SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2000 AT 7:00 PM

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were: Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, and Acting Town Clerk Toni Pendergraph.

Item 1 - Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Application for the Cedars of Chapel Hill Retirement Community

Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper explained that the application was for a 50-acre portion of the 425-acre Meadowmont development.  She said that it involved 250 apartments, a clubhouse, 50 homes and an 84-bed health care facility.  Ms. Culpepper indicated two proposed points of access on Meadowmont Lane and two on Barbee Chapel Road.  She said that the Planning Department had concluded that the application was generally consistent with the approved Master Plan.  Ms Culpepper noted that the burden of proving that an application does not meet three of the four findings shifts to those opposed to permit approval if an application is consistent with the conceptual Master Plan.

Ms. Culpepper stated that issues regarding parking spaces and tree preservation had been raised during the application process.  She explained that the Development Ordinance requires a minimum of 517 parking spaces for this facility and that the applicant had proposed 683.  Therefore, Ms. Culpepper said, the staff was recommending that the application be approved for 568 spaces, using the guideline of 110% of the minimum requirement. 

Ms. Culpepper noted that a reduction in surface parking would create a reduction of overall impervious surface and would create opportunities for tree preservation.   She noted that even though the Master Plan had approved clearing 85%-100% of the land the applicant had agreed to preserve trees in front of the health care facility and along the main entrance to the facility on Meadowmont Lane.  Ms. Culpepper added that the staff was recommending wider caliper trees along Barbee Chapel Road and Meadowmont Lane.

Robert Woodruff, representing the applicant, explained that the Cedars would be similar to Carol Woods and Carolina Meadows.  He stressed the need for another of this type of community in Chapel Hill, since the other two have waiting lists.   Mr. Woodruff pointed out that the Cedars is different from the others because people will own their own residences there.  He noted that the Master Plan’s alternative uses for this land had been either a congregate care retirement community, or 265 apartments, or 350 residences as part of a retirement community.  He noted that they were requesting only 300 residences, rather than 350, and that the traffic impact would be significantly less than would be created by 265 apartments. 

Mr. Woodruff noted that the Cedars would have significantly less impact on the schools than an apartment project would have.  He described the architecture as a “timeless” style that would look as though it had been part of Chapel Hill “forever.”  Mr. Woodruff added that the Cedars also would be pedestrian-friendly.

Architect Alan Moore explained that the goal of the project was to support the independence of older adults while reflecting the character of Chapel Hill.  He presented design drawings depicting a great lawn in the center of the property, adding it was patterned after the Polk Place quadrangle on the UNC campus.  Mr. Moore explained that the quadrangle would be surrounded by four-story residential “villas,” with parking below and a clubhouse at the end.  He also showed the lower-scaled “veranda units,” which would be built around the perimeter, including the large porches exposure on three sides, and parking underneath.  The remaining “cottages,” Mr. Moore said, would have garages in the back and built on various elevations to create a traditional neighborhood feel.

Mr. Moore indicated the corridor to the health care facility and explained that preliminary research had found that potential residents wanted available health care but “do not want to be confronted with it every day.”  He said that the state-of-the-art health care center would be a cluster design that would have interior courtyards for Alzheimer’s patients.  Mr. Moore presented artists’ sketches showing the clubhouse, villas, a three-story veranda, and a typical cottage streetscape.

Site engineer John R. McAdams, of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc., said that numbers one, three and four of the required four findings had been achieved by the applicant’s conformance with the approved Master Plan for Meadowmont.  He added that they do conform with the required regulations and standards in number two as well.  Mr. McAdams then addressed seven of the thirty-eight stipulations in Resolution A:

Stipulation #2.  Mr. McAdams noted a typo under the first bullet.  He pointed out that the figure should be 728,603 square feet.  He added that the applicant seeks 683 parking spaces, not 568 as listed in Resolution A.

Stipulation #3.  Mr. McAdams stated that the applicant seeks not to have the provision for limitation of square footages apply to the Cedars, because the homes will be owned as condominiums, not as separate lots.  He requested the deletion or revision of this stipulation because it not applicable.

