SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, JUNE 19, 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, 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 Coordinator Gene Poveromo, and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Mayor Foy introduced the three finalists for the position of Town Manager. They were Frank Ragan, Sean Stegal, and Roger Stancil.
Item 1 – Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment – Changeable or Moveable Signs Outside of the Town Center Zoning Districts
Planning Director J. B. Culpepper said this proposed amendment was the result of a petition received by the Council from business owners along East Franklin Street. She described the present regulations regarding moveable signs. Ms. Culpepper stated they had identified three possible options regarding changeable or moveable signs outside the Town Center:
Ms. Culpepper said their recommendation was to make no change to these regulations, stating they were concerned that the expanded use of this signage would provide visual clutter and detract from traffic safety objectives.
Council Member Ward said the main thrust of the staff’s concern appeared to be the number of signs that could be placed at any given time around Town. He asked if there was a way that businesses in a particular area could discuss a rotating arrangement so that at any one time there would be a limited number of signs displayed. Mr. Horton responded he did not believe so, noting it would be difficult to establish such a policy by ordinance and that regulations were in the form of an ordinance. He said he could not recommend such a process.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the concern about clutter was interesting, noting that currently businesses downtown were each allowed one such sign, but they did not avail themselves of that. He said he believed such an occurrence would be the worst case scenario. Ms. Culpepper said the picture they had displayed showing a row of businesses with sandwich board signs out front was a visual way of showing the potential clutter that was possible.
Council Member Hill said the Planning Board’s recommendation, Ordinance B, closely resembled the Manager’s recommendation, except that it recommends streets with speed limits of 25 mph or lower. He said that might address some of the concerns already expressed.
Mayor Foy said the Planning Board had discussed pedestrian-oriented areas, and asked how that term was defined by LUMO. Ms. Culpepper said that was not a term that was currently defined in LUMO. She said if there was interest in the Planning Board’s recommendation, they would come back on September 11 with ideas of ways to address it.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he was interested in that, and asked that when it came back that the Council receive a map with speed limit areas clearly marked. Ms. Culpepper agreed.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was concerned about using the term “pedestrian oriented” as a term since it was not defined by the ordinance. He said the Council puts forth a lot of effort to make areas pedestrian friendly, such as the NC 54/Hamilton Road intersection, yet they would not allow such signs in that area. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not want confusion in Town ordinances to suggest that they want pedestrian areas in one place but not another, simply because of the terminology used. Mr. Horton stated they would try to craft a standard for the Council’s consideration
Council Member Greene said perhaps the absence or presence of sidewalks might be relevant to defining such a term. She said if these types of signs were geared towards pedestrians but no sidewalk existed in that area, then perhaps that was not the appropriate place for such signs to be.
Council Member Easthom asked if there was a distinction between a sandwich board and a regular sign. Ms. Culpepper said the ordinance defined different types of signs, such as those permanently affixed to the ground, and those that are moveable and changeable.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the petitioner had suggested limiting the size of letters on such signs to address the question of being a distraction. He said if the signs were oriented to pedestrians and not motorists they would not be such a distraction. Ms. Culpepper said they would look into that.
Council Member Ward asked if they had looked at what other communities had experienced, such as how many businesses used such signs or had any issues with driver distractions. Ms. Culpepper said they could provide some information, but did not know to what detail that would be.
Council Member Harrison said he did not believe a petition had ever been received prior to this one on this issue, and the Council had no information as to why the petitioners wanted the change. He asked, shouldn’t the Town have a basis to make such a change?
Council Member Hill said the basis was that they wanted to be allowed the same privilege as other businesses on Franklin Street.
Mayor Foy asked the Council if they would rather accept the options submitted by the staff and make a decision on those, or ask the staff for more options for consideration.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he was fine with the options submitted, but would like to have the map indicating speed limits in the areas of Town affected by this proposed change.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2006. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo gave a brief presentation on both applications and provided some background information. He stated that when the Master Land Use Plan was approved in 1995, it was for 1,298 dwelling units and 785,100 square feet of non-residential floor area. Mr. Poveromo stated that a minor modification in 1999 had reduced these figures to 1,061 dwelling units and 765,600 square feet of non-residential floor area that minor modification, he said, allocated the 52,000 square feet of floor area on the proposed Castalia site to 17,333 square feet of commercial floor area and 34,677 square feet of office floor area.
