SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor pro tem Bill Strom called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council members present were Laurin Easthom, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Bill Thorpe, and Jim Ward.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Senior Planner Phil Mason, Planner Dana Stidham, Engineering Design Specialist Mike Taylor, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Mayor pro tem Strom announced that Mayor Foy was absent, excused from tonight’s public hearing.

Item 1 – Public Hearing:  Chapel Hill Kehillah Parking Lot –

Application for a Special Use Permit

Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo noted that this application was for approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow the Chapel Hill Kehillah to rent out 50 existing parking spaces to commuters in a residentially zoned neighborhood.  He stated that this 2.19-acre site was located at 1200 Mason Farm Road at the corner of Mason Farm and Purefoy Roads, and adjacent to the southern edge of the University of North Carolina (UNC) main campus.  Mr. Poveromo displayed an aerial photo taken in 2003 and pointed out the location of the property’s parking area, entrances and the one-way exit off of Purefoy Road.  Mr. Poveromo pointed out that other adjacent uses included residential, office, and another place of worship.

Mr. Poveromo said in response to concerns raised by advisory boards, the applicant had made some improvements to the site, including a new gravel surface and wheel stops.  He pointed out the key issues identified during review, including sidewalks, a bus shelter, a crosswalk on Mason Farm Road, providing plans for an alternate refuse site, and modification to the regulations.  Mr. Poveromo stated their preliminary recommendation was adoption of Resolution A.

Mr. Poveromo displayed a site plan of the site, and noted that at this time the applicant did not plan any additional improvements to the site. 

Stanley Robboy, Co-President of the Chapel Hill Kehillah, said that Chapel Hill Kehillah had a major community presence in the Town, noting its membership of nearly 200 families, its religious school and pre-school, as well as a large number of weekend community events.  He noted that during the week only a small number of their parking spaces were used, and because they were a financially-strapped organization they wanted to rent out those available spaces during weekdays only.  Mr. Robboy noted in the philosophy of what Chapel Hill had been trying to do, these spaces could serve a perfect dual use.

Mr. Robboy said when they had met with the Community Design Commission (CDC), several suggestions were made which they implemented, namely the resurfacing of the lot and the addition of wheel stops at a cost of over $10,000.  He noted that additional expense had caused them to end the year at a loss.  Mr. Robboy said they were then surprised when the Town came back with changes that amounted to nearly $150,000.

Mr. Robboy said after appearing before the Transportation Board and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, they worked through several changes and then appeared several times before the Planning Board and the CDC.  He said at the end of the last meeting with the Planning Board, there was complete agreement between the Planning Board and the Chapel Hill Kehillah as to what would be appropriate.  Mr. Robboy said now the disagreement appears to be between the Town and its advisory boards.

Mr. Robboy noted there were errors in the chart on page 11 which depicted the differences between the various draft resolutions.  He said under Resolution D, it indicated that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board did not discuss the pedestrian lighting of the parking lot.  In fact, Mr. Robboy stated, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board did discuss that and concluded that there was no need to change the lighting.  He said under Resolution B, it indicated that the Planning Board did not discuss bicycle parking, when in fact they concluded that no additional bicycle spaces or changes were needed.

Mr. Robboy said he wanted to contrast Resolution B, the Planning Board’s recommendation and their choice, with Resolution A which was the Manager’s recommendation.  He said the most important feature between the two was the sidewalks.  Mr. Robboy noted that a sidewalk already existed across the street and went up to the UNC medical center.  He said if an additional sidewalk was added on their side of the street, it would not go anywhere.  Mr. Robboy said because they had planned to rent spaces only to one or two departments, it was their feeling that renters would park at the Kehillah, walk across the street and down to the medical center.  He said it was their feeling that the additional sidewalk would not be used.

Mr. Robboy commented that they had indicated in their plans that the rental lot would produce a maximum of 200 trips per day, assuming that people would park, go home for lunch and come back, then leave at the end of the day.  The reality, he said, was that many people did not go home for lunch, and that since many of the spaces would be rented to faculty the spaces would not be used each and every day.  Mr. Robboy said they had put 200 trips in the plan in an effort to state the absolute maximum number of trips possible.  He indicated their belief that 80 trips per day was a fair assumption, with most of the traffic coming from US 15-501 or from Columbia Street, with the number of trips on Purefoy Road close to zero.

Mr. Robboy said putting in a sidewalk was an admirable goal, but at a cost of $40 to $80 per linear foot for 500 feet, the minimum cost would be from $30,000 to $40,000.  He added that if the sidewalk was required, then the Town would also require DFK bitmapping which was a computerized site plan at a cost of another $20,000.  Mr. Robboy said that meant putting in a sidewalk would cost upwards of $60,000, which was a “show stopper.”  He said they could not come close to affording that, noting it would take multiple years to pay off such an expense.

