SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Joyce Brown and Mayor pro tem Lee Pavăo were absent, excused.
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, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Internal Services Superintendent Bill Terry, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, and Acting Town Clerk Toni Pendergraph.
Town Manager Cal Horton explained that electronic traffic surveillance was being used in other cities in North Carolina and had been used in Europe for years. He said that if the Town Council chose to pursue the idea then the staff would solicit information from surveillance companies about the technique. These companies, he said, would then place surveillance equipment at intersections that would measure the rate of violation. If there is a large number of violations at any of the intersections, Mr. Horton explained, the Town could contract with the company as a provider of camera equipment that would identify vehicles that were violating red lights.
Mr. Horton noted that owners would be fined as a civil matter, which would not affect their driving records. There would be an appeal process, he said, adding that Charlotte and Fayetteville experiences have indicated that this can work.
Eunice Brock argued that having surveillance cameras at red light intersections could save lives, noting that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety had recorded 4,000 deaths in the United States last year which were caused by people running red lights. She noted that electronic surveillance is effective for changing behavior that will make roads safer. Ms. Brock pointed out that there are better uses for the Chapel Hill Police than stationing officers at traffic intersections.
Ms. Brock, noting that this has been called an invasion of privacy, asked who protects the privacy and life of the motorist who is endangered by the red light runner. She added that the only people who hate the cameras are the people who run red lights and the lawyers who will have difficulty defending them in the face of black and white evidence. Ms. Brock commented that technology, which permeates everyone’s life, should be used to save lives.
John Clark said that it had been proven that this technique reduces red light violations. He suggested, though, that the Town be careful about its choice of a subcontractor, and suggested that it be a Chapel Hill-based company.
Josh Steinhurst expressed concern about the program being administered by a for-profit company that would have an incentive to find violators. He also wondered about the $50 fine, asking if it would be high enough for people to take time off from work to fight the citation.
Council Member Foy asked if the photographs would be available for use in other matters, such as some other illegal activity. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos replied that it would be available as evidence for “whatever it showed.” He added that the only stipulation in the law with respect to the red light violation is that it can only be considered a civil matter. If there are other offenses that occur, said Mr. Karpinos, or if there is something shown in the scene unrelated to the vehicle that would be evidence of that, the photograph could be used for what it revealed just as any other photograph taken could be.
Council Member Foy asked who would pay for the appeals process. Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli replied that the Town would pay. Council Member Foy asked if a personal appearance would be required. Mr. Neppalli replied that telephone calls were being accepted in Fayetteville, depending on the case.
Mr. Neppalli explained that there is a return reply requested from the citizen before it goes to the appeal process. He said that the appeal is a two-step process: first, an administrative review with the staff and contractor who will inform the citizen if the appeal is not accepted; second, the citizen still has an option to go to an actual hearing, which would be conducted either by phone or in person.
Council Member Foy asked how many violations are dismissed at that interim point. Mr. Neppalli replied that last year less than two or three percent had been dismissed during the administrative review process.
Mr. Karpinos pointed out that some of what Council Member Foy was asking related to what would actually be in an ordinance. He added that there had not yet been an ordinance drafted for the Council’s consideration. Mr. Karpinos said that the precise details of how this would be handled could be explored further if and when the staff brought the Council an ordinance to consider.
Council Member Ward inquired about the total percent of successful appeals. Mr. Neppalli replied that the number probably was less than five percent.
Council Member Ward asked for clarification on who would review the photographs, asking specifically if the Town’s police officers would be involved. Mr. Neppalli replied that there would be a three-part review by the contractor before the citation went out. He added that the staff in other communities randomly checked photographs to make sure everything was being done correctly. Mr. Neppalli added that the staff was not proposing that officers review photographs before citations go to citizens, even though that is mentioned in some of the written material before the Council.
