

 

Item 5 – Concept Plan:  Chapel Hill North

 

Mr. Poveromo reminded the Council that this was a quasi-judicial process because there was an active Master Land Use Plan Modification (MLUP) application as well as active Special Use Permit Modification application on file with the Town.

 

Mr. Poveromo said the Council had seen this Concept Plan in 2003, then in June of 2004 the applicant submitted the MLUP Modification application and the Special Use Permit Modification application.  He said earlier this year, the applicant came back with proposed changes, resulting in this Concept Plan review.

 

Mr. Poveromo stated that the plan proposed 120 multi-family dwelling units and 215 parking spaces on 12.7-acres located in Orange County.  He said it was east of the existing Chapel Hill North shopping center, and displayed a map to indicate the exact location.  Mr. Poveromo said Chapel Hill North was approved in the late 1980s as a mixed use development, and as such carried requirements for certain mixed-use ratios, mainly that 60 percent of the site can be developed for retail, and 40 percent can be developed for office use.  Mr. Poveromo said the applicant was proposing to modify that mix and to build a residential component.

 

Dan Young with John R. McAdams Company and representing the applicant, stated that the development area of 12.7 acres was bounded by I-40 on the north, Perkins Drive to the southwest, University Station Road to the southeast, and to the west was the Chapel Hill North development.  He displayed a vicinity map and pointed out where the development was planned.

 

Mr. Young said the proposed use was for a residential development including 123 townhomes and flats with garages, a pool and clubhouse, and other recreational facilities.  He noted there was a mix of uses in the general area, and described those to the Council.  Mr. Young said the original Chapel Hill North was approved in 1989 with a office space at 374,200 square feet, retail at 259,200 square feet, for a total potential development of about 633,400 square feet.  He said at present there were about 115,000 square feet of retail and about 80,000 square feet of office space developed on that site.

 

Mr. Young exhibited a slide of the MLUP and gave a brief description of it.  He noted that the current proposal would add a residential component to Chapel Hill North but would not increase the approved floor area, noting that Phase II of the development would add approximately 243,00 square feet of residential uses.  Mr. Young briefly mentioned the feedback provided by the Community Design Commission (CDC) in October of 2003, and how the developer had responded to that.

 

Mr. Young displayed a slide of the original concept plan and briefly described it He then described the changes to the original plan:

 

•              main access realigned to provide greater visual and physical connections to the existing development;

•              shifted location of main vehicular and pedestrian entrance to the residential component;

•              increased the amount of pedestrian connections;

•              clubhouse relocated to face the main entrance and existing commercial;

•              building facades redesigned to create a formal street edge and greater compatibility;

•              a second vehicular entrance added at Old University Station Road; and

•              the total number of residential units was reduced from 190 to 123.

 

Mr. Young displayed a slide of the revised concept plan and described it briefly. He noted there had been a question in the first presentation as to why the two stormwater retention ponds on the Chapel Hill North side could not be combined.  Mr. Young explained that the topography of the site would not allow for that, noting one sits substantially higher that the other and the existing pond outflow structure could not handle the flow of water from both sites.

 

Mr. Young described the layout of the physical site, pointing out the entranceways and its relation to the retail portion, vehicular circulation and pedestrian connections to the retail and office areas.  He displayed an aerial perspective of how the site would appear, noting the clubhouse and the connecting walkways.

 

Mr. Young said they had been in discussions with staff about how to best amend the plans and get the proper procedures in place so it could more forward.  He said that staff had determined that the Phase I SUP for Chapel Hill North would have to be amended to allow for the proposed development, and that request as well as the MLUP application would have to be signed by 100 percent of the Chapel Hill North property owners.

 

Alternatively, Mr. Young said, the Council could partially revoke the Phase I SUP and the MLUP, removing them from the subject site.  He noted that partial revocation of the MLUP would cause the site zoning to revert from Mixed Use/Office-Institutional-1 (MU/OI-1) to OI-1, which would necessitate the Council granting a modification to the floor area ratio of that district in order to allow the proposed use, from a .264 floor area ratio to a .439 floor area ratio.

 

Mr. Young provided a summary of the uses on the property, what had been approved with Chapel Hill North, and what was currently developed.  He noted that their proposal would add an additional 243,000 square feet.

 

Mayor Foy said if there was 633,400 square feet of approved space, then if the additional 243,000 square feet were to be approved would it affect that total. Mr. Young said their understanding was that if the 243,000 square feet was approved, that would reduce that 633,400 square feet of approved space by that amount.  He explained that 195,000 square feet of development currently existed on the site, so if the 243,000 square feet were approved, it would leave 195,400 square feet of area that could be developed in the future.  Mayor Foy asked if that total would come from the retail or office.  Mr. Young said he did not know that answer at this point.

 

Mr. Poveromo noted that determination had not as yet been made.  He said the 633,400 square feet was originally approved as a Master Plan with a mixed use development.  Mr. Poveromo said if we were looking at a revocation of a Master Plan for a mixed use development that required a minimum of 20 acres, it may lose the advantage that it receives when it comes in as a mixed use development.

 

Mayor Foy said he thought that if that planned was followed it would only affect this portion of the Master Plan, not the whole portion.  Mr. Poveromo said the Master Plan involved 40 acres and it was anticipated that this 12.7-acre parcel that was being looked at now would be used for office space, and the portion of the 633,000 square feet that has not yet been developed is a part of this site. He said if we were going to do a revocation of the MLUP and the SUP he did not believe that the remaining square footage that was anticipated on this property would transfer to the developed Chapel Hill North property.  Mr. Poveromo noted that they had not made an evaluation of that at this point.

 

Mayor Foy said then there would still be a MLUP and an SUP for the other 20 acres. Mr. Poveromo said that was correct.

 

Council Member Strom asked if the townhomes were ownership units.  Mr. Young replied he did not believe that had been determined, although he believed that rentals had been considered.  Council Member Strom asked if they had discussed the Town’s affordable housing requirements.  Mr. Young stated that the developer was in the midst of discussions with the Town on the potential opportunities to address that, whether it was through the provision of units or through a payment-in-lieu.

 

Council Member Strom said that he believed there would be a strong preference by the Council to have a provision of units.  Mr. Young responded, “noted.”