Stipulation #12.  Mr. McAdams stated that the applicant did not see the need to have a direct connection from the proposed commercial area to a residential retirement community.  He noted that there is a sidewalk there and requested that the stipulation to have pedestrian/bicycle access be deleted.

Stipulation #16.  Mr. McAdams requested the deletion of the fifth bullet regarding sidewalk/bikepaths to the Lloyd property because no one knows what might become of that property.

Stipulation #17a.  Mr. McAdams argued that 568 parking spaces would be deficient.  He noted that Chapel Hill’s ordinance does not include the type of community that the Cedars would be, and emphasized that the Cedars of Chapel Hill is not just 300 apartments and a health care center.  Mr. McAdams explained that it would employ about 150 people.  He noted that no parking had been allocated for the clubhouse, which would house many activities.  Mr. McAdams argued against the way the staff’s figures had been determined and pointed out that 170 of the spaces would be under buildings. 

Mr. McAdams explained that there is a need for internal transportation, and added that there is a need to accommodate the parking needs of employees and visitors as well.  He said that they will have to do diligent transportation management, even with 683 spaces, and that not all of the employees will be able to drive to work.

Mr. McAdams pointed out that parking spaces do not translate to trips generated.  He noted that the land had been approved in the Meadowmont Master Plan for two different uses—265 residential apartments (peak hour trips generated would have been 162, daily 862), or a retirement community of up to 350 units (95 peak hour trips, 377 daily).   Mr. McAdams stated that the Cedars was within the second category—but with only 300 units, which translates to 81 peak hour trips and 323 daily trips.  He stressed that parking would be needed because the Cedars’ residents would need a place to park their cars, even if they don’t use them very much. 

Mr. McAdams noted that 170 parking spaces would be under buildings even though there is no ordinance requirement that they put them there.  He pointed out that the applicant had met all other guidelines and had sought no variances.  Mr. McAdams said they had presumed that the Town’s recommendation of 564 spaces meant on the surface, so they put 120 under buildings along with 50 more from the 564, which left only 513 out on the site.  Mr. McAdams asked the Town Council to approve this Special Use Permit with a limitation of 513 spaces out on the site and up to 170 more under the buildings.

Stipulation #21.  Mr. McAdams requested deletion of the requirement to preserve the magnolias west of the health care facilities because the trees are “scraggly,” he said, and interfere with the health care center site.

Stipulation #22.  Mr. McAdams asked for approval of trees along the perimeter to be 2.5 inches in caliper rather than 3.5 inches, as recommended in Resolution A.  He noted that the ordinance only requires 2 inch calipers.

Mr. Moore repeated that the parking spaces were very important to the applicant.  He pointed out that automobiles are important to older adults because it gives them a feeling of independence even though studies have shown that they do not use their cars very much.  Mr. Moore added that the community’s programs would be open to others in Chapel Hill, so there would be a need for parking spaces for them as well.

Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy said that the Board had found the application to be consistent with the Master Plan and that it had met the requirements of the Development Ordinance.  She said that the Board had voted unanimously for approval, but with three stipulations that are different from the Manager’s recommendations.  She noted that two of those stipulations were: that the applicant not be required to save the magnolias, which the applicant thought would detract from the appearance of the project; that the applicant nor be required to plant 3.5-inch calipers, since the Development Ordinance requires only 2-inch calipers and the difference between 2.5-inch and 3.5-inch is a lot of money.

Ms. Eddy added that Board was pleased to see that the applicant had put 170 parking spaces under the buildings without an ordinance requiring it.  She predicted that parking spaces would be much needed at the clubhouse, which will be a public facility to which some residents will not be able to walk.   She said that the Board felt that the applicant’s request for 683 parking spaces was justified.  Ms. Eddy added that the Board was impressed by the project and had recommended its approval.

Sally Villas, a life-long Chapel Hill resident who has been looking for a retirement community for her and her husband, commented on the four-to-five year waiting list at the other retirement facilities in Chapel Hill.  She strongly urged the Council to approve the application and to give the applicant all the special permits they needed.  Ms. Villas also urged the Council to begin working toward other retirement community options that will be more affordable to the diverse community of Chapel Hill.

