SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, and Jim Ward.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins and Council Members Cam Hill and Dorothy Verkerk were absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Senior Planner Phil Mason, Acting Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Item 1 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study
for Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road
Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland stated that tonight’s public forum was for the purpose of receiving public comment on the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Study for Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road corridor. He stated that the project limits were from US 15-501 in Chapel Hill to Garrett Road in Durham, which was approximately 2.7 miles. Mr. Sutherland provided a brief background of the history of the project.
Mr. Sutherland noted that Chapel Hill had entered into a Municipal Agreement with the City of Durham to participate in this project, and that Durham had contracted in 2004 with consultants Kimley-Horn and Associates to complete the study. He stated that a Policy Committee made up of elected officials, board and commission members and local citizens from Durham and Chapel Hill was formed to oversee the project, along with a Technical Committee of staff from the two partners and the North Carolina Department of Transportation to support the project.
Mr. Sutherland provided an overview of the opportunities for public participation to date:
· April 2005 design charette, prepared and evaluated design alternatives and constructability drawings.
· June 22, 2005 Public Open House to review maps and provide feedback on draft proposals.
· July, 2005 Draft Study forwarded to Town of Chapel Hill and City of Durham for review.
Mr. Sutherland noted that recommendations contained in the study included but were not limited to:
Mr. Sutherland provided funding options:
· Option 1 – Build Phase I of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements from US 15-501 on the west to connect with the New Hope Creek and Greenway on the east - $1.92 million.
· Option 2 – Build Phase I of the project from US 15-501 on the west to Garrett Road on the east, building only the pedestrian improvements first - $425,000.
· Option 3 – Build Phase I of the project from SU 15-501 on the west to Garrett Road on the east, building only the bicycle lanes first - $2.1 million.
Mr. Sutherland stressed that this was a feasibility study and was a preliminary plan for making improvements. He said it identified a vision of what may be possible, and what would be needed to achieve that vision. Mr. Sutherland stated that the next step in the design process would be the preparation of detailed design plans. He said it was important to note that all Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road was a State-maintained roadway, and improvements would have to be agreed upon by NCDOT.
Mr. Sutherland noted the next steps following tonight’s public forum:
October 10 Follow-up report to the Council with recommendations
October 17 Durham City Council considers the draft study.
November Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) considers draft study and community feedback.
Mr. Sutherland said at the conclusion of the review process, they anticipated that the MPO would issue Requests for Proposals for the detailed design of this project, and would likely need to seek additional funding to complete the project.
Mr. Sutherland said they recommended that the Council refer comments and suggestions received to the Manager for preparation of a report and recommendations to the Council.
Mayor Foy noted that Council Members Ward and Harrison were the Town’s representatives on the Policy Committee, and would both make statements after citizen comments were received.
Lauren Gillian, a member of the Policy Committee and a resident of the corridor, noted the unsafe conditions in her neighborhood. She said she believed Option 1 made the most sense to her, and that the bonds approved in 2003 should be used for Chapel Hill’s local match. Ms. Gillian said this project was just the type of thing that had convinced her to vote for the bonds.
Michael Ferejohn, a resident of the White Oak subdivision, emphasized that there was no sidewalks present now. He said if you were walking or riding a bike, you were faced with the decision of staying on the pavement and taking that chance, or trying to stay out of the bushes. Mr. Ferejohn said that speed limits were not effectively enforced on that roadway because it was a major thoroughfare, and that increased the danger. He said he was not sure which option was best, but it was better to do something than do nothing at all.
Matt Hapgood, a member of the Town’s Transportation Board and a representative on the Policy Committee, stated he strongly supported the project. He said this was a great step in linking Durham and Chapel Hill with modes of transportation other than vehicular. Mr. Hapgood noted his strong support for the project.
Andrea Phillips, a resident of Pope Road in the area of Chapel Hill that is located in Durham County, stated she would walk a lot more if sidewalks were present. She said no one walks on Pope Road, but when you get up to Ephesus Church Road many people were walking their dogs or exercising or visiting their neighbors. Ms. Phillips stated that her father and sister had feared for their lives when trying to walk on Pope Road.
Bill Thorpe, a candidate for a Council seat in the upcoming November elections, stated that bicycle and pedestrian safety was a top priority for him, and was pleased to see this study moving forward.
Council Member Ward stated he supported the comments made this evening and believed that Option 1 was the way to go. He said this was a public, high traffic site that had significant funding, and he hoped that could be augmented to provide continuous bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to allow people to travel to the many destinations along that corridor. Council Member Ward commented that this was a great example of multi-jurisdiction cooperation, and it should be used to show NCDOT what such cooperation could accomplish, as well as how to change their highways into multi-use facilities that were supportive of people on foot or on bicycles.
