VERBATIM MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CHAPEL HILL

TOWN COUNCIL, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1998

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the hearing to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council Members in attendance were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown [departed at 7:50 p.m. due to illness; excused], Joe Capowski, Kevin Foy, Pat Evans, Julie McClintock, Lee Pavão, and Edith Wiggins. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Traffic Engineer David Brown, Senior Engineering Coordinator Mike Neal, Current Development Planner Lorie Tekiele, and Interim Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Mayor Waldorf: “Good evening. This Public Hearing of the Town Council will come to order. The only topic on the agenda tonight is the Continuation of a Public Hearing on the SUP application for the Meadowmont Office Park. But before we get into that, if our persons in the audience will indulge us for a minute, we’d like to have a brief report from the Manager on the Halloween event that we had this past Saturday night. Mr. Manager.”

Mr. Horton: “Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of Council. I want to begin by clearing up for anyone who does not understand. As the Council well knows this is not a Town-sponsored event. The Town does not sponsor the Halloween event. We don’t encourage people to come to downtown on Halloween evening, but it is a fact of life and we deal with it the very best we can. I also need to note, of course, that there was a fatal traffic accident on Hillsborough Street involving a person who probably was either on his way to the event or on the way home. And we are very sorry about that. I believe, based on my knowledge of the circumstances, that there is nothing that could have prevented it. It was an accident and we’re very sorry for the family and the friends of the person who is now deceased.

“We had the largest crowd that we have ever had at one of these Halloween events, with about 50,000 people in attendance all at one time, by our estimate, at 12:30, with a total of somewhere between 65 and 70 thousand people coming during the course of the evening. We estimate that approximately a third to forty percent of the total at any one time passed back and forth during the course of the evening. We had 274 people officially on duty. There may have been some others who assisted us, but we know we had 274 officially on duty. It cost us about $52,000 in payments, either to staff or for special materials and supplies. We felt very fortunate that there were so few persons who ended up being injured. There were eighteen that had to be transported because of drinking too much alcohol. They passed out or otherwise became injured and needed to receive medical treatment. There was only one person who behaved in a manner that caused us to have to make an arrest. And I must say, I’ve never seen a crowd so large that was so well-restrained, all things considered. There were too many people there who had drunk too much alcohol, certainly, but they were civil and nice for the most part, and behaved in a manner that resulted in a minimum of damage to property and a minimum of injury to people. We completed our clean-up at about quarter of four in the morning in the downtown where the main venue of the event was. Public Works crews did an excellent job, just as the police and other public safety people and volunteers from other departments did an excellent job earlier in the evening. We recognize that there is litter in neighborhoods surrounding the downtown and we responded to those complaints and did the best we could on a clean-up on Monday morning. On the whole, we would rather not have this event, but because it does occur, we do the best that we can to make it one in which no one gets hurt, or at least reduces the probability of injury.”

Mayor Waldorf: “I want to, if I could, repeat something that the Manager said, and I think he said it twice, because I got a couple of messages from people protesting that this sort of event happened and it seemed as if the people who called were saying “Why does the Town do this? Isn’t this a waste of my tax dollars?” And I just want to restate that this is not an event that the Town of Chapel Hill ever cooked up. It’s not Apple Chill, it’s not something that the Town of Chapel Hill necessarily wanted to happen, but it does happen and it’s advertised widely over the Internet and I think our staff works together with area agencies to do a terrific job of keeping people safe and it’s certainly something that a lot of people enjoy. But I just want to state that this is not a Town-sponsored event.”

Mr. Horton: “If I may, Madam Mayor, I’d especially like to thank the other agencies who assisted us, including the University of North Carolina Police Department, the Carrboro Police Department, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Durham County, and the Division of Motor Vehicles. We are very grateful for their help. We also had others who were prepared to come and assist, if necessary, from the City of Durham, from Wake County, and from the State Highway Patrol.”

Mayor Waldorf: “And our people are very good at managing these events, whether we want them to happen or not. They do happen here. And I was downtown Saturday night for a long time, and I was downtown Sunday morning, and Sunday morning downtown was very, very clean. And people put in a very long shift.

“Does the Council have any questions? O.K. Thank you very much for the report.”

Item 1 – Continuation of Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Application for the Meadowmont Office Park

Mayor Waldorf: “Let’s move on then to the item we’re here for tonight, which is the Public Hearing on the Meadowmont Office Park. I’ll remind everybody that anyone who wants to speak on this needs to go over to the Clerk and be sworn. And we’ll begin with an introduction by the Manager and then move on to a presentation by the applicant.”

Mr. Horton: “Roger Waldon will make our presentation.”

Planning Director Waldon: “Good evening. Thank you. This application comes to Public Hearing tonight. It is a request for a Special Use Permit that would authorize construction of a set of office buildings on the south side of N.C. 54, as part of the Meadowmont Development. I’d like to take just a moment and set the stage for this and say a word about the Master Plan for Meadowmont, in which this application is…under the umbrella of which is part of the application. So let me move to the Master Plan. [Displays graphic.] This is a copy of the Meadowmont Master Plan. The N.C. Highway 54, of course, running along here. The main drive that would go into the project—Meadowmont Lane, Village Center, residences, up in the north, school site, Town park, and so on. I’d like to zoom in, for a moment, on the south side of Highway 54. This is Friday Center Drive and the proposed location for this application is this southern parcel right here. What is proposed in the Master Plan was a point of access into this site, in this location, in a spot where there is currently a median cut on N.C. 54 and then driveway into there, an office building here, another office building here, two ponds that would be permanent ponds, part of the stormwater drainage and water-quality management program of the development, and then, related parking.

“The proposal, the Master Plan, called for 225,000 square feet of office space, in this area that I have just described, and that’s what’s being proposed with this Special Use Permit Application. It’s a 21.8-acre site, taken altogether. Two office buildings are proposed, as I mentioned—951 parking spaces, 563 of which would be proposed within a deck or below level.

“I’d like to put another graphic up here, for a moment. This again is a blow-up of the area we’re talking about—this is from the Master Plan—again Highway 54 up here, the point of access coming in here, office building there, there, and the two ponds. One of the issues that is before the Council, is whether or not this Special Use Permit that’s being proposed tonight is consistent with the Master Plan, and that’s one of the findings that Town Council needs to make. The Special Use Permits can be approved within the context of the Master Plan only if they are found to be consistent with the Master Plan. So it is useful to look at the two side by side. Here, again, at the top is the Master Plan and then below is the site plan that’s part of this Special Use Permit Application. Again, office building, office building, green area out front, two ponds. You notice that this pond has, is considerably smaller in size than the pond as it was shown conceptually on the Master Plan. It still satisfies the same kind of water-quality impact, but able to do it with less land-disturbance and leaving more of the green area.

“There’s one issue that I would like to highlight, as we are talking about this. And I’m going to be zeroing in on the Master Plan. One of our recommendations has to do with a large tree that we have identified on the site, and that we think is worthy of some attention as this goes through the process. It’s a tree that is located, for those of you who can picture the site in your mind, there’s a dwelling out there, you come in off of Highway 54 and there’s a house back there, and there’s a very significant oak tree that’s right in this location. We wanted to highlight that for you here in this presentation, because one of our recommendations is that if you approve this Special Use Permit Application, that you attach a condition of approval that would require some reconfiguration of this area, probably a loss of parking spaces, in order to try and preserve that tree. I point out, this is a relatively flat area right here that we are talking about, so that does seem to be an opportunity to work around that significant tree and keep it there on the site. Overall, we find that the application looks similar and we believe it’s consistent with the Master Plan and our preliminary recommendation to you is that you hear all of this evidence tonight, and our preliminary recommendation is that the finding could be made. We believe that the application is consistent with the Master Plan and meets the requirements of the Development Ordinance. There is one procedural point that I’d like to highlight before I sit down. The Town Council just recently amended the Development Ordinance to add definition to the term “contiguous property.” One of your findings, of course, is that you have defined that the value of “contiguous property” would be maintained or enhanced…that this development is proposed to be built and operated in a manner that would maintain or enhance the value of “contiguous property.” We have suggested that before you conclude this evening’s discussions and before we leave the building tonight, that you engage that point about “contiguous property” and you see it on your agenda, our suggestion to you is that based on whatever you hear tonight in the way of evidence and testimony that at the conclusion of tonight’s discussion, that you would decide on what the Council believes is “contiguous property” for the purposes of this application. And then the hearing would be recessed until a date certain at some point in the future, at which point we would do the usual return to you with responses to questions that have come up during tonight’s discussions. And I’ll stop there.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Thank you very much.”

