So call this meeting to order.

It's uh 5 30 on February 24th, 2026.

And let's start with the roll call.

Um is Patrick Brennan here.

All right.

Uh Kimberly Andrews.

I'm here.

Great.

Uh John Biggs.

Here.

Kelsey Brinkley.

I see you, Kelsey.

Uh I'll join once I'm uh done uh nursing my uh two-month old.

So be there shortly on video.

Um Jim Farron.

I see you, Jim.

And I think your mic might be off, Jim.

Rachel Ullman.

Um we have Rachel somewhere.

I'm not seeing her.

And then I am here.

I'm Heather Washburn.

So I think that does bring us to forum.

We've got five of the seven.

Um make sure my um Adam, that's good.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

You're good to go.

Okay.

Um, did everybody get a chance to take a look at the agenda for tonight?

Yes, I did.

Yes.

Okay.

Great.

Um, can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

Motion to approve the agenda.

Okay, Jim.

I second that motion.

I'm guessing that was Kelsey.

Okay, okay.

And then uh if you can just use your raise hand if you approve.

And one, two, three, four, five.

All right.

So moved.

Any nays?

Anyone not want to approve?

Okay, good.

Uh any announcements, Adam.

Uh none from staff.

Okay.

And then uh are there any petitions?

Nope.

Um I had a couple of things in the minutes for December.

One was um is showing that aura was on the consent agenda, but we had moved it to just an agenda item.

It seems like that's a technicality, but I don't know how uh on it you want to be there.

And then after I can update that.

Okay.

And then under uh two, ask the applicant to come back to discuss and accommodate the green.

There's a typo.

Uh it says walla indie, and then it should be wall and okay.

Got it.

I'll I'll check that too.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, can we have uh did anybody else have any uh notes?

Yeah, there I just wanted to register my attendance.

I'm sorry to be sorry to be late.

All right, we've got Patrick Brennan with us.

And I'm still not seeing Rachel, so okay.

Okay Heather, did we ask them to come back to this meeting?

Um with that.

My understanding is that it's up to the applicant to come back.

Okay.

Um so they're not on the agenda, so they haven't come back thus far.

Um I believe we need to have did anybody help have anything else that needed to be addressed in the last minutes.

John, no, okay.

Um I can I get a motion to approve with the corrections of the um consent agenda and the correction of the type of motion to approve the agenda.

Okay.

I second that motion.

Great, and we've got Annie here.

Okay.

All right.

Um all in favor.

You can do.

Great.

One, two, three, four, five, six.

Okay.

Um moved.

Let's keep trucking.

All right.

Um, so now we're gonna move on to the consent agenda.

So we had two items on the consent agenda, the sign permit for Southern Village and the Trinity Court um uh modification, it looked like of the foundation uh masonry.

Did um does anybody have any objection to um approving these and moving forward, Patrick?

Yeah, Heather, I object to um including the foundation project on the consent agenda.

I think that uh bears out further discussion.

Okay.

If I'm thinking about the right project, that's the project over off of uh East Franklin, is that right?

Uh you might be thinking of the cell tower.

I'm standing corrected.

I don't have any objections, and I'm thinking of the cell tower.

Thank your pardon.

Okay, the cell tower is under new business, so that will be a discussion topic.

I I withdraw my objection.

Okay, all right.

Um, any other objections or any other things that we need to address there?

All right, can we have a motion to approve the Adam?

Is that approving the consent agenda or just how do we need to word this?

You can just approve the consent agenda that will approve the two projects.

So you don't have to mention that specifically.

Yep.

Wonderful.

So can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I motion to approve the consent agenda.

Great, Kelsey.

Do I have a second?

Second.

John Biggs.

Great.

Okay, for this one, I'm gonna go through the roll call and you're just gonna give me an um an aye or a nay.

Okay.

Um Patrick Brennan.

Yes or no?

Sorry, I didn't aye.

Great.

Uh Kimberly Andrews.

Aye.

Uh John Biggs.

Kelsey Brinkley.

Aye.

Jim Farron.

Jim.

Okay, I think your volume is still off.

And I look, I was looking down.

Um Annie Uman.

Aye.

And then I'm also an aye.

So that's uh unanimous.

Um as far as uh the moving forward with the consent agenda.

Um now we're gonna move on to new business.

And um, I think uh Adam has a presentation for us.

Yeah, sorry, not as formal enough of a presentation.

I just wanted to mention um one thing, and then the applicant will go through a presentation that will just sort of outline what their proposal is.

But um, what I know is that this iteration of the commission as we're currently constructed has not looked at an alternate buffer yet.

Um, so I just wanted to quickly just kind of verbalize the requirements around an alternate buffer and what the commission needs to be looking for and the lumo definition of it.

Actually, let me just share my screen real quick and then we can uh I can find the button.

Share and let's go to Adam, real quick.

For those that are still on the call that were a part of the consent agenda, can we let them know that if they would like to leave, they can.

Yeah, so anybody who was part of the Trinity Court project and the what was the other one?

Southern village.

Yeah, the sign permit.

Yeah.

Um if you're a part of either one of those two projects, you've been approved as part of the consent agenda, so you're welcome to drop.

Okay, so there's nothing that you guys need from us.

Departments have an approval that we just tomorrow about any additional follow-up.

Um, but this was part of your approval.

This was part of your sign permit approval.

So I think Anna Scott was reviewing those, so I'll let her know that the CDC has approved their portion of it, and then as long as everything else has been worked out with that application and permit, she'll start the process, not approval if it hasn't been done already with this particular condition.

So we'll follow it.

Yeah, I believe all they needed was just the approval from you guys, so we can just go ahead and we'll follow them.

Have a good night.

Thanks, everyone.

And thank you, Heather, for that follow-up.

Good catch.

Thank you.

Um, real quickly, I'm just gonna highlight this because this is where um the discussion of alternate buffers comes in.

Uh it's in 568, which is the landscape section.

And essentially what it boils down to is that the applicant is coming to you with a detailed plan with specifications for they can either do landscaping, screening, or a combination of the two that will afford them a degree of buffering.