Council Member Ward said the plan had innovative traffic calming on either end of the I-40 bridge in the form of roundabouts that would allow it to work for pedestrians and bicyclists in addition to slower vehicular traffic. He said he hoped that the Town would soon enter into discussions with Blue Cross/Blue Shield to make sure that the vision the Town had for their frontage would be a vision that they shared with the Town.
Council Member Harrison thanked the speakers for their comments, as well as the Policy Committee members. He said this project was an education for him in how long it takes things to happen in transportation, noting he had first proposed this project many years ago and was now seeing results in that they had something they could look at, appreciate and evaluate. Council Member Harrison said Option 1 would have been what he favored those many years ago, and supported Option 1 now.
Council Member Harrison said he was pleased that even though it was years out, the Manager was proposing that they use bond funds to support the project. He said he believed that was why they had proposed the bonds in the first place, to support local needs of this kind.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY FOR A REPORT ON OCTOBER 10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
Mayor Foy asked the Manager if everything proceeded according to plan, when something would begin to happen. Mr. Horton asked Mr. Sutherland to respond. Mr. Sutherland stated it would take a period of time to seek additional funding for the detailed design work, so it would probability be a minimum of 12 to 18 months before we had that design work.
Mayor Foy asked what the next steps would be if they satisfied those steps. Mr. Sutherland said they would have to hire someone to do the detailed design work, and that would have to go through the NCDOT approval process. He said if they were looking to implement more than just Phase I, then they should be thinking about if they could get additional funding from federal sources. Mr. Sutherland said once they had approval from NCDOT, they would be in a better position to schedule construction.
Item 2 – Public Hearing on UNC Cogeneration Facility:
Special Use Permit Modification
Senior Planner Phil Mason stated they had received a request for approval of a Special Use Permit Modification for the University of North Carolina Cogeneration Facility. He said that Resolution A would approval the application with conditions, and Resolution B would deny the application. Mr. Mason stated they recommend approval of Resolution A.
Mr. Mason displayed an area map and pointed out the location of the Cogeneration Facility. He said the area was zoned largely industrial, with a small portion on the south side zoned Residential-4. Mr. Mason said the surrounding zoning was Residential-3 and Residential-4. He pointed out the notification boundary.
Mr. Mason exhibited some photographs of the site showing existing conditions. He then displayed the site plan, pointing out the location of various proposed projects on the site. Mr. Mason commented that there were 128 existing parking spaces on the site, with no new parking proposed. He said the applicant was requesting an alternative buffer along West Cameron Avenue.
Mr. Mason said the modifications requested by the applicant were for setback requirements, maximum height, floor area, and buffer widths. He said a key issue was that they believe it was important that the applicant protect rare and specimen trees, noting there were approximately 10 of them in the northeast corner of the site near where the gas-insulated switchgear building was proposed.
Peter Krawchyk, representing the University, displayed an aerial map the site. He noted that the cogeneration facility responded to campus growth, and indicated the reasons why the University proposed the modifications to the SUP. Mr. Krawchyk noted these projects were consistent with the 1997 Steam System Master Plan, and would maximize efficiency of energy generating equipment. Mr. Krawchyk displayed the site plan indicating the location of the various projects proposed.
Mr. Krawchyk stated that the electrical substation project was to replace aging electrical equipment, and they wanted to locate it indoors and perform aesthetic improvements to the entire facility. He described the brick building that was designed using the Gore Building as a model, which was built in the 1940s.
Mr. Krawchyk described the proposed switchgear building site. He said that facility would take power from the Duke Power substation, move it through switch gears, and provide it to the University. He said in order to do that the line feeding from the Duke Power substation to this facility had to be a straight linear line. Mr. Krawchyk said there was a minimum distance in the Town’s Code that was required between a switch gear and the transformers. He said those two constraints dictated where they could place the facility on the site.
Mr. Krawchyk described the screening for this facility, noting they had originally proposed that it be aligned with the existing Duke Power fence. He said they had come to realize that it would push that fence closer to the sidewalk on Cameron Avenue, and were now proposing an ornamental metal screen that would begin at the corner of the proposed building and run in two directions to the end of the site, rather than in front of the building. Mr. Krawchyk said that would gain them about 16 feet of landscape buffer.
Mr. Krawchyk next described the addition to the Turbine Generator building being proposed, to provide additional generating capacity, and displayed photos of the existing building. He then described the cooling towers project, noting the project would replace some aging cooling towers as well as some storage buildings. Mr. Krawchyk pointed out the location of the cooling towers on a photo of the site, stating they were proposing an acoustical screen wall surrounding the new towers. He stated the screen wall would be approximately 35 feet high, adding that the towers were approximately 37 to 38 feet high.
