PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1996 AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council Members present were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Richard Franck, Lee Pavão, and Edith Wiggins. Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Flo Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper.

Item 1 - Proposed Changes to the Development Review Process

Town Manager Horton remarked that several years ago the Council initiated a major review of the development review process. He noted that Planning Director Roger Waldon would make the staff presentation.

Mr. Waldon stated that on September 9th the Council elected an option for potential change, and directed the Town Manager to draft ordinance language that would implement the change. He indicated that the option chosen by the Council would keep our existing development review process intact, keep all advisory boards intact, and add a new, mandatory "Conceptual Development Plan Review" at the initial stages of a project. Mr. Waldon said if the Council adopts the ordinance, it will be incorporated into the Development Ordinance.

Council Member Andresen asked how the public information stage would fit into this new process. Mr. Waldon said the public information stage would still remain intact and would be held at the beginning of the process so the public could comment.

Mary Reeb, representing the Planning Board, stated the Board did not recommend adoption of this ordinance, because it seems to suggest that anyone could present a very simple design to the Design Review Board and start this process. She indicated the Board feels a large amount of time should be devoted to design drawings before they were presented to the Design Review Board.

Stick Williams stated when this process began two years ago he was excited about the prospect of improving this process. He said he does not believe the changes being recommended are as in-depth as he had hoped. Mr. Williams indicated the lack of persons at this hearing indicated their lack of interest. He cautioned the Council not to allow the process to determine what happens in the Town, but suggested the Council must decide if suggested development or businesses are appropriate. Mr. Williams said he believes the process itself drives the development review process now.

Jim Protzman said he does not even recognize what is being considered tonight compared to what was discussed at the beginning of this process two years ago. He commented he sees this as a dysfunctional process. Mr. Protzman said the process creates adversarial relationships, and the review boards tend to take apart the developments they are reviewing piece by piece. He stated the Council should become involved in the process much earlier, that the review board process should be simplified, and the process itself should be loosened.

Council Member Franck said two elements are missing at the time limits regarding a concept plan are being submitted and the amount of changes that would be permitted. He said master land use plans should be in sync with the Special Use Permit, and the amount of changes that would be allowed should be spelled out. Council Member Franck said the Concept Plans should be submitted and the details ironed out much earlier in the process. He noted the language suggested in the proposed ordinance in sections 15.4.1 and 15.4.2 might be correct, but asked for comments from the staff.

Mr. Waldon responded that the Design Review Board has stated it was not helpful to bring them a design to review without substantial background materials. He said they now request that applicants bringing plans to the Design Review Board provide the necessary background materials before they appear before the Board. Mr. Waldon said in many ways the Design Review Board has found that that information is as useful or more useful that the actual blueprints of a building.

Council Member Franck asked about the action taken on Conceptual Plans, if they were presented in the original application? Mr. Waldon said they would not expect a detailed stormwater management plan or drainage plan to be submitted that early, but would expect some preplanning to have taken place. Council Member Franck asked if this would meet the new requirements? Mr. Waldon said if the development plan showed a series of small roads, then staff would conduct a staff review to determine if the conceptual plans were consistent with the Development Ordinance. Council Member Franck asked whether they would make a determination at that time as to the desirability of the project of simply if it meets guidelines? Mr. Waldon answered they would point out any discrepancies; for instance if roads were proposed with no way to connect them, the staff report would certainly point that out. Council Member Franck said that in the case of buffers, the plans either meet the requirements or they don't. Mr. Waldon said in a case such as that, the staff review comments would state that one type of buffer is shown on the conceptual plans but another type is required by the ordinance.

Mr. Horton stated that as part of the staff review, potential problems such as this are identified.

Council Member Franck asked what the language means that says the Manager will forward its report to the Design Review Board at the next available meeting? He asked whether this means the next meeting, or the next meeting that has space available on the agenda. Mr. Horton answered the next meeting with space open on the agenda. Council Member Franck said in theory that could be months. Mr. Horton commented that depending on the work flow, it could be months.

