MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990

Mayor Howes called the hearing to order.

Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, Nancy Preston, Alan Rimer, James C. Wallace, Arthur Werner and Roosevelt Wilkerson, Jr.

Also in attendance were: Assistant to the Mayor Lisa Price, Interim Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Public Safety Director Cal Horton, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Assistant to the Attorney Richard Sharpless and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Mayor Howes noted that the Council would take no action on the hearing matters this evening. Mayor Howes added that a new sound mixer was in operation this evening.

Zoning Annexation Area

Planning Director Roger Waldon briefly reviewed the history of the annexation area, noting that portions 0? the area were recommended for R‑1 and R‑2 zoning. Mr. Waldon noted that R‑2 zoning was recommended for an area south of NC 54 which is more densely developed. Mr. Waldon stated that the Planning Board had recommended Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning for some areas south of NC 54. Mr. Waldon noted that the staff hoped to work with property owners in this area to develop master plans. Mr. Waldon noted that it was necessary to assign zoning in the annexation area within sixty days of the date of the annexation.

Council Member Werner inquired whether there were any nonconforming parcels in the northernmost portion of the annexation area. Mr. Waldon said the parcels were not. Council Member Werner inquired whether warehouses were permitted in neighborhood commercial zoning districts. Mr. Waldon said they were not. Council Member Preston requested a listing of permissible uses in neighborhood commercial areas. Mr. Waldon recited permissible uses in neighborhood and community commercial districts.

Council Member Rimer inquired about the status of several existing commercial properties in the area. Mr. Waldon noted that some of these non‑conforming uses would require conditional use zoning. Council Member Rimer asked whether all non‑conforming properties had been contacted to make them aware of their situation. Mr. Waldon said they had not.

Planning Board Chairperson Bruce Guild noted that the Planning Board, by a vote of 4‑3, concurred with the Manager's recommendation, with the exception of recommending Neighborhood Commercial zoning for existing commercial uses south of N.C. 54.

Interim Town Manager Loewenthal said her preliminary recommendation was to zone the Oaks III subdivision and the area north of N.C. 54 as Residential‑1 (R‑1) and the Oaks Villas and the ar?a south of N.C. 54 as Residential‑2 (R‑2).

Philip Sullivan, representing the Oaks Villas Homeowners Association, noted that there was a great deal of pending litigation against the estate of the subdivision's developer, J.P. Goforth. Mr. Sullivan stated that residents of the Oaks Villas vigorously opposed annexation by the Town of Chapel Hill. Mr. Sullivan said that the majority of lots in the subdivision are 15,000 to 18,000 square feet, with sixty lots currently unoccupied. Mr. Sullivan stated that current homeowners were very concerned about the peaceable property devaluation resulting from zoning the area R‑2. Mr. Sullivan said that area residents objected to higher density in the vicinity. Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that the minimum lot size for R‑1 zoning was 17,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet for R‑2 Zoning. Mr. Waldon stated that if lots in the Oaks Villas were zoned R‑1, there would be a number of nonconforming uses. Mr. Waldon added that he had not studied the restrictive covenants for the Oaks subdivisions in detail.

Robert Leopold, 103 Helmsdale Drive, said he was upset to discover the provisions of the Town's R‑2 zoning category. Noting that his lot was 16,000 square feet, Mr. Leopold said it might be advisable to add another zoning category for homes occupying lots of between 15,000 and 18,000 or 20,000 square feet. Mr. Leopold said it appeared that the Planning Board did not appear to have considered property values in the Oaks Villas when it made the recommendation for R‑2 Zoning.

Charlie Stancil stated that he was the owner of twelve acres in the annexation area. Mr. Stancil said he had purchased the property in 1975, utilizing it for leased warehouse and training school space. Mr. Stancil noted that he leased the space to North Carolina Memorial Hospital and other tenants. Mr. Stancil urged the Council to approve special use zoning for his property, permitting the property to function as a non‑conforming use in the interim.

Jack Simonds said his agency served the needs of the chronically mentally ill in the area. Mr. Simonds stated that his agency stored some of its supplies at Mr. Stancil's warehouse facilities. Mr. Simonds requested that the Council permit the continued operation of the training school at its current facility along NC 54. Mr. Simonds said he hoped to re‑lease the property from Mr. Stancil on or about July 1.