Mr. Poveromo stated that the applicant was proposing to eliminate the commercial land use component and replace it with a residential component. He said the applicant was also proposing to modify the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan to increase the allowable floor area by 24,000 square feet, resulting in a total of 76,000 square feet of floor area, with 52,000 square feet of office and 24,000 square feet of residential in 11 units.
Mr. Poveromo said the Special Use Permit application was a request to construct a 76,000 square-foot, mid-use building with 52,000 square feet of office floor area and 11 residential units, including two affordable units. He said the proposal included a three-story building with 177 parking spaces, including 17 garage spaces
Mayor Foy asked why the modification was made in 1999. Mr. Poveromo responded that when the issue was before the Council, a Council member had requested that the applicant attempt to reduce traffic numbers by about 25 percent, and the applicant proposed to do that by reducing retail floor space on several out-parcels. They changed the office/commercial mix on this parcel, reduced the number of rooms at the hotel, and reduced the size of the bank on the corner of East Barbee Chapel Hill and NC 54, he said.
Mr. Poveromo displayed a map of the area as well as a proposed site plan for Castalia. He noted that their recommendation for the Master Land Use Plan Modification was adoption of Resolution A approving the application. Mr. Poveromo said with that approval, their recommendation for the Special Use Permit for Castalia at Meadowmont was adoption of Resolution A approving the application.
Michael Rosenberg, the applicant, said the intent of these applications was to provide a home for his business, Health Decisions, which was an internationally recognized technology-based clinical research organization. He said he believed this development was consistent with the intent of Meadowmont, noting the benefits of Meadowmont’s proximity. Dr. Rosenberg noted they had worked extensively with residents and the Town over the past nine months to ensure reasonable compromises on all areas.
Dr. Rosenberg referred to a letter he had written to the Town two weeks prior regarding moving the building. He said for a number of reasons moving the building gutted the reason for placing the building at that location to begin with. Dr. Rosenberg emphasized that this was an important issue for him, one of which was that you would be fighting the geography of the site by moving the building.
Dr. Rosenberg said regarding siting and visibility, the residents and the Meadowmont Architectural Committee wanted the building set back, and that Committee had stated unequivocally they would not approve a building on the road. He said another issue was that the setback had been designed to hide the parking lot, and berms and vegetation had been designed to aide in that. Dr. Rosenberg said another identified issue was about the visibility of the building. He said he believed that if it was a well-designed building that fit well with the environment, it would be fine to see it from the street.
Dr. Rosenberg displayed a drawing of the proposed building, noting that it echoed the geography of the site by curving into it. He said they would use the same brick and windows that were used in Meadowmont, tying it together architecturally.
Joddy Peer, the Project Architect, commented that the style of the architecture was wedded to the curvature of the hillside. He said that it was the same style of architecture as buildings of its type in Meadowmont. Mr. Peer said his firm was fully LEED certified and they were following sustainable practices and intended to produce a sustainable project as well as an exemplary piece of architecture on a beautiful hillside.
Mr. Peer displayed several slides depicting the architecture, and placement of vegetation, and he gave examples of what the building would look like and how much of it could be seen from several locations. He said they were meeting LUMO standards, including lighting standards. Mr. Peer said that pedestrian walkways had been added in response to comments from the various sources, all stipulations had been agreed to, and they had done everything asked by the Town, including the stormwater basin. Mr. Peer stated they had taken great pains with the sight lighting with the “dark sky” concept in mind to totally eliminate any vertical light spill and provide the lighting required by LUMO.
George Richly, of Ballentine and Associates, commented on the technical aspects of the project. He said this project, as designed, met all standards of LUMO including stormwater. He said they were in full agreement with the stipulations noted in the Manager’s preliminary report as well as those before the Council this evening.
Edward Rose, Board Chair of the Hilltop Condominium Homeowners Association, stated that this project would be directly across the street from the Hilltop Condominiums. He said many of the residents had participated in meetings with Dr. Rosenberg, and had also attended meetings of the Community Design Commission. Mr. Rose said, based on their careful analysis of the proposed project, they had concluded the following:
Mr. Rose stated that he and the 47 homeowners in Hilltop supported this project, and he urged the Council to approve it.
