SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Laurin Easthom, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Bill Thorpe, and Jim Ward.
Council Member Cam Hill was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director J. B. Culpepper, Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Item 1 – Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text
Amendment, Demolition by Neglect in Historic Districts
Planning Director J. B. Culpepper noted this public hearing had been called to consider an application for a text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) regarding enactment of demolition by neglect regulations intended to help avoid the deterioration of historic buildings. She stated the text amendment before the Council this evening had been endorsed by both the Planning Board and the Historic District Commission (HDC), specifically a new section added to provide detailed provisions regarding safeguards to protect property owners from undue economic hardship.
Ms. Culpepper said in addition, there were a few smaller changes made as well as some minor language adjustments and formatting changes in keeping with LUMO. She stated that the staff recommendation was for enactment of these revisions.
Catherine Frank, director of the Preservation Society of Chapel Hill, a former member of the HDC, and a resident of the McCauley-Cameron Historic District, endorsed the recommended changes and thanked the Council for providing this tool to the Town.
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO REFER THE COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Items 2 – Concept Plan: Greenbridge – Mixed Use Development
Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo stated this was a consideration of a Concept Plan for Greenbridge mixed use development, proposed on West Rosemary Street between North Merritt Mill Road and North Graham Street. He said the applicant was proposing to construct a nine-story, 184,000 square foot office/residential/retail building and demolition of several commercial and residential structures on a 1.32-acre site. Mr. Poveromo noted that the development proposal included an underground parking deck for 195 vehicles.
Mr. Poveromo said they believed the applicant would be asking the Council to modify the regulations because the proposal would exceed the overall height restrictions in the Town Center district as well as the floor area.
Tim Tobin, representing the five families who had partnered to create Greenbridge, said they were committed to providing a model green center with world-class design. He provided a brief description of how Greenbridge was conceived, noting the participation by residents and merchants of Northside, UNC faculty, Town leaders, architects, engineers and investors. Mr. Tobin then gave an accounting of the professionals now committed to the project and their credentials. He stated that some were calling the revitalization of Rosemary Street the Rosemary Renaissance.
Mr. Tobin noted that in February of 2005 the Kyoto Protocol took effect in 141 countries. He stated that Chapel Hill was one of 188 cities across the country to sign the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, and in collaboration with UNC the Town had recently adopted carbon reduction goals of 60 percent by 2050. Mr. Tobin provided information on the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in Burlington, Vermont, Boulder, Colorado, Madison, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon.
Mr. Tobin stated that the Greenbridge development would assist Chapel Hill in its reduction goals. He remarked that in order for their project to be successful it had to be sustainable, which meant that three goals had to be achieved: environmental sensitivity, social equity, and economic vitality. To achieve environmental sensitivity, Mr. Tobin stated, the following had to be accomplished, and he provided some information regarding each item:
Mr. Tobin said to achieve social equity the following had to be attained, and he provided some information regarding each one:
Mr. Tobin noted the types of retail establishments they intend to recruit to Greenbridge, including an urban market/grocery store where farmers may sell produce year-round, a green or non-toxic laundromat, a world music store, an international fair trade handcrafts and gifts store, a healing arts and green yoga center, and a health club. He said these establishments would create entrepreneurial and employment opportunities for local residents, perhaps some that had been incubated within the EmPOWERment program.
For economic vitality, Mr. Tobin said the following must be achieved:
Mr. Tobin displayed an aerial map of the area, noting the development now taking place east and west of this block with a 450,000 square-foot art center project to the west and numerous projects to the east. He said that Greenbridge would ensure that this part of Town did not miss out on the Rosemary Renaissance, and they believe it will be come a thriving and vibrant hub connecting Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
Dan Jewell, of Coulter Jewell and Thames, provided detail on the site and the site plan. Using the aerial map, he pointed out the location of the proposed development. Mr. Jewell then displayed a map and indicated the zoning designations in the area, noting the Greenbridge project was considered to be in what had been called an “opportunity area” for additional development.
Mr. Jewell said the site was surrounded by a neighborhood that had small businesses, shops and a few restaurants. He said from the standpoint of sustainable design, the first thing to do would be to try to locate the development on a site that had infrastructure in place. Mr. Jewell noted that because the infrastructure was already in place, they would not need to spend funds to extend them. He also remarked that solar access was important to this site, noting the design would be mindful of the path of the sun, allowing access to sunlight for all public spaces and apartments to the extent possible.
Mr. Jewell displayed a site map, noting they wanted to development a site that was open and transparent, that people could move through using public spaces. He said along with that would be great development and activation of the street and sidewalk on Graham Street, Merritt Mill Road, and Rosemary Street. Mr. Jewell stated that because this was a gateway site and it was important that they present a good face to Rosemary Street, they had designed a plaza around the cradle-to-cradle building that announced arrival at the site.
Mark Rilengar, of William McDonough and Partners, said that they design projects according to how they wanted the world to be for future generations, and to do that principles must be established. He said that the Greenbridge team had embraced guiding principles for the site and building crafted by Bill McDonough: “We see a renewably powered world full of safe and healthy things, with clean air, water, soil and power, economically, equitably, ecologically, and elegantly enjoyed.” Mr. Rilengar said that was a great goal for all of Chapel Hill, and he hoped this project could be an example.
Mr. Rilengar said that what some of those things would look like would include community connection, vibrant public space, massing and scale, a building that teaches, roof gardens, solar access, flows, and materials. He exhibited photos of projects that William McDonough and Partners had been involved with that contained these principles.
Mr. Rilengar commented that a key question for them regarding Greenbridge was, “what if a building was like a tree?” For instance, he said, how could they harvest energy from the sun, make their own water, create a habitat, and provide beauty and comfort for everyone in the neighborhood. Mr. Rilengar said a key idea was to open the site up, to create a corridor for people and light to pass through the building. He said there was roughly 180,000 square feet with 40,000 of retail in nine stories, and the lower level allowed a generous plaza at the corner of Rosemary and Merritt Mill Road with the cradle-to-cradle building Mr. Rilengar said there were two stories of parking, with the garage exit located on Graham Street.
Mr. Rilengar stated they wanted all the roof surfaces productive in some way, either as a place to occupy, a place to grow things to create oxygen, or a place to capture rainwater to produce energy. He exhibited a conceptual drawing of the scheme presented to the Community Design Commission, indicating how light would pass through the plaza, the retail and professional offices, and the residential component.
