SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 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, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Planner Phil Mason, and Acting Clerk Toni Pendergraph.
Council Member Bateman announced the two televised public forums for the Citizen Action Forum Network to be telecast on Channel 18 on October 18, at the Chapel Hill Town Hall from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m., and The League of Women Voters Candidate Forum, October 23, Chapel Hill Town Hall at 7:00 p.m.
Item 1 – Public Forum: US 15-501 Major Investment Study Phase II Report
Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk introduced Ann Redmond, consultant for the consulting firm HNTB, Inc. for the Phase II Major Investment Study (MIS). With the use of overheads, she said that the Phase I Study was completed September 1998, which focused mainly on the highway. She said in Phase II the main focus was transit technologies.
Phase II MIS Goals
· Identify a Transit Corridor
· Select a Preferred Transit Technology
· Excessive Public Involvement
Ms. Redmond said there were many committees involved in the Study, and membership included the City of Durham, Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Duke University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Triangle Transit Authority. She traced the latest proposals for transit on a map.
Busway/Mixed Traffic (BMT) Goals
· Lowest Capital Cost Alternative to Busway/Rail Alternatives
· Segments of Exclusive Busway Added When Needed
· Serves same station areas as Busway and Rail Alternatives
Alternative Capital Costs
· $297 million “Heavier” Rail Alernative
· $324-330 million “Lighter” Rail Alternatives (Electric)
· $292-305 million “Lighter” Rail Alternatives (Diesel)
· $217-247 million Busway Alternatives
· $82 million BMT Alternative 1
· $189 million BMT Alternative 2
Ms. Redmond said the committees looked at potential impacts for the various alternatives. She said two sub-consultants were also included in the study.
Included in the alternatives looked at:
· Modeling Forecasts
· Transit Cost Effectiveness Criteria
Ms. Redmond demonstrated the final recommendation for the transit corridor.
Study Conclusions and Recommendations:
· Corridor Phase I Transit Corridor in implementing Local Land Use Policies
· Further Refinement of the Triangle Regional Demand Model
· Busway and Busway/Mixed Traffic (BMT) Alternatives Most Promising
· The Next Phase in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Council Member Ward asked if there had been any conversation with the University with regard to its plans at Horace Williams and how that might affect the design or addition to the scope of the project. Ms. Redmond said it had been mentioned but had never been addressed.
Mayor Waldorf said when the original scope of the study was being addressed it appeared that the potential technology alternatives were heavy rail, lighter rail, and buses, and the Council made an explicit decision to say that the study would not look at heavy rail going from the campus to the co-generation plant, past Carrboro and then to the Horace Williams Tract. She added that the University concurred with that. Mayor Waldorf said one thing the Council might wish to look at would be the possibility of electrified light rail running along the street to connect with the rail corridor.
Council Member Ward asked what the time frame was that something could actually be built, and, if the Town went the busway route, how much of that infrastructure would be useful to upgrade to light rail. Ms. Redmond said the study group never looked into the capabilities for taking an exclusive busway, and in the future for light rail. She said the time frame would depend on funding. Whit Webb, of HNTB, said the funding would be contingent on when the completion of the first phase between Raleigh and Durham was completed. He added that if this plan were very aggressively done, then Phase I is supposed to be completed in 2008, then this section might start to be in process after that, or probably a long time after that, a good 15 years.
Mr. Horton said he thought it was possible that the second phase could come sooner than that, probably ten years, but would require additional funding from the General Assembly of North Carolina, and a continuing commitment of funding at the federal level. He added that it could also be much longer than 15 years, depending on the future of both N.C. and the country.
Mayor Waldorf added that if the corridor was not designated, it would never happen, and the region needed to be aggressive in getting additional funding. She said she felt that the rental car taxes should be for the region, not just Phase I. Mr. Webb said that a busway could be designed so that it could be used for light rail in the future. Mr. Horton said it would not be possible to see where the challenges might be for that to happen.
Council Member Evans said that reserving the corridor before it was used for transit technology would make it useable for a biking facility.