 

Council Member Verkerk said she understood that the first Concept Plan called for 190 units and now we were down to 123.  She asked if there was a reason not to go for the maximum density.  Mr. Young said he believed it was to accommodate a layout that satisfied the initial feedback from the Council and the CDC. Council Member Verkerk asked had they considered how transit service would work internally and externally with this site.  Mr. Young said the assumption was that whatever worked within the retail would work for the residential area and would share accessibility to the transit service.

 

Council Member Harrison stated that with the Council’s materials there was a letter from David Raven with Crosland that stated that they would request a partial revocation of the SUP.  He commented that these floor area ratio numbers would have to be laid out quite clearly with the revocation of the SUP to get any kind of a rational consideration from the Council.  Mr. Young said if the Council appeared to favor this action, then they would then work closely with the staff to resolve exactly how those details would work themselves out so that when this came back before the Council the presentation would be more detailed and precise.

 

Council Member Harrison pointed out to the Council that there was concern on the CDC that there was an undeveloped parcel of land at the corner of University Station Road, and if this project came in at this floor area ratio it would be putting quite a lot of traffic at that intersection.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked had there been any retail built in that area since the Concept Plan came in.  Mr. Young said he did not believe so.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said the numbers relating to what was already there appeared different that the last time this came to the Council.  He said the old Concept Plan had 110,000 square feet of existing retail, and this plan showed 115,000.  Mr. Poveromo said the numbers had not changed since the last Concept Plan, noting the numbers could sometimes be confusing.

 

Mayor Foy asked for an explanation of the potential disadvantages for the Town of proceeding on this course of revoking the MLUP and the SUP.  Mr. Poveromo said the disadvantage would be losing face with the mixed use development at Chapel Hill North, meaning that it would appear that the mixed use did not work.  He said that development was the Town’s first attempt to have a mixed use development that had retail and office rather than just a standard shopping center.

 

Mr. Poveromo said another disadvantage would be losing the opportunity to do a retrofit to that shopping center where you may consider incorporating a residential development into it.  He said he would anticipate that the revocation would freeze that development as is, and you would lose that opportunity to look at it as a mixed use development and try to improve on that concept.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said there was a sign in the lot near the grocery store that said something like “development opportunity” which invited people to consider new development opportunities.  He said would that mean that would never happen?  Mr. Poveromo said he did not know, adding he would have to crunch the numbers to figure out the floor area.  He said that development was approved to consist of 60 percent office, 40 percent retail, but the numbers were actually reversed in that we have 60 percent retail and 40 percent office.  Mr. Poveromo said what was anticipated was that the additional office development would occur in the vacant parcels.  He added there may be a small amount of retail space available, but did not know for sure.

 

Council Member Ward said he believed they had attempted to respond to earlier comments regarding sidewalks and pedestrian connectivity with the existing commercial, but the drawings did not allow him to see them in detail.  He said he wanted to make sure that the applicant knew that continued to be important to him, and encouraged them to complete the sidewalk system as it moved across the street system.

 

Council Member Ward said an enrichment of the sidewalk system as it interacted with the existing commercial, it did not appear from the drawings how pedestrians would be encouraged to get to the retail, whether near the entrance or behind the buildings.  He said those were important things that would make this a mixed use system, if the pedestrian access was of a high quality.  Council Member Ward said otherwise, it was just two developments side by side with no integration.  He said maybe that would be a way to salvage the mixed use, by having a high quality pedestrian and bicycle access to the existing commercial.  Mr. Young responded they understood that concern had been raised and they would address it accordingly in future revisions.  Council Member Ward asked them to address a sidewalk along Perkins to the extent that it was rational, as well as along University Station Road.

 

Council Member Ward asked if they had received any feedback on the site distance for that entrance on the curve.  Mr. Young said not as yet.  Council Member Ward said that was a concern for him, that it was a downhill curve and he would be worried that it would not adequately protect the people coming in and out of that intersection.

 

Mayor Foy asked if the parking was underground or was it just the first story of those buildings.  Mr. Young replied predominately the first story with some additional surface parking, but no underground parking per se.

 

Mayor Foy said if all of the buildings were elevated, what would be the appearance from the street and would you be able to see the cars.  Mr. Young responded the cars would be screened to a certain degree with plantings and hardscape features such as walls.  He said you would be able to see some of the parking, but not necessarily a parking garage or parking lot.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if it would look similar to the development on Main Street in Carrboro.  Mr. Young said he was not familiar with that building.  He said their intent was this would be a higher-end residential development and they would do what was necessary to properly screen it and improve the aesthetics, particularly considering the entranceways, the connectivity and the visibility, in that they had worked to open it up to the adjacent retail.

 

Council Kleinschmidt said as a concept, don’t do what had been done in Carrboro.  Mr. Young replied, “noted.”

 

Council Member Greene said Mr. Young had referred to the residences as “high end” and that sounded as if he was not sure if they would be rental or ownership.  Mr. Young responded said that was correct.  Council Member Greene asked if he could put some numbers on what high end meant.  Mr. Young replied he was speaking in terms of the appearance of the buildings, not the unit cost.  He said we had added some architectural features and changes the roof lines to enhance the appearance.  Council Member Greene seconded the concern expressed earlier that an affordable housing component be included within the development.

 

Council Member Ward asked if the ownership would be the same as the ownership for the commercial.  Mr. Young replied no, that it was separate ownership.  Council Member Ward said he wondered if the retail could respond to the residential being so close once it was built, and turn the retail to look at the residential on that one end.  He said if that were possible, perhaps this development could respond to an active retail face towards it rather than what existed now.  Mr. Young said he could not speak for the retail owners, and he did not know if they had that flexibility.  He said in terms of the residential development, because it was set back from the property line, there was the potential to open up some of the clearings and encourage pedestrian access across them.

 

THE COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION R-2 BY CONSENSUS.

 

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE CHAPEL HILL NORTH – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (2005-06-20/R-2)

 

WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Chapel Hill North – Residential Development; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for the applicant, and citizens; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on June 20, 2005, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.

 

This the 20th day of June, 2005.

 

Item 1 – Public Hearing:  Orange County Senior Center Application

for a Special Use Permit Modification

 

Ms. Culpepper provided a brief reintroduction, noting the information that had been provided to the Council earlier this evening when this item was first considered.

 

Richard Gurlitz, with Gurlitz Architectural Group and the architect for this project, noted the Council had seen this proposal once before in the Concept Plan stage and had given the project expedited review, which had help “tremendously.”  He noted the Senior Centers programs had far exceeded its current space, and their task was to get the project permitted, bid, and built by June of next year. Mr. Gurlitz said so far they were on schedule for that to happen.

