SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor pro tem Bill Strom called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He noted that Mayor Kevin Foy and Council Member Cam Hill would arrive shortly.
Council members present were Lauren Easthom, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Bill Thorpe, and Jim Ward.
Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Roger Stancil, 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, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Principal Planner Phil Mason, Long Range and Transportation Coordinator David Bonk, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Kline.
Item 1 – Public Forum: Draft Southwest Durham/Southeast
Chapel Hill Collector Streets Plan
Long Range and Transportation Coordinator David Bonk presented the southwest street plan in collaboration with Town of Chapel Hill staff and Durham staff. He stated that the study area for the collector street plan for southwest Durham and southeast Chapel Hill extended north of US 15-501 and to north of NC 54 and north and west of the County line.
Mr. Bonk explained that the plan was developed as a means of orderly development of a collective street system. He said the intention of the plan was that none of what was proposed would be built by the ongoing development process in Durham. Mr. Bonk said the proposed alignment of the fixed guideway corridor had been shifted in that it followed east/west from I-40 to Farrington Road.
Mr. Bonk said there were two proposed collector street networks in Chapel Hill, one at Kilkenny and the other at what would be an extension of Lancaster Drive in an east/west orientation. He said that took in the elements of the US 15-501 study that proposed crossing I-40. Mr. Bonk said that allowed for traffic to avoid using US 15-501. He said it did include two crossings of I-40, at Kilkenny and Lancaster Drive. Mr. Bonk also noted an error in the memo on page three regarding the proposed street section.
Council Member Cam Hill arrived 7:08 p.m.
Mr. Bonk stated, regarding the final issue, that Figure 5.1 on page 72 showed the future land use plan for Durham, but did not show Southwest Durham Drive or the realigned fixed guideway corridor. He said that Council members had participated in discussions at the MPO level, raising concerns about coordination of land use with the proposed station in the southern area of Durham’s jurisdiction. Mr. Bonk stated the kind of land use to support that station was not readily apparent in that map and Durham needed to reconcile that situation to make the corridor viable.
Council Member Harrison stated there was another connection to Chapel Hill Street to a newly improved road to Newton Drive. He said the public needed to know how to get that dislodged. He said the answer from developers was that the city was telling them to do it, and the answer from NCDOT was that was where it needed to be built. He said that street would be the first approved street from the collector street plan to be built. Council Member Harrison said that had happened without the benefit of any analysis, and his impression was that a number of these streets would have been built even with no collector street plan. Mr. Bonk said there were three roadways that were stubbed out to jurisdictional line. He said the Durham Unified Development Ordinance required the connection of streets that are stubbed out to adjacent properties, adding there would be street connections to these three streets.
Mayor pro tem Strom asked which streets were in the 2030 plan, and would possibly be carried over to the 2035 plan, and as such were not appropriate to discuss along with the collector street plan? Mr. Bonk replied that, for purposes of new facilities, Southwest Durham Drive was part of that plan, but it was not an issue to be resolved now as part of the collector street plan.
Council Member Ward asked if the connection of Southwest Durham Drive was all in Durham City/County, and if any of it was within Chapel Hill limits. Mr. Bonk replied that it was all within Durham. Council Member Ward said that then there was a stub out to the city limits. Mr. Bonk replied that was correct. He said the issue would be financing a bridge over the Corps of Engineers property, noting that bridge would connect Southwest Durham Drive and Meadowmont Lane and would be publicly financed through the TIP process.
Mayor pro tem Strom clarified that the MPO had to sign off on this plan, so the Town did have input. Mr. Bonk said that was correct.
Everett Kemp stated he was representing 150 people who had signed a petition. He stated that this plan facilitated development in Durham County at the expense of Chapel Hill. Mr. Kemp urged the Council to pay attention to the affect on Chapel Hill residents and on the budget.
Mr. Kemp said there were five specific areas with flaws:
Barbara Post ceded her time to Phil Post.