I'm sorry to read this, but it's just easier than screening that is equivalent to or exceeding what is provided in the requirements.

So every project essentially has a buffer requirement that's laid out in LUMO.

Generally speaking, alternate buffers that we see come through as a request for the town always includes a fence, a wall, or a combination of fencing and landscaping.

So a fence, because it's 100% opaque, will always meet or exceed the buffer requirements.

What that means is it doesn't give a whole lot of specification and guidance to what the community design commission is discussing about the design.

So what we typically do is we turn it over to the applicant, which we're gonna do in a minute, and let them present what they've got and talk to you a little bit about what their proposal is, what their materials are, let you ingest that a little bit and then start to ask some questions.

I'm happy to be here to interject our thoughts um or interject staff thoughts or or or questions or comments if you have those.

So I'll be here in the background if anything comes up.

Um, but I will try to just take a screenshot of this and post it in the chat, and that way you've got that language that you can come back to uh and just let me know if you need me for something, and happy to answer anything right now if need be.

I have a question.

Fire away.

Um so Adam, just a quick question.

So when you talk about that, there's um buffer requirements of fence for a wall.

Is there uh is there design elements of that that are required by the town, or does the town just do we give them options, or does the do we just see what they have and then we approve it?

Like the type of fence, is it wooding wooden, is it metal, does it have to be a certain height?

Those sorts of requirements.

Good question.

So the town requirements for buffers is 100% landscaping, and that landscaping is laid out.

I I don't want to be scrolling a lot on my screen, but buffers are either 10, 20 or 30 foot in width, and then landscape requirements within that width are broken down in 100 foot segments.

So you might have to have two canopy trees for every 100 foot, an understory tree every 100 foot, and 40 shrubs every 100 foot.

I'm just throwing numbers out there, but that's the general idea of how a buffer is laid out, and then typically that 100 foot is then multiplied for the full length of the property line, and that gives you your full buffer.

Um for uh fences or walls, we typically see fences just because of the economic requirement of putting up anything you know beyond that because walls are just a whole lot more expensive.

The only real requirement is whether or not that fence meets uh some type of property line setback.

So that does limit the height of the fence.

I mean, typically they're in like six, eight-foot range because if they're within 10, if it's a 10-foot buffer and they're within 10 foot of the property line, it it's not gonna meet the setback requirement if it's taller than that.

So generally speaking, they're like in the eight-foot range.

Um then anything beyond that.

I mean, if the commission just decides, um, I mean, just just for the sake of an argument here that you know you don't like it, uh, and we and you want to see something else, and that that option is certainly available to speak about with the applicant, just like we have the same discussions with elevations, where you're where the short is gonna be is that we're not asking for an approval here, we're asking for review.

So, what we're hoping is is that this is a collaborative discussion, but there are no but beyond those setback requirements, there are no requirements for material types and those types of things.

You may be able to draw on those for a typical development project, Kim that had, you know, if this was an architectural project, right?

Then there would be established materials on that site that might make sense for a for a for a fence.

Right here, we don't have that because it's a cell tower, right?

Um, and I know that the applicant has prepared, they've got some images of projects they've done in the past.

So beyond the details that were provided, they'll be able to show you some images.

So there's a little less context, both both sort of site and um surrounding area for for this particular proposal.

This is very, very different than you know what we see on a by we, I mean the town and the commission sees on a even a semi-regular basis.

Right.

And just one more quick question.

Like, so there's no there's no there's no safety requirements with this type of structure that there has to be a certain type of um buffer around it in a certain height for safety concerns with it being a tower from the town's perspective.

I'm just I'm just curious.

I'm just wanting to make sure got my bases covered on this.

I'm just wondering, you know, electrical stuff, of course, you have to have a certain certain things.

I'm just wondering with the cell tower, if there's any safety regulations.

That's a good question.

Because this is not my permit, I can't speak 100% to it.

Uh um, Sam, who's going to do their presentation may.

What I will say is that if there's a if there's a safety compliance life safety ordinance that is required for them to be met, then staff will be part of that review.

Okay.

And let's just say that tonight we we get through this thing and you give them approval or you what whatever the decision is.

Right.

Our review as part of staff modifies that requirement, and that fence then needs to change, then they would have to come back to have a further discussion about that.

Right.

Like if somebody wants to climb it or something like that or whatever.

Got it.

If we get part of Baylor Push, if we get through our requirement, if our our portion of it, it's like, no, this thing's gotta be 20 foot tall again.

Got it.

Extreme example, and they've got to modify modify it in some way because a fence just can't be built that high with these types of materials, then they'd have to come back and we'd have to rehab.

Okay.

Now I got one more question.

I'm sorry, and the only reason I'm asking these questions because I went um we went and looked at the site.

Uh, just I'm curious about it.

That that area, you know, it's so prone to flooding in Eastgate.

Is that is that a flood zone that that cell tower is in?

Because it's such a low-lying area.

I just want to take that into consideration with the landscaping aspect of this.

Yeah, I'll let Sam speak to that.

Okay.

I think we're now starting to veer to uh presentation from the okay.

I did have a question, I did have a question of staff, if I if I may.

Okay, thank you.

Um staff, and I appreciate all the the hard work that goes into preparing the agenda and the permitting packages.

In future agendas or materials, would it be possible to also provide the part of the LUMIMO or the regulation that we're to consider in this uh in this decision?

As as Kim said, we we did go out and view the site, but we really didn't know what we were looking at.

And so the additional context about the LUMO was really helpful.

Would it be possible to provide that kind of information in in advance?

Uh so we could evaluate against that that information.

Yeah, sure.

Um we had gotten into a pretty good process of that, Patrick, and I'll admit I've fell off on that in the last little bit.

So yes, I will make sure that we provide either it either always relates back to this ordinance language, or if council has already approved the project, and that ordinance sort of replaces what you're looking at on my screen.

I'll provide which either one is is relevant, and that way you can digest that uh before the meeting starts.

No, no, no.

Thank you for doing that.

Thank you for doing that.

Sure.

Okay.

All right.

So why don't we proceed with the applicant?

Absolutely.

Thanks, Adam.

I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen before getting started.

That's okay.

