SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, 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, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, Transportation Director May Lou Kuschatka, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Mayor Foy announced that Agenda Items 2 and 3 had been pulled from the agenda and would be rescheduled for February 16, 2004.
Item 1 - Concept Plan Review: Town Operations Center
Mr. Horton pointed out that, in this case, the Council was operating not only as regulator but also as owner. Tonight's staff presentation would allow the Council to consider the Town Operations Center (TOC) formally as a concept plan, he said.
Principal Planner Gene Poveromo outlined the proposal for a public service/public use facility on an 88-acre site between Interstate 40 and Millhouse Road, north of Eubanks Road. On a map, Mr. Poveromo indicated the portion of the site that was in Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction and the portion that was in Orange County's planning jurisdiction. He referred to the attached Community Design Commission (CDC) materials and the responses to some of those materials. Mr. Poveromo explained that there had not been a formal staff review of the Concept Plan.
Engineer Mike Hammersley, representing the applicant, explained that Architect Ken Redfoot was not present because he had to make a presentation elsewhere. Mr. Hammersley noted a change in the location of the transit center relative to where maintenance for buses would be. This makes the plan more compact and operationally efficient, he said.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked about the potential for a bike path connecting the Eubanks Road park and ride lot to the TOC. Mr. Hammersley replied that offsite improvements would include widening Eubanks Road and installing bike lanes. Mayor pro tem Evans explained that she had meant a shorter, more direct connection. Mr. Hammersley pointed out that a 40-foot utility easement heads in that direction. The Town could look into using that when they get to that phase, he said. Mr. Horton commented that the Town might not be able to use that easement as a bike lane due to the easement conditions that the Town had purchased. Mayor pro tem Evans remarked that the Town might be able to provide this as it develops the intervening lands.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Hammersley to indicate the vehicle wash center on the map. Mr. Hammersley pointed to two different locations: one for buses, the other for Public Works vehicles. Mayor Foy asked how the wash centers would drain, and Mr. Hammersley replied that 80% of the water would be reclaimed. He then ascertained, however, that Mayor Foy was referring to Community Development Commission (CDC) comments about protecting that area since it was so close to the Resource Conservation District (RCD). In addition to reusing 80% of the water, Mr. Hammersley stated, there would be a treatment system prior to water entering the RCD and then it would go into the sewer.
Mayor Foy inquired about bioretention facilities. Mr. Hammersley indicated several different locations, and Mayor Foy ascertained that those were filters rather than collectors. Mr. Hammersley explained that plant life would absorb water prior to its release. Mayor Foy determined that there were only two ponds on the site and that the other bioretention facilities were landscaped areas.
Council Member Verkerk inquired about how neighboring homes, particularly the one with the proposed TOC on three sides, would be buffered. Mr. Hammersley replied that there would be 20 feet of buffering on the northern side where the road comes in and another 20 feet on the other side of that road. On the southern side of that neighbor's lot, there would be large buffered areas, he said. The buffer along the northern part by the railroad track had been increased to 100 feet because of the residences there, Mr. Hammersley said.
Council Member Verkerk said that she felt hypocritical about allowing the Town to propose 20-foot buffers while criticizing other developers for doing so. Mr. Hammersley explained that the entrance roadway was fixed near the property line. That was why they tried to add so much supplemental buffer on the other side of the road, he said.
Council Member Ward determined that the bus parking lot would be concrete rather than asphalt. He inquired about orientation changes to the northern part of the plan. Mr. Hammersley explained that they had rotated a fleet building to be parallel with the other buildings. This yields more room along the RCD, he said.
Mr. Horton asked if the Council wanted the staff to address the issue of the 20-foot buffers. Mayor Foy remarked that the TOC situation was different from some others where the industrial use was close to residences. However, the Town needs to be able to demonstrate at least that the noise created by its activities would not adversely affect that one house, he said. Mayor Foy pointed out that buses coming in and out of that driveway could create a problem for that resident. Merely increasing the buffer to 20 feet might not resolve the problem, he said.
Council Member Ward agreed that the Town would have to mitigate the sound, light and visual impacts on that house. Mr. Horton said that the staff would do its best to address those issues.