Josh Gurlitz, of GGA Architects, provided a quick overview of the project as already presented, reminding the Council that the applicants for this project were not real estate developers but residents of the Town. He commented on the history of the Northside neighborhood, the role played by groups such as EmPOWERment, Inc., and the effect of the Small Area Plan process. Mr. Gurlitz said they had pursued a continuing dialogue with the Northside neighborhood and its leaders, noting they had held another meeting a week ago.
Mr. Gurlitz said as a result of those and other meetings and the feedback received, the two parts of the building that had been planned with two nine-story elements had been modified. He stated they had reattributed the square footage to keep one part of the building at nine stories, but taking the west building and pulling it down considerably to six stories. Mr. Gurlitz displayed a drawing of the building proposed with that modification.
Mr. Gurlitz made several final points, remarking that they had an enlightened development as an asset, the opportunity to create a real model of sustainable development, and a project that was proposed to be located in a natural opportunity center in the downtown that would add value and enhance other opportunities as mentioned earlier.
Mr. Gurlitz said this project was important because it was at the crossroads of Chapel Hill and the developing energy in eastern Carrboro, and it included an educational center as well as a significant public space. He described the public space with the large square footage of the plaza and the street, noting they should start to energize the street where the neighborhood community and the larger community could begin to come together.
Mr. Gurlitz said for the most part the project conformed to the regulations in LUMO, noting in some areas they exceeded the standards. He said the nine-story component of the building was taller than the LUMO component. Mr. Gurlitz noted they had attempted to carve the building in a way that at different times of the day sunlight and air would be allowed to pierce through the building.
Mr. Gurlitz commented that the total square footage also exceeded the LUMO regulations, for a number of reasons. He said one was economic, noting that placing underground parking introduced a certain fixed cost and one way of recovering that cost was to increase the amount of square footage that was sellable. Secondly, he said, was the cost of some of the sustainable features in the building were higher than the competitive market.
Mr. Gurlitz said they had included many features that relate directly to the goals and values of the community. He noted they would request expedited review of the project, noting their schedule projected a public hearing in September. Mr. Gurlitz said it would take diligent work to meet the schedule, but said he believed it was possible.
Lex Alexander, of West End Partnership, stated he was representing the retail merchants on the west end of Franklin Street. He noted they believed this area needed that building, adding that to have a walking community with goods and services you needed to have people living within walking distance of those goods and services. Mr. Alexander said this project would raise the bar on what that kind of mixed use could look like.
Mr. Alexander stated he had not seen a lot of this type of construction being proposed, and the reason was because it was expensive. He urged the Council to remember that time was money, and asked that the project be approved in an expedited manner so that the developers would not suffer unnecessary expense. Mr. Alexander also asked that the project be approved in a way that did not “water down” its exceptional features. He said he believed this could be a model building in the west end, and would put people living within walking distance of the west end.
Delores Bailey, Director of EmPOWERment, Inc., noted she had taken part in a charette in October regarding this project. She said at a neighborhood meeting in January the Northside residents had expressed strong and clear objections to the height of the proposed building. Ms. Bailey said the developers had responded, and the proposal had lowered one part of the nine-story building to six stories.
Ms. Bailey said what concerned the Northside residents was the building’s height relative to the height of St. Paul’s Church. She said also of concern for one resident was whether she would be able to afford to live in this building. Ms. Bailey said the developers had responded by helping residents to take financial literacy classes to prepare to live in one of these affordable units. She said the developers had also committed to current residents to help them include some of the green building techniques in their own homes that they would be using at Greenbridge to conserve energy. Ms. Bailey said the developers had also responded when the Northside neighbors had said they wanted to be Northside residents today and ten years from now. She said the developers had committed to helping them hold on to their properties.
Ms. Bailey said she wanted to emphasize that the developers were willing to listen, and were willing to come back again and allow the residents of Northside to continue to express what they want and how they feel.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how the change in building height protected the integrity of the neighborhood and being able to preserve their homeownership. Ms. Bailey replied she had talked to the developers about the property values and the residents concern that those values would rise. She said that had been discussed with the developers and ideas shared regarding that, noting there had been some discussion about perhaps providing a fund that would help residents cover those rising costs. Ms. Bailey said that was just an idea that had not been discussed in detail, but she wanted to point out that that level of participation by developers was already taking place.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked regarding affordability, if she had any thoughts on providing opportunities for people to live in this development. Ms. Bailey responded it was important that the people who lived, worked, and walked in the Northside community be able to buy in that project. She said she was not talking about just those in the 80 percent of the area median income, but those in the 60 percent and 50 percent as well. Ms. Bailey said she believed that was in line with what the developers were proposing, but she wanted to actually see it happen.
Tom Hinkle provided a brief background of his experience and expertise in energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy, especially solar energy. He said in this county almost half of the energy consumed goes into heating and cooling of buildings and toward producing hot water. He said if Chapel Hill were serious about reducing carbon emissions, and he believed it was, then the place to begin was in new construction.
Mr. Hinkle said the developers of Greenbridge had the right idea in designing the best possible energy efficient building. He said they also had the right idea in using roof areas for solar energy production as well as green plants that would help to cool the building but also store water and help in the water treatment of the site. Mr. Hinkle said he applauded them for their vision and for taking the risk, adding whenever you try something new it is a risk. He stated that this building would provide a model for future building in Chapel Hill, and said he hoped it would be a model for the UNC campus as well.
Mr. Hinkle said as he looked at development around Town he was sadden that he did not see more energy efficiency put into place. He said with Greenbridge, all will see energy efficient systems that will consume much less electricity than with typical HVAC systems. Mr. Hinkle said as the Town saves energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions it will greatly improve air quality and the quality of life in general.
Professor Douglas Crawford-Brown, Director of the UNC Carolina Environmental Program, said the policy implications of this project was that there were few powers that the Town had that would attract developments like this, but certainly one of those powers was to have expedited review. He said that translated into dollar savings that could be plugged back into the green features of this project. Dr. Crawford-Brown said he would not ordinarily pitch that as a general policy except for this project, noting it was good to plan such a project but something else entirely to actually build something that reached the goals of the carbon reduction program
Dr. Crawford-Brown said he supported this project because he was confident in Tim Tobin’s ability to not only have good ideas but to translate them, adding that he and his students would be working with Mr. Tobin on this project. He said he supported moving this project forward as quickly as possible without cutting corners, and assured the Council that many people at UNC, including him and his students, would provide backup to ensure that the project was built properly.