Mr. Robboy said they believed it was important to have a crosswalk to allow people to safely leave the parking lot and walk to the opposite side of the street where there was an existing sidewalk.  He said again there was a misstatement in the agenda materials, noting they had asked what would be the cost of a crosswalk.  Mr. Robboy said they had been told it would range between $500 and $1,500, so they had offered a $500 payment-in-lieu because they did not want to be in the business of creating a crosswalk.  He said the Planning Board had proposed a $1,500 payment-in-lieu, and Chapel Hill Kehillah had agreed, as well as the CDC.

Mr. Robboy said regarding the bus shelter, it was ironic to provide a bus shelter when no bus route existed there, and there was no plan to provide one.  He said what had struck them was that the Town was asking for the bus shelter when it would be used almost solely by UNC which had just built a large student housing area.  Mr. Robboy said there were no bus shelters on Mason Farm Road, so apparently UNC had not been required to provide them.  Yet, he said, Chapel Hill Kehillah as a financially-strapped institution was being asked to support UNC.

Regarding the Pedestrian Lighting Plan, Mr. Robboy commented that several advisory boards had felt that additional lighting was not necessary, noting they did not want to have too much lighting since it was a residential neighborhood, and the lot had been lighted adequately for the past seven years or longer.

Mr. Robboy said regarding the refuse collection site, the Town had changed its equipment and could no longer pick up their containers.  He said they had worked with the Town and the Town had identified an area that would be the most appropriate as a refuse collection site, and they had moved their containers to that site.  Mr. Robboy said now there was a concern that with the number of cars that might be present, the site may be difficult to access.  He said that might be a problem if the lot was full, but the Town serviced the containers prior to 7 a.m. when there were normally no or few cars present.  Mr. Robboy said if the Town changed its schedule to later in the day at some point they would be happy to work with the Town and try to locate a more appropriate site or to contract with a private collection service.

In closing, Mr. Robboy specifically thanked Mr. Poveromo for his help.  He added he hoped that the Council would consider developing rules to apply to small requests such as theirs, so that others would not have to attempt to comply with rules that were developed for larger developments.

Blair Pollack, a member of the Chapel Hill Kehillah and a former member of the Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, spoke against the requirement for construction of a sidewalk.  He said according to Town staff, construction of sidewalks on Purefoy Road was about 10 years away if not longer.  Mr. Pollack said with no connectivity provided for at least 10 years, the level of investment being required of the Kehillah was premature.  He said perhaps in 10 years the Kehillah would be in a better position to contribute to the construction of a sidewalk.

Mayor pro tem Strom reminded those present that the Council would not be making a decision tonight, but would be offering guidance to the applicant and the staff.  He stated that the public hearing would be recessed to a date specific.

Council Member Ward said he believed some length of sidewalk was needed, noting he believed the flow of pedestrian traffic would be out from the parking lot and up to the corner, which should be the location of the crosswalk.  He said that mid-block crosswalks were less safe, and would be much safer if it were located at the corner with the intersection with Purefoy Road.

Council Member Ward wondered if they could write into the stipulations a commitment by the Kehillah to be prepared to fund sidewalks along their perimeter at the time when the connecting portion of the sidewalk was being planned along Purefoy Road or further down Mason Farm Road.  Mr. Robboy said if we were talking 10 years down the road, he would assume they would have a much better financial structure.  He agreed that would be a possibility.

Council Member Harrison said he was struck by the unanimous opinion of the advisory boards, agreeing with Kehillah.  He said it was rare to see, particularly the position that the Transportation Board took who normally took a hard line on these kinds of improvements.  Council Member Harrison said that Board was agreeing with Kehillah, he believed in part because they were not seeing the “rough proportionality” of these improvements.

Council Member Harrison said he did not believe this request generated the need for additional facilities.  He said he did agree that applicants should be responsible for sidewalks, but in this case he agreed with the applicant and the advisory boards that this request did not rise to that level.

Mayor pro tem Strom asked the Manager when this topic could come back before the Council.  Mr. Horton responded February 13.

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 13.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Items 2 – Public Hearing: Closure of a Section of

Highland Woods Road Right-of-Way

Engineering Design Specialist Mike Taylor stated that this right-of-way closure was connected to the Council’s 2004 approval of a plan to relocate the intersection of Highland Woods Road and Old Mason Farm Road, farther away from US 15-501 to improve the operational level of service of the intersection.  He said the University had agreed to dedicate the land necessary for the street relocation, and they had requested that once the relocation was complete that the old right-of-way be abandoned, with half reverting to the University and half to NCDOT, the two abutting property owners.

Mr. Taylor said in order to close the right-of-way the Council must determine that no persons residing in the vicinity of the right-of-way would be deprived of reasonable means of ingress or egress to their property.

