Planning Commission

Town Hall TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Planning Commission Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Meeting Minutes Elizabeth Losos John Rees Wesley Mcmahon Louie Rivers Chuck Mills Stephen Whitlow Jonathan Mitchel Tuesday, September 20, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting Language Access Statement Virtual Meeting Notification Board members will attend and participate in this meeting remotely, through internet access, and will not physically attend. The Town will not provide a physical location for viewing the meeting. The public is invited to attend the Zoom webinar directly online or by phone. Register for this webinar: URL After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar in listen-only mode. Phone: 301-715-8592, Meeting ID: ###-####-#### Opening Roll Call Staff Liaison: Jacob Hunt Council Liaison: Camille Berry Present 6 - Elizabeth Losos, Wesley Mcmahon, Chuck Mills, Jonathan Mitchell, John Rees, and Stephen Whitlow Absent 1 - Louie Rivers Secretary reads procedures into the record Page 1 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 2022 Approval of Agenda A motion was made by McMahon to approve the agenda. The agenda was approved without objection. Announcements Petitions Approval of Minutes 1. July 21, 2022 Meeting Minutes [22-0664] A motion was made by Rees, seconded by Losos, to approve the July 21, 2022 minutes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 2. September 9, 2022 Meeting Minutes [22-0665] A motion was made by Rees, seconded by Losos, to approve the September 9, 2022 minutes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Old Business New Business 3. 710 N Estes Conditional Zoning [22-0666] A motion was made by John Rees, seconded by Wesley McMahon, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for Resolution A and Ordinance A with the following additional comments as supplements to their recommendation. PC members had a generally favorable view of the project, noting that the site plan has improved considerably in recent weeks. From a housing perspective, the proposal seems in line with the Town's needs. Members noted that the current plan seems at least somewhat responsive to concerns raised about excessive re-grading and clearcutting, as well as architectural quality, among other aspects. Nevertheless, the PC wishes to bring two concerns to the Council's attention: • First, Lock7 has committed to complying with the current 25-year flood standard for stormwater control, not the 100-year standard that the Aura developer agreed to. Members worry about the long term, and difficult to remediate, consequences of designing new developments to meet stormwater standards that many view as no longer sufficient. Lock7 states that complying with a 100-year standard would increase costs by approximately $500,000, and complying with a 50-year standard would increase costs by approximately Page 2 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 2022 $250,000. Lock7 also states that increasing stormwater storage capacity could also necessitate more tree removal. (Members would like to see more tree preservation, not less). Members pointed out that a reduction in guest parking (currently 20 spots) could create more space for stormwater control measures. We recommend that the Council consider whether a higher stormwater standard is appropriate, and how to weight the potential trade-offs. • Second, as alluded to above, members believe that the proposal for 20 guest parking spots may be excessive when there are dozens of rarely used street parking opportunities on Somerset Drive south of the existing neighborhood. These guest parking spots effectively increase the overall internal parking ratio from 2.1 to 2.4, with attendant consequences for transit-oriented development, construction cost and affordability, and impervious surface. (Aura's parking ratio is 1.55, before backing out retail parking.) Lock7 expressed openness to reducing guest parking but stated that Town officials previously cautioned Lock7 that some of the Somerset parking might not remain available indefinitely. The PC is not aware of any Town plans that would impact the majority of the street frontage in question. Therefore, we recommend that the Council consider asking for a reduction in on-site guest parking. In doing so, the Council might also clarify any future plans that might impact street parking on Somerset Drive south of the existing neighborhood (and the extent of any such impacts). • On a side-note, members expressed concern about the 26ft wide internal street width that we understand Lock7 must maintain to meet fire code. We understand that the Fire Marshall administers that requirement, not the Council. Nevertheless, we wonder whether the trade-offs involved in the 26ft standard are justifiable (e.g., additional maneuvering space for larger fire trucks vs. impervious surface and decreased pedestrian friendliness) and would welcome dialogue between the Council and the Fire Marshall on this subject. 4. Aspen Heights Conditional Zoning [22-0667] A motion was made by John Rees, seconded by Elizabeth Losos, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for Resolution A and Ordinance A with the following additional comments as supplements to their recommendation. Members generally found the project appealing but wish to bring three areas of concern to the Council's attention: • First, the current proposal provides one bicycle parking space for every Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 2022 five residents and does not seem to provide sufficient parking for scooters (which are popular among students). Members are skeptical that the bicycle and scooter parking are adequate. • Second, consistent with the CDC's comments, the PC would like to minimize incursion in the RCD and ensure that the developer restores the RCD with high-quality plantings, such that it becomes a valuable amenity to residents and the larger community. • Third, members were divided on the merits of the current affordable housing configuration, where the affordable units are clustered at the ground level. One member perceived this approach as relegating the affordable units to the "basement." Another argued that the ground-level units were not inherently inferior and in fact had their advantages (ease of access, sound isolation due to concrete ceiling). The group discussed the possibility of providing somewhat larger windows for the affordable units (i.e., inspired by the rest of the ground-floor façade but also respecting the need for privacy), relocating the affordable units higher in the building, or interspersing some of the units. (Note that keeping the units at the ground level might reduce the possibility of any future conversion of the ground floor space to retail uses.) Ultimately the group did not reach a resolution on this issue and simply wishes to flag it for the Council. 5. Shaping Our Future TOD+UDO Update [22-0668] Planning commission received a report on the status of the "Shaping Our Future TOD+UDO Update" from Planning staff. Adjournment Next Meeting - October 4, 2022 Order of Consideration of Agenda Items: 1. Staff Presentation 2. Applicant’s Presentation 3. Public Comment 4. Board Discussion 5. Motion 6. Restatement of Motion by Chair 7. Vote 8. Announcement of Vote by Chair Public Charge: The Advisory Body pledges its respect to the public. The Body asks the public to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Body and with fellow members of the public. Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 2022 Should any member of the Body or any member of the public fail to observe this charge at any time, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Unless otherwise noted, please contact the Planning Department at 919-968-2728; planning@townofchapelhill.org for more information on the above referenced applications. See the Advisory Boards page http://www.townofchapelhill.org/boards for background information on this Board. Page 5 of 5