Phil Szostak, an architect and planner, said he was representing the West End Collaborative. He said their group had been formed last October to be an advocate for the west end. He said his group would in the near future bring to the Council a West End Small Area Plan that they would prepare to continue a decision that this and other projects had already started for them.
Mr. Szostak said they believe this project represented everything that had been talked about over the last five years. He said the concept plan was a first step in a long journey, hopefully an expedited journey, and was a worthy one. Mr. Szostak remarked that this kind of project represented the future of the built environment here and in the State. He said no matter how great this project was environmentally, it had to be a urban building that would do what it was meant to do.
Mr. Szostak commented that the street was the key to revitalization of this Town and in the community. He said the courtyard as planned would take energy off the street. Mr. Szostak urged the Council to leave energy on the street, and not to take it off the street and put it in a courtyard.
Lynne Kane said she had heard some negativity regarding a grocery store in this development. She said placing a grocery store in this location was a good idea, and asked that the Council give the developers expedited review.
David Brower said he had lived in Chapel Hill for 36 years, and had been waiting for a project such as this for that entire time. He said it would make Chapel Hill a more significant place, noting that if the developers were able to do even two-thirds of what they planned, it would be a really exciting and monumental project. Mr. Brower said he taught in the UNC’s Department of City and Regional Planning, noting that Bill McDonough was one of the real giants in the area of sustainable development and achieving sustainable development through architecture. He noted that it would exciting to have a building of Mr. McDonough’s in Town. He urged the Council to approve the project as rapidly as possible, noting it would serve as a model for other communities and other builders.
Blair Pollack, representing the Village Project, said they advocated for walkable communities and ecologically sound land use, and this project was it. He stated he realized this was a tall building, but it was time to stop being afraid of that. Mr. Pollack remarked that regarding affordable housing, when you have a really energy efficient project the money saved in utilities would contribute to paying the mortgage, making the units even more affordable and therefore increasing the opportunities for affordable housing.
Mr. Pollack stated that unlike the two projects coming soon to the downtown, the redevelopment of Parking Lot 2 and Parking Lot 5, this project required minimal public investment and would create some technical and economic models to give a better picture of what is wanted downtown. He said letting private developers take that risk was a plus.
Mr. Pollack remarked that the project would also increase the tax base, and hoped the Council would give the project its full consideration. He urged the Council to find a way to allow the project to be as intense as planned so it could meet its economic and affordable housing goals. Mr. Pollack added that a laundromat and market would serve the neighborhood as well.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how the courtyard was to work. He said he was concerned about the interior, asking whether it would be an activated center or for residents only. Mr. Rilengar responded that the models show that it was a relatively small space. He said that the retail was located in such a way as to wrap and turn in, extending the use of that space during the day and making it more visible. Mr. Rilengar said the lighting and other features would make that area part of the street. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was concerned that it would become “dead space” and that it was so small.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked about the division of affordable housing, noting that the Town was a champion of social justice. He asked for a fuller explanation, asking if this was considered a social justice victory even though the Town consistently asked for 15 percent of a project to be affordable. Mr. Tobin replied they had originally thought the affordable housing would all be on site, but once they had discussions with the community it seemed that was potentially a forced fit since not all of the interest was for it to be on site. He said if there was an opportunity to acquire properties in the Northside neighborhood either for new homes or refurbishing existing homes, that meeting the affordable housing goal might be accomplished in a dual strategy by finding 50 percent of that goal in the Northside neighborhood, and placing the other 50 percent on site. Mr. Tobin said in placing that 50 percent on site, a concept was proposed that there was a wonderful contingent of artists, craftspeople, musicians and others in the west end, and they did not want to discourage them from living in this area. As a result, he said, they plan to market the other 50 percent of the units to that group. Mr. Tobin said they would not restrict others, but wanted to encourage live/work spaces.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the plan was to design those spaces specifically to attract that group of people. Mr. Tobin replied that was the idea, as well as marketing in local venues where that population would be reached.
Mr. Tucker said that the affordable housing aspect was one that they had worked hard to define, and the two key elements were to maintain long term affordability and work with the groups such as EmPOWERment and the Land Trust. He said they would enthusiastically support affordable housing.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was pleased that other groups would be involved in finding the best way to provide affordable housing. He said he would like to see the idea of providing affordable housing in Northside integrated into the project, noting it might be a way to enhance the 15 percent goal, but not to substitute for the 15 percent to be provided on site. Mr. Tucker said he understood his point. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how many units they were talking about. Mr. Tucker said he believed it was 15.
Mayor Foy asked what was the total number of units planned for the project. Mr. Tucker responded one hundred. He said one thing they had looked at as part of this was the language in the Comprehensive Plan and the Small Area Plan that encouraged the actual investment into the neighborhood in these opportunity zones.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said to forecast a little farther down the road in the process, the inclusion of 15 percent affordable housing was a great idea, going out into Northside and finding creative ways to invest in the neighborhood was a great idea, and meeting LEED requirements and all the other positive aspects of the project that would meet many goals would encourage the Council to move forward on this project.
Council Member Harrison commented that he was provoked when the statement was made that it was time to get “unafraid” of tall buildings. He stated he had received a voice mail over the holidays from a woman who expressed alarm about the planned height of this building, noting that the building was sitting on a line in the Town that would not allow this height. Council Member Harrison stated he had to reply to her that this Council “did not have a leg to stand on” because it was asking for so much more. He said he was not afraid of tall buildings, having grown up around them. Council Member Harrison said since no one from Carrboro was present to protest the height, he assumed that would not be a hurdle.
Council Member Harrison said he would like someone on the planning team to speak about the concepts regarding solar management, noting there were regulations to meet and saying he did not know how they would do it. He said he specifically wanted to know about stormwater management. Mr. Jewell said with more and more developments stormwater was being handled underground using various means. Mr. Jewell said what may be unique on this site was that this might be the first project to have a water reuse program, noting that in terms of sustainability and LEED, that was high on the list. He said the new stormwater rules under LUMO basically wanted developers to find a way to reuse stormwater.
Council Member Harrison remarked that with expedited review they did not have a lot of time to figure this out, so he hoped they were starting now. Mr. Jewell replied they had begun that process.
Mr. Gurlitz stated they would be exploring ways to reclaim the stormwater and use it throughout the project. He said green roofs do slow up the stormwater surge, and having as much green roof as they were planning would have an appreciable impact on meeting and even exceeding the Town’s goals.
Council Member Ward said regarding affordable housing, he hoped that would be incorporated into the project, although he was supportive of the efforts already expressed regarding the neighborhood. He said he was concerned that there were residential units that would be demolished, and the next result would not be 15 percent affordable housing for the community. He said that would be a reason why he would like to see additional attention paid to affordable housing since we were losing some in the process.