Peg Parker, a resident of Highland Woods, stated the neighborhood was waiting for this relocation to happen and was anxious to see it proceed.  She said in the agenda materials, it stated that the total area required for the right-of-way was 11,022 square feet, of which 3,750 would go to the University and the remainder to NCDOT.  Ms. Parker said it further stated that in order that these parcels would not be considered a subdivision, the University had agreed to have each of those areas designated as “Not a Buildable Lot.”  She said she did not understand how the University could commit the NCDOT to that.

Mr. Taylor responded, stating that between the old right-of-way and the new right-of-way was a piece of land that the University did not want to dedicate. He said because of that, they had requested that the University designate those two parcels as “Not a Buildable Lot,” and they had agreed.  Mr. Taylor said the NCDOT portion of the right-of-way would be combined with its existing right-of-way.

Gail Wood, a resident of Highland Woods Road, said she was looking forward to the reconfiguration.  She asked what the new right-of-way would look like, would it be well-maintained or allowed to return to a natural state.  Mr. Taylor said they were in the design process now, noting that the new road would be similar to the current road with an 8-foot shoulder on one side and a 3-foot shoulder on the other.  He said there would be no curb and gutter, it would be grassed, and maintained in the same manner as other Town streets.

Council Member Greene asked what would become of the old road; would it be dug up and returned to a natural state?  Mr. Taylor responded that once the new road was constructed, the old road would be removed and be grassed over.

Council Member Ward asked what could be done on a lot that was determined to be non-buildable.  Mr. Taylor replied no structure of any kind could be placed on it, but something such as a sign might be possible.

Council Member Thorpe thanked Ms. Parker for her comments, noting she had served on the Planning Board and was aware of the processes used to accomplish this type of project.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 23.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 3 – Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment –

Modifications Associated with Legislative Changes

Mr. Horton noted that Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos had worked with the Planning Department on this issue and was satisfied with the materials as presented to the Council this evening.  He said they believed these modifications were necessary in order to comply with changed law.

Senior Planner Phil Mason said in 2005 the NC General Assembly enacted two bills amending statutes that pertain to local planning and local land use management.  He said they had reviewed the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) and identified 11 amended statutes that could potentially warrant changes to LUMO.  Mr. Mason said on closer examination, they had determined that only two of the amended statutes would require adjustments to LUMO.

Mr. Mason regarding Zoning Atlas amendments, they were recommending amendment of Subsection 4.4.2(d)(2) of LUMO pertaining to the period of time the Planning Board had to forward recommendations to the Council for Zoning Atlas amendments be reduced from 35 days to 30 days.  He said they were also recommending that the language be amended to state that the Council could proceed without the Planning Board’s recommendation, rather than stating that if the Planning Board did not respond it would be assumed that the Board approved.

Mr. Mason regarding Zoning Atlas Amendment Protest Petitions, they were recommending amendment of Subsection 4.4.2(i) pertaining to the preparation of protest petitions.  He said they were recommending a clarification by inserting language that said “To qualify as a protest petition” which would make clear that certain procedures must be followed in order to have a proper protest petition.

Mr. Mason said they recommended that the Council enact the proposed ordinance to make those changes to the LUMO.

Council Member Harrison said he believed that there was now a change that protest petitions could not get filed against text amendments and asked if that was correct.  Mr. Mason said that was correct.  Mr. Karpinos noted that the amendment to the State statutes did not require a change in the Town’s ordinance.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 13.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 4 – Concept Plan:  Shortbread Lofts

Planning Director J.B. Culpepper stated that the Concept Plan for the Shortbread Lofts involved demolition of an office building and a 20-unit residential structure and construction of 180,584 square feet of retail and residential floor area. She said the proposal would include 168 dwelling units and 229 new parking spaces.

Ms. Culpepper displayed a vicinity map, noting the property was located at 333 West Rosemary Street on the south side of West Rosemary Street between Church Street and Mitchell Lane.  She stated that the Community Design Commission had reviewed the Concept Plan, noting a summary of their comments was provided with the agenda materials.

Josh Gurlitz of GGA Architects and speaking for the applicant, noted several people present who could offer information if needed: Phil Post of Phil Post & Associates, Larry Short, Managing Partner of Shortbread Lofts, Bill and Roy Piscitello, owners and operators of Breadman’s Restaurant, as well as Gary Giles from GGA Architects.  He said they were pleased to bring forward this Concept Plan for a timely and necessary project for West Rosemary Street and the entire downtown.

Mr. Gurlitz, using a PowerPoint presentation, indicated the site in relation to the downtown.  He noted it was on the site of the former Breadman’s Restaurant and adjacent two-story apartment building.  Mr. Gurlitz said that as West Franklin Street continued to develop as a retail and commercial sector of the downtown, West Rosemary Street was providing a critical residential use of the downtown that was complimentary.  He displayed images of areas surrounding and adjacent to the site from various angles.  Mr. Gurlitz said an important piece to this project was how Town services would be provided to the site.

