MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1998 AT 7:00 P.M.

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

Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Lee Pavao, and Edith Wiggins. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Development Coordinator Jennie Bob Culpepper.

Mayor Waldorf welcomed newly-appointed Council Member Flicka Bateman. Council Member Bateman expressed her appreciation to the Council and to those members of the public who supported her application.

Item 1: Community Policing Grant

Mr. Horton presented a brief overview of the grant matter.

Police Captain Gregg Jarvies stated that on September 30, 1997 the Town had been notified by the United States Department of Justice that the Police Department had been approved for a Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of $69,080. Captain Jarvies added that in November, 1997 the Council had authorized acceptance of the grant and the formation of an advisory board to review the proposed expenditures of grant funds. Captain Jarvies stated this evening's public hearing was to provide citizens the opportunity to offer comments about the grant proposal.

There were no comments by citizens.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ACCEPT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,080. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 2: Carrboro Baptist Church Application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment

Mr. Horton noted that this item was a companion item with Item #3 on this evening's agenda.

Ms. Culpepper noted that the applicant had submitted an application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone approximately 10.9 acres of land on the south side of Culbreth Road from the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district to the Residential-3-Conditional (R-3-C) zoning district.

Planning Board representative Scott Radway noted that the Board supported the Council’s adoption of Resolution A, approving the request.

Michael Hining, an architect representing the applicant, noted that the request was being made because the property was actually over 35% Resource Conservation District land, which inhibited development. He stated that the applicant was asking for the rezoning in order to have full use of the developable land.

Robert Humphreys spoke in support of approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment and the Special Use Permit request. Mr. Humphreys said that he understood the necessity for more room but was sad to see the church move from Carrboro to Chapel Hill.

R.D. Smith also spoke in support of approval of the two applications. He stated this was an opportunity for the Council to make history by approving the requests, since the Carrboro Baptist Church would then be located in the Town. Mr. Smith encouraged the Council to move quickly so that the Church could be built as soon as possible.

Council Member Foy thanked the Church for making a statement of its intention to protect the environmentally sensitive aspects of the property. Council Member Foy noted that his understanding was that the change would increase the permitted land use intensity ratio. Ms. Culpepper stated that this was correct.

Mr. Hining added that if the Church was not granted the requested R-3 zoning, they would be unable to build in this location.

Council Member Andresen said it appeared that all of the proposed building and parking area would be outside of the existing environmentally sensitive area, and inquired whether this was correct. Ms. Culpepper stated that this was correct.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO RECESS THE HEARING AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 3: Carrboro Baptist Church Application for a Special Use Permit

Ms. Culpepper noted that the proposed development was located on 10.9 acres on the south side of Culbreth Road. Ms. Culpepper also noted the site was bordered by the Culbreth Park neighborhood to the west and south, and the Glenmere neighborhood to the north. Ms. Culpepper said that the existing Fan Branch Greenway Trail terminated just before it reached the eastern panhandle of the Carrboro Baptist Church property. She commented that Town staff had noted the potential for future extension of this greenway across the eastern tip of the church property to permit the existing Fan Branch Greenway Trail to be connected across the Church's property and to eventually connect to Morgan Creek. Ms. Culpepper added that Resolution A did not include language which would allow this extension to be built.

Ms. Culpepper said another issue considered by staff were improvements to Culbreth Road. She noted that the applicant was proposing to construct one-half of a 51-foot cross-section with a center turn lane, curb and gutter, a five-foot striped bike lane and a five-foot concrete sidewalk along the western two-thirds of the property's Culbreth Road frontage.

Ms. Culpepper noted that staff believed that the extent of clearing and grading being proposed along the site's southern and western borders should be reduced, stating that the existing tree row along the property's western border was worth preserving to the maximum extent possible to assist in buffering of the site. Ms. Culpepper noted the Manager's preliminary recommendation stipulated that the applicant either shift the location of the proposed parking lot to the east and/or construct retaining walls, to reduce the amount of grading and protect existing vegetation.

Mr. Hining said that his client would be pleased to grant the Town an easement for the continuation of the Fan Branch Greenway Trail. He noted that the improvements to Culbreth Road and the timing of those improvements had been agreed upon by Town staff and the applicant and should pose no problems. Mr. Hining said that staff and his client had worked very hard in the planning stages of the project to assure that the environmentally sensitive areas would be protected during and after construction. Mr. Hining also noted that one method to possibly use would be to place the building and parking areas as far away from the Resource Conservation District as physically possible.

Council Member Evans asked whether the sweep of the roof line would be solid or latticed. Mr. Hining said it would be solid and continuous.

Council Member Andresen asked whether the improvements would go along the entire stretch of the property. Mr. Hining said no, it would include only a portion of Culbreth Road, because the North Carolina Department of Transportation had plans to renovate the intersection in the near future. He said the applicant's improvements ended where NCDOT's renovation plans began.

