AGENDA #10

 MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

                       

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT:       UNC Cogeneration Facility Coal Silos Replacement Project–Application for Special Use Permit Modification

DATE:             May 8, 2000

                       

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from April 17, 2000, regarding the Special Use Permit Modification application that has been filed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, seeking approval for the demolition and replacement of two coal silos at the UNC Cogeneration Facility.  Adoption of Resolution A would approve a Special Use Permit Modification application.  Adoption of Resolution B would deny the request.

This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:

¨      Cover Memorandum:  Provides background information on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action. 

¨      Attachments:  Includes resolutions of approval and denial, comments on issues raised during the April 17th Public Hearing, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments. 

BACKGROUND

On April 17, 2000, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Special Use Permit Modification application to authorize the demolition and replacement of two coal silos at the UNC-Chapel Hill Cogeneration Facility which is located on the south side of Cameron Avenue, between Merritt Mill Road and the Cameron Glen Subdivision.  The site is located within the Industrial (I) and Residential-4 (R-4) zoning districts.

We note that on April 17, the Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties within 1,500 feet of this adjacent to this site.

  

This is an application for a Special Use Permit Modification.  The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council.  We have reviewed the application and evaluated it regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on April 17, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.

evaluation of the application

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.  Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit. 

If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Development Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit shall then be approved.  If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.

Tonight, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based around the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.

Finding #1:  That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of Finding #1 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).  We note the following key points raised by the applicant: 

·        No permanent additional vehicular traffic will be generated as a result of the Coal Silo Replacement Project.

·        Adequate utility services already exist on the site.

·        The intent of the project is to functionally replace defective equipment with new equipment of similar design.

·        No major land disturbing activities are anticipated, and existing drainage patterns will not be affected or impacted by the project work.

·        All applicable State and Federal environmental standards will be met with this project.

Evidence in opposition:  No one offered evidence in opposition to the application at the Public Hearing. 

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

Finding #2:  That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14 and with all other applicable regulations.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).  We note the following key points raised by the applicant: 

·        The site meets all Development Ordinance and land development regulations, including street improvements, screening and landscape bufferyards, setbacks, and parking. 

·        As part of the Council’s 1998 approval of a Special Use Permit Modification for this development, the Council approved modifications of the regulations for maximum floor area, minimum livability space and maximum height on the site.  The application is requesting that the Council approve these modifications of the regulations again, including a 22-foot increase in the height of the new silos.  The applicant believes that public purposes would be served by these modifications, as they would increase the safety of coal storage by eliminating the potential for coal stagnation and spontaneous combustion in the existing defective silos. 

Evidence in opposition:  Evidence in opposition of Finding #2 for this application would be the fact that the development proposal does not meet the Development Ordinance requirements for maximum floor area, minimum livability space, and maximum height on the site.  We note that the applicant is asking for modifications to the regulations for this site.  In accordance with Section 18.7.1 of the Town’s Development Ordinance, since this is a Special Use Permit Modification application, the Council may make specific modification of the regulations for this site, if public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree.  (Please see “Requested Modification of Regulations” section below). 

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

Finding #3:  That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity;

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of Finding #3 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).  We note the following key point raised by the applicant:    

·        The Cogeneration Facility is a public necessity, serving the energy needs of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill campus as well as those of UNC Hospitals, both public institutions.  The Cogeneration Facility serves as the sole source of steam for critical campus and hospital utility requirements and is a vital and important part of overall University operations.  The facility was designed and built, and is continuously maintained, to provide around the clock utility support for the entire campus community.  A fully functional, totally reliable and continuously available energy plant is crucial to the mission of the University.  A consistent and readily accessible principal fuel source is essential to dependable energy plant operation.  Currently the coal storage silos at the Cogeneration Facility are defective and need to be replaced.  It has been determined that silo replacement is the most cost efficient and effective way to correct the problem.  There is an obligation and a need to maintain and replace (as required) existing Cogeneration Facility equipment essential to the continuous and uninterrupted operation of critical University functions.

Evidence in opposition:  No one offered evidence in opposition to the application at the Public Hearing. 