Herman Lloyd said he owned seven vacant lots comprising a total of fourteen acres in the annexation area along Littlejohn Road. Mr. Lloyd noted that two of his parcels facing NC 54, were currently zoned highway commercial to a depth of three hundred feet from NC 54. Mr. Lloyd requested that the Council leave the current zoning designation in place.

Diane Gale said she opposed the provision of scheduled Town bus service in her subdivision, due its detrimental impact on quiet and narrow streets in her neighborhood. Ms. Loewenthal noted that the area would be served by shared ride service mini‑vans.

Jack Smyre, representing the DuBose family, expressed qualified support for the staff recommended zoning. Mr. Smyre stated that the DuBose family hoped the designation was an interim recommendation, subject to further discussion. Mr. Smyre said the DuBose's goal was to preserve the value of their property while serving the needs of the community‑ Mr. Smyre suggested that the staff could add the NC 54 area to the proposed small area plan sectors. Mr. Smyre requested that the area be placed as high as possible on the small area plan priority list. Mr. Smyre expressed his willingness to assist the staff in gathering information pertaining to land use for the DuBose property.

Walt Cooper, representing the Lloyd property, said that the value of these properties would be impacted negatively by the recommended R‑2 zoning on these parcels adjoining NC 54, Mr. Cooper said that no one would voluntarily choose to live along a major highway such as NC 54. Mr. Cooper requested that the Council maintain commercial zoning for the Lloyd properties adjoining NC 54.

Council Member Rimer read a letter from Gina Cunningham into the record. The text of the letter follows:

I am writing as Chair of the former Task Force on Entranceways.

In its final report, the Task Force recommended the establishment of an Entranceways District as an overlay district, and that the district extend 250 feet from the outer edge of each side of the right‑of‑way of an entranceway.

Is it possible that such a district could be established as part of the annexation plan? It is unfortunate that the Entranceways District has never been promulgated and made a part of the Development Ordinance. If the district was in existence, the commercial buildings near the intersection of NC 54 and Barbee Church Road would already be non‑conforming.

Adding 250 feet from the outer edge of each side of the rightof‑way on NC 54 is an important decision for the Council to make now. Such a decision would indicate the Council's commitment to the preservation and enhancement of entranceways.

Council Member Rimer noted that he had served on the Entranceways Task Force. Council Member Rimer added that the Council had not recently acted on entranceway matters. Council Member Rimer expressed hope that the Council might be able to consider the matter further toward the end of the summer.

Council Member Wallace noted that a lot of items required extensive discussion and that complete resolution by July 9th was unlikely. Mr. Waldon noted that the assigned zoning would be preliminary, with permanent zoning assigned after due consideration by the Council. Council Member Wallace stressed the importance of not precluding greenspace uses in the area. Council Member Wallace said it was important to preserve the eastern entranceway to the Town.

Council Member Werner requested that the staff provide an explanation of the practicality and appropriateness of conditional use zoning when the item returned to the Council. Council Member Werner also requested a clarification of where conditional use zoning might be used in the annexation area. Council Member Rimer inquired whether it was correct that the Council could not confer conditional use zoning in this area. Town Attorney Karpinos said he would respond to this question in a follow‑up memorandum to the Council. Council Member Preston requested that the staff provide a history of zoning designations in the annexation area.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 9TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Parking Facility

Ms. Loewenthal requested that the agenda item and its attachments be entered into the r?cord of the hearing. Mayor Howes concurred with the request.

Public Safety Director Cal Horton noted that the parking facility project was his first major assignment during his Town tenure. Mr. Horton stated that the Council Committee on Parking Lot Number One and Related Matters recruited a project architect following a series of preliminary meetings. Mr. Horton noted that the Council would hear from Planning Director Roger Waldon and Project Architect Michael Hining following his briefing on cost and financing of the project.

Mr. Horton noted that the total estimated construction cost for the parking facility and public plaza was approximately $4 million including $2,783,000 for the parking structure, $463,000 for the plaza and $300,000 for professional fees. Mr. Horton observed that there was no money on hand for project construction. He stated that $600,000 in reserves in the parking fund would serve as initial project funding. Mr. Horton noted that the project's financial consultant Wilbur Smith and Associates was analyzing the fiscal aspects of the project. Mr. Horton indicated that this analysis was targeted for completion in early July.

Mr. Horton noted that the business community, especially restaurants, had expressed interest in attracting entertaimnentrelated businesses to the facility. Mr. Horton stated that Joe Hakan, representing the Downtown Commission, had offered to have the Commission serve as manager of commercial properties for the project.