And Adam, you might have to stop sharing.

Yes, uh, I'm sorry.

Uh no worries.

Have that.

All right, is every is everyone able to see my screen here?

Yes.

Fantastic.

Well, good evening, uh members of the commission.

My name is Sam O'Vern.

I am the land use manager for Network Towers, the applicant um here today.

Um, along with me also is Oscar Pesada.

He is our project engineer.

Um, so he'll be on as well for any technical questions that I can't answer.

I know we have a couple uh questions going around.

Uh, I'm gonna try to hit those at the end, but if I don't, please feel free to uh uh ask me again.

So we'll go ahead and get started here.

All right, so just to give a a brief overview.

Adam did a great job.

Um, kind of took away this request section here.

We are here to review and consider our alternative buffer uh design, which is a seven-foot-tall board-on-board fence in lieu of the um the uh excuse, the vegetative buffer requirement.

So um, as for a broad overview, we are looking to install a new 199-foot tall myopoletal communications tower off of East Franklin Street.

We network towers, of course, would be a tower and facility owner.

So not only will we own the tower, we will handle any and all maintenance for the facility.

Um additionally, the compound itself will be 35 uh by 75 uh foot fenced in compound, and again, that'll be with a seven foot tall board on board fence is what we are proposing uh today.

And here again is just an overview.

I know a couple of you mentioned you went and visited the site, but um here's uh our site with the gold star there in relation to East Franklin Street and Route 501.

So project history, I'll be pretty brief with this this section, but just want to highlight it, of course.

So early last year, we applied for a special use permit for our tower and facility.

Um just this past November, we received unanimous approval from the council um for that special use permit.

So as part of the next steps here, uh meeting with you to go over um our requested modification to replace the 10 foot wide uh planted buffer around the compound.

Uh here shortly I'll kind of go over some site constraints on why we are um requesting that modification.

Um we did work with staff and discuss this with the council during that approval process.

And then while additional planting is not feasible at this location, and again, I'll get into that here in a minute, but um we do remain committed to screening the compound from adjacent properties and concealing all any and all ground equipment within the uh within the compound.

And what we're proposing to do that with is a seven foot tall board on board fence.

So talking here with site constraints, I know there's a question about us being in the floodplain and floodway there.

So um, as you see our site here with the red rectangle, um, our site abuts an existing floodplain and floodway.

So it is important to note that a portion of our compound is within that floodplain and flood or flood uh flood zone, excuse me.

And what we're doing is we're utilizing a retaining wall to effectively raise us out of that flood zone.

And we've we've designed that with the engineering department at the town.

Um, and I think we um we we had that nailed down with them, which is great.

So discussing the plantings and you know, providing a vegetative buffer around the compound, um, that would increase disturbance within the these protected areas.

Um very early on, before submitting our special use permit, we did discuss with the engineering department about you know an alternative, and you know, the engine engineering department advised against any additional disturbance in the flood zone.

So hence why we requested the modification and are looking and are looking to propose the seven-foot-tall board-on-board fence.

And then the last bullet point here adding a buffer would expand the project footprint, requiring additional fill within the floodplain.

And again, the stormwater engineering department advised against that.

So here's just a snippet of the fence details.

I just wanted to throw this in there in case um anyone you know didn't have a chance to look at the the drawings we submitted with the application.

But again, seven-foot board-on-board fence.

We have some photos I'm about to show that we feel that it really does a great job of concealing any and all ground equipment within the compound.

Um, and then something to note here, there are two existing uh telecommunications towers, but towers, AM radio towers on the property, and both those um those sites and compounds utilize a board-on-board fence.

So, although since this um we we wanted to keep it consistent with those other two sites while also achieving um concealment effort as well.

So I'm gonna show you a few pictures here, some fence examples.

These are all um board-on-board fence sites that we've done uh previously.

So, right here you can see that it really does a great job of not being able to um effectively see within the compound any ground equipment, anything like that.

Here's another one essentially showing the same thing.

And this these are just the sides.

And then lastly, here's another one that we we we've done as well.

So I know that was quick.

I may have gone a little too quick.

I apologize in advance, but I'm I'm happy to answer any other questions you have.

And um uh so I'll turn it back over to to the commission.

Great, thank you so much.

No problem.

So we're gonna start with questions, and I'm gonna go down the line of um I tend to go uh um one direction and then back the other direction.

And what we'll do is we're gonna go through the commissioners and they're gonna ask questions and you can respond.

And then we will ask for public comment, and then we'll go back through the commissioners so that they can provide further comments, and then we'll have a discussion amongst ourselves as to how we want to handle it, and then a motion will happen and we'll go from there.

Okay.

Sounds great.

All right, so let's start out with um uh Kim, uh Andrews, you want to start off with any questions?

Um I just I had just um one question, Sam.

Thank you for for putting that together.

Um you had mentioned the other two communication towers that are there and the current fences that are there now are um are painted.

Um are you guys just gonna do like a um uh uh a um oh gosh, sorry, my brain spent a long day.

Are you just are you just planning on doing um pressure treated wood in that section?

And I guess um my other question is and the other ones are painted, and I didn't see any like stuff with graffiti, and maybe this isn't the time to ask for this, but like who's responsible if um first of all, is it gonna be pressure treated or painted, and then who's responsible for maintaining the fence once it's up?

Great, great question.

Um, so regarding regarding the uh pressure treated, yes, it will be pressure treated.

Um we do not intend on on painting it.

Um it is a good question.

And then regarding maintenance, we the facility under network towers will maintain that fence.

So if there's ever um uh God forbid, you know, a panel that becomes loose or falls over, we of course would uh would fix that as soon as possible once we're notified.

Thank you.

No problem.

Okay.

Um Jim Farron.

Do you have any questions?

Jim, do we still not have oh, there we go.

There we go.

No, sorry, that that was me, Simon, the zoom operator.

Um Jim, it looks like your mic is enabled, but we can't hear you sadly.

Um if you go down to the bottom of your zoom window and click the arrow icon.

You should be able to toggle which microphone you're using.

Um just flicking through that uh real quick.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt the the meeting.

Okay, so I mean that that's helpful.

