SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 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, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Design Specialist Mike Taylor,  and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

Item 1 – Public Forum: Orange Water and Sewer Authority –

Odor Elimination Progress Report

Planning Director J.B. Culpepper stated that tonight’s Public Forum was for the purpose of hearing a report from the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) on whether it had achieved a stated goal of eliminating off-site odors at the Mason Farm Road Wastewater Treatment Plant, and to receive public comment.

Ms. Culpepper noted that in March of 2004 the Council approved a Special Use Permit (SUP) modification for OWASA’s Mason Farm Road Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade.  She said as a part of that approval to upgrade and expand the plant from its current capacity of 12 million gallons per day to a capacity of 14.5 million gallons per day, OWASA volunteered to implement an off-site odor elimination program.

Ms. Culpepper said that approval of Resolution R-1 would make the finding that OWASA had not yet achieved the stated goal of eliminating off-site odors but was making progress towards that goal.  She said the Manager’s recommendation was for adoption of Resolution R-1.

Mac Clarke, Chair of the OWASA Board of Directors, said they were still at an early stage in the process of odor elimination, noting that the first element of the plan should be completed by the end of this month.  He said that Ed Kerwin, OWASA’s Executive Director, would make a presentation on their current status and future plans.

Ed Kerwin, Executive Director of OWASA, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Odor Elimination Program at the Mason Farm Road Wastewater Treatment Plant, noting there was currently a $50 million improvement project underway at the plant. He noted that planning for this project began in May 2001 and design began in 2003, and in 2004 they went through the permitting process.  Mr. Kerwin said OWASA had held three work sessions in 2002 and established four key project objectives:

· Improve the quality of the treated water discharged, and enable reuse of water for non-drinking purposes;

· Eliminate off-site odor;

· Increase Plant reliability and emergency power capability; and

· Increase peak month treatment capacity from 12.0 to 14.5 million gallons per day to keep up with growth.

Mr. Kerwin noted that in May 2004 construction began at the plant, with November 2005 as the early completion milestone for water quality, odor elimination, and energy power improvements.  He stated they were pleased to say that after 18 months from the beginning of construction, they were on schedule and on budget.  Mr. Kerwin stated that the overall project was scheduled to be completed in mid-2007.

Mr. Kerwin displayed an aerial photograph of the plant taken in August of this year, and pointed out key areas of interest.  He noted that it was a small constrained site and space was at a premium.  Mr. Kerwin then presented the highlights of the current improvement project:

· Currently building a water plant at the end of the wastewater treatment plant that would use ultraviolet light rather than chlorine to treat the water before discharge, enabling reuse to occur in the near future.

· Start-up was now occurring in the new facilities, using new filters and ultraviolet light for disinfection.

· New emergency generators and electrical switchgear installed that would power the plant for an extended period should a power outage occur.

Mr. Kerwin said the important element of the project, and the subject of tonight’s discussion, was the solids digester improvements.  He commented that when cleaning up wastewater a certain amount of solids were produced, and those solids had to be treated before they were returned to the environment.  Mr. Kerwin said those solids were treated in large storage tanks called digesters for 30 to 45 days under high temperature, which were large storage tanks used to treat solids separated from wastewater, and then recycled as biosolids to local farmlands to improve the soil and provide nutrients to assist in growing crops.

Mr. Kerwin remarked that these solid digesters were the top priority in meeting OWASA’s goal of odor elimination.  He said the OWASA Board formally established that goal in March of 2004.  Mr. Kerwin said soon thereafter, a SUP was approved by the Town which contained a stipulation which stated, “That “OWASA shall address their offsite odor elimination goal in a Public Forum, scheduled and conducted by the Town Council, to be held no later than November, 2005 or when the digester improvements were complete, whichever is later.”  He said he was pleased to report they would meet that goal, although it would take the remainder of the month.

Mr. Kerwin acknowledged that the last two weeks had been particularly odorous at the plant because they had been forced to take some tanks in and out of service and make some final repairs.  He said they were optimistic that by the end of this month they would achieve their odor elimination goal.

Mr. Kerwin explained that prior to the improvements, floating covers allowed solids and gas to escape from digesters as the covers rose and fell along with the material inside the tanks.  He said that resulted in an air gap around the perimeter of the tank which allowed solids and gas to escape.  Mr. Kerwin stated that those floating covers had now been converted to sealed fixed covers, preventing any escape of solids or gas.

Mr. Kerwin said that a by-product of the stabilization process was methane gas, which had energy value.  He noted that a new methane storage vessel had been put in place on digester #1, which would allow them to decrease their energy costs by about $50,000 annually by using the methane gas as a resource.  Mr. Kerwin said a new concrete cover had been installed on digester #2.

Mr. Kerwin remarked that additional odor control improvements would be completed by May 2007.  He noted that the new treatment tanks where raw sewage first entered the plant would be covered and the foul air treated in the existing odor scrubber.  Mr. Kerwin said that additional odor control improvements included a new foam removal system for large biological treatment tanks called aeration basins, which would remove floating material on the surface of the tanks thereby reducing the potential for odor.

Mr. Kerwin stated that community involvement in the development of an Odor Elimination Compliance Motoring Program included a meeting with a working group from the Highland Woods neighborhood on August 17, a community meeting on September 15 with 750 people invited and six customers in attendance, and an OWASA Board meeting on October 13.  He added that this process would be ongoing.

Mr. Kerwin said OWASA had identified three key elements in addition to completion of the improvements to the Plant:

· self-monitoring;

· community feedback; and

· compliance reporting.

Mr. Kerwin said self-monitoring of the plant included treatment process monitoring and control; regular odor checks at the plant’s boundary, and evaluating online monitoring for hydrogen sulfide gas.  He noted that community feedback would include encouraging neighbors to contact OWASA whenever odor was present, providing a Project Hotline phone number at 537-4376, providing a 24-hour OWASA contact number at 968-4421, and OWASA’s website address at [email protected].  For compliance reporting, Mr. Kerwin stated that all information would be recorded in a database, a monthly summary report would be provided upon request as well as provided on the website, and an Annual Odor Report would be prepared.

Mr. Kerwin said regarding the Odor Elimination Study, the OWASA Board had selected consultant Black & Veatch to perform an Odor Assessment Study at its November 10, 2005 meeting.  He said the study would begin this winter and would continue into the summer of 2006.  Mr. Kerwin said the plant’s neighbors would be kept informed and involved during the course of the study.

Mr. Kerwin displayed a slide which provided data from odor-related reports for the period 2002-2005.  He noted the data was through the period ending November 3, reminding the Council that during the last two weeks odor had been high due to improvements and repairs at the plant.