Council Member Evans pointed out that there is a delay before the opposing light turns green and that people often run the red light because they know traffic will not immediately start in the other direction. She asked if that delay would also exist at intersections with cameras. Mr. Neppalli explained that this “all red time,” which is State law, is handled differently in different communities. He said that Fayetteville, for example, takes the picture immediately when the light changes to red. But Charlotte, he said, waits three tenths of a second before doing so. Mr. Neppalli explained that it would depend on how the Council wanted to proceed.
Council Member Evans also noted that there would be fewer penalties if the 21-day payment cycle were changed, and Mr. Neppalli agreed to look into that.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Neppalli to estimate how many intersections in Chapel Hill would qualify for this program. Mr. Neppalli estimated that five to seven intersections would qualify because they have 25 or more violations per day.
Council Member Strom asked what type of signage would be present at those intersections. Mr. Neppalli replied that, based on the North Carolina statute, the Town is required to install signs on State roads according to designs and standards that have been approved by the State. He stated that the sign, reading “Red Light Photo Enforced,” would be placed at all approaches to the intersection even though there may be a camera at only one approach. He said that they would be placed at 300-400 feet before the intersection.
Council Member Bateman asked if any of the municipalities had a general sign at its city limits saying that certain intersections are monitored by traffic cameras. Mr. Neppalli replied that they have done so in Charlotte, but he was not familiar with Greensboro and High Point, which had recently started programs.
Mr. Horton noted that when the Town changed its ordinance to prohibit parking on sidewalks and posted signs at all of the key entrances to Town, it was effective in warning people that policies had changed. He said that those signs probably could be taken down now and that it would be easy to substitute photo enforcement signs. Mr. Horton commented that this might also cause people to be cautious at all traffic intersections.
Council Member Bateman asked the staff to report on the number of citations that had been issued in the past year for running red lights in Chapel Hill.
Council Member Strom said that the program made him uncomfortable because it feels like a step toward privatizing law enforcement. He added, though, that he likes the civil penalty part, and asked Mr. Karpinos if there was any way the Town could make other traffic movements civil penalties. He noted that traffic officers would not then have to go through the court appearance process after writing a ticket. Mr. Karpinos, stating that this might be an appropriate matter to consider for the legislative agenda, agreed to take a look at the issue.
Council Member Foy asked if the photo would show the vehicle entering the intersection while the light is red. Mr. Neppalli relied that two photos are taken, one when it enters the intersection and the other when it is in the middle of the intersection. The second photo is the one mailed to the citizen, he said.
Council Member Foy clarified that getting a ticket from an officer in Council Member Strom’s scenario would be an infraction. It would not have an effect on insurance points and license points, he said, provided that a citation issued by the police had the same status as a citation issued through the cameras.
Council Member Ward asked if all intersections were eligible for this program, regardless of who owned them. Mr. Neppalli replied that they were all eligible, noting that the Town would not need permission from the University to institute a camera on campus if it was justified by the violation counts.
Council Member Evans asked for the staff’s recommendation on whether this would be safer for police officers and a better way of enforcing the law. Mayor Waldorf suggested that this be addressed in the follow-up report.
Council Member Ward asked if this technology was being used to help enforce speed limits. Mr. Neppalli replied that it was being used in some states, but not in North Carolina.
Council Member Wiggins, noting that concerns had been raised about contracting this out, asked Mr. Horton about the impact on budget and staff if it were not contracted out. Mr. Horton agreed to come back with an estimate.
Mayor Waldorf asked the staff to consider in its follow-up report how this as a tool to promote public safety and get people to obey laws measures up with how the Town could afford to have the number of police officers that it would need to make the number of citations that these cameras could make if they were in place. She also asked the staff to address the question of how this program would encourage traffic calming.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND TOWN ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Mayor Waldorf asked when this item would come back for discussion. Mr. Horton estimated a month or slightly longer.