George Smart asked why the study group decided to take the rail route through Meadowmont. He said he was told that the plan could be changed when things changed in the neighborhoods. He said he was particularly interested in the property on the Chapel Hill-Durham borders at Highways 54/I-40 and asked if the plans changed could that area be changed. Ms. Redmond said the corridor through Meadowmont was a dedicated corridor and information was provided to the Group by the developer of Meadowmont.
Mayor Waldorf said there was another study underway from Chapel Hill to the TTA Transit hub in Research Triangle Park, Southpark. She said that many communities try to get funding for more than one study of corridor possibilities. Ms. Redmond said that any alignments can be defined, and the environmental study would go into more detail.
Mr. Webb said that the intent was to add the transit corridor to the adopted thoroughfare corridor for the region, and once that was adopted it would become the transit corridor, but the Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) can change the plan if they wished.
Council Member Evans asked if she understood correctly that the Environment Impact Study was not going to start until Phase I was completed. Mr. Webb said the EIS can be started for Phase II when the new start money is provided for and the funding match must be applied. He said an EIS has a “shelf-life” of only 5 years, so it should not be started too soon.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 22, 2001, AND REFER THE ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper said the Special Use Permit (SUP) was an application for the construction of a 78,000 square foot, three-story office building on a 7.3 acres site located at the southwest corner of the Airport Road/Airport Drive intersection. She added that the proposed development was within the Office/Institutional-2, Office/Institutional, and Residential-2 zoning Districts. Ms. Culpepper said that the Council had approved a SUP in 1998 for a 60,000 square foot building, but it was never built. She said a key issue for the SUP application involved parking, which for an office space was a requirement of one space per 350,000 square feet of floor area and a 78,000 square-feet office building would require a minimum of 224 parking spaces. She said the SUP proposed 211 parking spaces, and the Development Ordinance stated that the number of parking spaces shall be determined by the Town. Ms. Culpepper said Resolution A recommended 211 parking spaces, and noted on page 28 of the memorandum that Stipulation 13 was no longer necessary, so it would be eliminated in the returned Recommendation to the Council, after the Public Hearing.
Mark Zack, of Corley Redfoot Zack, Inc., for the applicant, introduced himself to answer questions and described the Site Plan, with the buffer zones and bio-retention areas.
Ron Strom introduced into evidence an appraisal done for the University in 1998, which stated that there was no evidence of negative impact on the value of contiguous property. He said the application for parking spaces was for less than 50% of the people working at the building on a steady basis, which totaled 1 parking space for every 369 square feet. Mr. Strom added that the user groups were heavy intensively users—classrooms, orientation spaces for faculty and staff, and training rooms, programmed for 297 employees, plus 144 in classrooms, and 24 reception rooms with a total of 465 people in the building at one time. He added that 45% of the parking spaces would be available to handle that amount of people. Mr. Strom said the University had resisted the requests for more parking spaces and will be very aggressive in its Transportation Plan and through alternative ways of transportation. He said the University was in compliance with the new August 2001 Ordinance for parking spaces. Mr. Strom asked the Council to work with the University in their request for 211 parking spaces.
Planning Board member Scott Radway said the Planning Board had voted 8-0 in favor of the project.
Marty Hanks, a resident of Barclay Road and a neighbor to the property, asked if the fence originally proposed was still in the plans, and the response was that it was not. He asked if there would be a traffic-flow review because of more cut-through traffic possible. Mr. Hanks asked if increased parking would be allowed at the existing office building across the street from the proposed office building.
George Alexiou said the increase of traffic Mr. Hanks questioned might well happen over the passage of time as traffic increased over the area. He said the traffic would probably be increased by the general growth of Chapel Hill in the area. Mr. Alexiou said the parking facility which Mr. Hanks described was a park and ride lot for the University, which was a strategic lot for the University for parking from the main campus, and the parking spaces would be very precious. Mr. Hanks said his major concern for the increase in traffic was for the daycare that he and his wife own, and there were already problems turning onto Barclay Road with the current amount of traffic. He asked if speed bumps could be added to the road.
Mayor Waldorf said the Town was always happy to work with neighborhood groups for traffic-calming devices, and Mr. Hanks could make a request through the Town Manager to start the process. Mr. Horton said the staff would like to have 70% of the neighbors in favor of the devices.