Mr. Kerwin said in summary, he believed OWASA had done a “great” job and gotten a lot of work done in 18 months.  He stated that:

· Digester improvements were on schedule for completion by the end of November 2005.

· It was too soon to know whether the digester improvements along would allow the off-site odor elimination goal to be met, but preliminary results were encouraging.

· Odor Assessment Study would be completed late next summer.

· Additional Plant odor improvements were on schedule for completion by May 2007.

Donna Kaye, a resident of Finley Forest, commended OWASA for its efforts in terms of communication and customer service.  She said her main point was that communication and customer service were better, but were not “there” yet.  Ms. Kaye stated she would like see another public forum in the near future as a “check in” of what was happening.  She said she looked forward to the consultant’s report.

Alice Neebe said she had read a letter dated January 2004 which stated that odor elimination was possible at the plant.  She said she had lived on Highland Woods Road in 1990 and the odor was better, but not eliminated.  Ms. Neebe said the public meetings needed to continue until the odor was indeed eliminated.

Ms. Neebe said she was concerned about the people who regularly exercised across from the OWASA property, and why they had not participated in the public process or been notified of it.  She wondered why the University had not participated in the process, as well.

Ms. Neebe said that she had concerns regarding the new building for adults with cancer, stating that those individuals would be chemical treated and would be forced to breathe that air.  She said she was now wondering if OWASA should be allowed to build this project, because it would be adding danger to the health of these individuals.  Ms. Neebe said their immune systems would be compromised, and they should be warned.

Ms. Neebe wondered why representatives of Ronald McDonald House were not present at the public forum, noting that she detects odor at her home and they were located right behind her.  She said she also thought a doctor at Duke was going to be contacted to conduct smell tests for the elderly, because some odors could be controlled through medication.  Ms. Neebe said once OWASA notified the Town and the neighbors that the odor was eliminated, she would volunteer to drive by the site three times a week and conduct a small test.

Barnes Bierck stated that his mother lived in Highland Woods, a neighbor of the plant. He said that a number of technical factors were of concern to him, including:

· OWASA staff noted at a public forum that the primary purpose of the proposed self-monitoring plan was to emphasize to operators the importance of controlling odors.  But, data from the self-monitoring plan would be suspect because plant operators’ odor receptors would likely be desensitized.  Improvements include conducting odor surveying by non-operations personnel at times that weather conditions are likely to waft odors towards neighbors.

· Some sources of odors, such as the primary treatment tanks, had never been evaluated.  These tanks are often covered for capturing and treating the air above them.

· The OWASA “process” was a fermentation system known to sometimes necessitate odor controls.  To control these odors, some or all of the aeration basins at the plant may have to be covered, and expensive approach, but a recognized approach to odor control.

· It would be helpful if odors reported by neighbors were quickly located.  That information may help differentiate between odors due to operations factors and those resulting from design factors.

· The current hotline approach would be improved by having it reach live personnel who would travel immediately to the plant to investigate.  That approach need not be a constant one, but was an important component of evaluating the effectiveness of plant upgrades.  It would help OWASA be as proactive as possible.

Mr. Bierck said these factors could be addressed by ensuring that neighborhood input into efforts of the odor monitoring consultant was substantive.  He said the neighbors should be permitted input into the consultants’ charge, meeting with them and providing input before they begin, and be informed at key stages and at the end.  Mr. Bierck said in that manner, results could be targeted to meet neighbors’ concerns, with the benefit of adding to the trust that already existed between OWASA and its neighbors.

Mr. Bierck said that the resolution under consideration by the Council stated that the compliance program was a suitable program for achieving the goal, but he believed it was suitable for monitoring the goal.  He said there had to be a commitment of mechanical treatment of the air if it was found that there were design issues causing the odors, or for treatment of the air if there were operations issues causing the odors.

Gail Wood said she was speaking for herself as well as for her husband, Gary Richman, who had been active in this process but was out of town.  She said the goal of odor elimination was a huge commitment by OWASA, and thanked the Council and OWASA for that goal.  Ms. Wood said she had concerns about the self-monitoring and response to neighbors’ concerns regarding the odor.

Ms. Wood asked if that type of monitoring was used by other communities and their wastewater treatment plants, and if that was considered “best practice.”  She said that a measurable goal of what elimination meant would be useful, noting that on a scale of 1 to 5 the odor might be at 1.5, and wondered if that was really “elimination.”

Ms. Wood said she knew a benchmark would be reached at the end of this month, but from now until the project was completed in 2007 there should be serious attention on odor elimination.

Joy Javits, President of the Highland Woods Homeowners Association, said she had lived in the neighborhood since 1988 and the elimination of odor was much improved since that time.  She said that OWASA had been gracious and communicative in responding to the neighbors’ concerns.  Ms. Javits said they hoped that elimination was indeed the goal and would occur.

Ms. Javits remarked that the Botanical Garden was building a large center near the Ronald McDonald House, and suggested that OWASA include representatives of those two facilities.  She stated that some of Barnes Bierck’s statements were “quite brilliant” and perhaps he should be used as a consultant or help more specifically.

Council Member Hill said it appeared the odor problem was worse in the evenings, and asked if that was a climatic, environmental, or operational condition.  Mr. Kerwin said he did not know the answer to that, stating that odors could occur at the plant anytime day or night depending on what was happening at the plant. He said often if may be that people were returning to their homes and going outside and were then detecting the odor.

Mr. Kerwin said over the last two weeks when they had received calls from neighbors, they could point to specific things that were occurring at the plant that were scheduled.  But, he said, there was nothing that would point to a given time of day, adding that wastewater treatment was a constant process.

Mayor Foy said one of the things mentioned by Mr. Bierck was operations versus design.  He asked how OWASA determined if they had an operational issue or a design issue with regard to odor control.  Mr. Kerwin replied there were dozens of potential sources of odor, so depending on what was happening at the Plant it may be something as simple as an operator who had not yet cleaned up a mess in a pump building.  He said an operator had no control over what was floating at the top of a tank, and that was why they had spent $5 million on improvements.

Mr. Kerwin said the plant depended on physical, chemical, and biological systems, and part of that biological system was human beings.  He said it was certainly their job to train, motivate, and assist them in their jobs, and OWASA was also investing in more computerized systems to assist the operators in monitoring what was happening at the plant.

Mayor Foy said one of the statements in Mr. Richman’s memo was, “We will know the Wastewater Treatment Plant has eliminated off-site odors when…” and he wanted the Council to complete that sentence.  He said Mr. Richman’s memo also said that odor elimination was possible, citing Myrtle Beach, SC as having achieved that goal.  Mayor Foy said it appeared that goal was not possible if operator or operational errors could result in odor releases.  He asked how places such as Myrtle Beach could make such a claim.