Item 2 - Special Use Permit Modification for Church of the Holy Family
Mr. Waldon explained that the proposed Special Use Permit (SUP) modification was for building expansion, a new building, a new parking area and new walkways at the Church of the Holy Family, located on Fordham Boulevard at Brandon Road. Noting that the project would include acquiring an existing adjacent property, he showed slides of the site and the proposed site plan.
Phillip Post, representing the Church of the Holy Family, stated that the proposed plan represents the ultimate campus build-out that the Church would ever attain. He said that the goal is to increase seating capacity from 225 to 285 and bring all facilities up to an equal level of service. The new facility would make the day care fully functional, Mr. Post said, and provide adequate off-street parking, which would be in the middle of the Town’s recommended range for number of parking spaces.
Mr. Post said that the Church had met the four findings of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the Council to support Resolution B, which does not require the applicant to build a sidewalk on Flemington Road. He stated that the Church preferred not to disturb the landscaping along Flemington Road, adding that they had assured their neighbors that they would not make any changes along that road. He argued that the existing sidewalk fulfills all the Town and neighborhood requirements and is an item that does not need fixing.
Mayor Waldorf noted that Wes McClure and Timothy Kimbaugh were available to answer questions on behalf of the applicant.
Gay Eddy, Planning Board Chair, said that the Board had been favorably impressed with the Church’s planning process. She added that the Board had visited the property and had noted that it was unlikely that the staff’s requested sidewalk would ever connect to anything. Ms. Eddy added that the Board had felt that keeping the vegetation along that road was important and had, in this case, voted against building another sidewalk.
Council Member Foy stated that he frequently walks along Flemington Road and agreed that a second sidewalk is not needed. He pointed out that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had stated that the day care facility and the Church should consider a shared parking arrangement, and asked Mr. Post to elaborate on the rationale for the Church’s request for more parking. Mr. Post replied that 71 parking spaces were required for worship and 13 were needed for the day care. He said that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had recommended using more street parking, but that there had been parking pressure on Hayes Road which would be relieved by the 38 spaces. Mr. Post added that there are times, such as during funerals, when Church services occur during daytime hours when the day care is in session.
Council Member Ward inquired about the house on Hayes Road. Mr. Post explained that it would be moved and fully reused. Council Member Ward asked about bioretention, noting that those proposed ideas had not been included in the plan. Mr. Post assured the Council that the proposed bioretention plan, including downspouts that will capture about 30% of the roof rainwater, would be outlined in the final plan. Council Member Ward asked if that percentage could be increased, and Mr. Post replied that the goal is to maximize it as they will with 100% of the new parking lot rainwater.
Council Member Ward suggested sacrificing one Magnolia tree so that the other one will survive. He said that trying to save two defeats the purpose because it requires cutting off too much of the root systems. Mr. Post agreed to take that into consideration.
Mayor Waldorf noted that the applicant already had stated their support for Resolution B.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR CHURCH OF THE HOLY FAMILY (2000-01-16/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 Modification for Carol Woods, 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 adjacent to the site.
This the 16th day of January, 2001.
Mr. Horton noted an error in the date of the next public hearing, and Mayor Waldorf suggested a new motion to override the action and refer the public hearing to February 5th.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND STAFF AND RECESS UNTIL FEBRUARY 5, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Mr. Horton noticed that the date was again wrong and should be February 12th.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY AND RECESS UNTIL FEBRUARY 12, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Item 3 - Special Use Permit Application for Wachovia at Meadowmont
Mr. Waldon explained that this bank had been part of the Master Plan for Meadowmont and that the Council was being asked to determine whether or not the Special Use Permit (SUP) meets three of the four findings and is in compliance with the ordinance. He showed the site at the south corner of Meadowmont on a map and pointed out that the Master Plan includes a 27,000 square foot office building on that parcel.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Council had asked the Meadowmont developer to reduce the estimated trip generation and that the developer had consequently reduced the 8,000 square foot maximum size to a little over 4,000 square feet. He showed slides of the proposed site plan and compared it to the master proposal, noting key differences, such as how the access had been pushed to the north according to the Council’s directions.