Council Member Ward remarked that in the materials, it said they were striving for LEED standards. He said “striving” was a bit soft, and wanted more information on that. Council Member Ward asked for a characterization of the commitment beyond that, and what kind of premium was associated with that commitment in terms of cost to the project. Mr. Tobin responded that in October they had hired one of the five consulting firms that performed evaluation of LEED projects. He said the rating was done using points, with 40 points equaling a Gold LEED standard. Mr. Tobin said they had gone over their plans and applied the point system to what they believed was achievable, and their point total was 42, which exceeded the Gold LEED standard.
Council Member Ward said his experience was that you needed to have more points than you think you need, so that when the project was completed you would have some breathing room. Mr. Tobin responded that was correct, since many times the review committee may not agree with an assessment and back points out. Regarding the costs to the project, LEED estimates it to be 2 percent, but it was actually much more than that. Talked to a number of builders who have said the cost was conservatively around 15 percent, but for traditional buildings it was more on the lines of 30 percent of costs.
Council Member Ward said he had heard those figures as well. Mr. Tobin said the renewable energy systems were the major portion of the cost, noting they may have as much as $1 million in solar panels. He said the green conservation system was another big one, as well as the thermal options. Mr. Tobin said if they went with the 81 planned, the cost would be well above 2 percent.
Council Member Ward asked how you would protect the next project’s solar access with a nine-story building? Mr. Tobin responded how do we protect our own access. Council Member Ward said with a nine-story building, something built to the south may have problems. Mr. Tobin said sites are chosen very carefully, and one of the things they had done was to split the building in half to allow multiple opportunities for solar on the walls and on the rooftops. He noted it also had a lot to do with orientation and how you manage the space internally.
Council Member Ward said the materials mentioned having a connection between Carrboro and Chapel Hill, but did not mention the connectivity with the immediate neighborhood. Council Member Ward said he wanted to take this opportunity to emphasize that that was critically important to him. He said it had been stated that the project would be providing needed services to the local community, but he needed ultimately to be convinced that what happened at the retail level would be accessible to those living in the immediate neighborhood and not shops that were boutiques and the like. Council Member Ward said these retails shops should provide regular services that people needed day-to-day.
Council Member Ward commented that regarding the slice through the project, he hoped they chose that angle based on some solstice or equinox element taking place so that they could have a celebration of this project each year. He said he hoped it would be one more link to the real world and would not be air-conditioned or insulated from nature.
Council Member Easthom said she was excited by this project, and appreciated the environmental design. She said she believed it was just what Chapel Hill needed and that this particular area of Town needed people living there to make it a vibrant community.
Council Member Easthom said she agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt that the 15 percent affordable housing should be supplied within the project. She said she would like to know a little more about how the 200 cars parked in the underground lot would enter and exit that area. Mr. Tobin replied that generally, the ingress and egress would be from Merritt Mill Road, noting that was the logical entry point for vehicles coming from Merritt Mill Road, Franklin Street and Rosemary Street. He said it was right across from the Church parking lot, and they had been talking to the Church about possibly using the parking during Sunday services. Mr. Tobin stated that egress would be onto Graham Street. So, he said, there was one route in and two routes out.
Mayor Foy asked how many of the spaces were dedicated spaces and how many were public spaces. Mr. Tucker responded they were planning on a minimum of at least one space per housing unit, with the remainder dedicated to retail. He said that equated to 100 spaces for the housing units, and 100 spaces for the retail. Mr. Tucker said they did not plan to have any public parking on site except for customers to the retail stores.
Mayor pro tem Strom said it was extraordinary to see so many citizens come out to express support for a project that was in the concept stage. He congratulated the applicants for bringing forward such a project, adding it was nice to see that the private sector had been paying attention to the Council’s work with LUMO and the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor pro tem Strom said regarding the affordable housing element, he agreed that it should be provided on the premises. He said it looked like it might be possible to add some density to the smaller building if they found it necessary to accommodate the affordable housing element as they proceed with the project.
Mayor Foy commented regarding the affordable housing aspects of this discussion, he thought it was important what the applicants were doing to integrate this project into Northside. He said it was important to be aware of what this project might to do to that neighborhood, noting there was more than one way to destroy a community. Mayor Foy said he was going to part with his colleagues on this, stating it was important that there be affordable housing within the project. He said developers knew that they could not buy their way out of that by placing affordable housing somewhere else. Mayor Foy said he did not believe that was what the applicants were trying to do, so he wanted a better explanation of what they were proposing. He said they would have to convince everyone as to why they were proposing what they were. Mayor Foy said that the Council wanted affordable housing to be a part of the project and that it would not be segregated from the rest of the project but dispersed throughout. Mr. Tucker said they had tried to be creative regarding the affordable housing component.
Delores Bailey explained she was sensitive to how the affordable housing was developed, and explained how the off-site proposal had come about. She said she had looked at it in terms of the cost of a two-bedroom unit, which was $85,000 to $90,000. Ms. Bailey said she could acquire a lot and build a house in Northside with yard space for children with that money, stating the thought was that some of that money could be shifted and put back into Northside to acquire property and provide a home off the site.
Mayor Foy said he was struck by a comment made by Mr. Szostak regarding the courtyard drawing energy off the street. Frank Phoenix, one of the owners, said regarding the possibility of providing affordable housing in Northside as part of this project, that he had spent six years on the Habitat for Humanity Board of Directors. He said the idea of providing housing off site so that someone who may not want to live in Greenbridge could instead live or continue to live in Northside, and by taking some of the funds designated for affordable housing and perhaps renovating or refurbishing a home that was now boarded up was what had drawn him to this idea. Mr. Phoenix said to the extent that they could take that money and invest it into the neighborhood would be good for all of us.
Mayor Foy said he saw it differently when a building was being built in Northside and investing in Northside, as opposed to a building being provided somewhere else and then suggesting that affordable housing be provided in that neighborhood. He said that was why he was willing to consider how they might creatively deal with that social issue.
Mayor Foy said he agreed with the comment Mr. Szostak made regarding the retail space, and asked if they had thought about doing both. He said that raised a valid point about drawing the energy off the street. Mayor Foy asked if they had thought about what they would do about the construction and demolition waste generated. Mr. Tobin said there would be an inventory taken before any demolition was done, and materials separated out and weighed. He said all of that was part of a very defined protocol that would earn points towards LEED certification.