Mr. Kerwin said it was their goal to eliminate odors as it was their goal to eliminate all sewage overflows.  He said he knew of no wastewater plant manager who could say they would never have odor release, but clearly if you invested in improving the open air tanks you could reduce the potential for off-site odors to a higher degree.  Mr. Kerwin said even with those systems, you still had to depend on mechanical and human systems to operate properly to accomplish that.

Mr. Kerwin remarked that they believed it was the prudent thing to do now after the $5 million investment was to continue, with input from their neighbors and with assistance of a consultant who was a professional in the field, to do an objective evaluation of how effective they had been in meeting the goal.  He said if they had not met the goal to the Council’s satisfaction, the neighbors’ satisfaction, or to OWASA’s satisfaction, then they needed to prioritize what future work may need to be done.

Council Member Verkerk remarked that a few days ago, for the first time in a very long time, she had detected a slight odor from the substation in her neighborhood. She said that was a definite improvement.

Council Member Verkerk said she was curious about a comment made that wastewater treatment plants were frequently in low-lying areas, and asked was that due to gravity and if that was part of the problem.  Mr. Kerwin said it was due to gravity.  He said he did not know if a wastewater treatment plant was in a low-lying area if that contributed in some way to odor.

Council Member Harrison, referring to a reference made by Ms. Neebe, said the Duke scientist who specialized in this was Susan Schiffman, a professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences in the Department of Medical Psychiatry at Duke.  He said her expertise would be helpful in the areas of self-monitoring and the desensitization that Mr. Bierck had highlighted.  Council Member Harrison said she could work with people and their behavior in terms of recognizing levels of odors.  Mr. Kerwin said he was familiar with Dr. Schiffman, and had in fact sent her an invitation to bid on the work, but she had declined.  He said perhaps there was a peer review role she might play, as well as others, as part of the study.

Council Member Ward said the Council had tried to come up with a process through the construction period of having this milestone now in November to gauge the progress towards odor elimination, and OWASA had made clear what it could accomplish by then and in the period that remained.  He said there were some additional odor elimination elements included at the end of construction in terms of how the project was designed.

Council Member Ward said what he wanted to come away with was a clear public process that would keep the focus on odor elimination, so that there was a clear understanding of expectations on the timeframe and the way to articulate problems.  He stated he also wanted the Council to be involved in the process so that the neighbors would know that their representatives had the ability to require OWASA to do more.

Council Member Ward asked Mr. Kerwin to articulate how they would move forward from November 2005 to completion of the project, to additional milestones and a process that would allow us to keep the focus on odor elimination.  Mr. Kerwin reiterated that total odor elimination was not an achievable goal, noting that practically, it was not obtainable.  With that being said, he remarked, clearly there was much OWASA could do to eliminate odor and that was what they were doing.  Mr. Kerwin said if there was more that OWASA needed to do, they were willing to do that as well.

Mr. Kerwin said it was important to keep to the November 2005 schedule and update the Council and the neighbors on their progress.  Late this winter, he said, they would again provide an update and continue the dialogue to answer the important questions that had not yet been resolved.  Mr. Kerwin said they would be happy to report to the Council with whatever frequency was necessary, but was not prepared tonight to answer questions that were not directly related to the process.

Mr. Horton suggested that the Council might ask OWASA to provide along with its regular quarterly report to the Council a special section focused on this issue, and outlining additional progress or problems and reporting on the status of the work.  He said then a follow-up hearing could be scheduled a year from now.  Mr. Horton said in that way the Council would receive regular reports and if a problem were to surface additional information could be requested.

Mayor Foy said he agreed it would be helpful to set some kind of schedule as the Manager has suggested.  He said it would set a goal for when the Council would look closely at this again, and at that point, a year from now, OWASA would be approaching the last stages of the project.  Mr. Kerwin said they would welcome that opportunity and appreciated the guidance.  He added that regardless of whether the Council was involved or not, it did not change OWASA’s responsibility or the OWASA Board’s commitment to be a good neighbor.

Mac Clarke said The Odor Elimination Program at the Wastewater Treatment Plant had been, was currently, and would continue to be a priority item for the Board of OWASA.  He stated, “they would not let this one go.”

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1, AMENDED TO INCLUDE THAT OWASA WOULD PROVIDE ALONG WITH ITS REGULAR QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE COUNCIL A SPECIAL SECTION FOCUSED ON THIS ISSUE, AND OUTLINING ADDITIONAL PROGRESS OR PROBLEMS AND REPORTING ON THE STATUS OF THE WORK, WITH A FOLLOW-UP HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED ONE YEAR FROM NOW.

Council Member Greene said she wanted to revise the “Therefore, Be It Resolved” paragraph.  She said she was troubled by the phrase “…that is a suitable program for achieving the goal.”  Council Member Greene suggested including the phrase “compliance monitoring program” after the phrase “off-site odor elimination”, striking the remainder of that sentence, and adding the language suggested by the Manager.

Council Member Greene suggested changing the phrase “achieved its stated goal” to “achieved the goal” because Mr. Kerwin had stated that total odor elimination was not possible although it was a desirable goal.

Mayor Foy said that odor elimination was OWASA’s goal, and asked Mr. Clarke to comment on that.  Mr. Clarke stated that what Mr. Kerwin was referring to was the practicality that one could never for all time, at every time, and under ever conceivable circumstance eliminate all odor.  He said that odor elimination would remain their goal, recognizing that while they would reach towards that objective the chance of reaching it absolutely was zero.

Mayor Foy said it would be helpful, and perhaps OWASA could assist, in stating a definition of what would constitute success in odor elimination.  He said the Council understood that nothing was 100 percent, and they did not expect 100 percent.  Mayor Foy said the Council knew that there would be times when odor may be a problem, but there must be something that could be identified as the elimination of the problem.  He said in that way, if for instance there was an operator error that caused an odor problem but it had not happened in quite some time, it would not be looked at as if OWASA had not achieved its goal.

Council Member Greene suggested that perhaps that last phrase could remain in the resolution, but it could read “that is a suitable program for working towards that goal.”

Mayor Foy stated if they defined the goal as something that was achievable as opposed to something that was not achievable, then they could achieve the goal.  He said they did want to achieve some goal, but were not clear on exactly what that goal was.  Mayor Foy said he would prefer that they try to achieve the goal of odor elimination, and then define that as something that was achievable.