Mr. Waldon said that the number of parking spaces had been “vigorously discussed” while this was going through the planning process. He noted that the staff’s recommendation for 14 spaces was based on the Council’s policy of establishing a maximum that is 10% over the minimum. He pointed out that the memo also included a discussion of the Planning Board’s suggestion to add more parking spaces.
Jack Clayton, the regional executive for the eastern region of Wachovia Bank, said that the bank had three branches in Chapel Hill and that their customer base had indicated a need for a fourth branch. Meadowmont is a great location, he said, adding that the bank will have a very attractive design and be a high quality branch. Mr. Clayton stated that this is likely to be one of the busiest branch locations in Chapel Hill, but that passersby will not be able to see if it is crowded before coming into the parking area. He added that there would be 11 employees at peak times.
Glenn Phillips, a designer with Ballentine Associates, who are the site civil engineers for the project, showed a site analysis of how the terrain falls from Highway 54 to the northern property line with a drainage draw that carries the runoff northward. He discussed the grading plan and how the stormwater system would be coordinated with The Cedars to the north, noting that runoff would go into a pond on The Cedars. The pond, Mr. Phillips said, would be consistent with the requirements of Town and State guidelines for stormwater quality management. He stressed that the plan would meet all requirements even without bioretention and noted that the bioretention facilities mentioned in Resolution A push the site beyond the minimum requirements of stormwater management. Mr. Phillips also indicated the access point at the northwest corner and noted that it minimizes the bank’s impact to the surrounding areas.
Paul Spokas, representing Omni Architecture, pointed out the bicycle path and sidewalk that are planned at the site location. He said it was challenging to accommodate the drive-through within the Master Plan, adding that they had segregated those areas and the parking area from the drive through for safety reasons. Mr. Spokas described this as a “transitional building” into Meadowmont and pointed out that they had designed it with an attractive presence on each road.
Mr. Spokas stated that the applicant was in agreement with all of the landscape requirements and requests in Resolutions A and B, but he asked to revise the number of parking spaces because experience had shown that approximately 35 parking spaces are needed for a branch bank. He acknowledged that there would be much pedestrian usage at the Meadowmont branch and explained that the bank had reduced the number of parking spaces to 31 accordingly.
Mr. Spokas pointed out that 21 of the 24 other branches in Chapel Hill have on-site parking and that 15 of those 21 have 31 or more parking spaces. He noted that the BB&T on Rosemary Street, which has only nine spaces, has public parking directly across the street. Mr. Spokas outlined the number of anticipated employees and customers and cautioned that there are safety issues involved with not having enough parking. He said that because the bank intends to encourage car-pooling and public transportation, it had reduced the number of proposed parking spaces to 25.
Gay Eddy, Chair of the Planning Board, said that the Board had asked her to encourage the Town Council to revisit the 110% of minimum parking policy and to make sure that the minimum baseline is appropriate. She said that the Board would look at this issue carefully during the Development Ordinance revision process. In this case, Ms. Eddy said, the Board thought the minimums might be questionable considering the number of employees. She noted that the Board had supported the application (9-0), but had suggested increasing the parking spaces to 21.
Bob Reda, a member of the Planning Board, agreed with what Ms. Eddy had said. He explained that the Board believes firmly in the reduction of impervious surfaces around Town, but pointed out that property use should be looked at when applying the minimum standard. Mr. Reda noted that a bank is a service-oriented facility which is always active. He argued that 14 spaces would be too few, noting that the number also includes two handicapped spaces. He remarked that the Planning Department’s report did not indicate that 14 was the correct number, but merely the correct calculation.
Mayor Waldorf noted that Charles Thomas and Linda Harris were present as part of the applicant’s team.