Mr. Krawchyk stated that the existing storage sheds contained about 13,000 square feet of storage. He said the proposed storage facility would contain about 10,000 square feet. He said they were doing their best to maximize the efficiency of their site, but nonetheless the new storage facility would require a modification of the height allowance. Mr. Krawchyk said that the land immediately across from this site on McCauley Road was undeveloped, and the nearest house to this site was 150 feet away.
Mr. Krawchyk pointed out that while they seek approval of Resolution A, they also seek three changes to the resolution. The first was that Stipulation #3 should be clarified to state that the height of the storage building at the eave line was 58 feet high, with the top of the roof peak at 63 feet high.
Mr. Krawchyk stated that the last project was called the Black Starr generator, which would provide the initial start-up power to the entire cogeneration facility. He said these generators were currently located where the proposed switchgear building would be, and noted the new location proposed for the generator. Mr. Krawchyk noted this location was one of those which required the removal of a specimen tree. He said the entire site was very congested and this was one of the few sites remaining. Mr. Krawchyk said he had been told that the tree was dying with only one branch producing leaves, and even though it was a specimen tree, in reality it was not.
Mr. Krawchyk said the second of the three changes they propose to Resolution A concerned a recommendation from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board that a U-shaped rack be provided. He said they would like to request that it be modified to a wave-shaped rack which was the University standard, and provided three additional bicycle spaces.
Mr. Krawchyk said the final change they sought was a recommendation from the Manager regarding the lighting plan. He said the final sentence in that recommendation read “that the applicant shall retrofit existing lights, as appropriate, to achieve compliance with the lighting standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance.” Mr. Krawchyk stated that they had held neighborhood meetings and had not received any complaints regarding lighting impacts from the existing facility. He said they were also concerned about safety issues, noting that was a critical utility for the campus and did not know what the impacts would be to the workers on the site. Mr. Krawchyk said they also did not know what the impact of that would have on the security of the facility.
Robin Cutson requested that the Council consider three changes, and provided some background information on remarks she had made in the past regarding the carbon reduction program. She proposed the following:
1. That UNC provide information about the amount of coal they burned annually covering the previous five years to see if and how much coal use was increasing, and also a clear statement as to whether the tons of coal currently burned would increase in order to double the power output capacity.
2. That UNC agree to join the Town as a full participant in the measurement of carbon emissions and reduction plans under the Community Carbon Reduction Project.
3. That the Town requests, receives and makes available to the public information from UNC concerning all levels of pollutants currently released by UNC’s power plant including but not limited to carbon dioxide as well as mercury.
Joyce Brown, representing the Westside Neighborhood Association, noted it had been almost 20 years since the Council had approved the SUP for UNC’s power plant. She said from the beginning the power plant had been a source of both noise and light pollution for the adjacent neighborhoods, and although UNC had worked to mitigate both noise and light problems the plant remained a burden for the nearby neighborhoods.
Ms. Brown noted that the plant was also a source of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. She said although this plant was cleaner than the previous plant and cleaner than others in the State, harmful materials were still being emitted. Ms. Brown said although UNC had said it had no plans to expand beyond the present boundaries; it had actually expanded into an adjacent neighborhood with a large parking lot, causing concern to the neighborhood.
Ms. Brown said they believed it was time for the Town to ask for some modifications in return for UNC’s requested modifications. She noted that the Westside Neighborhood Association felt that the Town should require the following of UNC:
1. That UNC be required to comply with the current Town noise ordinance.
2. That UNC be required to annually publish in all local newspapers the most recent NCDNR, Division of Air Quality, Air Pollutant Point Source Emissions Inventory for the Power Plant.
3. That UNC be required to publish on that same page the greenhouse gas emissions. This would be a separate listing because these are not considered pollutants by the United States and therefore are not measured by the State of North Carolina.
Ms. Brown asked for the Council’s serious consideration of these three requests.
Baird Grimson, President of the Westside Neighborhood Association, stated that in light of the proposal to modify the SUP for UNC’s Cogeneration Facility, which would substantially increase its power production, they are asking that the Town’s noise ordinance be applied to this facility. He stated that currently the facility’s non-conformance with the new noise ordinance was grandfathered. Mr. Grimson stated that the noise ordinance clearly addressed the decibel levels for different primary use categories, and how those decibel levels were altered when boundaries were shared by different primary use categories.
Mr. Grimson noted that compliance with the noise ordinance as a condition of
approval of the modification of the SUP would contribute to an improvement of
the public health, safety, quality of life, and general welfare of the nearby
neighborhoods, as well as enhance or maintain the value of nearby properties.
Joyce Brown, speaking as a private citizen, said it was of great concern that UNC continued to use coal to supply heating, cooling, and some electricity to its main campus. She noted that UNC had cited cost as one of the main factors in its original decision to use coal, yet the true environmental costs, both human and economic, as well as taxpayer costs were not factored in.
Ms. Brown said that UNC had said it had no plans to expand beyond the present power plant boundaries, but it did not have to do that if it was allowed to continue expanding its capacity on site.