Eric Phefferkorn explained that he and his wife were prospective residents of the Cedars, and commented that if parking is limited then he will be one without a car.  He pointed out that most homes have two or three cars, and predicted that it is unlikely that such behavior will change.

Mary Morrow, who has lived in Chapel Hill for 50 years, noted the long wait at both Carol Woods and Carolina Meadows, which is between three and five years.  She said that she had recently seen some of her old friends at a Cedars meeting, and pointed out that “they really are Chapel Hill residents who are going to live there.”  Since the Cedars is close to Chapel Hill, Ms. Morrow said, residents would be spending their money in the Town.  She said that because the planners have a prototype center in Charlotte they know exactly what the parking needs are.   Ms. Morrow stressed that a prompt approval of the Special Use Permit would be in the best interest of Chapel Hill’s senior citizens.

William Hook said that he and his wife were very excited about the Cedars because of its location and its ownership concept, among other things.  He remarked that the freedom to drive is as important to them now as it was when they were younger.  Mr. Hook added that he and his wife would like to have parking for friends and family who come to visit.

Council Member Bateman explained that she would have to leave in the middle of the meeting to go to a School Board meeting.  She asked if the community would have vans.  Mr. Moore replied that they would be available for transportation and that the monthly fee would include internal transportation for those who call and request it.  Council Member Bateman inquired about the square footage of the cottages, and Mr. Moore replied that they would range from 1,500-sq. ft. to 2,800 sq. ft.  Council Member Bateman then asked to see the project on the map within the context of the entire Meadowmont development.  Mr. Moore displayed a map.

Council Member Foy, referring to a letter from the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA), noted it said that the “driveway should be removed at the time of transit use of the right-of-way,” and asked what driveway the letter was referring to.  Ms. Culpepper indicated a transit corridor that would cross through the site and the proposed connection from the health care facility to the main portion of the site.  Council Member Foy asked which roadway would be closed.  Ms. Culpepper stated that it would be the connector.  Council Member Foy asked how people would then get access to the health care facility.  Ms. Culpepper explained that it would be via Meadowmont Lane and the sidewalk along the western portion of the site. 

Council Member Foy inquired about TTA’s letter, which said that “other mitigation measures may have to be installed at time of transit installation.”  Mr. Horton replied that he thought the letter meant that TTA was trying to forestall any liability claim. Council Member Foy asked that language that alerts homeowners when they buy a unit that their garages are within 20 feet of the transit corridor be included in the deed so that the Town will not have people complaining about the corridor ten years from now.

Council Member Brown requested information on how much square footage would be in the 300 residential dwelling units and how much would be in commercial space.  Mr. McAdams replied that 44,200 of the proposed 728,603 square feet would be the clubhouse, which is an adjunct to the residential area, and about 60,000 would be the health care center.  He noted that a little more than 100,000 then would be in the “non-immediately resident occupied heated square footage.”  Council Member Brown asked Mr. Horton to discuss with the applicant how this would fit into the overall square footage for commercial and retail that had been approved in the Master Land Use Plan.

Council Member Brown asked to see a total of where exchanges of floor areas were coming from.  Ms. Culpepper pointed out that the packet contained some detailed tally sheets, which listed the total square footage for the site and where those allocations are.  She agreed to provide more information, however.  Council Member Brown also asked the staff to bring back information on where the two access points from Meadowmont to the Lloyd Property would be.

Council Member Strom asked what will happen to Meadowmont Lane when there is a crossing, and who would pay for it when rail (or whatever) comes through.  Ms. Culpepper indicated on the map where the transit corridor crosses Meadowmont Lane.  She added that the Town does not yet know what type of facilities would be used in that corridor so they cannot know what will be needed for that crossing.  Mr. Horton added that the TTA would pay the bill, which would not be anyone else’s responsibility. 

