Bruce Ballentine, representing the Design Review Board and Appearance Commission (DRB/AC), stated that the DRB/AC had voted unanimously (11-0) in favor of the recommended development review changes. He noted that the DRB/AC had recommended that the Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions conduct their review prior to applicant presentations to the Design Review Board. Mr. Ballentine said the DRB/AC felt that the proposed Design Review Commission should be composed of ten to thirteen members. He also stated that the DRB/AC felt that all development review, including subdivisions of less than twenty-five lots, should still go through the full review process, since small developments could also be controversial. Mr. Ballentine said he felt it would be a mistake not to have design professionals on the proposed Design Review Commission.

Transportation Board Chair Ruby Sinreich stated that the Transportation Board had voted unanimously (9-0) to recommend the Council not adopt the proposed changes to the Town's development review process. She stated that the Board felt that the proposed changes would exclude the Transportation Board from the development review process. Ms. Sinreich also said that the current proposal did not include a representative from the Transportation Board on either the Long Range Planning Board or the Development Review Commission. She said the Board also felt that some major changes needed to be made and suggested that a work group be formed which would include professionals, citizens and members of the Council to study these matters.

Diane Bachman, representing the Appearance Commission, said that the Commission supported the Manager's recommendation to adopt the proposed ordinance regarding changes to the Town's development review process. She also requested that the Council make a decision in a timely manner so that the Commission would have a directive to continue its work.

Julie Coleman expressed concern that having design professionals might exclude non-design professionals from serving on development-related advisory boards. She urged the Council to keep the door open to all interested citizens who had the interest and desire to serve on Town advisory boards.

Bob Woodruff said he believed that the development review process could be shortened without compromising the quality of development. He briefly reviewed his own experience of moving a development through the Town's current process, noting that it had been somewhat cumbersome. Mr. Woodruff also suggested that the Town's zoning process needed to be examined in concert with the development review process.

Jim Carter said he supported the proposed changes suggested by staff. Mr. Carter also said the Council had a rare opportunity to make some major improvements in the review process. Mr. Carter stated that the new process would likely be a more efficient one.

Karen Raleigh said she favored the proposed changes to the Town's development review process. Ms. Raleigh also said she believed that the public was involved far too late in the current review process. She stated that because so many boards commented on proposed projects, applicants sometimes needed to restart the process in order to satisfy all advisory boards & commissions.

Victor Friedmann urged the Council to reject the proposed changes to the development review process. He said the proposed changes would actually decrease public participation because the number of boards receiving citizen comments would be reduced under the proposed plan. Mr. Friedmann also he believed that the present Planning Board arrangement provided for an effective job of

long-range planning.

Ken Robinson said he believed that analyzing the Town's development review process was a good idea. Mr. Robinson said he believed that too many changes were being proposed all at once. He said public input should be sought early in the review process and should be an integral part of any development plan. Mr. Robinson also said he favored the Transportation Board staying in the review process because of their expertise and focus on transit-related matters.

Transportation Board Chair Rachel Willis said she believed the plan would result in a poor level of citizen input. She asked the Council to reject the proposed changes.

Julie Andresen said she believed the proposal would produce major changes. She said the review process had a direct effect on the participation of citizens. Ms. Andresen also said the proposal contained three major flaws, as follows: public participation was greatly reduced; although the Planning Board did a good job of

long-range planning, the proposal assumed that this was not the case; and the proposal did not provide sufficient opportunities for ordinary citizens to influence development-related matters in the Town.

Jane Williams said she found it interesting that the Transportation Board and the Planning Board had both recommended rejecting the proposed changes. Ms. Williams expressed concern that the proposal would result in a greatly reduced level of citizen input. She also expressed puzzlement about why members of certain boards needed special professional backgrounds and expertise when there were no special requirements for serving on the Council. Ms. Williams requested that the Council vote "no" on the proposed changes.

Richard Franck agreed with Ms. Sinreich's comments. He suggested possibly modifying the number of required professionals on the Design Review Commission. He also suggested that the Design Commission seek public input at their meetings rather than simply

holding public information type meetings. He also suggested that the language pertaining to transportation should be reworded for clarification purposes.

