SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
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, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Planner Kay Pearlstein, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Item 1 - Public Hearing on Village Plaza Theater Renovation -
Application for Special Use Permit Modification
Town Manager Cal Horton explained that the applicant had requested an opportunity to make a brief request and the Council agreed to hear that request.
Attorney Wayne Hadler, representing Easter Federal Corporation, asked the Council to place Item 1 later in the agenda so that the applicant could continue working on a potential agreement. They expected to move forward with the item this evening, he said, but would like another forty-five minutes to come to a conclusion on the potential agreement.
The Council agreed by consensus to hear Item 1 later in the meeting.
Item 2 - Concept Plan Review:
University of North Carolina Cogeneration Facility
Town Planning Director Roger Waldon reviewed the concept plan process and explained that it was not a quasi-judicial proceeding. He then displayed a map showing the proposed location of the Cogeneration Facility, including the various buildings that it encompassed. Mr. Waldon said that UNC representative would propose three changes. The staff welcomed questions and comments from Council members before they prepare the Special Use Permit (SUP) application, he said.
Peter Krawchyk, Assistant Director of Facilities Planning at UNC, explained that growth on campus had lead to a need for more steam capacity and electricity. The proposed projects - an addition to the turbine generator building, construction of new cooling towers, enclosing an electrical substation, adding new transformers and screening them with a switch gear building - were consistent with the University's steam master plan, he said, adding that they would all maximize efficiency. Mr. Krawchyk stated that the projects would comply with the Town's noise ordinance.
Neighbors had asked if the projects would require that any additional coal cars come to the Cogeneration Facility, Mr. Krawchyk said. He explained that it would not do so because UNC was not building any more coal fire boilers at this facility. Neighbors had also inquired about the height of the cooling towers, he said, and they had asked about possible health impacts. Mr. Krawchyk explained the towers would be 35 feet high and that there would be no health impacts.
Mr. Krawchyk noted a Community Design Commission (CDC) comment that the proposed screen wall might have a negative impact on the neighborhood. UNC "respectfully disagreed" with that notion, he said, adding that it would actually be an asset to the surrounding neighborhood when compared to the existing conditions. The CDC had also suggested that the masonry buildings on Cameron Avenue incorporate detailing similar to that indicated on the screen wall of the cooling towers, Mr. Krawchyk noted. He stated that UNC thought that was a good suggestion and were taking it into account during this design phase. Mr. Krawchyk noted that the CDC had wondered about hiding the mass of the building at the turbine generator addition, and explained that UNC had demonstrated to them the difficulty associated with doing that.
Council Member Hill commented that he did not think the screen wall would negatively impact the neighborhood. He verified that no building was currently in place where the switch gear station would go. Mr. Krawchyk explained that the station would only need to be constructed if UNC decided to own two transformers. Council Member Hill suggested considering the front of the existing cogeneration and laundry facility as inspiration for the detailing at the substation building. He pointed out that there was a park just east of there and expressed fear that the building would loom to large without detailing to break it up.
Council Member Harrison asked how often the coal cars arrived. Raymond DuBose, UNC's Director of Energy Services, explained that they receive coal as they burn it. It varies between three train deliveries per week in the spring and fall to about six at the peak time of year, he said, adding that the train brings about nine cars each trip. Council Member Harrison asked what had triggered a Council review of this item. Mr. Horton explained it would be a modification of an existing SUP.
Council Member Ward ascertained that Duke Power owned the substation and that UNC had no control within it. He asked if new equipment would be smaller and less obtrusive over time. Mr. DuBose replied that components such as the switchgear might get smaller but that transformers probably would continue to be the same size. Council Member Ward encouraged UNC to develop some architectural detailing that would break up the masonry buildings.
Mayor Foy asked about the relationship between Duke Power and this power plant. Mr. DuBose explained that the University generates about a third of the energy it consumes. The balance comes from Duke Power, he said. Mayor Foy verified that UNC was not in any way generating power for the substation and that the power there was coming from a separate source.
Mayor Foy asked Council Member Ward to clarify a previous comment. Council Member Ward explained that the situation on Mason Farm Road was different in that Duke Power and UNC were co-located on a site that had equipment owned by Duke Power and facilities owned by UNC. He said that UNC's representatives could explain better than he could about how those two were merging efforts to provide power to UNC Hospitals and the southern part of UNC's campus.
Mayor Foy asked if there were any issues regarding lighting. Mr. Krawchyk replied that the only light they foresee on the exterior of the structure would be task lighting such as that over the main access door. There would not be any personnel in the buildings on a regular basis, he said. Mr. Krawchyk indicated on a map that one building would be lit from the interior.