Phil Post stated he lived in the part of Durham County that was in Chapel Hill. He said there was a need for a new plan, since this one was seriously flawed. Mr. Post said this plan would have a severe impact on Chapel Hill intersections. Using the plan submitted by David Bonk, Mr. Post outlined the city limits in pink, pointing out the extension of Kilkenny and Nottingham Drive. Mr. Post remarked that traffic calming was needed on Nottingham.
Mr. Post said the Chapel Hill side was almost fully developed. He said that the undeveloped land was on the Durham side. Mr. Post said there was tremendous growth and development, and these roads flowed into new Durham traffic and that was dumping into Chapel Hill traffic. Mr. Post asked that the Council refer the plan back for more local input for a structure that would fit into Chapel Hill values and neighborhoods. He added that Pinehurst and Lancaster were not incorporated but felt that the perimeters needed to be expanded to include these key areas. Mr. Post reiterated that the plan was entirely flawed, and asked that the Council reject it and send it back for further study.
Mayor Foy arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Jack Scarborough stated that, while expressing connectivity, the plan exhibited disturbing disconnects that marred what was basically a good and innovative plan. He said the collector street layout with its residential densities was independent of the Southwest Durham Drive alignment. Mr. Scarborough said the second disconnect was between the proposed plan for future streets and the existing neighborhood streets. He said in actuality the plan included existing streets in Chapel Hill to which the new collectors would connect. Mr. Scarborough said it was doubtful that developers would build the necessary improvements. He said the proposed plan ignored issues and ignored the transportation aspect. Mr. Scarborough suggested performing an independent evaluation of the benefits of this plan to Chapel Hill residents, especially those who reside in Durham County.
Joan Lash, a resident of Lancaster Drive, stated she was concerned with the study area that cut through The Oaks. She said she was particularly concerned about the Lancaster connection, stating it was a problematic intersection. Ms. Lash said that another area of concern was that the Chapel Hill Country Club was located on Lancaster Drive outside of the study area, adding this was a large recreation venue in Chapel Hill. She said over the past summer people going to the Country Club pool parked their cars along Lancaster Drive, adding that pool attracted swim teams that numbered around 1,200 kids. Ms. Lancaster said that resulted in major congestion. She asked that the Town look at Chapel Hill intersections that this plan would affect, thereby creating a more dangerous situation.
John Mackowiak stated that he agreed with comments made by Phil Post.
William Dunk, a resident of 325 Nottingham Drive, said this plan would be disastrous for Chapel Hill. He said he was hoping that the Town would begin to take a more adamant stand against erosion of its quality of life. Mr. Dunk said the Town would be inheriting all of the sins of mis-planning in Durham. He said that the air quality in our region became one of the dirtiest in the nation in 2004, adding that ozone rates were unconscionable in Durham, Raleigh, and Cary. He said that necessitated looking at this more carefully. Mr. Dunk added that the clear-cutting occurring in relation to these proposed roads and to the whole area would result in stormwater problems in Chapel Hill.
Polly Van deVelde said she agreed with comments made by Phil Post regarding the protection of Chapel Hill neighborhoods.
Susan Egnoto, a resident of Meadowmont and a Durham County resident, stated that convenience did not trump safety. She said it was the Town’s full responsibility to fix a terrible error in planning.
Bill Sax, president of The Oaks Homeowners Association, stated his concern that George King Road was suppose to be paved by developers, causing traffic to be diverted for an extended period of time. He asked that the Town limit connections from new development to Lancaster to only emergency vehicles. Mr. Sax said the plan provided no implement for retrofitting existing streets, and urged modification of the plan.
Dale Baron said he was shocked, dismayed, and baffled, stating that there were too many cars in front of a school. He said he hoped that common sense would prevail.
Chris Selby, a Durham citizen, stated that Southwest Durham Drive had been on the map before Meadowmont. He suggested that Chapel Hill fix the problem instead of sending it into his necks of woods.
Cedric Lumsdon said the people who lived in The Oaks felt unrepresented in this matter, noting that Durham was driving this. He said that led to frustration and anger, as well as cynicism.