Blackwood Mountain Road resident Jan Grossman expressed disapproval of the TOC's location because it would create traffic, noise, environmental impact, and safety issues. But he had been told that there were no alternative locations because there were no other options, he said. Mr. Grossman asked Council members to consider eliminating truck and bus traffic from Millhouse Road by having access from Eubanks Road instead. He had been advocating for this option since February, he said, adding that the Town Manager's Office had agreed in February that Eubanks was the preferred entrance. Mr. Grossman compared the two roads and gave several reasons why Eubanks was the better option.
Mr. Grossman noted that owners of the land off Eubanks do not wish to sell and that the road would have to cross a creek from Eubanks. Neither of those issues seemed insurmountable, he said, and he recommended that the Town use its powers to acquire the land necessary for a safe, efficiently operating facility. Mr. Grossman cautioned Council members to avoid rushing in and approving a plan without considering this alternative. If the land is not acquired immediately, he said, the Town should plan for eventually purchasing it and constructing the access road off Eubanks.
Mr. Grossman commented on the frustration of living outside city limits and having no say over the design of a facility that is in his neighborhood. He asked that Council members do the "smart and right thing" and keep heavy vehicular traffic off rural roads and to consider the Eubanks Road alternative.
Council Member Bateman asked the Town Manager if the staff had looked seriously at Eubanks Road as an option. Mr. Horton replied that the Town had not been able to obtain the necessary property in that area. If they had, then they would have looked seriously at that option, he said. Council Member Bateman determined that there was a property between the Eubanks Road park and ride lot and the TOC, which prevented that from being an entrance. Mr. Horton replied that he thought, based on discussions, that the Town could only obtain that property through condemnation.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0)
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE TOWN OPERATIONS CENTER (2003-11-17/R-1)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Town Operations Center; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations from the applicant, the Community Design Commission, and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussion on November 17, 2003, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 17th day of November, 2003.
Items 2 and 3: Deferred to February 16, 2004
Item 4 - Concept Plan Review: Eastowne 501 Office Building
Mr. Poveromo outlined the request to modify the Special Use Permit (SUP), which the Town Council had approved in November 2001. He noted that Stipulation 3 had required 18 parking spaces under the building. The proposed modification would eliminate those parking spaces, he said. On a map, Mr. Poveromo pointed out the 3.8-acre site at the corner of Old Sterling Drive and Eastowne Drive. The CDC's formal review was included in the Council's packet, he said
Phil Post, representing the applicant, explained the request to build a smaller project with less parking. He distributed a petition for expedited review and explained that the original project had been well received and swiftly approved. Mr. Post described this proposal as nearly identical to the original. The key change was the elimination of under-building parking, he said, which would result in a two-story rather than a three-story building.
Mr. Post stated that the building itself would be about 18% smaller thereby preserving nearly 10% more natural woodlands. He pointed out that this proposal, if approved, would follow the new Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) regulations for stormwater control and would create less impact in almost every measurable way. Mr. Post added that the smaller design was more likely to get the financial backing because having direct access from the parking field would make it a more desirable building. He noted that the Manager could normally approve a request of this type. But since there had been a specific stipulation for 18 underground spaces, Mr. Post said, the Council must approve the change.
Mr. Horton pointed out that the staff had not reviewed this proposal under the new LUMO. They would have to apply all of the provisions to make sure they had not overlooked something that had not been required in the first pass through under the old ordinance, he said. Mr. Horton pointed out that expedited review would mean doing all of the normal work, but in a hurry. For this reason, he requested that the Council not grant expedited review.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Post if he wanted to comment. Mr. Post stated that the Town Engineering Department had looked at the stormwater element. The applicant was not asking for any letup in the strength or detail of the review, he said, but merely wanted an answer to the question of whether or not they may build a smaller building.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Horton when the applicant could anticipate this coming back to the Council if it went through the normal, non-expedited process. Mr. Horton replied that he would be able to answer that question by November 24th, which is what would normally happen anyway. The only reason he commented tonight, which was an unusual time, was because the petition had been brought in at an unusual time, Mr. Horton said.
Council Member Ed Harrison verified that applicants may petition for expedited review anytime they wish. But there is nothing to expedite until there is an actual application, Mr. Horton said.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, TO ADOPT R-4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0)
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE EASTOWNE 501 OFFICE BUILDING (2003-11-17/R-4)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Eastowne 501 Office Building; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations from the applicant, the Community Design Commission, and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussion on November 17, 2003, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 17th day of November, 2003.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.