MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1991 AT 7:30 P.M.

Mayor Howes called the hearing to order. Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, Alan Rimer, James C. Wallace, Arthur Werner and Roosevelt Wilkerson. Council Member Nancy Preston was absent excused. Also in attendance were Assistant to the Mayor Lisa Price, Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Assistant to the Attorney Richard Sharpless and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Mayor Howes noted that there would be an opportunity for additional comment on the Chapel Hill North Special Use Permit request this evening.

Planning Director Roger Waldon reviewed the Manager's memorandum, noting that all materials received to date on the matter were included in the materials before the Council. He noted that in January, 1990, the master plan for the Chapel Hill North project had been approved by the Council. Mr. Waldon stated that the project proposal included a bank, restaurant, large office building, and a large retail store. Mr. Waldon said that the staff had changed its recommendation to the Council on seven issues:

(1) Underground storage tank design--The revised recommendation encourages special attention to

compliance with Federal and State regulations and

more stringent design.

(2) Buffering--Staff recommended increasing buffering to

fifty feet in width in front of the proposed gas station.

(3) Bus access--That the site design be adjusted to allow

buses to drive up to the main building area.

(4) Park and ride lot--Adjust the site design if a public

park and ride lot is not a component of the development

plans, emphasizing the site as an employment area.

(5) Parking spaces--Drop the previous recommendation that

the number of parking spaces be reduced below one thousand and sixteen spaces.

(6) Truck usage--Clarify language concerning design of the

service station to preclude truck use, including awnings

situated so that larage trucks could not use service

station pumps.

(7) Transportation impact statement--The staff tested a

variety of assumptions, finding that the applicant's

statement of traffic conditions was aggressive but

reasonable.

Mr. Waldon noted that the development application met all requirements of the Development Ordinance and Master Plan approval process. He added that the staff's preliminary recommendation was the adoption of Resolution A. Mayor Howes inquired whether any advisory boards or commissions had reconsidered the application since the Council's last hearing on the application. Mr. Waldon said no.

Adam Abram, general partner in the Chapel Hill North partnership, thanked the Council for their careful attention and patience in considering the special use permit request. Mr. Abram said that the majority of evidence had been entered into the record at the master plan stage. Mr. Abram said he was confident that evidence submitted at that time was sufficient to grant the applicant's request for a special use permit. Noting neighbor's concerns about future traffic conditions, Mr. Abram said that the Town's traffic reviewer had accepted the applicant's traffic study. Mr. Abram also said that the applicant intended to use its master land use plan right to develop a gas station at the Chapel Hill North site.

Mr. Abram said the gas station would be designed to make it only hospitable to local traffic. He added that underground storage tanks would also be made as safe as modernly possible, complying with all applicable regulations including proximity to local public well systems. Mr. Abram said he hoped that the Council would consider the application for a special use permit favorably.

He requested that the Manager's recommendation be modified on Perkins Drive to bring a pork chop traffic island onto the property, rather than leaving it in the right-of-way and causing inconvenience to the residents along Perkins Drive.

Hollis Loveday, representing Wilbur Smith and Associates, briefly reviewed the traffic impact statement for Chapel Hill North, noting that a traffic signal would be warranted in the future at NC 86 and Eubanks Road, regardless of whether or not Chapel Hill North was developed. Mr. Loveday said that the Chapel Hill North development would create additional traffic delays of four to eight seconds at major area intersections.

Libby Veselind, 107 Hunter Hill Road, said that the developers did not have an innate right to develop a gasoline station on the Chapel Hill North site. Ms. Veselind expressed concern that five lane wide Weaver Dairy Road and NC 86 would not necessarily be completed by 1997. Ms. Veselind showed a graphic outlining current and projected traffic volumes on NC 86. She noted that total estimated traffic volume would be 34,670 vehicles per day by 1997, exceeding a five-lane roadway capacity of 32,000 vehicles per day.

Ms. Veselind noted that traffic service levels in the vicinity of Chapel Hill North would drop from service level D to E as a result of the development. Ms. Veselind said there was adequate evidence to deny the request for a special use permit based on potential overloading of roadways. She stated that public safety should supersede all other concerns surrounding consideration of the development application.