Mr. Zack commented that one-third of the people coming to the building would be people using it for orientation or training from campus, and they will be encouraged to use alternative transportation means to the site, provided by the University.
Council Member Ward asked for more information about the bio-retention area being considered, if that was at the edge of an old landfill, and were there water quality issues. Mike Hammersly, of Corley Redfoot Zack, Inc., responded that the area was set aside to deal with water quality issues to pre-treat stormwater runoffs from the parking lots, before it reached the drainage ways and into the streams. He said the area under discussion was an area that had a lot of kudzu and low-lying vegetation presently, where the applicant intended to put in shrubs and trees as a natural filter for the stormwater.
Council Member Ward asked if there had been an old landfill on the edge of the bio-retention area. Mr. Horton said the staff would check on this issue.
Council Member Ward said he would like to know if there were water quality issues involved. He encouraged the applicant to see that more clear pedestrian ways in the parking lots be established.
Council Member Foy asked for details on the more aggressive plan by the University for transportation. Mr. Strom said the University would have to come up with a Transportation Management Plan as part of compliance of the zoning permit. He said there were ways the University was planning to capture students with existing alternative transportation means. Mr. Strom said there would be showers, lockers, and bike racks for use of pedestrians, and they would be centrally located on the property.
Council Member Foy asked what the proposed use would be for the building. Mr. Strom said it would be entirely administrative and user groups moving from other University buildings.
Mr. Alexiou said that the site was one of the areas to which additional transit service would be provided from the main campus, and the people working or living in the area will be encouraged to use alternative means of transportation.
Council Member Bateman said her concern was more for the employees and for the other people along the corridor trying to get to and from work, rather than for those going to the site during the workday. She said she hoped the University would consider working hours of employment.
Council Member Strom asked for an explanation on page 29 of Resolution A, Section 21, Stormwater Detention Pond, and what the strategy was for dealing with the stormwater run-off rates. He said his understanding was that the run-off rates would be the same for pre- and post-development. Mr. Hammersly said that in the 1998 proposal only the water quantity issue was being dealt with, but now the bio-retention area, an intake structure, will be built to pond the water up. He said the bio-retention areas were upstream of this, and higher in elevation, where the water will overflow and go through the bio-retention area.
Mr. Hammersly said that borings had been taken at the site in question of an old landfill and none showed any significance of any layers of unknown materials.
Mr. Strom said the University was in support of the stipulations in Resolution A.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT 1,000 FEET BE CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE UNC OFFICE BUILDING ON AIRPORT DRVE (2001-10-17/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 UNC Office Building on Airport Drive, proposed by Ron Strom., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 29, Lot 1, 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 1,000 feet of the site.
This the 17th day of October, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECESS THE HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 12, 2001, AND REFER IT TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 3 – The Franklin Hotel: Application for Special Use Permit
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper said an application seeking approval of a SUP had been filed for the construction of a five story hotel on a 0.64-acre site, located on West Franklin Street at the intersection of Kenan Street at the southeast corner of Franklin and Kenan Streets. She said it was located in the Town Center-2 Zoning District. She displayed an existing photo of the vacant building which previously served as the Carolina Trailways bus terminal. Ms. Culpepper said the application was proposing a 51,000 square foot hotel, with underground parking, and one point of access coming off Franklin Street, and another level from Kenan Street. She said the upper story of the hotel will be set back from West Franklin Street. She said the Planning Board had discussed at length the building scale in the Downtown Small Area Plan specifics. Ms. Culpepper added that the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was for approval with Resolution A.
Josh Gurlitz, GGA Architects, spoke for the applicant, saying that the applicant believed that the project fulfilled the objectives of the Downtown Small Area Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Downtown Small Area Plan placed one guiding principle above all others in importance, which was the preservation extension of the vital people/pedestrian character of the downtown center to intensify social and cultural activities in the downtown. He said the location of the hotel was entirely supportive of that principle, with few other land uses to support that principle.