Mayor Foy asked if there were any current issues with the surrounding neighbors regarding light. Mr. Krawchyk replied that he was not aware of any.
Mayor Foy ascertained from UNC Designer Rick Welborn that an area designated in the center of the map would house a very small section of electrical switchgear associated with the project.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA COGENERATION FACILITY (2004-06-21/R-1)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the University of North Carolina Cogeneration Facility; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for the applicant, and from citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on June 21, 2004, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 21st day of June, 2004.
Item 3 - Concept Plan Review:
University of North Carolina Electrical Substation
Principal Planner Gene Poveromo gave a brief overview of the concept plan for expanding an existing public service facility. The Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) requires that public service facilities obtain an SUP, he explained, noting that this facility had been issued an SUP in 1981. Mr. Poveromo pointed out that the site was only five acres and that UNC had notified residents of the proposed expansion in a much larger surrounding area than was required. He indicated the Duke Power substation on a map and said that the proposal was for two buildings with a total of about 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Krawchyk explained that this project was very similar to the previous one in terms of the University's wish to add switch gears to its utility system. He explained that UNC's equipment at the existing substation, which they share with Duke Power, was 25 years old and were proposing to replace it with equipment that could be placed indoors and would provide better reliability. Mr. Krawchyk explained that the equipment would also enable remote operation and had better life cycle costs. He noted that the reason for not placing it inside the existing substation was that it serves UNC Hospitals, so none of it could be taken out of operation while building the substation. Also, Mr. Krawchyk added, the existing yard does not have enough space to construct a new switchgear building while the existing equipment remains in place.
Mr. Krawchyk pointed out on a map the proposed location of the new building. He explained that there was insufficient land to the east and north of that location due to Duke Power rights-of-way. And, Mr. Krawchyk added, UNC could not place the building south of it due to the floodplain and creek. He pointed out that the main access to the building would be through the existing substation, noting this would allow the 50 x 50-foot building to be placed on a slope so that it would appear lower in the landscape. Mr. Krawchyk explained that another access on Old Mason Farm Road would be gated and a cleared path would be used only for emergencies.
Mr. Krawchyk said that UNC was arranging a meeting to coordinate curb-cut locations with its neighbors. Exterior lighting would be limited to security lighting, he said, and pole lighting in the parking lot that would be operated only as needed. Mr. Krawchyk pointed out that the CDC had proposed eliminating a gravel drive and that UNC had accordingly changed that to a simple path. He said that there would be one to two visits to the facility per week, noting that this would be fewer visits than were currently occurring. Mr. Krawchyk said that UNC had met with representatives from the Botanical Garden and would meet with them again as the project progresses. A nearby storage yard would be cleaned and re-vegetated, he said, adding that the University was searching for an alternative location.
Mayor Foy inquired about the existing substation. Mr. Krawchyk replied that two-thirds of it was Duke Power equipment. That would remain in place unless Duke Power had other plans for it, he said, but UNC would remove its equipment and that space would revert back to Duke Power. Mayor Foy verified that the access driveway would be a cleared path with no gravel and that the main entryway would be the one that already exists.
Council Member Strom determined the rough location of the Resource Conservation District (RCD) line. He wondered about extending the driveway and keeping it out of the RCD. Mr. Krawchyk offered to explore that.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council had seen a concept plan for a Family House that would be east of the Ronald McDonald House. Mr. Krawchyk stated that UNC had discussed this plan with the Family House developer, whose concern had been similar to that expressed by the Botanical Garden and involved a curb cut off of Mason Farm Road. Mayor Foy verified with Mr. Krawchyk that there were no noise issues that he was aware of.
Council Member Greene recalled that the Family House had planned to accommodate their driveway to this request from UNC. Mr. Krawchyk replied that both parties were in agreement about that and that all affected parties planned to study and coordinate the various curb cuts along the entire length of Mason Farm Road.
Council Member Ward asked about the GIS Building. Rick Moran explained that 75% of the structure that is there might be enclosed in a new building at that location. But this was still under discussion, he said, and there was no timetable for that. Council Member Ward verified that the parking lots would be gravel. He had previously asked the University to tighten the footprint as much as possible and they had done that, he said.
Council Member Ward expressed appreciation for the plan to re-vegetate the storage area. He verified that UNC might need security fencing, and asked about building exteriors. Mr. Krawchyk stated that the architects were continuing to refine the design and were aware of the requests that it fit into the neighborhood.