And if that doesn't work, Jim, it might be beneficial to just hop off and hop back on real quick as well.

Give that another minute recording it.

Jim, I'm gonna go to the next person.

I'll come back to you last, okay.

See if we can get this worked out.

Um Kelsey, would you let to go next?

Yeah, thank you.

So um just my understanding is um is it correct that um base on the floodplain to elevate the tower safely outside of the floodplain, the disturbance referenced was for the retaining wall.

So the tower will be on an additional retaining wall.

Is that correct?

So Oscar, feel free, feel free to chime in.

Um if my answer is not is not completely correct.

But so as you see, do you see this line here?

Yeah, and I saw the butt yeah, the floodplain is the bubble.

Yeah.

Yes, ma'am.

So um, so part of that we will have a retaining wall on this far side in the flood zone, elevating the portion of the compound that is not that is within that flood zone.

Um, everything else will not be elevated, just what is below um base flood elevation.

Okay, so the answer topography will be level with the other ones, and you're just extending it out into the floodplain using the um the new retaining wall.

And the reason for the not having the plants is because you didn't want to have to push the retaining wall 10 feet out, right?

Correct.

Yes, ma'am.

Um and then plus putting any additional planting within that flood zone does cause more disturbance.

And then also we're we're up against an existing parking lot there, so um we can't really put a buffer around plant trees in on pavement, if you will.

Right.

And is there any flexibility?

I see the I guess like the the lattice X's on there.

Um, my computer's critically low.

Um, hopefully it won't die.

Um is that a is that impervious surface, or is that um area where we could potentially on the one side have um any sort of buffer?

Are are you are you talking about up north of the compound right up here?

Um sorry, the the lattice work, sorry, slightly down the the word right below your mouse to the I I think that's the parking lot Kelsey.

That's still parking as well.

Okay, I see the stall, but I wasn't sure if that was also still parking.

Okay, so this whole rectangle here is the parking lot.

Oh okay.

Okay.

And so visible from the greenway is really what I was trying to think through, right?

Um, if there's and that's essentially limited in the buffer because that would then require the retaining wall to be larger.

Is that accurate?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay.

Um would there be consideration?

So along the greenway in Chapel Hill, a lot of the like Owasa exhaust easements have like murals on them to kind of beautify something that maybe is a little bit more like man, you know, man-made.

Um, would there be openness to that, or would that be like a safety concern to have it, you know, like a local artist or something.

I mean it painted, so it's not just wood.

To the uh boring board fence?

Yes, like at least the part that's facing the greenway.

I I I hear I hear that, and I unfortunately I don't think we are interested in in this time at this time to pursue that option.

Okay.

That's all my questions, Heather.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Kelsey.

Um John Biggs.

Um hey Sam.

Uh I have I guess I have a couple of questions.

Um only because I haven't been over to that area for a little while, so I'm just going off a memory from a year or so ago.

Um so your your tower is 200 feet tall, and you said your fence is seven feet tall.

Um, what is the height of the other towers?

Do you know?

Yes, sir.

So the the other towers, I believe, are right at 200 or 203 feet.

Maybe Oscar can look into that on the side for for me if he doesn't mind.

Um let me check that for you then.

But I'm pretty sure they're yeah, they're 200 feet tall, each guy tower.

Yeah, okay.

So they're around the same height.

And what is the height of their fences?

It's around the same height, seven feet.

Yes, sir.

I I I don't know the exact fence height of those, but I imagine they're they're gonna be anywhere from the six to eight foot range.

Okay.

And you said those are also wood.

Are they sure you said they're they're painted or not painted?

Uh I'm not sure if they're painted, um, but I do know they are a borrow on board um style.

Yeah, they're to confirm they're they're bored and board fence.

Uh they're probably anywhere between six feet high, five or six feet high, but they are painted, uh John.

Okay.

Any other questions, John?

Um hey, I shared my screen.

You can see on this Google image.

This this is the tower right here, and then here's, I believe this is the accurate towers we're referencing behind the dentist's office.

Is that accurate, folks?

Yes, but that's just one of the towers, yeah.

Yeah, so here's one, and here's two.

Do those towers, the other towers, uh, do they have any plants in front of the fences?

They do not.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't have any other questions in that case.

Okay.

Um let's go to Annie.

Do you have any questions?

Yeah, thank you for the presentation, Sam.

No problem.

Um I am I'm sad to see the the landscaping go, but I think your reasons make sense.

Um they only uh they only give me hesitation just because I see that the site plan proposes removing 16 of the trees that would line that parking lot.

Um it's not so much of a question, I guess just my main concern is just losing those trees and losing that visual buffer between those land uses and that green space.

So I just wanted to, I guess, verify like there's no other replanting that could happen while you have the easement.

There's no way to substitute um the visual benefits of those trees within your site plan.

It's a great question.

And yeah, that's something we worked uh diligently with with staff and the stormwater engineering department.

The the trees we are removing are necessary for the the compound in the tower itself.

Um any planting, you know, will will be within that flood zone, which again back to those site constraints we're talking about.

As much as I'd like to, uh it's it we did go into depth with staff in in the engineering department regarding that question.

But it is a great question.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Thank you for the answer.

No problem.

Okay.

Uh Patrick Brennan, and then we'll go back to Jim.

Thanks, Heather.

Um, thanks for the thoughtful presentation, Sam.

Just walk me through again why the why plants can't be planted in the flood zone.

I would think that any sort of routings would would be helpful to prevent erosion.

Sure.

And maybe Austria can share a little more light too.

But when when we brought this initial design to again, I I'm sorry if I'm very repetitive on this, but the stormwater engineering department, they they they advised us to not to do any additional planting within that that um that flood zone.

So because of that, it's it's the city who advised you against doing that.

Did you make that request to the city?

Yes, sir.

We we ran this design by um Ernest.

I I forget his last name, but at the stormwater engineering department.

Ernest Oday, if I'm pronouncing that correctly.

Yep.

So it was not it was not your desire to remove the plants.

The city directed you to remove the plant.

The town directed you to move the remove the plants.

Is that fair to say?

So we are removing that we're removing trees, yes, but that that's required for the the compound and facility.