 

Mr. Gurlitz displayed slides of the site, pointing out the location of the proposed Senior Center.  He said that parking would be behind the building, which formed a U-shape with an interior courtyard that faced Homestead Road.  Mr. Gurlitz said noted the bus turnaround area, noting they had created a turnoff so that buses could easily service the building.  He noted that the right turn out depicted in the Concept Plan was no longer present.

 

Mr. Gurlitz described what the building would contain and how it would provide the necessary services to senior citizens, noting classrooms, arts and crafts areas, meeting space, and a theater.  He said that the building would have glass facing the north side, noting they had worked hard to get daylighting into the building.  Mr. Gurlitz displayed artists’ drawings of the building and its landscaping.

 

Mr. Gurlitz said that one key issue had been identified by the staff, and that was the Homestead Road crosswalk.  He said that was the only issue identified by Orange County as an issue they wanted to discuss this evening.

 

Rev. Robert Seymour thanked the Council for its strong support of the Senior Center.  He noted we now had over 10,000 senior citizens in the County, and would have double that number in another10 years.  Rev. Seymour said they were in great need of the new facility, and hoped that the Council would not find any roadblocks to allowing the project to move ahead.

 

Rev. Seymour said that the County’s budget was very tight, and if the Council insisted that a cross walk be provided on Homestead Road, then they may be forced to give up a kitchen in the Senior Center in order to pay for it.  He said if they build a crosswalk they would have to deal with the NCDOT, and that means jumping through hoops for months to get a clearance.  Rev. Seymour asked the Council not to make a decision tonight that would delay the groundbreaking scheduled for mid-September.  He said if they are delayed, it would be tragic.

 

Dianne VandenBroek, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, said when they had looked at the plans for the new Senior Center, their strongest recommendation was for a crosswalk on Homestead Road.  She said that Homestead Road was very dangerous to cross at that point because cars were traveling up hill from Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and a pedestrian could not see them. Ms. VandenBroek said the Commission had not included it as a recommended stipulation because it would delay the project and they did not want to do that.  But, she added, they wanted that crosswalk to remain a high priority.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if what Ms. VandenBroek had said was correct, that the Parks and Recreation Commission did not include the crosswalk as a stipulation, which made their recommendation more in line with the Transportation Boards.  Mr. Culpepper said the report that went to the Parks and Recreation Commission called for the Town and the NCDOT to approve a crosswalk going to the park prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit. She said there was a lot of concern about being able to get NCDOT approval in that quick fashion.  Ms. Culpepper said the recommendation before the Council this evening was slightly modified, in that it called for approval of the construction prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

 

Mr. Horton commented it was possible that they could further modify it so that it would clearly say “if approved by NCDOT” in order that we did not establish an impossible condition for them to meet.

 

Willis Brooks, speaking as a representative of Project Homestart as well as for other senior citizens, said he was formerly a marathon runner but could not now outrun traffic coming from Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard up Homestead Road.  He said in order to walk in the park at some point you had to cross the road, and there was not a reasonable crossing place anywhere proximate to the proposed Senior Center.

 

Mr. Brooks noted he taught classes at the Southern Human Services Center in the evenings, and the fact that the sidewalk ended at the entrance to the Center left people going to the shelter in the life threatening situation of no sidewalk and no lighting for the remaining 150 yards or so.  He said he did not believe we wanted to put anyone in danger, and urged the Council to approve Option A along with the extension of a sidewalk.

 

Mayor Foy asked if Resolution A required a sidewalk.  Ms. Culpepper noted that Resolution A contained a stipulation requiring the completion of the Homestead Road sidewalk, the portion from the entry drive over to the shelter.  She noted that was stipulation 4, which called for a sidewalk along the entire Homestead Road frontage.

 

Mayor Foy noted that the Transportation Board’s recommendation was a sidewalk link from the Brookstone frontage.  Ms. Culpepper responded that was correct.  Mr. Horton commented that they did not believe that there was a rational nexus that would require that.

 

Council Member Harrison commented that he had sat through the Transportation Board’s discussion, and they did not support the crosswalk as part of the SUP because he believed they saw the difficulty in getting it down quickly with NCDOT and that the crosswalk was some distance down from this project.  He said that did not mean the Transportation Board did not want a crosswalk there, but that they did not believe it should be tied to this SUP, but should be with the Certificate of Occupancy as the Manager had recommended.

 

Council Member Harrison said he did want to mention the third recommendation from the Transportation Board which again was not linked to the SUP.  He stated the recommendation was as follows: “That the Council form a committee made up of property owners along Homestead Road, between Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and High School Road to review the issue of transit service along the Homestead Road corridor.”  Council Member Harrison said they did not believe several years ago that this site was a great place to put an institutional facility, but now that it was there then transit needed to be worked on.  He said the Manager recommended that this be sent back to the Transportation Board, and this issue would most likely be back before the Council at some point.

 

Council Member Harrison said this was yet another element that could go into the Master Transportation Plan because this was an important State road.  He said because of projects such as Project Homestead that road was getting more and more demands placed on it.

 

Council Member Strom asked the Manager to repeat the language that he had suggested to eliminate the requirement for the Homestead Road crosswalk.  Mr. Horton responded that they could modify the language so that it was made clear that there would not be delay in case the NCDOT did not approve the site for a crosswalk.  So, he said, it would be subject to NCDOT approval but would not delay the project.  Mr. Horton said they would bring specific language back to the Council for consideration.

 

Council Member Strom said he was in favor of proceeding that way, and he did not want to slow the project down at this point.  But, he added, the crosswalk would be a real benefit as well.  Mr. Horton commented that they believe the crosswalk was well justified, noting that a study done by the County was a key part of their justification for it.  He noted they did intend to bring this issue back before the Council on June 27th.

 

Council Member Ward said he did not want to slow the process, but it seemed that the crosswalk was a critical need for the users of the Senior Center to have access to the park.  He said that while we could craft some language in way that would not delay the project, he hoped that the Senior Center and the County could work together to get that facility.

 

Council Member Ward said there were two areas where he wanted some change or greater clarity.  One, he said, was the stormwater pond and the impact it would have on some of the mature trees by the entrance drive, and secondly, what thought had already gone into moving it further downhill or moving it closer to the entrance drive to move the footprint of the stormwater pond away from those existing trees.