Tom Gunn stated that the proposal before the Council was essentially the same one made by the Design Review Board over a year ago. Mr. Gunn said he wondered why the same proposal was being brought back before the Council this evening. He suggested that the membership of the proposed boards should be equally balanced between professionals and citizens. Mr. Gunn also stated that he did not believe there was any short range planning or long range planning in the Town, only "planning" in general. Mr. Gunn said he did not believe that six seats on the proposed board should be reserved just for professionals at the expense of citizens at large.

Richard "Stick" Williams said he found Mr. Franck's earlier remarks to be accurate. He suggested that the Council work to make the current proposal a better one. Mr. Williams also encouraged the Council to carefully examine long-range planning matters before making a decision on the proposed changes to the review process.

Jennifer Rellick said she believed that long-range planning played a major role in the Town's development review process. Ms. Rellick also said she did not believe it would be effective to separate long-range planning from short-range planning. Stating that transportation issues were very important to the development review process, Ms. Rellick asked that the Council look at each part of the process before acting on it.

Scott Radway said he thought the charge before the Council was to decide whether the Council wanted eight, ten or twelve board and commission recommendations or more consolidated recommendations from a lesser number of boards and commissions.

Phil Post said he supported the proposed changes before the Council. He also stated that the concept of a Long-Range Planning Board was a good one which was long overdue. Mr. Post suggested that some additional delegation of authority might need to occur so that some developments did not get held up in the review process for more than a year. He also suggested that minor projects should undergo a shorter review process than larger developments.

Council Member Chilton inquired which of the Design Review Board's

required functions would be transferred to the Long-Range Planning Board. Planning Director Roger Waldon stated that applicable functions would include ensuring aesthetically pleasing elevations and consistency of site arrangements with community desires. Council Member Chilton inquired whether the Design Review Board would be responsible for sign review. Mr. Horton said this was correct.

Council Member Capowski inquired about the Design Review Commission's authority other than advising the Town Council. Mr. Waldon stated that one of the elements of the proposal was to permit the proposed Design Review Commission to have decisionmaking authority relative to the site review process. Town Attorney Karpinos added that the Commission would also be responsible for issuing Certificates of Appropriateness.

Council Member Capowski asked whether increasing the number of public hearings would help the overall review process. Mr. Horton stated that if hearings were added, it might be necessary to add staff to provide support.

Council Member Capowski asked who with transportation expertise would review the transportation aspects of development applications pertaining to automobile traffic, parking and bicycles. Mr. Horton said the process review process would consist of an internal staff review, followed by review of the Design Review Commission and Town Council. Council Member Capowski asked whether this proposal meant that any development of four units or more would

be reviewed by the Town Council. Mr. Horton said this was correct.

Council Member Waldorf said although it was important for the Council to ask questions on the matter this evening, she also felt that it would be a good idea for the Council to hold a work session in the future for staff to respond to Council questions regarding the proposed review process. Noting that a number of good suggestions had been made this evening, Council Member Waldorf stated that one shortcoming of the current proposal was that small projects would need to go through a major review process. Council Member Chilton stated that some small projects could have potentially large impacts on the community. Noting his support for a Council work session on the review process, Council Member Chilton said more Council discussion was necessary prior to final decisions on the matter.

Council Member Chilton also stated that although there were a number of good ideas in the proposal, there were others which might need to be eliminated or modified. He said that the Council was in a good position to decide whether or not, and if so, how many design professionals should serve on design-related advisory boards and commissions. Council Member Chilton also said he did not believe that the proposed Development Review Commission needed to have a majority of development review professionals in order to be effective. He also suggested that the Council's work session on the review process include representatives of the potentially effected boards and commissions.

Council Member Protzman stated that flexibility had to be designed into the process when projects came before the Council which did not require an extensive amount of review by boards or commissions.

Council Member Protzman also suggested that board and commission reviews be simultaneous, rather than sequential. so that boards and commissions could share the same information at the same time.

He stated that this could be a possible expedient to the review process. Council Member Protzman also suggested that zoning compliance related processes should be compressed when possible.