Ms. Brown said she asked as a power plant neighbor, a neighborhood preservationist, and a conservationist that the Council include in the SUP modification a stipulation indicating that this would be the last on site expansion in any way at the Cameron Avenue power plant that would be allowed by the Town, and echoing the Horace Williams Committee report that coal was an unacceptable source of energy for Chapel Hill. Ms. Brown said that report had stipulated no coal or nuclear for a reason, and the Town could begin to embrace that report now by stipulating no future expansion of the use of coal.
Council Member Harrison thanked Ms. Brown and Mr. Grimson for attending the meeting, adding that he and they had been members of the Town’s Noise Ordinance Committee. He said he remembered that in July 1997 the Committee had taken a tour of noise sources in the community, and the first place visited early that morning was the Cogeneration Plant. Council Member Harrison remarked that it was a “remarkable noise source” and an “incredible presence in the neighborhood” that was trying to get use to it.
Council Member Harrison stated that the Cogeneration Plant had been grandfathered in when the Noise Ordinance was enacted in 2001, and there had been assurances by UNC that an acoustical engineer would work on construction plans to mitigate the noise. He said he now wondered if that should be a stronger stipulation, if it was indeed in the proposed resolution. Council Member Harrison said he had been unable to locate such a stipulation. He said if the Cogeneration Plant was complying only with the old regulations, then it had a long way to go to comply with the current ordinance.
Council Member Harrison said he would like to hear the Council’s opinion on Ms. Brown’s suggestions regarding coal plant pollution, noting he believed it deserved consideration. He said this was the only facility of its type in the Town limits, and in fact was the only one near here. Council Member Harrison said there was no annual report from UNC so they did not know what the impacts of the facility were.
Council Member Strom said one of the required findings of fact that the Council was required to make was that this use or development was designed and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote public health. He said that several citizens had commented on public health, and he believed they needed more research by staff so that the Council could receive additional advice.
Council Member Strom said on page 22 of the staff report environmental issues were addressed, but those issues were watershed protection, floodplain, stormwater management, and erosion control. So, he said, he wanted to receive some additional information about what the specific public health issue was concerning the coal-burning nature of this facility, and he would like to have an understanding of how much if any additional coal would be used at this facility.
Council Member Strom said he would also like to hear from the Town’s new partner at Carolina Environmental Program as to how this permit interplays with the carbon reduction goals.
Council Member Ward said he needed to know a lot more about the air, noise, and light pollution impacts of this upgrade. He said it was obvious that UNC had made a significant effort on the aesthetic issues of the facility and those were appreciated, but he needed to understand the incremental increase in air pollution, noise pollution, and light pollution that go hand in hand with this capacity upgrade before he could support the issuance of the SUP modification. Council Member Ward said he wanted that information in a quantifiable form so that it could be compared with what they were currently experiencing and with what they could expect with the improvements.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that of the questions regarding light and emissions and noise all seemed like such obvious questions. He asked if these issues had come up during the concept plan review, saying he believed they must have and he wondered why the applicant had not addressed them. Mr. Krawchyk said those issues had come up in various forms. He said that regarding noise pollution, the question concerned the new cooling towers, and as stated they would meet the Noise Ordinance restrictions with the construction of the new towers. Mr. Krawchyk said the last major construction at the facility was the coal silo project, and the entire facility was in compliance with the Noise Ordinance.
Regarding light pollution, Mr. Krawchyk said he could only add that those issues did not come up at the concept plan review mainly because these are unmanned facilities that are on the perimeter of the site. He said they were adding a total of seven lights to the facility, all of which were over personnel doors to the various buildings.
Mr. Krawchyk said in terms of pollution, in an oblique fashion he believed it was addressed. He said the question had come up in one session of would there be an increase in rail traffic. Mr. Krawchyk said the boiler being added was a natural gas boiler, so the number of rail cars coming into the site would not increase nor would there be an increase in coal combustion at the facility with this project.
Mayor Foy said he believed that Mr. Krawchyk was stating that this project would comply with the Town’s current Noise Ordinance. Mr. Krawchyk stated that was correct. Mayor Foy asked if he was also stating that there was no net increase in carbon output at this site. Ray Dubois, the Director for Energy Services at UNC, responded that they were not increasing fuel combustion capacity, but were added electric generation capacity. He said the answer to the Mayor’s question was no, they would not be increasing carbon output at this site.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Dubois how you got more energy without increasing coal combustion. Mr. Dubois said in the cogeneration process, the fuel was burned to generate heat. He said cogeneration, combined heat and power, was the production of two forms of energy simultaneous. Mr. Dubois said in the case of the Cogeneration Facility, they were generating steam and electricity simultaneously. He said they had to have the steam for heating and cooling at the University, and the electrical generation, which they called “free electricity,” was a by-product of the steam generation production.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not understand, stating if there was no more combustion then how did you get the steam. Mr. Dubois said they were not adding steam capacity in this plant, they were adding steam capacity to the Manning steam plant that was being built adjacent to the Craig Parking Deck. He said the current steam production would continue at its designed capacity.