Tim Ross, President of the Summit Park Homeowners Association, said it was the Council’s job to maintain a balance between the interests of the Town, the developer, and the residents. He said they supported adding the residential level and moving the building down the hill and away from Barbee Chapel Road.
Mr. Ross asked why the Council would not want to approve promptly a project that:
Mr. Ross urged the Council to approve the Castalia development by adopting Resolution A.
Jim Cheatham stated that he lived directly across from the proposed project. He provided some background on this project, noting the meetings held and that it took two to three years to development the master plan. Mr. Cheatham said now the developer was asking for a 50 percent increase in the square footage. He said that Dr. Rosenberg wanted to add that 50 percent in order to add a third level for condos in order to make a profit.
Mr. Cheatham said other homeowners had gotten tied up with discussions of where the building would be placed. However, he said, the increased square footage was an issue that the Council must consider.
Mr. Cheatham said he was also concerned about the placement of the parking and the amount of trees that were planned to be removed. He said the diagram provided by the developer on top of page 85 of the materials did not show the lights that would be facing directly onto the street nor how cars would be visible. Mr. Cheatham said there would be only a small berm, and lots of lights and cars parked within 50 feet of the townhouses. He asked the Council to consider increasing the setback from the current vegetation to protect the people who lived at the top of West Barbee Chapel Road.
George Holt supported Mr. Cheatham’s statements as well as the other residents of West Barbee Chapel Road. He said he believed the primary objection to the project was the 50 percent increase in square footage. Mr. Holt asked the Council to keep the square footage as originally planned, and not to grant the requested increase.
Gary Barnes, President of the Meadowmont Community Association, stated his Board had voted unanimously to support the Castalia development as proposed. He said the developer had addressed resident concerns in many areas, and they believed the project would benefit the community and the Town. Mr. Barnes commented that the building had the same footprint and the same runoff regardless of whether a third story was added. He said the parking was minimally changed because there were only 11 residential units.
Mr. Barnes said this was exactly the type of development Chapel Hill needed. He added that every time he saw the plans and how it was sited, he liked it more.
Chandler Burns said he supported the Castalia development as proposed by Dr. Rosenberg. He said he approved of the architectural design, noting it blended well with the creative and diverse spirit of Chapel Hill. Mr. Burns said it appeared to him that the low profile site on top of the wooded hill was the best location for the proposed building. He said at this location the building would be barely seen from Highway 54, but more importantly it would be surrounded on all sides by trees and vegetation.
Mr. Burns said placing the building closer to the road would urbanize the road and damage its residential character, and would be too imposing for this particular area. He said the Council needed to keep in mind the economic benefit of this development to the Town’s economy. Mr. Burns said it would be occupied by a successful home-grown business that would be excellent for citizens of Chapel Hill. He urged the Council to approve the development as proposed.
Michael Smith noted that many of the trees in the drawings were deciduous, so in the winter time they would provide little cover. He said residents of the townhomes were far above street level, so the building as well as the parking would be dominant. Mr. Smith said if the additional size proposed for this building was truly necessary, then perhaps it should be placed underground. He said if that was not possible, then it should be kept at its original size.
Roger Perry pointed out that Health Decisions was exactly the type of business that they wanted in Chapel Hill, noting it was a clean, creative, innovative company of the future with high-paying jobs. He said the Meadowmont Master Plan was approved with the building at this location placed back into the site to be a backdrop to the meadow with some visible from NC 54. Mr. Perry said this building would also have architectural character.
Mr. Perry said as the developer and the head of the Meadowmont Architectural Committee, they did not have an option to approve this building up against Barbee Chapel Road, because it was understood that the building would be set back on the site. He said to maintain their integrity they could not approve it sitting up on Barbee Chapel Road. Mr. Perry said it would remain pedestrian-friendly and urban in character without necessarily being set on Barbee Chapel Road.