Council Member Greene asked if that was something that could be defined now.  Mayor Foy said no, but he did not want to “lower the bar.”  Council Member Greene agreed, but remarked that she did not want to make a finding that she was not comfortable with.

Mayor Foy asked the Manager if a finding had to be made at this time.  Mr. Horton replied that having heard the Council’s discussion, he believed the only finding appropriate to make was that OWASA had not yet achieved its goal.

Mayor Foy said he would suggest eliminating the remainder of the “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved” sentence as suggested, so that the resolution would find that OWASA had not yet achieved its goal of odor elimination, that quarterly reports on this issue would be provided by OWASA to the Council, and that another public forum would be scheduled for one year from now.  Mayor Foy asked if there was any objective from the Council.

Council Member Strom requested that the quarterly reports from OWASA contain the complaint logs, stating that for him that was an important indicator of how much progress was being made.

Council Member Ward said it was important that the neighbors, as well as any interested persons, be included in the discussion in terms of defining the goal of odor elimination and what that meant, such as the number of infractions each year or something of that sort.  He said he would then like OWASA to provide that to the Town so that the Council could have a discussion.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Kerwin and Mr. Clarke if OWASA would agree to that.  There was no objection.  Mayor Foy said that could be included in the resolution, that OWASA would work with the neighbors and interested persons on what constituted odor elimination.

THE MOTION AS AMENDED WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Mayor Foy asked if Mr. Kerwin or Mr. Clarke could provide the Council and the public with a quick update on where they stood in regards to the water supply, noting the water restrictions placed on neighboring communities due to the drought. Mr. Kerwin responded that he was glad they had been asked that question, because the response would be bragging about the Council and its peers in Orange County and Carrboro.

Mr. Kerwin said relatively speaking they were in better shape than most.  He said in 2002 that would not have been what he would have reported.  Mr. Kerwin said presently they had approximately a 200-day supply of water.  He said he could not tell the Council why other neighboring communities were in the shape they were in, but he could tell them that the water conservation ordinance adopted in June 2003 by the Council as well as the Boards of Carrboro and Orange County had made the year-round conservation requirements essentially equivalent to other mandatory restrictions that had been put in place by neighboring communities.

Mr. Kerwin said if the lakes did not refill this winter then that would be a much more serious situation.  He said they would watch it carefully and would keep the public well informed, noting they had placed a paid advertisement in the Sunday newspaper addressing this issue and reminding customers of what the year-round requirements were.  Mr. Kerwin said this time of year less water was used outside, but they had learned from the drought of 2001-2002 to be proactive with customers and elected officials to address water issues.

Items 2 – Public Hearing: Stargate Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application

Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo described the Stargate Subdivision, noting the proposal would create two lots approximately 30,000 square feet and 34,000 square feet in size on a 1.5-acre site located generally east of the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Sedgefield Road.  He displayed an aerial map of the site, noting it was located in the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district.  Mr. Poveromo pointed out the footprint of a single-family accessory apartment that was currently under construction on the site, noting the property owner had obtained a permit to build this two-family residential structure and they would soon be approaching the Council to request a subdivision plat.

Mr. Poveromo said the two key issues raised during review of the application were recreation area requirements and sidewalks.  He said regarding the recreation area, subdivision requirements currently were a minimum of about 8,000 square feet, and the staff was recommending a payment-in-lieu of providing that recreation area.  Mr. Poveromo said the applicant was requesting to be exempted from that requirement.  Regarding the issue of sidewalks, he stated the staff was recommending that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu and the applicant was requesting exemption from that requirement as well.

Mr. Poveromo said the Planning Board had reviewed the application and their recommendation was included as Resolution B.  He noted the Transportation Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board would review the application within the next two weeks, and all would return with recommendations when this item returned to the Council on January 9, 2006.

Mr. Poveromo noted one correction to Stipulation #5 in Resolution A, which was correctly stated on page 5 of the memorandum under the heading “Recommendations.”  He said that Stipulation #5 should read, “Existing Access Easement: That the existing 15-foot-wide gravel driveway that extends to the east, shall be widened to a minimum width of 20 feet, from Weaver Dairy Road for the shared length.”

Mr. Poveromo said that the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was that the Council adopt Resolution A, amended as noted.

Ha Ngo, the applicant, stated that under normal circumstances the application would have been for a minor subdivision which allowed for the creation of up to four lots from any one tract.  She said that because it was a part of a larger piece of land of about 86 acres that had been subdivided, they were required to apply under the rules for a major subdivision.  Ms. Ngo said they intended to build two houses on the lots, one for her and one for her sister’s family.

Ms. Ngo said she had concerns regarding the following stipulations contained in the Manager’s recommended Resolution A:

· Stipulation #4:  Ms. Ngo asked to be exempted from providing a payment-in-lieu for future sidewalk construction. She said that no sidewalk existed at the intersection of Erwin Road and Weaver Dairy Road to the Silver Creek Subdivision.  Ms. Ngo said there was bond money available that would benefit her neighbors.

· Stipulation #5:  Ms. Ngo asked to be exempted from widening the existing 15-foot-wide gravel driveway to a minimum width of 20 feet, noting that widening did not benefit anyone.  She said she was willing to widen the easement up to her driveway, but no further.

· Stipulation #6:  Ms. Ngo asked to be exempted from the requirement that a homeowners association be created since there would be just the two residences.

· Stipulation #7 and #13:  Ms. Ngo asked that the requirement for a payment-in-lieu for recreation space be deleted, as this development would be two private homes with lawns.

· Stipulation #9 and #10:  Ms. Ngo said that there was a 26-foot buffer along Weaver Dairy Road, but that the Land Use Management Ordinance required a 30-foot Type D buffer.  She said she did not understand why such a buffer was required.

· Stipulation #17 and #18:  Ms. Ngo said these two stipulations regarding fire flow tests and a fire hydrant.  She stated this was an infill lot and utilities were established and accessible, and these stipulations were not necessary.

· Stipulation #19:  Ms. Ngo said regarding a stormwater management plan, when she applied for the Zoning Compliance Permit she had to submit a water management plan, and her sister would do the same when she began construction on her home.  She said she did not understand why this stipulation was required.

Ms. Ngo asked the Council to keep in mind that under normal circumstances this would have been a minor subdivision, but because of the previous activity on the original tract it was being considered as a major subdivision.  She asked the Council to vote on her application tonight.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked for a description of a Type D buffer.  Mr. Poveromo responded that a Type D buffer was 30 feet in width, with certain plantings required within that buffer.  He said a Type D buffer was required because Weaver Dairy Road was classified as a collector road.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if that classification would remain once Sage Road was extended.  Mr. Poveromo replied he did not know, but he would look into it and provide that information to the Council.