And is that your desire to do so or are you being directed to do so by the by the town?

We we have to um to put the the compound where it is to remove those 16 trees.

Uh Sam, I think Patrick is trying to say we understand that there's 16 trees that are being removed so that you can be able to put your tower there and put the retaining wall there.

But did stormwater from town of Chapel Hill tell you not to put vegetation around that retaining wall?

Yes, that's correct.

My apologies on that misunderstanding.

They they did advise not to add any uh vegetation.

And did you but did they do so at did you request to to not have to add vegetation?

Correct.

So uh we we did that while we um why we um shared our design for the the board on board fence.

Okay, so you requested to not add vegetation.

Stormwater confirmed your request, and then you're proposing this board on board fence.

Yes, sir.

I I think you're asking two different, you're talking about two separate issues.

So what one thing that you're talking about there is the difference between a buffer and an alternative buffer.

And that that I think that's what you're talking about.

The other question has to do with putting plants in the you know, outside of the fence, adding plants because you're taking plants out, putting plants in the uh in the landscape in the flood zone.

That's kind of a separate issue because the the issue that he was that Sam was referring to has to do with um area of disturbance, which is uh DEQ type type of issue.

Now that's I got that, John.

I appreciate you trying to clarify, but I I got that.

My my my concern with it, and I've looked at it.

I went out this weekend, we worked the property, we saw where it is.

It's a big open field.

Um in this in this without any sort of planting, so I think there's two primary concerns.

Well, let me ask you.

Uh what's I'm gonna stop this right here right now.

Um we're gonna do questions and then I'd like to get into this discussion after everybody's had a chance to do questions.

I just have a couple more questions.

That's okay.

So let's just stick to questions right now and then we can come back with comments and in discussion.

Okay.

Okay, I appreciate that, Heather.

So what do you if people spray paint on the fence?

What how are you going to deal with sort of uh of that?

Sure, absolutely great question.

So if any kind of graffiti or stuff like that does occur to the fence, we network towers will will come rectify that.

Um our property owners on site um pretty much every day.

I think I believe he works in the office building right there.

I think I believe he works in the office building right there, but um, so if he's made aware of it or the town makes us aware of it, we'll act fast to to rectify that.

And are there any other circumstances where you would add plants to the outer buffer to act as a uh uh both a uh a stormwater runoff mitigation tool as well as a beautification tool?

So I'm sorry, do you mind repeating that?

Mr.

Brennan.

Yeah, are there any circumstances under which you would consider adding back the plants to the buffer as both a stormwater mitigation tool and a beautification tool?

Uh I may be able to help there, uh Sam with with at least portion, um, Mr.

Brennan.

So for the stormwater portion, no.

Um essentially we have a small uh BMP at the bottom of the retaining wall uh that is to take care of any stormwater concerns.

Um we wouldn't need additional plantings uh to mitigate that.

Um I'm not sure if you want to add anything else to the beautification uh portion, Sam.

No, I think I think uh hopefully your answer hit it on the nail on the head there.

I I guess it's it's a would would you all be willing to add more plants from a beautification beautification standpoint?

We we will we could, but the the problem with that again is is it would be it was not advised by the engineering department because any any plantings we add would be within that flood zone.

Um which was we're trying to limit.

Sorry, so there's not room on the parking lot side.

You're building your compound all the way up to the parking lot, taking out the trees that would typically be there, right?

So you're using where the trees were for the compound in order to eliminate how much it stuck out into the floodplain.

Is that accurate?

Yes, we're trying to limit the disturbed area inside the floodplain, and this is the issue, right?

So we're trying to keep the footprint as small as possible.

That was per the direction of the stormwater department, right?

Uh on the regular situation, we would have uh proposed a much larger compound, but because of the floodplain, all the constraints associated with this project, and after discussing it with the stormwater department, it was advised to keep our footprint as small as possible.

Well, Chair Washpernot just reclaimed my time and I'll just kind of summarize what I heard in my questions.

Was there's no desire on the part of the applicant to plant trees, um, even though trees exist just a short distance away and they're going right up to the parking lot.

Um I'll I'll I'll uh I'll turn over my time and and uh look forward to being comment.

All right.

Do we have Jim on?

And Jim, do you have any questions?

And then I'll have my questions.

If you want to, you can type your questions into the chat and then I can read them out for you.

Does that work for you?

And Jim, I did uh send you a message via the webinar chat um directly, so we could troubleshoot that way too if needed.

Otherwise, if you were unable to uh switch microphones, um then I would suggest hopping back out and back in.

That might fix the issue.

Jim, can you give me a thumbs up if you have a question that you want me to ask?

I see no.

Okay, great.

Then I'm gonna start with my questions.

Um, so I'm actually gonna um kind of pick up where Patrick left off.

Um did you guys review uh that um what can be done in that disturbance area that so you're you're putting this um retaining wall foundation in?

So you've taken out the trees, you're putting in the foundation.

I think we've got that hammered out.

And your foundation is in part of the floodplain.

Um and what we keep rounding around in the questions is um I know that in certain zones that you can actually all right, you can be in that disturbance if you're um uh you're actually um remediating the area.

So if you bring in good soil and native plants that actually help with stormwater, then you can be able to plant in that area.

Did you guys review those uh options with stormwater?

No, not specifically uh Ms.

Heather, no.

Okay, just follow the direction from the stormwater department to keep our footprint as small as possible.

Okay, and then just to clarify for Impatrick, because I still think that that was a little ambiguous.

Um did you request to stormwater that uh whether or not to use plants?

Did stormwater directly say don't use plants on the other side of this retaining wall?

So so we met with um with stormwater, we had a zoom call with them, and we showed them our proposed design, and we ran the retaining wall because we were proposing a board of board fence to um to um modify the buffer regulation.

Um, and then during that call, after going over and approving our retaining wall idea concept, um we we did ask the question because we were curious about uh vegetative adding vegetation, and then it was advised that any more disturbance or expanding the footprint of the project uh was not advised.

And Oscar, correct me if you if you recall it differently, but that's how I I remember how start.