Mr. Dubois said as the University grows and its needs increase, they could generate additional electricity with that steam, so they were adding a generator at a time. He noted that this was contained in the University’s 1997 Master Plan, stating the plan at the time was to replace an existing boiler and add a boiler. Mr. Dubois said they had already added that boiler, and now with the growth of the University and the additional need for steam, they could add the generation capacity that was planned for back then to continue to generate electricity with the steam that had to be generated in any case for the heating and cooling needs of the University.
Mr. Horton asked Mr. Dubois if the University would be consuming more fuel. Mr. Dubois responded that they would be consuming more fuel with the growth of the University for heating and cooling. Mr. Horton asked would the increase in the consumption of fuel result in an increase in emissions. Mr. Dubois said yes, it would.
Mayor Foy said he believed the Council had heard reasonable concerns from citizens tonight regarding noise, emissions, and light. He asked the staff to help them sort through this and figure out which of the requests might be implemented, and how. Mayor Foy said that Council Member Strom had asked a good question about how this SUP modification would impact the carbon reduction effort that the Town viewed as a long-term goal. He said they needed at least some reasonable response to that. Mr. Horton said that UNC in the past on these sorts of issues had readily replied to the Council’s request for information, and sometimes they had to work hard to understand the information because they were not scientists. He remarked that they had had good luck in the past in interpreting that information for the Council and would do their best this time, adding he was confident that the University would cooperate in that regard.
Mayor Foy noted that the three main concerns were noise, lighting, and emissions.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that one of the citizens had perhaps misunderstood the process the Council was now engaged in, asking who on the Council wanted particular information. He said it was important that if there was information available from citizens on this or any topic before the Council that it be made part of the record in order for it to be considered. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he hoped the citizen understood that the Council was always open to receiving information and would take it into consideration if it was received. He said it was unfortunate that perhaps that process had been misunderstood.
Council Member Harrison said in regard to Ms. Brown’s statement about stipulating that the facility adhere to the current noise ordinance, that there was no way in 1997 that the facility complied with the ordinance. He said the University was now saying that with the coal silo upgrade that it was brought into compliance. Council Member Harrison said he would like to see some documentation of that.
Council Member Harrison said the next comment was in regards to Ms. Brown’s second request for publishing annually in all local newspapers the most recent NCDNR, Division of Air Quality, Air Pollutant Point Source Emissions Inventory for the Power Plant. He said that might very well be required as part of the permit for this facility, and it should be available to the Council as public record. Council Member Harrison said he would like to see that as part of the application, and would like the Council to talk about having it as a stipulation in the resolution.
Council Member Harrison said regarding greenhouse emissions, he would like to hear from the staff about how to pursue that. He said that was not tied into the permitting process anywhere in North Carolina. Council Member Harrison thanked Ms. Brown for bringing forward these ideas.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 9, 2005. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
Item 3 – Public Hearing on Land Use Management Ordinance
Text Amendment Modification to Payment-in-Lieu of
Recreation Area and to Setback Language
Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper stated that the Council was considering two Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) amendments:
1) Payment in Lieu of Recreation Area: a modification to the method used in calculating payments in lieu of recreation area.
2) Setback Language: a modification to the setback language of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Ms. Culpepper said the for the first text amendment, new residential developments were required to provide recreation for new residents, noting this component was classified as either recreation area or recreation space depending on the type of development. Ms. Culpepper said in some circumstances the Council may approve a payment-in-lieu of providing on-site recreation, adding that LUMO described the method used to determine the payment in those kinds of cases where the Council had authorized a payment.
Ms. Culpepper said this text amendment would provide a system similar to what was currently in place for apartment complexes or multi-family developments for recreation space requirements. Ms. Culpepper said if the Council concluded that a recreation area payment was appropriate in lieu of providing on site recreation, this text amendment would provide a formula using a multiplier to determine the amount of payment. She added that the multiplier would be established each year as a part of the Town’s budget. Ms. Culpepper said they believe this proposal would be consistent, fair, and an easier method of calculating a recreation area payment.
Ms. Culpepper said the second proposed text amendment was a “housekeeping” item. She stated they believed the term “front line setback” was inadvertently included in a footnote in LUMO. Ms. Culpepper said the term had caused some confusion and did not appropriately describe how they determined building setbacks, and were recommending that it be removed.
Ms. Culpepper said their preliminary recommendation was that the Council enact both of these text amendments. She noted that Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster was present if there were questions regarding the recreation area payment-in-lieu.