Mayor Foy inquired about buffering. Mr. Krawchyk replied that most of it would be existing vegetation and that the only view of the building probably would be from the emergency drive.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION (2004-06-21/R-2)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the University of North Carolina Electrical Substation; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for the applicant, and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on June 21, 2004, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 21st day of June, 2004.
At this point, the Council resumed discussion of Agenda Item #1.
Item 1 - Public Hearing on Village Plaza Theater Renovation -
Application for Special Use Permit Modification
Mr. Waldon outlined the application for modification of an existing SUP. The Council had approved the SUP early in 2003, he said, explaining that it authorized demolishing an existing five-screen cinema complex and replacing it with a 10-screen building with parking as shown on the site plan. The SUP had been approved with a number of conditions, including an off-site improvement to widen Driveway D, he said. Mr. Waldon stated that there appeared to be cooperation among a number of adjacent property owners prior to the hearing and the staff believed that Eastern Federal Corporation would gain the permission and easements to widen that driveway.
Mr. Waldon explained that the Council had learned at the public hearing that the agreement between two property owners had not been reached and had removed that condition of approval. But the Town did not allow the applicant to go forward with the cinemas, he said, because they had not obtained an agreement that would allow them to widen Driveway D. So the applicant had come back with two requests, Mr. Waldon explained. Eastern Federal was asking that the improvements to Driveway D be deleted from the SUP and that the Council authorize them to make a payment-in-lieu of constructing a link to a greenway, he said.
Mr. Waldon noted that the staff had recommended approval of the proposed modifications. Both of those improvements involve someone else's property and the applicant had not been able to obtain permission from those adjacent property owners, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that the Council also had the results of two traffic analyses in their packet of materials. The Town had commissioned one and the proposed theater's adjacent property owners commissioned the other, he said.
Council Member Verkerk clarified that the easement to the greenway was on Staples Office Supplies’ property.
Council Member Harrison asked if the Town would have to get its own easement if there was a payment-in-lieu for that portion of the trail. Mr. Waldon replied that the Town's first choice would be that the applicant obtains an easement. If that becomes impossible, he said, the Town could use the payment-in-lieu funds to obtain that easement and construct that link or for other greenway improvements in that area. Council Member Harrison verified that the applicant had been required to construct other parts of the linear park and that those conditions remain with the SUP.
Attorney Wayne Hadler, representing Eastern Federal Corporation, said that Mr. Horton's description of the reasons why they were here tonight as "an error in process" was an accurate one. The Town had stipulated that the applicant obtain off-site improvements that it was unable to get despite extensive negotiations and mediation, he said. Mr. Hadler explained that Eastern Federal had tried hard to reach an agreement as the Council had asked. But they are not in control of the result, he said, adding that he believed that Ginn & Company was not in control of that either because their tenant, Whole Foods, had certain rights in their lease that do not allow for a simple agreement. Mr. Hadler asked that Eastern Federal be allowed to make improvements to its own Driveways A, B and C and allow those to service their property. He pointed out that the Town's traffic report had concluded that those driveways were sufficient.
Mr. Hadler said that Eastern Federal would like to see harmony at the shopping center but they objected to extraneous matters being part of this process. Those matters are not really pertinent to the application, he said, adding that the scope of the review should be limited to whether or not the driveways are sufficient. With regard to the payment-in-lieu for the 30-foot easement, Mr. Hadler explained that Eastern Federal had been negotiating with Mr. Crowell Little and was hopeful that the easement contract would be signed. If it is not signed, however, Eastern Federal does not want to come back again, he said, so they were proposing the payment-in-lieu option.
Eastern Federal President and Co-owner Carter Meizelman said that they had responded to and complied with every single one of the Town's requests, all of which were to their economic detriment. He listed all of those changes, and said that the Council had approved the SUP after thoroughly analyzing all of the issues related to parking and circulation. Now they were here, eighteen months later, to discuss three misplaced words in the SUP. He noted that the Town's traffic engineer had concluded that the theater works fine without the driveway, that Eastern Federal had attended mediation sessions and that the two property owners were having much more positive dialogue. “Nevertheless, you're going to hear tonight from the same handful of neighbors that were concerned about our project at the very beginning."
Attorney Mike Ortiz, representing Steve Ginn and Crowell Little, noted that one issue he wanted to address was on page 8 of the Council’s materials, dealing with parking. He said the problem is that because shifts occur in parking – the retail businesses attract day-time parking and the theaters attract night-time parking – the Town had allowed the SUP based on that shifting, assuming that additional parking would be available for theater-goers after retail businesses had passed their peak hours or had closed. Mr. Ortiz noted, however, that no one had studied whether the utilization of those parking spaces would allow this scenario to occur.