Mr. Perry urged the Council to respect the applicant’s wish as it pertained to the siting of the building, noting they feel that was where the site was represented. He also noted that Dr. Rosenberg had worked hard to come to agreement with the neighbors on the issues of concern to them. Mr. Perry added he believed it would be good to ask the applicant to consider constructing the building to LEED standards.
Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange County Housing and Land Trust, said he was not advocating for or against the project, but was supporting the Town Manager’s recommendation regarding affordable housing. He stated the applicant was proposing two rental units, affordable at 80 percent of median income, but noted that was too expensive for the target group.
Mr. Dowling provided some background on the Greenway Condominiums, which contained 10 rental units and six units for sale to persons in the 80 percent of median income bracket. He stated that those six units were priced at $140,000 which was barely affordable to the intended target group. Mr. Dowling suggested that the Castalia applicant be asked to provide a payment-in-lieu of providing the two proposed rental units to help offset the cost of the six Greenway units, reducing their price to $110,000 each, making them truly affordable.
At the request of the Mayor, Mr. Dowling provided a brief description of the flat income levels established by HUD in the Metropolitan Statistical Area, of which Chapel Hill is a part, in the face of rising housing costs.
Richard Fox said he had attended every meeting on the Castalia project, and supported Dr. Rosenberg’s proposed development. He said he believed the proposal was a good representation of the neighborly spirit on the side of residents and the developer. Mr. Fox said Dr. Rosenberg had vision, which could be seen in his opposition to moving the building to the street based on aesthetics and his image of Chapel Hill.
Mr. Fox stated that all of the neighbors would like to have this issue resolved as quickly as possible, noting they would like to know exactly what would be built across the street from them so they could prepare for that, and welcome their new neighbors.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked what the point of signature architecture was if its location on the site is such that it could not be seen. He said it bothered him that the parking was pushed out into the front. Council Member Kleinschmidt said regarding the “worst case scenario” photo on the top of page 85, what he did not see in that photo was the SUV’s and minivans that would be visible when the building was being used. He said he was attracted to many of the aspects of this project, particularly the possibility of LEED certification, but he needed an appropriate response to his concerns from the applicant.
Jim Baker of The Lundy Group responded that he had provided a series of comments with tonight’s materials that provided a specific response to those concerns. He said regarding LEED certification, they had not yet designed the building and would not until the SUP was approved. Mr. Baker said when that happened they would design the building to the standards that existed at the time of approval. Mr. Baker said as far as the siting of the building and what it would look like when in use, the berms would be of a height that you would not be able to see the parking lot from the sidewalk.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked about the residents on the third floor of the townhouses across the street. Mr. Baker replied that they would be looking down on the project just as the project would be looking down on the townhouses, with both having a mutual view. He said they had done everything possible to be sensitive to that and would continue to do so.
Mr. Baker said, regarding the siting of the building and the signature architecture not being seen, that was clearly a compromise because the residents did not want to see the broad side of the building from NC 54. He said he believed the striking architecture blended with the landscaping and the trees, and what made it striking was how it integrated into the hillside and the landscaping.
Council Member Harrison said his questions were for the attorney and could be answered later. He asked what would happen if there was a situation where the Council did not want to approve the siting of the building as proposed, yet there also was a situation where the Meadowmont Architectural Committee, over which the Council had no control, stated that was the only place they would accept it. He also asked if he was correct that the SUP would not mandate any particular architectural design until it went before the Community Design Commission.
Council Member Hill said the photo shown at the bottom of page 85 depicted the building almost totally obscured by trees, and it would not be that way for perhaps 30 to 40 years. He said he had commented during the Concept Plan Review that if you were going to build signature architecture then why hide it with trees, and he continued to feel that way.
Council Member Hill said the location of the parking was problematic because the neighbors wanted it on the street, yet the Council had been elected on the basis of their neighborhood advocacy. He stated that the current proposal was for a suburban complex, when the original proposal was for an urban-type complex with the building close to the street. Council Member Hill said the idea that the original concept was in conflict with the Meadowmont Architectural Committee was astounding to him and was unfortunate.
Council Member Hill said the larger problem was that he believed that 90 percent of Chapel Hill residents had believed that nothing would ever be built there, so regardless of what was built there you would get a reaction from residents. He said there was no question that Health Decisions was the type of business they wanted in Chapel Hill, but he would like to see a more accurate representation of what the building would look like when built.