Council Member Evans stated she had worked on this process for more than three years, and she believes the reason so few people were present tonight to discuss this item was because of the length of time it has taken to place this item on the agenda. She asked Mr. Waldon is speak on the key issues that concerned the Planning Board.

Mr. Waldon said the first item is that the idea of concept plans should have resulted in better design, and the process that we have had does not necessarily have that result. Mr. Waldon said this is probably a matter of opinion. He stated another issue was that concept plans could be expensive for developers; there are certainly costs involved. Mr. Waldon said that the kinds of things they were looking for are the kinds of things a developer would go through anyway. Mr. Waldon said that mandating a full review by the Design Review Board within 30 to 45 days of submittal with opportunity for delay may not be possible due to the amount of applications coming in.

Council Member Evans stated that many times developers may not understand how serious the Council is about protecting the natural environment of sites when they are developed, and asked whether the early plans could include, for instance, the location of trees that may or may not be targeted for removal?

Mr. Waldon said there is no value in identifying trees for removal if the plans have already moved forward, so this should be done early on in the process.

Council Member Evans asked if St. Thomas More Church staff had come before the Design Review Board quite some time ago with their plans? Mary Reeb answered she remembered a representative attending a meeting, but does not remember the Board making a recommendation at that time.

Council Member Evans said if a mandatory review is put in place, then some process needs to be in place to track it. She stated that if issues are raised that seem to be critical to the community, then along the way we need to discover if the applicant has addressed those concerns. Council Member Evans said the purpose is to improve the process. She said there was a recent article in the newspaper written by James Johnson, who is the chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association, reporting a ten point plan to boost homeownership in the US because the percentage of homeownership is decreasing. Council Member Evans stated that the last of the ten points is the reduction in the cost of housing through the elimination of needless regulatory barriers that stand in the way of constructing affordable housing.

Council Member Andresen said this had been a long process, and the Council had looked at a lot of different ways to do this. She said the bottom line is that what is before the Council tonight is very small. Council Member Andresen said by shortening the process it should save the developer money. She said what is before the Council tonight is more formal than she would like, that something more informal may save the developer some time and money. Council Member Andresen said it was good that this process would mandate the developer look at the site characteristics at the beginning of the process. She asked if we had a need to retain a particular composition on the Design Review Board? Mr. Waldon said no. Council Member Andresen stated it is important to have persons on this Board who have some interest and knowledge in site design; the possibility of conflict of interest on this Board is very possible; and, the Council needs to be sensitive to this issue. Council Member Andresen suggested the Council actively review the process in a year to see how it is working, and that the Council get public participation to provide feedback when the Concept Plan process begins.

Mayor Pro tem Brown asked which actually determines what kind of development is built, the process or the Development Ordinance? She indicated the Development Ordinance should be the determining factor. Mr. Horton said that is correct. Mayor Pro tem Brown stated the Council needs to be involved early on. Town Attorney Karpinos said the Council should base its decision on information received in the Public Hearing, and not on information garnered elsewhere.

Mayor Waldorf said the idea of sending a Concept Plan to an advisory board is not appropriate. She said she believes the Concept Plan should go to the Council, since they cannot intervene or influence it until it is much too late to make major changes. Mayor Waldorf said the project goes through a lengthy review before the Council gets a good look at. She said she believes the Council should have an opportunity for dialogue at the beginning stages of the process. Mayor Waldorf said this would send a signal to the developer as to what the Council may eventually be willing to approve. Mr. Karpinos said it would be possible to do this, but the Council by law would have to base its decision on the evidence presented in the Public Hearing, so no promises could be made to the developer.

Council Member Andresen asked if a developer could come before the Council with a Concept Plan just to discuss it. Mr. Karpinos said there would be nothing to have a hearing on, since no project would exist at that time. He reiterated that the Council would not be able to make any decisions or promises at that time, and would not be able to base any decisions on these early comments.