David Henderson, 100 Ivy Court, suggested that the Council require the installation of a traffic signal at NC 86 and Eubanks Road to mitigate some safety concerns of Northwoods residents. He suggested that the developer make payments in lieu for installation of the signal prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Mr. Henderson said the Department of Transportation had concluded that warrants were in place to justify a signal, but there had not been a sufficient number of accidents or adequate funding to warrant the installation. Mr. Henderson said he encouraged the Council to require that the developer place in escrow a sufficient amount of money to fund a traffic signal at NC 86 and Eubanks Road prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Bob Daugherty, 105 Hunter Hill Road, said the siting of a gas station and convenience store would pose a threat to public safety and property values. Mr. Daugherty expressed concern that automatic monitoring systems had no track record and were tricky to maintain. He also said that an all-night convenience store would be incomptabile with a mixed-use development. Mr. Daugherty said the proposed service station location was the worst possible location within the development. He requested that the service station be alternatively located on Weaver Dairy Road. Due to significant threats to public safety and property values, Mr, Daugherty urged the Council to deny the special use permit request.

A. Richard said she had written to the Council outlining her concerns about the proposed Chapel Hill North development. She stated that Chapel Hill North did not need a gasoline station.

Ted Hill, 102 Ivy Court, said he hoped that the Council would give special attention to preserve attractive entranceway corridors to the Town.

Council Member Andresen inquired who would maintain automatic gas tank alarm systems on the site. Mr. Waldon responded that persons on the site would take appropriate actions at the sounding of the alarm. Council Member Andresen expressed concern that the Department of Environmental Management had taken a long period of time to respond to a recent spill in northern Orange County. Council Member Andresen requested a clarification of roadway widths in the area of NC 86 and Weaver Dairy Road. Mr. Waldon said improvements up to three and a half lanes of pavement plus a four foot bicycle lane could be in place by 1997. Council Member Andresen inquired whether traffic projecitons were based on five-lane roadway sections and the installation of a traffic light at Eubanks Road and NC 86. Mr. Waldon said yes, noting that the staff was responding to an analysis of different assumptions, while keeping the number of variables to a minimum. Council Member Andresen inquired whether traffic service levels would fall below level D. Mr. Waldon said the level would decrease from level D to E. Council Member Andresen said it was extremely difficult to imagine traffic in the NC 86 corridor without significant roadway improvements.

Council Member Werner asked whether the staff's recommendation not to require a traffic signal at Eubanks Road and NC 86 was based on future needs, regardless of Chapel Hill North. Mr. Waldon said this was correct. Council Member Werner inquired about the criteria used for determining developer responsibility for roadway improvements. Mr. Waldon responded that contributions were tied to whether or not the improvement was required as a direct result of the new development. Council Member Werner inquired about the percentage of the site covered by phase one of the development. Mr. Waldon said approximately seventy percent was included in phase one. Given the scope of the first phase, Council Member Werner emphasized the need to obtain as many improvements as early in the process as possible. Council Member Werner inquired whether any consideration have been given to alternative placement of the service station. Mr. Abram said the developer had examined virtually every possible location for a service station, given signage and access requirements. Mr. Abram noted that off-site improvements had been the subject of extensive discussions between the developer, neighborhood representatives, and the Council over the past year.

Mr. Loveday said that traffic signals tended to create bottlenecks at peak hours. Mayor Howes noted that bottlenecks also occurred at Eubanks Road and NC 86, an unsignalized and unimproved intersection. Council Member Werner inquired how the park and ride lot impact traffic generation assumptions. Mr. Waldon said the park and ride lot was not included in the trip generation analysis.

Council Member Herzenberg said the park and ride lot was a very desirable feature of the proposed project. He inquired why the

lot was not proposed for inclusion within the current development proposal. Mr. Horton said that costs incurred for the lot would be higher than other locations, making it more difficult to obtain state and federal project funding. He added that the staff had been unable to identify a stable Urban Mass Transportation Administration funding source for the proposed park and ride lot.