Council Member Easthom stated she believed this was a really fantastic project, and was pleased with it being set back off of West Barbee Chapel Hill Road. She said she was very supportive of this type of business in Chapel Hill, but was concerned about the impact on the third-floor townhouses across the street from the project. Council Member Easthom wondered if they could find a way to address those concerns with an increased berm or a different type of tree, so that the visual effect of large vehicles and the lighting would be lessened.
Council Member Easthom said she supported Mr. Dowling’s suggested payment-in-lieu of $180,000 to reduce the price of the six units in the Greenway development. She said that was a better way of providing affordable housing, but making these existing units truly affordable. Council Member Easthom stated that rather than the Manager’s recommendation that porous pavement be used where possible, she would like to have that used everywhere. She suggested striking the phrase “where possible.”
Council Member Easthom said she supported the Planning Board’s recommendation that construction hours be set at 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in consideration of the neighbors.
Council Member Ward asked for the stub-out from this property to the property to the south. Dr. Rosenberg said they had agreed to provide access to that site through their lot, but the exact location had not yet been worked out. He said there were currently two entrances planned to his development, and the access would be provided from one of those. Council Member Ward asked where those entrances would be. Using a site plan map, Mr. Baker pointed out the path from Barbee Chapel Road into the site and where the entrance to the next project would be if approved.
Council Member Ward said in the past he had voiced support for placing this building on the street, but as he had heard other comments and thought about it more he believed it was an unnecessary demand on this project. He said if it were placed on the street it would be the only building located there, noting you could go in either direction on Barbee Chapel Road and you would see meadow on the street. Council Member Ward said to place this building on the street did not gain anything for the Town. He said he supported the alternative shown in the applicant’s materials tonight, noting the advisory boards supported that as well as the Manager.
Council Member Ward said the increased square footage did not add vehicle trips nor did it cause increased stormwater runoff. He said that incorporated LEED design elements into the project was a good first step and having the building certified at the LEED Silver level would support the Council’s efforts to reduce carbon in the community. Council Member Ward agreed that the parking lot should be porous pavement, and he encouraged the applicant to consider earth tones that would blend into the landscape.
Council Member Thorpe mentioned the email the Council had received from former Mayor Rosemary Waldorf, and asked that it be officially entered into the record. He stated that he hoped the developer, as well as others planning projects in Chapel Hill, would meet with the Manager and staff prior to presentation to the Council.
Council Member Thorpe said he had concerns any time a payment-in-lieu was being considered. However, he said, in this particular case he supported the payment-in-lieu of affordable housing of $180,000 to lower the cost of the six Greenway Condominium units previously discussed.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he was convinced that this plan as sited now was inconsistent with the Meadowmont Master Plan, and the Town needed to find a way to address that. He said he would have difficultly making a finding other than that. Mayor pro tem Strom stated that he wanted to make sure that the third story met the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and he was in support of Council Member Easthom’s suggestion that some way be found to address the view shed of the people living across the street from this project.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he continued to have an open mind about this project and wanted to receive more information. He said he was not convinced that the payment-in-lieu was the way to proceed, noting that one of the foundations of the Town’s affordable housing initiatives was to get the private sector to build units when they received rezonings. Mayor pro tem Strom said they may have had difficulty selling other units in this area, but that was a separate issue. He said there was separate money available that he would be willing to release in order to help with a price reduction of problem units. Mayor pro tem Strom said they needed to take these units and find a way to make them work. He added that their prime success had been getting private developers to build affordable housing for the Town.
Council Member Greene said she agreed that the building being sited as proposed was not consistent with the Meadowmont Master Plan, although she had not yet made any decisions and would keep an open mind. She stated that she was sympathetic with the neighbors who had questioned allowing the additional square footage for residences on a third level, stating that if it was not going to be true new urbanizism by being on the street and activating the street, then that reduced the impetus to make it a dual use building, and maybe they needed to keep it the same size.
Council Member Greene asked, if they ended up approving a building without the residential component, were they still entitled to ask for the payment-in-lieu? Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said the Council could ask for anything, but he would have to do some research on whether or not the Council could legally make it a condition of approval.
