Okay, welcome to the April 21st, 2026.

Virtual Planning Commission meeting.

Planning Commission of Chapel Hill.

We'll start with roll call.

Libby.

Yes.

Jeff?

Eric.

Mike?

I'm here.

Um Liz uh let us know that she's uh out of town and unable to attend.

And I'm John Mitchell.

The agenda tonight has a couple items, both of which should be fairly quick, I think.

Uh one is a modification to the conditional rezoning for 11 White Oak Drive, and the other is um a discussion if we want to have it about applicants to the planning commission.

No interviews tonight that I'm aware of.

Uh would anybody like to comment on the agenda or um motion to approve it or modify it.

Do you need a motion to approve?

Yeah.

I'll move.

Okay.

Um just raise your hand or thumbs up, thumbs up if you're okay with the agenda.

Okay, that's everybody.

Any announcements or petitions either from planning commission members or from members of the public.

I'll say staff has not received any petitions.

Okay.

Not hearing any.

We'll go on to the next thing.

Uh Josh, are there minutes from the last meeting?

I don't see any attached to the agenda.

Yes.

Uh I'll be honest, it had been a while uh back.

So I wanted to make sure I watched that meeting and have my notes accurate.

So no minutes this time, we'll have nothing.

Yeah, it's the next meeting.

Okay, that's fine.

Um old business, so we'll go forward to new business, starting with uh 11 White Oak Drive.

This is one that I think we voted to recommend last year, and the council approved.

And as I understand it, there's a minor technical discrepancy in the way height is measured on buildings.

The methodology has to be one way, but it was another way.

And so it's actually something like 69 feet instead of 63 feet.

And um, we have to vote on that for procedural reasons.

So I'll turn it over to either the developer.

Um, I'm Sharnika, I'm the case planner for the modification.

I was also the case planner for the original conditional zoning application.

Um John, I think you summed it up perfectly.

So I don't have anything um else to add.

So I'll I will turn it over to to Ben Stevens.

Good evening.

And I'm actually gonna let Brian, who's uh lead designer of the project, uh give you the cliff notes version.

Yeah, sure.

Uh toss over to me.

Um good evening, everyone, chair and members of the planning commission.

Um good to meet you guys.

Thanks for your time tonight.

Um so yeah, I just wanted to kind of present the technical discrepancy that we've kind of run across.

Um I'm with Well Design Studio or the Architective Record.

Um, you know, I'm on here on behalf of the project team uh to just request a minor adjustment to the previously approved ordinance related to the building height.

Um just to clarify, yeah.

This requested not driven by a change in design intent, density or overall massing.

Uh just want to be pretty clear about that.

Um, you know, the building you guys reviewed and approved is fundamentally the same building we were presenting tonight.

Um, you know, what is changed is just our understanding of how building height is calculated under the chapel ordinance.

Um so just to kind of deep dive into that a bit more during the progression of the project as we got into more essentially the detailed design.

You know, we identified the discrepancy between how we had originally interpreted the height measurement um as defined by the town.

Um, you know, specifically the method of the average grade plane and the roof measurement.

We took that initially based on the international building code, um, how they measure the grade plane and the building height.

Um sorry the measure the method of measuring the average grade plane and the roof is different than the IBC in the town.

Um, and so because of just this technical distinction, the building as design, and you know, as as we may I can share something on the screen.

I have I'm on my phone, but I can share a screen visual if you'll allow me to share.

Um I'm not sure if that's Josh that you need to give me that capability to share because I'm I'm dialed in twice.

You should be able to share on the oh um because I'm on my computer as well too to share the screen.

Okay, just one moment.

Great.

Yeah, see me twice there.

Okay.

Let's try this again.

Um you guys can see that now.

I think it's sharing.

Um so here's kind of building one elevation along old Travel Hill Road.

Um, but so what I was saying was so at you know, the technical distinction between you know the building as we previously designed and now like it appears to exceed the level height, even though it's physical form, roof line and and relationship is relatively unremained.

Um so building one along all Chapel Hill Road uh directly fronts that you can see the massing of the of the building is predominantly four story, flat roof in nature.

You can see this flat reportion is well below the maximum of the 62 allowable feet.

You might want to zoom in just to take Brett.

Yeah, sure.

And so we're at 50 feet essentially there.

Um, but so this portion again, flat roof, well under the 62 feet, and predominantly the width of the massing along that frontage.

Um additionally, you can see here the sloped portion as seen and experienced along old Travel Hill Road is is under the 62 feet.

Um we've also got looking at like another building that is fronts old Chapel Hill Road, which is going to be the predominant visibility of this project.

This is the direct building adjacent to that um uh building.

So with uh, and this is building four in the southwest pod.