Gary Barnes, President of the Meadowmont Community Association, stated that the Board had adopted a motion for a general concept of connectivity supports. He said they did not support connecting a road through Meadowmont because of the potentially large traffic volume. He said the Board recognized the need of neighborhoods. Mr. Barnes said that Meadowmont Lane traffic volumes were excessive, noting this was a densely populated neighborhood with 600 students and a large retirement community. Mr. Barnes urged the Council to adopt a current plan in which the number of connections to Highway 54 and Chapel Hill were retained.
Charles Paterno stated that he fully recognized the long-range plans, but that decisions were being made currently in Durham that would lock in Meadowmont Lane as an artery if the Town was not careful. He said the Meadowmont community rendering that he had distributed to the Council did not indicate the proposed arterial road at the end of Meadowmont Lane. Mr. Paterno said imbedded in that was the assumption that Meadowmont Lane would be upgraded to an arterial road. He stressed that the current plan was not practical and was certainly not prudent. Mr. Paterno suggested realigning Southwest Durham Parkway on the Durham side of the border, and giving the same due process to the Chapel Hill side.
Pam Seamans, a Meadowmont resident and President of the Rashkis School PTA, said they was concerned about the proposed four-lane arterial. She said they had gathered over 100 signatures giving authorization for the PTA to speak out against arterial road. Ms. Seamans said there already was widespread speeding going by the school and that adding more lanes completely defeated the purpose of a safe, walkable community. She said the school was already over capacity at 650 students and they were experiencing difficulties in getting buses in and out. Ms. Seamans said this plan caused great concern for parents and teachers at the elementary school. She said they would be forwarding comments collected from parents and staff at the school.
Susan Franklin, a resident of The Oaks, asked the Council to keep in mind all the mission statements, terms, and conditions in land use plans and zoning ordinances that directly state that it is the goal of the Council to protect the integrity of all neighborhoods in Chapel Hill. As a citizen, she said, she would like to know which of the streets must be connected. Ms. Franklin said some of the stub-outs were controlled by the Town and the Town could refuse connection. She said she wanted to know which ones the Town would be compelled to connect and which ones the Town would have to contribute funds to. Ms. Franklin asked that the Town consider using its negotiating skills to meet with Durham to help Chapel Hill citizens protect the integrity of the community.
Joan Monage, a resident of The Oaks and a resident of Chapel Hill and Durham County, said her children would like to offer their perspective.
Marlow Durban said he liked to jog and bike Lancaster and Nottingham. He said the problem was that the sidewalk suddenly ended near the County line and did not connect to the new neighborhood. He said if Lancaster were connected, it would need sidewalks and bikelanes. Mr. Durban said his neighborhood was quiet and peaceful, and a refuse for birds, turtles and other wildlife. He said if the road were allowed to go through the wetlands, another natural place for wildlife would be lost forever. Mr. Durban asked that the woods close to his neighborhood be conserved.
Greta Durban stated that she did not like the plan because Lancaster would get too busy with cars. She said not everyone would slow down. She said that Lancaster would be too busy to walk your dog or ride a scooter. Ms. Durban said she enjoyed playing in the woods near Rashkis School, and did not want to do anything that would make the family of owls leave. She asked that a bridge or road not be placed over the wetlands, and that sidewalks be installed before roads were connected.
Anita Lang, a resident of Meadowmont Lane, voiced her concern about traffic. She said there were homes 20 feet from the road and that many of the homeowners have to back out of the driveways into a street where cars travel too fast. Ms. Lang said as a parent she was afraid for the children who had to walk to and from school, adding that traffic backed up at the school onto Meadowmont Lane, causing even more problems.
Jeff Ferman, a resident and merchant at Meadowmont, said he was concerned about traffic as well, particularly the excessive speeding on Meadowmont Lane and other streets. He said some violators had been clocked at over 70 mph in a school zone. Mr. Ferman commented that Town buses frequently traveled in excess of the speed limit in that area.