Council Member Capowski said the Council frequently gets calls and letters from persons wishing to influence the Council on a particular issue.

Council Member Evans said on page 12 of the proposed ordinance at Section 25.7.76, a clarification needed to be made regarding the Historic District Commission member. Mr. Horton noted that in 25.7.76.B(i), the Historic District Commission member should be deleted, as it is listed in 25.7.76.B(ii).

Council Member Franck noted that on page 9 of the proposed ordinance, on the first line of that page as well as the next to the last line, the word "recommended" is used, and as there is no approval by the Design Review Board, that language is inappropriate and needs to be clarified. Council Member Franck also noted he would like to see some language added to the ordinance that speaks to multi-modal uses that indicates we are looking at more than just vehicle access but other types of access as well.

Council Member Franck asked Mr. Waldon if this process would generate another public information meeting at the Concept Plan stage, and why it is necessary. Mr. Waldon said the public wants to know when an application has been filed and what is being considered by a Town board, and this provides more opportunity for public comment. Mr. Waldon said two things make them valuable - first it is an efficient way to get information out to the public, and second, it is an opportunity for citizens to be face to face with the applicant which often results in good dialogue. Council Member Franck asked if this is a department or ordinance process? Mr. Waldon said it is an administrative procedure.

Council Member Evans asked that the staff comment about how this would affect the expedited review process when this item comes back to the Council.

Mayor Waldorf said she was not approached by developers for feedback, but was sometimes approached by citizens regarding Town property or undeveloped property.

Council Member Franck said based on what he has heard tonight, he believes the staff envisions this as more than what the Council wanted in terms of the depth of the analysis and the detail required in the plans and the amount of work it would place on an applicant. He stated he believes the Council was thinking of less, and he does not believe this is less.

Council Member Pavão said he thought the purpose was to speed the process along and make it less cumbersome, and he does not know if this ordinance will accomplish this.

Mr. Horton asked if the Council wished to have staff attempt to

bring back a proposal which would shorten the process and make it less cumbersome?

Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council was in favor of referring this issue back to the staff.

Council Member Chilton said he believed the staff needed more direction as to what direction to take.

Council Member Evans said there is confusion as to what the process is, and she is sure there are aspects of it that even the Council does not understand. She said she would like to have staff give the Council some insight into alternatives.

Council Member Andresen said she did not believe a work session was necessary, but maybe the staff could come back with suggestions for changes to make the concept plan process less bureaucratic.

Council Member Franck said he wanted existing conditions of the site, existing conditions off the site in surrounding areas, and the general plans for the site to be addressed more fully in the process. He said this would give a broader idea of what the Council wants before it goes to the Design Review Board.

Mr. Horton said he believed the staff should have an opportunity to improve on the proposed ordinance, taking into consideration the comments made tonight.

Mayor Pro tem Brown asked that the Council adopt a resolution stating they would take another look at this process in one year or so to see how it is working.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Item 2a - Rezoning Request for St. Thomas More Church and School

Item 2b - Master Land Use Plan for St. Thomas More Church and School

Item 2c - Special Use Permit Application for St. Thomas More Church and School

Jennie Bob Culpepper stated there are three applications before the Council from St. Thomas More Church for a Zoning Atlas Amendment, a Master Land Use Plan, and Special Use Permit to allow 111,210 square feet of building, including a place of worship, an elementary and middle school, a parish hall and a gymnasium, and parking lots and playgrounds on approximately 20 acres of land on the west side of Carmichael Street.

Council Member Andresen asked Ms. Culpepper to comment on traffic egress. Ms. Culpepper said the roads should be able to handle the increased traffic, and staff was looking at ways to improve the egress on Carmichael at peak times.