Council Member Capowski asked about the proposed spire, stating that at 135 feet tall it would be quite visible. Council Member Capowski asked Mr. Hining to fly a balloon from the location of the spire before final approval so that the Council would have a better idea of how visible the spire would be. Mr. Hining agreed to do so. Council Member Capowski also asked about the amount of parking provided. Mr. Hining stated that he would actually like to provide more parking than was required, and believed that the site would allow for an overflow lot on the property. Council Member Capowski asked whether or not the spire would be illuminated at night. Mr. Hining stated that some discussion had taken place about lighting the spire from the ground. He added that the church was sensitive to the problems lighting the spire at night might cause residents of the surrounding neighborhood.

Council Member Foy asked Mr. Hining to clarify which easements were being offered by the Church. Mr. Hining said that although the church would offer whatever was necessary, they wanted to see the greenway moved a little farther away from the highway and closer to the stream if possible. Council Member Foy noted that the Planning staff recommended clearing and grading along the western border be reduced. Ms. Culpepper stated that this was correct, because staff was interested in preserving the vegetation and existing trees along this line. She added that this was the purpose of building the wall along the property line.

Planning Board representative Scott Radway stated that the Board recommended approval of the Special Use Permit request, including the easement for the continuation of the greenway trail. Mr. Radway noted that the Board concurred that improvements to Culbreth Road during development should coincide with the improvements by the Department of Transportation. Referencing the proposed retaining wall, Mr. Radway said that the buffer on the western border of the property should be comprised of existing and new vegetation in proportions which would provide an adequate low, medium and high level buffer in the short term and provide for the proper growth of new landscaping to assume a full buffer in the longer term. Mr. Radway added that the Board felt that the applicant should choose whether a retaining wall or the existing proposed grading was most appropriate for this area.

Jack Mercer, Pastor of the Carrboro Baptist Church, briefly described the Church's history. He noted that the majority of the congregation lived outside of Carrboro, mainly in Chapel Hill, so it was not so strange to have the Carrboro Baptist Church in Chapel Hill. Mr. Mercer noted that the congregation was a racially, culturally, and intellectually diverse group, adding that they wanted to be environmentally responsible good stewards.

Beth Roberts noted she had been a member of the Church for twenty years and was the church’s secretary. Ms. Roberts said that the Church met the needs of families and served the entire community. Ms. Roberts also noted that part of the Church’s vision was to continue to meet the needs of families in the community, and that this new facility would help them to meet this commitment.

Seyi Jolaoso, a sophomore at UNC, noted that when she arrived in the Town, she was invited to attend the Carrboro Baptist Church and found a second family at the church. Ms. Jolaoso said that the Church provided her with a second home and a family of people who cared about her. Ms. Jolaoso encouraged the Council to approve the church’s two applications.

Council Member Andresen asked whether or not further planning needed to take place with the Greenways Commission regarding the easement for the greenway. Mr. Horton noted the details would be worked out and an easement agreement reached. Council Member Andresen noted that the Church spire would be a focal point and believed that it would be attractive to the entranceway. She also commented this project would be an attractive asset to the Town.

Council Member Wiggins asked whether or not the greenway easement would affect the Church’s density. Mr. Horton stated he did not believe so. Council Member Brown asked whether or not the Council would have that information at its February 9^th meeting. Mr. Horton said yes.

Mayor Waldorf suggested sending this application back to the Greenways Commission for their comments before the Council considered the Special Use Permit request on February 9th.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO RECESS THE HEARING AND REFER THE ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY AND TO THE GREENWAYS COMMISSION FOR THEIR COMMENTS PRIOR TO FURTHER COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 4: UNC Office Building Application for a Special Use Permit

Ms. Culpepper stated that the applicant had applied for a Special Use Permit to construct a 60,000 square foot, three-story office building at the southwest corner of the NC 86/Airport Drive intersection. She stated that the proposed development was located on approximately 6.35 acres of land owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Ms. Culpepper said that Airport Drive was classified as a local street in the Town's roadway network and had been maintained by the Town for many years. She noted, however, that staff found no evidence that a public right-of-way existed along Airport Drive, and believed that this street should be maintained for continued use by the public. Ms. Culpepper stated that the Manager's preliminary recommendation called for the dedication of public right-of-way on Airport Drive, adding that the University objected to this proposed condition of approval.

Ms. Culpepper said without the dedication of the public right-of-way, staff believed that Airport Drive should be treated as a driveway to University development, and would recommend that the Town not spend funds to maintain the driveway. Ms. Culpepper added that as a driveway, the University could block this secondary access to the Barclay Road neighborhood.