Mr. Horton stated that this project schedule was tight but on target. Mr. Horton noted that an eight week extension was necessary to accommodate the financial feasibility study and evaluation of commercial development in the facility. Mr. Horton said that Mike Miles, a professor at the University of North Carolina and expert in real estate development, had offered to evaluate the viability of commercial development in this property. Council Member Wilkerson inquired about the fee for this service. Mr. Horton said approximately $5,000 to $6,000 would be paid for Dr. Miles' assistance. Council Member Wilkerson inquired about the possibility of commercial establishments contributing to the project's cost. Mr. Horton responded that commercial uses might contribute some income to the project.

Council Member Wallace said the Town was fortunate to have Michael Hining as the project architect.

Planning Director Roger Waldon stated that the project proposal was for a multi‑level parking deck and public plaza Mr. Waldon noted that a special use permit was needed since more than forty thousand square feet of land disturbance was proposed. Mr. Waldon said that the project would address several objectives in the Comprehensive Plan including conserving the Town center and insuring short‑term parking and transportation availability in the downtown area.

Mr. Waldon noted that the Town continued its efforts to minimize the use of the automobile as the primary mode of transportation. Mr. Waldon stated that the Manager's preliminary recommendation was the adoption of resolution A. Council Member Wallace noted that the structure presented an appearance more as a public facility than a traditional parking deck.

Michael Hining, project architect, noted that the project design had not been finalized. Mr. Hining said the facility would have approximately three hundred and six standard size spaces, with the entrance on Rosemary Street and one main and one alternate exit. Mr. Hining also noted that the existing service drive would be maintained to pick‑up refuse and make deliveries to businesses. Mr. Hining stated that the top of the facility would serve as the public plaza. He added that the project would also have a water feature and an assembly area for musical groups. Mr. Hining noted that the facility would also have public restrooms, light wells and recycling areas. Mr. Hining expressed hope that merchants adjoining the project along Franklin Street would renovate the rear of their businesses once the project was completed. Mr. Hining concluded his remarks by noting that 6,000‑12,000 square feet of the facility could be made available for commercial uses.

Planning Board Chairperson Bruce Guild noted that the Planning Board had recommended the project for approval by a 6‑1 vote at its June 5th meeting. Interim Town Manager Loewenthal said her preliminary recommendation to the Council was the adoption of Resolution A, with continuance of the public hearing until August 27th.

Joe Hakan noted that he had forwarded a letter to the Council proposing that the Downtown Commission assist in the management of properties at the facility. Mr. Hakan said his letter was selfexplanatory, adding that he would be happy to answer any questions.

Nancy Gabriel said she had followed the project with great interest. Ms. Gabriel said the facility would provide parking and public open space in the downtown area. Ms. Gabriel added that there would also b? a strong pedestrian linkage between Franklin and Rosemary Streets. Ms. Gabriel commended Mr. Hining and Mr. Horton for a job well‑done in designing and proceeding with the project expeditiously. Ms. Gabriel said that the project would greatly enhance the downtown area.

Ruth Thomas said sh? had not wavered in her support for the proposed parking facility, but she remained opposed to the public plaza. Ms. Thomas said that a small assembly and performance area had originally been proposed for the public plaza. Ms. Thomas stated that funds for the plaza would be better utilized to keep the ArtsCenter open. Ms. Thomas said that the plaza would most likely cost close to $1 million to complete. Ms. Thomas concluded her remarks by suggesting that the concept of a public plaza would best be pursued in five or six years time.

Robert Joesting said that the discussion process for the parking facility and public plaza was very open and helpful. Mr. Joesting said he was not convinced of the need for the full complement of additional parking available in the proposed new facility. Mr. Joesting expressed a desire to lower bus fares into the downtown area. Mr. Joesting also expressed concern about traffic safety issues on Rosemary Street associated with the proposed facility. Mr. Joesting suggested that it would be a good idea to include bicycle lockers in the parking facility. Mr. Joesting concluded his remarks by noting the attractiveness of the facility design. Mr. Joesting said he was pleased to see the inclusion of the water feature, public restrooms and recycling arrangements in the building plans.

Council Member Brown inquired about proposed maintenance costs associated with the parking facility and public plaza. Ms. Loewenthal said these costs would be outlined in the project feasibility study. Council Member Brown inquired whether staffing needs for the proposed facility would also be addressed in the feasibility report. Ms. Loewenthal said yes.