If we look at this building, you can see the the perpendicular orientation of this building in relation to old Tripolo Road, um, limits its roof exposure to the street side, um, and it's under the 62 feet um for the sloped portion.

So, you know, we feel um that a lot of the project massing and roof line complies with that.

And so what we're requesting to now is just the height adjustment that essentially reconciles the technical interpretation with the building um that you guys have already seen.

So it's not an attempt to push the building taller, introduce new impacts.

You know, we're we're trying to align the ordinance measurement with the reality of the of the design.

And we also we also understand the importance of height and shaping this community, right?

We've we've taken care to confirm that like the overall scale and massing is remaining consistent with what the town you know desires, and there's no shadow views or adjacency impacts, and you know, it continues to meet the intent and the goals of the community.

Let me elaborate just briefly.

So, what Brian is illustrating is a layman's understanding of how tall a building is.

You walk up to it with a tape measure, you measure the height of the building, that's how tall the building is.

Um the town, uh, so this site has lots of grading.

The the site falls, it rises, it falls, it rises.

And the way that the uh height is measured, we learned we had mistakenly measured the building, is that you pick different points of elevation all around the building with its gradation rising and falling.

And so uh when we originally submitted, we were well within the height uh in all these different buildings from a layman's perspective.

But when you apply the way that the town is measuring the building, uh and the grade changes that are inherent in this site and how we've accommodated them, it drops the point that you measure the building from below um hit drop.

I don't know, I can't annotate, but basically the point you measure from in many of these cases is below what you would experience as the bottom of the building.

That's to take account of the fact that on the back side with the grades changing, you know, that level may have dropped.

So our design has remained unchanged.

Uh, what we're requesting is uh accommodation so that we can keep the building the way that our team has designed it, which we think is very aesthetically pleasing, and just account for the way that the grade falls and therefore has impacted the the technical height of the building as calculated in the code.

Okay, um Brian Ben, anything further before we bring it back to the commission.

I don't believe so.

We're gonna answer any questions.

Yeah, thank you.

Um so let's uh have any questions from planning commissioners, and then we'll um solicit any public comments and we'll come back for comments um and voting by the commission.

John, this is Mike.

I I just had a uh for clarity.

It's and I couldn't figure out what formula was used, but is the actual grading of of the land that that leads to that height difference?

That seems like from the drawings that was submitted to all the on all the heights are correct, but I couldn't figure out where the five and a half and the seven, depending on the buildings, but that different differential came from.

But I think if I'm understanding this now, is the actual land the way the land was graded.

Okay, the land slopes.

That results in that.

Is that correct?

It is the most efficient way that you can design a building rather than saying let's flatten, you know, the entire site.

How can we work with the grade?

That's uh it's a better experience for for the resident.

It's a better way to work with the land.

Right.

So we were happy to do it.

It's the right way to design, but as the height is measured in the city code, you have to pick Brian remind me.

I think it's a three or four points around the building.

And so as we, you know, the site goes like this, and so the buildings, you know, they they uh we've accommodated it.

And so that's really what what drove it, and we noticed it very late in the going.

Um that we had we we would have this height earlier, but uh anyway, so apologies to have missed that.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yeah, and I understand it.

Appreciate it.

Makes sense.

Jeff, go ahead.

No, it can wait till we just discuss it's not something that uh okay.

So let's let's see if there are any uh comments or questions from members of the public.

So there are a couple people on.

I don't know if they're in with the development team or what, but if you're um dialed into the meeting and you'd like to speak, raise your hand and we'll bring you in.

Okay, nobody's raising their hand, so we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion.

Jeff, do you want to throw it out?

Yeah, no, I I have no objection to this.

The only thing I would say is that this is not I don't think it's a distinction between the technical aspect of the code and a layman's understanding of of building height.

I mean, the the layman's understanding is gonna differ based on your perspective.

It's just they're two technical measures, which both make sense, and they pick the wrong one.

So I see no reason not to approve it.

Others?

I I read through the whole thing, and I'm on the same thought.

Okay.

I don't have any problem with it.

Okay, neither do I.

Um so there are two.

There's a resolution A, which is consistency with the comp plan, and then there's ordinance a.

We can consider them separately or together in one motion, depending on what people want to move here.

But I'm open to a motion.

I move that we recommend that the uh Chapel Hill Town Council approve resolution A and Ordinance A.

Resolution A.

Um regarding the reasonableness and consistency with the comprehensive plan and ordinance a uh amending the conditional zoning district.

I second that.

Okay.

We will take a roll call vote.

Libby.

Yes, yes.

Yes, right.

You muted.

Yeah.

Um Chuck?

Yes.

Jeff.

Yes.

Mike?

Yes.

And I'm a yes.

So that's five yeses, and that's everybody.

Uh, thanks very much, Brian and Ben.

We appreciate your time.