Ms. Culpepper noted another key issue was the location of the required stormwater detention facility. She noted that the applicant proposed to provide the stormwater detention for this project at an off-site location, within the existing vegetated area between the Giles Horney Building and NC 86. Ms. Culpepper noted that the Manager's preliminary recommendation included a stipulation that a stormwater detention facility be located in the area between the Giles Horney Building and NC 86, and designed and developed in a manner which provided additional landscape bufferyard material to enhance both the foreground and background bufferyard area adjoining any detention facility.

Ron Strom, representing the applicant, stated that the purpose of the Special Use Permit request was to accommodate UNC's growing need for office space on land currently owned by the University. Mr. Strom stated that office space in the Town was currently commanding $21 per square foot, about 20% higher than other areas in the Triangle. He added that the vacancy rate of office space in the Town was about 1 1/2%, effectively forcing the cost of services up and pushing most small businesses elsewhere. Mr. Strom stated that the University spent over $2 million on rent each year for office space. Mr. Strom also said that the Special Use Permit would help mitigate the affordable office crunch in the Town by freeing up rented office space which the University currently occupied.

Mayor Waldorf asked how much office space the University currently rented in terms of square footage. Mr. Strom replied that approximately 147,000 square feet of off-campus space was rented in non-University owned buildings, translating into $2 million per year in rent.

Mike Hammersly, also representing the applicant, gave a brief overview of the site plan for the proposed office building, noting the location of the landscape buffer, stormwater detention facility, and parking area.

UNC Associate Vice-Chancellor for Facilities Bruce Runberg said one issue of concern was that the University did not have authority to dedicate the requested public right-of-way on Airport Drive. He noted the University would have to gain permission from the Council of States to dedicate the right-of-way. Mr. Runberg suggested that if the University were going to dedicate right-of-way on Airport Drive, then a portion of Branch Street might also need to be dedicated.

Mr. Strom commented the University had asked an appraiser to discover if there would be any impact on surrounding property values as a result of this project. Mr. Strom gave a copy of this report to the Manager for entry into the hearing record. A copy of the report is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office.

Mr. Strom also noted that the University would support the construction of a sidewalk along its frontage and a continuation to Barclay Road, if this portion of the sidewalk could be located at the edge of the curb rather than set back three feet. He added that if setting the sidewalk back would require a retaining wall, then the University could reasonably obtain the approval of any adjacent property owner at no additional cost to the University.

Mr. Strom noted two additional objections the University had to the stipulations in the Manager's preliminary recommendation, 5b and 5c in Proposed Resolution A, since both stipulations dealt with sidewalk and pedestrian link improvements beyond the frontage of the subject property.

Planning Board representative Scott Radway noted that the Board recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with the conditions outlined in proposed Resolution B.

Council Member Andresen noted her relief that the building would be placed behind vegetation because of its box-like appearance. She asked whether the building would be used to store hazardous or non-hazardous materials, and how many employees would have offices at this site. Mr. Strom stated that no hazardous materials would be housed at this site and that about 250 employees would use this facility. Council Member Andresen asked where stormwater would likely go based on the site’s topography. She expressed concern that the homeowners near the site might experience some additional runoff. Mike Hammersly stated that the existing topography encouraged drainage to run away from existing homes.

Council Member Andresen inquired about the proposed lighting plan. Mr. Hammersly said that a lighting plan would be provided by the applicant. Council Member Andresen requested that the University be sensitive to nearby residents. Council Member Andresen inquired about the notification area for residents adjacent to the project. Mr. Horton referred the Council to a map on page 35 of the materials outlining the notification area. Council Member Andresen asked about the buffer for this area and whether it would be natural cover, planted, or both. Mr. Hammersly replied that on the back side there was a 50 foot buffer and the University planned to do some grading for a new buffer which would have varying widths.

Council Member Andresen asked what part this development would play in increasing traffic at the intersection of Estes Drive and Airport Road, specifically the number of cars/trips per day expected each day after the project was completed. Mr. Horton noted that this information would be provided when the item came back before the Council for action.

Referencing noise generated by this large scale building, Council Member Brown asked how this would be addressed so as not to disturb neighborhood residents. Mr. Runberg noted that this would be an office building, not a research facility, and that the University would ensure that the Town’s Noise Ordinance criteria were met. Council Member Brown asked about the timeframe for designing of the building. Mark Zack, project architect, noted that one of the goals was to provide office space and be cost effective. He added the building would have a number of administrative uses. Council Member Brown said she understood the design had not been completed as yet, which would include the building’s HVAC systems. She asked when the design would be available which would include the proposed HVAC systems. Mr. Zack replied that this information would be available when the Zoning Compliance Permit drawings were completed.

Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Runberg which administrative offices would occupy this building. Mr. Runberg said that there was a tentative plan for human resources and possibly other offices which would interface with human resources, although no definite plan had been completed. Council Member Wiggins noted that the design appeared box-like and institutional, and asked whether the Trustees had approved the design. Council Member Wiggins also stated that she found the proposed design to be troubling. Mr. Runberg replied that the University’s Trustees had approved the project’s preliminary design plans.