 

Mr. Gurlitz pointed out the location of the pond on the site map, noting it had gotten a little larger from when it was introduced in the Concept Plan stage.  He said the pond was “shoehorned” out of the Resource Conservation District (RCD), and pointed the RCD area out on the map.  Mr. Gurlitz said he did not believe they could make the pond any smaller, adding that they were dedicating a large sum of money to the stormwater management at this site.  He stated that this facility was designed to handle stormwater from the entire 25 acres.

 

Council Member Ward said going by the materials provided to the Council, the stormwater pond just missed the trunks of several trees and effectively would kill them anyway.  So, he said, kill them outright or move it so at least some of the trees could be saved, or, move it significantly in a direction that could protect those trees.  Council Member Ward said now they were “straddling” the fence and not accomplishing the tree protection they might want to do.  He asked them to take another look at the footprint and try to resolve this.

 

Council Member Ward said at the southwest corner of the upper level of parking there was a large 36 inch oak on the corner, and he encouraged them to reduce some parking spaces and try to save the tree rather than marginalizing it.  He asked what the parking demands would be, noting there was a statement in the Council’s materials that said you could not reduce the parking any further. Mr. Gurlitz said the parking was determined by studying other senior centers and by looking at the Town’s parking guidelines for public buildings.  He said it was an across-the-board guideline and did not recognize the differences between facilities, such as between a health club and a senior center and the populations they were serving.  Mr. Gurlitz said their information indicated that many of the users would drive, noting that public transportation would not be used as much as the Council might like due to the idiosyncrasies of the population it was serving.

 

Council Member Verkerk asked if seven bicycle parking spaces were included.  Mr. Gurlitz said in one place it said seven but in another it said 10, so he was not sure at this point.  Council Member Verkerk commented that the two populations that were most at risk for driving were teenagers and senior citizens.  She said for that reason she was concerned that we could not facilitate more use of public transit for the Senior Center, because they were a population that could benefit from it.  Mr. Gurlitz commented that the Transportation Management Plan would address that issue.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Gurlitz to talk about the second drive, the right out only, that was taken out of the plan.  She asked how it had been removed.  Mr. Gurlitz responded that initially the thought was that when there were events at this facility that it would be a good idea to let people turn right out of the drive so there would not be a backup of traffic.  He said they believed having two ways to exit the site would be helpful.  Mr. Gurlitz said when the engineers had looked at the plan, they had remarked that having two driveways that close together was not standard practice and not preferable, so they had removed the right turn driveway from the plans.  He added that the idea for the right turn only drive had grown out of suggestions from various advisory boards.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if any thought had been put into using that second drive as an exit for service vehicles only?  Mr. Gurlitz responded that he did not believe that had been discussed by the advisory boards, but the drive could be signed that way.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said having that drive reserved for service vehicles appealed to her because it would mean those vehicles would not have to come up through the property, go around the back, and then go back out the same way.  She asked Mr. Gurlitz if that was a possibility, emphasizing that it would be for service vehicles only.  Mr. Gurlitz replied that the Manager’s recommendation was to delete that drive.  Mr. Horton said they could take it into consideration, but would like an opportunity for the Engineering staff to comment on it.

 

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Gurlitz to respond to the Manager’s suggestion about developing some language regarding the crosswalk.  Mr. Gurlitz replied there were a couple of issues regarding the crosswalk that they would like to have on the record. One, he said, was that there was a specific cost to the project and dollars spent elsewhere do not get spent on the project itself, as suggested by Rev. Seymour.  He noted that the cost of the crosswalk was estimated to be between $60,000 and $100,000, which they did not have.  Mr. Gurlitz noted if the crosswalk was included at their expense, then something would not be included in the project, such as aerobic equipment or kitchen appliances.

 

Mr. Gurlitz explained that what was being suggested was a crosswalk that would have a refuse area in the center requiring the widening of the additional two lanes, which would mean removing and replacing the existing sidewalk on one side and redoing the existing storm drainage systems on both sides.  He said it would also include signalizing it by installing a blinker signal light.  Mr. Gurlitz said whether or not that signal would be push button activated or not remained to be decided, but just the minimum cost of the roadway work would be between $50,000 and $60,000, depending on the complexity.  Mr. Gurlitz said that did not seem to be in accordance with the kind of project this was.  He said if we were talking about a 250-unit housing development it would not be a big deal. Mr. Gurlitz said this was a relatively small building, and that expense was a very big deal for that kind of budget.

 

The second issue, Mr. Gurlitz said, was whether the crosswalk was tied to the project, what the timeframe would be, what would be our relationship with NCDOT, and how long it would take.  He said they wanted the Town to define the issue of crosswalk, noting it was planned to be across from Homestead Park which he believed was a good idea.  But in terms of the scheduling and what the impact was, Mr. Gurlitz stated they would need to discuss with the Town what the scope of that crosswalk was, how wide, exact location, and what level of signalization would be required.  Then, he said, they would then need to go through NCDOT’s process which would mostly like take about four to five months.

 

Mayor Foy said it appeared that this issue could not be resolved tonight.  He suggested that the staff and the applicant work to resolve this issue by the June 27th Council meeting, and if it could not be resolved then we would look at other options at that time.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JUNE 27TH.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO FORWARD ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 3 – Public Forum:  Findings and Recommendations of the

Mobility Assessment of the Northside Neighborhood Report

 

Transportation Planner David Bonk said this forum was to hear citizens’ comments and to review the findings and recommendations of the Mobility Assessment of the Northside Neighborhood Report.  He noted that the Mobility Assessment had been funded through a grant from Active Living By Design grant program received by the Town in 2003.

 

Mr. Bonk said the Town had sought the grant for several reasons, particularly that greater physical activity was important to all Chapel Hill citizens, but the data to date suggested that particularly in low income and minority neighborhoods health problems related to lack of physical activity was much higher than in the general populations.  He said that because the Northside neighborhood was the Town’s greatest concentration of minority citizens, the grantor felt it was important that we pursue an assessment of mobility issues in this neighborhood.  Mr. Bonk noted that the report was attached to the Council’s materials as Attachment 1.

 

Mr. Bonk offered a brief summary of the findings of the Mobility Assessment, noting that indeed there were barriers to physical mobility within the neighborhood, and the recommendations were summarized in the materials beginning on page 2 and continuing through pages 3 and 4.  He said they were grouped into three separate categories:

 

•              Repair and construction of sidewalks, both repair of existing sidewalks and construction of new sidewalks to provide safe movement within the neighborhood for the residents.  The recommendation included the construction of crosswalks at specific locations.