Council Member Greene said if the Council agreed to allow the additional square footage, then she would be in favor of the payment-in-lieu.
Council Member Thorpe stated he believed that if they accepted a payment-in-lieu, perhaps they should wait until the money was in hand and then decide the best use for it, rather than designating it as Mr. Dowling had suggested.
Mayor Foy stated there was a problem with condominiums and the high cost of condominium fees over time, but that was not what was being proposed here. He said the proposal was for two dwelling units available for rent by families earning 80 percent of the median income. Mayor Foy said the rental rates would not exceed the current Section 8 fair market rents as published by HUD, and he was inclined to have those units provided. Mayor Foy said, if the Council decided to accept a payment-in-lieu, then he believed that payment should be made to the Council’s affordable housing fund and then they could decide where it could best be utilized.
Mayor Foy said, regarding the siting, he had changed his mind. He said he had visited the site the prior day and the more he looked at it, the more he believed that it was too big to put on the street and it would also turn its back to Meadowmont, meaning it would not be used the way they had envisioned. Mayor Foy said the project was probably not what they would have asked for, but it did fit with the Master land Use Plan, and he did not object to that.
Mayor Foy said regarding the suggestion that the construction hours be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., that the Manager had recommended using the Town Code. He asked how that was different. Mr. Horton responded that the hours went later at night during the week.
Council Member Harrison said he had experienced construction in his neighborhood where the hours were restricted, and it was worth doing. He supported the suggestion of the limited hours, nothing otherwise the Town Code would allow construction to continue to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Mayor Foy said he had brought the issue forward so that the applicant would have the opportunity to agree or disagree. Mr. Baker remarked that the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. construction time was acceptable to them, noting that the contractor was Resolute Building who was very responsive to residents’ concerns.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that Mr. Dowling had used the units at Chapel Ridge as an example of the difficulties associated with finding families for the units. He said what this project proposed was rental units which had their own peculiar problems. Council Member Kleinschmidt commented it was difficult to find a rental family at that income level that could pay that rent. Mr. Dowling responded that affordable at the HUD fair market rent would be $730 for a one-bedroom unit, which was where those units were priced. He said they were not affordable and they could not rent them to the intended target so they were being rented to students. Mr. Dowling noted that according to the Manager’s memo, a family of three would have to pay $1,280 to rent one of these units, and that was not affordable. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that was why a payment-in-lieu was important to consider in this case.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked why the Town Code regulations were set at 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. as construction times, rather than ending at 7:00 p.m. He said that would allow the Council to extend the construction time to 9:00 p.m. in appropriate cases. Mr. Horton said the Council could amend the ordinance to make that change if they found it appropriate.
Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested the Council should consider changing the default time to 7:00 p.m. in certain zones, such as residential zones. He said they were going to see more and more infill redevelopment, and he did not believe in such cases that 9:00 p.m. was acceptable to end construction. Council Member Kleinschmidt said there may be particular situations where 9:00 p.m. was appropriate, but it would be the burden of the applicant to convince the Council that the extended time was necessary.
Mayor Foy suggested that Mr. Karpinos bring that back to the Council for consideration at a later time. Mr. Karpinos agreed to do so.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the recommendations from the Planning Board, were, after all, just recommendations. He said it was important to note that of the six people who were present to vote on this project, three of them supported the project and three of them did not. Council Member Kleinschmidt said although the vote was recorded at 4-3, it was because someone left the table without being excused, and therefore that person’s vote was recorded as a yes. He said the Council had to give that the weight it deserved, and he believed there was a good argument not to give it too much weight. Council Member Kleinschmidt reiterated that it should not be seen as an endorsement from the Planning Board.
Mayor pro tem Strom asked the staff when this came back to provide some discussion in the report regarding what the units would be rented for, whether it be at 50 percent of the area median income or some other percentage, so that the Council could continue to discuss this with the applicant.
Council Member Ward said it appeared that if they accepted the applicant’s proposal to provide two rental units as affordable housing, they would be in the same position as they now were with the Chapel Ridge units. He asked Mr. Dowling if he could suggest a dollar figure that would provide rental assistance, or add a figure to this project to solve the problem. Mr. Dowling said if you lower the rent on the proposed rental units, which the applicant was not yet sure would be rental units, the fair market rent would not be affordable. He said that would mean the Council would have to negotiate with the applicant for an affordable rent.