Council Member Capowski asked who owned the property adjacent to this site? Ms. Culpepper said the University owns that particular property. Council Member Capowski asked how even more traffic would be handled efficiently when stacking already occurs during school opening and closing. Ms. Culpepper said staff was looking at ways to improve conditions.

Council Member Chilton suggested that the traffic signals in this area may need to be adjusted to allow traffic to exit onto Fordham Boulevard during school drop off and pick up times.

Philip Post, speaking as the applicant, said the traffic study was done early this year, so was conducted before the traffic light was installed. He said no traffic study had been conducted since the traffic light was installed.

Mr. Post stated they believed the rezoning request meets all aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. He remarked the three main points are: (1) they believe the project protects the rich environmental aspects of this site by preserving natural vegetation and existing buffers, (2) the project attempts to achieve a veiled openenness but leaving a wooded buffer along the frontage and leaving a generous setback of the buildings and (3) the access of the main points of circulation within the site during school days. Mr. Post indicated they are encouraging good pedestrian circulation by a series of sidewalks through the site.

Mr. Post said they support the Planning Board's recommendations for this site, which differ slightly with the Manager's recommendation. He said they do not favor the public street configuration suggested by the staff. Mr. Post said they believe their traffic circulation pattern is adequate, and believe it would be detrimental to open this area up to grading. He said it was their intention to preserve this area as a buffer to the adjacent residential neighborhood. Mr. Post said even though the new school would add some traffic, he believes the existing plan would accommodate the increase in vehicle trips.

Scott Radway, speaking for the Planning Board, said they recommended the approval of all three items.

Christopher Shuping, a neighbor of the project, said he was concerned that the lighting not give the appearance of a retail area, and that the buffers be maintained as wooded area with natural vegetation to provide a shield to the adjacent neighborhood. He commented there was some concern about the stacking on Carmichael, and asked the Council to look carefully at this aspect of the project.

Council Member Capowski asked Mary Reeb how many school children and employees would be present during operating hours. Ms. Reeb said 350 to 400 elementary school children with another 100 employees. She stated that an increase in the number of school children was not expected even with the addition of two grade levels, because these children already attend St. Thomas More School.

Council Member Capowski stated that if there is a potential for growth in the school population over the next ten years, some cautionary measures should be put in place to regulate its growth.

Council Member Andresen said she is concerned about the traffic issue and asked if the staff believed new traffic data was necessary since none has been gathered since the traffic lights were installed. Mr. Horton said if the Council asked for that information, a study could be conducted.

Ms. Reeb commented that when cars enter the site at 2:40 in the afternoon for pick-up, they are all gone by 3:10, so they are not there for long periods. She indicated re-timing the light may help somewhat. She also indicated they wanted low lighting on the site, and had plans for approximately $70,000 in landscaping with the intention being to preserve the wooded areas.

Council Member Franck asked if the suggested reconfiguration of the southern egress could eventually provide access to the University's property? Mr. Horton said there was no way to judge.

Ms. Reeb said they had held public meetings with the neighbors and assured them they would maintain as much buffer as possible.

Mr. Post stated that the conditions of approval were agreeable to them, but supported the Planning Board's recommendations.

Council Member Evans asked if they were providing recreation facilities for the middle school students. Ms. Reeb said this school does not participate in competitive sports, but a play area was being provided as well as a gymnasium.

Council Member Evans said she is concerned that this is a difficult intersection which is used by St. Thomas More School and Aldersgate's day care center. She said she agrees with the applicant's suggested configuration.

Council Member Andresen asked that additional data be provided on the traffic issues.

Council Member Evans asked that the timing of the traffic lights be revisited. Mr. Horton said he believed that a stipulation could be included.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 4TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THE ITEMS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Item 3 - Special Use Permit Application for Days Inn Motel

Planning Director Roger Waldon stated the proposal calls for demolition of the existing Tar Heel Motel and construction of a multi-story Days Inn Motel. He said the entire site is in the 100-year floodplain, and floodplains also exist. Mr. Waldon said one concern was the angle of the dumpster pad relative to accessibility by service trucks. He said key issues are: the site is in the Resource Conservation District, it is in the floodplain, and the application as proposed does not meet current regulations for development within the Resource Conservation District. Mr. Waldon stated that considering all these facts, the Council must decide if the project still serves the public purposes. He said staff recommends adoption of Resolution A.

