SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000, AT 7:00 PM.
Mayor pro tem Lee Pavăo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council Members present were: Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Mayor Rosemary Waldorf was absent, excused.
Staff members present were: Acting Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Planning Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson, Fire Marshall Caprice Mellon, and acting Town Clerk Toni Pendergraph.
Item 1. Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit Modification
Application for University Mall Redevelopment
1a. Swearing in of persons wanting to present evidence.
1b. Introduction and preliminary recommendation by the Manager.
Planning Director Roger Waldon displayed a map showing the five areas where the applicant had requested additional floor space. He noted an outside recycling area and showed how the K & W Cafeteria would be moved to free up space inside the Mall for other uses. Mr. Waldon also indicated the proposed new recycling area, the new pedestrian paths, and the seven areas proposed for bio-retention basins.
Mr. Waldon noted that the applicant had asked for a modification of the Development Ordinance regarding: 1) permitting a larger amount of floor area and a smaller amount of outdoor space, livability space, and parking lot shading; 2) allowing the existing landscape buffer yards; and 3) allowing new and existing construction within the Resource Conservation Area. Mr. Waldon explained that the list seemed long because the facility had been built before the Town had these regulations and the existing site does not therefore meet the requirements.
Mr. Waldon said that the staff had recommended approval of the application with the conditions summarized on page eight of the memorandum and in Resolution A. He listed some of these conditions: improve the entrance off Willow Drive; close the old drive aisle beside Harris Teeter; remove a few parking spaces that are obstructive; modify an island to accommodate turning movements of transit vehicles; and, repair retaining wall between the Mall and Binkley Baptist Church.
1c. Presentation by the Applicant.
James W. Smith, of J. S. Architects, thanked Council Members Pavăo, Foy and Evans, as well as the Town staff, for helping the applicant reach this point. He noted that the applicant had made a significant effort to add green areas to the site. Mr. Smith pointed out that the applicant had removed parking area to do so, thereby reducing the impervious area by 1.37 acres.
1d. Recommendation by the Planning Board.
Gay Eddy reported that the Planning Board supported the staff on all the recommended stipulations, except two. She explained that Board members thought the heavy-duty pavement near the refuge recycling would be sufficient and that it would not have to be on all of the drive isles.
Ms. Eddy also reported that Board members thought it was not necessary to replace the drain pipe behind Harris Teeter if it was working as the applicant said it was. She said that the Board had voted 7-0 to support the modifications, with the stipulations that she had just mentioned. Ms. Eddy added that the Board strongly urged the Council to look into placing a pedestrian light on Willow Drive, and wondered if something could be done to mitigate the recycling noise disturbances, particularly at 6:00 a.m.
1e. Recommendations by other boards and commissions. None.
1f. Comments by Citizens.
Don Wilhoit, representing Binkley Baptist Church, listed some of the seventy or so community groups that use the church for meetings. He expressed concern about the orientation of the K & W Cafeteria, which he said would mask the view along about one-half of the Church’s southern boundary and preempt much of the parking area that has been shared by the Church and the Mall using a “gentleman’s agreement.” Noting that the side of the cafeteria facing the Church would have no windows, Mr. Wilhoit remarked that the Church endorses the Design Commission’s goal of having buildings attractive on all four sides.
Mr. Wilhoit stated that the ten-foot buffer between the Church and the Cafeteria seemed paltry. He suggested that a more integrated landscape with a reoriented cafeteria building would be preferable to a mere buffer. Mr. Wilhoit also questioned whether the current design would maintain or enhance the value of this contiguous property.
Mr. Wilhoit emphasized that Binkley Baptist Church members are not opposed to the cafeteria, but they think that the design needs to be reconsidered. Explaining that the Church would be approaching the Council in the near future with a plan for modifying its property, he suggested that the Mall and Church work together toward a mutually beneficial solution.
Ed Harrison spoke about bicycle access issues, the resource protection ordinance, and noise. He suggested that covered parking be restored. He urged the Council to think about flood plane issues. Mr. Harrison noted that a row of crepe myrtles would not be a sufficient noise barrier around the recycling center.