Council Member Strom asked if it would be the applicant’s option to get a crossing through there.  Mr. Horton replied that there would have to be agreement with TTA to construct any kind of crossing in that area.  He explained that TTA had indicated a preference for an aerial crossing and would not agree to any at-grade crossing.  Council Member Strom asked who would pay if there were going to be an internal at-grade crossing, and Mr. Horton replied that the applicant would pay. 

Council Member Evans ascertained that three meals per day would be served at the center.  She asked what the seating capacity would be in the dining area, but the applicant did not know off hand.  Council Member Evans pointed out that visitors come to retirement communities around mealtimes and need parking spaces.  Mr. Moore explained that the center could be viewed as a multi-use facility.  He noted that if one considered the ordinance for each one of those uses the total would be many more spaces than the number being requested.

Council Member Evans asked if there would be any on-street parking.  Mr. Moore replied that no parking spaces would be designated, but that some people probably would park on the streets anyway.  She noted that people who move into these communities continue with activities and clubs, and need additional parking for associated events, which will sometimes be in their homes.  Mr. Moore replied that cars on the streets would not be towed. 

Council Member Evans asked what size caliper trees the Town had requested for the rest of Meadowmont.  Ms. Culpepper replied that she would have to research the answer.  Council Member Evans remarked that this might give a guideline for consistency. 

Council Member Evans suggested adding a pedestrian walkway at the corner by the transit corridor.  Mr. Moore said that the grade was too steep there to justify doing that since only a few people would benefit.  Council Member Evans asked the staff to look into finding a pedestrian connection somewhere in that area.

Council Member Evans asked if gardening sites were being planned.  Mr. McAdams explained that gardening spots were very important and definitely would be provided as part of the recreation space.  Council Member Evans clarified that the segregated recycling was for the dining area only, not for the apartments.

Council Member Wiggins asked Ms. Culpepper to explain why the staff chose the lower number of parking spaces, why the 513 above ground does not satisfy the ordinance, and why the additional ones under the buildings would or would not impact the 513.  Ms. Culpepper replied that the staff had applied parking requirements, which are based on the number of bedrooms in the dwelling units and the number of beds proposed for the health care facility.   She said that they did not count the clubhouse.  Ms. Culpepper explained that the staff then took the minimum of 513 and applied the guideline of 110% of the minimum and came up with 564.  She said they were please to see the proposed under-building parking.  She explained that there would be an opportunity to leave more vegetation than the applicant had proposed if more parking spaces were removed.  Ms. Culpepper pointed out that Carol Woods had no problems with 600 spaces.

Council Member Wiggins pondered the applicant’s approach of putting additional spaces under buildings at their own expense.  Ms. Culpepper pointed out that the Planning Board had recommended not penalizing the applicant for the under-building parking spaces.  She stated that there were a number of ways to look at this, and commented that the Development Ordinance at this time does not give a bonus for under-building parking. 

Council Member Wiggins ascertained that the applicant was within the impervious surface limit and that the need to reduce that was merely a Town preference.  Mr. Horton commented that the staff’s impression had been that the Council wished them to be tough on parking, and so they were.  He said that the Council, as policy-maker, could always bring to bear additional considerations, even in the case of recognizing exceptions to the minimum.

Council Member Ward pointed out that the relief valve for the perimeter drive by the clubhouse was before the drop-off, which means that people have to go back around again to find a parking space.  Mr. Moore replied that there would be an entrance to the building near the parking lot.  He said that they could not figure out a way for people to drop off and then go to the parking lot without having to go around the circle.  Mr. Moore said that the applicant would welcome any ideas if Council members think it is important to change that. 

Council Member Ward said that he agreed with Council Member Evans’ comments about the need for a walkway from the clubhouse to the corner of Meadowmont Lane and the road to the health care facility.  He stressed that this should be done even if it means removing one of the houses because of the difficult grading.  Council Member Ward also suggested that the applicant look at the porous paving material that had been suggested to other applicants.  He ascertained that the driveways would be two concrete strips with grass in the middle.