Mr. Ortiz noted that based on the types of businesses located on this property, there is not just daytime use. In support of this statement, he noted that when you look at the 12 ½ hours that were study by PBS&J, the peak hour of operation for Mark Properties is 7:30 p.m. on Friday evenings. Mr. Ortiz said that if you look at the number of cars parking on Mark Properties and the number anticipated for the theaters, it is 8:30 before cars are no longer parking on the Little and Ginn properties. He asked the Council to keep in mind that 70% of the parking needed by the theaters comes from Mark Properties.
Council Member Kleinschmidt clarified that Mr. Ortiz had said the Mark Properties lot was busiest on Friday nights at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Ortiz, said that was correct, that peak parking times were between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. on Friday evenings. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that he often comes out of the Spa on Friday evenings between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. and the lot is "empty."
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Ortiz if his traffic consultant had conducted the parking demand study at a time when the theaters were not operating. He asked did they take into consideration parking demands with the operation up and running. Todd Brooks, representing the traffic consulting firm PBS&J, reviewed his previous PowerPoint presentation on traffic and parking impacts in the area. He concluded that the Town should require Eastern Federal to widen Driveway D and improve Driveway C in order to mitigate the impact of traffic on Mr. Ginn's property.
Mr. Brooks also recommended creating 100-150 more parking spaces to rectify a parking deficit during peak theater times. He noted that the Town's traffic report had concluded that Driveway C would perform at below Town standard during peak theater times. Mr. Brooks corrected staff comments regarding his report that he believed were misleading and/or incorrect. He also pointed to conflicts between the Town's and his reports. Mr. Brooks said that theater traffic would primarily attempt to exit through Driveway D.
Council Member Harrison determined that the cars on a map that Mr. Brooks had displayed had been superimposed on an aerial photo. The number of cars shown had been determined by walking through the parking lot at 30-minute intervals and ticking off the occupied spaces, Mr. Brooks explained. Council Member Harrison asked how they had determined the need for 100-150 more parking spaces. Mr. Brooks replied that they had looked at the number of free spaces and the number that is commonly required for a theater of this size and had compared what was needed to what would be available.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked Mr. Brooks if he was suggesting that they "do" Driveway D. Mr. Brooks replied that he did not think his client was opposed to having a theater in the area but they did not want a situation where it would cause harm to other property owners and be detrimental to their conduct of business. "And the relief then is you want them to do Driveway D," said Council Member Kleinschmidt. Mr. Brooks replied that was correct, adding that Driveway D should be done without any appreciable deterioration in the level of service. Mr. Ginn wanted Eastern Federal to be required to address the parking deficit at peak times by creating additional parking spaces on its own side, he said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked about Driveway C, and Mr. Brooks responded that Town staff had agreed that Driveway C was not adequate without addressing details to improve it.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Ortiz if it was correct that Ginn & Company wanted the Driveway D improvement. Mr. Ortiz replied that they did not like the project as it was currently designed and would not allow any change that would allow it to continue. "If Driveway D remained a stipulation in the SUP and you want those improvements, would you be willing to grant the necessary access to the space to make the improvements to Driveway D," asked Mayor Foy. Mr. Ortiz replied that they would only if it means addressing the other issues raised by some of Mr. Ginn's key tenants. Mayor Foy pointed out that this constitutes a refusal.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that this was the same argument that the Council had heard before.
Mayor Foy asked if it was true that Whole Foods, a major tenant, had a veto power in all negotiations. Mr. Ortiz replied that there was no situation where Whole Foods had an absolute veto power. But, he noted, Whole Foods is the main source of income for the Ginn family, adding that the Ginn family wanted to make sure that whatever was done helped to preserve that income stream. They realize that every lost parking space means a reduction in income, Mr. Ortiz said, noting that this applies to all tenants and not just Whole Foods.
Council Member Greene asked what would be the harm to Whole Foods if Driveway D were improved. Mr. Ortiz replied that it would become a major thoroughfare into the shopping center to access and leave the theater. But their main concern is the impact that the theater operation will have on all of the tenants, he said.
Council Members Kleinschmidt and Greene said that it sounded as though the Council was being asked to go back many steps and change the SUP to allow fewer seats in the theater. "Yes and no," Mr. Ortiz replied, noting that during mediation and discussions there had been talk about building a parking deck and other types of parking structures "so that Eastern Federal is not using other people's property to satisfy their own parking demands." He said that Mr. Ginn had been willing to donate a substantial amount of money towards that.