Gary Bird said that noise from the recycling center is a major intrusion into the homes of Ridgefield, where he lives. He explained that a Chapel Hill police officer had registered decibel levels of between 72 and 88 at one of the homes, and noted that this exceeds the regulated level. Mr. Bird agreed with the previous speaker that the Town needs a serious barrier to mitigate the noise. He recommended that if the Town cannot mitigate the noise, to consider relocating the recycling center. Mr. Bird stated that it is the Town’s rather than the applicant’s responsibility to make this project friendly to the neighbors.
Laura Philpot commented that even though Ridgefield residents are in favor of recycling they object to the noise being so close to their neighborhood. She noted that questions regarding noise and unsightliness had been asked about other structures on the site, but not about the recycling center, except by citizens.
Ms. Philpot also expressed concern about noise from the HVAC system. She noted that concerns had been raised about whether it would be hidden from sight, but nothing had been said about the noise associated with it. She asked that the impact of traffic going into the three new buildings also be looked at, pointing out that the University Mall entrance off Willow Drive does not have a traffic signal.
1g. Questions by the Mayor and Council Members.
Council Member Evans suggested a public/private investment in a sidewalk from Community Center Drive to Willow Drive along Estes Drive opposite the Mall. She noted that this would enhance pedestrian access to the Mall.
Council Member Foy pointed put that the subcommittee on which he served strove to reduce impervious surface. He said they did not intend to address every possible issue, adding that this is why they were having a public hearing. He acknowledged that the noise from the recycling facility was a serious concern and expressed the desire to reduce the noise prior to 7:00 a.m. Council Member Foy also suggested that the Town look at making the plan mutually beneficial to the Mall and Binkley Baptist Church.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Smith if learning of the possibility that the Town might eventually lower the acceptable HVAC decibel levels had affected the applicant’s design of the system. M r. Smith replied that the issue had not been addressed because the only building being designed now was the K & W Cafeteria, which had its own architect from Wilmington. Council Member Brown asked Mr. Smith to provide information about the potential noise impact of the HVAC system, and he agreed.
Council Member Brown asked if the applicant had met with members of Binkley Baptist Church. When Mr. Smith replied that they had not, Council Member Brown suggested that they do so.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Waldon if the bio-retention ponds would be for stormwater management as well as filtration. He replied that they would, adding that although the main focus of bio-retention is water quality it does manage water quantity as well. Council Member Brown clarified that the “park and ride” use would be only for special events.
Council Member Brown inquired about the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendations. Mr. Waldon replied that the two recommendations (that secure, covered and illuminated bicycle parking areas be distributed around the site to accommodate approximately 180 bicycles, and that signs be placed at all pedestrian crosswalks) had been handed to him just that day. He explained that he had not had a chance to respond but that he would do so when the item comes back to the Council in February.
Council Member Brown asked what the Community Design Commission’s recommendation for visual and noise screening between the recycling center and Fordham Boulevard would entail. She inquired about cost and about who would be responsible. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Manager’s recommendations state that the applicant would have to provide visual and noise screening or the recycling center would have to be moved to an alternate location.
Council Member Wiggins asked about creating a safe pedestrian crossing on Willow Drive. She expressed support for Council Member Brown’s request that a noise barrier be placed around the recycling area and that the applicant and Binkley Church representatives get together to address some of Binkley’s concerns. Council Member Wiggins added that perhaps the noise issue should be addressed Town-wide if other neighborhoods are being similarly affected by recycling centers.
Council Member Strom requested more information on how the bio-retention facilities work. He expressed support for an engineered barrier for sound and agreed that the Council should address the issue of noise from recycling centers.
Council Member Strom noted that the Greenway Commission had intended to extend the greenway to land on the other side of Fordham Boulevard across from University Mall. He asked if the applicant could give a greenway easement on the south side of Estes Drive for that purpose. Council Member Strom also wondered if it would be possible to get an easement for a buffer along Fordham Boulevard. He expressed concern that there was no safe and direct pedestrian route across Willow Drive into the parking lot.