Council Member Foy noted that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had recommended eliminating the road around the courtyard and replacing it with a sidewalk and bicycle path. Noting that he could see why the applicant would not want to do that, he asked if it would be possible to eliminate half of the road and maybe have the southern half create a turnaround area by the building so that traffic could be diverted back around the apartments on the south side.  Council Member Foy acknowledged that this would mean redesigning the clubhouse so that the drop-off would be in the right corridor.  Mr. Woodruff replied that Council Member Foy’s suggestion would be a practical solution.  He pointed out that the applicant had spent a lot of time looking at the characteristics the central space, including issues of traffic circulation, in an attempt to create a very special environment.  Mr. Woodruff said they had concluded that the traffic pattern was secondary to making this an important space visually.  He remarked that a secondary loop at the end would work against what they were trying to create. 

Mr. Woodruff pointed out that the circular drive would be used by pedestrians and possibly even bicyclists.  He stressed that it would be important to allow traffic to come into the space because part of what makes a space so interesting is having people coming and going.  Mr. Woodruff pointed out that some people might enjoy seeing traffic coming into the area.  He added that the applicant did not, however, want to make it so easily accessible that people would use it all the time.  Mr. Woodruff stated that the applicant had struggled with some of the same issues the Council was raising but had decided that the formal configuration in the center was the essence of the project and opted to work around the other details. 

Council Member Brown noted that there was no joining of apartments.  She asked if the applicant had considered having a way to go through rather than going out and get into cars.  Mr. Woodruff replied that they had discussed it extensively and had looked closely at the Cypress of Charlotte and other communities that had been built along these lines.  He said that such communities had been successful because residents were not treated like residents of an institutional environment.  Mr. Woodruff noted that those residents valued the independence of their buildings and were willing to put up with going out into the weather in exchange for having a less institutional environment.

Council Member Evans commented there could be a circle at the end of the green by the clubhouse to alleviate the turnaround problem. 

Mr. McAdams noted that most of the applicant’s response to the conditions had been made during his earlier presentation.  He added, though, that they wished to be relieved of the stipulation to preserve trees from the side of Meadowmont Lane where construction already had caused their removal.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO CONSIDER THE AREA WITHIN 500 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE CEDARS OF CHAPEL HILL RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF MEADOWMONT (2000-04-17/R-1)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having  considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit for the Cedars of Chapel Hill Retirement Community of Meadowmont, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit application to be that property described as follows:

All properties within 500 feet of the site.

This the 17^th day of April, 2000.

Council Member Foy asked the applicant what they proposed to offer in terms of affordable housing.  He noted that one of the speakers had encouraged the Council to seek affordability for seniors as well as other Chapel Hill citizens.  Acknowledging that it would not be fair to impose the recently adopted ordinance on this applicant at this point, Council Member Foy asked what they plan to do about affordability in this project.  Mr. Moore replied that residences would be in the $200,000 range, which is below the average price of a new home in Chapel Hill.  He said that the monthly fee would be around $1,400-$1,500 per month, which probably would not be affordable to people below the median income or at the poverty level.  Mr. Moore added that people at the Cedars would need a certain level of income to pay their share of the operating costs.

Council Member Foy explained that by affordable he meant people earning 80% of the median income, who could afford a $100,000 home.  He stressed that the Cedars should not just partake of Chapel Hill but should contribute to the versatile character of the Town as well.  Council Member Foy again asked how the applicant planned to contribute to the diverse character of Chapel Hill.  He said that he was prepared to exempt the applicant from the ordinance, but would like to hear what the applicant is inclined to say about affordability. 

Mr. Horton noted that the ordinance could not be applied to this applicant since there would be no subdivision of lots.  Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos agreed and quoted the Manager’s memo dated April 17, 2000.  Mr. Horton pointed out that this project was proposed as a condominium, so the applicant could not be reached with an ordinance that applies to single-family or two-family residential lots.  Council Member Foy repeated that he was not proposing applying the ordinance to this applicant, but did want to see some affordability component to the project.  Mr. Moore noted that the entry fee would include the cost of the health center and several other amenities as well. 