Council Member Ward said there was existing vegetation in that area, and asked how close that vegetation related to the requirements in terms of type and density.  Mr. Poveromo said he was not certain, adding that applicants were allowed to use existing vegetation to meet buffer requirements.

Ms. Ngo said along Weaver Dairy Road the houses were visible, but her house was barely visible from the road due to the existing vegetation.

Council Member Hill asked if this had been a minor subdivision application, would the requirements payments-in-lieu for sidewalk and recreation area have been the same.  Mr. Poveromo responded that for the sidewalk, the answer would be yes. He said that requirement was determined by looking at standards for arterial and collector roads, and by looking at the adopted Sidewalk Plan.  He said there was a sidewalk plan for Weaver Dairy Road.  Regarding the requirement for recreation area, Mr. Poveromo said there was no requirement for recreation area in the regulations for a minor subdivision.

Council Member Hill asked how the Planning Board had determined the $5,000 limit on the payment-in-lieu of recreation area.  Mr. Poveromo said he had provided to the Planning Board a rough estimate for payment-in-lieu of $4,000 to $7,000, $40 to $70 per linear foot.  He said the Planning Board believed that $7,000 was too high, and believed that $5,000 was more appropriate.

Council Member Ward said it was important that they have the 20-foot access to the Birch property, since they did not know what would be constructed there.  He asked if it was part of the plan that the existing gravel road would be identified with a 20-foot-wide easement.  Mr. Poveromo clarified that they had originally wanted the gravel road to be improved to a 20-foot width for its entire length, but now were recommending that the portion of the road that served Lot #1 be widened.

Council Member Ward asked what kind of access was in place for the property at the rear.  Mr. Poveromo said there was a 20-foot easement.  Council Member Ward said then the possibility existed to have a 20-foot-wide roadway if it were ever necessary.  Mr. Poveromo said that was correct.

Council Member Harrison asked Ms. Ngo if she had received the Planning Board’s recommendations that differed from the Manager’s recommendations.  Ms. Ngo said she had not seen that.  Council Member Harrison said the Planning Board’s recommendation was that there be no recreation area payment-in-lieu, that the payment-in-lieu for a future sidewalk be limited to $5,000, and that the easement improvements to a 20-foot width be made from Weaver Dairy Road to the first driveway.  He asked if that addressed any of her concerns.  Ms. Ngo responded that it did.

Council Member Harrison said he understood that the current regulations placed the applicant in the position she was in, but he believed it was an accident of history that required her application be that for a major subdivision.

Mr. Horton said he believed it would be useful to have the Planning Director review the Council’s lack of discretion in enforcing subdivision ordinances.

Ms. Culpepper said when the Council approved a subdivision application, it was making a finding that the application met the regulations.  She said there were some regulations that provided for adjustments, but in many cases there were not.  Ms. Culpepper said for the requirements regarding buffers there was a provision for an alternate buffer.  In the case of recreation area requirements, she said, there were modifications that would allow for adjustments to suitability requirements but not to actually free the applicant from the requirement unless the application was under a particular square footage.  Ms. Culpepper said they had provided a checklist with tonight’s materials that went through each of those requirements.

Mr. Horton stated they respected that the applicant had an unfortunate position at the end of a series of other subdivisions, but nevertheless the legal context was still the legal context.  He said the Council did not have a great deal of discretion in that regard.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if this parcel could be removed from the original subdivision if requested by the applicant.  Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said that was not possible, noting that the definitions within the ordinance determined that this was a major subdivision.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said it was unfortunate that they had an applicant who had such a small piece of property that she wanted to put two homes on, and she was forced to go through this process.  She suggested that they might want to take another look at the ordinance and determine how many other pieces of property might be affected in the same way.

Mr. Horton said the intention of the ordinance was, for example, to prevent a 50-acre lot to be subdivided into two 25-acre lots, and then later subdivided into 12.5-acre lots and so on in order to avoid the subdivision ordinance.  He said that was the circumstance in which this applicant was placed.  Mr. Horton said it created difficulties for her, but the law in itself helped to avoid other problems.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if they had had other situations like this, noting that this seemed like “overkill” for something that could possibly happen.  She said a lot of time was being spent by the Council and others just so the applicant could subdivide a 1.5-acre lot to build two homes.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she understood it was necessary because that was the law, but wondered if there was some way to give this circumstance more attention.

Council Member Ward asked the staff to look at the existing vegetation along Weaver Dairy Road and determine how it related to the requirement for buffer vegetation for this application.  He also asked that the Type D buffer requirement be reconsidered, noting that he would be opposed to cutting out natural vegetation in order to plant a vegetative buffer.  Mr. Horton said he did not disagree with that, noting that typically they would require additional planting, not removing the natural vegetation.  Council Member Ward said depending on how dense the natural vegetation was, it may appear to require that some of it be removed in order to plant something else.  He said his point was in wanting it to “make sense” when you were on the ground and looking at it.

Council Member Ward said he supported the stipulation requiring a payment-in-lieu for future sidewalks.  He said filling in the gaps for connectivity was important, but he was also interested in what the financial burden of that would be for the applicant

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 9, 2006.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Strom remarked that he agreed with all of Mayor pro tem Wiggins’ comments, adding he believed this was an unfortunate situation for the applicant.

Mayor Foy stated to Ms. Ngo that the Council’s process would not allow for a decision to be made tonight.  He said the application would come before the Council again on January 9 for a vote.

Item 3 – Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment –

Certificates of Appropriateness in Public Right-of-Way

Ms. Culpepper said this public hearing was called to consider a text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance regarding Certificates of Appropriateness granted by the Historic District Commission.  She stated the amendment would allow the Council to permit the installation of regulatory signs and other traffic control measures and devices, and utility distribution systems in public rights-of-way located in the Town’s historic districts.

Ms. Culpepper said they believed the installation of regulatory signs and other traffic control measures and devices, and utility distribution systems were necessary features for safe and efficient operations within the Town, and the installation of such devices should be subject to the direction of the Council.

Ms. Culpepper said they were recommending that the Council enact the ordinance provided with tonight’s materials, which would make this change.

Tom Biek stated that they should “cut to the chase,” noting that the real issue at hand was parking meters in a residential neighborhood.  He said no one would dispute that the Town had the right to install traffic control measures and utility distribution systems in any neighborhood, but putting parking meters in front of residences was something that should be carefully considered.  Mr. Biek said that currently three parking meters were planned to be placed in front of his home.

Mr. Biek asked the Council to reconsider this text amendment, and not allow parking meters to be placed in residential neighborhoods.