Council Member Bateman concurred that something should be done about the noise at the recycling center, and suggested changing the time of operation in the morning. Referring to a letter from the Willow Terrace Homeowners Association, Council Member Bateman encouraged Mall Management to allow Willow Terrace residents to park at the Mall on evenings and weekends when businesses are closed. She expressed appreciation for the effort to reduce impervious surface and thanked the subcommittee of three Council Members for encouraging Mall Management to do so.
Council Member Ward noted that pedestrian access should be handicap accessible. He stressed the importance of doing all that is possible to make the Mall pedestrian friendly to people who live nearby, by including covered bike parking areas, pedestrian walkways, and improved sidewalks from Ridgefield along Estes Drive near 15/501.
Council Member Ward asked the developer to work harder on shade compliance. He pointed out that even though the percentage of shaded area had increased from 13% to 22%, the Ordinance asks for 35%. He stated that since the floor area is triple what the Ordinance allows the developer should make a greater effort to meet requirements in other areas. He argued that crepe myrtles would not create enough shade and requested that mature shade trees be planted instead. Council Member Ward also asked that the applicant comply with the Development Ordinance and reduce parking spaces by 56. He suggested using the saved area for trees instead.
Council Member Ward expressed support for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendations, and suggested building a sound wall around the recycling center. He recommended that the applicant and future applicants consider using porous concrete, which creates parking lot surfaces that drain into water retention areas. Council Member Ward noted that this substance was not new, and recommended that the applicant and the staff look into it.
Council Member Brown asked the staff to answer all of the questions in the letter from Willow Terrace residents when the item comes back to the Council.
Council Member Foy asked that the e-mail from Libby Thomas be entered into the public record. He also stated that the Council and the public should see the five-minute power point presentation on bio-retention ponds, and suggested putting that on the agenda.
H.R. Malpass, representing the 110-unit Willow Terrace Homeowners Association, explained that Willow Terrace covers two-thirds of the length of Willow Drive, and requested the construction of a crosswalk that would enable residents to cross “safely and comfortably” by the Chapel Hill Tire Company to the Willow Terrace Office. Ideally, he said, there would be a push-button crosswalk. Alternatively, he added, a speed limit sign might be brought out to view and amber caution lights would be helpful.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER MR. MALPASS’S COMMENTS AS A PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
1h. Applicant’s statement regarding proposed conditions.
Mr. Smith said that the applicant’s only objection to the conditions in Resolution A was the removal of six parking spaces. He noted that they already had reduced the parking greatly and stated that they might need those six spaces in the future because they have tentative plans to develop that piece of property in a way that would make parking critical.
Mr. Smith added, in response to a citizen’s earlier comment, that neither he nor others had said that the applicant did not want the recycling center located at the Mall. They had said, he explained, that “they would not object if someone wanted it on another site.” Mr. Smith stated that he would meet with the owner and “very carefully” discuss the comments from the public hearing.
1i. Determination by Council of area to be considered as “contiguous property.” (R-1).
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO INCREASE THE AREA CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY BY 500, MAKING IT 1500 SQUARE FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
1j. Motion to recess public hearing.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL FEBRUARY 28, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment and Special Use
Permit for Providence Glen Condominiums.
2a. Public Hearing on Zoning Atlas Amendment for Providence Glen Condominiums.
2b. Public Hearing on Special Use Permit Application for Provident Glen Condominiums -- Planned Development Housing.
Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper suggested that presentations on Items 2.a and 2.b be combined. Mayor pro tem Pavăo agreed.
2a & b(1). Swearing in of persons wishing to present evidence.
2a & b(2). Introduction and preliminary recommendation by the Manager.
Ms. Culpepper explained that the application proposed rezoning a 23.7-acre tract of land south of Sterling Drive from Residential 2 to Residential 5c. She said that the accompanying Special Use Permit proposed a multi-family development on that site. Ms. Culpepper reported that the staff’s preliminary recommendation was for approval.