Chris Shaw, a business owner who is also the property manager for Mr. Ginn and Mr. Little, described the project as a major impact on the neighborhood. He said the issue was that there were not enough parking spaces there to service the movie theater, which is just too big and doesn't fit. "What I'm talking about is 1600 seats, 118 parking places."
Mayor Foy asked speakers to keep their comments confined to the issues, which are the driveway and the accessibility to this site. "We are not here to reargue the whole Special Use Permit this evening."
Bob Krueger, a Village Plaza bakery owner, said that he had initiated a petition which many of the Village Plaza and surrounding business owners had signed in favor of the theater project as it exists in Resolution A. Speaking for himself, he said that he bought his business two years ago knowing that the theater would expand. He said that the project would be good for the economy and certainly an improvement over the desolate site that now exists. Mr. Krueger said he thought that more delays would be unfair to the developer and asked the Council to be aware that a significant number of business owners need this project and favor its completion. He added that many constituents are bewildered about why the project has not gone ahead.
Crowell Little, Jr., whose family owns Gateway Commons, asked the Council to keep the stipulation for Driveway D because theaters generate traffic and that the important thing is how that traffic is handled. If it's not improved, he said he believes it will lead to traffic jams and send more traffic through the back of his property to get to Franklin Street. With regard to the easements, he said that his attorney had responded last week and had given the easement for the driveway, as well as tapping into OWASA for the sewer.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Little to indicate on the map where his property was located and where he thought people would use that exit if Driveway D were not improved. Mr. Little pointed out on the map he thought they would go behind the Staples property and onto Franklin Street.
Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Little if he had any objection to the parking lot north of the theater and southeast of Staples being used for theater parking. Mr. Little replied that he did because he wanted it available for his tenants. He noted that people would park where they want to but if a major portion is used for theater parking he will feel that he is being harmed. He noted that both Staples and Blockbuster stay open late and that their employees park in that area.
Kate Branch, owner of Branch's Bookshop, said that she had only been in business for 18 months and had not been involved at the beginning of the negotiations. She said that she would like to have the foot traffic that the theater would generate but that the number of customers in her store is at its peak from 6:00-9:00 p.m. every night, particularly on weekends, and from 11 a.m-2:00 p.m. during the day. Ms. Branch said that these were clear conflicts with movie times and that nobody would be able to get into her store, which is dependent on literary events that can draw hundreds of people. She said that her business was growing, was good for the Town, and that widening Driveway D would at least give her a fair shot at not having people drive and park in front of her store to go to the movies.
Berkeley Grimbell, owner of Grimbell Jewelers, said that the basic bottom line was "no parking, no business." He said that the traffic would be a nightmare for significant times of the day. The Council had allowed the theater to externalize the cost of parking and would be causing the local business owners to pay.
Mark Anthony Tse, owner of Jersey Mike's, thanked Mr. Ginn for his diligence and his commitment to finding a mutually beneficial resolution for all the tenants involved. He told Council members that their decision would affect the small business owners more than anyone else involved in this deal and that losing even one parking spot affects them dramatically.
Jim Groot, speaking for himself and George Jones who could not be present, said they were in favor of the theater but not the way the deal is constituted. Mr. Groot said that the issue involved the finding related to damage to an adjacent property, and asked the Council to visit the site. He said there were no parking spaces available at night and that ingress and egress was difficult. Mr. Groot asked who would fix this later on if all of the little guys are right. "We will be broken, destroyed, and gone,” he said.
Brenda Honeycutt, owner of Plaza Dry Cleaners, expressed agreement with previous comments, adding that she stands at her counter watching the traffic come in on Driveway D. She said that she had older clients who will go to another cleaner if they can't park close. She asked the Council to rethink the issue.
Aaron Nelson, representing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said that they had discussed all issues, and decided to discuss with the Council issues such as the responsibility to treat property owners justly and fairly and to make sure that existing businesses are nurtured and encouraged to thrive and succeed. He asked the Council to accept their apology for not being able to recommend that the Council take it one way or another and to remember what they are here to talk about, which is the modification of this SUP.
Rosemary Hargrove, owner of the Cotton Bowl, said that the issue was parking and that Driveway D was important because it was the Council's intent to protect businesses from the parking problem. She wondered how the Council could approve this when there is not adequate parking, adding that she would have no objection at all if they did not "act like Goliath and take my parking."
Steve Ginn, owner of the plaza where Whole Foods is located, said that he had made a sincere effort and tried hard in mediation, offering $400,000 at one point toward improvements on the Eastern Federal property to straighten out the parking issue and Driveway D. "As a business man, that's a pretty big thing for me."