Council Member Evans asked if the power lines would be put underground? Mr. Waldon said he would get that information.

Council Member Andresen asked about the location of the detention pond. Mr. Waldon indicated it was a dry detention basin which would be used for temporary detention before release.

Bruce Ballentine, speaking as the applicant, stated the proposal is to build a 59-room Days Inn Motel. He gave a brief overview of the project, stating the project as it now exists is the final version. Mr. Ballentine said after much debate and discussion, the decision was made to eliminate the proposed 72-seat restaurant. He said another concern was to save as many of the existing trees as possible and to meet the Town's buffer standards as much as possible given the restraints they face. Mr. Ballentine said they wanted as much buffer as possible in the front of the property, and had also relocated the dumpster pad. He said these changes were done at the suggestion of the staff.

Mr. Ballentine distributed a document which listed the major issues the Council was being asked to deal with: protection from flooding, impervious surfaces, pedestrian and vehicular safety, and buffers. He indicated that none of the existing buildings or proposed development is within the FEMA regulated floodway, that all 7,950 square feet of the existing building is below the 100-year flood elevation of 262.5 feet, and that all of the existing 7,950 square feet of building area is within the Town's Resource Conservation District boundary and below the RCD elevation of 266. Mr. Ballentine stated that none of the 29,952 square feet of the site's impervious surface is captured and treated by stormwater detention, that 20, or one half, of the parking spaces have direct access off of the 15-501 service drive, that none of the property frontage meets Town or NCDOT public street and sidewalk standards, that none of the street frontage meets Town buffer or alternate buffer requirements, and that none of the front 230 feet of the north property line meets Town buffer or alternate buffer requirements.

Mr. Ballentine said the main issue is still one of aesthetics and minor modifications. He stated that if the project is approved, they would have improved the architectural appearance of the area, and signage would be improved as well as stormwater management. Mr. Ballentine said they support the Manager's recommendation with one minor change, that on page 18, condition #15, the phrase "for service road related drainage," be added after the word "storm" on the last line on that page.

Council Member Capowski asked where did the information came from in reference to floodplain boundaries? He indicated he believed a request had been made for a complete remapping by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Horton indicated that was correct, but no word had been received as to what that might take place.

Mr. Amin commented he has owned the property since 1982 and his family have been contributing citizens to Chapel Hill. He stated that they had tried very hard to turn the motel into a reputable business establishment by improving the site, installing carpets, and other amenities. Mr. Amin said that he believes the Days Inn Motel fits in well with the Eastgate area and would improve the this entranceway into Chapel Hill.

Mr. Higgins said much had been said in the past of improving entrancways into Chapel Hill, and he believes this project achieves that. He said another issue is this project would expand the tax base. Mr. Higgins said the average motel rate in and around Chapel Hill is $89.00. He said the proposed room rate for the new Days Inn is $55 per night, well under the Hampton Inn, University Motel, Carolina Inn, and others. Mr. Higgins used the recent influx of workers to help with Hurricane Fran clean-up as an example of the need for a new motel which is moderately priced. He said many of the workers had to rent rooms in Durham and other areas.

Mary Reeb, speaking for the Planning Board, said their concern was with the aesthetics of the area as well and the Resource Conservation District and impervious surface issues. She stated the Board recommends Resolution A.

Roger Bernholtz stated he lives, works, and shops in the this area, and is in favor of the project. He commented that he believes the Council will be asked more and more to consider redevelopment in this area, and believes the project should be approved.

Mr. Nalin Parikh, a resident of Chapel Hill for 11 years, said the proposed development is aesthetically pleasing, and the Amins have been hard-working contributors to the Town.