Donald Frazier, a resident of Nottingham Drive, pointed out that the same connectivity would precipitate an increase in traffic coming from communities on the north side of Ephesus Church Road traveling south to the intersection of Highway 54 and I-40. He said it was not just a matter of traffic traveling north from the new construction. Mr. Frazier said the Town must find a way to prevent traffic from shortcutting through the Ephesus Church Road/Fearrington Road route to the Highway 54/I-40 intersection.
Mayor Foy explained the process, noting that all comments would be referred to staff and the staff recommendations would come back to the Council on November 6. He noted that the Transportation Advisory Council would meet in December. Mayor Foy said he was hopeful that they could have connectivity but not have the traffic and associated problems that many feared. He said they would look for ways to be thoughtful and creative and not induce more traffic.
Mayor pro tem Strom ask staff to provide information on what type of traffic impact analysis the City of Durham did. He said he wanted a quick explanation of how and if they studied traffic. Mayor pro tem Strom said that the Pinehurst and Lancaster and Nottingham intersections had been used as examples of intersections that had not been studied as to how those intersections would be impacted if these connections were made. He said it would also be helpful to know what had been studied beyond the general study area and how Chapel Hill would be impacted.
Council Member Ward asked staff to address the implication of diminished air quality. He said he was concerned about how Chapel Hill defined a collector street and the design characters the Town applies compared to Durham, noting that Durham’s were different and faster.
Council Member Harrison said there were several important issues raised by the speakers, and one was the issue of the requirement for street connection. He said it would be helpful to have that requirement clarified. Council Member Harrison said citizens needed to learn how to engage local officials and staff, especially Durham City and County Officials, on these developments and provide their input in order to have an impact on the outcome. He said that Ms. Franklin’s question regarding the need for connection was one that should be addressed as well.
Mayor Foy stated that people needed to be made aware that we were struggling with public transit between Raleigh and Durham, noting that the TTA had not been successful in getting funding to build the train. But, he said, they did have a public transit corridor that ran from Chapel Hill to Durham and went through Meadowmont as well as the area under discussion this evening. Mayor Foy said in the future they would be talking about other forms of connectivity, and that public transit corridor was on the map. He said he wanted that to be explicit so that everyone who lived in the area could see the corridor.
Mr. Bonk remarked that signs had recently been erected in Meadowmont which pinpointed the corridor as approved, and he directed questions regarding that corridor to the Planning Department.
Council Member Easthom asked staff what was the benefit to Chapel Hill with this plan. She asked what streets could be refused connection to, and what the Council’s power was with regard to that. Council Member Easthom said she did not believe that the relief of arterials should be at the expense of the quality of life in neighborhoods or the safety of children.
Mayor pro tem Strom said that Attachment 2 included a draft map, and it would be helpful to have the city jurisdiction lines added, as well as inserting the potential traffic counts onto the streets. He asked that the map be made larger as well.
Council Member Harrison said he had attended and voted on the TAC re-evaluation process for a small part of George King Road, noting that the vote from Chapel Hill was a loud no to proceeding on doing that now. He said regarding arterials, there still were some State roads in the area covered by this plan that were substandard and the State had no current plans to improve them. However, new collector streets would be required by local government to a much higher standard. Council Member Harrison said collector streets might lessen traffic on some arterials but in some cases would have no effect.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 2 – Public Hearing: Fairway Hill Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application
Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo provided a brief description and presented a power point presentation of the Preliminary Plat Application for Fairway Hill Subdivision. He said that the developer had proposed a pedestrian and bicycle access to Meadowmont public sidewalk path along the south of the property line to the soccer field. Mr. Poveromo said the staff’s preliminary recommendation was that in lieu of the proposed pedestrian path along the south and east property lines, the applicant construct a five-foot wide pervious surface improved footpath between Lots 2 and 3 to eventually connect with the proposed Aquabella project, and that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu of recreation area. He said the recommendation was for adoption of Resolution A.
Council Member Greene asked what the original purpose was for the easement along the path, noting the property lines did not meet. Mr. Poveromo said along the edge of Meadowmont was a required buffer area, noting it looked like an easement on the map. Council Member Greene said that was about a 20-foot-wide buffer, and asked if it was maintained in any way. Mr. Poveromo said he could get that information back to the Council, adding that area was not intended to be a path.