Ms. Culpepper noted that the Council had to make one of three findings to approve the rezoning request. She added that the request could be justified both because there had been a change in conditions in the area and because it achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding the Special Use Permit, Ms. Culpepper noted that it involves 16 buildings, with 12 units in each of the buildings and a total of 192 condominium units. She indicated the recreation facilities and tennis courts and the pedestrian connection to the nearby Lowes area. Ms. Culpepper said that the staff’s preliminary recommendation was for approval of the Special Use Permit, with conditions, if the rezoning application is approved.
Ms. Culpepper noted that the applicant had offered to construct a sidewalk from Sage Road to the Eastowne loop. She pointed out conditions calling for construction of a bus pull-off and shelter on Sterling Drive, continuous sidewalks connecting buildings, and minor grading and landscaping.
2a & b(3) Presentation by the Applicant.
Dawn Heric, of the John R. McAdams Company, said that the applicant had lowered the number of units from 216 in 18 buildings to 192 in 16 buildings in response to the staff’s and the Community Design Commission’s requests. She pointed out that they also had added a sidewalk and a bus pull-off along Sterling Drive, had consolidated recreation areas, had realigned entrances, and had added a nature trail for public use. Ms. Heric stated that the applicant had increased on-site sidewalk connections, including internal crosswalks on the site, had put in covered or enclosed bicycle storage areas, and had added lighting in certain pedestrian areas.
Ms. Heric stated that the applicant agreed with the staff’s assessment that approval of the rezoning request could be based on changing conditions in the area or the fact that the request achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. She said that the proposed density meets the medium density residential classification assigned to this property in the Land Use Plan.
Regarding the Special Use Permit, Ms. Heric said that the applicant agreed with the staff’s conditions for approval in the Manager’s resolution. She added that the proposed development meets both the required Special Use Permit findings and the requirements of the Planned Development zoning regulations in that it is designed to preserve significant natural features and to minimize impact on adjacent properties. She added that the location near transportation routes and employment centers makes this an ideal area for condominium-type development.
Ms. Heric added that the development would create no additional traffic in residential neighborhoods. She said that the existing level of service on adjacent roadways would not be changed by the development. Ms. Heric further stated that there is adequate existing water and sewer to service the site.
Ms. Heric argued that the project is compatible with surrounding land uses. She said that the retention of natural woodlands and the proposed new landscaping around the site’s perimeter would buffer adjacent properties from the development. She added that the applicant believes the development is consistent with Chapel Hill’s design guidelines, as it includes two- and three-bedroom units that are moderately priced to appeal to a wide range of homebuyers.
Ms. Heric noted that the project would be designed to meet Duke Power’s energy efficient ratings. She said that the proposal meets or exceeds the requirements of the Town’s Development Ordinance and that approval of the rezoning and the Special Use Permit would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Development Ordinance, and previous approvals which had created a pattern of land uses in the vicinity.
Michael Latner, a landscape architect with Kline Davis Architects, stated that the applicant had worked to incorporate the recommendations of the staff and the various commissions into the plan. He indicated on overhead maps where some of the adaptations that Ms. Heric had mentioned would be.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Latner if the price range of the units had changed when the number of units was reduced from 216 to 192. Mr. Latner replied that it had not.
Council Member Ward asked what the terms “affordable” and “moderately priced” meant. Ms. Heric replied that, for this development, it meant approximately $150,00-$200,000.
2a &b(4) Recommendation by the Planning Board.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, stated that the Board had been impressed with the attention the applicant had given to saving the vegetation and with the pedestrian orientation within the site. She noted that the Board’s recommendations about bicycle facilities and pedestrian access between buildings had been added to the staff recommendations. Ms. Eddy reported that the Planning Board had voted (8-0) for approval of the rezoning and the Special Use Permit. She asked the Council to look into the possibility of another pedestrian crossing over US 15/501 at Sage Road in the future.
2a & b(5) Recommendations by other boards and commissions. None.