Council Member Ward said it appeared that a lot of thought and time had gone into and had been articulated about the education center proposed on the front edge of the building, that was meant to celebrate the historic black businesses in the area. He said it had to be so much more than a celebration of what was there, and must be something that enabled and enriched the opportunities to be there now and in the future. Council Member Ward stated that was very important to him. Mr. Tobin said he understood, noting this was a bridging concept with the idea of what sustainability was all about.
Mr. Tobin remarked that the education center would have two components: one retrospective and one prospective. He said the retrospective component would be made up of a set of filmed interviews with elders of the community about what had made Northside sustainable over the last 80 years and what had made it a vibrant community. Mr. Tobin provided a brief description of how that sustainability had come about. He said they wanted to show what it meant to live in such a community. Mr. Tobin said they then wanted to take the ideas of sustainability moving forward into the next 50 to 100 years, the prospective element, and marry those things that happened in the past with the future.
Mr. Tobin said the education center, or sustainability center, would contain retrospectives, films and artifacts as well as demonstrations. He said they had held talks with UNC about partnering with them in developing the center. Mr. Tobin said that they had also talked with OWASA representatives who had expressed an interest in reserving an area to demonstrate water conservation.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said this reminded somewhat of a song that critiqued developers for cutting down a tree and building a tree museum. He said that this was the Northside business district with historically African-American owned businesses, and it was their ability to remain viable as this development moved forward that was at the core of Council Member Ward’s question. Council Member Kleinschmidt said it appeared that they were tearing down some of these historically African-American owned businesses and putting in a museum about them. Mr. Tobin replied that he was sorry to give that impression because that was absolutely not the case. He commented that the vibrant business hub that had once been there was no longer there, and they wanted to bring back vibrancy and commerce to that lot.
As an example, Mr. Tobin said, in Deloris Bailey’s EmPOWERment project there was a woman in the program that sold flowers. He said it was an incubator project that helped such businesses get off the ground, but the question was where did they go from there. Mr. Tobin said this project would give her a place to graduate to, giving that entrepreneur an opportunity to sell more flowers to more people and develop a thriving business. He said with 40,000 square feet there would be ample space to provide that opportunity to people. Mr. Tobin said it was their belief that this project would help to recover what had been lost on that block with regard to commerce.
Mr. Tobin remarked that what was historic in retrospect was not the commercial piece but the community piece. He stated they wanted to learn and understand the way the community had succeeded in the past and bring that into Greenbridge and make that integral to the project.
Council Member Kleinschmidt commented that if they see this as a place to graduate to, that would mean that some of the opportunities for commercial activity would be affordable in a similar way that the Town was looking towards the parking lot developments. He asked if that was a correct statement. Mr. Tobin said he was not familiar with the parking lot developments, so could not comment. He said that this project would provide an opportunity for businesses that had gotten off the ground to graduate up to a larger market and to have a set of opportunities that was not limited to only one of two options but would provide varied options for success.
Mayor Foy commended the applicants for the ambitions put forward for this project, and wished them the best of luck as they continued through the process.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 3 – Concept Plan: Woodmont Office Development
Mr. Poveromo stated this was a consideration of a Concept Plan for the Woodmont Office Development, a 33.2-acre site located in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning districts and the Watershed Protection District. He said the site was located on the Stancell Drive service road between Barbee Chapel Road and Little John Road, and had frontage on the service road as well as Barbee Chapel Road. He said the proposal involved demolishing existing warehouse and residential structures and constructing seven buildings with new construction proposed for 471,500 square feet of office floor area, 1,826 parking spaces, and two parking decks. Mr. Poveromo said they anticipated that the applicant would file an application for a Zoning Atlas amendment.
Harry Bowles, with Capital Associates and speaking as the applicant, provided a brief history of his firm and its accomplishments. He said for the type of building being proposed, they normally maintained a long-term ownership, noting they don’t build them, sell them, and move away to leave others to deal with issues that arise. Mr. Bowles said their intention was to maintain a long-term relationship with this project for a decade or longer.
Mr. Bowles displayed slides of The Exchange West at Meadowmont and the Franklin Street Trust Building, noting that both buildings were fully leased. He said based on comments received from various elements in the Town, those buildings had been well received. Mr. Bowles stated he would display a number of slides of The Exchange because they intended to replicate the high quality of that structure in this new development.
Mr. Bowles noted that their equity partner in this proposed development was Greystone Properties, a firm with long-term and deep roots in the community. Also on the team, he said, were Josh Gurlitz of GGA, the project architect, and Bruce Ballentine of Ballentine and Associates, who had performed the preliminary civil work. Mr. Bowles added that Jerry Turner and Associates was the project’s land planner. He noted that Mr. Gurlitz and Mr. Ballentine were both present this evening, as well as Linda Turner, with Jerry Turner and Associates.
Mr. Bowles displayed an aerial graphic of the site, and pointed out various nearby business and residential properties and roadways. He exhibited photos of the structures presently on the site from different angles.
Josh Gurlitz stated they were proposing a set of buildings that would be constructed in phases, with the principle use as office space. He said specifically they were proposing one building on the NC 54 frontage, then a cluster of buildings in the center of the site. Mr. Gurlitz remarked that most of the square footage was within the cluster internal to the site. He said then, they would have several additional buildings on a connector site that connected to Barbee Chapel Road. Mr. Gurlitz said the site would have two entrances, one on the north at NC 54 and a second entrance directly across from Finley Forest on Barbee Chapel Road. He said the site would have a single route through it with a loop off that route that would provide access to the central core area. Mr. Gurlitz noted there would be two parking deck structures in separate locations to serve the buildings. He noted the principle uses on the site would be corporate offices, with perhaps professional offices and a freestanding restaurant. Mr. Gurlitz commented they wanted to explore the possibility of a median cut at the NC 54 entrance.
Mr. Gurlitz said the site development had certain characteristics they believe are desirable, and displayed slides of some of the features:
Mr. Gurlitz said they were proposing a land use that was different from the Comprehensive Plan in this area. He said part of the reason was that the NC 54 entryway called for a mix of uses, and there were no corporate or professional office uses within a quarter of a mile. He said within a half mile radius is the Friday Center, Meadowmont, the Hotel and the Faculty Club. Mr. Gurlitz said everything else within that half mile radius was residential, consisting of single-family homes to condominiums and apartments.