Mr. Gurlitz added that in the Downtown Plan it stated that the Downtown Plan would seek to reverse the tide of decentralization by encouraging mixed-use development. He said that no new downtown hotel had been proposed since the Carolina Inn was built, and the motels and hotels, except The Siena Hotel, have been built on the perimeter of the Town. Mr. Gurlitz said if the hotel was to be successful it had to be adequate in size to be viable and had to be compact and space efficient.
Mr. Gurlitz stated that the third main issue in the Downtown Small Area Plan said that the Town needed to develop a policy that combines the preservation of the most significant buildings with the enlightened planned development or redevelopment of underutilized blocks, lots, and “holes” in the urban streetscape, and there should be varying levels of density and intensity up and down the primary streets. Mr. Gurlitz said the heights of newer buildings will be higher because of the size of the lots, but larger buildings can be accommodated on the larger lots and still remain within the Town’s prescribed environmental envelope. He said the hotel did fit within the height and building envelope criteria. Mr. Gurlitz added that the downtown is expected to evolve over the next several decades, and the Small Area Plan is an evolving document as changing conditions warrant, but ensuring that the qualities and features are preserved into the future.
Ron Horvath, Civil Engineer for the project, reported for the utilities, and said there were very narrow corridors to work within, but there was an adequate sewer service, an adequate storm system, fire protection, electric lines (which the staff was requesting be underground), streetscape, two access points for cars, one in front to an underground parking lot, and the side entrance to a parking deck. Mr. Horvath said his biggest concern was the requirement on stormwater, saying the applicant could meet the pre-imposed conditions, the 85% TSS requirement was not a major problem, the bio-retention could be accommodated, but the problem will be treating the first one inch of rainfall, and he will be meeting with the staff to see if there could be some modifications.
Mr. Gurlitz addressed building design and historicism regarding the existing building, the old bus station, which had been declared a preservation building as part of the Williamsburg Revival Buildings. He said this building did not share the close proximity of the other buildings, but sat alone on a site, and was built to accommodate the buses. Mr. Gurlitz said the applicant did not think that the building was a viable example for preservation, since it had originally been used by visitors to rent out horses, and was actually a barn. He described the proposed building design, showing the floor plan and the site development.
Mr. Gurlitz said the building being proposed on the site was consistent with the Design Manual and the Development Ordinance, and was designed to set back from the street. Mr. Gurlitz summarized the requirements and pointed out how the building would be in compliance:
· No more than two stories in height at the property line
· Include alcoves and special treatments at entries
· Storefront type windows adjacent to the sidewalk
· Build at the property line
· Use natural materials on the exteriors
Scott Radway, for the Planning Board, outlined the discussion that the Planning Board had from the points of view of the Downtown Small Area Plan and the Community Design Commission, such as building styles and whether buildings should be considered for development or redevelopment. He said the Planning Board had reviewed a number of items being discussed in the proposal and had voted 8-1 in favor of the project. Mr. Radway said the one dissenting vote was out of concern for the scale of the proposed building. He said the Planning Board had offered a few other suggestions to the applicant.
Estelle Mabry, former member of the Downtown Small Area Plan and a resident of the Northside communty, said her neighbors liked the idea of having people in the downtown at night utilizing the businesses at night.
Richard Giersch said he was speaking against construction of a hotel in the downtown because it was inappropriate in size and did not meet the needs of the community. He said the proposed building did not meet the findings needed for approval, and cited several reasons why he felt it did not. Mr. Giersch said the hotel would not meet any of the needs of the citizens of Chapel Hill, would have no open space, and would encourage the use of automobiles and low wage jobs.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Giersch for copies of his remarks to be distributed to the Council.
Aaron Nelson, Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber supported the hotel, and that it provided the opportunity for friends and family to stay in Chapel Hill. He added that it would bring people to the downtown and bridge the gap between East and West Franklin Streets. Mr. Nelson said that keeping the hotel in the downtown as an anchor for the downtown and keeping people on the streets of downtown at night would be of great benefit. He praised the work that Mr. Gurlitz had done for the buildings in the downtown.