2a & b(6) Comments by Citizens.
Alison Weiner, chair of the Community Land Trust, asked how rezoning that allows an applicant to build twice as many units as is currently allowed would serve the community in the way that the community wants. She noted that there would be an opportunity to create affordable housing in this project, through voluntary inclusionary zoning. Ms. Weiner explained that this would mean making a percentage of the total number of homes affordable to low- or moderate-income households in return for increased density.
Ms. Weiner requested that the Council ask the developer to consider making 15% of the total number of units affordable to households which earn 80% or less of the median income and to discuss this with Orange Community Housing Corporation and the Town staff. She noted that the method of long-term affordability would have to be worked out.
Ms. Weiner also asked Council Members to direct the Town Attorney to help find out whether or not a deed restriction on an unsubsidized property could include a resale provision that insures affordability and, if so, who would oversee it. She added that the County Attorney may be exploring the issue as well.
Ms. Weiner expressed disappointment that affordability is “once again” being considered late in the process. She suggested that the Council make its intentions clear at the beginning of the development process.
Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange Community Housing Corporation, praised the site plan for being well thought out and having an appropriate price range. He added, though, that if OCHC had been given an opportunity to approach the developer earlier in the process there probably would have been an opportunity to have more affordable units in the $130,000-$150,000 range. Mr. Dowling stressed that the developers had done a good job, and emphasized that he did not intend to stand in their way but merely wanted to ask that affordability be included in discussions earlier in the process.
2a & b(7) Questions by the Mayor and Council Members.
Council Member Brown asked the staff where the project was in relation to bus routes. Mr. Waldon replied that he did not have that information at hand. Acting Town Manager Florentine Miller noted that information would be obtained.
Council Member Brown asked that someone address the difference between “affordable” on page four and "moderately priced” on page twelve. The applicant indicated that both terms meant $150,000-$200,000.
Council Member Brown asked the applicant if they would be willing to meet with the Land Trust representatives and discuss some of the issues that had been raised. Ms. Heric replied that she already had spoken with Ms. Weiner and that the applicant is “more than happy” to meet and discuss this. She added that the applicant does not yet know what 80% of the median income in Chapel Hill would be.
Council Member Brown asked the applicant to address having some percentage of the units affordable and also how to keep them affordable. Ms. Heric asked if the applicant would have the assistance of the Town Attorney in determining how the units could be kept affordable. Town Attorney Karpinos stated that the Council would make that decision, and Council Members expressed general support for the idea.
Council Member Bateman added that she did not think the affordable units had to be the same size as the other units. Ms. Heric replied that dividing units in that way might cause problems regarding total number of units. She asked if there would be a possibility of a density bonus with affordable housing. Council Member Bateman suggested including that in the discussion.
Council Member Ward asked for clarification on whether or not there was a sidewalk to the recycling facility. The applicant replied that there was. Council Member Ward recommended using porous asphalt rather than detention ponds. Ms. Heric explained that the one detention pond had become a water feature and that the other sediment control basins were only temporary and would be removed after construction.
Council Member Evans asked if it would be wise to have a pedestrian connection on available land at the corner of Sage and Sterling Drive. Ms. Culpepper replied that she thought the designation on the Comprehensive Plan was for offices. She offered to answer with certainty when the staff report comes back in February. Council Member Evans expressed enthusiasm for the idea of having some pedestrian easement there. Ms. Heric agreed that the applicant would be in agreement with that.
Council Member Foy thanked the applicant for their willingness to talk with the land Trust and OCHC. He expressed concern, though, about the development’s placement along the US 15/501 corridor, which will someday be a transit corridor. Noting that the Development Ordinance calls for 317 spaces, Council Member Foy pointed out that this project would build out at 383 spaces. He suggested decreasing the number of proposed spaces by 10%, keeping in mind the goal of encouraging the use of public transportation.
Council Member Strom expressed appreciation for the applicant’s willingness to discuss affordable housing options this late in the process. Council Member Wiggins suggested to the staff that they have incentives available to the applicant that would make this a deal that none can refuse.