Mr. Gurlitz said all of the non-residential uses in the area were more than a quarter mile from their site, and this project would add to the mix of uses within a convenient walking radius of the site. He said that Chapel Hill had a real need for offices like these, noting the emerging businesses and research companies that mature and need to find new space. Mr. Gurlitz provided a brief description of some of the businesses that had been drawn to The Exchange, noting the same type of businesses would be drawn to Woodmont.
Bruce Ballentine, of Ballentine and Associates, said they had been challenged to design a first-class office facility for expanding Chapel Hill businesses on what was basically an abandoned warehouse site on an entryway into Chapel Hill. He said if you keep in mind the image that some of the slides portrayed of the existing property and substitute the appearance of The Exchange building that SunTrust was currently occupying, that building was parallel to NC 54 and set back about the same distance that is planned for this development.
Mr. Ballentine stated there was also the aspect of the greater neighborhood that this site is a part of, not only the adjoining areas but also the sub-area of Chapel Hill that included Meadowmont Center, The Exchange, the Friday Center, the Marriott Courtyard, and others. He commented that they feel that the redevelopment of this site from the warehouse industrial past to something similar to The Exchange at Meadowmont was more suitable for one of the Town’s major entryway corridors.
Mr. Ballentine said because this development was near residential areas the thought was to pull the development interior to the site and provide the maximum amount of buffers, larger if possible than the required minimums. He said there was ample room for significant landscaped areas such as the courtyard, and structuring parking and other techniques to pull the site in and leave buffers along the outside. Mr. Ballentine said that the stormwater management facilities had been taken into account, noting there were six sites reserved. He said those facilities had not yet been designed, but provided slides of the stormwater facilities at The Exchange as an example of what you might expect to see in their final design.
Council Member Harrison said the development program document described a new median cut and full service intersection on NC 54, which he assumed meant a traffic light. He asked what their plan would be if a median cut were not approved. Mr. Ballentine said because they were in the concept stage, a traffic engineer had been engaged to start an analysis. He stated that the traffic study and those recommendations and what they could and could not do in regards to NCDOT was a major part of the plan as they move forward. He said with the procedures they had in place now these designs were developed to a greater extent than required by a concept plan, so they did not have all of the answers at this time.
Mr. Bowles summarized what their team considered to be the benefits of this proposed project:
Mr. Bowles stated there were estimated economic benefits that would accrue
which they believed the Council should consider:
Mr. Bowles remarked they appreciated the opportunity to present this plan to the Council, and welcomed feedback.
Mayor Foy asked how many parking spaces were proposed on the Concept Plan. Mr. Bowles said currently they were showing about 1,800 spaces, which was roughly four spaces per 1,000 square feet. He said a number of those were shown on the plans as green dotted lines, which denoted that if those spaces were not needed, they would not be built. Mr. Bowles said they wanted to reserve those spaces in case their tenants were not provided access to public transportation. He said they would like to minimize what they had to pave, and providing access to Chapel Hill Transit would enhance that goal.
Rebecca Board, a member of the board of Downing Creek, just to the east of this proposed development, remarked that they had looked at the site plan and had talked with Capital Associates. Ms. Board said there were many good things about this proposal, and they had asked themselves if they would prefer to have office space or residential space on this site. She said the conclusion was that they preferred office space. Ms. Board said they liked the idea of the frontage on NC 54 being for commercial-type buildings. She said they believed that the residential aspects belonged on Barbee Chapel Road.
Ms. Board said they had looked at the property and it was not attractive, but she believed the proposed development would be extremely attractive. She said they liked the idea of the large buffer zones between this development and the residential neighborhoods. Ms. Board said for those and other reasons they liked the proposed development, but they had some concerns.
Ms. Board stated that they had issues with the ingress and egress on NC 54, and even more so had an issue with the traffic already on NC 54. She said it was congested and could not manage the number of vehicles on it, and Barbee Chapel Road was becoming congested as well. Ms. Board said they did not see how any new development could be there without first correcting the infrastructure in place.
George Thompson, a resident of Essex Lane, highlighted his thoughts and the thoughts of various neighbors. He said one thought was that Capital Associates had a great track record, and did a good job of quality building and maintenance. Mr. Thompson said if this project were approved as a commercial venture, no doubt they would follow through on promises made. But as seen with Downing Creek, and himself in particular, some promises quickly changed. He said the property adjacent to him changed to rental property, and did not believe that would have been allowed with a commercial venture.
Mr. Thompson noted that the buffers were attractive, and their property values would be constant or would increase because the people buying would know that townhouses would not be put up a few years later. He said he would like to see the project plan revised to address the needs of people on the site and in the surrounding neighborhoods, such as restaurants and other amenities that would not require people to leave the site for lunch. Mr. Thompson asked that the developers be required to construct the latest technology in impervious surface alternatives, noting there were some interesting things that would reduce the amount of runoff from pavement. Mr. Thompson acknowledged those alternatives were more costly, but any commercial developer should be willing to concede that.
Mr. Thompson said that regarding parking those spaces could be designed to invite public use, particularly on the weekends. He said that most of the planned urban developments have streets and they may have an area designated for family use, but this would be unique if some of the parking area were available to the public to make use of the walking and biking trails on the weekends when the facility would be practically empty.
Mr. Thompson said there were so many variables with the traffic alone, noting that would be a difficult issue. He contended that this project was far more diverse than a cookie cutter residential urban development that might be the alternative.
Henry Lister thanked Mr. Bowles for the tremendous amount of time he had spent with the neighbors to explain the project, and for his considerate approach and his willingness to talk with them. He said that placing a large commercial office complex within a residential neighborhood was contrary to its current zoning of R-2. Mr. Lister said some of his neighbors might find it difficult to reject a project because it was a “known,” and it was unknown what might come after it.
Mr. Lister said they had anticipated for years that the property would be redeveloped, but Woodmont was not what they had envisioned. He said the project was too large and had grown since he had first seen the plans, adding the project was inappropriate for this site.
Mr. Lister distributed to the Council a copy of the Goals for the NC 54 East Entranceway adopted by the Council in June of 1995. He stated this project did not meet most of the criteria of those goals:
Mr. Lister reiterated that given how poorly this project adheres to these entranceway goals, this project was inappropriate for this site.
Scott Radway said there were difficulties with this location and intensity as proposed. He asked the Council to think about a bigger picture issue, which was what would the Town get in return for the windfall profit that the rezoning would allow. Mr. Radway said it was not his intention to cast aspersions on the applicant, and said he wanted only to focus on what Chapel Hill would gain. Simply speaking, he said, the Town would get 1,800 parking spaces and 1,800 hundred people, resulting in more traffic. Mr. Radway said the only two things he could identify that Chapel Hill would gain was additional traffic, and some profit in taxes.