 

•              Streetlight improvements, to provide safety and security for pedestrians moving about the neighborhood.

 

•              Public safety improvements, noting that residents had expressed concern about loitering on specific streets, problems with drug dealing in certain areas of the neighborhood, the need for emergency call buttons, and abandoned property.

 

Mr. Bonk said the Town’s advisory boards had reviewed the Report and their comments were included in the Council’s materials.  He said in response to many of the recommendations that had been made in the Report, the Town had already made efforts to respond to those, such as identifying areas that needed lighting or lighting repairs, as well as a staff group that was formed to discuss the public safety issues, including members of the Police Department, Public Works, and others.  Mr. Bonk said they were also suggesting that the streets that had been identified for sidewalk improvements now be added to the overall list of sidewalk improvements that the Town used to make its annual assessment so that they could be rated to see how they fall within the priority listing.

 

Kathy Atwater, a lifelong resident of Lindsey Street, said they had no sidewalks because of the narrow streets.  She stated that the residents took good care of their homes and gardens, and if sidewalks were added it would take away the usefulness and enjoyment of their yards.  Ms. Atwater said she had participated in the Mobility Assessment, and agreed that more lighting was needed on Lindsey Street and Mitchell Lane, as well as the need for better security.

 

Ms. Atwater noted that she and her neighbors had experienced problems with noise coming from the Rosemary Street area, mostly loud “booming” music.  She asked if that could be addressed as well.

 

Velma Perry, a resident of Lindsey Street in the Northside neighborhood for over 70 years, said the neighborhood had existed since the 1800s and they had never had sidewalks.  She said the reason was that they enjoyed their front yards, and sidewalks would take away from those yards.  Ms. Perry said adding sidewalks would bring people too close to their front doors.  She said they should be able to enjoy their homes and have some privacy, and adding sidewalks would encroach on that, adding they were satisfied with the way things currently existed.  She asked the Council to consider first the residents who live there.

 

Delores Bailey noted she was a part of the Mobility Assessment from the beginning.  She said there was a statement on page 5 of the Report that said the neighborhood needed to become more involved.  Ms. Bailey said she wanted to assure the Council that the Northside community was alive and well, and described a neighborhood meeting held last week attended by neighborhood residents, Finance Director Kay Johnson, and Council Member Kleinschmidt to discuss property taxes.  She said that many neighborhood residents were present, and both of these examples highlighted the participation by the residents in neighborhood issues.

 

Ms. Bailey said she agreed with many of the recommendations contained in the report, particularly setting up emergency call buttons, and improved lighting at Mitchell Lane and Lindsey Street which would also benefit from an emergency call button.  She agreed that a crosswalk was needed at the Whitaker/Roberson exits, as well as the improved lighting in that area.

 

Ms. Bailey stated that in the entire Mobility Study, she was concerned about how the statistics for Northside were presented, especially the crime statistics. She said her concern grew from the fact that the positive things about the Northside neighborhood were never mentioned, especially since the Council had taken great pains to make improvements over the last few years.  Ms. Bailey asked them to take that into consideration as they considered the Report.

 

Ms. Bailey said she wanted to add her concern to other speakers and for those not present about adding sidewalks to these narrow streets.  She stated she did not see how sidewalks could be added to Sykes or Whitaker Streets.  Ms. Bailey asked that she be included in any discussions regarding the inclusion of sidewalks in the Northside neighborhood.

 

Tinita Jones, a resident of Lindsey Street, stated that the residents of that street really cared about what happened in their neighborhood.  She stated there simply was not enough room to construct sidewalks on Sykes Whitaker and Lindsey Streets.  Ms. Jones said she believed constructing sidewalks would encourage additional pedestrian traffic, including drug dealers, and would encourage loitering and other unwanted behavior.

 

Ms. Jones agreed with the suggested lighting improvements and the suggestions to improve public safety.  She stated that when considering changes in the Northside neighborhood, it was very important to talk with the residents and property owners to make sure that everyone on each street was in full agreement.  Ms. Jones said if even one person was not in agreement, then the changes should not be done, because they were the homeowners.

 

Mayor Foy said the Mobility Assessment was a work in progress, and they would continue to work on it and take all comments into account.  He stated that he did not believe that the Council would proceed with constructing sidewalks with discussions with the residents.

 

Council Member Ward asked that at some point the staff comment on one of the recommendations which was to cut back vegetation that was growing on and over sidewalks.  He said he believed that was a growing issue in the Town, that is sidewalks being compromised by vegetation in many areas.  Council Member Ward said he wanted a response on how the Town was approaching this maintenance issue.

 

Council Member Harrison echoed Council Member Ward’s remarks, noting he had been walking in Northside recently and encountered a large growth of poison ivy overhanging the sidewalk, noting he had to go into the street to go around it. He said that was a “big time” maintenance issue, and believed it would be justified to have people actually walk the streets to identify sites such as that one.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt wondered how recommendations for sidewalks occurred, given the number of people involved.  He said he could not understand how you could recommend a sidewalk on McDade Street which was exceptionally narrow.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said the people involved knew that, so how did that become a recommendation.  Mr. Bonk said the recommendations in the Report were a combination of comments from residents and the assessment conducted by the staff.  He said at this point he did not know what those specific sidewalk segments were recommended.  Mr. Bonk added that none of those people had enough experience to make a sidewalk assessment based on the width of the street, etc., so their assessment tended to be more objective.  He said now our responsibility was to view the recommendations with some subjectivity and determine whether in fact they were feasible.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER THE REPORT AND COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 2 – Public Hearing:  Performance Auto Application for a

Special Use Permit Modification

 

Senior Planner Phil Mason noted that Performance Auto was a 14.25-acre site located at 1810 North Fordham Boulevard, primarily between Fordham Boulevard and Old Durham Road, and that a small employee parking lot was located on the south side of Old Durham Road at the intersection of Cooper Street.  He noted that the site was zoned Community Commercial-Conditional (CC-C) and the portion on the south side of Old Durham Road was zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC).  Mr. Mason said that Performance Auto was requesting a modification to expand the boundary of the SUP, add two new buildings, and expand parking as well.  He said the applicant was proposing an increase in floor area of 61,100 square feet, bringing the total to 101,390 square feet, and add 95 additional parking spaces for a total of 250.  Mr. Mason said the applicant was also proposing a 1.3-acre expansion of the existing area encumbered by the SUP.  He stated that the applicant was requesting a modification to regulations as stated in Article 3.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) to allow parking as a principal use rather than an accessory use on the south side of Old Durham Road.