Council Member Evans said she believed that it was important that one board or commission see a project early in the process and then tracks it through the entire review process. She also said that individual boards and commissions had many different assignments and could only handle so much during one meeting per month. Council Member Evans said she also believed it was important that the Council move ahead with projects such as the Downtown Small Area Plan and review of the Comprehensive Plan. Noting that the Council often received conflicting recommendations from development-related advisory boards and commissions, Council Member Evans suggested that the Council consider streamlining the review process further.

Council Member Evans also stated that it was very important for a portion of membership of the development-related boards and commissions be professionals in specific fields or other closely related fields. Council Member Evans inquired whether it was the case that once a person had completed service on a particular board or commission, this service would satisfy the requirement of a "closely related field". Mr. Karpinos said he would research this matter and report back to the Council.

Noting that he shared the concern of many others about the current review process, Council Member Pavão said he believed that a work session including representatives from development-related boards and commissions was a good idea.

Council Member Brown also said that holding a work session was a good idea. Council Member Brown said she hoped that the Council would revisit the genesis of this process, the need for more affordable housing opportunities in the community. She expressed concern that the idea of providing more affordable housing appeared to have been completely lost from the process.

Mayor Broun said he believed that one group should handle long-range planning matters. Mayor Broun also said he believed that the Transportation Board should be included in the development review process and equal numbers of citizens and professionals should participate on development-related boards and commissions.

COUNCIL MEMBER WALDORF MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER, WITH STAFF TO SUGGEST OPTIONAL DATES FOR A FOLLOW-UP WORK SESSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 2 Public Hearing on SUP Request by OWASA for an Elevated Water Storage Tank on Hilltop Street

Mr. Horton stated that the proposed water tank would replace

the aging Wilson Court storage tank.

Development Coordinator Jennie Bob Culpepper presented a brief overview of the item before the Council. She noted that the proposed seventeen acre site at the end of Hilltop Street satisfied the Town's minimum land area, elevation criteria and buffer requirements. Ms. Culpepper also stated that the proposed site was also near to existing water transmission mains.

John Greene of OWASA staff stated that the proposed tank would replace the aging 0.25 million gallon Wilson Court storage tank. He stated that this tank was considered to be obsolete due to its small storage volume and poor physical condition, and would be dismantled following the completion of the new tank. Mr. Greene said that there were very few satisfactory water tower sites which satisfied the Town's elevation and setback requirements.

Kevin Carter, project engineer, stated that two tank designs were being considered, one being a multi-legged tank and the other a fluted column tank. Mr. Carter said that the grading for the multi-legged tank would extend approximately five feet further to the south than the grading plan for the fluted column tank. He also said that if the multi-legged tank design was chosen, a landscape wall would be constructed as part of the project.

Mr. Carter indicated that OWASA was willing to build either design and was also offering the Council the opportunity to choose between the proposed designs. He also stated that the project was located and designed to maintain or promote the community's health, safety and general welfare. Mr. Carter also said the proposal complied with Town regulations and applicable sections of the Comprehensive Plan and was proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property and that the use or development conformed with general plans for the physical development of the Town.

Mr. Green stated that he believed that the project met all aspects of the Town's development-related requirements.

Planning Board Chair Mary Reeb said the Board had voted 7-2 to recommend adoption of the applicant's request.

Pierre Morrell said he resided near the proposed site and wanted to know whether the seventeen acre site would remain inviolate, never to be used for anything other than a buffer. He said although this stipulation had been agreed to at OWASA's public hearings on the proposed water tank, it was not referenced in the materials submitted to the Council. Mr. Morrell said this measure was important to protect the neighborhood's character and integrity.

Alan Stutts said his backyard abutted the proposed site. Mr. Stutts said although he did not oppose the proposal, he believed that the seventeen-acre site should be permanently preserved as greenscape so that no other development could take place there.

He stated that very few of his neighbors would oppose the project if this stipulation were added. Mr. Stutts also requested that OWASA be responsible for clearing existing debris from the site.

Randolph Russell, 102 Raintree Lane, a neighbor of the proposed project, said he believed that building the tank would decrease property values and he therefore did not favor the proposal.