Council Member McClintock: “Roger, what was the second attachment that you gave us? I just didn’t understand it. It was of the Meadowmont Hilton Garden Inn. I’m sorry, we got this attachment from the Manager, additional information, and the Attachment 1 showed the office proposal, with a line around it designating 500 feet from the property and 1,000 feet from the property. But I didn’t understand the significance of Attachment 2.”

Mr. Waldon: “It was in response to a Council Member’s question.”

Council Member McClintock: “Just to have a map, you mean? It wasn’t to show anything?”

Mr. Waldon: “That question was about the distance between the Hilton and the nearby condominium units and so we responded to that question.”

Council Member McClintock: “O.K. Alright. Thank you.”

Council Member Foy: “You’re recommending the elimination of 70 parking spaces along the southern property line?”

Mr. Waldon: “Yes.”

Council Member Foy: “Is that different from what you’re recommending with regard to the specific tree?”

Mr. Waldon: “Yes. Thank you for asking that. That is different. There are…and I, since I was talking about the tree, I should have highlighted that as well. Thank you for giving me a chance to do so. We believe that what will be a backdrop of trees along this southern border of the site is very important both to help provide the…preserve as much of the vegetative buffer as possible between this development and the UNC property itself, but also we believe that those trees back there would…are an important part of the visual corridor that would be seen behind these buildings. Our suggestion is that in order to do that, some of this parking that is here, [indicating graphic] these parallel spaces, we think would need to be eliminated so as to allow a wider buffer on the south there to be able to preserve those trees. So you’re right that our recommendation to you about parking was not that parking be reduced for the sake of reducing parking, but that
there are two areas, one in the area of this tree and that second, along the southern boundary, that we believe that existing vegetation would best be preserved and the result would be the elimination of which 70 some parking spaces from what’s being proposed.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Roger, on that same issue. So the two eliminations, the 70 plus the tree-related, both of those are to be subtracted from the number 951?”

Mr. Waldon: “That would be our recommendation.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Thanks, Roger. It’s time for the applicant. I have several people signed up here. Ms. Stoddard. Care to go first?”

Anne Stoddard: “Good evening. My name is Anne Stoddard and I’m an associate partner with Capital Associates. We’re the applicant under the Special Use Permit. Capital Associates is a Triangle-based developer of high-quality office space and in our projects we work hard to create assets for the communities in which they are located by spending a lot of attention to detail on building architecture and site planning, by installing extensive landscaping in our projects, and by focusing a lot on the long-term maintenance of our projects. We also, as an organization, try to be actively involved in the communities where we develop. We…some examples of that would be our involvement in the Downtown Raleigh Alliance, since we’ve taken over management of two large buildings there. We’ve been actively involved in trying to revitalize downtown Raleigh. The Town of Cary has sought our active involvement in the process of revising their development ordinance, and I’ve been involved in the Chapel Hill Chamber and in the meetings for Shaping Orange County’s Future this summer. The team that I’ve assembled to design this project often doesn’t need introduction to you, but let me introduce the team. Our Civil Engineer is Bruce Ballentine, Ballentine and Associates, Susan Little, of Little and Little is the Landscape Architect. The Building Architecture is a collaboration between HKS, Howard K. Smith of Dallas, which has a long history with Capital Associates, and Josh Gurlitz of GGA here in Chapel Hill. Josh has had a critical role in many areas of the project, in terms of the schematic site plan, collaboration which will be a continuing collaboration on the building architecture, and also in communicating to the team, the Meadowmont process and the goals and visions the Town has had for Meadowmont and for this project. In addition, Kimley-Horn has been our Traffic Engineer and that’s been very logical given their long-term involvement in Meadowmont. This team has been a real pleasure to work with and we’re collectively very proud of the product that we’re presenting to you this evening.

“I gave the design team four challenges, and I believe they’ve met all of them. The first was to prepare a plan which was consistent in all respects with the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan. That Master Plan is a sketch, it’s a representation, think of it as an outline for a thesis. It’s the outline for the project. We have taken it and their challenge has been to turn that outline, that sketch, into a plan that adheres to the vision it represents, but can be measured, evaluated, and actually built. So that was their first challenge. The second was to use and implement the Meadowmont entranceway design guidelines. The third was to prepare a plan which is commercially viable. I think we all do the Town a service by ensuring the commercial success of this project, both in terms of the tax base that it represents and the ability to retain local businesses and retain high-quality jobs here in Chapel Hill. As I participated in the Shaping Orange County’s Future meetings, one of the goals that I heard again and again was to retain high-quality jobs here, and, both from the standpoint of economic opportunity for Orange County residents and to cut down traffic of Orange County residents leaving to go other places, driving other places for their jobs. Meadowmont’s goal is to be a mixed-use community where people can live, play and work and this project is a big part of that. The final goal that I gave them was to respect the community consensus on the vision for Meadowmont. Throughout the Meadowmont documents there are words like “signature architecture,” “class A.” “entry statement,” and they’ve been very hard to define, but we’ve worked with a number of community groups to try to bring something to the table that meets that vision. In fact, we had met several times with the focus group that East-West Partners brought together of community residents and those meetings resulted in a complete redesign of this project. I have with me the site plan, sort of the before and after, and they are completely different. So we listened to community input. They’ve brought a project that’s commercially viable. We have met and followed the Entranceway Guidelines, and most importantly of all, we’ve been consistent with the Meadowmont Master Plan. Meadowmont Office Park meets all of the design goals that I set for this team. At this point, I’d like to turn the meeting over to Bruce Ballentine to review the site issues with you.”

Bruce Ballentine: “Thank you, Anne. Madam Mayor, members of the Council. I was thinking today about some discussion that I’ve heard in some of the Special Use Permit meetings and public hearings over the last couple of years. And we hear the staff and we hear the applicants use the words consistent. And you’ve heard Anne explain her opinion of what a master plan is, which is consistent with what the design profession thinks of a master plan. I created a document today to try to explain this a little better. I laid out the design process, which is typically in four phases: The Master Plan phase, Schematic Design, Design Development, and Construction Documents phase. At the end of that exercise, the design is completed. This document, at the top, represents the design process, starting at the left with the Master Plan phase. And what that typically is, is the creation of an idea. It’s a concept the owner and his design team would begin programming to determine what it is that they want to create. And usually the graph that is presented at the end of that phase is a bold diagram, and that’s what we in Chapel Hill used to use. That’s typically what is done in the industry. The next phase is schematic design. And by the way, the end of the Master Plan phase, that represents about fifteen percent of the design effort. So if you thought of this process from left to right in time, this learning curve that starts low and ends high at the end of the construction documents phase. So if the process is arrested at the Master Plan phase and we don’t allow the project to evolve through schematic design, design development, construction documents phase, then we’re going to have an inferior product because we’ve hindered that creative process. The Town review mirrors and follows this.

“At the end of the Master Plan phase, there’s a Master Plan review-of-approval process, that for Meadowmont ended with an approval in 1995. We now have had a couple of Special Use Permits that have gone through the Town process and we’re looking at two more. So the design team has gone through two more phases of the design, moved along that learning curve, and the Town has followed it and now is reviewing the Special Use Permit. In each case, the Office Park, as we’ll see in a minute, and as Roger has already shown you, the site design is consistent with the Master Plan, but it may not be a photograph because of this additional information that has been learned, the evolution of the idea, the remote more detailed layout, obtaining additional survey data, and more engineering analysis, and more of development of the idea than was available in the Master Plan phase. And this is where we are now. We’ve moved along this curve, somewhere into this region. You still have another step to go through the designers and the owner, as well as the Town, have the construction documents phase and the zoning compliant permit process to go through, before this process is complete. And you can see that as you move through these steps, the amount of time, effort, knowledge, and of evolution of the idea, increases from zero, fifteen, thirty-five, you’re about at sixty percent now, and we hope to get to one hundred percent at the end of the construction documents phase.