Council Member Wiggins pointed out that it was difficult to use the word “affordability” in relation to Community Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) because those who make 80% of the median income in Chapel Hill “cannot afford it, period.”  She noted that in addition to buying a home, residents of CCRCs pay an extremely high monthly fee for health care until they die.  That’s why it’s called a Continuing Care Retirement Community, she said, rather than just a Retirement Community.

Council Member Wiggins pointed out that there are non-whites who can afford to live in CCRCs, but that it requires special outreach to achieve cultural and racial diversity.  She pointed out that most people who go into these communities come from lifestyles where they value diversity and work hard to try to persuade those who are different from them to join the community.

Council Member Foy said again that he realized the applicant did not fit the model and was not asking them to comply with the ordinance.  He commented that he had been trying to point out that the issue of certain people being priced out needs to be addressed in every context. 

Council Member Ward asked the applicant why they did not want to encourage direct access for pedestrians and bike traffic.  Mr. Moore replied that having a sidewalk along Barbee Chapel Road would serve that purpose.  He stated that people who live in the area of the proposed bikeway might feel a bit insecure about people perhaps cutting through their backyards.  Mr. Horton asked if the applicant planned to put a fence up to prevent people from walking through back yards.  Mr. Moore replied, “absolutely not,” noting that the vote regarding a restricted community had been 50/50, so the applicant opted for not restricting access.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL MAY 8^TH.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 2 - Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Modification for UNC

Cogeneration Facility Coal Silos Replacement Project

Mr. Horton explained that the University had constructed the facility (once called “the boiler plant”) over a period of about five years.  During that time, he said, there had been a problem in the coal storage facility that resulted in a fire.  Mr. Horton reported that the University has been addressing that issue as a matter of design, and that had led to the proposed Special Use Permit modification.

J. B. Culpepper showed the Cameron Avenue facility on a map and noted that the replacement cogeneration facility had been approved by the Council in 1986.  She explained that the Council had then authorized a Special Use Permit modification for a new boiler unit at the site.  Ms. Culpepper said that the current Special Use Permit modification proposed to demolish and replace the two coal silos because the existing design did not allow unrestricted flow of coal through the silos, which has resulted in spontaneous combustion.   She explained that the existing silos are 60 feet wide and 114 feet tall, and said that the proposed silos would be 58 feet wide and 140 feet tall.  Ms. Culpepper reported that the staff recommended approval of the Special Use Permit modification request, Resolution A, with a modification of the regulations that would allow the increase in height.

Bruce Runberg, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities at UNC-CH, said that the project was very important to the University.  He pointed out that it would replace to full capacity the two coal silos where storage had been restricted because of the problems that Ms. Culpepper had described.  Mr. Runberg added that the plant generates both steam and electricity.  He said that the steam in particular goes to most of the buildings on campus as well as UNC Hospitals.  

Mr. Runberg listed a number of things that the University had done over the last few years to improve relations with the facility’s neighbors, including holding an 18-week facilitated process through which they had agreed on a solution.  He added that the University was committed to keeping the plant as quiet and as clean as possible, and displayed a EPA award which had been given only to UNC and two other universities in the county, which read: 

“…a 2000 combined heat and power certificate of recognition presented to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy in recognition of the superior environmental performance of the central utility plant achieved through the use of  preventing combined heat and power.”

John D. Mason, Cogeneration Project/Facilities Manager, explained the plan to demolish the two silos and replace them with taller ones due to internal geometry.  He outlined two of the major concerns that had led to the replacement: an operational concern, which could cause them to run out of coal; and, a safety concern, since the coal could stagnate and combust.  Mr. Mason explained that simply repairing the silos would cause a loss of capacity and would cost as much as replacing them would.

Mr. Mason pointed out that the project had originally been submitted in November 1997.  He said that the University had then withdrawn it because of objections from neighbors.  Mr. Mason explained that the neighbors had since become involved in the design process and had assisted in developing specifications that put restrictions on the contractor.  He explained that the neighbors had wanted to make noise reduction a priority as well as reducing the potential that a coal pile would be used.