Council Member Hill asked, regarding the Planning Board recommendations, if the entry road was totally on the interior of the property. Mr. Poveromo said it was. He said the preliminary recommendation was that the road be on the north, based on site visibility for traffic coming from the south.
Council Member Ward asked about the difference between the location of the center line of the existing drive and the center line that staff proposed, and how much site distance would be gained. Mr. Poveromo said he would come back with an answer.
Council Member Greene stated she had attended the Planning Board meeting when this was discussed, and she agreed with the Planning Board’s decision.
Megan Crunkleton, representing the applicant, stated that this small subdivision was being proposed in a way that met Town standards and the community’s preferences. She said they wanted to protect and maintain the privacy of the existing home at 1027 Pinehurst Drive. Ms. Crunkleton said they appreciated the comments from the Community Design Commission (CDC) and well as preliminary comments from Town staff. She said they were attempting to balance concerns while maintaining the integrity of the design. Ms. Crunkleton said several issues of concern remained and they would discuss those this evening.
Michael Neal, speaking as the Engineer on this project, stated that it would generate 30 new trips per day, and would comply with all Town requirements relating to traffic control and traffic management. He said the Planning Department had made three recommendations regarding the location of the intersection: at the southern edge of property (the applicant’s original location); at the middle of the property (the Planning Board’s recommendation); and at the northern edge of property (the staff’s recommendation). Mr. Neal stated that the applicant agrees with the Planning Board’s recommendation to place the intersection at the middle of the property.
Mr. Neal stated that the site created challenges for drainage, noting there was a pipe placed under the road at its low point in order to convey the water. He said the real challenge was that they had no area to transition from the outlet to the pipe to the adjacent property downstream. He provided an explanation of the “view shed,” describing what neighbors would be able to view and what would be viewed from the roadway.
Mr. Neal said they had now agreed that the middle location was the best location to put a drive, noting that would provide adequate site distance, adding that site distance from the south was 240 feet. He said that location would provide ample area to place the culvert under the road and convey water downstream. Mr. Neal said as well, they were able to move the right-of-way five feet away from the common property line with the Meadowmont Homeowners Association giving them a 15-foot buffer, as well as a five-foot landscape buffer that would be maintained by the new homeowners association, for a total of 20 feet. He stated that less trees would be removed through that scenario.
Council Member Harrison asked what the total frontage was on Pinehurst Drive. Mr. Neal responded approximately 120 feet.
Mr. Neal briefly reiterated the buffer issues and their willingness to plant and maintain that buffer, then provided a summary of the intersection issues. He said regarding the path to the athletic fields, they agree with staff and neighbors that the path should be relocated between Lots 2 and 3.
Mr. Neal pointed out on the map the recreation open space proposed to be dedicated. He said it met requirements of LUMO and was outside the RCD. Mr. Neal said whether or not the Town accepted the payment-in-lieu of recreation space, they intended to provide an estimated 11,085 square feet of open space. Mr. Neal said a path was proposed that meandered around the property, with a pavilion and a community gathering area with seating on the path. He noted that the proposed recreational area was the highest and driest piece of land in the subdivision.
Mr. Neal pointed out that stormwater conveyance problems currently existed uphill from this development, and runoff from this site did not flow onto southern properties. He said that this development’s road improvements would increase the size of the pipe, removing the existing bottleneck. Mr. Neal reiterated that this development would comply with all Town stormwater regulations.
John Mackowiak said if the road was moved all the way to the north, he would no longer have a buffer. He noted that he preferred the middle location as recommended by the Planning Board. Mr. Mackowiak also noted that the stormwater issues impacted the northern location.
Melanie Taylor said she had received a letter from the developers that stated they had received feedback from neighbors regarding the pedestrian path. She said to her knowledge that was not true. She said all of neighbors that backed up to this development have not had conversations with the developer and did not agree.
Phil Patterson said regarding the placement of the road, he concurred with the center location. He said he did not support the perimeter walking path, noting he had not been able to locate any neighbors who did support that.