“This illustrative plan that was the result of the Master Plan process, for the Office Park, what it shows are two buildings, two stormwater management ponds, meadows along 54, tree-save area to the west along 54, a very thin buffer along the UNC property, parking areas here, here, here, and here. That’s about what this Master Plan shows. As the project is now developed from the fifteen percent learning-curve to sixty, much, much more time and information has gone into the development of this plan, than went into the Master Plan. But it still is consistent. You see two buildings in generally the same location, meadows along 54, tree-save area along 54, two stormwater management ponds, a buffer along the south and the west and the east along the UNC property, parking areas here, here, here, here, and here, [indicating graphic] and a drive that circulates through the project. It is very consistent in every way and is not consistent in no way. If the process is not allowed to evolve with good ideas, for example, then when the staff comes up with what is a good idea, which is to eliminate the parking spaces along that access road, then, if we were strictly to adhere to this Master Plan, we couldn’t do that. Or when the staff determines that there is a nice tree here that ought to be saved, and we ought to be allowed to deviate from the Master Plan because of a good idea, and the applicant agrees, then the Council should not be hindered by this particular picture, when, in fact, some good ideas can go into a site plan that is evolved further, and with the conditions that the staff has placed on Resolution A and that the applicant has agreed to, then these spaces can be eliminated, spaces here can be eliminated, and we can save the tree here, and we can save some trees in the background. So, I think, not to be bound by the picture, but be bound by the concept and the idea, is very valid and very useful.

“Some specifics about this site plan. It does have its main intersection opposite the Hilltop Collector. This is an intersection that will be signalized in the future, when it’s warranted. This access road that comes through the site serves the first building and then later, the second building, and it will continue through the University property and connect to Friday Center Drive to provide dual access. The University has agreed in concept, the specifics have to be worked out during the zoning compliance permit phase. The two buildings total 225,000 square feet, which is consistent with the Master Land Use Plan that was adopted by the Council in ’95. It is well under the maximum amount of square footage that the Zoning Ordinance would permit. If you recall there was an issue with the Hilton, last month, the last public hearing that you attended, where the amount of land area on the Hilton site was slightly less than the amount of building square footage that was proposed, and so some additional land elsewhere in Meadowmont needed to be encumbered in order to allow that to happen, and there was some concern by a couple of the Council Members about that point and there were some questions addressed to the staff and the applicant that will be answered the next time you hear that. This project does not have that issue because the allowable floor area that would be permitted on this land for its MUR-1 Zoning is over 400,000 square feet. Almost fifty percent additional square footage would be allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, but not by the land-use Master Plan. So that what is proposed is consistent with the Master Plan at 225,000 square feet.

“The same is true with the outdoor space requirement, the zoning would require 720,000 square feet, but in fact, what is proposed is 901,000 square feet, or twenty-five percent more outdoor open space than is required. Livability space the same thing, 256,000 square feet required, 536,000 proposed, or more than double what is required by the ordinance. So we are consistent with the Master Plan. We are also in conformance with the Town’s Land Use Ordinance. We are consistent with the circulation pattern, with the parking layout. This particular design incorporates...in order to stay consistent with the footprint of the Master Plan, the applicant has chosen, at considerable expense, to create parking structures. Two are proposed in Phase 1, one here, and one here [indicating graphic]. These are two level structures, one at grade, one supported above. And then there’s a third underground parking under Building 2, which is in Phase 2, here. If you could visualize this structure, as one drove into the site, this corner of the deck is below grade, so that this appears from the road, if you could see the deck, which is actually below the level of 54, and is screened by landscaping and existing trees. But if those trees were not there you would only see the railing of the top of the deck, you would not even see that because of this landscaping and because of the tree site. The lower level is not visible at all from any portion on this site. One would have to be in this area looking back to see the lower level. This deck is also two levels and it too is below the level of 54. There is a man-made berm and landscaping element that’s created in this area to help screen that deck. There’s landscaping around this service lot, around this lot, so that the motorist on 54 is going to have a long view filtered through this screening that’s existing and to remain. There will be some view-shed views that will be open areas across the meadow, but what you will see is the building and landscaping and not the parking. We’ve taken great steps to ensure that that is the case for this plan.

“The next designer to speak will be Susan Little of Little and Little Landscape Architects and I’ll be available for any questions later if you have them. I missed a primary speaker, if my business partner will accept my apologies. Glenn Phillips is a principal in our firm. He’s been with us for two years and one of his specialties is stormwater management, and I’ve asked him to present to you the stormwater management features on this site plan. He’s worked on it from its inception and I’d like to ask him to say a few words about his design.”

Glenn Phillips: “Good evening. I’ve been asked to speak to you about this project’s stormwater management plan and as pointed out to you earlier, our concept for this site’s stormwater management plan actually originated with the Master Plan. I mean, the Master Plan identified two ponds, they’re situated at the low points of the project. They’re at the natural low points where the run-off of the stormwater leaves the site and, in the early stages of our design, we reviewed the Master Plan and essentially agreed with the inclusion of these ponds for several reasons. Number 1 – the soils in this area exhibit low infiltration rates and really under this situation that eliminates the possibility of using some sort of an infiltration basin as a possible best management practice. Number 2 – we looked at dry basins. Dry basins are not as efficient as these wet ponds, and we look at the wet pond as a better alternative to a dry basin. Number 3 – the areas draining to these ponds are large enough that sand filters or bioretention basins really would not function well in this situation. The areas draining to them, the area disturbed, the amount of impervious area, would overrun a measure such as that. And, lastly – our firm was selected about a year ago by N.C. State to do some work with their infrastructure, which includes new roads, utilities, and a stormwater management facility. And in working with the University we’ve learned that centennial campuses actually piloted a lot of these BMP devices within their project. And we’ve kind of had the benefit to look at how those devices are working and they’re in agreement with us, which is the wet pond is the best management practice for their centennial campus and, in this situation, we agree. We feel like the ponds are our best choice.

“Specifically, our design, at this level, at this SUP document level, like Bruce was talking about, really is comprised of three components. Each pond will act as a temporary erosion control device during construction. That will be important while this project is being built to control sediment and run-off from the site. The ponds are situated in the natural low-points of the property, so they’ll lend themselves to do this. Number 2 - a water quality component of the pond is incorporated into our design and this will capture the first inch of run-off, it will hold it in the pond, allow pollutants to settle out, and then, after that first inch, the pond will begin to discharge water over a two- to five-day period. And then, lastly, a water quantity component which will actually capture the run-off from the site and its developed state, contain it, and then release it at pre-development levels. Each of these components have been incorporated into the plan based upon criteria set forth within your ordinances for watershed protection, development, and stormwater. The retention ponds have also been sited in accordance with the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management and Water Quality Sections Guide for stormwater best management practices. That Guide is a detailed document that goes into a lot of the measures and devices that need to be included in a pond in order for it to function properly. Things like aquatic shelf, sediment forebays, slopes on the dam. We’ve taken all these things into consideration into our design and the way that we sized these ponds, and the size that we reflect on our drawings is based on this.

“I’d like to emphasize that the first thing our design team focused on at the request of Capital Associates was to develop a site plan which not only meets your ordinances, and the State’s design guidelines, but also one which is sensitive to the visibility and the appearance throughout each phase of this project. This project is going to evolve over years. Buildings are constructed in two phases and it’s important that each phase, by itself, meets the criteria, and we’ve incorporated that into our design. We spent five or six weeks, early in the design, in an effort to work out the logistics of the location, the sizing, storm drainage piping, the grading, and making sure that each phase’s improvements comply with the guidelines and the State. We have accomplished this.

“In closing, I’d like to summarize some key points raised in several conversations I’ve had recently with Pat Davis. First, and I was at the meeting several weeks ago where Pat presented his water-quality monitoring data for Lake Jordan, and I walked away from that meeting being in tune with those numbers still boggled somewhat by what was said. And I gave him a call and actually talked to him two different times about it. At one point at great length, I think for over an hour, about that study. And, first of all, I think from a health standpoint, those levels that are indicated in that study clearly show that Lake Jordan is not a health concern, that the levels detected within Lake Jordan for the metals, for organics, synthetics, pesticides, all those levels are far below what’s required for a safe drinking water. And I know that Pat said that, but intertwined with the rest of his presentation, at times it was hard to pull that out of it. And secondly, I feel that we both believe that the Town of Chapel Hill and the new development which takes place here is not the main concern within Jordan Lake. The water shed for Jordan Lake includes ten counties, twenty municipalities, and 1,700 square miles of drainage area. If every community regulated their portion of the watershed in the way which you did, the Town of Chapel Hill, and more importantly, if every wastewater treatment plant regulated themselves the way OWASA does, within the Town of Chapel Hill, the impact to Lake Jordan would be substantially minimized. Within the Special Use Permit, our project has sixteen conditions, within Resolution A, that relate to stormwater control, and we intend to meet every single one of them. At this point I’d like to turn it over to Susan Little. She will present our landscape plan. Thank you.”