Mr. Ginn noted that the Town Council is charged "to do no harm" under the SUP process. He said that the Council had tried to help by offering two traffic monitors but that this would not be sufficient. He said that they had taken away the cross-access requirement that he had requested. Mr. Ginn said that his tenants did want Driveway D improved but that Eastern Federal had refused to do any of the other things that would protect them, noting that improving Driveway D would eliminate 13 parking spaces. He asked that, if the Council decides to approve that stipulation, they add a provision allowing him to install temporary barricades and pedestrian controls on his property so that he can protect his tenants.
Council Member Harrison asked about the barricades preventing egress from the Whole Foods lot onto Driveway D. Mr. Ginn replied that he merely wanted to protect his own property, would not block the driveway.
Council Member Kleinschmidt recalled that Eastern Federal had agreed in the past to give a cross-access agreement. He asked how that fit with the current claim that "they" were willing to have a cross-access easement. Mr. Hadler replied that the SUP provided for Eastern Federal to give a unilateral ingress, egress and regress easement in favor of Ginn & Company. "We have no problem with that. We can give them that and we will give them that." He said that Ginn & Company would have no interest in giving Eastern Federal a cross-access easement, "and we don't have any problem with that either."
Mayor Foy recalled that there had been some comment that Driveway D was part of the SUP as a result of an accident or a mistake. He said that he does not accept that, adding that the Council reads the SUP closely and bases its decisions on all the stipulations. Mayor Foy said that the stipulation was in the SUP as a result of consideration by the Council and was not a mere mistake. He said that the Council had a decision to make and, in his estimation, it was not one of correcting a mistake.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins expressed disappointment over the negotiations not having been successful, noting that there were very compelling arguments on both sides. She explained that she had not voted in favor of the project but she respects the Council action that the majority had taken. She noted, however, that the entire community would benefit from the two sides getting together and reaching an agreement. She said that she did not think the Ginn property would be the only one affected by the overflow of cars, which she predicted would fill all of the nearby streets and parking lots and would be "unlike anything we've had in Chapel Hill recently." She noted that several people had mentioned a parking deck and she wondered what the stumbling block was to that proposal. "Why can't you move the theater closer to Elliott Road and put a parking deck back there top accommodate a couple hundred cars?" Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that she would be choosing the lesser of two evils and not what's best, and asked the parties to continue to talk and come back with a united proposal for the Council.
Council Member Ward said that he had also been one of the Council members who had voted against the project, since he thought that due to the limited number of parking spaces it would be detrimental to the existing local businesses. He said that he felt it was important to improve Driveway D to help the traffic flow. He praised the mediation process and said that he would like to see it continue.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 30, 2004, AND TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4 - Concept Plan Review:
Homestead Community Park Aquatic Center
Mr. Horton described this as one of those "unusual but not rare" cases in which the Council is reviewing a project that it had initiated. He noted that the Council at times acts as regulator and sometimes as owner, and tonight the regulator side of the Town would be introducing the project and then the owner side would be presenting it.
Mayor Foy asked that the Manager and/or applicant also incorporate a timeline to projected completion on both the Aquatics Center and the Southern Community Park (to be discussed next) so that the public would understand where the Town is on these.
Mr. Poveromo gave a brief introduction to the concept plan for the Aquatics Center. The 26,000 square-foot Aquatics Center would be located at the 40-acre Homestead Community Park, which is located between Airport Road and Homestead Road, he said.
Josh Gurlitz, of GGA Architects, discussed the proposed site plan and building. This was a request for modification of an SUP, he said, noting that several things that had changed since the original approval. Mr. Gurlitz recommended adding handicapped spaces and a drop-off area in front of the facility. Two paved road spurs to the north and south would provide access for emergency vehicles, he explained, and he indicated the proposed location of two stormwater structures.
Mr. Gurlitz displayed a diagram of the building, including the 25-meter x 25-yard cool water tank, warm water tank, locker rooms, storage area, classrooms, offices and lifesaving functions. He displayed a model of the building and explained how it would conform to the surrounding topography. Mr. Gurlitz noted possible building enhancements, such as solar-assisted hot water heating, rainwater collection, day-lighting, a waste heat recovery system, pool covers, and a highly insulated building shell.
Mayor Foy verified that the projected completion date would be the summer of 2006. He told Council members that this and the Southern Community Park project had been proceeding through a Project Planning Committee on which he and Council Member Strom served. That Committee also included Orange County Commission members, he said, reminding Council members that both Town and County funds were being used for these projects.
Council Member Ward raised the following questions and asked Mr. Gurlitz to respond to them at a later date:
· What about window tinting to prevent sunlight?