Mr. Radway said what the Town would loose was an opportunity for affordable housing if it changes this to a development with no housing. Mr. Radway said if he were on the Council, he would want the applicant to come back with a plan that provided opportunities for something other than office buildings within the site. He said those opportunities would not have to be there at the beginning but should certainly have the capability of being added later. Mr. Radway said he was not sure he would mandate any specific number, but there should be some number of various activities, perhaps a dry cleaner or the like.
Mr. Radway stated if there were going to be that many cars, there should be some kind of annual contribution that would provide for the transit linkage that would be needed at minimum from the campus to this project and from this project to Meadowmont. He said that the people who were creating the demand should subsidize payment for bus service.
Mr. Radway said we should consider a linkage fee of what 1,800 jobs meant to the community goal of affordable housing. He said new jobs in a market where there was virtually no opportunity for housing demands that those employers or developers participate in ways to provide affordable housing. Mr. Radway said for example, if you take 264 units that could be built on the site with its current zoning, then 15 percent would be 40 units. He said the subsidy component of 40 units to Orange County Land Trust at $60,000 each would amount to $2.4 million dollars. Mr. Radway stated that would role backwards into about $5.00 per square foot for 500,000 square feet of office space. That was a lot to ask for someone to pay, he remarked, but not if it was paid on an annual basis for the opportunity to make a lot of money.
Council Member Easthom said when she had looked at the schematics of the development she saw pavement, impervious surface, and very little green. She said what was shown as green was designated as future parking. Council Member Easthom said she was interested in the comment made regarding a park-like setting, and wondered where that was on the site.
Council Member Easthom said the water feature area noted between Buildings C and D was more pavement and looked as if it were a pedestrian walkway rather than a travel route, suggesting it could be green. She stated that buildings B, C, and D were clustered, and wondered why buildings E, F, and G were not clustered as well. She remarked that all she was seeing was buildings and parking lots.
Council Member Easthom said she was curious as to The Exchange at Meadowmont and the number of parking spaces. She asked about the amount of square footage at The Exchange and how many parking spaces currently existed. Council Member Easthom stated the applicant had talked about phasing the parking, and wanted to know what their experience was with The Exchange and how it applied here.
Regarding the mixed use element, Council Member Easthom remarked that the more we can see people having the opportunity to remain in an area and not have to move out into the community for lunch or other reasons, the better. She noted that she saw a lot of environmental problems with this project.
Council Member Greene said Mr. Radway’s comments were interesting, particularly regarding the bus versus cars. She said obviously traffic was a big issue here, with lots of parking and impervious surface. Council Member Greene noted that regarding the reserve parking lots, she would rather not see that but would rather see bus service provided. She stated that if the developer knew they could build these “pocket” parking lots later on they would be less motivated to keep looking for transit alternatives.
Council Member Ward asked if the applicant was prepared to respond to the question regarding the comparison between The Exchange parking and square footage and this proposed development. He also asked how close to capacity they were on those parking spaces at The Exchange. Mr. Bowles responded there were a little more than four spaces currently constructed per 1,000 square feet, and The Exchange had about 200,000 square feet. He said the ratio proposed for Woodmont was about the same, at about 4.1 per 1,000 square feet. Mr. Bowles stated that the impervious surface ratio, assuming that all of the reserve parking was actually built, would be about 54 percent. He noted that the cap on commercial projects with engineered stormwater features was 70 percent.
Mr. Bowles remarked that with the density they were proposing they could still create the aesthetic feel of the buildings nestled in the landscape. He stated that the actual parking now at The Exchange was admittedly less than four per 1,000 since there were obvious daily vacancies. Mr. Bowles commented that perhaps one answer would be to reserve even more green space at Woodmont. He added that they were sensitive to these issues, and were in this for the long run.
Council Member Ward said he had read in the materials that they were requesting rezoning to OI-1, but in another part of the materials it stated OI-2. He asked for clarification. Mr. Bowles responded OI-1 was being requested.
Council Member Ward said that the transit issue was very critical, noting that some of it could be ameliorated by having some meaningful bicycle and pedestrians connections, not just interior to the site but to their usability to Meadowmont and the retail that existed there. He said it did not make sense to him unless you could practically demonstrate that the non-office uses that the Town typically expect in a mixed use would be used without creating more vehicles trips. Council Member Ward said that could be accomplished by enriching the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity throughout and to this project, adding that was one way to get their traffic numbers down as well.
Council Member Ward encouraged them to look at LEEDs in terms of this project. He stated they had talked to the previous applicant tonight about a goal of 2 percent to 15 percent, and if you get someone on board early, with a straightforward project like this it was closer to the smaller number rather than the larger one. Council Member Ward said one way it would manifest itself was that those parking spaces could serve as water retention areas beneath them if you use pervious asphalt. He stated that would result in not having to take out all of the forests to create the stormwater ponds. Council Member said he would prefer the existing forest to be left untouched. He noted that LEEDs would give them all sorts of options in terms of minimizing the impact on the community. Council Member Ward said that included dealing with construction and demolition waste and the stormwater ponds.
Council Member Ward said he would prefer relocating the homes that existed on the property to demolishing them, so their useful life could be continued. He said he believed that with where their project abutted existing uses the exterior lighting would be critically important to do sensitively. Council Member Ward added that all of maps were oriented north and south except for one, and asked that they all be configured north and south.
Mayor Foy stated he had two concerns, the first of which was the “mono” uses as described by Mr. Radway. He said the proposal would require a rezoning, and development under the current zone was agreeable to him. Mayor Foy stated that a mixed use project would be a better project at this location.
Mayor Foy said his other concern was the amount of parking, noting this was a 33-acre parcel. He commented that the University was talking about placing 17,000 parking spaces on a 260-acre parcel, and the Council had been very clear that was not acceptable. Mayor Foy said the ratio here was the same, noting that 2,000 parking spaces on 33 acres were about the same as that suggested by the University. He emphasized that was too much parking, and said he would not vote to approve that under any circumstances.
Council Member Thorpe said the process of hearing from applicants during a Concept Plan review was beneficial, and commended the Mayor and Manager for instigating that process. He said the developers or applicants had not yet had to expend large amounts of money, and this gave them the opportunity to hear from the Council early in the process.