Judson Van Wyk, a nearby landowner at The Cedars, said that he and his wife had chosen their lot based on the prospectus of The Cedars which showed a buffer of forest next to their future home. He expressed concern about parking at the bank, noting that too limited parking would cause people to park on Cedar Meadow Lane, and this would be detrimental to his retirement community. Mr. Van Wyk endorsed the Planning Board’s recommendation for 21 spaces and suggested removing the 10 that had been proposed at the northern boundary spaces in the applicant’s plan. This would allow for a better buffer, he said.
Mr. Van Wyk recommended mandating that the buffer between the Wachovia Bank and The Cedars be heavily landscaped. He also suggested making sure that The Cedars is protected from stormwater drainage from the elevated Wachovia property.
Council Member Ward asked the applicant if walk-up ATM users would be able to safely use the bank after hours. Mr. Clayton explained that the ATM would be located in the most visible area along Highway 54. He noted, however, that people feel more comfortable being in their car at an ATM in the evenings.
Council Member Ward ascertained from Mr. Horton that the Manager’s recommendation had stipulated established standards on the bicycle facilities. Mr. Clayton added that the applicant was interested in having more people come by bicycle because it helps with parking. He reiterated the need for adequate parking so that people will not park on the streets during peak times.
Council Member Foy asked for clarification on whether the after hours ATM is pedestrian accessible or just the same one that cars would use. Mr. Clayton replied that it is at an accessible height for pedestrians and that there would not be the number of cars going through at night as there are during the day. He added that there would be a pedestrian accessible ATM attached to the front or back of the branch itself and that it would also be accessible at night. Mr. Clayton repeated, though, that people prefer the drive up teller ATM, which is the busiest of the three islands for cars coming through. Mr. Spokas added that the drive-through ATM is not meant to be a pedestrian ATM, but it can function as one because it is lighted and covered and has sidewalk access.
Council Member Foy inquired about the buffer between the building and Highway 54. Mr. Waldon explained that specific plantings were not usually determined this early in the process. He added that they would attempt to use existing vegetation and to supplement that if necessary to meet the buffer standards.
Council Member Foy thanked the staff for taking the position that they had taken to reduce parking.
Council Member Evans asked if the bank would have a meeting room or board room. Mr. Spokas replied that they had not yet planned the interior but that there would be a conference room for 6-9 people. He added that the room would not be large enough for board meetings or community meetings.
Council Member Evans supported the Planning Board’s recommendation for 21 parking spaces. Mr. Clayton commented that even reducing it to 25 spaces would be difficult, adding that there would be days when traffic will be backed up onto Barbee Chapel Road when people get their paychecks at lunch hour.
Council Member Strom, referring to evidence that raised internal crosswalks provide the most safety for pedestrians, asked if the applicant would install those. Mr. Spokas replied that Wachovia has done that in the past and would do so at this location if there is strong feeling about it.
Council Member Strom expressed gratitude to the staff for supporting the parking limits. He noted that the original concept for Meadowmont was a pedestrian-oriented configuration and an internally-focused community. Council Member Bateman agreed that the original developer presented Meadowmont as a pedestrian-oriented, new way that people could live and work in the same area and walk to all of the functions that they had previously driven to. Even though the applicant was comparing itself to other banks in the area, she said, the Town Council was comparing the proposal to what had previously been approved.
Council Member Bateman asked where the other bank that had been approved for Meadowmont was located. Mr. Waldon said that there were sites available for something like a bank at the intersection of Meadowmont Lane across from the Village Center, but that no bank had yet been applied for. Council Member Evans pointed out that there was a third bank located in the office center on the other side of Highway 54.
Council Member Ward supported the idea of reducing parking on the northern edge of the site because doing so would accomplish better stormwater runoff and create a better buffer. Mr. Spokas replied that if 25 spaces were approved the spaces that Council Member Ward was referring to would be the first to go.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the Town had ever stipulated that an applicant should protect neighbors from parking overflow into a residential area. Mr. Horton could not recall whether the Town had attempted to deal with that issue, but said that the staff could attempt to deal with that in this case if the Council so desired. Council Member Wiggins suggested that the bank post signs telling customers not to park in residential areas.