Mayor Foy said in the memo it said that the current way of calculating the payment-in-lieu had been disappointing, and asked what was meant by that. Mr. Webster responded a problem they had experienced historically was that almost each and every time they had accepted a payment-in-lieu for recreation area it had become an adversarial situation in which a developer would hire an appraiser who represented its clients well. He said that intuitively the payments were very low and in other cases seemed to be a little high.
Mr. Webster said they were now in the process of taking some of those historical cases and applying them to the proposed method to see what would be the outcome. He said it appeared that if they tried to use a consistent method as proposed here that those prior cases that the payments would have been all over the board, with some being much too high and others much too low, with one or two being correct based on the multiplier.
Mr. Webster said in almost every case the developer had to hire an appraiser, and they had no idea at the beginning of the process what a payment-in-lieu would cost, so when they began designing their development with a payment-in-lieu in mind, they didn’t know what they are actually going to have to pay.
Mayor Foy said then the value that would be assigned to a property would be at its post-development value as determined by the County tax appraiser. Mr. Webster said that was correct. He said the County used a consistent appraisal method rather than a multiplier.
Council Member Strom said they were talking about the square footage of the land that was used as the basis, so someone could put 25 units on an acre and pay the same as someone who put 10 units on that acre. He asked if that was correct, and if it was State law that required them to do that or did they have some flexibility.
Mayor Foy said he believed that was the point. Council Member Strom said it was based on the value of the land. Mayor Foy responded but only after development of the land with its improvements. Council Member Strom asked if that was correct.
Mr. Webster said the process was that the developer must get an appraisal of the developed land with roads, utilities and sidewalks, but no buildings. He said in other words, the site as prepared for development. Mr. Webster said the appraisal was supposed to be based. Mr. Webster said this method would base the appraisal on the land at the time that the project was proposed for development, so if a development had 100,000 square feet with 10,000 square feet of recreation area, then they would use the appraised value per square foot times the number of square feet required times some Council multiplier.
Council Member Strom said there seemed to be a disconnect between that method of appraising and what the burden would be on the Town’s park and recreation facilities or the Town’s ability to produce those facilities. He said that the expected number of people in a development was what they should be concerned about.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Webster why the post-development value was not used or at least post-rezoning. Mr. Webster replied that the post-development value would have to be determined by an appraisal which is what this text amendment was trying to avoid. Mayor Foy stated that was what the Orange County Tax Assessor did. Mr. Webster responded that the Orange County Tax Assessor appraises the value of the raw land with any buildings that may be present.
Council Member Strom asked why not use a formula based on the number of bedrooms in a development.
Council Member Ward said the Tax Assessor appraised the land with just the infrastructure present.
Council Member Greene said the Tax Assessor would not know how many units would be placed on a piece of land.
Council Member Ward asked if the multiplier had any relation to the intensity of a development, or was there one multiplier regardless of what was placed on a piece of land. Mr. Webster replied that he believed the number of square feet of recreation area that is required of the developer is based on the total square footage of the development, so in that respect it was based on the intensity. He said that would be the equalizer, in that if you had an R-1 subdivision they would be required to dedicate fewer square feet of recreation area than an R-2 or R-3 subdivision. Mr. Webster said that was where the intensity of use played a part.
Council Member Strom said he continued to believe using the number of bedrooms present should be considered, or some factor that would not require an appraisal. He said they already knew how many bedrooms generated how many people Town-wide.
Mayor Foy asked how the multiplier would be established. Mr. Webster responded that the multiplier would be established annually by the budget. He said initially what they were proposing was that the Parks and Recreation Commission would develop a recommendation which would be brought before the Council. He said that State law actually required that the recreation area be based on the value of the property, which was why they had recommended this method rather than the recreation space method.
Ms. Culpepper pointed out that we were talking about recreation area that would be applied to the subdivision of land, so there would be cases where they were looking at a proposal to subdivide a property and create lots, and they might not necessarily know what would be placed on those lots. She said they had a recreation space formula in place now for multi-family developments, but what they were talking about tonight was related to setting aside of recreation land in subdivisions.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
Item 4 – Concept Plan: American Board of Pediatrics
Acting Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo said this was a concept plan for the American Board of Pediatrics, located on the east side of Kingston Drive between Weaver Dairy Road and Silver Cedar Court. He said currently there was about 38,000 square feet of office space on the six-acre site, along with 91 parking spaces and a large pond. Mr. Poveromo said that the applicant was proposing to build 23,000 square feet of floor area and add 80 parking spaces. He said the property was zoned O&I-2, with some Resource Conservation District (RCD) area on the property.
Mr. Poveromo said the applicant was proposing to build a parking lot north of the pond, with access located from Kingston Drive. He said one of the Community Design Commission’s (CDC) comments was to align the new parking lot driveway with the existing driveway into Timberlyne.