Susan Little: “Madam Mayor, members of the Council. I’m Susan Little, with Little and Little Landscaping Architects in Raleigh. I want to show the highlights of the landscape plan that addressed both your Entranceway Corridor Guidelines and the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan. I want to touch on it as if we are, approach it as if we are, building or actually planting this project, as we plan to use a lot of the existing material. The first step would be to thin and create… assume that you’re on 54, approaching Chapel Hill…and as you pass there now you’ll see a row of predominately cedars along the edge, and in fact you can’t, at some points, see into the site. The Guidelines state that we should thin and create openings there to see into the site. In the plan that you see, [indicating graphic] let’s see if we can do this here, you’ll see here that here’s the edge that I described and we have created openings to view into the site. We use those existing trees to frame that view. The next step would be to, when the preliminary grading on phase one is complete, is to take some of the trees, which are in the meadow now of a variety of different sizes, which are throughout this site, and take those, use those as screening in front of both the deck and the parking areas. You’ll see some here at the entrance here, so that you can not, our main principle is not to be able to see the parking from 54. We’ll also use some of those existing trees, some of the smallers, and a lot of this will be field work as to tag the most desirable material, the best, the material that’s most moveable, and use that to close or to frame that view shed, some of which will be on the edge of the building here. One of the desired goals is to be able to maintain an open view of the building at strategic points. But we’ll use that to continue to create edges on the meadow, so that as you are driving by, either way, as you look in you see that green frame from 54. I think that will give a lot of the continuity that is desirable there.

“Then the next step will be to restore those meadows to create that open flowing area that used to be there before this growth occurred. Then I think another at that point, well sooner than that, but will be this backdrop of tall pines, which Bruce alluded to earlier, which are on the south side of the site. There is actually a mix of material in there, very tall material. So that coming down 54 you look through there, you see that off to the south, same thing coming west, you see that this way. There are big masses of large existing material, cedar rows, most of them were along the fences, some of which, like you’ll see where the bypass comes through here, which those masses will be preserved as well.

“In terms of the new landscaping, we hope to incorporate a lot of the same materials, as well as introduce other materials which are not there now. We’ll again want to try to use as much of the existing material as possible to create that, as much of a seamless edge as possible between what will be existing materials and new materials. A lot of those will be, emphasize a lot of the native plants. And in the parking lot areas you’ll see we want to have a variety of, as much as possible, long limb materials such as of oaks and materials to give the shape, the shape that is required. We’ll be emphasizing in the areas to be developed around the buildings, low water consumption, new plantings which, of the overall site, will be a relatively small amount of the planting, but we want to, I guess the buzzword is “zero-scape,” but to try to incorporate that as much as possible. We’ll plant the pond edges, both pond edges, integrate those to the site. I believe those are the high points, or highlights. I’ll be glad to answer any specific questions.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. There may be questions that come up later. Ma’am, could I ask you to please go and get sworn with the Clerk. I don’t believe you’re signed up. If you could do that, that would be great. Thank you. Oh, Flicka, you have a question. Excuse me, we do have one question, Ma’am.”

Council Member Bateman: “I have a question. You mentioned that guidelines, you followed guidelines that said to move, to uproot the, to remove the trees from along 54 and then move them back and put them in front of the building. Did I understand you correctly?”

Ms. Little: “Only to create openings so that you could see into the meadow.”

Council Member Bateman: “And those were guidelines that the, whose guidelines? I’m, this is something that was done in ’95?”

Ms. Little: “Those are in the Entranceway Design Guidelines, to be able to see into the meadow. If you can’t see it, who knows there’s a meadow?”

Josh Gurlitz: “Good evening, Madame Mayor and members of the Council. I’m going to begin my presentation by, I’ll respond to the last question, quickly, because we worked on the Design Guidelines and the Corridor Entryway Guidelines. There are intended to be views into the meadows. The actual definition of those views are going to be determined with the Town Forester, with an actual on-the-site and on-the-ground walk along the sides of the road, to determine which trees should be removed and which trees ought to stay. And so the actual definition of the openings, in the buffer along the highway here, these actual openings are going to be determined in cooperation with the Town’s Urban Forester. And the basis for making the decision will be based on views of the buildings, but also on the relative health of the trees and on the extent that the widening of 54 impacts on the existing vegetation along the sides of the road.”

Council Member Bateman: “Let me make sure I got this straight. Is it views of the buildings or views of the meadows, or both?”

Mr. Gurlitz: “Views of the meadow. O.K. I did say views of the building. But right. The intent is to create these window views of the buildings across the meadow. But we do want, the basis is to see the meadow. If we wanted to see the meadow, totally, we may take down many more trees. But because there are buildings there, we are probably going to leave more trees in order to frame the buildings. I think that’s my intent. Is that clear? O.K.

“I’m going to be discussing the design of the buildings at Meadowmont Office Park and I’m going to be discussing how they are consistent with the Design Guidelines and with the Entryway Corridor Guidelines, that were developed and that were a part of the Infrastructure Special Use Permit. There are two pieces of background, first, that I’d like to mention. One has to do with the collaborative relationship between GGA and HKS, and the second is a brief description of the Meadowmont Design Guidelines, that are a stipulated requirement for each of the Meadowmont projects. HKS is an architectural firm located in Dallas and it has a long history of designing exemplary Class A office buildings. We knew of them quite some time ago. We’ve heard of them for years. They’ve been published for years. We do admire their work. GGA, as many of you know, is a Chapel Hill firm that designs a variety of building types. We’re also a firm that has developed the Meadowmont Design Guidelines and we’re working with HKS on a collaborative basis, as Anne described, to assure that the buildings not only look good, but will feel right for this very important location in Chapel Hill.

“Secondly, some reminders about the Meadowmont Design Guidelines and what they are. Because we knew that all development in Chapel Hill needed to follow the Chapel Hill Development Guidelines, a document that is in place and in force, we created the basic Meadowmont Design Guideline Booklet using the Town’s own design guidelines as the root document. We created additional language that pertained specifically to Meadowmont. However, as I’ve described to you before, in our earlier presentation for the Infrastructure Special Use Permit, not one word of the Town’s Design Guidelines has been deleted. Nor have those Guidelines been altered. Text is exactly as it appears in the Town’s Design Guidelines. It has additional text that focuses specifically on the needs of this sub-area of Town. These Design Guidelines were a part of our Infrastructure Special Use submission, and were approved by you as part of that submission. The designs of each developer are also reviewed periodically during the preliminary phases by the internal Meadowmont design panel. We discussed this at the Infrastructure submission, also. This focus group consists of people from all over Town, but fifty percent of the people on the focus group are people who live in the area of Meadowmont. The people in the focus group have no financial connection to Meadowmont, nor are they paid for performing this service. The Design Guidelines are broken into three sections: one for site development, one for architecture and one for landscape architecture. For the architecture of the buildings, we have as our main key objectives to provide visual interest, to blend with the natural terrain wherever possible, to be compatible in form and proportion with neighboring areas, to provide a high level of architectural detailing that reinforces a sense of scale, and to create building massing and organization that helps orient users. Those are the five critical points of the Design Guidelines.

“Next, I’m going to briefly address the Entranceway Design Guidelines, and specifically, they relate to the buildings, they have a specific sub-section that relates to the buildings south of N.C. 54 and that’s what I’ll be addressing here. The Entranceway Corridor Guidelines were required by specific stipulation of the approved Master Land Use Plan. So they were something that the Council anticipated needed to be put in place in order to describe the development, specifically around the N.C. 54 Corridor. They had as their basis several documents. They had the Entranceway Corridor Guidelines that were developed in 1988. They had also a Entranceway Study Group, that was put together and made a report to Council, prior to your reviewing the Master Land Use Plan. When you reviewed the Master Land Use Plan and then when you subsequently reviewed the Infrastructure Special Use Permits, you took those items into consideration and approved those particular documents as further specificity and further sharpness of focus for this very specific area.