 

Mr. Mason said a key issue was a 22-inch specimen white oak tree located in the required 30-foot buffer area along the Fordham Boulevard Service Road, and we are asking that the applicant preserve that tree.  He noted that some supplemental information had been distributed tonight that contained the response to Planning Board questions, noting one issue of importance to the Council. Mr. Mason said that the staff recommendation had been changed regarding the buffers along Fordham Boulevard and Old Durham Road, noting they were now recommending that the applicant be allowed to have variable widths alternative buffers which they believe would be effective screening this site.  He noted that would have to be approved by the Community Design Commission.

 

Phil Post, site designer for the project and speaking for the applicant, noted other members of the team were present tonight to answer any questions that arise. He noted that they believe that their application for the SUP Modification how meets the four findings required by the Town.  Mr. Post briefly reviewed questions that had come forward during the Concept Plan review last February, noting those questions would be answered this evening.

 

Mr. Post exhibited a site plan for the project, noting that they had reduced the number of display spaces in the front of the building from 10 to six.  He said he disagreed with the Manager’s recommendation regarding the 22-inch specimen tree, stating he did not know whether the tree could be saved.  Mr. Post said the tree was in close proximity to a sidewalk that the Manager was asking them to build, and believed that would make it impossible to preserve.  He said they always took particular care and were eager to preserve trees that could be saved, but that particular tree was tremendously endangered by the proposed construction and they were afraid that it was not possible for it to survive. For that reason, Mr. Post said, the applicant respectfully requested that preserving the tree not be a stipulation of the SUP modification.

 

Mr. Post said other comments had to do with traffic congestion at the Hardee’s intersection.  He said that as the Council knew from the Traffic Impact Study, Performance Auto did not cause the conditions at that intersection to worsen. However, he said since they are a neighbor and this was an existing problem, we had been asked to try to relieve some of that congestion.  Mr. Post said as a good faith gesture, they were offering to make some improvements to that intersection.  He said another comment was a request to increase the porous paving, and they had done so.

 

Mr. Post noted a couple of concerns mentioned by citizens, one of which was that they would like for the buffer plantings on the side of the road to be kept away from the sidewalk.  He said they had not fully detailed that as yet, but would respond it to.  Another comment, he said, was about displaying cars in the buffer.  Mr. Post said that these display places were paved spaces, and they would require that display cars only be placed in those paved spots.  He reminded the Council that the number of display places had been reduced from 10 to six.

 

Mr. Post exhibited some views of the proposed site, including landscaping and the display area.  He noted that the landscaping would be an excellent streetscape from this facility to Fordham Boulevard.  He displayed a view of the specimen tree’s location and the planned landscaping and construction near it.

 

Mr. Post said because they had been asked by the Town to provide curb and gutter and sidewalk along the frontage and the specimen tree’s location, they had to place the sidewalk as close to the curb possible.  He said the issue surrounding the tree was their only area of concern, and the only area where they disagreed with the Manager’s proposal.  Mr. Post said it was their belief that the specimen tree simply would not survive, and even if they used Herculean efforts that there would be a real danger of losing the tree early on or that surrounding trees could possible be damaged as well.

 

Mr. Post displayed a slide of the overall landscaping for the entire site, pointing out the enhanced plantings and greenspace.  He noted that by placing plantings along the boundaries of the property, it would not allow display cars to be placed in particular areas that might possibly be used for that purpose.  Mr. Post said in effect, it would be a self-limiting effort to completely eliminate the ability to do any extra display parking.

 

Mr. Post exhibited a slide of the site and pointed out the location of the employee parking area, the bus stop, and the sidewalks to connect all the buildings and the parking areas.  He then displayed a slide showing the water quality plan, pointing out the planned porous paving areas.  Mr. Post noted that the rainwater captured in their cisterns would be used for the on-site car wash as well as for landscape watering.

 

Referring again to the issue regarding the trees on the site, Mr. Post reminded the Council that trees were a renewable resource.  He displayed a photograph of the existing trees along the frontage of Performance Auto, noting that there was a 47-foot maple tree in the very front that had been planted as part of the landscaping plan when first constructed.  Mr. Post then showed a picture of the 22-inch specimen oak tree that had been discussed, noting it was about 52 feet high.  He said these types of trees grow quickly if properly cared for and planted in the right place.  Mr. Post said they truly believe that if they were allowed to replant the frontage in the way they had suggested then they would very quickly have the kind of tree presentation that all would like to see.

 

Mr. Post displayed photos of various trees that they were going to be able to preserve, mainly by expanding the green area where they were located.  He then showed photos of the landscaping and trees on property that bordered Performance Auto.  Mr. Post said if allowed to proceeding with the proposed landscaping, then their facility would be comparable and compliment the landscaping of nearby facilities.

 

Council Member Verkerk noted she had been “tough” on the applicant during the Concept Plan stage and she was very pleased with what had been presented this evening, noting it had a “retro” look about it.

 

Scott Radway, a resident of Westminster Drive, noted he was a member of the Community Design Commission but he was commenting this evening as a citizen.  He said he believed the applicant had done a good job listening to the advisory boards, the Council and citizens, and reorienting the building.

 

Mr. Radway stated that the previous design of the building had bays fronting on Fordham Boulevard and several other aspects that had been of concern to many.  He said that the applicant had responded to those concerns by reorienting the building, noting he considered to be a vast improvement.  For that reason, Mr. Radway said, he was in support of the alternative buffers.  He noted that the 30-foot buffer on Old Durham Road would wipe out a good amount of parking spaces and would push into the site quite a bit.  And, Mr. Radway continued, if the 30-foot buffer were required along the frontage then the current design of the building, which the Community Design Commission favored, could not exist.  He said there would be no way to get to the back of the building and if you pulled the building back in order to provide the other amenities, then you would lose about 50 feet of building length.

 

Mr. Radway said the alternative buffers were a warranted request and would be warranted to approve as alternative buffers given the kind of character and rhythm that it set along the street and the ability it would give to remove garage doors from facing out onto US 15-501.  He said it was his opinion that if the Town required the 30-foot buffers as designated by LUMO, if would effective drive the applicant back to the original design, which would not be as worthwhile a solution as what the applicant proposed.