Art Chansky, a resident of 1031 Pinehurst Drive, agreed with the middle location for the roadway. He said he believed the road was not split in the middle the way the applicant had originally proposed because of the recreation space required by the Town. Mr. Chansky said what was being proposed was still very invasive to the Summerville neighbors. He said the reason why was so that recreation space could be created on the other side of the road, thereby reducing the amount of payment-in-lieu to the Town from the property owner.
Tony Lindsey, a resident of Summerville Road, said he was concerned about safety. He said moving the location of the road was a positive step, and was happy to see that proposed. Mr. Lindsey said he continued to be concerned about the path being placed through a wooded area, resulting in the removal of trees.
Ron Dorrestein, a resident of Summerville Road, said he believed there was a misrepresentation of the topography of the lot, noting the runoff did not flow one way. He requested that the buffer match the buffer put in by Meadowmont, creating a 30-foot buffer. Mr. Dorrestein said that would involve moving the road, and potentially loosing the fourth lot. He said that the path needed to be addressed as well.
Mary Tatum, a realtor, said she had represented the Rayfields in this marketing property over the last two years. She said the Rayfield property was a five-acre estate that was there before Meadowmont, and that had impacted the Rayfield property. Ms. Tatum said these five acres were unique, and there was an enormous amount of interest to see a home on five acres. She said there was a huge market for this type of property.
Council Member Greene stated that when the Planning Board had considered the middle location for the road, they had focused on where it came out and what the sight distances were, not how it curved back into the property. She said when this came back before the Council she would like to have the original proposal as well so that the Council could discuss both proposals.
Mayor Foy said he wanted to see a resolution that conformed to the original plan so that the Council could consider that.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 20, 2006. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 3 – Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment –
Modifications to the Permitted Mix of Uses in the Mixed
Use-Office/Institutional-1 Zoning District
and
Item 4 – Public Hearing: The Residents of Chapel Hill North: Application
for a Special Use Permit and Partial Revocation of the Chapel Hill
North Phase I Special Use Permit Modification
Principal Planner Phil Mason described the three components of the development proposal: 1) a proposed LUMO text amendment; 2) partial revocation of the Phase I Special Use Permit; and 3) application for an SUP for Phase II associated with the proposed multi-family development.
Mr. Mason stated that the LUMO text amendment was to amend Section 3.5, which would add an additional use, that of “clinic,” and an increased ratio of residential in the four uses allowed in the district. He said they believe that would be a better mix in this mixed-use zoning district and would allow increased flexibility. Mr. Mason said the staff was recommending enactment of Ordinance A, which would approve the text amendment.
Mr. Mason stated that Resolution A would approve partial revocation of phase 1 of the SUP and it is recommended that the Council adopt resolution A.
Mr. Mason said that the applicant was seeking a partial revocation of the Phase I of the SUP that extended onto the site of the proposed Phase II SUP. He said as it currently stood the southern portion of the Phase II site was encumbered by the Phase I SUP, which required a movie theater to be built. Mr. Mason said that Resolution A would approve the partial revocation of the Phase I SUP, and staff was recommending adoption of that resolution.
Mr. Mason started that the Phase II SUP proposed to construct 200,880 square feet of floor area, 123 dwelling units and 242 parking spaces to the east of the Harris Teeter on the Chapel Hill North site. He said the applicant was proposing to provide 15 affordable rental units on the site. Mr. Mason said the staff believed that the pedestrian connections had been improved with Planning Board feedback, including: 1) connections to the adjacent shopping center; 2) the proposed bus stop on MLK, Jr. Boulevard via sidewalks and crosswalks; and 3) the proposed greenway trail through the southern part of the site between Perkins Drive and Old University Station Road. He said that the staff recommendation was for adoption of Resolution B, approving the Phase II SUP. Mr. Mason provided a brief description of the differences between Resolution A and B.
Scott Radway with Crosland, Inc., speaking for the applicant, commented that they were proposing placing residential in this Chapel Hill North master land use plan development area, which was allowed in this zoning district. He said they were proposing to develop residential within the current zoning, but with a slightly higher percentage of residential than was currently allowed.