Okay, so you asked you asked stormwater that can I plant plants on the outside of this retaining wall that would be in the floodplain, correct?

Correct.

That situation was discussed.

Okay.

And at any time, did you talk to stormwater about that uh because it's in the um uh the storm like I know from my work when there's a stream or any other water body that there is a zone too in which uh and I've worked with North Carolina DEQ on remediation of those areas, and so that's why I'm kind of coming back around because this area floods all of the time, and you guys are removing the root system.

Um I'm very curious as to what plants did you propose that you wanted to put here?

Yep, so uh Oscar may have the the technical names, but typically what we propose for these these tower sites are um just evergreen trees and shrubs.

Um American Hollies, Oscar, is that ring a bell?

That sounds normal.

That sounds uh basically we will obtain to any requirements um by the local jurisdiction, but uh evergreens like American Hollies would be a standard type of plantings for these kind of applications.

Okay, um did those fall into native plants and appropriate plantings in a flood zone.

That is something we will have to look into.

Um I don't have that answer for you at the moment.

Okay.

Um then go ahead.

Also to add, you know, these retaining wall will be six feet high, right?

Um you will add the fans, the the board and board fans on top of that.

So from the existing grade to the top of the fence, you're talking about 13 feet in elevation, right?

Um so any plantings selected will have to for it for them to be effective, uh, will have to be had the potential to become that that tall, right?

I'm an evergreen situation.

So that's just something else to add to the that would be a part of the design because if you brought in um appropriate soil, you could actually be able to put that at an angle and then be able to plant up that angle, which also would help with your pressure on that retaining wall, making that retaining wall actually cheaper for you guys to build because you've got your equalizing pressure on both sides.

Are we talking about adding the plantings at the bottom of the retaining wall or yes?

Yes.

Because now I'm understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that we have 13 feet.

Um six to seven feet of retaining wall.

Um so when we're when you walk the path through there, now if you're walking along that greenway, we have um six to seven foot retaining wall, and then no, we have a six-foot retaining wall, and then a seven-foot board on board fence that um is a pressure treated fence, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Are they on grade at the bottom of that area?

Heather, I can I think Karen and I can answer they're on grade, they're at the bottom, they're the lowest point of the field at the moment.

Okay, so the other towers have uh a wall, if you will, of seven feet, and this would be a wall of 13 feet.

Yeah, the other two towers sit on the floodway.

Just okay.

Yeah.

Um, when were those other towers put there?

Do you know go ahead, Sam?

No, I'm I was gonna ask Oscar.

It it was I want to say before before 2000, the year 2000.

It's been a while.

Okay.

Um it's old, much older than that, I believe, Sam.

But yeah, I can't I don't I don't have that answer right now.

We'll have to look into it.

I can probably find it in the matter of minutes, but I I'll have to look through my documents.

Okay.

Um I'm done with my questions.

Does any um do any of the other commissioners have any follow-up questions before I open it up to the public?

All right, let's open this up to oh Patrick.

Do you have something?

Yeah, just a quick follow-up question.

I think to Heather's point, would you all be considered would you all consider reconsidering the plan to determine whether native plantings would be appropriate for this area as a way to further mitigate um one the beautification of it and uh address the concerns of stormwater?

Well, it's to stay in compliance with the direction from stormwater department engineering department.

Um I'm not asking with respect to that, I'm not asking, I'm asking, would you all be willing to reconsider the entire plan to see whether native plantings would would work in that area?

I think at this time uh no sir.

Okay, um let's let's move forward and open it up to public comment.

And then the board will discuss.

Um can I can I start Heather?

Uh yes, go ahead, John.

Okay, I guess I have two comments.

Um one is that um on the one hand, I think that it's fine to use the fence in lieu of uh planting, because the other two to there's already a precedent there to do that.

Um on the other hand, um I have a little concern about the if the other towers only have a seven-foot high fence, in introducing essentially a 13-foot tall solid wall there is gonna change the nature of the the aesthetic nature of the area.

It would be different, visually different from the other two fences.

So I think if you in order to mitigate that, like you were saying, if if you could provide a sloping soil, I don't know if that actually would be allowed by the um as a part of that would basically be changing the topography there.

So it would, I'm not I'm not sure that that would really pass as far as the area of disturbance, but just aesthetically that would that would mitigate that issue for me.

Especially if you introduce some plants there and some hollies or whatnot.

Um or some native plant that can be a you know a 10-foot high bush.

Um that's gonna mitigate that.

That would mitigate that issue for me.

Oscar, I saw your hand go up.

Did you have it?

Yeah, um, thank you, Ms.

Heathers.

Just to clarify, um John, you're suggesting to add some sort of a uh a sloping soil is that I believe is the way you described it.

Um that specifically that's not constantly specifically the stormwater department uh decline.

That would that would have been an original design, actually, before the retaining wall concept became um uh became uh uh on paper.

Uh we originally anticipated to just grade uh a two to one, three to one slope, uh, but that would have essentially uh introduce a lot more fuel material into the flood zone.

Um and the stormwater department specifically decline uh that project uh from day one.

Uh and that's why the retaining wall became part of this project.

Um is to avoid any more fill uh material into the flood zone.

I just wanted to clarify.

Yeah, that that yeah, that's under understood.

I I just think on the one hand, I can agree with the fence.

On the other hand, because the fence is visually 13 feet tall compared to the other two fences, um putting some kind of plants in front of it, just a row of you know 10 plants, sticking 10 plants in front of it.

Um I think that would help to mitigate the the height difference in the fence for me.

Okay.

Um Kelsey, do you want to do you have comments?

Um I tend to agree with John on the if there's a way we could work on at least identifying some it assuming the property extends far enough and we're not at the property line where this retaining wall is.

I'm not I'm not clear on that.

But if there is an opportunity to come in alignment with stormwater on what plants would be acceptable that would visually at least break up that 13-foot visual span, I think would be um you know uh a preference um since the grade is not possible, but that's all I have.

Okay.

I'm just making some new um how about Annie, do you have comments?

Yeah, similar to Kelsey, I just echo John.

My preferred alternative here would be to find some kind of way to have you know repurpose this land to include uh any kind of landscaping or plants.