Council Member Ward asked about the status of improvements to Highway 54/Barbee Chapel Road, specifically with regard to getting some pedestrian amenities for this intersection at the most eastern end of Meadowmont. Mr. Horton clarified that the request was that the staff report to the Council what the present approvals would authorize and what the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has agreed to. Then the Council might give direction to seek modifications from NCDOT as a prospective issue, Mr. Horton said.
Council Member Ward commented that the Town needs to have safe ways for pedestrians to get across that intersection. Mr. Horton agreed to bring a report on what has currently be approved by NCDOT as part of the follow-up.
Council Member Strom asked if the report would also address citizens’ concerns about flooding potential. Mr. Horton replied that it would attempt to address all of the concerns that had been raised.
Council Member Wiggins asked if there would be a drive connecting The Cedars to the bank. Mr. Horton replied that there would be a walkway, but not a driveway. Council Member Wiggins commented that people would be unlikely to park at The Cedars then, but Mr. Horton pointed out that one who has become familiar with the area might do so. He added that there might be some regulatory matters that the Town could address there and that his report would consider that as well.
Mr. Horton asked Mr. Clayton how the Wachovia facility at Research Triangle Park (RTP) compared in size to the one being proposed for Meadowmont. Mr. Clayton replied that the RTP facility was substantially larger and had more than 50 parking spaces.
Mayor Waldorf noted that the applicant already had addressed the conditions for approval in their presentation.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CONSIDER ADJACENT PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR WACHOVIA AT MEADOWMONT (2000-01-16/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 for Wachovia Bank at 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 adjacent to the site.
This the 16th day of January, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND RECESS UNTIL FEBRUARY 12, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Item 4 - Special Use Permit Application for Prestwick Place
Mr. Horton outlined this proposal for a 22,000 square foot office building on a 2.39 acre site at Finley Golf Course Road. He noted that it was near the intersection of Prestwick Road, which is unpaved.
Mr. Waldon then explained that there is a building on the proposed site. He said that it is in the watershed protection district and along the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) Transit Corridor, which has been proposed for Prestwick Road. There is a small area where an alternative buffer is being proposed, Mr. Waldon said. He showed slides of the property lines and site plan, and noted that a permanent retention pond was required along Prestwick Road. Mr. Waldon pointed out that there was a series of recommendations recommending approval but with slight variations.
Dawn Heric, representing John R. McAdams Company, reviewed some of the major changes to the proposal since it was first submitted:
· a vehicular connection had been made to the Aurora Restaurant site, with which the applicant will share dumpster facilities.
· the proposed grading plan had been tightened up around the new building so that more existing vegetation could be saved and additional plantings included along the edges to enhance buffering capabilities.
· additional replacement plantings would be included in the Prestwick Road buffer adjacent to the pond.
· the pond had been shifted slightly so that buffer requirements can be met, except in the area where the pond outlets from the site. (Approval of an alternate buffer is requested.) Ms. Heric explained, adding that the applicant had received positive feedback from the Community Design Commission on the alternate buffer).
· Finley Golf Course Road would be improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, and a sidewalk connection from the site to the walk on Finley Golf Course Road.
· Prestwick Road would be paved and a public pedestrian path would be added to the site. This path would meander through the site, thus saving more trees.
· a lit and covered bike shelter would be located near the buildings, and showers would be provided in the new building to encourage bike-riding to work.
Ms. Heric stated that the application meets the four findings for granting the SUP and that the proposed development would enhance the quality of the development that exists in the immediate area. She said that the applicant agreed with all of the staff recommendations and stipulations under Resolution A, except the requirement to paint crosswalks and provide pedestrian signals on NC 54 at the intersection of Finley Golf Course Road.