I know this uh minor issue, but we uh uh really appreciate your time and so excited about this project.

Yeah, so are we?

Thank you.

Okay, have a nice night.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Um Josh, on uh, and thanks, Charnier, who already left.

Uh on the planning commission applications.

Um we're not being asked to interview anybody, right?

This is just for us to review them.

And if we want to um make some kind of recommendation to the council, we can, but as I understand it, or you you tell me, has the council requested our input on this, or is it just sort of like the standard procedure to bring it to us?

Yeah, uh I can uh kind of update on where we went from the December recommendation and what we're looking at today.

Um the December recommendation, I think was aimed at the traditional way of council doing the interview committees for planning commission.

Um council this session has chosen to not do those interview committees.

Um I think we've had some a little bit of miscommunication between myself and the clerk's office on that um and just some issues there.

So I don't think uh that's ultimately the reason why we have not yet filled Wes's seats.

Um council is likely to not do interview committees uh and are likely to uh name something with the applications and planning commission's recommendation in hand.

Um we are also coming up on the end of uh John, Jeff and Liz's terms.

John and Liz are hitting the term maximum and cannot reapply.

Um Jeff, you may reapply.

Uh those are that would leave us with uh three to four potentially open seats.

Um we do want to look for some recommendations as those terms end at the end of June.

How much overlap is there in the package of applicants today versus in December?

It seems like there's not total, but a lot of overlap.

Not total, very significant.

We hold on to applications for 12 months.

Um so some may have rolling off, some may have been added on in the four months since we last uh looked at applications.

Okay, and and is staff looking for council looking for the planning commission to to interview folks?

Is it so if I understand it correctly?

This is ultimately it's going directly to the full council as opposed to a committee that's gonna interview in the council, the full council is not intending to interview.

The full or there's will not be a council committee that intends to interview is I have not seen any council appointments that have included an interview.

They usually hold a ballot uh at the start of the meeting and announce it at the end.

Um I think planning commission can make a recommendation to town council.

Uh and you can conduct that how the planning commission would prefer to conduct that.

I think we did want to bring the applications to y'all uh tonight to at least lay the groundwork.

Uh we know there will be at least one May meeting as we have a development application item that needs to come through.

Um so if you would like to wait until May, we know we'll have at least one meeting to uh with other items on it.

Um, but we wanted to bring this to the planning commission to see how y'all would like to uh approach the recommendation, especially given the December recommendation y'all made.

Okay, just a couple other questions I'm gonna open up to the commission in a second.

Um98 page.

There's one that's a dupe, a duplicate that I saw.

Yes.

There was how many, how many distinct applications are there?

Do we know?

Not off the top of my head.

Okay.

Um it's occurred in the past where if we if we keep applications in the in the hopper, you know, past a certain number of number of months, they they essentially age out.

Like the people aren't interested anymore, they moved.

And I think if we were to discuss people or interview them, it would be good to to like if they didn't recently apply to reach out and see if they're still interested.

Um let me open it up to the other planning commission to see w what people's thoughts are and how to how you want to approach this.

John, this might um first uh when I'm through through them last night be the exception of duplicated.

I think it was 14 applicants, but I have the exact same thing as you just said.

I don't know if if these the same 14 are now interested as they were four or five months ago.

So that's something to kind of but I went through every applicant last night just to uh to to understand their qualifications, their objectives, et cetera.

But what's not clear for you know for me still is what is our role?

What is exactly planning commission expect us to do or the commission would expect us to do?

Okay.

I don't know what the process is.

You mean the council?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I think it hasn't really been defined in the past.

We've you know interviewed people sometimes and discussed and um I think more often than not, like our our uh advice wasn't heeded or it didn't seem to have any impact on the process one way or the other.

And so I'm a little reluctant to um particularly to waste the time of applicants in being interviewed by us if our if our say isn't really um requested by the council or clearly, you know uh yeah.

Yeah, Jeff, do you wanna say anything?

No, no, I I agree with what you said.

Um Josh, I will say I did I got an email from Brenton two months ago asking if I wanted to reapply, and I said yes.

So yes, and I think your application has been essentially re-upped without needing to be in this packet.

Oh, good, good for you, Jeff.

VIP treatment.

Yeah.

Um, but I I more generally, I mean, I agree, John, with what you said.

I mean, it'd be good to get some guidance from council as to what they would like us to do.

Um, and I agree that it'd be good to uh at least email these folks and see if they are still interested in serving.

Um and I will just also add it'd be good to have like a list of people instead of having to dive through a 98-page PDF um and go through all the boilerplate and figure out who's applying and whether this is their first choice or not.

Yeah, and you've made made that point before, I remember.

I agree with it.

Um so what so it sounds like there are a couple things that we want to do.

Number one, we we want to see um if council um wants our advice on this, uh rather than just like going through the motions based on tradition.