Phil Post noted he would speak about several issues, including the public alley, parking, utilities, water quality and impervious service and how those would be addressed.  He said a central feature of the plan was the public alley, pointing out its location on a site map.  Mr. Post said it was a dead end alley, with some informal access off the end to various businesses fronting on Franklin Street.  He said they wanted to formalize that access with a loop drive that would service all the common property.  Mr. Post said that meant they would actually be replacing the dead end alley with a continuous alley that would serve all the businesses.

Mr. Post said regarding parking, at present the site had about 70 parking spaces. He stated they proposed keeping the 28 spaces on the north side of West Rosemary Street, but enhance them to bring them into compliance with LUMO.  Mr. Post said all of the spaces now present on the north side of West Rosemary Street would be placed underground.

Regarding utilities and drainage, Mr. Post said they would be upgrading and relocating the stormwater line around the margins of the site and in the process improving the existing situation.  He said currently on the site was about 84 percent impervious service, and their plan would increase that only by 2 percent.  Mr. Post said as more detailed plans progressed, they would focus on reducing imperious service to at least its present level or below that level.

Mr. Post said they would be providing additional water quality features, which would include a “green roof” area.  He said they would also add some underground water quality features.

Mr. Post displayed a slide of the floor plan for the new building, pointing out the underground parking and service alley, as well as the circulation pattern.  He said a circular drop-off lane would also be provided, primarily for use by the elderly or handicapped as well as for a quick in and out for deliveries or similar uses.

Mr. Post exhibited a slide providing a “bird’s eye view” of the proposed project, pointing out the location of street trees and landscaping, the entry drive, the public alley.  He pointed out that the existing parking area across the street currently had no trees, but they would upgrade the site to current LUMO standards to include trees and other landscaping.  Mr. Post said the existing parking would remain and would serve and primary parking for the retail and commercial uses of the building.

Mr. Gurlitz displayed the floor plan, noting they were proposing to provide continuous store frontage and commercial use along West Rosemary Street.  He said it was apparent that more commercial uses were needed on the sidewalk level to attract people who walk Rosemary and Franklin Streets.  Mr. Gurlitz noted other sites that were performing that function, noting they hoped what they were planning here would continue that trend.

Council Member Harrison asked about the actual building envelope.  Mr. Gurlitz used the floor plan to describe the building envelope and its relation to adjacent property lines.  He noted it was a “C” shaped building with a light well in the middle.  Mr. Gurlitz said what Mr. Post had referred to earlier as a “green roof” area was an outdoor area within the light well with southern exposure.

Council Member Harrison asked if the “U” shaped turnoff from the street was under roof.  Mr. Gurlitz replied the building stepped back and there were columns present, so if you went just beyond the columns you would not be covered.  But, he added, you would be under roof as you exited a vehicle.  Mr. Gurlitz commented that presently all sorts of delivery and other vehicles parked on the street to service businesses.  He said this drop-off lane would get those functions off the street and out of traffic, providing more safety for West Rosemary Street.

Council Member Hill asked if everything on the drawing was on the same grade.  Mr. Gurlitz said no.  He noted that the back of the stores and alley were approximately five feet above the street, so when a service truck came by the alley they would be at the level of the back of the Franklin Street stores. Mr. Gurlitz said the elevation of the alley would not change.

Council Member Hill asked if the far outside corner column represented the corner of the building.  Mr. Gurlitz responded that was correct, that those columns represented the outside of the building.  Council Member Hill asked what the ceiling height was from the road level to the other side of the building.  Mr. Gurlitz replied 15 feet, noting it had to be able to accommodate various size trucks.

Council Member Hill said if you were heading east on Rosemary Street and took a right turn at the second arrow depicted on the drawing, then turned left, where would you go.  Mr. Gurlitz said if you entered at the second arrow you would be going down to the sublevel parking.  Council Member Hill said he was thinking in terms of reducing the number of curb cuts off of Rosemary Street if access was provided behind the front of the building.  Mr. Gurlitz said one of the reasons for the one-way in and one-way out was to keep vehicular circulation simple. He said they would be happy to explore how to deal with that corner and possibly simplify it.  Council Member Hill said he was thinking in terms that if the same use as the turn-around in the front was designed to accommodate could also be accommodated underneath the parking, but he had misunderstood the levels so that may not be viable.