Council Member Foy asked whether the Town’s Design Review Board had approved the design of the building. Mr. Runberg answered that Board of Trustees had reviewed the project and found it to be acceptable. He compared the proposed project to the Giles Horney building, which was also fairly plain. Mr. Runberg also said that the design was not well-accepted by the Town’s Appearance Commission. Referencing the objections of the University to proposed stipulations 5b and 5c, Council Member Foy asked whether there would there be bicycle paths provided or whether they could be added in the future. He also commented that stipulations 5b and 5c attempted to address a traffic component of this project, adding that even though it was not on UNC land, it seemed that alternative transportation should be encouraged. Mr. Runberg said that the University objected because these stipulations were peripheral to the site.

Mr. Zack stated that a bus stop was located about 150 feet away from the proposed building, and he felt it made good planning sense to provide a pedestrian foot bridge to the building and to extend the sidewalk down to Barclay Road. Council Member Foy asked what the neighbors' response was to the proposal to connect the sidewalk to Branch Street. Mr. Zack answered that he had no information on this matter.

Mayor pro tem Capowski inquired about the chain link fence at the rear of the property. Mr. Zack stated that at the public information meeting an issue was raised about ready access through the woods to the back yard of a resident on Barclay Road. He stated that the University was proposing this approach as an accommodation to this citizen’s request. Mr. Zack also stated that the University would prefer not to provide such a fence. Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that the University was indeed objecting to stipulations 5b and 5c, and asked for a clarification of the objections. Mr. Zack stated that the objection was to the requested connection of the sidewalk from the NC86 bus stop to Airport Drive, and an improved pedestrian connection from the east side of the P lot through the existing gate to the bus stop of NC 86. Mayor pro tem Capowski asked whether the University could make do with a lesser amount of parking. Mr. Zack replied that the University would prefer to retain the proposed number of parking spaces.

Mayor Waldorf asked if the Town took over the right-of-way of Branch Street, would the practical effect be that the Town would maintain it. Mr. Horton responded that the Town was already maintaining the right-of-way. He noted that if it was indeed true, as it appeared, that no dedication of right-of-way existed, then the University could in its own interest close off access to this neighborhood. Mr. Horton added that it was important to have continued access for emergency services if for no other reason, and that it had served as a convenience for persons in the area. He noted that the Town had been maintaining Airport Drive in the belief that it was a public street and had expended Powell Bill funds on such maintenance. Mr. Horton stated that the Town was gratified that the University understood the reasonableness of keeping this as a public way.

Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Horton to comment on the advantages of a sidewalk set back from the curb. Mr. Horton responded that there was a certain psychological belief that a sidewalk set back three feet from the curb was much safer than a sidewalk built at the curb. He noted there was also a splash factor during wet weather. Mr. Horton stated that sidewalks built on the curb should generally be avoided, even though they might work well in some instances.

Council Member Foy stated when this item came back before the Council, he would like the applicant to address how bicycle use might play a part in the applicant’s transportation plan.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY AND RECESS THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 9TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 5: Development Ordinance Text Amendment to the Town Code - Downtown Parking

Planning Director Roger Waldon described the four changes which had been proposed to the current regulations and what these changes would mean. He said that the first two changes would be to the Development Ordinance. The first would allow the Town to require that payment-in-lieu of parking be made as part of the Transportation Management Plan, and the second change would be to increase the off-site parking distance allowed. Mr. Waldon noted that the next two changes would be to the Town Code, namely reducing the payment-in-lieu amount, and allowing payments-in-lieu to be made with an Irrevocable Letter of Credit.

Planning Board representative Scott Radway noted that the Board recommended approval of the first three proposed ordinances, but recommended denial of the fourth proposed ordinance regarding the irrevocable letter of credit. He stated that the Board suggested that text amendments be viewed in a more comprehensive manner as part of the downtown parking element of the Downtown Small Area Plan. Mr. Radway added that one Planning Board member expressed concern about the adequacy of handicapped parking spaces in the Town Center.

Council Member Brown asked staff to respond to the comment about parking lots with regard to zoning. Mr. Waldon replied that in order for a piece of land to be eligible for off-site parking, it would have to be in the Town Center, and that any parking so provided would have to be through the Special Use Permit process.

Council Member Andresen noted that she believed the payment-in-lieu proposal using a letter of credit was the correct way to go.

Council Member Foy asked whether the payment-in-lieu was rarely used. Mr. Horton said it had never been used.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY AND RECESS THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 9TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO MOVE INTO A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Mayor Waldorf noted that no public report would follow the closed session. The Council moved into closed session at 9:05 p.m.