Um but I appreciate the the reasons behind this.

So I would love for it to happen, is my main comment.

I don't know if it will now.

That's all from me.

Okay.

Um since we're just talking about the one particular section, it it would be nice if we could find out if there's native plants or something that we can plant in there.

I don't think it has to be the entire height of the wall and the fence, but something that can just break it up a little bit would be nice just for the people that walk along that space.

Okay.

Um Jim.

Can you type in your comments?

Continuing to have some sound issues.

And then Patrick, I'll go to you and then and then I'll sum up my stuff.

Yeah, I think so I just want to for my fellow commissioners sort of describe where this is in town.

This is right when you enter town.

Uh I think that's off of 15501 or 54.

So this is like this is what you're gonna see when you first drive into Chapel Hill.

And right now it's already an eyesore, and to elevate it by 13 feet, I think it's gonna make it even more of an eyesore.

Um also I don't understand and I don't agree with the idea that we continue to build in flood zones, given the damage we've seen just as recently as this past summer.

I mean, there's stores that are still rebuilding an East Cape.

And so to put a 200-foot tall metal pole that has no decorations associated with it in the middle of our town, uh to see right when you walk in, I think it's just a very disappointing use of land.

Um it is not a sponsorful, responsible way to use that land, in my opinion.

Uh I'm disappointed in this application.

I appreciate the application, but I'm disappointed in it because I I don't feel that the application respects or uh takes into consideration its place in our town, being right when you you pull into town, um, and the the level of elevation that's going to change how our town looks.

Um and the the level of elevation that's going to change how our town looks.

Um and and that's just on top of it being in a in a flood zone.

So very, very serious concerns about this project.

And um, and uh I'm I can't say I'm in favor of it right now.

Okay.

Um so here's my comments.

You're you're taking down 16 trees, which is a lot of root structure that actually not only helps to hold a bank, but it also soaks up the water that when that area floods, it helps to mitigate those waters.

So you've now eliminated 16 um large trees that were helping the flood area.

And what you're proposing is to put in a retaining wall that has um is basically mitigating the water coming off your parking lot.

So what you're saying is is that this is not creating more of an issue because you're handling the water from your parking lot so that it goes into that flood area.

What you're not addressing is you now have a larger problem, and that you still have the same amount of water, and over time it's going to be more water that is coming from the opposite direction.

We don't have those trees anymore that are going to help soak up that water.

And now we've got a trickle of water that's coming the other way.

So at the end of this project, we're gonna have an ad of water problems.

When we add vegetation, that helps to mitigate the water.

So if we've now added water from both sides because we've lost the trees, then where does that water go?

It goes across the street to Eastgate that just got flooded.

Oscar, go ahead.

Yes, uh, Heather.

Um, no, that is not the case.

Um tell me why not.

And we've done a stormwater analysis that that has been submitted and approved through the stormwater department.

Um essentially the stormwater that is associated with this development will be retained on site.

There is a small BMP at the bottom of the retaining wall.

The idea is that the water that comes out of our site would be retained 100% on the premises, and it will slowly infiltrate or evaporate.

Now that that has been duly noted and approved by the stormwater department.

We we have a stormwater analysis associated with the project.

Um you show us where that BMP is.

So do you have a tank that's holding the water?

Because I'd like to do that.

Um it's not it's not a tank, it's essentially um let me let me just pull up the sheets on the drone so that I can show you.

Okay.

Hey, Heather, can we it might be helpful to get this information to give us a chance to review it and then come back on this issue?

I think if he can pull this up and show us how that water is being mitigated, that's one of my biggest concerns.

And then I can keep going with the okay.

So can you see my screen?

Yes.

Okay, so essentially, you know, associated with this project, right?

Our footprint is relatively small.

Um you can see the shaded area here at the bottom of the wall.

Uh that is essentially what we're considering a stormwater uh BMP facility.

Essentially, uh let me see if I can uh show you the essentially it's gonna look it's it's a soil, it's all it is.

Um it is meant to just hold water and slowly let it infiltrate into the ground.

So why can't we have uh plants with that?

Is that at the base of the wall or is that at the top of the wall?

That is at the base of the wall.

Okay, so why can't we introduce plants, water plants that actually help clean clear clean the water?

You cannot plant in this soil, ma'am.

That that you're essentially taking volume area that we need for that stormwater to be on site and stayed on site.

Um what we do would be.

Yeah.

That's a different conversation.

I'm gonna let Sam uh chip in on that.

Um but I've seen this with rain gardens.

And so to answer your your question, no, none of the storm wire that is associated with this project will end up downstream uh potentially flooding uh downstream from our project.

Uh I just wanted to clarify that point.

Okay, so that that's taking care of the water that's coming off of your project.

Now, how do you take care of the water coming from the other direction?

From which specific direction?

From you've got you're in the flood zone, so there's water that accumulates there, which would be a good thing.

Yeah, so essentially the the area that is that we're filling in is is very small.

Again, we've gone through this with the stormwater department.

We had to do uh uh an analysis.

We've we've we submitted a no-rise certification, uh document.

Uh the footprint of our of our project should not have any impact on this on the flooding uh elevation of the general vicinity.

Okay, I hear you.

Okay.

And then my last comment is um it's uh I agree with my other commissioners, and that we've got 13 feet of wall, which is has more presence than the other two towers.

It's the one closest to the road, and I really just don't understand the inability to be able to use plants.

Um I I it that just doesn't quite make sense to me that there's not an option to be able to have plants there to again, as my other um commissioners have said to break up the height that is happening there.

Um I mean you've also said that uh it you don't have you do not have any interest in a mural, um, which would also help to break up the height.

Um so we've got a 13-foot wall, which I just that's really imposing um right off of that road.

And so we're just gonna um kind of double down on our towers along that pathway.

It's and it's right when you drive into the town, right when you drive into town okay.

Um what would we like to do here?

Does anybody have proposals of um how we would what would we like to tell these kind gentlemen?

Um does anybody have a proposal for a motion of we've reviewed.

Um if we were to consider approval, what would that look like?

Well, uh let me ask a question.

So um the area around Eastgate.