Council Member Ward proposed that the Town help the applicant develop a rental assistance figure that would make these units affordable and serve the people they were trying to serve. He asked, if the rental units were a part of this project, what in addition would need to be done in terms of cost to make them affordable? Mr. Dowling said it sounded like rent control was being suggested.
Mayor Foy disagreed, noting that Mayor pro Tem Strom had suggested making the units affordable at the 50 percent or some other level of median income, thereby making them affordable. He said what Council Member Ward was asking was if it stayed at 80 percent, what funds would be necessary to subsidize the rents. Mr. Dowling asked if that would be forever. Mayor Foy said yes.
Council Member Ward said he had suggested that as another way to solve the problem. He said he wanted to have some options available that they could agree on. Mr. Dowling said having a pot of money that would be available forever would be difficult for the applicant and for the Town. He suggested that asking the applicant to set the rent lower than the HUD fair market rate would be his suggestion. Council Member Ward stated that would achieve the same thing.
Council Member Ward said he was in support of keeping the number of parking spaces at the Town minimum. In an attempt to deal with the visibility issue, he said, they had in the past required that developers plant larger trees so that you did not have to wait 20 years for them to provide screening. Council Member Ward asked that the applicant consider that.
Mayor Foy said on page 7 of the Manager’s memo, it stated that the following had been added as a stipulation to Resolution A: “That all parking lot lighting shall be designed to use the best possible technology within reason to avoid spillover light to adjacent properties.” He said in Dr. Rosenberg’s memo to the Council it stated that: “The building would be built with low-dispersion lighting where possible, and in a manner that seeks to have zero light dispersion off the property.” Mayor Foy said one sounded a lot more rigorous that the other, noting the Manager’s stipulation sounded weaker than the commitment Dr. Rosenberg was making. He asked if the stipulation could be reworded. Ms. Culpepper agreed to do so.
Mayor Foy said regarding the construction hours, the applicant had indicated agreement. He asked for the applicant’s comments regarding the request for providing pervious pavement. Mr. Baker responded they would not prepare detailed drawings until the application was approved, but they would consider using porous surface anywhere possible. He said they would have to consider how surface water would drain and whether it would create an erosion issue.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR BOTH ITEMS TO SEPTEMBER 11, AND REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4 – Public Hearing: Rusch Hollow –
Application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment
Item 5 – Rusch Hollow – Application for a Special Use Permit Modification
Mr. Poveromo stated that the request was to rezone approximately 10,431 square feet of land located adjacent to and south of Lot 3 in the Rusch Hollow development, from Residential-1 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning. If the zoning and the Special Use Permit were approved, it would allow the applicant to construct a triplex building that was approved with the original Rusch Hollow development in 2003.
Mr. Poveromo displayed a site map and pointed out the location of the Rusch Hollow development. He also displayed an aerial photograph and indicated the location of the area requested to be rezoned. Mr. Poveromo noted that rezoning of the 10,431 square feet of land would allow it to be combined with Lot 3, and provide the necessary space for construction of the previously approved triplex building.
Mr. Poveromo noted that the staff recommendation was that they believe the rezoning could be justified based on the findings that a rezoning was necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, and recommended adoption of Resolution A. He said for the Special Use Permit Modification, staff recommended that the application be approved with adoption of Resolution A.
Mayor Foy noted that no citizens had signed up to speak on this issue,
COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 26 AND REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 6 – Concept Plan: The Cedars of Chapel Hill at Meadowmont
Ms. Culpepper stated that this Concept Plan proposed an increase of seven dwelling units at The Cedars of Chapel Hill. She noted the Council had approved this development in 2000, with 300 units. Ms. Culpepper stated this proposal would bring the total to 307. She said the project was located in the northeast corner of West Barbee Chapel Road and Meadowmont Lane. Ms. Culpepper stated the staff was recommending that the Council review the Concept Plan, receive comments from the Community Design Commission (CDC) and citizens, and adopt a resolution transmitting comments to the applicant. She noted that the CDC comments were included with the staff report.