2a & b(8) Applicant’s statement regarding proposed conditions.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked Ms. Heric if the applicant was in agreement with the conditions of Resolution A. She replied that they were.
2a & b(9) Determination by Council of area to be considered “contiguous property” (R-2).
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO CONSIDER CONTIGUOUS ALL PROPERTY WITHIN 1,000 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
2a & b(10) Motion to recess Public Hearing.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 28, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 3 Public Hearing on Special Use Permit Application
for UNC Wellness Center at Meadowmont.
3a. Swearing in of persons wishing to present evidence.
3b. Introduction and preliminary recommendation by the Manager.
J. D. Culpepper explained that the application was for a two-story, 52,000 square-foot recreation and health center on a 7.6 acre site on the corner of Meadowmont Lane and Sprunt Road. She said that the 1995 Meadomont Master Land Use Plan had identified a Wellness Center of this size and in this general location. Ms. Culpepper noted that Master Plan approval had required adjustment of the transit corridor. She said that the applicant had attempted to accommodate that with their site plan.
Ms. Culpepper stated that the plan proposes 217 parking spaces with a primary point of access off Sprunt Road and an emergency access to Meadowmont Lane near the Rizzo Center. She pointed out the proposed greenway along the western edge of the property.
Ms. Culpepper said that the staff’s preliminary recommendation was for approval of Resolution A with several key conditions involving restrictions on the Meadowmont Lane point of access. In spite of the Meadowmont land use plan, she said, the staff supports an emergency access. Ms. Culpepper noted that the staff also supported stipulations that there be covered bike racks and that the sidewalk network link to the greenway on the western edge of the property. She added that in the case that ownership of the property reverts to the University or another tax-exempt entity, the property owner would be required to make a payment to the Town in lieu of property taxes.
3c. Presentation by the Applicant.
Dan Layman, associate director of planning for UNC hospitals, outlined the program and facility of the integrated hospital-based Wellness Center. He said that the Meadowmont location is convenient, well connected to existing and potential future transportation networks, and had on-site parking. Mr. Layman stated that the facility would serve the community in its broadest context and that it would complete an important component of the care continuum offered by UNC hospitals and the UNC health care system.
Mark Hammersley of Corley Redfoot and Zack, Inc., showed on overhead maps how the proposed application would comply with the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan: The Wellness Center would be at the intersection of Meadowmont Lane and Sprunt Drive; parking would be wrapped around the north and west side of the site and screened by the building; building is 52,000 square feet; and, public access point is on Meadowmont Lane.
Mr. Hammersley noted that during approval of the infrastructure Special Use Permit the transit corridor had been disassociated from Meadowmont Lane, thus creating green space. He proposed approval of an emergency only access drive on Meadowmont Lane.
Mr. Hammersley pointed out that if the Center were considered a clinic or a general business the ordinance parking ratio would be one space per 250 square feet, which equals 208 parking spaces. He noted that the Center has 317 spaces, seven of which are designated for handicapped. Mr. Hammersley added that a traffic consultant’s study had recommended more parking spaces but that the applicant had taken it down by 20% from actual demand because there is other parking available at Meadowmont.
Mr. Hammersley stated that the applicant agreed with all of the stipulations in the resolutions, except for the raised crosswalks in the parking lot. He said that the applicant agreed with the suggestion to change the paving pattern but did not want to put speed bumps in the parking lot. Mr. Hammersly reported that the applicant preferred the Design Commission’s resolution that the public access on Meadowmont Lane be a complete public way rather than an emergency access.
Council Member Bateman asked for more explanation of how residents of the Retirement Center would get to the Wellness Center. Mr. Hammersley replied that various recommendations had been made but, as it stands, it would be about a quarter-mile walk. Mr. Layman added that the drop-off area in front of the building could accommodate a shuttle bus to and from the Retirement Community and other areas.
3d. Recommendation by Planning Board.