Council member Hill said regarding the 28 parking spaces across the street, was that the best and highest use of that property.  He said he knew it was difficult to incorporate more parking on the south side, but the idea of that parking being there in perpetuity to service that building was worth thinking about.  Mr. Post responded that he did not believe it was the best and highest use and did not believe it would remain a surface lot through their lifetimes.  He said it was fair to say that because the University owned all of the property surrounding this island of parking that they would be looking to develop on the north side of Rosemary, although none of the plans had come to fruition.  Mr. Post stated that what would be certain to remain on the north side were the water quality feature and the major storm trunk line, regardless of any surrounding development.

Council Member Hill said it was interesting that the applicant owned property that was completely surrounded by University property, and there was a parking lot on it, which was a unique situation.

Mr. Gurlitz displayed images of the building features, noting there were three stories along the sidewalk side.  He noted the first floor was commercial, with two floors of flats above it.  Mr. Gurlitz noted that the top of the third floor would have an expression line to catch the eye and give the building dimension and scale.  From there, he said, the building stepped back to two loft  stories, then stepped back again for a third loft story.  Mr. Gurlitz noted they had pulled back away from the lot line so they could achieve an active elevation of windows on all sides of the building.

Mr. Gurlitz said the design concept could be summarized by saying they were trying to create a forward looking and progressive building, while being complimentary to the other buildings downtown.  He said the way they manipulated the materials they were using, notably brick, glass and steel, they would be able to do that.  Mr. Gurlitz said the brick created stability and presence as well as a reference to other brick buildings, while the plentiful use of glass would allow the building to appear light and airy.

Mr. Gurlitz described that the building they planned would be different from other residential buildings either existing or proposed for the downtown, mainly because of the size of the units within the building.  He said they were proposing a building that had predominately studio and one-bedroom apartments. Mr. Gurlitz said most would be affordable because of their size.  He said that other downtown residential buildings catered to people who worked downtown or for the University or the Town, and there was very little housing downtown for single persons and couples.  Mr. Gurlitz said they wanted to provide housing to this underserved group.

Regarding the windows, Mr. Gurlitz said one way to have an expansive feel in an efficiency unit was to have lots of glass, which was their intent.  He said that would help them provide the type of living unit specifically focused on a market that was underrepresented downtown.

Mr. Gurlitz displayed several slides that provided views of the proposed building from different angles.  He exhibited a sketch that showed the C-shaped of the building, the set backs, and the three stories in the front.

Mr. Gurlitz noted that GGA Architects was a member of the U. S. Green Building Council and was also LEED accredited.  In that regard, he said, they were studying a set of sustainable features they were interested in including and they believed were appropriate for this building.  In the back of the building under the cut-out of the “C”, Mr. Gurlitz stated, they were going to have a green roof that would cover some of the parking and would be accessible from the inside so that people could use it as a green space.

Council Member Greene asked how green the roof would be, noting that to have a plush green space would require a lot of sod, which was heavy.  Mr. Gurlitz said it would have sod and it would be heavy.  He stated they had just finished their subsurface exploration and had found rock about 15 feet below the surface, which was where they had planned to place their parking.  Mr. Gurlitz said they have good weight bearing capacity on that rock and could place a heavy roof there.  He said the difficult part was that green roofs did need to be maintained, and it would be incumbent upon the owners to do so.  Mr. Gurlitz said when the soil was wet it was heavier, and when the water filtered down through the soil into a collection system, that system would have to be maintained so that it did not silt up.

Mr. Gurlitz said they were also considering how to treat the rest of the roof to be highly reflective and meet LEED requirements.  He stated they were looking at stormwater retention and utilization for watering the roof areas, and were also exploring the possibilities for passive solar, noting the interior of the units would be as progressive as the exterior with finished concrete floors.  Mr. Gurlitz said those concrete floors would act as a heat sink, and could be used during colder months to assist in heating the units.

Mr. Gurlitz noted they wanted to continue the trend to locate housing on the west end of the downtown, which had the capacity to energize that.  He said this housing would be substantially different in that it would be focused at a different market and in its appearance.  Mr. Gurlitz provided the Council with a document that discussed an approach to affordable housing, noting they believed that by keeping these units efficient that the rents would be affordable, and that market forces would also keep them affordable.  He asked the Council to read the material, noting that affordability was very important to them.  Mr. Gurlitz said there were two options outlined in the document, one having to do with rental and the other with using the concept of the Small House ordinance.

Mr. Gurlitz noted that their target market was people who would be working for the Town, working for the University, and working in the downtown.  He said it would have benefits in terms of traffic generation and in energizing the streets.  Mr. Gurlitz said projects like this would put people both on West Rosemary and West Franklin Streets, and more people on the streets would add to the safety and security of the downtown.

Mayor pro tem Strom noted that the Council had been provided with additional materials from the Community Design Commission that contained 19 comments regarding this Concept Plan.