Mr. Radway paraphrased a quote from the recent Planning Board meeting: The Council has consistently encouraged residential development near existing retail and office development to promote pedestrian activity over vehicular and to support the transit system. He said there were few places where one could commute to so many office, retail and residential locations other than Chapel Hill North.
Mr. Radway described the area surrounding Chapel Hill North and the existing Chapel Hill North development, as well as the master plan from 1989. He summarized the development of Chapel Hill North.
Mr. Radway noted that the proposed revocation originally included movie theatres, and there were theaters nearby at Timberlyne. He said the current commercial uses were extensive, that public transit was expanded, and that the site was now more appealing for residential use. Mr. Radway noted revisions to the Concept Plan based on feedback, including that the number of units had been reduced from 190 to 123, and that 50 percent of the parking was proposed to be under the buildings to reduce impervious service. He then described the buildings and the surrounding area.
Mr. Radway said there were some issues that needed to be resolved regarding what would happen around the site. He said the public roadway connection would encourage traffic from the development to the east to use Perkins Dive and its intersection with MLK Jr. Boulevard as a shortcut to I-40. Mr. Radway said a private road connection, allowing cross access, but not encouraging a straight shot to MLK Jr. Boulevard, seemed to be a more reasonable solution for connectivity to the east. Mr. Radway said the proposed public roadway connection from Perkins Drive to Old University Station Road was not part of the Master Land Use Plan, was not part of the approved Phase I SUP, and was contrary to PDH policy on connection to adjoining residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Radway discussed the significant effects of the proposed change in use, including that residential supported the existing uses in Chapel Hill North, that residential would support the transit system, that 15 percent of the dwelling units would be affordable, and that the overall use would be balanced by uses that match almost exactly the use mix percentages in the new Mixed Use Village District that was adopted as the district of choice for new developments. Mr. Radway also noted that the amount of traffic generated from the proposed residential use was substantially less than the amount of traffic that would be generated by the amount of office and commercial development that was already approved for Chapel Hill North.
Mr. Radway highlighted the concerns that had been expressed by neighbors, including their need and want for safer pedestrian access to the development, concerns about traffic resulting from the change in use, and their desire for a coordinated full traffic analysis. He said they could not solve all of the traffic problems in the surrounding area, but could address pedestrian movement considerations and the proposed roadway connections.
Mr. Radway noted that the staff was recommending making a connection between Perkins and the east side of the site with a public roadway 45 feet wide. He said it was important to provide a secondary access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Radway said they had shown on the Concept Plan a drive to connect to Persons Drive Extension. But, he said, Duke Energy had flatly refused to allow a driveway connection and an intersection in its easement. Mr. Radway said they believed they could build a private drive connection that would provide for public access through that area for connectivity purposes. He provided some suggestions that would provide connectivity without collapse of the design.
Mr. Radway stated that the applicant was proposing several changes to the stipulations:
Claudia Sheppard said she lived in the Northwood subdivision and was representing her neighbors. She said they were concerned about the pedestrian safety and the potential traffic increase, noting they did not believe that adequate consideration was given to pedestrians and bicyclists. Ms. Sheppard also asked that the infrastructure be put into place before approving the development. She asked for a sidewalk on the west side of MLK Jr. Boulevard, as well as a crosswalk at Perkins Drive.
Susanne Haff, a Northwood resident, also requested sidewalks and crosswalks on MLK Jr. Boulevard. She asked that her neighborhood not be isolated because of the lack of access.
Mayor Foy asked the Town Attorney about the Council’s position, noting that the master land use plan, approved 16 years ago, gave the developer the right to develop a certain amount of square feet, and that what they were now considering was the details. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos stated that the master land use plan did shift the burden, but there was a presumption that the burden was shifted if and only if the SUP was consistent with the terms of the master land use plan. Mr. Karpinos said the master land use plan did give the applicant the opportunity to come in with several hundreds thousand square feet of proposed development.