Mr. Russell suggested that alternative sites, including others on UNC property be explored.

Mayor Broun inquired whether there were any legal impediments to including a stipulation in the Special Use Permit that the seventeen acre site would remain in its natural state. Mr. Horton stated that stipulation number four in the proposed resolution addressed this item. Council Member Brown asked whether an actual figure could be included which would indicate that all the surrounding acreage would be left in its natural state. Mr. Horton said yes, noting that the existing stipulations could be modified as desired by the Council.

Stating that the Wilson Court site was slightly less than one acre, with over two acres of parking lot, Council Member Capowski asked why this acreage was not sufficient to construct a new storage tank. Mr. Greene stated that if the Wilson Court site were used, over one hundred and ten parking spaces would be lost as well as many trees. Mr. Greene also said that the University had indicated that the Wilson Court site would not be available for a replacement storage tank. Council Member Capowski said he believed that the University would grant OWASA permission to construct a new storage tank at the Wilson Court site and use the parking lot as a temporary staging area during construction.

Council Member Capowski also asked whether the proposed water tower would have strobe lights during the day and red lights on top of the tower at night. Mr. Greene said although the project had not been submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration for review,

the tank would be the same height as the one on Wilson Court.

Mr. Greene also said that he did not know the FAA's lighting requirements for a storage tank of this height.

Council Member Capowski asked whether the Special Use Permit applied to the entire seventeen-acre site, rather than just the tank site. Mr. Greene said this was correct.

Council Member Chilton stated that it was possible for water consumption to be cut dramatically so that the community's demand for water could be lessened, rather than continue to grow. He encouraged the Council to consider additional water conservation approaches.

Council Member Evans stated that she was concerned about the visual impact of the proposed water storage tank. Mr. Greene said OWASA was willing to use varying shades of paint to lessen the tower's visual impact. Council Member Brown said she believed that neighborhood residents should be consulted prior to selection of a color scheme.

Council Member Capowski asked whether there were any other fluted column tanks close to the Town. Mr. Greene stated that there was one located in Durham. Council Member Capowski inquired about the elevation of the Nunn Mountain water tank. Mr. Greene said 150 feet from the ground to the top. He noted that although the proposed tower was fifty feet higher than this, it would also have triple the capacity of the Nunn Mountain water storage tower.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 8, 1996. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 3 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Silver Creek Subdivision, Phase 2

Ms. Culpepper stated that the Silver Creek Subdivision was located off Weaver Dairy Road between East Chapel Hill High School and Silver Creek I Subdivision. She stated that Silver Creek I subdivision had been approved in 1993 and that Silver Creek II subdivision was an extension of the original development. Ms. Culpepper also stated that the applicant had agreed to construct proposed road improvements on the Silver Creek II side of Weaver Dairy Road to achieve a full seventy-foot cross-section. She said that the proposal included dedication of right-of-way to a point fifty feet north of the centerline of Weaver Dairy Road, which would result in a ninety-five foot total right-of-way width for Weaver Dairy Road in this area. Ms. Culpepper also noted that the developer had constructed a solid masonry wall along the Weaver Dairy Road frontage.

Bruce Ballentine, the applicant's representative, presented a brief overview of the proposal.

Planning Board Chair Mary Reeb stated that any buffer-related concerns had been mitigated by the applicant's construction of a masonry wall. Ms. Reeb also stated that proposed roadway connections were logical and were supported by the Planning Board, although some citizens had expressed concern about the potential for cut-through traffic.

Council Member Capowski ask where the road connections would be when the roads were constructed. Mr. Ballentine noted that there were a total of seven different entrances into the development, such as from Sunrise Drive, Weaver Dairy Road and Sweeten Creek Road.

Council Member Protzman commented that this proposal was an excellent example that each of these subdivisions had been approved without any major interventions for stormwater management. He stated that since this area had become so developed, potential stormwater management problems might arise in the future. Mr. Ballentine stated that there was a stream regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Administration near this property, and that detention ponds were not feasible for the Silver Creek subdivision.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 8, 1996. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.