Mayor pro tem Strom said regarding the artist’s rendering of the building, asked if the pattern of brick and glass was a subjective design or was there some function to that combination.  Mr. Gurlitz remarked it was not subjective, but was conscious, historic and most likely not easy for most to understand.  He said one of the esoteric issues of architecture was how to deal with corners, and using the concept of “chopping” out the corners you could then use glass to abut at the corners.  In a sense, Mr. Gurlitz said, they were employing that concept by using the brick in the center of the building and using glass at the corners as well as emphasizing the step backs at the corners.

Mayor pro tem Strom commented he did not favor the asymmetrical nature of the brick and glass treatment.  Regarding the slide showing the east elevation of the building, he asked what was used on the surface of the building at ground level.  Mr. Gurlitz said that area was where the alley loop was located, so you would be looking through the loop and into the parking area.  Mayor pro tem Strom said that was another design issue, noting that from that angle it looked like a blank register and caused him some concern.  Mr. Gurlitz said they would be providing plantings along that side which should reach about eight feet tall, and they would cover that “blank” area from view.

Responding to a question from Mayor pro tem Strom, Mr. Gurlitz indicated on the drawing where the retail bays sat, indicating where cars would enter and exit the area.  Mayor pro tem Strom asked when delivery vehicles arrived, did they anticipate that they would remain in the south lane.  Mr. Gurlitz indicated where those deliveries would be, and then indicated the service areas which contained dumpsters and recycling centers.  Mayor pro tem Strom said he believed they should try to get delivery vehicles into the center lane and off of the street.  Mr. Gurlitz said they would have to check the vertical clearance.

Council Member Easthom asked if the two arrows on the drawing were suggesting a convergence of vehicles.  Mr. Gurlitz said that was correct, noting some would be coming up a ramp.  Council Member Easthom asked if it was possible to straighten those arrows so that two full lanes were available for exiting the area.  Mr. Gurlitz responded they would study that, noting they had seen the exit as the most critical action between circulation on-site and Rosemary Street.  He indicated that people familiar with the area should have no problems.

Council Member Easthom said that visitors would most likely use the underground parking, and asked what steps would be taken to alert people that they were in the right lane.  Mr. Gurlitz indicated the area would be well signed and an area would be set aside for visitor parking, and added that the other area would be a “no entry” area.

Council Member Easthom, referring to the artist’s rendering, asked how they planned to make steel posts in the front of the building a positive feature, noting it was aesthetically unappealing to her.  Mr. Gurlitz assured the Council that steel could be beautiful, adding the columns would be scraped with wire brushes and then painted and finished.  He said when they began the Special Use Permit process they could bring to the Council photographs of other buildings with similar steel features.

Council Member Easthom asked what percentage was retail.  Mr. Gurlitz replied just over 6,000 square feet, which was a small percentage of the total 180,584 square feet.  He said there were two main areas of retail that could possibly be subdivided into four retail spaces.

Council Member Ward said he was delighted that their work with the U. S. Green Building Council would be put to use here, and encouraged them to continue in that direction.  As far as green roofs were concerned, he said, they could be no more than three inches thick, and could be no more weighty in terms of requiring support than a typical roof system.  Council Member Ward asked if the tallest roof element was not envisioned as being a green roof.  Mr. Gurlitz said that had not been decided as yet.  Council Member Ward said it seemed to be a likely choice, and encouraged them to consider that.

Council Member Ward said regarding the perimeter of the ground level that looked blank, he encouraged them to look for some building element that would anchor the building the ground in a better way than what could be done with a vegetative screen.  He said it looked top-heavy to him without it, and encouraged them to look into that.

Council Member Ward asked what the set-back was from the curb to the face of the building.  He said he was concerned that as they begin to consider approving these much taller buildings, he wanted to make sure an ample and gracious sidewalk was provided in front of these buildings.  Council Member Ward said he preferred a separation that was much more than what they presently had on Franklin Street, noting that was an important element.

Council Member Ward said he did not know how this space communicated with Franklin Street, but was concerned that there did not seem to be any preservation or improvement of the pedestrian access from Franklin Street in the vicinity of this site, which could potentially be accomplished via a sidewalk in addition to the perimeter drive that skirted the east, west, and south side of the building.  He said he hoped there would be a way for pedestrians to do the same thing and get to Franklin Street.

Council Member Ward said regarding the handout on affordable housing, he hoped that there were units that could provide permanent affordability through the Land Trust.  He said to him the Small House ordinance contained some fatal flaws in terms of accomplishing long-term affordability.  Council Member Ward said these small units could be amazing spaces that could fetch high rental or purchase prices, and he did not want to lose this opportunity to improve long-term affordability in the community.