Ann Hartea, a member of the Historic District Commission, said the Commission’s recommendation was that the Council not enact the suggested changes to the ordinance.  She said they were very much opposed to it.

Ms. Hartea, speaking for herself, said there would be long-term implications if the text amendment was enacted.  She said when reviewing plans, the Town frequently made the argument that the more eyes that reviewed the plan, the better.  Ms. Hartea suggested that should be the rule in this case as well.

Mayor Foy said that in the memorandum, it stated that the Council approved changes to traffic control on Cameron Avenue, and that one of the changes authorized the installation of parking meters on the north side of Cameron Avenue.  He said that because some of the proposed parking meters would be installed in the Cameron-McCauley Historic District, the Town’s Public Works Department submitted an application to the Historic District Commission requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of the meters, but that the Historic District Commission had denied the Town’s request.

Mayor Foy said that the change being suggested applied to all traffic control devices in an historic district.  Mr. Horton replied that was correct.  Mayor Foy said the change that this text amendment would implement was that the Council would make the decision about what was appropriate within an historic district, not the Historic District Commission.  Mr. Horton said that was also correct.

Mayor Foy said if the Council made this change to the ordinance, they could simultaneously have a process where the Historic District Commission could still provide advice.  He said the Council’s primary responsibility was public health, safety and welfare, and he was not persuaded that they should be abrogating that responsibility.  Mayor Foy said he was not saying whether they should or should not place parking meters in an historic district, but thought it should be up to the Council to make decisions regarding public safety.

Mayor Foy said no vote would be taken now, but he was in favor of it.  He said the Historic District Commission should have the right, for instance, to deny a stop sign if it were not appropriate within an historic district, and that under the ordinance that would still be possible.  Mr. Horton said that was his conclusion as well.

Mr. Biek stated he had lived on Cameron Avenue for four years, and during that time between 30 to 40 “ugly” galvanized steel posts had been erected indicating bus stops, parking and no parking areas, and for various other reasons.  He said he had never complained about those because they were obviously for safety and traffic control measures and they could not be avoided, although he would prefer wooden signs in an historic district.  Again, Mr. Biek said, this “boiled down” to the issue of parking meters.  He asked that the Council not look past what the intention of this text amendment really was.

Mayor Foy said in his opinion, this was much more than just about parking meters.  He said the Council had a responsibility to make sure that the ordinance conformed to what the Council’s responsibilities were.  Mayor Foy said whether or not parking meters were placed on Cameron Avenue was a point that citizens should argue before the Council, not to unelected persons that had been appointed by the Council.  He said the Council should bear the responsibility of what was done within the Town, especially in regard to traffic control.  Mayor Foy said whether or not parking meters were placed on Cameron Avenue, citizens should argue that point to the Council and the Council should make the decision.

Mr. Biek said he understood the Mayor’s position, but commented that this issue would never have come up if it had not been for the parking meters.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 9, 2006.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY  (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 4 – Public Hearing:  Closure of a Section of

Rosemary Street Right-of-Way

Mr. Horton said as part of the Council’s economic development initiative in the downtown, the Council had been requested by RAM Development to consider making available additional property in front of the parking deck on Rosemary Street.  He said the Council had the opportunity to consider that by making a portion of the present right-of-way available.  Mr. Horton noted that Engineering Design Specialist Mike Taylor would provide a brief explanation of the request and the process that was required by law for the Council to consider this matter.

Mr. Taylor said tonight’s hearing was for the purpose of receiving public comment on whether the Council should close up to seven feet of the existing 45-foot right-of-way in front of the Wallace Parking Deck.  He stated that on September 12 the Council had authorized the Manager to initiate the steps necessary to close a part of the Rosemary Street right-of-way in front of the Wallace Parking Deck to provide a larger building envelope for future development on that site.

Mr. Taylor stated that if the right-of-way in question was reduced by seven feet, then ownership of that property would revert to the Town because the Town was the only abutting property owner.  He said that the Council may close the right-of-way if a determination was made that the closure was not contrary to the public interest, and that no person owning property in the vicinity would be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to their property.

Mark Moshier, representing the ownership entity of 151 E. Rosemary Street located between BB&T and Bub O’Malley’s, stated they were in favor of the downtown public-private project and applauded the Council’s efforts to redevelop these parcels.  He said within the redevelopment project the Town’s desire to permanently close seven feet of the right-of-way posed real concerns that could negatively effect the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, cause safety concerns, lead to a more crowded and less inviting place to live, work and conduct business, and directly impact the value of local businesses and real estate investments in the immediate area.  Mr. Moshier said they sincerely requested that the design team and Town consider the implications this change would have on both sides of Rosemary Street.

Mr. Moshier stated earlier this year they had embarked on redevelopment of their small office building, and in that process had granted the Town an eight-foot right-of-way where the sidewalk currently existed.  He said the Town indicated that footage would be used to lay utility lines underneath the sidewalk.  Mr. Moshier said they understood the plans for Rosemary Street, but that plans could change.  For that reason, he said, they were requesting that the north Rosemary Street curb line not be altered in any fashion, leaving the sidewalk intact and undisturbed for pedestrian traffic.  Likewise, Mr. Moshier stated, they requested that the Town retain the three existing traffic lanes on Rosemary Street inclusive of the middle turn lane, which was frequently used by large delivery trucks throughout the day.  He stated that the turn lane was important for those trucks.

Mr. Moshier said if Rosemary Street did not remain three lanes it would become a bottleneck for through traffic that would lead to delays and safety concerns as motorists stop and attempt to turn without the aid of turning lanes.  He asked if these routes should be comprised solely for the benefit of the new construction and developers of the project.  Mr. Moshier said they believe the area would be irreparably damaged and the community would lose a valuable downtown route and asset, as well as affecting the desirability and value of nearby properties.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if it was Mr. Moshier’s position that the Town provide turn lanes in the center of Rosemary Street for large delivery trucks to park in all day.  Mr. Moshier responded no, but they wanted to keep that street effective and efficient by leaving it as three lanes.  He added that they don’t notice a lot of traffic back-up presently, so three lanes worked. Mr. Moshier said if each of those lanes became narrower, then they were concerned that traffic flow would be impacted.  He added that if seven feet were taken away, it had to come from the sidewalk or from the lanes of traffic.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not believe there was much use of that center turn lane if delivery trucks were parked there throughout the day.  Mr. Moshier said he did not believe the lane was used for the entire day, only occasionally.  But, he said, the center turn lane was used by people turning into the bank or into the parking deck.