Council Member Rimer inquired about the proposed starting date for development. Mr. Abram responded that the developer was required to begin development within two years. He noted that a build-out of four to five years was anticipated for phase one. Mr. Abram requested that a letter from Robert Holsinger concerning the traffic signal at NC 86 and Eubanks Road be entered into the record of the hearing. He noted that few Chapel Hill North patrons would use Eubanks Road as a means of access.

Council Member Rimer inquired about a time frame for State improvements to NC 86. Noting that the project was high on the Town's priority list, Mr. Waldon said he could not provide additional guidance in this matter. Council Member Andresen said that new development would have a significant impact on roadways and signalization in the area. She expressed her support for a stipulation requiring a traffic signal at Eubanks Road and NC 86 ato mitigate the impact of development. She also suggested the inclusion of an additional condition concerning siting of a service station.

Council Member Brown requested that Mr. Karpinos provide a clarification of the developer's "right" to a service station.

Town Attorney Karpinos said that the Council's master plan decision left open the decision whether a service station could be considered on the site. Mr. Karpinos said the Council could decide on the appropriateness of a service station based on evidence heard at the special use permit stage. Council Member Brown inquired whether a doubling of roadway traffic would only result in a seven to eight second delay, as suggested by the applicant. Mr. Waldon responded that this conclusion was based on an aggressive set of assumptions. He noted that the eight second differential was the difference between a conservative and aggressive set of assumptions, not the difference between build and no-build situations. Council Member Brown expressed concern that the site appeared to be moving toward a large shopping center. Mr. Waldon noted that the mixed-use ordinance required that sixty percent of the floor area be office space, with the balance dedicated to retail uses.

Council Member Brown asked whether it was possible that the second phase of the development would not be constructed. Mr. Waldon said this was possible, but not likely, since the developer had a significant investment in developing infrastructure for the development. Council Member Brown inquired about the distance between the bus stop and the furthest building. Mr. Waldon said approximately one-quarter mile. Council Member Brown expressed concern about buffering and parking space requirements. Mr. Waldon said that the development regulations do not reference a maximum number of parking spaces. He added that efforts would be made to encourage bus ridership and the use of off-site parking.

Council Member Wilkerson said he agreed with Council Member Andresen concerning the need for a traffic signal at Eubanks Road. He inquired when the alarm system for storage tanks would be triggered. Mr. Waldon said the alarm would sound when liquid had been released. Council Member Wilkerson inquired whether other developments had double-hulled fuel storage tanks. Mr. Waldon noted that a service station in the Glen Lennox area might employ this technology at part of its renovation process. Mayor Howes inquired about the type of tanks that would be used at the proposed service station in the Timberlyne area. Mr. Waldon said this information was not yet available. Council Member Rimer provided additional information concerning the liquid and vapor monitoring of double-hulled tanks, noting that more sophisticated tanks were self-monitoring. He noted that major oil companies now recognize that the costs of fuel spill clean-up far exceeded the cost of a good tank monitoring system. Council Member Rimer noted that many oil companies also use exterior tank monitoring to sense leakage on the outside of tanks.

Council Member Wallace noted that a number of significant concerns had been raised at previous meetings concerning the Chapel Hill North development proposal. He expressed concern that critical questions were not being adequately addressed by all parties involved in discussions. Council Member Wallace also stressed that a special use permit was a piece of paper which could be bought and sold once approved. He expressed concern that the burden of proof was perpetually being placed upon the Council. Council Member Wallace expressed concern that Chapel Hill North might be used as a prototype for future mixed-use developments.

Mr. Abram, representing the Chapel Hill North partnership, said he accepted the conditions of approval outlined in Resolution A, with the exception of the proposed Perkins Road traffic pork chop.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADJOURN THE HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Andresen moved referral of the matter to the Manager, adding two conditions of approval prohibiting the proposed service station and requiring the developer to finance the traffic signal at NC 86 and Eubanks Road. The motion died for lack of a second.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1A.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG PROPOSED THE ADDITION OF A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT CONCERNING TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION AT NC 86 AND EUBANKS ROAD.

Town Attorney Karpinos noted that suitable language for this purpose was outlined in condition sixteen a, number four, on page twenty-six of the materials presented to the Council.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON SECONDED COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG'S PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

Council Member Wallace suggested that the Council not attempt to modify the resolution on the floor. Council Member Brown expressed similar concern about modifying the resolution on the floor.