Council Member Harrison said regarding the project sheet, this project would need a modification of regulations because of height, and asked if he was able to state what their justification for the modification would be.  Mr. Gurlitz said their proposed project was above the height limits as stated in LUMO.  He said they believed that by adjusting the form of the building and setting back from the sidelines, even though LUMO allows them to come up to the sidelines, that they were achieving the intent of the ordinance which implied that height and light access was important.  Mr. Gurlitz said by staying away from the sidelines it allowed light to come through between the buildings.  He said they also believed that the heights in this case were appropriate, and displayed a slide that compared the heights of the Bank of America building, Granville Towers, the Hotel Franklin, and the Shortbread Lofts site.  Mr. Gurlitz said you could see from the comparison that their building did have some height, but was at a lower grade level.  He said they believed it would achieve the intent of the ordinance because of its position, and would achieve it because it was stepped back on all four sides from the sidelines.

Council Member Hill said in essence this was a six-story building.  Mr. Gurlitz said it was more than six stories, but was not six stories the way you would normally think of six stories.  He said the loft stories were two habitable stories but were not the same height as two stories of flats.  Mr. Gurlitz explained that there was about 19 to 20 feet floor-to-floor for the loft stories, when a normal building story was 14 to 15 ½ feet for multi-family residential.  So, he said, the loft story was five or six feet taller than a normal story because they had eliminated such things as air conditioning units by creating lofts. Mr. Gurlitz said there were lots of floors, but effectively it was about a 7 or 8 story building.  Council Member Hill asked how many stops would be on the elevator.  Mr. Gurlitz replied there would be six.

Council Member Hill said looking at the drawing that showed the roof and the terraces, he asked if the terrace on the north side would be accessible for use by residents.  Mr. Gurlitz said at this point he was not sure, noting it was possible.  Council Member Hill said he believed the more outdoor opportunities that were provided the more people would like living there.  He also asked if the terrace at the sixth floor would be accessible as well.  Mr. Gurlitz said if they did it one place, they would do it there as well.

Council Member Hill asked if these would all be rental units.  Mr. Gurlitz said that was correct.  Council Member Hill asked approximately how many square feet would the units be on the top three floors.  Mr. Gurlitz responded that they varied from about 800 square feet to about 1,100 square feet.  He said some were thinner and were on about a 550 square-foot footprint, and then the second level was about 300 square feet.  Council Member Hill said then there would be a living area then a bedroom loft upstairs.  Mr. Gurlitz said that was correct, noting these units would have 18-foot-high living areas facing the street, and if you moved into the kitchen area it would have about an eight-foot ceiling.

Council Member Hill said he was the Council liaison to the Streetscape Plan Review Committee, and one of the things they had determined was that they liked wide sidewalks on West Rosemary Street, noting one building had a 14-foot sidewalk which everyone was pleased with.  He said he believed they would soon be coming forward with a recommendation for such sidewalks.

Council Member Hill said when looking at the front entrance, he believed the applicant was missing an opportunity, noting they could do something dramatic there that could be fun.  He said there were other aspects of the project that were fun as well, noting he did not know of any other place in Chapel Hill where you could rent a loft with 18-foot ceilings.  Council Member Hill said the entrance would be a good place to make it more distinctive and fun.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he liked the idea of seeing the skeleton of the building coming out in the form of the steel posts in front, and actually being able to connect with the elements that make the building.  He said the idea of there being lofts here and being able to feel the materials that made up the building was something he liked.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he also liked the way the glass and brick were used, noting that kind of detail was what he wanted to see on Rosemary Street.  He said he liked what they had proposed, and encouraged them to try for even more of that.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the green roof was, asking was over the parking lot or up a level.  Mr. Gurlitz said as of now it was over the parking lot, but they were studying where there could be other roofs.  He said they may take some of the other roofs and make them sustainable and high performance, meaning they would check out such things as reflectivity and solar absorption, and do those roofs in a manner that was most appropriate for energy consumption and for not creating hot spots in the downtown.  But, Mr. Gurlitz said, that may not mean that those areas would be green with grass on them.  Council Member Kleinschmidt asked would those spaces be private spaces for the residents.  Mr. Gurlitz responded that was correct, noting they would not be public spaces.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked about the location of the University’s recently approved walkway.  Mr. Gurlitz said it was right next door, located on the right side of the building.  He said they considered that walkway a great asset, since it would provide people with access to Franklin Street as well as Rosemary Street.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said regarding sidewalk width, the building presently on the site was a good argument for why wider sidewalks were preferred.  He said currently it was dangerous to walk on that sidewalk or walk onto the sidewalk when exiting the building.  Council Member Kleinschmidt encouraged them to take that into consideration.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the only buildings of this size that he knew of in Chapel Hill were one-room concepts called “residence halls,” and he was worried that these would become residence halls for students.  He said that was what it looked and felt like.  Larry Short responded he believed that undergraduates were not attracted to one-bedroom studio apartments, and expected that graduate students and single persons would be attracted.  He stated that he owned the building that was presently on this site, and their undergraduate population was at about 5 to 10 percent.  Mr. Short said he had talked with the manager of Northampton Plaza, and their undergraduate percentage was about the same.  He said this was not the type of market that “dorm dwellers” were attracted to, noting they preferred three or four bedrooms, and liked houses best.