Mr. Taylor, in response to the functioning of the remainder of the street and to the question regarding the north curb line, stated that there was extra width in the cross sets of Rosemary Street in that area, and they were proposing to take out only enough that would still provide for the two through lanes and the center turn lane.  He said currently the plans held the north point to where it was now.

Mr. Taylor said if this project proceeded, it would meet the threshold for a Transportation Impact Analysis, and he was confident that analysis would show that the center turn lane should be retained.

Mr. Horton said they appreciated the fact that an easement had been granted to the Town for the utility and sidewalk work, and did value that.  He said they had no intention of encroaching onto that property, and expected the curb line on the north to remain about where it was presently.  Mr. Horton said they believe the street could be kept at three lanes and continue to function adequately.

Council Member Ward asked if the Town could give any more assurance that the curb line on the north side would remain where it was.  Mr. Horton said no, because a future Council could decide to take that land if they believed it was necessary.  He said this Council had been clear about its intention and expressed no intent to harm this neighbor, and saw no need to go any further that the present alignment of the sidewalk and the curb line.

Council Member Harrison said he had brought this issue up during design discussions, and with all things being equal he would not support it.  However, he said, being on the Council and having sat through four years of discussions he had learned that all things were not equal, and that was why he would support it. Council Member Harrison said that although he had done it rarely, it was an area he had traveled through on a bicycle.  He said the mode of travel “takes a hit” when you lose seven feet at this point.

Council Member Harrison said that citing the Mobility Report Card, the count point for bicycle travel closest to that area was at the corner of Rosemary and Henderson Streets.  He stated that point was at the top 15 percent of all bicycle points in the Town.  Council Member Harrison said that since this was a Town street and the Town controlled it, what they had to look at was slowing down this whole section of Rosemary Street for vehicles, perhaps with a speed limit of 20 mph.  He said with the pedestrian emphasis that they were placing on this redevelopment project and the fact that they wanted pedestrians to be able to cross all along the street it made sense to slow the traffic down.

Council Member Harrison said he believed this should be a particularly calm area of Rosemary Street and therefore somewhere that it would not be any harder to get a bicycle through than it was currently, adding he could bring this up during the Special Use Permit discussion.  He said he did not want to vote in any other circumstance to take less bicycle space out of a street, but in this case he believed it was one place that it could be accomplished.  Council Member Harrison said they had an opportunity to change the “feel” of that area and he would support it, and wanted the Council to carry that thinking through as they considered the Special Use Permit and how they handled this part of Rosemary Street.

Council Member Ward said when this item came back for consideration, he wanted to be able to visualize in terms of the division of asphalt and right-of-way as well as sidewalks, and what it would look like if it were reduced from 45 feet to 38 feet.  Mr. Horton replied he believed they could provide that.

Mayor Foy said that the map in Attachment 1 of the materials indicated the seven-foot portion of right-of-way to be closed, noting that it aligned with the Bank of America building next door.  He asked if that was accurate, or was it a rough estimate.  Mr. Horton responded he believed the map was a rough estimate, not a scaled drawing.  Mayor Foy commented that in actuality the sidewalk would go out seven feet from where it was now.  Mr. Horton replied that was correct. Mayor Foy said, then, when you traveled down Rosemary Street on the south side headed east, you would need to make a slight “jog.”  Mr. Horton responded that was correct.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 21.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 5 – Concept Plan:  Orange United Methodist Church

Mr. Poveromo said that this proposal was for construction of 38,089 square feet of additional floor area and 122 new parking spaces at Orange United Methodist Church.  He displayed an aerial map, noting the site was located on the east side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard at its intersection with Homestead Road.  Mr. Poveromo noted the site contained R-1 and R-2 zoning.  He pointed out on the map the R-1 portion of the site and the R-2 portion where the church was currently located.  Mr. Poveromo noted that Lake Ellen was located to the east of the site.

Mr. Poveromo noted that the Community Design Commission (CDC) had reviewed this plan on September 28, and the applicant had submitted a revised site plan on November 11.  He said the CDC comments focused on the intersection where the existing entrance to the parking area was located.  Mr. Poveromo said the CDC’s concern was about traffic backing up in that area and the revised plan addressed that issue.

Project Manager Phil Post displayed the revised site plan and explained their planned expansion to the Church.  He said that Orange United Methodist Church had been worshiping at this site for 180 years and had strong community and religious roots in this location, and wanted to continue that as they went forward with their expansion plans for the campus.

Mr. Post said he would discuss the build out of the site, noting it contained 15 acres with an RCD along Booker Creek and other drainage ways.  He said that all of the proposed development would be outside of those drainage ways, adding that a large majority of the site would remain undisturbed by the development, including the cemetery area.

Mr. Post said they wanted to honor a number of the environmental and historical roots, and at the same time continue to build on the assets of the campus.  He said from the south, they planned to build an addition to the existing log cabin used for educational purposes.  Mr. Post pointed out the existing worship area on the map, noting it would remain as an alternate worship area with a new expanded worship area constructed to the north.

Mr. Post pointed out how well this campus blended with the existing streetscape in the area, and expected that same fit and honoring of traditions and streetscape as the campus expanded northward.  He said the existing parking would remain as is, with expanded parking provided near the new worship area.  Mr. Post said the plans included expanded education and administrative areas as well as a future gymnasium, adding that the build-out would take about 15 years.

Mr. Post said they were excited about the chance to maximize the use of this campus for the growth the church was experiencing.  He said in addition to honoring the streetscape and the heritage along Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, they wanted to honor Booker Creek and the other drainage ways as well.  Mr. Post noted the site was immediately upstream from Lake Ellen, and they were aware of the sensitivity of the waters of that lake.  He said they had made particular efforts to contact the neighbors in the area and make them aware of the church’s plans, and had made public commitments to them to go above and beyond requirements for erosion control and water quality from this project.  Mr. Post said they would make state-of-the-art efforts to protect the water quality of Lake Ellen.

Wes McClure of McClure Hopkins Architects, the architect for the project, said 15 years ago when the church was expanded, they had paid particular attention to maintaining the character of the site.  He said they had done that by keeping the trees between the building and the road, and carrying the vocabulary of the original building into the new structure.  Mr. McClure said they anticipated doing the same thing with this new expansion, bearing in mind that the way that Homestead Road intersected with Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard created an important opportunity at the terminus of the axis of Homestead Road at this part of the campus.  Mr. McClure said that was where the new worship area would be located, and provided a brief description of the construction plans for that area.

Mr. McClure displayed several views of the planned new worship area, and described different portions of the area including the porches, gathering area, multi-purpose space, seating area, and the courtyard.  He also displayed views of the existing campus.