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

Finding #4:  That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of Finding #4 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).  We note the following key point raised by the applicant:      

·        The Cogeneration Facility site is zoned industrial.  Thus, the required replacement of existing facilities at this site would be in conformance with the general plans for physical development of the Town, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas for the Town of Chapel Hill.

Evidence in opposition:  No one offered evidence in opposition to the application at the Public Hearing. 

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS

The applicant is requesting that the Council approve modifications to the regulations regarding (1) maximum floor area on the site, (2) minimum livability space on the site, and (3) maximum building height. 

(1)        Maximum Floor Area:   The Town’s Development Ordinance intensity standards permit a maximum of 41,016 square feet of floor area on this site (Subsection 13.11.1).  The existing Special Use Permit for the site, as approved on July 22, 1998, approved 90,035 square feet of floor area on the site.  At this time, the applicant is requesting to reduce the total floor area on the site to 89,664 square feet. 

(2)        Minimum Livability Space:  The Town’s Development Ordinance intensity standards permit a minimum of 268,713 square feet of livability space on this site (Subsection 13.11.1).  The existing Special Use Permit for the site, as approved on July 22, 1998, approved 175,435 square feet of livability space on the site.  At this time, the applicant is not proposing to modify the amount of existing livability space on the site.

(3)        Maximum Height:  The Town’s Development Ordinance provides for a maximum height of 50 feet for the Industrial (I) zoning district.  The existing silos, which were previously approved by the Council, are 114 feet tall.  The proposed new silos for the site are 140 feet tall. 

Subsection 18.7.1 of the Development Ordinance states:

“Where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable special use regulations, general regulations, or other regulations in this Ordinance, but the Council makes a finding in the particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, the Council may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case for Modification of Special Use Permit applications, or in approving a new Special Use Permit for existing development that requires a Special Use Permit.”

We believe that in this case the UNC Cogeneration Facility Coal Silo Replacement application may be considered under the provisions of Subsection 18.7.1, as a Special Use Permit Modification.   

If the Council believes it is appropriate to apply Section 18.7.1 in this situation, the Council may find that the modifications to the regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree.  We note that the Council could find that said public purposes would be that the Cogeneration Facility serves as the sole source of steam for critical campus and hospital utility requirements and is an important part of overall University operations, and that these modifications will improve the safety and efficiency of the facility. 

Alternatively, the Council could reasonably conclude that the proposed modifications to the floor area intensity standard, livability intensity standard, and height limit would not satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree and could deny the application.

key issueS

We believe that the key issues brought forth during the April 17 Public Hearing were the appearance of the new coal silos and what level of particulate testing will occur during the construction of the new silos.  We have provided additional information on these issues, including responses from the Town Staff and the applicant, as attachments to this memorandum. Please refer to Attachments # 1 and # 2 for a complete discussion.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Advisory board recommendations are summarized below.  Please see the attached summaries of Board actions and recommendations.

Planning Board’s Recommendation:  The Planning Board met on February 1, 2000 to review this application and voted 6-0 to recommend approval with Resolution A.  Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action. 

Transportation Board’s Recommendation:  The Transportation Board met on March 7, 2000 and voted 7-0 to recommend approval with Resolution A.  Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.

Community Design Commission’s Recommendation:  The Community Design Commission met on February 2, 2000 to review the application and voted 7-0 to recommend approval with conditions.  The Commission asked the applicant to explore a “radius form” for the shapes of the vertical elevator and the horizontal equipment located on top of the silos, and recommended that approval of the application include the standard condition of approval that final building elevations be approved by the Design Commission.  This recommendation is reflected in Resolution A.

Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Action. 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation:  The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on February 8, 2000 to review the application and voted 6-0 to recommend approval with the following conditions:

1.      Provide an appropriate amount of secured, covered, illuminated bicycle parking using wave-type racks.

2.      During construction, place a warning sign at entrance, for example:  “Watch for Pedestrians and Bicyclists.”

We note that Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring the applicant to provide secured, covered, illuminated bicycle parking utilizing wave-type racks that can accommodate a minimum of 10 bicycles.  Resolution A also includes language for warning signs and appropriate identification for dangerous construction areas.  This recommendation is reflected in Resolution A.

Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action. 

Manager’s Recommendation:  Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could (1) make the finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, and thus approve the requested modifications of the regulations as proposed by the applicant, and (2) could make the four findings required to approve the Special Use Permit.  However, we note that the purpose of tonight’s Hearing is to receive additional information.

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the requested modifications of regulations and approving the application with conditions.

Resolution B would deny the application.

ATTACHMENTS

1.      List of Issues Raised during the April 17, 2000 Public Hearing (p. 8)

2.      Applicant’s Response to Public Hearing Issues  (p. 9)

3.      Resolution A – Approval with Conditions  (p. 11)

4.      Resolution B  - Denial  (p. 15 )

5.      Letter from Savonala Horne, April 14, 2000 (p. 16

6.      Letter from Rebecca Clark, April 17, 2000 (p. 18)

7.      April 17, 2000 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1)

UNC-CHAPEL HILL COGENERATION FACILITY:

COAL SILO REPLACEMENT

Questions/Issues Raised at the April 17, 2000 Public Hearing

APPEARANCE OF SILOS (BUILDING ELEVATIONS)

1.                  A Council member asked if it would be possible to convene a group of neighbors to review and approve the exterior design of the silos.

Staff Comment:  The Development Ordinance specifies that it is the responsibility of the Community Design commission to review and approve building elevations.  We have consulted the Town Attorney and believe that it is not possible to delegate this regulatory function to a neighborhood group.  If the Council so directs, we could make efforts to notify neighbors when the proposed elevations are submitted, to offer information about how/where to review the elevations, and to offer information about the Community Design Commission meeting at which the elevations will be presented (so that neighbors can offer comments).

PARTICULATES AND AIR QUALITY

2.                  A Council member asked about testing for airborne particulate matter during demolition and construction, and what standards regarding particulate matter would apply.

Staff Comment:  A letter from the applicant addressing this issue is provided as Attachment # 2.   We note that the stipulations addressing emissions as part of the Council’s previous Special Use Permit Modification approval on June 22, 1998, are proposed to remain in effect as part of this application (please see Resolution A, Stipulation #16).

RESOLUTION A

(Manager’s Recommendation,

Planning Board Recommendation,

Transportation Board Recommendation,

Community Design Commission Recommendation,

and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE UNC-CHAPEL HILL COGENERATION FACILITY COAL SILOS REPLACEMENT PROJECT (2000-05-08/R 15)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit Modification proposed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 92, Block H, Lot 2, if developed according to the site plan dated October 8, 1999 and the conditions below:

1.                  Would be located, designed and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare;

2.                  Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 18, and with all other applicable regulations;

3.                  Would be a public necessity; and

4.                  Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications to the regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

1.                  Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow 90,035 89,664 square feet of floor area.

2.                  Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow 175,435 square feet of livability space.

3.                  Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow two 140-foot coal silos.

Said public purpose being that the Cogeneration Facility serves as the sole source of steam for critical campus and hospital utility requirements and is a vital and important part of overall University operations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these findings are conditioned on the following:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1.                  That this resolution hereby supersedes the Special Use Permit Modification approved by the Council on June 22, 1998.

2.                  That construction begin by May 8, 2002 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by May 8, 2007 (five years from the date of Council approval).

3.                  That this Special Use Permit Modification authorizes the demolition and replacement of the two coal silos at the UNC Cogeneration Facility in accordance with the site plan dated October 8, 1999.

4.                  Stormwater Retention:  That on-site stormwater retention basins be provided and maintained so as to retain the first inch of stormwater runoff.

5.                  That secured, covered, illuminated bicycle parking be provided on the site utilizing wave-type bicycle racks that accommodate a minimum of 10 bicycles.

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

6.                  Landscape Plans:  That the Town Manager shall review and approve the detailed landscape plans.

7.                  Landscape Bufferyards:  That a Type C buffer be provided along the site’s boundary with McCauley Street and site boundaries adjacent to the coal storage area in the southeast corner of the site.