“Secondly, these are special places for those of us who live in Chapel Hill. And because Meadowmont is an integrated, mixed-use project of a decent scale we had a very unique opportunity to transfer densities and preserve the character of this entryway. Those are the two reasons we did the Meadowmont, the Entranceway Design Guidelines. One is stipulation, one is because we felt this was a tremendous opportunity. The intent of the Entranceway Corridor Guidelines is to comply with the Special Use Master Plan requirements, that’s one. Two, is to control the esthetic experience from this important entry-way corridor. And, three, to describe adjacent development in construction that’s compatible with this corridor.

“Development on the south side….before I get into the rest of this, I do want to tell you that we are going to be looking at pictures of the buildings that I’m going to be putting up here, but we also created a site model, a study model of the site. This model is correct in scale and proportion. The buildings themselves do not have detail, the buildings themselves are designated simply as the masses that they will occupy in the space of the site. However the model is very important, it’s critically important, for understanding the scale and the relationships of the buildings on the south side of 54. The Entryway Corridor Guidelines specify the development on the south side of 54, should reflect its predominately low elevation, and the actual terrain relative to the road. Included are screening for parking, landscaping to integrate buildings into the adjacent tree masses. The specific, and thirdly the restoration of the meadows. The buildings here will be visible from N.C. 54 and they should be designed specifically for this location, i.e. their relationship to the meadows.

“Building evaluation according to the Entranceway Guidelines are several. The buildings are to be evaluated by their compatibility with existing and proposed natural vegetation, their compatibility with other buildings, and the sensitive use of building materials, roof forms, massing, and building detail. There are three additional criteria. One criteria is controlling visibility of buildings through the trees, or across the meadows on a case by case basis. One. Two, screening of all parking from N.C. 54, and three, ensuring that the buildings that are visible by N.C. 54 will be specially designed for each site. So I have just listed six criteria by which we evaluate the buildings and the building design south of 54. And these were part of the Entry-way Corridor Guidelines.

“Now let’s review the buildings themselves relative to the Guidelines. We’ve worked to develop a scale for the buildings that’s appropriate to the view from the cars on N.C. 54 and from pedestrians walking around the buildings. By using a specific base structure, which is this, which is a large building element, that base structure is large enough to read from N.C. 54, it’s a large detail, it’s necessary for understanding the building from a distance. The building also then has definite divisions within the base structure. For example, [indicating graphic] up here the brick work down at the bottom, that helps in the…you can see the reverse corbels here, and you can see the corbel here and the corbel here. These are all details of the building that will help give definition to the scale and proportion of the building from close up when you’re a pedestrian.

“So we have looked at how these buildings are going to read for scale and proportion from both 54 and from the point of view of the pedestrian. And I think that we have fulfilled the requirement of the Design Manual for visual interest and reinforcing a sense of scale by doing a hierarchical use of scale in this building, one large for the vehicles, one small for the pedestrians.

“We’ve elected to use a flat roof on our buildings for a number of reasons. A flat roof allows us to keep the overall perceived height of the buildings lower and easily below the tops of the pine trees that are in the back of the building, and….I’m not sure if you can see this, yes I can…but there’s a row of pine trees in the back of the building. The backdrop…we visited the site with Curtis Brooks, the trees that form that backdrop are seventy-five to eighty feet tall. The height of the building with the flat roof, this building here, is sixty feet, so you can see that it’s well below the height of the trees in the back. It’s also consistent with other buildings at Meadowmont. The Village Center buildings also have flat roofs and those buildings are relatively across 54 from this building and are the closest to this building. Because the eye-level of the road is just about at our second story, and you can see that here also, that the road has a super elevation at this point, the super elevation relative to the bottom level of the building is about twenty feet. Our stories are fifteen feet tall. So that the view from the road is right at about the second story of the building. That means that the roof itself will not be visible, but the mass of the building will be minimized. It also means that we can concentrate some decorative emphasis on the fascia that extends around the buildings.

“I’m going to put the site back up for the next several points. [Displays graphic.] The west building is L-shaped with indentations here and here. At those intersections are where the main entry points to the buildings are. These formal devices help satisfy the specific requirement that the building massing should help orient users. The east building, likewise, has projections right at the point where the building entries are, so that these pieces of the massing of the buildings are intended to satisfy the requirement that the massing helps orient users. The flat-roof buildings also will present buildings that feel long, and you can see that best on the model, that these buildings are low, they hug the ground, especially from the view from 54. They’re most compatible with the meadows in front of the buildings, which are also linear in form. The experience as you drive down the road is of a linear meadow and in back of the linear meadow there will be a long, low building hugging the ground, and in back of that there will be a row of pine trees, another linear piece of experience. This fulfills the requirement to the Design Manual for compatibility and consistency with the natural terrain. We believe for those reasons that the building design is compatible with the Design Guidelines. I have enumerated the reasons and I have described why we believe the buildings are compatible with the Meadowmont Design Guidelines. The second area is how these buildings are compatible with the Entryway Corridor Guidelines. In developing the design of these buildings…this view shows the buildings from a greater distance. In developing the design of these buildings we reviewed the design of the Village Center buildings across the street, as they are the closest other commercial buildings. We designed our buildings using some of the same general concepts, including flat roofs, well-defined structural bays, brick with cast lintels. In this way we have fulfilled the requirements for the buildings to be compatible with other buildings.

“The design of these buildings has also been through several iterations, both internally and externally. We’ve reviewed them with the Meadowmont Design Panel, as well as our own internal review procedures. One objective is to have used some common elements with other buildings for them to be compatible, but also to use those elements in a way that makes these buildings unique for their location. Through these reviews we have created signature office buildings that are unique for their location. We have used similar materials, but we have used them differently. We’ve used similar forms and proportions to other buildings, but, likewise, we have used them somewhat differently, because these buildings are going to be seen from 54 and we do have to recognize the hierarchy of experience to comply with the other design manual items.

“The building materials we intend to use are principally brick and glass, with a light color pre-cast decorative upper fascia panel, here. You’ll notice that the massing of the building is broken up by the glass area, the glass by the way is non-reflective glass, we’re very careful about that…is broken up. When you get to the top the frequency of the mullions, the structural supports increases. On the bottom you see that you have a lower opening into the building. This is actually a very classic way of ordering the vertical parts of the building. In fact, if you look at your very own City Hall you can see that the way this is ordered you have large glass units on the bottom with large columns separating them. Then when you go up to the second level, the glass units get smaller, the columns get more frequent. Both this and this are very classic ways of developing building facades and are also both very compatible with the Town’s Design Manual.

“One other issue about the fascia. We’ve done something here that we feel is going to be very critical in the design of the buildings. We’re using a light fascia rather than a dark fascia. We believe that the intersection between the top of the building and the sky is very critical. And by using a light fascia we’re able to minimize that intersection and keep the building from feeling massive. And in fact, what we believe the effect will be is that this will be perceived more like a three-story building, because this is where the dark brick stops, and the above part will be lighter and will proceed up into the sky. At least that’s the design intent. By keeping the building form low, we’re able to use existing and new vegetation to screen the buildings. You can see some of that on the model and we can also see it here. This is especially true on the Phase 2 building with the trees that we’re going to be retaining to the east of the building. And this existing buffer up here, these trees, which are existing and the buffer area here and the new plantings there will very much screen the east building.

“The existing trees which screened the west parking field will also help frame the Phase 1 building from eastbound traffic. Cars coming along here won’t see this building until they are at the intersection. The Phase 1 building will be further framed by the new and reused plantings to be located on the berm, right here. So essentially when you’re coming east you’re going to see a little bit of this building through the intersection. By the time you’re in this location you’ll actually have to be looking backwards to see this building. You’ll be looking at it over the meadow. Traveling east, by the time you get to here, you may catch some glimpses of this building, through this vegetation if Curtis and ourselves determine that some of those trees are not healthy. Going west, you can see that you’ll also be catching a view of this building, screened through this existing vegetation. When you get to this point, this is the first time you’ll actually be able to begin to see this building. And you’ll see it for this stretch of road depending upon the health and the types of windows that we develop in this area. This is windows through the trees. Otherwise, you’ll be looking at the meadow, from here, for example, you see right through here you see the meadow. This fulfills requirement of the Entranceway Design Guidelines, that the buildings be framed by vegetation both existing and new.