Ms. Eddy said that the Planning Board supported the application 8-0. She added that the Board thought it would be important to get ambulances through the emergency access on Meadowmont Lane.
3e. Recommendations by other boards and Commissions. None.
3f. Comments by Citizens. None.
3g. Questions by the Mayor and Council Members.
Council Member Ward inquired about an oak tree that would be saved and a significant ash tree that is planned for removal. He suggested that modifying the direction of the storm drain would allow the ash tree to be saved as well. Council Member Ward added that since many Wellness Center clients would be coming from Meadowmont they would be able to walk and use bicycles. He asked the applicant therefore to reduce the number of parking spaces to 208.
Council Member Foy asked if the staff had discussed bio-retention drainage for this lot.
Mr. Hammersley said he did not recall discussing this with the staff but that his firm had discussed it internally. He showed on the map where a bio-retention area could be built and said that the applicant would have no objection to doing so.
Council Member Foy asked if people would buy memberships to the Center. Mr. Hammersly replied that there would be three categories--paying members, people who are going there on doctors’ orders, and an educational component open to the entire community.
Council Member Strom asked for a tighter explanation of the “payment-in-lieu” section.
Council Member Evans requested a larger picture of the road network at Meadowmont, and advocated a sidewalk along the emergency access.
Council Member Bateman agreed that the staff should look again at building a sidewalk.
Ms. Culpepper explain that the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan prohibits vehicular access onto Meadowmont Lane. She said that the applicant was interested in having an entrance there and that the staff’s “compromise” had been to have emergency access at that location. Mayor pro tem Pavăo pointed out that there could be a sidewalk along the emergency entrance. Ms. Culpepper agreed.
Mr. Hammersly pointed out that two separate lots had been incorporated into the plan. Noting that the Master Plan says that pairs of lots get one driveway, he suggested that the emergency access could be seen as placing the curb cut that would have been there if those two had remained residential lots.
Council Member Ward agreed that pedestrian access is a good idea but suggested putting it on the southeastern edge of the parking lot where there already is a perimeter of sidewalks. He added that an entrance that would allow only right turns into it seemed appropriate and would not cause difficulty. Council Member Ward again recommended using porous concrete material.
Council Member Foy argued that the staff had made a good compromise on the access road. He commented that the area would become more complicated when there is a transit corridor nearby and discouraged “tampering with the staff’s compromise.” Mayor pro tem Pavăo agreed.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Karpinos if the erosion bond was required. He agreed to check on that.
3h. Applicant’s statement regarding proposed conditions.
Mr. Hammersly said that the applicant agreed with all of the recommendations, except for the raised traffic calming devices on Resolution D.
3i. Determination by the Council of area to be considered as “contiguous property” (R-3).
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO CONSIDER ALL PROPERTY WITHIN 1,000 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3j. Motion to recess Public Hearing.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL FEBRUARY 14, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
4a. Introduction by Manager.
Fire Marshal Caprice Mellon explained that the proposed ordinance would require those in its extraterritorial jurisdiction to apply for a permit and would prohibit any open burning without a permit from the Town Fire Marshall. She added that this would give the Fire Department the opportunity to stipulate requirements that should improve safety. It also would give the Fire Department enforcement authority, she said.
4b. Comments by Citizens. None.
4c. Questions by the Mayor and Council Members.
Council Member Ward asked if he would need a permit for the boy scouts to make a camp fire in his back yard. Ms. Marsall replied that he would, adding that for the boy scouts, though, the Fire Department would waive the fee.
Council Member Bateman asked what a “symbolic fire” was, as mentioned in the memo. Ms. Mellon gave the example of the Easter fire behind the St. Thomas Moore Church each year.
Council Member Foy asked where the current language on this was located. Mr. Karpinos replied that it was in the Fire Code, which is adopted by reference in the Town Code, which are the current policies under which the Fire Marshall operates. He said that this was a new ordinance and that it would be added to the Town Code specifically, as opposed to being added to the Town Code that is adopted by reference.
4d. Referral to the Manager and Attorney.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADJOURN. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOULY (8-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.