We we want to see if they actually want to hear from us on this.

And uh and number two, if so, we'd like to get um hear from the applicants on whether they're still interested.

So um I'm happy to take on number number one at least.

I can just email the mayor's office and ask the question.

Um number two.

Staff are happy to do that.

I think it's probably better.

Better with you than then with us, I think.

Yeah, we can make sure the logistics are in and folks have uh panelists applic or invites and uh we can make sure that happens.

Okay.

And um we should be able to iron all this out before the next meeting.

And if the council does want us to um at least discuss the written applications and potentially interview or not the people um then um I'll I'll coordinate with staff to um schedule that, you know, hopefully our next meeting in May.

Um yeah.

So how's that for an approach?

With that which meeting in May were you thinking of, Josh?

The first third first Tuesday.

Uh give you enough time.

You said you had another item.

Do you know the timing of that?

We expect to have another item uh development one.

It is likely to be the May 19th uh agenda.

Um if you would like to meet on May 5th, you're obviously have a regularly scheduled and can.

If you would like to meet on May 19th about this, also works.

Does staff have anything uh else for May?

Um is it the fifth?

Right now we do not have anything else on the agenda for May 5th.

Um Taz was gonna present to us some time ago uh when we had an agenda item on uh LUMO developments or time, you know, procedural matters related to the LUMO.

Do you know what happened to that?

And does Taz want to come back at some point?

Uh yes, I think on the timeline we had discussed if that was going to be sufficient for a full meeting.

Um had kind of heard a more negative response and positive from the planning commission, so had not uh set aside one meeting to discuss it.

That timeline was provided back to council in January.

Um so we can share with y'all the timeline.

I think the main announcement is uh draft LUMO in June.

Okay, and then we spend the summer doing engagement.

I think that I I think one thing at least I was looking for was a information on the the first of all, I think it was going to be a meeting that we otherwise were having a meeting, so not a special called meeting just for that.

So that's why I assumed it would be this meeting since we only we were meeting anyway and only had one item.

Um but the other part is just understanding our role um and what sort of uh I understand you're doing public engagement, uh, but what sort of engagement you will do with the planning commission and what sort of input and feedback that you would like for us um and how that will work.

Will we will it be during regular meetings?

Will we be asked to come into one meeting, two meetings?

I know we'll have to have a public hearing at some point.

I know we'll have to have a public hearing at some point um will there be engagement before we get to the public uh with the planning commission before we get to the um public hearing stage so just all of that yeah okay I think we can come to y'all in the main meeting with some information there I can see if Taz is available to talk on it I think the we have an idea um there's an idea of what the planning commission's role is and I'll leave it to Taz to lay it out okay so why don't we just tentatively uh plan to have Taz join us on the the second meeting in May May 19 where we're gonna discuss is it a conditional rezoning and uh whatever the item is and uh um applications if indeed the council wants us to advise on that so we would have we would have those three items at least for that meeting and yes and I think unless something comes up from the staff side um that for us to um review and advise on um we'll not have the May 5th meeting that sound right uh everyone okay okay I think that's yeah go ahead yeah so um regarding Jeff's application does that mean if he wants to reapply he'll be automatically uh board again Jeff will be on the council's ballot um automatically I think the list of applications provided to us by the clerk's office is um aimed at y'all's recommendation uh and I think we do not require board members who are reapplying to fill out the application again um so it's not sitting in the clerk's immediate here's who's applied in the last 12 months pile but uh expressing interest in getting reappointed will get you on the ballot that would yeah maybe good to summarize everything somewhere all the candidates and some basic data yes I think we can come to y'all at the May 19th meeting uh with uh at least a ballot outlining every candidate's name and keeping it a little bit cleaner than this giant PDF certainly understand that um especially when they're I thought it was at the end when I saw the same name again that oh they're starting over there there were there was a whole round of other I'm gonna make sure we saw that one after that it was Dana who all over again also data who to last fall when we did this it is very deja vu uh the other thing we can make sure we include in the May agenda item uh staff will reach out over email to see if uh all applicants are still interested in being appointed to the planning commission if anyone expresses that they are not we can make sure to note that I remember there's one person who seemed very interested in the downtown partnership and I don't know if that person got on to that or if there's a separate process that's ongoing um but that would be something to yeah she was still in there.

Yeah okay okay uh if there's no other business then we'll just adjourn the meeting and yield back the balance of everybody's uh lovely evening to go outside and fell did we what did we what did we say about the meeting minutes is that going to be released the last uh meeting minutes is the next meeting that we're going to get two we'll get to minutes on the 19th yeah okay cool yeah you gotta go back into the the archives Josh to recover that may have been gotta remember that library meeting it's it's been a minute.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks everyone.

See you soon have a good