 

John Godding, a resident of Garden Street located about two blocks from this project, distributed information regarding this project to the Council and asked that it be entered into the record.  He said his neighborhood would be the most impacted by this project, and expressed his opposition to the Modification to the SUP for several reasons.

 

Mr. Godding said that conversion of the lot currently zoned NC into a parking lot was not an appropriate use of this property, and provided a brief description of how property zoned NC should be used.  He stated that this use would remove that parcel from being used to support a neighborhood commercial business.  Mr. Godding said that a monolithic parking lot covering two parcels long designated as NC was not appropriate for an area such as this, noting the mixed use concentration in the area.

 

Mr. Godding noted that a pedestrian crossing on Old Durham Road was dangerous for all involved.  He stated that paving the parking area would increase already existing drainage problems in the area, noting that Old Durham Road was a ridge line and placing a parking lot on this property would overload the basin on his side of the road with impervious surface while allowing less impervious surface on this site.

 

Mr. Godding said the need for this parking could be mitigated by Performance Auto encouraging other forms of transportation by employees, noting that the current proposal sought to double the amount of parking on the site.  He said he did not believe that additional parking was needed for customers and employees and to display cars.

 

Mr. Godding said as proposed the entrance and exit would be on Cooper Street which would significantly increase traffic in his neighborhood, and it was not designed to handle it.  He said that Performance Auto had previously received approval to construct a similar parking lot at the corner of Old Durham Road and Cooper Street, which they subsequently designated as an unloading zone for car-carrying trucks.  Mr. Godding stated that had created an extremely dangerous situation as the car-carriers make it impossible for someone attempting to access Old Durham Road from Cooper Street to see oncoming traffic.

 

Mr. Godding commented that this situation had been brought to the attention of Performance Auto and the Town in 2003, and the situation was less severe since the erection of No Parking signs.  He stated he believed that similar problems would exist with the construction of the proposed new lot.  Mr. Godding said if the lot was approved, he asked that the Town rethink the requirements for adding additional pavement in front of it or work with NCDOT to make this a right-hand turn lane to prohibit parking.

 

Mr. Godding said his final comment regarded the modification of regulations, noting that was not an appropriate manner in which to approve this proposal, adding it was tantamount to spot zoning to serve a private, not a public, purpose.  He said in his opinion the Planning staff justification for this course of action was nonsensical.  Mr. Godding said if the applicant was allowed to place a parking lot on these two parcels, then he should be made to do it in the right way which would be to go through a rezoning rather than doing it with a modification of regulations.

 

Mr. Godding noted that the materials he had distributed to the contained a number of photographs which proved that Performance Auto was currently using their site in an illegal manner, violating Town regulations.  He said they should not now be rewarded for their willful, knowledgeable and consistent illegal use of that property.  Mr. Godding said they were asking for these concessions from the Town while on their best behavior, and he was concerned that over the 10-year build out of this project the abuses would continue and perhaps worsen when they were not in a position to be asking favors from the Town.

 

Dan Cunningham, a resident of Cooper Street and an owner of two homes in that neighborhood, noted that there were occasions, although seldom, that a truck might unload at the back of the site on Old Durham Road.  He noted it was most often on the weekends or at a time that the dealership was not open for business.  Mr. Cunningham noted that he had watched the operation of the dealership and had always found their actions to be in good taste.  He noted the comments the Council had just heard were from a unique perspective, but he believed that everything that Performance Auto had done on the site had added value to his property.  Mr. Cunningham said he agreed with Performance Auto’s request before the Town.

 

Gerald Ramoin, the operating partner of Performance Auto, said in respect to the parking area, from time to time they had experienced parking by unauthorized persons and that lot was now gated.  He said they were sensitive and would remain sensitive to such issues.

 

Regarding trucks unloading in the back of the property, Mr. Ramoin stated that the trucking industry was unique, noting it was transport industry and was transport for hire from the manufacturers.  He said as such, many times they arrived and dropped off cars unbeknownst to them.  Mr. Ramoin said any time they had found such delivery trucks to be parked in the rear of the delivery area they had aggressively sought to get them moved as quickly as possible.  He said these incidents were rare, and they would continue to act to control them.

 

As far as the facility itself, they were open to any landscaping the Town might require in the buffers, or landscaping that would prevent people from parking in areas not designated as parking.  He said they would support that in a positive mode, noting they had conducted business in that manner for a number of years.

 

Linda Convissor, a resident of White Oak Drive, noted she wanted to make a suggestion for consideration regarding the sidewalk and the buffers.  She said she often walked that sidewalk and said that right now Performance Auto had a beautiful hedge that was full, dense, healthy and well-tended.  But, Ms. Convissor stated, it was right up against the sidewalk.  She said if you were walking at dusk or when few eyes were on the street, you could feel vulnerable since it would be easy for someone to be hiding behind or inside the hedge.  She said she hoped that when the buffers were approved that the Council would consider allowing Performance to do something that even though it may not be exactly within the rules would enhance the personal safety of persons walking along the sidewalk.

 

Council Member Harrison stated that he had experienced drivers coming down his dead-end street while test driving cars from the dealership even though he lived two miles away.  For that reason, he said, he believed that the dealership would have some impact on traffic, particularly along Old Durham Road.

 

Council Member Harrison said he was glad that something would be done to what was the worst surface street intersection in his opinion in Chapel Hill.  He said he understood that one thing proposed at the staff level was that a public street be built at the western edge of the property to connect the service road and Old Durham Road, although there was not a rational nexus for that.  Council Member Harrison said it was good to see the sidewalk connection, but at some point there would be a need for that connector street.  He said logically it would continue Standish Drive on the southeast corner through to the service road, and although that was not required now, he believed the Town would at some point want that connection.

 

Mr. Post pointed out the traffic movements around the site, noting if traffic was coming from Durham they would not be able to turn down the service road, but if you were on the service road you would have a right out only.  He said they did have two well-defined driveways, and pointed those out on the slide.  Council Member Harrison said at present it was difficult for a customer to move throughout the site.  Mr. Post noted that had been one of Council Member Harrison’s comments when this plan was first presented.

 

Council Member Harrison said at present there was no connection between Old Durham Road and the service road for about two thirds of a mile from the intersection back to Lakeview Drive.  He said that would be the same distance, if you could picture it, as traveling down Franklin Street with no connector streets from Crooks Corner Barbeque to the Varsity Theater.  Council Member Harrison said it was not a promising area for grid street and transit movements.