Council Member Brown inquired about proposed financing mechanisms for the facility. Ms. Loewenthal said Wilbur Smith and Associates would provide a series of recommendations concerning financing of the facility.

Council Member Rimer inquired whether there were any provisions for bicycle lockers. Mr. Hining said it was possible to include bicycle racks or lockers in the facility.

COUNCIL MEMBER WALLACE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AUGUST 27TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WAL?ACE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO REFER THE Matter TO THE MANAGER AND Attorney. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Carol Woods Soecial Use Permit Modification

Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that the applicant was requesting a modification to an existing special use permit. Mr. Waldon stated that the Council had approved a master plan for Carol Woods in July, 1989. Mr. Waldon added that future development had to concur with the adopted master plan. Mr. Waldon briefly showed the boundaries of the site and the area impacted by the proposed special use permit. Mr. Waldon reviewed key issues pertaining to the modification request including required improvements to Weaver Dairy Road, dedication of a greenway, and provision of an additional exit lane onto Weaver Dairy Road.

R. Frank Gray, attorney for Carol Woods, requested that a number of documents be entered into the record of the hearing, including: the Carol Woods master land‑use plan, a copy of the Town of Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan, and a copy of the 1985‑2010 Durham‑Chapel Hill‑Carrboro Urban Transportation study. Copies of these documents and others referenced in a letter of June 20, 1990 to the Town Attorney and Clerk are available for review in the Office of the Clerk by appointment. Mr. Gray said that several representatives of Carol Woods would be making this evening's presentation.

Jim Cansler, President of the Carol Woods Board of Directors, noted that the Carol Woods retirement community is a hometown operation. Mr. Cansler noted that two other board members, Thelma Boyd and Bill O'Brien, were also in attendance at this evening's hearing. Mr. Cansler noted that members of the Carol Woods Board of Directors serve on a voluntary basis. Mr. Cansler stated that the goal of the Board is to provide continuity of living arrangements at the lowest possible cost. Mr. Cansler noted that Carol Woods is home to approximately three hundred and thirty residents, with the youngest resident being 65 and the oldest 105, with the average age being 81. Mr. Cansler express?d concern that the proposed improvements would make residing at Carol Woods less affordable for its residents. Mr. Cansler stated that Carol Woods held national accreditation and had been in operation for over ten years. Mr. Cansler stressed the importance of keeping living costs low for residents of the Carol Woods community.

John Diffey, Executive Director of Carol Woods said a recent study had identified the need for thirty additional beds at the center's health care facility. Mr. Diffey added that fifty additional residences were also proposed to generate additional revenue, in order to keep living costs affordable for all residents. Mr. Diffey stated that Carol Woods did not generate significant additional traffic on Weaver Dairy Road during peak hours. Mr. Diffey said it was therefore not appropriate to require Carol Woods to widen a portion of Weaver Dairy Road.

Mr. Diffey noted that Carol Woods did not agree with condition numbers 2, 6 and 8 in the Manager's recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Diffey said that condition ?2, requiring an additional lane at the exit to Carol Woods could create unsafe conditions at the Carol Woods exit. Mr. Diffey noted condition number eight involved a greenway corridor not included in the Town's current greenway plan. H? added that security of residents was also a consideration in opposing the greenway dedication. Mr. Diffey concluded his remarks by noting that requiring Carol Woods to make improvements to Weaver Dairy Road costing a total of approximately $350,000‑$400,000 appeared to be an undue burden. Mr. Diffey said it was not fair to make retroactive development requirements. Mr. Diffey said the proposed expansion to Carol Woods would have no material traffic impact on Weaver Dairy Road.

David Lacy read a prepared statement into the record, the text of which follow:

Carol Woods' concerns with Conditions #2 and #8 are straightforward. They will be addressed first, and then we will discuss Condition #6.

Condition #2 calls for widening of the Carol Woods Entrance from Weaver Dairy Road to 3 lanes ‑ 2 exit lanes and 1 entrance lane. We are not opposed to widening this entrance when there is a need to do so. However, the Traffic Impact Study shows this intersection operating at a Level of Service "A" after our expansion so we can find no need for the proposed improvements.