A representative of the applicant noted they were available to answer any questions. He noted that they were not asking for any additional square footage, parking spaces, or anything of that nature.
Lynne Kane said she hoped that any increase in The Cedars or Meadowmont that was reasonable would be approved by the Council. She stated she hoped there would be no impediment to this application and that it would be treated expeditiously.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 7 – Concept Plan: Orange Water and Sewer Authority Mason Farm
Wastewater Treatment Plan – Water Reclamation Facility Request
Ms. Culpepper stated this was a Concept Plan for the OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plan – Water Reclamation Facility. She said the 23.4-acre facility was located on the south side of Mason Farm Road adjacent to the NC Botanical Garden and the UNC Finley Golf Course. Ms. Culpepper stated the development proposal included construction of a reclaimed water storage and pumping facility and the associated piping at the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plan. She said the site was located in the Industrial zoning district and the Resource Conservation District (RCD).
Ms. Culpepper stated the staff was recommending that the Council review the Concept Plan, receive comments from the Community Design Commission (CDC) and citizens, and adopt a resolution transmitting comments to the applicant. She noted that the CDC comments were included with the staff report.
Tom Pant, with Hazen and Sawyer Engineers, provided a PowerPoint presentation detailing key areas of the project. He noted that OWASA provided water and sewer services for the Town, as well as Carrboro and UNC. Mr. Pant noted that UNC was OWASA’s largest customer for drinking water. He stated that a significant component of the UNC drinking water demands were currently used for chiller facility cooling towers which do not require drinking water.
Mr. Pant stated that reclaimed water from OWASA’s Mason Farm treatment plant was adequately and reliably treated, and was safe for use in applications such as cooling towers. He said the use of reclaimed water in the UNC cooling towers reduced drinking water demands, and would reduce the discharge from the treatment plant to Morgan Creek.
Mr. Pant displayed a site map and aerial photograph of the site, detailing the location and path of the discharge pipes. He also exhibited a map detailing the existing site layout. Mr. Pant displayed five photographs, noting they showed what the existing filter complex looked like and the area that the new facility was proposed to be constructed in. Mr. Pant exhibited architectural elevation drawings of the proposed facility, and described the construction proposed materials.
Mr. Pant noted that a CDC member had expressed concern regarding the noise level of the pumps. He stated that the motors were electric motors and were not considered noisy. But, Mr. Pant said, high-efficiency motors did exhibit what he described as a “whine,” so they were considering placing some sort of enclosure around the motors to reduce that whine.
Council Member Harrison asked whether there would be any new utility corridors associated with this pumping station that would be in addition to the wastewater corridors already in place. Mr. Pant responded that a corridor was proposed along Old Mason Farm Road, but noted that there was an OWASA sewer line corridor already in place there and OWASA was considering using it. He said that a public hearing was scheduled for July 18.
Mayor Foy asked if this project would have any effect on the odor issue in that area either during construction or afterwards. Mr. Pant said there was no reason for odor, noting this was on the clean water end of the plant and nothing was being done that should contribute in any way to odor.
Council Member Easthom said she was assuming that if they built this facility and eventually needed more space, there was room for expansion. She asked if that was factored into the planning. Mr. Pant replied that the 300,000 gallon option was designed so that if funding was not available now, if it was deemed necessary in the future and the funding were available, then you could build the footprint that was available with the 600,000 gallon option. He said flexibility was built into the project to accommodate that.
Council Member Ward stated that the CDC materials referred to Mason Farm Road, which was an area of Town that had experienced a great deal of construction and other sorts of impacts that made residents particularly wary of additional impacts, especially those that had nothing to do with their neighborhood. He noted that this was Old Mason Farm Road, not Mason Farm Road, and asked that the CDC minutes be corrected to avoid confusion.
Council Member Ward noted that the NC Botanical Garden had been referred to in several different ways in the materials, and requested that it be consistently referred to as the North Carolina Botanical Garden.
Council Member Ward stated that, regarding the possibility of noise, he hoped designers would make every effort to reduce any noise and to be proactive in that regard.
Mayor Foy said when this came back before the Council, they needed to know how the project would comply with the Town’s Noise Ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.