Mayor pro tem Strom said they were in a position to begin a conversation regarding all of the activity converging in this area of Town. He said they could permit development and at the same time ask themselves, and challenge staff to ask, what they want for this major gateway to Town.
Mayor Foy said the Council was limited in what it could do with the master land use plan. Mr. Karpinos said there was an obscure provision of a local act that would allow the Town to build sidewalks with approval of the County Commissioners and NCDOT, at its own expense.
Council Member Harrison said it would help to have some information from staff on how to deal with master land use plans, and what the Town could and could not do.
Council Member Easthom said she was unclear how the amount of traffic on Perkins Road would be affected. She said that the residential traffic could not be as great as commercial, but it would increase at that dangerous intersection. Council Member Easthom asked when the improvements that the Town anticipated in 2009 would actually happen Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli replied that Weaver Dairy Road project was scheduled to start next year and be completed in 2009, adding it included a median on Weaver Dairy Road. He noted some other additional improvements, noting many would not happen until 2011 because funding had been shifted to the traffic signal system.
Council Member Easthom asked what alternatives they had. Mr. Neppalli responded that a signal could be installed at the intersection if approved by NCDOT. Council Member Easthom commented on the north side of Weaver Dairy Road, noting that a sidewalk would assist people traveling to Timberlyne.
Mr. Radway said there was a sidewalk on the west side of Perkins Drive, but there was not sufficient right-of-way to build a sidewalk on the east side of Perkins Drive.
Council Member Ward said there were significant transportation issues as well as congestion issues that needed to be resolved. He said that pedestrian activated signal heads were needed, as well as adequate street lighting to allow for safe pedestrian movement. Council Member Ward said he wanted to understand the connection between this project and the existing development at Chapel Hill North to see how stormwater might be handled in a better manner.
Council Member Ward asked if there was a pedestrian trail that paralleled I-40. Mr. Radway replied there was a pedestrian trail along I-40, with a proposed linkage through the Duke Power easement portion in the northeast corner. He said the Parks and Recreation Commission wanted a connection made through the Duke Power easement, and also to have an easement for the remainder going to the west.
Council Member Ward said he wanted a better understanding from the staff of what the vision of the public street would be, and if that could be accomplished with emergency access to the traffic circle. Mr. Mason said the Planning Board was recommending a public right-of-way through the site, with a connection to go through to the adjacent site.
Mayor Foy said the public nature of that connection, as opposed to private, was important.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 20.
Planning Director J. B. Culpepper said, given the nature of some of the questions raised tonight, she believed that the January 8th meeting would give the staff enough time to respond to those issues.
Council Member Easthom asked for additional information about the affordable housing and where it would be located on the site.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM AND COUNCIL MEMBER WARD AGREED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO RECESS THE HEARING TO JANUARY 8, 2007. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mr. Radway asked, if there were other questions that the Council wanted the staff or the applicant to address, that the Council provide those questions to the staff so they could be discussed.
Item 5 – Concept Plan: New Life Fellowship Seventh-Day Adventist Church
Ms. Culpepper provided a brief description of the plan. She said the proposal included a 400-seat sanctuary and gym. Ms. Culpepper said this was a 3.85-acre site located at 166 Weaver Dairy Road, which was currently occupied by a single-family house that was proposed to remain and several other structures proposed to be removed. She said the proposal was to build 14,300 square feet of floor area.
Keith Shaw, the architect for the project and a member of the church, said they were waiting for approvals from NCDOT regarding the Sage Road Extension. He provided a brief description of the property and their proposal. Responding to a question by Mayor Foy, Mr. Shaw pointed out the location of the RCD as well as the existing structures.
Mayor Foy said as a general rule, parking was normally pushed to the rear. Mr. Shaw replied that their goal was to hide the building by nestling it into the trees, and to preserve as many trees as possible. He said they wanted to keep the property as close to what it now was without great impact, although they were planning to remove some pine saplings.
Council Member Ward asked about the proximity of the entrance drives to the traffic circle. Mr. Shaw responded that Perry Creek Drive was on the DOT map, and there was also an access road near that location. He said they were some distance away from that roundabout.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).