Ms. Heric questioned whether the cost and the need for this crosswalk should be supported by this small development. She added that the applicant had understood that the Transportation Board had intended to encourage the Town Council to work with NCDOT on this issue. Ms. Heric said that the applicant would have had more lengthy discussions with NCDOT and with the Town’s transportation planner if they had known the extent to which this would be a requirement. Pointing out that stipulation might hold up the development, she asked why it was brought up as a stipulation at this time, with this small development, when it had not been brought up before with larger developments.
Johnny Morris, of Prestwick Place Partnership, agreed with Ms. Heric’s comments. He expressed “shock” that this site plan would be asked to go up to Highway 54 and build two crosswalks with signalized intersections after Meadowmont had received approval, the University had spent $1 million on a golf course, and Aurora had received approval to build an addition. Mr. Morris predicted that this stipulation would put an end to this project.
Mayor Waldorf, stressing that she was not speaking on behalf of the staff’s recommendation, commented that no part of the University’s Finley Golf Course project had come through the Town for review.
Gay Eddy, Chair of the Planning Board, reported that the Board had supported the staff’s recommendations. She pointed out, though, that the stipulation being challenged had not yet been proposed when the application was before the Planning Board.
Council Member Bateman asked about the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendation that a three-way stop be installed at the intersection of Hamilton and Prestwick Roads. She asked why the staff had not included that in their recommendation. Mr. Waldon replied that it did not seem to the staff that pedestrian traffic associated with this office building would be involved in that intersection.
Council Member Bateman said that there could be an alternate route from that intersection. She noted that people use alternate routes during rush hour.
Council Member Ward pointed out that he uses that route himself as an alternate. He expressed concern about there being no stop signs there, and noted that this could become more dangerous when the new fire station is built. Council Member Ward argued that it would be prudent to ask for that improvement because of the increased activity at Prestwick Place.
Council Member Evans stated that she had never seen another car on Prestwick Road when she had been there. Since it is barely wide enough for two cars, she said, it is unlikely that it would be heavily used before it is brought up to Town standards. She commented that people cruising through the stop sign at Finely Golf Course Road could cause more accidents because others would expect people to stop. Council Member Evans recommended leaving the streets as they are.
Council Member Foy asked what uses besides offices were being proposed at the applicant’s site. Mr. Morris replied that there could be medical offices. Ms. Heric added that “medical offices” is included because the staff had asked the applicant what the maximum footage would be if medical offices were there.
Council Member Bateman asked the staff to address the applicant’s concerns about the stipulation to improve Highway 54. Mr. Waldon replied that of the other projects the applicant had mentioned only Meadowmont had come before the Council. He said that this building was close enough to Highway 54 that the staff thought that asking for those improvements could be justified.
Mr. Horton added that this was a “very close call.” He noted that the applicant had raised the question of whether or not there is a rational nexus between the proposed stipulation and the effects of this particular project. He noted that it also must meet the “test of rough proportionality,” that is, whether or not it is reasonably in relation to the impacts that the project might have. Mr. Horton said that he was willing to put it forward for debate based on arguments presented by the staff and the Planning Board and give an evaluation on that point when the report comes back.
Mayor Waldorf advised that the staff’s evaluation also consider whether or not the NCDOT would concur with this. Mr. Horton noted that waiting for an answer from NCDOT would stall the project, but agreed to try and get some information.
Council Member Evans said that she did not see a logical pedestrian connection between the University Inn and this site. Mr. Horton agreed to take a look at that and comment in his report.
Mr. Morris asked how the Hamilton Road crosswalk was handled. Mayor Waldorf replied that it was a political deal whereby NCDOT contributed some funds and the Town contributed some funds, and it got approved because the Secretary of NCDOT thought it was a good idea even though it did not fit with what was traditional at those intersections.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CONSIDER 1,000 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (6-1), WITH COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PRESTWICK PLACE (2001-01-16/R-3)
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 Prestwick Place, 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 1000 feet of the site.
This the 16th day of January, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND RECESS UNTIL FEBRUARY 12, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.