8.                  Plantings:  That landscaping consisting of a combination and spacing of canopy trees, understory trees, and shrubbery appropriate to the provision of intermittent visual obstructions from the ground up to a height of at least 20 feet be provided along the site’s eastern, northern, and western boundaries.

Stipulations Related to Design Elements

9.                  Community Design Commission Approval:  That the Community Design Commission shall approve the elevations of the coal silos prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

10.              Buildings/Facilities:  That the Community Design Commission shall review plans for the buildings and facilities on this site and make recommendations to the University regarding the aesthetic suitability of the plans.

11.              Painting of Buildings:  That the detailed building elevations to be approved by the  Design Commission prior to issuance of a building permit take into consideration a painting scheme to enhance the appearance of the buildings.

12.              Architectural Design:  That the University prepare plans for the external design for the Power Plant that minimize the scale of the buildings and structures by the use of surface articulation, as defined by the use of architectural detail and forms such as window, color, or other appropriate means that serve to break up the visual impact of large masses.  Such plans will serve to integrate the appearance of the Power Plant with surrounding residential areas so that the use and development will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

13.              Structure Design:  That structures on the site be designed such that all handling of coal, limestone and ash is done within enclosed structures.

Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues

14.              Groundwater Contamination:  That if any groundwater contamination is uncovered at the landfill which can reasonably be attributed to disposal of material from the power plant, then the University shall be responsible for any required remedial action.

15.              Waste Ash:  That all waste ash from the plant shall either be transported in tanker trucks, or wetted down and transported in covered trucks or rail cars.

16.              Emissions: 

A.                 That visible emissions from truck unloading of plant material into the landfill shall not cause opacity exceeding 20 percent as determined by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 9.

B.                 That visible emissions from rail car unloading, crushing, truck loading and unloading, conveying (including transfer points), bucket elevators, front-end loading, stockpiling, storage bins, and storage piles shall not exceed 10 percent opacity as determined by EPA Method 9.

C.                 That roads within the plant shall be maintained to minimize fugitive dust emissions by paving, surfactant treatment, or other suitable method.

D.                 That no fugitive particulate matter emissions shall be visible beyond the property line of the power plant.

17.              Environmental Regulations: That a violation of any Federal, State or local environmental regulation or permit condition be reported to the Manager within 7 days of noncompliance along with a report of proposed remedial action.

18.              Noise Control:  That the development comply with the Town’s Noise Control Ordinance, as now constituted in Section 11-37 et. seq. of the Code of Ordinances and as amended in the future.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

19.              Special Use Permit Modification:  That any proposed future addition of boilers or other plant facilities be considered a modification of this Special Use Permit and require Council approval in accord with Town regulations.

20.              Final Plans:  That the final plans to be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit (detailed site plan, utility plan, stormwater management plan) conform to plans approved as part of this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.

21.              Construction Management Plan:  That a Construction Management Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  The Construction Management Plan shall address transportation of personnel and materials to and from the site during construction, construction-related parking, handling of materials, and hours of construction activity.

22.              Construction Sign Required:  That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owners’ representative, with a telephone number, the contractor’s representative, with a phone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

23.              Additonal Signage Required:  That the applicant post warning signs to clearly identify any construction areas that may present a danger for bicyclists or pedestrians.

24.              Silt Control:  That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

25.              Continued Validity:  The continued validity and effectiveness of this permit is expressly conditioned upon the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

26.              Non-Severability:  If any of the above conditions is held invalid, this approval shall be void.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for Special Use Permit Modification for the UNC-Chapel Hill Cogeneration Facility Coal Silos Replacement project in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the 8th day of May, 2000.

RESOLUTION B

(Denying the Request)

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE UNC-CHAPEL HILL COGENERATION FACILITY COAL SILOS REPLACEMENT PROJECT (2000-05-08/R-16)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit Modification proposed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 92, Block H, Lot 2, if developed according to the site plan dated October 8, 1999 and the conditions below:

1.                  Would not be located, designed and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare:

2.                  Would not comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 18, and with all other applicable regulations;

3.                  Would not be located, designed and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or be a public necessity; and

4.                  Would not conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.

(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the UNC-Chapel Hill Cogeneration Facility Coal Silos Replacement project.

This the 8th day of May, 2000.