Mr. Poveromo said that new curb cuts were proposed on Kingston Drive for two parking lots, and another comment from the CDC was to eliminate one of those curb cuts and try to connect the two parking lots internally with a driveway.
Mr. Poveromo said a building was proposed with a parking lot between the building and the pond. He said that one CDC member suggested moving the building closer to the pond and relocating the parking area.
Mr. Poveromo said the applicant was proposing to build a sidewalk along the parking lot coming out in the mid-block area of Weaver Dairy Road, and the CDC expressed some concern that doing so may cause people to try to cross Weaver Diary Road mid-block. He said the CDC suggested having pedestrians directed to the intersection where a stop light was located was safer.
Mr. Poveromo said there were general comments from the CDC concerning traffic impacts to the nearby residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Poveromo stated the staff recommendation was that the Council receive comments from the public and from the CDC and transmit those comments to the applicant.
Don Tise, with Tise-Kiester Architects, noted they were the architects for the Phase I and Phase II built portions of this project. He noted that Dan Jewell would be arriving shortly, but in the meantime he would attempt to answer any questions the Council may have.
Mr. Tise said that two parking lots were proposed, and that there were two existing curb cuts. He said that had generated the location of the parking lots. Mr. Tise said they had wanted to keep the parking lower in one particular area in order to retain as much of the existing vegetation as possible, adding there were several trees there they wanted to retain. He said the American Board of Pediatrics did not foresee their growth plan ever needing to use the top corner of this property for building, but to meet the parking requirements set by the Town that property was needed for additional parking.
Mr. Tise said they had recently acquired a one-story structure located below the proposed parking lot, and planned to build an extension to that building that would make it U-shaped. He said that had dictated the location of the building mentioned by the CDC. Mr. Tise said there was also a Phase I piece that was a connector between the recently-acquired building and the remainder of the project.
Mr. Tise said another key point was that the applicant had been around for many years and was a low-intensity use group, adding everyone had their own office. He said it was not a typical open-office landscape with many people packed into it, so they didn’t need as many parking spaces as were being required for that future phase, and suggested that perhaps that could be addressed.
Council Member Strom asked if there were a number of parking spaces that they would propose. Mr. Tise said he did not know.
Council Member Harrison asked why they would want to eliminate parking in that northwestern area. Mr. Tise said they would like to eliminate it, but that was not possible.
Mayor Foy asked if Mr. Tise was saying that it was the Town’s requirements they were trying to meet, but that they could live without that much parking. He asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos if the Town could make exceptions to that requirement. Mr. Karpinos replied yes, as part the SUP application.
Michelle Wall, Vice President of Operations for the American Board of Pediatrics, stated they had conducted a survey of current parking needs over the last two weeks. She said they currently had 91 parking spaces between the two buildings, and the average number of cars parked in their lots over the last two weeks was 55. Ms. Wall said that meant they currently had an excess of 36 parking spaces.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if they had a lot of empty offices, or was their building full. Ms. Wall responded that they each had their own office and they were fairly large, so that even though the building was large there were not a lot of people crammed into the space.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if every office was occupied. Ms. Wall said they currently had room for about 10 additional people that they plan to hire over the next 10 years.
Mayor Foy asked how many parking spaces did they want to add, or did they not want any added at all. Ms. Wall said they would definitely need some additional parking when other buildings were constructed, but not the number required by the Town.
Council Member Strom asked if they had a number in mind, adding they did not have to commit to any number at this time. Ms. Wall said they would need some, but not the full number required.
Mr. Tise said regarding the parking in Phase I, the building planned would link the two buildings would not add any additional car traffic to the site. He said that Phase II would require a small amount of parking. Mr. Tise said from an architectural standpoint, he would like not to have to build but about half of that lot. He explained that there was an existing dead-end parking lot located near another lot, and they were proposing to connect the two for better internal flow. Mr. Tise said they were creating a landscaped area in the front of the building, and would like to have the other half of that lot to create an additional landscaped area.
Mr. Tise exhibited a site analysis drawing and explained the layout of the site.
Council Member Harrison asked how many parking spaces were required by LUMO. Mr. Tise said they had 91, with an additional 80 proposed. Council Member Harrison asked what they wanted that number reduced to. Mr. Tise stated that Ms. Wall had indicated they needed about 30 more over the next 10 years.
Council Member Strom said the purpose of this review was to receive comments and give feedback early before the applicant locked itself into an application. He said he would encourage the Board to do the best possible design for their needs and to feel free to hold the parking down to what they expected they would need and what would be the most functional.
Mayor Foy said as long as the number proposed would meet their needs, he believed the Council would be willing to grant an exception to the minimum parking spaces required. He said it did not appear that the site would attract a lot of visitors and they only expected to hire about 10 people over the next 10 years, so this appeared to be a special situation. Mayor Foy said of course, traffic could not spill over into the neighbors, but that was not happening now because of the abundance of parking on the site.