Mayor Howes suggested that the Council take a vote on the proposed amendment. Council Member Rimer said he was distressed that the matter had been before the Council for several months. He stressed the need for prompt action on the matter. Town Attorney Karpinos read the language from the proposed amendment.

THE QUESTION WAS CALLED AND THE AMENDMENT PASSED BY A VOTE OF

7-1, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WALLACE VOTING NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN PROPOSED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE SERVICE STATION USES ON THE CHAPEL HILL NORTH SITE.

Town Attorney Karpinos suggested that condition numbers twenty-one through twenty-four could be eliminated from the proposed conditions of approval for purposes of the proposed amendment.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN'S AMENDMENT.

Council Member Brown noted that a key objective of the Town's Comprehensive Plan was to reduce traffic. She added that the development proposal would not necessarily enhance the value of contiguous properties.

Council Member Rimer said that a recent study by the Environmental Protection Agency found that single-hull tanks had an average life of approximately ten years. He stressed the need for adequate risk assessment for underground storage tank facilities. Council Member Werner inquired about the long-term schedule for annexation and water and sewer service to the area. Mr. Horton noted that no specific scheduled had been outlined to date. Mayor Howes said that the area appeared to be in the path of annexation, but might not be served by water and sewer service in the near term. Council Member Wallace said that the proposed presence or absence of the service station was a legitimate cause for concern.

THE QUESTION WAS CALLED AND THE AMENDMENT CONCERNING SERVICE STATIONS WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR. THE MOTION FAILED BY A TIED VOTE OF 4-4, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN, BROWN, WALLACE AND WILKERSON VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR HOWES AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HERZENBERG, RIMER AND WERNER VOTING NO.

Town Attorney Karpinos said that since the motion had failed, the Council was back to consideration of the main motion, including the first amendment proposal concerning traffic signalization.

Council Member Andresen said she could not support the proposed development before the Council, primarily due to concerns about public health risks relating to the proposed service station.

Mayor Howes suggested that the Council had three alternatives for action: vote on the matter, referral to the Manager, or table and postpone the matter. Council Member Rimer suggested that the Council could further discuss the issue of the proposed service station this evening. Mayor Howes noted that the ninth member of the Council, Council Member Preston, was not in attendance this evening. Council Member Rimer suggested that all members of the Council should have the opportunity to vote on the proposal.

Mayor Howes concurred, noting that the preferable course of action would be referral to the staff. Council Member Wilkerson expressed his concurrence that it would be perfunctory to vote on the proposal this evening. Council Member Brown inquired whether it was possible to include another proposed condition of approval. Mayor Howes said yes.

Council Member Brown suggested that the number of parking spaces permitted be restricted to the minimum number required in the Town's Development Ordinance. Council Member Herzenberg inquired how the proposed park and ride lot would fit into the proposal. Council Member Brown said the two matters would be handled separately. Mayor Howes suggested that the Council ask the staff to further analyze possible parking space conditions as a part of the referral/follow-up report to the Council.

Mayor Howes requested that the applicant present a preliminary statement concerning proposed revisions to conditions of approval. Town Attorney Karpinos noted that if the conditions were acceptable to the applicant, they could be voted upon. He added that conditions unacceptable to the applicant would need to be referred to the staff to determine their defensibility. Mr. Abram said the applicant accepted the change internalizing the pork chop island on Perkins Road. Mr. Abram also noted that the applicant had carefully negotiated a certain dollar amount of off-site improvements. He added that the applicant could support the condition concerning the Eubanks Road/NC 86 traffic signal if it were balanced by the removal of something else specified in the master land use plan approval. Mr. Abram stated that the applicant was not inclined to withdraw the proposal for a service station at the current time.

Mayor Howes inquired when the matter could come back for Council consideration. Mr. Horton said April 22nd.

Mr. Karpinos noted that the substitute motion was to refer the matter, with the intent that the public hearing was closed, and that the matter would be presented for Council consideration at its April 22nd hearing.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

THE MAIN MOTION WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY

(8-0).

The hearing concluded at 10:05 p.m.