We believe it would decrease public safety to require this improvement at this time. Double exit lanes often r?suit in disruption of sight lines as two exiting vehicle? pull next to each other and need to look through the neighboring vehicle. With the average age of our residents being 81, we believe that an unnecessary hazard is created by this requirement.

Condition #8 calls for dedication of a greenway corridor along the portion of our property fronting I‑40. We have three objections. First, this requirement does not conform with the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town last year. There is no greenway corridor shown in this location in that plan. Second, from the standpoint of public health, safety, and welfare, there is concern about security for our residents if this greenway were to be put into operation. Third, our project does not create the need for this corridor. There is more than sufficient open space on our campus for active use by our residents.

Our concerns with Condition ?6 are more complex. Condition ?6 calls for improvements to Weaver Dairy Road along our entire frontage. This covers about 2200 linear feet. The improvements are estimated to cost $380,000 to $400,000. Based on the estimate in the Town's 1985‑2010 Transportation Study (currently in process), this cost represents about 12% of the total estimated construction costs for this road between N.C. 86 and the Sage Road Extension. This 12% of cost compares to an incremental traffic impact of this expansion of 1/2% to 1% of the traffic volume that this road is projected to carry as an outer loop thoroughfare.

The condition is to improve Weaver Dairy to "meet Town standard". It is not clear to us what is meant by the Town standard.

If what is meant is a performance standard, then the Town has established such a standard for its thoroughfares in the Comprehensive Plan. To quote from the Town Goals, Objectives and policies adopted on June 12, 1989,

the Town shall improve the operation of the thoroughfare system ... to achieve a minimum Level of Service 'D' on all segments and at all intersections at peak traffic hours.

The Transportation Report of the Comprehensive Plan also defines deficient roadways as

those which analysis indicates operate at level of service "D" or lower, and have an leverage Daily Traffic] at or above 100 percent of capacity.

According to that same document, the existing capacity for Weaver Dairy Road is Average Daily Traffic of 15,000. The Plan found that in 1986 Weaver Dairy had average daily traffic at 49% of its capacity.

A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Dana Staats of our planning firm and submitted with our application. It is consistent with the study submitted in support of the Master Land Use Plan approval granted by the Town last year. That study has b?en independently evaluated and is supported by Robert Holsinger of Wilbur Smith and Associates, a major transportation planning firm. The Town staff has found the Study to be acceptable.

That study found that Weaver Dairy Road will continue to operate well within Town standards of performance after Carol Woods' expansion. In fact our intersection with Weaver Dairy Road and the roadway itself operates now and after expansion at a Level of service "A" ‑ the highest operating level ‑ at the worst peak hour. The roadway operates now and after expansion at 53‑54% of capacity. Mr. Holsinger found the traffic impact resulting from the expansion to be insignificant. At the peak afternoon hour of 4:30 to 5:30, we go from having just under one car per minute exiting Carol Woods to having just over one car per minute exiting.

These findings are consistent with the staff's report to Council recommending Master Plan Approval in 1989:

The staff's evaluation of the applicant's traffic impact study concludes that the proposed development will generate relatively few new trips, particularly during the peak hours.

That report also states in two places that traffic generated by the proposed development will be minimal. Weaver Dairy Road will continue to operate well within Town standards after completion of our expansion. We do not understand how the improvements recommended by the staff are necessary to have the road meet Town standards.

There are three reasons provided by the staff for recommending the improvements to Weaver Dairy Road. The first reason is that the improvements are necessary

in order to protect the safety and general welfare of residents of this development and the surrounding area impacted by the development.

We can find no basis for recommending these improvements to protect safety and general welfare. The Town's own findings in its 1989 Transportation Report in the Comprehensive Plan and the results of our impact analysis ‑ with which the Town and Wilbur Smith concur ‑ show the road to be running at about half its capacity before and after our expansion. Our intersection with Weaver Dairy Road runs at the highest defined level of service both before and after the expansion.

Police records show only four accidents at our intersection with Weaver Dairy Road in the past ten years and nons in the past two years. There were no serious injuries or deaths.

The second reason given by the staff for recommending the Weaver Dairy improvements is that they are needed "in order to conform to the Town's Comprehensive Plan."

The basis for this reason is not entirely clear to us. In fact our traffic impact study shows us to b? in compliance with major town objectives. These include:

- encouragement of mass transit: we allow the public transit system access to our property and have a variety of private para‑transit operations for our residents.