Art Werner stated he was disappointed that no Stormwater Impact Statement had been required for this site. He said it was difficult to judge the impact of this development without an impact statement. Mr. Werner said the applicant stated this project was not in the floodway. He said the floodway was mapped over twenty years ago, so no one knows where the floodway is now. Mr. Werner said the aesthetic benefits do not outweigh the variances being requested to the Resource Conservation District. He asked the Council to carefully consider these major variances before acting. Mr. Werner said this project is an economic opportunity in the Resource Conservation District, and if approved the Resource Conservation District ordinance would have to be ignored.

John Kent said his major concern with this project is floor space being proposed in the Resource Conservation District. He said that if approved, it would send a negative message. Mr. Kent said flooding is a real concern, and asked what would happen upstream and downstream in regards to flooding. He stated this needs to be research before this project is approved.

Joel Harper said that if this project was not in the Resource Conservation District, he believes the Council would certainly approve it. He stated because it is in the Resource Conservation District, so the project must be weighed as to its future benefit. Mr. Harper said he believes the project should be approved.

Council Member Chilton said the plans indicate that the new building would not have that much greater of a footprint. Mr. Ballentine said the new building's footprint would actually be smaller than the existing footprint, because a portion of the building is elevated. He said impervious service was increased because of the improvement to the parking area.

Council Member Chilton asked how the number of parking spaces were arrived at? Mr. Ballentine said they had figured one per room with a few extra for staff and visitors.

Council Member Chilton said he is concerned about the stormwater runoff into Booker Creek, and the serious downstream flooding problem which exists. He said an increase in impervious surface will make a difference to downstream property. Mr. Ballentine said the detention pond would contain the water and release it slowly over a period of time. Mr. Ballentine commented since no detention pond exists now, the problem should be alleviated.

Council Member Chilton asked under what circumstances 40,000 square feet of building would be permitted? Mr. Waldon stated that on this site, which is in the Resource Conservation District, our regulations call for not more than 40,000 square feet of the area to be covered by impervious surface, so what the developers are asking the Council to do is to modify that and let them go to 44,000 square feet.

Mr. Ballentine said that in order to improve circulation and safety, impervious surface had to be increased.

Council Member Chilton stated the material indicated that stormwater runoff would be improved with the construction of this development. Mr. Ballentine said that was correct. Council Member Chilton said it was difficult for him to decide if the project would benefit the public to the greatest extent without a Stormwater Impact Statement.

Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council could require a Stormwater Impact Statement? Town Attorney Karpinos stated yes.

Council Member Andresen said she did not belief the Council should rely on the applicant's word, but the Council should require a scientific study to determine how this expansion will effect the Resource Conservation District. She asked if OWASA should be concerned about infiltration in this area, and how the water will be released from the detention ponds. Council Member Andresen said this development increased the floor area 8 times over the existing facility, and feels this is a very large expansion. She said the aspect of setting a precedent may become a problem, either legally or politically, by the Council ignoring the Resource Conservation District ordinance, which is a law.

Mayor Pro tem Brown asked about the notification to the public about this development. She said it would help to notify the persons downstream of this project when this item will come back before the Council. Mayor Pro tem Member Brown asked what kind of studies had been conducted regarding the actual success of detention ponds, and asked the staff to look into the success or failure rates.

Council Member Capowski stated he is also concerned about whether the detention pond will control runoff. He asked if the project were less than 20,000 square feet, would it be before the Council? Mr. Horton said the Resource Conservation District would still be a concern, and this would be the driving force behind Council consideration.

Council Member Wiggins asked about the addition to the tax base versus the cost to the Town, as well as the increased opportunity for employment.

Mr. Higgins said the Tar Heel Motel has a tax value of about $600,000. He said the new motel will cost a little over $2 million to build, so that tax base will increase substantially. Mr. Higgins said he had no information about the cost of fire and police services or trash pick-up. Council Member Wiggins asked if actual numbers could be projected? Mr. Higgins said not at this time.