“Lastly, our parking is screened from Route 54 through the use of berms, existing vegetation, placing this parking under a building. All of those things are techniques that are designed to screen the parking and hide it, make it not visible from 54.

“In summary, as you can see, we’ve used the Design Guidelines and the Entryway Corridor Guidelines. We have taken each stipulation of those Guidelines and worked very hard to work it in, worked each one of them in to the design of the building so that we can be certain that our buildings will comply with those Design Guidelines. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Larry Sitton.”

Council Member Foy: “Can I ask Josh a question?”

Mayor Waldorf: “Sure.”

Council Member Foy: “Josh, a little farther down 54 east, after you cross I-40, on the right there’s an office park. It’s in Durham. Do you know that office park?”

Mr. Gurlitz: “Quadrangle.”

Council Member Foy: “Quadrangle, right. And in looking at the your renderings of those buildings, they seem similar to the buildings that are in that office park, and I wondered if that would be an accurate way to get an idea of what these are going to look like.”

Mr. Gurlitz: “O.K. I know that the building, that these are different from the building that faces 54.”

Council Member Foy: “But I mean farther back in.”

Mr. Gurlitz: “To answer that I would have to go out and look, because I don’t have a good memory of those buildings farther back. But I’d be happy to go and look and let you know if those buildings are consistent with the design vision we have here.”

Council Member Bateman: “Josh, just following up on that. Can you tell me a building in Chapel Hill or around in Durham that’s 150,000 square feet, that’s four stories, just so I can get some sense, not even worrying about the design, but just some sense of the…”

Mr. Gurlitz: “You mean of the mass. I would report that back to you, too. I can’t off hand, but I’m sure that if I, that…Anne may know some. But it’s five stories. I think we’d like…we could look, perhaps we could look in Chapel Hill and around and see if we could come up with a building.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Thank you. That would be nice. Other questions? O.K. Larry.”

Larry Sitton: “Madam Mayor and members of the Council, I’m Larry Sitton and I’m an attorney and represent Capital Associates here tonight. I just want to emphasize a couple of points, a couple of legal points. One is that normally the Council has to make four findings on a Special Use Permit. You are very familiar with these four findings. But if a Special Use Permit is consistent with the Master Plan, then there’s a presumption created on three of those four. And here, I think this Special Use Permit that you have before you tonight on the Office Park, you’ve heard various testimony that it is completely consistent with the Master Plan and therefore, I think, legally, the presumption would exist. And the presumption relates to the first requirement which is that it be located to maintain or promote the public health, safety, general welfare. Also that it’s located-designed proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. And third, that it conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town, as embodied by the Development Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.

“If the Council finds that this Special Use Permit is consistent with the Master Plan, and I think that all the evidence is in that regard, there is a presumption on those three findings, and you don’t need anything else. The one that there is not a presumption on, is that it complies with all required regulations and standards adopted by Chapel Hill. And I don’t think there’s any question, and I think you’ve heard from your own staff, that it does, in fact, comply with all required regulations. Now even though, there is a presumption that these findings should be answered in the affirmative. I think there has been presented evidence, and further evidence will be presented if necessary if questions come up, on all four of the findings to show you that all four of them have been met and are consistent. The main thing is that really that you look at it from a consistency standpoint and I think it’s clear that it’s consistent with the Master Plan.

“The other thing I want to emphasize is the role that you play in this whole procedure. As you know, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. That means you are judges. You sit and make the findings as judges. And that means that you make the findings based on the evidence that you have before you, the evidence in the record. Not evidence that’s outside the record. And not any preconceived notions that you might have coming in. And if you do have a predetermination, of how the vote should come out, or a bias, then I think, as you’ve heard before that you would need to recuse yourself in this procedure. The main point is that you would listen to the evidence. If the evidence is consistent with the Master Plan, which I contend that it is, then there’s a presumption on three of the findings, and on the other, I don’t think there’s any question about it, and that you make your determination based on the evidence. I’ll turn it back over to Anne.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Question for Mr. Sitton?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Actually, it’s related directly to what Mr. Sitton said, but it’s to Ralph. Ralph, Mr. Sitton said that there is a presumption that would be established. Would you like to comment on the missing adjective?”

Mr. Karpinos: “That’s a rebuttable presumption.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Thank you very much.”

Mr. Karpinos: “Rebuttable means there has to be evidence to rebut that presumption.”

Mr. Sitton: “Your attorney made the point I would make. It is a rebuttable presumption, all presumptions, this is not a conclusive presumption. If it had been I’d use that adjective. It’s rebuttable only by competent evidence in the record.”

Anne Stoddard: “Before I wrap up the presentation, let’s talk about parking for a few minutes, because I know that in other SUP hearings, both your Meadowmont and other parts of Town, it’s been as issue of concern for you. Let me clarify one thing that was said earlier in response to your question, Joe. We are proposing to be allowed to relocate the seventy spaces that we’re being requested to move out of the buffer, not out of the buffer, away from the property line, and have shown staff a plan for how we would relocate those spaces in a way that would result in the end with less impervious surface than the original SUP plan we have submitted. But I am still requesting 951 parking spaces.

“There’s two issues really underlying the discussion of parking that I want to talk about. One is underlying traffic generation, the other is impervious surface. And in terms of underlying traffic, our challenge here is to, again, to conform to the Master Plan, and it’s critical to remember that the traffic study that has been done for us is in conformance with that of the Master Plan. It’s consistent with that study and Mike Horn is here to answer specific questions in regards to that traffic study. But the important point is that it is consistent with it. The traffic also in the study is based on the square footage of the building. The use is what generates the traffic, not the parking, or how much there is of it.

“That said, we’ve worked hard to create a project that will encourage alternate means of traveling to and from work. And I want to emphasize the word “encourage,” because I’m a real believer, as a former transit rider, that you can encourage people to use transit, but you can’t force them to do that. If you try to force them to do that, you’ll force them into their car to drive elsewhere, and add traffic to the arterial roads leaving Chapel Hill. What we have done is developed a Draft Transportation Management Plan and we presented it to the Transportation Board in advance of when we’re required to under the process. It’s not something we’re required to develop until the Zoning Compliance Permit phase of this. But I think it’s important to really show how we’re encouraging those alternatives.

“We’ve included sidewalks throughout the property, as we’re required to do to encourage pedestrian flow, and are proposing some pathways through the meadow as well to connect people across to the Village Center. We’re putting showers in the buildings so that runners and bicyclists can come to the office and clean up on their way to work. There will be bike racks in the garage. In terms of bus traffic, there was some debate within the Transportation Board as to where the bus stops should be, but what I want to be clear about, is that we are proposing and offering a spot right at the front door. I want to be clear that we’ve engineered these roads so that the turning radius work for buses and I’m happy to put that bus stop right at the front door and allow people to wait inside the lobby on really hot days, on rainy days. So that’s an option that’s available. We’re also happy to work with our tenants and also ourselves provide subsidies for bus passes, designate spaces underneath the garage for carpooling vehicles, promote TTA Rideshare. And we’re also designing the garage to accommodate eventual use of electric cars, because we want to make sure that we keep the facility current and allow the possibility for future charging of electric cars.

“O.K. On impervious surface. I’m really proud of the fact that we’re proposing a project that we’re going to spend a lot of money, over two million dollars of our budget on this is going to be to put cars underneath this building and build these two decks. But I think they really are what make this site plan work well and meet both the Town’s goals and our goals as developers. The impervious surface is equal to a number of parking spaces that is less than the Town minimum, before you take this eighty percent reduction. It’s basically right in between the Town minimum and the eighty percent reduced Town minimum. So we are proposing an impervious surface that is well below what it could be in other cases and really responds, I think, to one part of what the Town minimum is there for. So I think impervious surface is an important piece of it.