 

Mr. Post pointed out the location of the bus stop, and noted that the crosswalk to be constructed on Old Durham Road would allow pedestrians to move safely in that area.  Council Member Harrison confirmed that all transit service was on Old Durham Road as opposed to Fordham Boulevard.

 

Council Member Ward said he wanted to make sure that this project would to the fullest degree possible coordinate its improvements for bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Old Durham Road with the effort that was taking place in the area by the Durham-Chapel Hill Bicycle/Pedestrian Work Group.  He said they had many ideas and efforts that needed to be coordinated, and this project should enhance those efforts.

 

Council Member Ward, regarding the specimen oak, said there was only one display parking area that was in the critical work area.  He asked what the difficulties were with shifting the whole thing to the northeast.  Mr. Post replied they would look into shifting the plantings, but after having spoken to the Manager and various others, this project was too important to them and to the Town to have it stalled because of this issue.  He said their true concern was not whether it could be done, but that if they used their best efforts and the tree still died then a gap would exist in front of the dealership.  Mr. Post said it was disturbing that the roots were exposed, but it was a judgment call.

 

Council Member Ward asked if grading would take place in that area.  Mr. Post responded there would be some grading near the sidewalk, but not in that exact area.   He said the dealership when finished would be almost at grade, so very little grading would be required.  Mr. Post said the concern was the actual construction and the proximity of activity around the exposed roots of the tree.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said there were two things he would like to have a little more information on.  First, he asked, was the SUP by adverse possession that was going with the parking lot across Old Durham Road.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wanted to know if that was the case, stating he believed it would be “bad faith” to park your car in a place you were not suppose to then come later and say you had permission to park there.  Mr. Post responded that that type of activity was not going on there now, as the Council well knew, noting that had happened years ago.  He noted that the pictures that had been shown to the Council of a house on that property with cars parked all around was not relevant, since the house had been demolished under a separate permitting process and the situation no longer existed.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said the other issue of concern to him was the cars parked in the front of the dealership on the grass as well as the signs, noting that a Subaru sign had triggered his attention.  He said why even bother about the little things with this application if they were going to be violating regulations by parking cars out front.  Mr. Post replied that he had attempted to be frank about that.  He said they were proposing that plant beds or mulching or both be located there to prevent cars from being displayed in that area.  He said if they were allowed to go forward with this, they were going to re-emphasize the paved display places and the other display places on the grass would then contain plant beds and the like.

 

Mr. Ramoin commented that they were committed to providing the landscaping buffers and not allowing parking in that area.  He said they would be in compliance with the permit, and would be a good partner in the community.

 

Council Member Greene complimented the new design, stating it was much better than what had previously been submitted.  She said the design was clean, but there obviously was no oak tree in front.  Council Member Greene said she had to admit that she thought it looked fine with the oak tree no longer present.  She said she believed it would be a better design without the tree.

 

Mayor Foy said regarding the issue about the oak tree, he suggested getting the Manager’s best advice and deciding what to do when this came back to the Council on June 27th.

 

Council Member Strom agreed with the points Council Member Greene made regarding the oak tree, and added he also had no problem with the alternative buffers.  He said he believed the applicant had been “incredibly” responsive to the Council’s feedback and he appreciated that.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO JUNE 27TH.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.   THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 4 – Concept Plan:  Chapel Hill Kehillah

 

Mr. Poveromo stated that tonight the Council would consider a Concept Plan for the Chapel Hill Kehillah parking lot rental request.  He said the property was located at the intersection of Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road.  Mr. Poveromo said that the proposal did not meet the intensity threshold required for a Concept Plan review by the Council, so on May 4 Chapel Hill Kehillah had asked for a Concept Plan review and that request was granted by the Council.

Mr. Poveromo said that the development proposal included the creation of a park/ride lot for approximately 50 vehicles for long-term lease.  He said the site was located in the Residential-4 zoning district, and displayed an area map and an aerial photograph of the site.

 

Stanley J. Robboy, speaking as the applicant, said they were a house of worship and were seeking to use some of the relatively unused spaces during the day to help alleviate some of the financial pressures that they experienced.  He said they had an active community program and this would help them to offset the costs.

 

Mr. Robboy displayed an aerial photograph that showed that the parking area was concealed from the street.  He said if someone was driving by they would be unaware that a parking area existed.  Mr. Robboy said they would make no changes to the site, noting the gravel lot would stay, and there would be no changes to the hedges or other plantings.  He said there was some possibility that low-level lighting might be added for the evening hours.  Mr. Robboy displayed additional photos of the area.

 

Mr. Robboy said they had contacted every neighbor and had received unanimous, written support for this request.  He said there had been no one from the community expressing concern about this plan, so that was an expression of support.  Mr. Robboy said they would hope that at this point the Council would move forward with some speed.  He said they did understand there were processes that they needed to go through, but hoped those processes could be implemented quickly.

 

Council Member Ward commented that the Town and Chapel Hill Kehillah needed to balance the issue of buffering to keep it from being an eyesore with the issues of safety.  He said buffering could cause concern that the area was so well hidden that the people using it would feel in jeopardy.  Council Member Ward said make the lighting enough to provide security but not be a nuisance to the neighbors.  Mr. Robboy said they had many activities at night and the members felt comfortable using the parking area.  But, he said, they believed it was a good suggestion to add the low level lighting for extra security and planned to do so.

 

Council Member Harrison commented that he understood that because of the change in use this request needed an SUP.  Mr. Poveromo said this was located in an R-4 zoning district, and they had classified the request to be for a park/ride terminal which would require an SUP in a rezoning district.

 

Council Member Harrison said because of the small scale of the project, he hoped that the Council would “go easy” on the request.  He thanked Mr. Robboy for being willing to go through the process.  Mr. Robboy said during the course of their research they had discovered that in the early 1980s the Kehillah had a permit to use that area as a parking lot, but variances had changed and somehow that designation had been lost.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY    (9-0).

 

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE CHAPEL HILL KEHILLAH – PARKING LOT RENTAL REQUEST (2005-06-20/R-1)

 

WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Chapel Hill Kehillah – Parking Lot Rental Request; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for the applicant, and citizens; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on June 20, 2005, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.

 

This the 20th day of June, 2005.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.