- extensive internal walkway system: this system has no steps or other hazards for elderly residents. Including our internal road, this system is used extensively for pedestrian and bicycle use by our residents, staff, and neighbors.

- staggered work hours for employees

‑ ride sharing among residents and staff

- type of use that is a low generator of traffic, and that is further mitigated by the ancillary means of transportation that we provide or encourage.

That appears to leave only improvements to Weaver Dairy Road as the basis for finding us not in compliance with the comprehensive plan.

Weaver Dairy Road is defined in the Comprehensive Pian as a major arterial. It is also described as being part of a proposed roadway system that would form an outer loop around the urbanized area.

Nowhere in the Comprehensive Plan is Weaver Dairy Road described as a five lane road, and although it is our understanding that there is a Design Manual that defines a major arterial as a five lane road, there appears to be at least one thoroughfare in the plan that is designated as a three lane road.

Along our frontage the Comprehensive Plan shows its alignment following its existing alignment and our plans do not interfere with this alignment in any way. In fact we have agreed to dedicate the right‑of‑way requested by the Town for this alignment.

There is a policy statement in the Comprehensive Plan which may form the basis for the staff's reason that improvements are needed to conform to the Town's Plan. That policy states that

The Town shall require new developments to improve abutting streets to safely handle traffic generated by the development and to implement the Town's approved thoroughfare and collector/local street plan.

We have already shown that improvements are not needed "to safely handle traffic generated by the development".

Should the improvements be required to "implement the Town's approved thoroughfare plan"? We believe it should mean "build" in two circumstances: when the project is creating impact of significance that creates or hastens the need for the road; and, when it is a new development that is coming for approval after the policy and plan adoption.

Is it reasonable or appropriate to require the proposed improvements? We would suggest for three reasons that it is not.

First, the improvements have not been shown to be needed to meet the traffic impact of the project. The road will continue to operate well within standard after our project.

If the improvements are not needed for our traffic, then they must be proposed to provide for other traffic. The Town's Comprehensive Plan defines a major arterial (which is the designation for Weaver Dairy) as a street or highway

serving major activity centers. These routes are the highest traffic volume corridors and serve a high proportion of total urban travel. Access to abutting property is a secondary function and is often limited.

It further states that they carry

the major portion of the trips entering and leaving an urban area, as weil as the majority of intracity and intercity bus routes.

The projection in the Town's Comprehensive Plan shows our section of Weaver Dairy Road to be running at only 71% of capacity in the year 2000 assuming development in accordance with the Land Use Plan. Only as a thoroughfare carrying unrelated traffic does this road exceed performance standards in the next 10 years.

We do not believe it is reasonable to require that we bear the costs of improvements required to "serve a high proportion of urban travel" or to carry "the major portion of trips entering and leaving the urban area". Is that not clearly a cost that must be equitably borne by all taxpayers? Especially when access to abutting property is defined as a secondary function for this type roadway?

Finally, to apply this requirement to an existing project is especially unreasonable and burdensome. The Town's own policy refers to requiring this of "new developments". This to us is a very important distinction. A developer of a new project can select land knowing what improvements are likely be required. The developer then has the freedom to make an economic decision about whether or not the project can succeed based on the costs of the improvements.

An existing project seeking to make incremental improvements does not have that freedom. In our case, our expansion is being undertaken primarily to meet changing needs of the existing population. The additional Garden Apartments are being added to help make the changes affordable. The proposed improvement requirements have the effect of adding a surcharge of about $8,000 per new residential unit or a surcharge on the existing and new population (including 100 people in some level of health care) of almost $900 per person. And that is for an improvement for which this project does not create the need.

The third and final reason given by the staff in support of the Weaver Dairy Road improvements is that

without this set of improvements, ... the application is not consistent with the Master Plan approval for this property.

We respectfully disagree and in fact would argue to the contrary. The Master Plan Approval calls for "road improvements deemed necessary to mitigate traffic" to be applied to the "appropriate application". The staff, in the Development Review Staff Comments of the March 20, 1990 meeting referred to the Weaver Dairy Road improvements as "preliminary staff recommendations" and indicated that they were "still evaluating information regarding traffic impact".

The Traffic Impact Analysis ‑ with which the Town staff concurs ‑ does not support in any way that the proposed improvements are "necessary to mitigate traffic". Weaver Dairy Road will continue to operate well within standards after the development in this application is complete.