“Parking, however, is critical to an office building’s success. And I commented earlier that we really need here to create a project that will be a success for the Town. There was a comment at a recent meeting that said, “Let’s focus on the physical reality of parking, rather than the contractual need.” And one of the contractual needs that is a reality for me is financing this building. And it’s not a fiction. Bankers’ criteria are based on their experience of what buildings pay off their loans successfully at the end of the term, and what buildings end up being taken back in foreclosure. It’s a long experience and it’s not an arbitrary number, it’s one that’s experience-based. Parking is also a first-level decision for tenants when they are looking at office space, here and other parts of the Triangle. It’s one of the first questions I get asked when business people are coming in. And these are tenants who do have choices. And they’re tenants who have choices and their most critical need, I think, is to attract and retain employees in this very tight labor market. They need the ability to have adequate parking. And, you know, I think a fair analogy here is one, as a business person is looking at this building, think about buying a house. You know, your realtor comes to you and says, “I have found the perfect house. You’ve been looking for a long time. It’s great, it’s got everything. But you’re not going to be able to park a car. But there’s a bus stop right at the end of the street. It’s fine. It’ll be, you know, the bus gets you everywhere.” I don’t think any of us would think very long about that. Or maybe it’s parking one car, but you would look for another house. And if there is not adequate parking here tenants will look for a different alternative. The standard throughout the rest of the Triangle right now is moving toward a five parking spaces per thousand square feet of building. That’s what I am building in other parts of the Triangle and it is being used by tenants. Chapel Hill is unique and we can work with less parking, but not much less than that. Original plan we worked on had a great many more spaces and I’d be much more comfortable if we had 1,100 parking spaces, but I know that’s not feasible. 951 is an important benchmark for us to make this project work.

“I think we have traffic here in Chapel Hill in part because of what we don’t have, as well as what we do have. We have a lot of people who have to drive past this site everyday, I’m one of them, because there’s not alternatives here in Chapel Hill. I had a long conversation with the father of one of the little girls who’s in my son’s first-grade class at McDougle and he said, “Look, I’m in a really small office space over near University Mall. I’ve got a software sales business. I really need to grow that business. I’ve got nowhere to go. My partners are pushing me to, you know, move to Durham, move to Pittsboro. I want to be in this community. I want to be close to my kids’ school. I need to be. I can’t find anywhere to go.” It’s really critical to a lot of business people here, and it’s critical to this community to be able to stay here in the community.

“Anyway, I’ve asked for a number of parking spaces that I believe is consistent with a commercially viable project, that will benefit the Town. I’ve designed those spaces in a way that the impervious surface minimizes its impact on that site, and we have a traffic study that’s completely consistent with that which was approved by you in the Meadowmont Master Plan. So let me wrap up. The comparable building question I guess would be Europa is probably the only comparable building right here in Chapel Hill. It is five stories tall, rather than four, so it’s taller than we are. It’s 180,000 square feet versus 150,000, so that’s probably in terms of scale. May give you some help there.

“But let me talk about the four objectives that I put to the Design Team. To conform with the Master Plan. I believe we have done that, in fact, we have been asked and have agreed to go beyond that. The red oak tree, that Roger talked about here, the buffer line was drawn and we’re being asked to effectively move that buffer line back. We’re willing to do that. We agree with the importance of the trees on the back that will frame this project in the views. We’re willing to relocate those spaces away from those trees. We’ve done a lot of things that are above and beyond the Master Plan, but we are consistent with that Master Plan. We’re in conformance with the Entranceway Design Guidelines, as Josh talked about. I’m comfortable that if you vote in favor of the stipulations in Resolution A, that this will be a commercially viable project. And I believe that we have offered something that is consistent with the community’s vision for Meadowmont and this part of the site. So I turn the meeting back to you, Madam Mayor, and look forward to your questions.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Thank you.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “One quick question?”

Mayor Waldorf: “Sure.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “You said that the Europa Center office building is 180,000 square feet, 30,000 square feet greater than this one.”

Ms. Stoddard: “Yes.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “But tonight you are asking us not to approve 150,000, you’re asking us to approve 225,000. Is that correct?”

Ms. Stoddard: “That’s correct. But I believe, but I believe….”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “So therefore, what you, your comparison is actually less than what you’re asking us to approve.”

Ms. Stoddard: “Joe, I’m not, I’m not, I believe what Flicka’s question was was offer some buildings which would give her and the rest of you a sense of the scale of each individual building. I’m not arguing in any way that you’re not being asked to approve 225,000 square feet. But the best comparison in our neighborhood here is, would be Europa Center, with the caveat that it is one story taller. And it sits up on a hill. So it has the effect of kind of looking even taller, whereas this one is down a bit, and, you know, would look even less. There are other 75,000 square foot buildings throughout the market. I'm trying to think of a couple that are that kind of rectilinear form, and I’ll come up with some by the end of the meeting.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. Thank you.”

Council Member Foy: “I have a question too.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. For Anne Stoddard?”

Council Member Foy: “Yeah. In our package of information, on page 51 is a letter from Nationsbank, and I think that’s what you are referring to with regard to financing in the link…”

Ms. Stoddard: “It is. In part. I mean that’s one element of it.”

Council Member Foy: “And what I wanted to point out is that what the letter says is that for office projects parking ratios have generally been increasing over the past few years to a range of four to five spaces per thousand. And I’m wondering if when you asked Nationsbank to provide this information, if you pointed out to them the nature of this project. I mean, part of the basis of the approval was that Meadowmont was going to be pedestrian-oriented and mass transit-oriented, and so I’m wondering if that was part of the basis of information that the bank had, specially given the fact that they said that parking ratios have been increasing, and I think what the goal of this project was was to decrease automobile dependency.”

Ms. Stoddard: “They had a copy of the Master Plan, and both Nationsbank and Wachovia, and some others have come over and had a look at it. All of the mass transit options, including the fixed-rails, will not be in place, initially, so that they’re only able to take into account in part. And, I think, what they’re both saying is that this project would be at the low end of the range. That they are looking to be a successful project, and because it’s Chapel Hill and because of the other elements of the project, they’re probably willing to accept that low end of the range.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Are either Mr. Farnum, from Nationsbank, or Mr. Porterfield from Wachovia here?”

Ms. Stoddard: “No.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Are they sworn?”

Ms. Stoddard: “Very.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “They are?”

Ms. Stoddard: “They are.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “O.K. I would like to ask them a question.”

Ms. Stoddard: “They’re both bright guys.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “I would like to ask them a question.”

Ms. Stoddard: “I said, neither of them are here.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “I heard you. I still would like to ask them a question, and correct me if I’m wrong, Ralph, but if it’s evidence, it must be cross-examinable.”

Mr. Karpinos: “It’s up to you to decide that.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Well, I would very much to ask one, or both of these bankers a question pertaining to this evidence.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Wouldn’t the proper way to do that to be write a letter and put a question to them and tell them it will be part of the record? Mr. Attorney, wouldn’t that be acceptable?”

Mr. Karpinos: “I think you could do that or ask the applicant to have these persons present at the next meeting.”

Ms. Stoddard: “I’d be happy to invite one or both of them to come to the next meeting.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Would you please.”

Ms. Stoddard: “Fine.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Alright. Thank you. We’ll move on to representatives of the Advisory Boards and then citizens who signed up. Gay Eddy of the Planning Board.”

Gay Eddy: “The Planning Board discussed several issues. The major ones were the views along 54. What you would see from the project, and we were impressed with the detail that had gone into what the motorist would be seeing when they drove along, as far as the meadow and the buildings were concerned.

“We also talked about the parking spaces along the southern property line and we did support the elimination of the seventy parking spaces along that. And we also talked about stormwater management. We made several suggested modifications to the recommended resolution and I was pleased to see that most of those have already been incorporated in the resolution before you tonight. In fact there were only two that weren’t and those two also have, the conditions have changed a little bit since the Planning Board looked at it. One of the two that wasn’t was about the tree. The night that we heard it, the forty-three inch red oak tree, there was some question about whether or not the tree was really healthy. And so we added a stipulation saying something about we supported its preservation if the Manager thought it was appropriate, meaning if the Manager thought it would survive. And I noticed in the materials tonight that the Manager has looked at it and thinks it will. So that’s somewhat of a mute recommendation right now. And the other one was stormwater management, which has also changed. At the time we looked at the proposal the staff was recommending the twenty-five-year storms for both of the ponds. And, so we had recommended the ten-year for the first phase pond, and the twenty-five-year for the second phase pond. But as I said, it has changed now. One of the reasons we recommended the ten-year was that that was a tight site. We thought the twenty-five-year, had plenty of, the second phase, seemed to be plenty of space there. And since they were recommending twenty-five-year for both, we were kind of doing a compromise there. And we did vote, 7-1, to approve the application, with the conditions to recommend that you approve the application with conditions. The one person who dissented, her reasons were given in the written recommendations. Thank you.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Thank you. Diane Bachman is here for the Design Commission.”