Robert Humphreys, Executive Director of the Downtown Commission, said the response of the Commission’s Board was unanimously in favor of the plans for the hotel, and there was an overall need for the hotel. He said the Commission urged the Council to approve the hotel.
Chris Rice, business owner on West Franklin Street, asked for Council approval of the hotel. He said the property had remained empty and dark for several years, and the hotel would provide a link between East and West Franklin Street. Mr. Rice said the proposal for the property would be a very welcome prospect to battle the criminal element occurring from time to time. Mr. Rice said there was a shortage of hotel space in the Town. He urged rapid approval by the Council for the proposal.
Chris Belcher, former Chairman of the Downtown Commission and a member of the Historic District Commission, said he was speaking as a citizen, to recommend approval of the proposal. He said it would provide a lively downtown and encourage people to do business in the downtown.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Gurlitz what would be on top of the parking garage that was entered from Franklin Street. Mr. Gurlitz said there was parking on top of the garage and it was accessible from Kenan Street. He described the elevation along Franklin Street to Kenan Street and where the parking would be hidden from the street by cast stone.
Council Member Ward asked if there would be shower facilities for employees. Mr. Gurlitz said there was an area on the first floor for facilities for employees and there will be bike racks for employees and hotel guests.
Council Member Ward asked if the building facade was set back from Kenan Street. Mr. Gurlitz said the building recessed on all sides.
Council Member Ward suggested harvesting stormwater for reuse in the building, for use of the one-inch rainwater runoff. Mr. Gurlitz said that suggestion would be seriously considered.
Council Member Brown asked what the back of the building looked like, in particular for the use of energy. Mr.Gurlitz said the windows on the south side were smaller than the windows on the north side, and they would have tinted glass because some of the neighbors were concerned with light spill on the residential area.
Council Member Bateman asked how many service employees were projected. Mr. Gurlitz said there would be about 24-26 total at different times of the day.
Council Member Bateman said she was on the Board of the Orange County Partnership for Young Children, and she encouraged providing daycare for some of the low-wage employees, especially for people working after normal hours.
Mr. Gurlitz said the one-inch rain would be difficult on the site and said that Council Member Ward’s recommendation was an interesting direction and would be seriously considered. He said the crosswalk on Franklin Street would be vigorously pursued, and the reason for no restaurant in the hotel was to encourage use of all the good restaurants on the street. He asked for the Town support in the effort to get the State to approve a crosswalk.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Gurlitz to have a rendering of the whole block of buildings to show their relation to the proposed hotel. Mr. Gurlitz said he would do that.
Council Member Foy said it might help to get a crosswalk if the downtown businesses supported the efforts with the State.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that the University might help in the effort.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo suggested that Mr. Gurlitz might use the scale model of the building which he had used for his presentation to the Planning Board to show to the Council. Mr. Gurlitz displayed the model to the Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, THAT CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED 500 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE FRANKLIN HOTEL (2001-10-17/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 for the Franklin Hotel, 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 17th day of October, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 12, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4 – Eastowne 501 Office Building: Application for Special Use Permit
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper pointed out the area on the map, which was a site located at the corner of Old Sterling Drive and Eastowne Drive, with Providence Road to the north. She said the application was for a SUP on 3.8 acres in the Office/Institutional-2 zoning district. Ms. Culpepper said there were two points of access to the 36,709 square foot building for offices and clinic. She said there was some Resource Conservation area on the property.
Ms. Culpepper said that Resolution A included a stipulation calling for a future payment for a proportional payment for a future traffic signal at the corner of Erwin and Sage Roads. She said the Manager’s recommendation was for approval of Resolution A.
Phil Post, for the applicant, said the project did meet the four findings, and would be in full compliance with all regulations, and agreed to all stipulations in Resolution A. He added that the project had unanimous approval from all of the advisory boards.
Scott Radway, Planning Board member, said the Planning Board supported the proposal unanimously.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, THAT 500 FEET BE CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR EASTOWNE 501 OFFICE BUILDING (2001-10-17/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 Eastowne 501 Office Building, 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 Modification application to be that property described as follows:
All properties within 500 feet of the site.
This the 17th day of October, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 12, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.