Mr. Post said regarding the site plan, they had revised the plan in response to comments made by the CDC regarding the entrance to the parking area.  He said they planned to change the pavement texture, and a courtyard-type area near the front door of the church which would provide for drop-offs.

Council Member Harrison said it was difficult to tell from the site plan the new structures. Mr. Post explained the color-coding system used on the site plan.  Council Member Harrison commented that as requested the Council was now receiving more detailed comments from the CDC.  He said the CDC had requested that the applicant submit an existing condition site plan and he believed that would have helped the Council have a better understanding of what was proposed. Council Member Harrison said he had some knowledge of the campus, but it was hard to visualize the new campus from the site plan.  Mr. Post said when they submitted their application for a Special Use Permit, they would provide that.

Council Member Verkerk commented that she found the architecture of the church to be attractive and enjoyed passing by it.  She said she was disturbed by the fact that presently the church had 110 parking spaces, and was asking for a total of 236.  Council Member Verkerk noted that was more than double what was presently on the site.  Mr. Post said they would triple their floor area with the new construction, and the parking spaces would be doubled.

Council Member Verkerk said one of the things that bothered her about church parking was that it was a wide-open space of asphalt, and that was not the direction the Town wanted to move in.  She asked Mr. Post to make a commitment to consider that the church would not need that parking at all times, and to think about using that parking for other purposes, such as a park and ride lot.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the reason to include the possibility of a park and ride lot was that if the project was approved without it and it was later decided to use it for that, then a modification to the Special Use Permit would have to be sought.

Council Member Ward said the applicant had indicated its desire to be proactive in regards to stormwater management, and asked that they consider the use of porous pavement, adding that this was a wonderful open site without a lot of trees that would clog the porous pavement.  He said that would aid in reducing the footprint of the retention pond and reduce the amount of clear cutting required in the RCD.  Council Member Ward said as is, he did not believe this project did what Mr. Post had stated they wanted to do, which was to do what was the very best for stormwater management.  He commented that the area underneath the parking could be used for storage in order to eliminate the clear cutting.

Council Member Ward said looking at the map which included the Dixie Drive neighborhood, there appeared to be a lot for a road which was never built.  He said he would like to see how that could work with this project to provide a pedestrian corridor to allow people to flow through that area.  Depending on the terrain, Council Member Ward said he would like to see bicycle access provided as well, both to the church’s property as well as the Moody trailer park property to provide a non-vehicular access through that area.

Council Member Ward said while the Council and staff had not yet found to time to make significant changes in the outdoor lighting regulations, they had discussed making them significantly better for the environment.  He asked the applicant to look at the Orange County requirements, noting that was the direction the Council was moving.  Council Member Ward said he would like to see the applicant submit a lighting plan that respected the outdoor environment.

Council Member Hill said he enjoyed passing by the church, noting it was an attractive campus.  He said one of the things he most enjoyed about the campus was the soccer fields to the north, noting there were children playing there much of the time.  Council Member Hill said the plan was to replace that area with parking spaces as well as cut down many trees for a play area that appeared to be half the size of the present one.  He said he would like the applicant to consider keeping the current playing fields where they were and moving the parking around the back of the church.  Council Member Hill said that would improve what you would see as you traveled on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, noting he would much rather see the playing fields than the cars.

Council Member Hill said another alternative use for all of that asphalt other than a park and ride lot, was that many people were searching for places to play roller hockey.  He said if the parking area was built in the right shape, it could be used for that.  Council Member Hill commented that the planned parking was a whole lot of asphalt to be used only on Sundays.  He noted it probably was not feasible to attempt to provide parking along Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.

Council Member Greene said she agreed with the comments made regarding the intensity of the use, especially the parking and what was planned for the RCD.  She asked if the number of parking spaces requested had a relation to what was required by the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO).  Mr. Post stated that the minimum requirements in LUMO would be 223, with an additional 10 percent, or 245, as the maximum.  He said what they were proposing was within that range.  Council Member Greene asked if Mr. Post was aware that there was concern on the Council as to whether there should even be a minimum.  Mr. Post said he was aware of that and would keep it in mind as they moved forward.

Council Member Strom said it would be worth looking at moving the new sanctuary closer to the road, where the new parking was shown at the existing playing fields. He said that was becoming an urban corridor and he would prefer seeing some interesting architecture there rather than asphalt.

Council Member Strom said he would ask that the applicant remove the highly invasive activities, such as grading, that would be required within the RCD with the proposed plans.  He said he realized what was proposed was allowed by the ordinance, but he believed this plan carried that to its maximum.

Mayor Foy said he believed the message from the Council was that the parking was intense, and to stay away from the RCD.  He said he agreed that the site would be better used by moving the buildings closer to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.  Mayor Foy said if the buildings were moved, it would take advantage of that corridor which would be a more urbanized corridor in the future, and it would make those buildings more accessible for people to walk to.

Mayor Foy said regarding the parking, what would be used for the surface.  He said he believed the Council would be happier if a pervious material were used.  Mr. Post replied that they had committed to using pervious paving to the maximum extent possible.

Mayor Foy said regarding what Council Member Hill had stated, was it possible to provide parking along Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.  Mr. Post said that was a five-lane roadway with bus stops, and he did not believe NCDOT would give their permission to do that.  Mayor Foy asked Mr. Post to research that with the Town staff to see if there was a way to do that safely.  Mr. Post agreed to do so.

Mayor Foy said on the CDC recommendation comment #6 mentioned a superceded master plan that they would want the applicant to reconsider.  Mr. Post said that had resulted from an older map that the CDC had been provided to them inadvertently.  He said it was a procedural error in their presentation and it had been corrected.

Frederick Brooks said he had participated on the building committee when the earlier expansion was done, and they had gone out of their way to hire the most talented architect they could find that specialized in churches.  He said because this area was an important entrance to the Town, they had wanted the church to be visually attractive.

Mr. Brooks said they had charged Mr. McClure with two things, to preserve the old trees and to keep the fellowship hall from dominating the sanctuary visually, and he was successful in doing that.  He said Mr. McClure accomplished that by providing a setback from the roadway for the building and providing small porches, which helped to screen the bulk of the building.

Mr. Brooks said they had asked him to do the same thing with this expansion to the degree possible.  He said that was why the building was set back and contained a small gathering area in front, which sustained the visual appearance of the sanctuary that would be used as a chapel.  Mr. Brooks said the Council should think hard on what moving the building forward would do to that visual effect.

Council Member Greene thanked Mr. Brooks for making that point, stating she believed it was clear that the new sanctuary would be huge and they would not want it to dominate.  Mr. Brooks responded that they felt a responsibility to preserve that entrance to the Town.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-2.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m.