Mr. Mason said that after reviewing design and appearance issues the most economical solution was to tear down the two silos.  He reported that most people wanted the silos to just blend into the background rather that attempting to camouflage them.   Mr. Mason noted that the new silos would be deeper into the ground so the height difference would be only 22 feet.  He said that the silos would have less of an industrial feel because some of the features that one can currently see would be enclosed and hidden.

Mr. Mason noted that the Community Design Commission had not liked the corrugated surface and had suggested making the design less boxy by rounding the corners.  He said that rounding the corners would require making the silos bigger, which the neighbors did not want, but that the applicant would use a smooth surface rather than the corrugated one.  Mr. Mason pointed out that the facility will be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance and that the University’s criteria for noise are more restrictive than the Town’s.  He pointed out that fully insulated enclosures and less noisy equipment would further diminish the noise.  Mr. Mason added that the University would continue to work with the neighbors on trying to find additional ways to diminish noise, dust, and traffic.  

Mr. Mason pointed out that construction of the silos would go on around the clock.  He predicted that construction would start later in the year and would last about 18 months, with the demolition phase lasting two to three months.  He noted that the applicant was working on ways to reduce the resulting noise and dust

Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, said that the Board had looked at this application in February and had felt that the University had no choice but to replace the silos for efficiency and safety reasons.  She said that the Board supported the application by a vote of 6-0.  Ms. Eddy added that the Board encouraged the University to continue working with the neighbors because construction will be disruptive.

Pierre Morel, describing himself as a “highly-impacted neighbor” living within 100 yards of the infamous coal pile,” said that he stood behind the mediation agreement which they had signed.  He added that the neighbors believed that the University had made a good faith effort to listen and to accommodate their concerns.  Mr. Morel noted one part of the statement—which the neighbors signed but the University did not—listed issues that had been in the original resolution that the Council passed.  Mr. Morel explained that the neighbors would like to reinsert that section when the silos are rebuilt.  He added that the University seemed committed to that concept, but the neighbors would like it in writing.

Lee Corum pointed out that that he and other neighbors had met with the University at least 14 times.  He said that the University had met challenges from the neighbors to reduce the size of the silos by bringing in consultants who explained about the supply requirements the University was facing.  Mr. Corum added that the University had made a real effort to reduce the sound impact by redesigning the facility.  He pointed out that neighbors had been limited as far as being able to evaluate some of the highly technical information given by the University’s experts, but felt they had no reason to doubt that it was correct information.  Mr. Corum commented that the University had done the best it could to minimize impact on the neighborhood, especially regarding noise.

Council Member Brown asked that stipulation #11 be expanded to include that the Design Commission would poll the neighborhood committee as to the suitability of the project’s appearance.  Mayor Waldorf asked if Council Member Brown intended for the poll to be binding, or if she meant that the Design Commission would ensure that the neighbor’s recommendations had been taken into account.  Council Member Brown said that she would like the neighbors and the applicant to be in agreement. 

Council Member inquired about camouflage.  Mr. Mason replied that most camouflage would draw attention to the structure and that the best camouflage for that building probably is simplicity.  He noted that the blue bands, which had been added to make the present silos look more natural, actually drew attention to the structures.

Council Member Brown said that she would like to see some testing done during the time of construction regarding particulate matter released into the neighborhood, both small and large.

Mr. Runberg said that the applicant did not have any problems with the stipulations.  He noted that Mrs. Rebecca Clarke had sent a letter in support of the project to the Council.  Mayor Waldorf replied that they had not received it but she was sure that they would.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO CONSIDER THE AREA WITHIN 1,500 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE UNC-CHAPEL HILL COGENERATION FACILITY SILOS REPLACEMENT PROJECT (2000-04-17/R-2)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit Modification for the UNC-Chapel Hill Cogeneration Facility Silo Replacement, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit application to be that property described as follows:

All properties within 1,500 feet of the site.

This the 17th day of April, 2000. 

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL MAY 8^TH.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.