· Could this building be expanded later on within the site?
· Should there be a space for van parking for possible therapeutic populations?
· Will settling on the slope be an issue with the tanks, as it had been with some other pools?
· Why are fire lanes required around the building? He noted that root systems of some old trees would be severely compromised by those lanes.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE HOMESTEAD COMMUNITY PARK AQUATIC CENTER (2004-06-21/R-3)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Homestead Community Park Aquatic Center; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for the applicant, and from citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on June 21, 2004, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 21st day of June, 2004.
Item 5 - Concept Plan Review:
Southern Community Park
Mr. Poveromo summarized the concept plan for a community park on a 70-acre site along the west side of Highway 15-501 south of Southern Village.
Brian Starkey, of OBS Landscape Architects, reviewed the process for developing the plan, explaining that they had modified it by reorienting the athletic fields and relocating the dog park. He said that about half of the site would retain its natural character and that they had discussed having the Town assume control of the portion of Dogwood Acres Drive that passes through it. Town control of that road would enable them to lower the speed limit and introduce pedestrian crossings, he explained. Mr. Starkey said that the greenway trail would be extended all the way through to the southern tip of the park. A park and ride lot is just north of the site and they would build a supplemental lot, he said.
Wave Road resident Sidney R. Smith asked that there be an adequate buffer between the park and the residential areas. He noted he was speaking for others on Wave Road as well as some on Dogwood Acres Drive. Mr. Smith stated that he would be perfectly happy with the concept if that assurance was included.
Council Member Ward verified that there would be a sidewalk along the southern side of Dogwood Acres Drive and two pedestrian crossings. He asked Mr. Starkey to look into whether sidewalks were needed on both sides. Council Member Ward expressed concern about how the programming for the ball field, dog park, and meadow on the south side of Dogwood Acres Drive would compare with the proposed number of parking spaces. Mr. Starkey explained that parking had been increased to accommodate moving the dog park. Council Member Ward said that 15 spaces for the youth baseball field would not address the needs of those who attend a game.
Council Member Ward wondered if the Committee had discussed the possibility that the Scroggs playing field might end up being the football stadium for the third high school. Would that impact Town plans for the Southern Community Park, he asked. Mr. Starkey stated that the schedule of this project would closely coincide with that for the Aquatics Center. But the phasing still needed to be determined, he said, noting that there were not enough funds to build the entire park. Phase 1 would be determined during the next month, he said.
Council Member Verkerk reiterated Council Member Ward's request for sidewalks on both sides of Dogwood Acres Drive.
Council Member Harrison verified that the Town planned to take over Dogwood Acres Drive and institute traffic calming devices there. Council Member Harrison proposed that traffic calming would be more important than having sidewalks on both sides of the road if funds are limited.
Mayor Foy clarified that the Town would only take over only the portion of Dogwood Acres Drive that runs through the park.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK (2004-06-21/R-4)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Southern Community Park; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for the applicant, and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on June 21, 2004, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 21st day of June, 2004.
Item 6 - Concept Plan Review:
Homestead Road Property – Residential Development
Mr. Waldon introduced the proposal for a residential development on Homestead Road property. The area was zoned R-2 and the applicant intends to apply for an SUP for a planned development there, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that the applicant was proposing a greater intensity than zoning would allow. The number of units would fit the R-2 zoning, he said, but the floor area would not. Mr. Waldon stated that the proposal before the Council tonight would be to request a modification to regulations with respect to floor area or a rezoning to permit what was being proposed.
Eric Chupp, of Capkov Ventures, Inc., stated that the lower portion of the site had become unusable as a result of Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) regulations increasing the required buffer area. So, they had "switched gears" and had developed a new plan that could accommodate the 300-foot stream buffer and still allow the number of units that the R-2 zoning would accommodate, he said. Mr. Chupp listed various advantages of the site, pointing out that it was located near schools, public transportation, Homestead Park, and the future Carolina North.
Mr. Chupp stated that the infrastructure was in place for this project and that there would be no extensions necessary. Half of the units would have a twin townhome configuration, he said, explaining that the average sale price would be $230,000 to $240,000. Mr. Chupp asked Council members to give him some indication of whether he should move forward with this project or not. He noted that the stream buffer regulation and the later duplex restrictions had caused him to change plans twice. Mr. Chupp said he had switched to an SUP process, which reduces the floor area ratio, and would request an increase to about 1,700 square feet per unit, he said. Mr. Chupp said that he would do so under a conditional rezoning or the new section of LUMO (Section 4.5.6) where the Council had given itself discretion to modify regulations as long as the development is in general accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
Robin Hyde DeRucher, vice president of the Homestead Village Homeowners Association, stated that residents in the neighborhood have a very strong preference for detached, single-family housing, since that would be consistent with what is already there. She commented that the proposed development seemed much higher in density than anything else in the immediate area. People were also concerned about traffic in the area, said Ms. DeRucher, and, if the townhomes are approved, they feel strongly that they should be of a size to attract families rather than very small units.