Council Member Harrison said he had known about this project for some time, noting it was close to the Durham border, and he had been thinking about it for a year. He said this was a rezoning in Chapel Hill, and the applicants were not addressing policies expressed by the Council regarding affordable housing. Council Member Harrison said Mr. Radway’s comments had “hit the nail on the head” about the rezoning.
Council Member Harrison commented about the idea of an annual contribution to Chapel Hill Transit that was pointed out to the applicant by a Community Design Commission member. He said that was originally suggested by former Council Member Dorothy Verkerk, noting if they wanted an extension of transit to a place that it was not now provided then they should be thinking about that.
Council Member Harrison said his main issue was that this had become about the most difficult road corridor for development in the Triangle, based on an interview with the lead congestion engineer for NCDOT and conversations with Town Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli. He stated that it was a corridor with no solutions, and if you drive it you know the biggest problem is the interchange. Council Member Harrison remarked that NCDOT now considers it the worst interchange access in the State, and they have no solution. He said they have a plan and a design, but cannot afford to do it.
Council Member Harrison commented that when the last office complex came onto the corridor several years ago in Durham County on the other side of the interchange, the City of Durham had recommended that the County deny it. He said the primary reason was that they had already seen that the interchange was at the point of failure and by 2005 would be beyond failure. Council Member Harrison stated that on the alphabetical scale it would be beyond F, it would be a minus. He said this development was not located at the interchange, nor was Meadowmont, but they would be a player and they could not ignore it. Council Member Harrison said as well, he could not ignore the fact that the Farrington Road corridor at NC 54 was considered the worst intersection in Durham and Orange Counties.
Council Member Harrison said that if a median were not cut, then traffic would have to run out to Barbee Chapel Road, and it was becoming more and more difficult to get a median cut because NCDOT was becoming more conservative about having additional reasons to stop on that roadway. He said he did not envy them as developers stepping into this corridor, and hoped they had a lot of patience and a good traffic engineer.
Council Member Harrison noted that he believed that Chapel Hill transit might be the only player that would deal with them, because TTA preferred not to get off the main stream of the corridor because their primary goal was to get to the UNC campus and other points. He said they did not favor diversions or loops off the corridor because their ridership decreased. And, Council Member Harrison noted, TTA was short on money.
Others had mentioned, Council Member Harrison reiterated, that there were policy issues the applicants were not dealing with. He said office use was quite reasonable here, but all vehicle the trips would be coming from outside and traffic was a problem. He said you had to understand there were huge constraints with NCDOT that were beyond the Council’s control. Council Member Harrison said this was a case where Capital Associates should be the main developer on this property, but to meet the views of this Council you may need partners in order to get it done.
COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EASTHOM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 4 – Concept Plan: Rayfield Subdivision
Ms. Culpepper stated this was a consideration of a Concept Plan for the Rayfield Subdivision, a four-lot subdivision zoned R-1 and proposed at 1027 Pinehurst Drive north of Driskel Court. She said the applicant was proposing to construct a new public street in the form of a cul-de-sac, and subdivide the current 5.1-acre site into four lots.
Ms. Culpepper pointed out that the CDC comments from November had been distributed to the Council and mentioned another Concept Plan proposal. She displayed a slide and pointed out the Pinehurst Subdivision that did not meet the threshold to come before the Council. Ms. Culpepper stated it was also a four-lot subdivision that proposed a new road.
Mike Neal, representing Gene Rayfield, the applicant, exhibited a map of the property and pointed out nearby developments. He commented that the current use of the property was for a single-family home. Mr. Neal said they were proposing to subdivide the property into three additional lots, making the 5.1-acre tract into four lots total. Mr. Neal displayed several photos of the property from its front entrance, looking south along Pinehurst Drive, looking north along Pinehurst Drive and looking up the drive.
Mr. Neal said Mr. Rayfield currently had the property up for sale, and he wanted to explore all options available to market the property. He indicated that Mr. Rayfield was also willing to sell the single-family home on the property. Mr. Neal stated that the market analysis and feedback from potential buyers indicated the present house on a smaller lot was more marketable. And, he continued, subdivision of the property would provide greater options to market the property. Mr. Neal said Mr. Rayfield had chosen to initiate the subdivision process while continuing to market the entire 5.1-acres. If the lots were subdivided, he said, the four lots could be marketed separately.
Mr. Neal said the CDC had suggested it would make some sense to consider the two properties, Pinehurst Subdivision and Rayfield Subdivision. However, if one development was designed predicated on the other development, and Mr. Rayfield were to sell his property without subdividing it, the development scenario would not longer work. He said that was problematic.
Mr. Neal said the special issues associated with this subdivision were traffic, stormwater management, and connectivity. He said the connectivity issue concerned the new road proposed and the Pinehurst Subdivision, which he had already discussed. Mr. Neal said regarding stormwater management, they would comply with current regulations in LUMO and would use best management practices to mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff.
Mr. Neal said regarding the traffic issue, a single-family house would generate 10 trips per day, and a four-lot subdivision was estimated to generate 40 trips per day, well below the 10 percent threshold noted in the Town’s traffic regulations.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked why not subdivide the property into five lots. Mr. Neal responded that four lots were similar in scale to the lot the single-family home currently occupied. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that was because Mr. Rayfield had chosen to do that, but asked why were five lots not considered. Mr. Neal said he did not have an answer for that. He said he suspected that Mr. Rayfield simply preferred to do four. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that was a nice way of avoiding other regulations, and asked if that was not the answer. Mr. Neal responded that might be.
Council Member Greene asked about the pieces marked as open space next to the drive. Mr. Neal replied they were proposing that the green space along the entryway be considered as open space. He added they expected that they would be making a payment-in-lieu to satisfy the regulations.
Mr. Neal said one of the concerns of the CDC was that to the east of the site was the soccer fields, and the CDC had asked them to consider connecting a walkway or trail to allow people to access the soccer fields, and we would be doing that.
Mayor Foy confirmed that this was a plat approval for a subdivision.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if they were going to retain the wall at the entrance. Mr. Neal responded that was their intent, but they would not keep the gate since it would be a public street with public access. If possible, he said, they would keep the wall as a landscape amenity. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was pleased they would remove the gate.
Council Member Ward said his sense was that these two subdivisions needed to be coordinated, and he would be looking for the first project in to provide a stub-out to the next, and he could not imagine why the Town would be interested in taking that on as a public street. He said he did not know what the legal issues were nor why the Town would want to do that. Council Member Ward asked if that would have implications on how you design it. Mr. Neal responded that it would be a public street, built to Town standards, and dedicated to the Town. He said they anticipated requesting that the Town take it over.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m.