Ms. Wall said the meetings they held in that connector space were their Board of Directors and committee members who visited on a quarterly basis and were shuttled in from their hotels via vans. She said these visits caused very little traffic.
Mayor Foy asked what was located on Silver Cedar Court across from this site. Ms. Wall responded that the American Board of Orthopedics was located there, as well as an educational training company. She noted that members of the Board had met with the Timberlyne Neighborhood Association in July and received favorable comments at that time, and they were supportive of not building additional parking that was not needed.
Burl Ware, speaking for the Timberlyne Neighborhood Association, stated that the Board of Pediatrics had been very responsive in trying to be proactive about the neighborhoods comments regarding parking. He said the Board of the Association strongly supported the reduction in parking spaces. Mr. Ware noted there was plenty of room on Kingston Drive for cars to park on both sides, so if impervious surface could be reduced by granting a smaller number of additional parking spaces, he was in favor of that. He said that by requesting a reduction in the required number of parking spaces, the Board of Pediatrics had become a model for their urbanistic environment.
Mr. Ware said there were other details of the proposal still to be worked out, but the Board of Pediatrics had the neighborhood’s full support regarding the parking issue. He suggested they might want to reduce it further and use the on-street parking, thereby further reducing the impervious surface.
Council Member Harrison said he had talked a while back with Mr. Poveromo about concept plan review, and noted that the worksheet given to the Council for concept reviews made no reference to parking at all. He said it seemed to him to be an issue worth discussing during the concept plan review, particularly since parking was the primary issue during tonight’s discussion.
Council Member Ward said to the extent that there was a rational nexus for it he would like to see this project add sidewalks along Weaver Dairy Road along their property frontage. He said it seemed they had dealt with the curb cut issue by reducing the parking, but if there still remained parking on the north side of the pond, he did not support the idea that the curb cut should match the existing one at Timberlyne. Council Member Ward said he believed it would be too close to the intersection and it needed to be brought further down.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had some concerns with the way in which the Council was receiving comments from the CDC. He said although he appreciated having the comments from individual Commission members, he found it difficult to use. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the comments were that one member said this, then another said that, and back and forth and so on. He said he did not find that informative.
Mr. Poveromo asked what Council Member Kleinschmidt would suggest as an alternative, noting he would be glad to alter the format. Council Member Kleinschmidt replied it would be helpful if comments agreed upon by particular members were noted. He said it would be helpful if some of the points could be endorsed by the Commission, rather than having individual comments. Council Member Kleinschmidt said when they could not endorse a point, then it was helpful to know why a member did not endorse it. He said he would prefer to know how the whole Commission felt about an issue rather than having individual comments, so that he could get a sense of what the consensus was.
Council Member Greene stated she had served on the Planning Board, and the Chair would ask if there was a consensus on an issue. She said sometimes there was none, and the Board would send the Council detailed comments such as that sent by the CDC. Council Member Greene said she agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt that individual comments appeared to be the norm for the CDC, and she would like to there to be an overall sense of what they endorsed or did not endorse.
Mr. Poveromo said he would steer the CDC in the direction of offering a recommendation or trying to get a vote to see if there was a consensus. Otherwise, he said, general comments would be offered to the Council.
Mayor Foy asked where the RCD line was located. Mr. Tise replied it ran along the border of the pond, and had a 50-foot buffer around it.
Mayor Foy asked why it was 50 feet. Mr. Poveromo said the LUMO established a buffer of 50 feet around a body of water.
Council Member Greene asked if it made a difference if the body of water was man-made. She said she had some recollection of there being a distinction in LUMO between a man-made body of water or a natural one. Mr. Poveromo said that distinction was not made in LUMO, and the regulation referred only to a body of water.
Council Member Greene asked if a new stormwater detention pond were created, would it also have to have a 50-foot buffer. Mr. Poveromo said it would depend on whether it fit the definition of a pond.
Council Member Greene asked why it would not fit that definition. Ms. Culpepper responded that the language in LUMO used the phrase “perennial water body” when referring to detention ponds.
Council Member Ward asked where the inflow and outflow was located for this pond in terms of possible perennial streams or intermittent streams that were associated with inflow and outflow. Mr. Tise replied that water flowed into the pond through an underground reinforced concrete pipe. Using the site analysis drawing, he indicated the location of the underground pipe, the dam on the pond, and the outflow area on the east side of the pond.
Council Member Ward said what the designations were of those two streams, the inflow and outflow. He asked if they were perennial streams. Mr. Tise said he did not believe so, because the RCD did not extend all the way up to the road, so the reinforced concrete pipe was not considered a stream.
Mr. Poveromo said as a part of the application, the Board of Pediatrics would be asked to submit a stream determination from the Town’s Engineering Department for this site.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m.