Graham Burch, co-owner of the Homestead property, gave a brief synopsis of the past 15 months since he and his brother decided to sell. They had carefully chosen Capkov Ventures, he explained, because they truly cared about the Town and the type of neighborhoods that were being developed. Shortly after they signed the deal, they had become caught in a system that changed the rules and cut the value of their land in half, Mr. Burch pointed out.
Mr. Burch said that he sincerely believed that the rules regarding duplexes were not intended for property such as his. The rules were meant for duplexes that were being constructed in existing neighborhoods and were out of scale with their surroundings, he said. Mr. Burch stated that his land had been zoned R-2 for as long as he could remember and that the proposed plan would not change that. He proposed that he be allowed to count on the zoning that he and his brother had paid taxes on for so many years. The Town's and his goals were the same, he said, explaining that he, too, wanted Chapel Hill to remain the quite, livable village that he grew up in.
Georgia Gamesik, vice president of the Homestead Village Homeowners Association, said that the Homestead Road corridor was getting extremely full and that this would be another dense development on a heavily traveled corridor. She asked the Council to judiciously decide whether this kind of density belongs in this area and to consider the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance in deciding whether schools can accommodate this kind of growth at this time.
Richard Zaffron, owner of Homestead Village, said that all of the stormwater from Homestead Village flows into the stream, which is not a little babbling brook and which is not being cleaned up. He said that he was worried about the stormwater management system and had discussed this with Mr. Chupp and Mr. Kovens.
Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested that the applicant use the 15% affordable housing Land Trust option rather than the Small House Ordinance, since that would keep the houses permanently affordable. Mr. Chupp agreed to do so, but noted that the units were unlikely to grow larger given the land constraints. However, they had not ruled out the 15% option, he said.
Council Member Strom agreed with the applicant's point that the size of these duplexes would differ from those in an in-town neighborhood. He also agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt that the applicant should take a careful look at the 15% ownership option through the Land Trust rather than the 25% Small House Ordinance option. Council Member Strom noted that local developer Carol Ann Zinn had made the Land Trust option work well at Larkspur.
Council Member Harrison asked what the currently allowed floor area ratio was and what the applicant was requesting. Mr. Chupp replied that the 130,000 square feet he had put in his application roughly equaled 1,700 square feet per unit. Having 25% of the units under 1,350 square feet would allow flexibility on the remaining ones, he explained. Mr. Chupp noted that there would be an even lower ratio on all of the RCD area. He had figured out that there would be about twenty-two 1,700 square-foot units, he said.
Mayor Foy commented that there would have to be some mitigation with this density. He noted the Community Design Commission’s (CDC) suggestions about arrangement of buildings and inquired about the location of garages. Mayor Foy also asked if setbacks could be varied to make the area more interesting. Mr. Chupp expressed a willingness to explore other options, but pointed out that changing the garages would be difficult due to the space limitations. He commented that much of the linear feel could be mitigated through landscaping.
Council Member Ward agreed with others that the applicant should look at the 15% affordable housing option through the Land Trust. He expressed agreement in general with the CDC's comments, particularly those about rearranging buildings to allow grander and more useful open space for the community. Council Member Ward encouraged the applicant to serve the area eventually with bicycle and pedestrian connections and accommodations. Mr. Chupp replied that a diagonal trail would follow the northern fork of the stream to facilitate pedestrian traffic toward the high school.
Council Member Greene agreed that the CDC's suggestions regarding design needed to be considered, particularly in the upper right hand corner of the development. She commented that changing the setbacks would help. Council Member Greene also agreed with other Council members’ suggestions regarding the 15% affordable housing option.
Mayor Foy stated that he could see the purpose of arranging the property this way. He remarked that the lack of comment from the Council about density means that they were willing to think about this type of configuration. Mr. Chupp accepted this as encouragement and stated that Capkov Ventures would do what they could to provide diversity and make the plan workable.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE HOMESTEAD ROAD PROPERTY – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (2004-06-21/R-5)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Homestead Road Property – Residential Development; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for the applicant, and from citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on June 21, 2004, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 21st day of June, 2004.
The meeting adjourned at 10:47 p.m.