The Town approved Master Plan Map shows no improvements to Weaver Dairy Road. The staff's own report to Council in recommending Master Plan approval reads (in relation to Weaver Dairy Road improvements):

since the traffic impact of the proposed development, plus the existing impact by the Carol Woods development is minimal, we recommend the following improvements be made, when appropriate, as they relate to the proposed Master Land Use Plan.

This is not the appropriate application to which the improvement conditions should be attached.

Carol Woods believes that there are precedents where the Town did not require organizations to make improvements that might have been called for by the Comprehensive Plan. These will be addressed later in our presentation. In summary, we do not believe that these conditions are necessary for the project to maintain the public health, safety and general welfare, or to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan or the Master Plan.

Bob Holsinger indicated that he had over thirty‑two years of traffic engineering experience. Mr. Holsinger stated that the proposed expansion at Carol Woods would not create a significant traffic impact on Weaver Dairy Road, with two hundred and twentyfive to two hundred and forty additional trips per day being generated. Mr. Holsinger indicated that approximately fifteen percent of these trips would occur at peak hours. Mr. Holsinger noted that Weaver Dairy Road was currently operating at level of service A, with very few accidents (four in the past ten years) having occurred at the intersection of Carol Woods and Weaver Dairy Road. Mr. Holsinger concluded his remarks by noting that Carol Woods actively encourages ride‑sharing and use of alternative transportation.

Frank Gray, attorney for Carol Woods, cited four other recent precedents wherein projects had not been required to provide roadway improvements in conjunction with their approval. Mr. Gray's examples were:

(1) A 1981 special use permit application by Blue Cross/Blue Shield for expansion of its facility. Mr. Gray noted that the staff had recommended that right‑of‑way be dedicated and roadway improvements be made in conjunction with the request. Mr. Gray noted that the Planning Board had only recommended the dedication of right‑of‑way.

(2) Expansion of the Orange United Methodist Church. Mr. Gray noted that right‑of‑way dedication was required, but roadway improvements were not.

(3) First Church of Christ Scientist. Mr. Gray stated that the church was required to dedicate one‑half of a one hundred foot right‑of‑way, but no roadway improvements were required.

(4) A 1983 special use permit modification to the Coventry Town Homes. Mr. Gray said the Planning Board recommended dedication of forty‑five feet of right‑of‑way plus provision of roadway improvements by the applicant. Mr. Gray noted that the modification was granted without a requirement for roadway improvements.

Mr. Gray said that conditions two, six and eight in this recommended conditions of approval appeared to be unnecessary. Mr. Gray briefly reviewed Mr. Lacy's comments concerning Carol Woods' opposition to these conditions. Mr. Gray said the impact of the proposed expansion would be minimal. Mr. Gray stated that a special use permit modification permitted the Council‑greater flexibility than a subdivision in terms of conditions of approval.

Planning Board Chairperson Bruce Guild noted that the Carol Woods modification request had been considered at the Board's June 5th meeting. Mr. Guild noted that by a vote of 4‑3, the Board recommended Council adoption of Resolution A. Mr. Guild said the dissenting voters did not feel that the estimated traffic impact on Weaver Dairy Road merited requiring the applicant to make roadway improvements.

Interim Town Manager Loewenthal said she recommended adoption of Resolution A.

p.H. Craig said that the Carol Woods community was a good neighbor which adjoins his property on three sides. Mr. Craig expressed his desire to see the Council grant the proposed special use permit modification. Mr. Craig suggested that the Council consider siting a jogging trail along Whitfield Road.

Council Member Brow? inquired whether energy conservation provisions had be?n addressed within the Carol Woods modification plan. Dana Staats stated that solar energy could possibly be used to heat the facility's swimming pool. Mr. Staats also noted that energy‑efficient heat pumps and furnaces could also bs used in the community. Mr. Staats also noted that a number of trees had been saved on the development site for shading purposes.

Council Member Preston inquired about the provision of a second entrance to the Carol Woods community. Mr. Waldon said that the staff was recommending the provision of an emergency access point to the area. Mr. Waldon noted that there was an existing driveway and dirt path into Carol Woods from Sunrise Road. Council Member Preston inquired whether this emergency access would be show on the final plan. Mr. Waldon said yes.

COUNCIL MEMBER WALLACE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON,

TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 9TH. THE MOTION WAS Adopted UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO

REFER THE Matter TO THE MANAGER AND Attorney. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

The hearing concluded at 10:32 p.m.