Mr. Short stated that the types of renters they had experienced in the past included MBA students, medical students, University and hospital employees, contract workers, traveling nurses, UNC housekeepers, a knitting teacher, a security officer, a visiting professor, and an exchange student.  He said he believed those were the types of people that we wanted to live in the downtown.

Council Member Greene said she believed there were a lot of good ideas here, but did not yet have an opinion on the affordable housing option.  She said she liked the asymmetrical use of the bricks and the glass, and did not agree with the Community Design Commission member that there was too much glass.  Council Member Greene said the use of authentic materials with the steel was interesting, and thought the applicant was responding to what the Council had remarked to RAM Development when they had said they wanted authentic uses and not fake uses.  She said this project could easily have been turned into another warehouse, but they knew their audience and knew the Council most likely would not find that to be a popular idea.

Council Member Greene said she found the proposal to have a unique design, noting she was not sure what Council Member Hill meant by making the project “more fun.” She remarked she would not like to sacrifice the use of authentic materials even in the name of fun.

Council Member Greene said regarding the parking and the two arrows that indicated the exit areas, she believed those two lanes had the potential to crash into each other.  She said she would rather a crash happen before the vehicles were on Rosemary Street rather than after, noting the exit looked similar to that at the Estes Drive Post Office.  Council Member Greene said it did not work well but it did work to get vehicles out onto Estes Drive.  She said she realized they were trying to keep that exit simple, and she could not think of a better way to do that.

Council Member Greene commented that she did not mind the continuation of the stilts all around the building.  She said she believed what Mayor pro tem Strom was referring to was the view from the elevated drawing, which no one would ever see.  Council Member Greene said if you looked at it from the view of the street, she believed it was sufficiently screened.  Mr. Gurlitz responded that as the plantings grew, you would see even less.  He said from the street, plantings that were six to eight feet high were enough to make an effective screen.

To help clarify the affordable housing issue, Mr. Short commented that because they were building these small one-bedroom units, they were requesting that those units meet the requirement for affordable housing.  He said he would rather have one large 4-bedroom unit because it cost him less money, but by having three units instead of one large one he had to have three kitchens, three heating units, three electric meters and so one instead of just one.

Mr. Short said the alternative, a 15 percent contribution to the Land Trust, had a cost associated with it as well and in his mind he was equating those two expenses.  He said by building the small units in the downtown they believed they would get the people downtown that they wanted, and would not get those they did not want.  Mr. Short said they were offering that in response to the request for creative ideas and providing affordable housing in the downtown.

Mr. Short said the handout Mr. Gurlitz had provided contained the options they were proposing.  Behind that, he said, he had attached rental figures, and if the units ever went up for purchase, sales figure were provided as well.  Mr. Short said currently the average rent on a 600-square foot unit was $516 per month which was consistent with that of Rosemary Street Apartments, Northampton Plaza, and Chancellor’s Square.  He said at $516 that reached persons below the 40 percent median income level.  Mr. Short said if it were an 800-square foot, one-bedroom apartment shared by two persons, the rent would be around $688, which continued to reach people below the 40 percent median income level.  He said as far as the units being forever affordable, his response was that they had always been affordable.  He said they were affordable now and would continue to be.

Mr. Short said the comment about making the units really “cool” was the creative contribution that the people who lived there would make.  He said they were providing a kitchen, bathroom and living space, and what some people could do using their own creativity was amazing.

Mayor pro tem Strom noted that the applicant’s presentation materials was helpful, particularly the slides and renderings.  He said the Council had just received the affordable housing proposal this evening, and noted that Delores Bailey. Executive Director of EmPOWERment, Inc., had already left the meeting.  Mr. Short responded that Ms. Bailey had been in attendance in support of their proposal.  He added that if the Council chooses to require the 15 percent contribution, they were prepared to do that.  Mr. Short said the result would be that they would be forced to make some of the units larger so that their profitability would increase.  He reminded the Council that there were no two-bedroom or three-bedroom units in their proposal as of now.

Mayor pro tem Strom said he was pleased that they were confident enough in Rosemary Street and the downtown to bring a proposal such as this forward, and noted that the Council had put a lot of work in focusing on creating an environment so that projects just like this one came forward.  Mr. Short said had it not been for the Council’s foresight and hard work to create the Downtown Initiative, they would not be here tonight.  He said they had increased the parameters for high-density and function of buildings downtown, and if it were not for that it would not be economical for them to propose such a project.

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