Mayor Waldorf asked that this information be provided when this item comes back to the Council.

Mayor Waldorf asked the applicant to prepare a Stormwater Impact Statement. She asked whether there are alternatives to paving and gravel that reduce impervious surface in parking lots.

Council Member Franck said one alternative would be to share parking area, but this would be difficult due to the distance from the site. He said if the number of parking spaces could be reduced, approval may be easier.

Council Member Brown said aesthetics has been discussed a great deal, and asked the staff to define that and determine who actually makes that determination? Mr. Horton commented that aesthetics depends on the individual, and suggested the Council ask the applicant how long it would take to provide a Stormwater Impact Statement. Mr. Horton commented he would be reluctant to extend the notification process beyond what is legally required because it may present problems in the future with where to draw the line in the notification process. Mr. Horton said as a general rule staff would not recommend using aesthetics as a deciding factor.

Mr. Ballentine stated no Stormwater Impact Statement had ever been prepared, and has no firm idea as to how long it would take to gather the necessary information and prepare the statement.

Mr. Horton said on that basis, he recommends continuing this item to January 13th or January 21st.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 21ST, 1997. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Item 4 - Special Use Permit Modification for Principal'sExecutive Program

and Joint Child Day Care Center

Jennie Bob Culpepper stated the property is located south of Highway 54, west of Friday Center Drive, and north of Morgan Creek. She gave a brief overview of the issues discussed in the staff report. Ms. Culpepper indicated that no road improvements were being proposed, but improved bus circulation on the site is recommended.

Gordon Rutherford, speaking as the applicant, stated there had been several issues raised at the Planning Board meeting regarding the site for the day care center and its relation to the Town's park/ride lot. He said the plan proposed is in conformance with the JJR plan, and that no other appropriate site was noted. Mr. Rutherford said that regarding the fourth sidewalk stipulation on page 13, they were concerned that there not be sidewalk connections between the park/ride lot and the facility due to fear of misuse of the area. He also indicated that in stipulation #18 on page 14,regarding bus stops, they would prefer not to provide bus service through the existing parking lots. Mr. Rutherford said that because of the type of activity that exists both at the day care center and the PEP and Friday Center, there is very little dependence on bus service. He said that regarding stipulation #19 on page 16, he asked that the item regarding quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives be deleted.

Dan Lehman gave an overview of the proposed day care center project. He said a key factor was that the tuition paid by parents completely support the day care center. Mr. Lehman said other university day care centers and well as other public centers were visited in order to form a model for the new day care. He said they wanted to offer high quality services at an affordable price, and that the center be accredited. Mr. Lehman said operational expenses, including staff costs, were closely looked at. He said the center would accommodate 120 children.

Mr. Lehman briefly described the reasons why this site was chosen and how the day care center would operate and why. He said to date the final construction documents are completed and the project should be ready for bid in January. Mr. Lehman said their schedule was tight and any additional costs, such as sidewalks or maintenance, would cause the quality of the center to suffer.

Robert Phay gave a brief summary of the Principals' Executive Program and its operational features. He described the twelve-year history of the program and what is planned for the near future. Mr. Phay said in the current year the program has operated 191 days, which equates to 900 trips from the Best Western to the Friday Center. He said once the program is contained totally at the Friday Center, participants will arrive on Sunday evening, and will eat breakfast and lunch and some dinners on site, which will reduce the trips during peak hours.

Mary Reeb, speaking for the Planning Board, stated the Board recommends Resolution A.

Council Member Capowski asked if Victory Village Day Care would close. Mr. Lehman said yes. Council Member Capowski asked if some system could be put in place so that buses could be utilized to cut down on the trips parents much make through town.

Council Member Andresen asked if an Army Corps of Engineers permit would be required.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 4TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m.