Um as I understand it, so the the CDC has what review capacity over the land use of that area.

Do they have any kind of review capacity or they simply look at the aesthetics?

My understanding, and Adam can jump in is that it's about the aesthetics.

We can make comments um on other things, but um I we're really on aesthetics.

Yeah, I mean, my my backup to that is this project's got an SUP.

That means client that means council has reviewed and approved it.

So the the land use is what it is, right?

I mean, that's the the project, they're allowed to do the project.

When they come through for the C C P that's making sure that they're meeting all the requirements of the town, and then are there smaller specification points that require C D C review, and then that gets us to this particular fence slash alternate buffer con uh conversation.

I mean, Adam, am I correct and understand what we're being asked is are we good with them using a fence instead of landscaping?

If we boil it all down, is that correct?

Uh yeah, and and and the options, just so we're real specific about it, or the commission has three options for motions.

You can approve it with conditions, or you can defer it.

Um or and and deferral can be like sort of your your means by which to sort of punt on it, or you can ask the applicant for something specific.

Because this project doesn't require CDC approval, um, the applicant at the applicant can then take that motion and work within their best judgment and ability to try to figure out a way uh to to meet what is being requested by the commission.

And if an approval with conditions is provided, then there will be a legal uh review of what that condition is.

And I uh you know, I don't I'm not gonna get into that because it's not gonna be something I looked at, but if you said we're gonna approve it, but the fence has to be gold, and again, this just completely doesn't make any sense, right?

But I mean that that's not something the commission could require.

Right.

So um I gotta I got a motion, Heather, if that's okay.

Um can I do one summary real quick, Patrick, and then I I'll let you do your motion.

Um the consensus that I see amongst our comments is that it it doesn't sound like we have any problem with them having a fence or having the retaining wall or where it's landing.

What we're um having difficulty with um is the lack of plants and that we have a 13 foot wall.

So it's it's seeming to me like this starts to fall into that approval with conditions.

Um just let that sit and Patrick, go ahead.

Yeah, I saw along those lines, Chair Washburn, I'd like to make a motion.

My motion is this.

I I I motion to approve this project with the following conditions.

And the following conditions are this that the retaining wall be made out of uh or include a brick facade to tie it into the uh aesthetic of that end of Franklin Street.

Um that the uh that the fence includes some sort of public art that seeks to match the public art that's already on the water retaining towers on uh the trail across the way.

Um I think you're talking about the manholes.

Yeah, the manholes, exactly.

Yeah, and that um that an evaluation is made as to whether um native plantings can be used uh along the trail.

That's my that's my motion.

Um can I ask a couple uh well, a question to ask her and Sam.

What is the um material that you currently have for the retaining wall?

I'm sorry, I I kind of glazed over that.

Concrete block.

No um essentially segmental uh brick.

It's you you've seen these walls and essentially landscaped areas.

Um it's is there not like a split face block or I'm not sure what segmental brick is.

Yeah, let me if you if you bear with me for a minute, I may be able to get you some images.

I'm sorry, I need to drop shortly.

Will you guys have enough folks to vote if I drop will you still have one?

And then and I Kelsey, I'm trying to wrap this up with a pretty bow real quick.

Okay, I have like five, six.

I can I can share my screen, if I may.

Because I think it would help us if we can see what this we I don't have a visual of these in our construction drawings, but this is essentially a type of brick.

Okay, so it's okay.

I got it.

It's is your standard landscape retaining type walls.

Okay, right.

All right.

Um, Patrick, um are you looking for a specific type of brick or with this um uh landscape block wall is I mean, it where does that fall in your um Yeah, I'm so I think if you are if you go on that in a Franklin Street, the primary type of architecture is the red Georgian brick.

Um and so look, I know some of this comes down to feasibility, but I also know that there are facades available to help um ensure the project uh fits within the space.

So when I proposed sort of using brick, it was brick that would emulate um or be within the design concept of the surrounding buildings.

Um make a motion to modify Patrick's request.

Um in lieu of brick, I would not use clay brick because I don't think it's gonna work very well at in that area with the flooding and next to the ground.

You don't want brick right on the soil.

Um I would just make a motion to request to modify that to instead use the landscaping blocks, but pick it a color that's gonna emulate reddish brick.

I would further modify just you know that it's in keeping with the uh the materials that are around it.

All right, let's agree.

Let's do that with Heather.

I'll I'll modify my motion to say that the brick used shall be uh in keeping with the materials and this at this in the surrounding buildings.

Yeah, I agree.

Okay, this is what I heard.

Um that uh Patrick uh moves to approve with the following conditions that the retaining wall use landscape block that is in keeping with the area materials, two that the fence is uh a place for public art such as murals, and three that native plants are investigated.

Um and if they can be used, that they should be used.

Is that accurate?

Everybody's nodding.

Okay.

Agree.

Um, can I get a second on that?

Uh second motion.

Yeah.

Okay, I'm gonna go down.

Um, Adam, did you get that?

Yeah, good question.

Yes, I got it.

Okay.

I'm gonna go down the line and um if you will just yell out yay or nay, Jim, I'm gonna look for a thumbs up from you.

Um Patrick.

Thumbs up.

Kim.

I approve.

Yay.

John approve Jim.

Got a thumbs up.

Annie.

Approve.

Yay.

And myself, Heather Washburn, I approve.

Okay, that's unanimous.

Sorry, I approve as well.

Oh, sorry, Kelsey.

No, it's all good.

But just to make confirm it is unanimous.

I also agree.

Okay, I appreciate that.

I was trying to do so good, and then I just put my finger over your name.

Okay.

Um, so I think that concludes our business for this meeting.

Um, anything else we need to do, Adam?

That's just a motion to adjourn.

Okay, I need a motion to it adjourn.

I motion to adjourn.

I do want to have a second.

Everybody approve, raise your hand.

I see all but Kim.

I'm sorry here.

No, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So moved.

Uh we are adjourned.

Um, just want to thank those of you that uh came out to the Hall River tap and table.

I appreciate you coming.

It was great to see faces in person.

We'll try to do it again.

Um, maybe when the weather is warmer.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you guys.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Have a good night.