Diane Bachman: “Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. The Community Design Commission reviewed the Office Park Project most recently at its September 16 meeting and the group felt that the project had met the defined guidelines and Master Plan that was in its purview for review and they voted 10-0 to approve the project as submitted at their meeting that evening. Do you have any questions? That’s as simple as I could be.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Thank you very much. Richard Williams. The applicant has made quite a lengthy presentation, which the applicant has an obligation to get all their evidence in the record and I think was here to see how many questions the Council had about the hotel project a couple of weeks ago, so I kind of hesitate to put the light on folks who’ve come to speak up, but if you’ll try to keep your comments within three minutes we’d appreciate it.”

Richard Williams: “I’ll do better, and feel free to turn the light on. I’m Richard Williams and I’m here to encourage acceptance of the Manager’s recommendations. Just a review of this project on my own and with the community’s Design team, believe that there have been some substantial improvement and that the project as presented is indeed consistent with the Master Plan. Heard during the discussion of the Master Use Plan and Infrastructure Plan a lot of comments from members of the Council and others about retail versus office, this is office. This is something that some folks on this Board and others that have been opposed to the project as a whole have said that they want, they prefer, this is better for Chapel Hill, this is what we want in Chapel Hill, this is what’s being offered.

“The neighborhood, or the neighbors principally, are the University. This office space, office space in this community is needed. You folks are very familiar with the tight vacancy rates. I think that you understand the reason for the tight vacancy rates. And you’ve had some very clear examples, it’s not something that needs to be made up, you’ve had some very clear examples about folks that have started here and wanted to grow here and wanted to remain here, but couldn’t remain here. And that’s intellectual capital that we’re losing, in addition to some of the bad parts of 54, with the traffic going out in the mornings and coming in in the evenings, that we’re having to cause. I hesitate to say this, but…this developer has done some good stuff and this developer has taken some very important steps. Just because this is Chapel Hill doesn’t mean that we have to drag folks through the mud, that are bringing commercial projects. Let’s not jerk these folks around. They’re bringing a good project to us. Let’s approve it.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. Chris van Hasselt.”

Chris van Hasselt: “I just have some real brief comments. As part of the Bicycle Task Force we did not get an opportunity to look at this in the kind of detail that most of you have looked at. We were looking at much broader picture of the network of bike lanes in Chapel Hill. But this project has some significant bike improvements along 54, leading specifically out to Barbee Chapel Road, which is one of the parts of the bigger picture that we wanted to see improved and also it connects into the 54/Raleigh Road area, where there are some existing facilities. It doesn’t lead all the way up to Raleigh Road, the existing bike lanes there, and that’s beyond what the scope of the developer should be expected to do.

“But, in looking at this project, there’s a lot of good things about it and I think the question that you should be asking yourselves is whether you just have a good piece or if it’s a good piece of a bigger puzzle. Whether this fits in with the whole network. And it very well may. O.K. The questions I’d have about it internally, and these are questions that again, you folks have looked at this in a lot more detail than I have. But things that strike me when I look at it—the bicycle/pedestrian tunnel—one of the questions I have is in the resolution, it says that the North Carolina Department of Transportation shall review and approve the specifications for this tunnel prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. And I’d want to know, and perhaps this question has been answered already, but I’d want to know what other projects across the State that NCDOT has approved, how they’ve been approved, and is it really possible to put this tunnel in. Because, if it’s done successfully, it eliminates the fear factor of crossing 54, which can make this part of the puzzle as good as it gets.

“The other questions I’d have really go beyond the scope of what you’re doing tonight in looking at this piece of a bigger puzzle. Coming down, you know, 54, you do run into the Raleigh Road area, which is a very difficult part of the Chapel Hill area to bike through. And so some thought needs to be put into place on how you are going to deal with that next piece of the puzzle. Beyond that, I think, given the size of this project and what they’ve proposed, there are a lot of good things to look at and I hope those kind of details, specifically regarding bikes, are paid attention to. Thank you.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. Thank you very much. Valerie Broadwell.”

Valerie Broadwell: “I’m here to talk about the first finding which is, I just want to read it, there’s the four findings that I know you all are familiar with, but I just want to read it out loud. That the proposed development is located, designed and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. And I don’t believe that the application meets that finding, and I want to talk about why. This is my layperson’s map, so excuse the free-lance graphics, it’s all I had access to. This is a map of what 54 will look like, some of it’s here, some of it’s not. This is the Glenwood Shopping Center, this is the Glenwood School, there’s also State Employees Credit Union right here, there’s a gas station, an Exxon there, that’s the Village Family Medicine. This is going to be proposed University Village, will be a retail center, that is the grassy area right now between the hotel, the Best Western Hotel, and then that’s the Aurora Restaurant and these are the two buildings, I apologize, the East/West Buildings are much nicer, that’s all I had access to, some UNC property on both sides, and then here will be the hotel. It will be, I think, 19,000 square feet of retail eventually there just west of Barbee Chapel, and then this is the Meadowmont.

“And just looking at this I wanted to talk about the traffic impact, because that is the direct impact on the safety and general welfare of people who need to cross the street. I’ve heard that the two buildings up in the Special Use Permit today will generate 5,000 to 10,000 cars on 54. That’s just these two buildings. And there’s going to be widening, I think that here it’s going to be twelve lanes all together for Meadowmont, with the turning lanes, O.K., so twelve lanes and at some point it’s going to come down to four here. So you’ve got a bottle-neck, but maybe that’s good, because that will make everybody slow down. And eventually, what we’re going to have after Meadowmont is 57,000 more trips per day. Now they’re all not going to go this way, they’re going to go both ways. I don’t know what the predominant direction is. But 57,000 cars is over and above what Highway 70 is in front of Crabtree Valley Mall right now. So that’s something to think about. And what we have is, you know, a lot of cars going both ways, and there’s this intersection right here, Hamilton and 54, and it doesn’t work. You all know that. Right. It’s a “no-walk” zone. Kids who live in Glen Lennox and in my neighborhood, Little Creek, and senior citizens who live in my neighborhood, and in Glen Lennox are not supposed to walk to Glenwood Shopping Center. Kids are not supposed to walk to the school. I guess adults can cross. But kids, who can literally see the school from their bedroom windows, can not walk, because the school cannot guarantee passage of those kids across the street. So if we have this problem now, how can you possibly determine, now this new development the Special Use Permit right here is 800 yards from Hamilton, so I can not see how you cannot de-couple the impact that just this development alone is going to have on the intersection at Hamilton and 54.

“So that’s what I wanted to say, and I wanted to bring up another point before I conclude. This is just a list of name, I’m sorry you can’t read it, it’s a list of names, is there a way to focus this? Just a list of names. But if you saw the copy that I had you’d recognize the names, Diane Bachman, Bruce Ballentine, Buck Branson, Jeannette Gate Eddy, Terry Eason, most of the people whose names are highlighted are on the three boards that had to approve this project, Planning Board, T-Board, Design Review Committee, and what you don’t see is that this actually was an ad in the paper. And it says, ”Meadowmont, it’s time.” And I always thought that, you know the Boards, of course people are entitled to have their own opinions about things, but I would expect them to have a somewhat objective view when they review these thing. You know, that the Transportation Board would look for transportation things, Design would look for design. But I question whether they were truly objective when these people paid money to put this ad in the newspaper. And the reason why I bring it up is because I think someone here on the Council might say, “Well, gee, Transportation Board, they approved this project. Must be O.K. Planning Board approved it.” Well, I just question whether they were truly objective, when I see ads like this taken out in the paper.

“And so I want to conclude and leave these thoughts in your mind that even without Meadowmont, we have a situation here where kids right now are not allowed to walk to school. They can’t cross the street. And we can’t allow Meadowmont to make it worse. In fact, the law doesn’t allow us to. Meadowmont should have to mitigate the additional impact on this intersection. And I think that, what you should be asking yourselves is what is our minimum standard in human terms. People should be able to walk to school and to the grocery store. Elementary-age kids and Crabtree Valley Mall don’t mix. And that’s what we’re going to have. We already have a problem. So knowing what you know about the problems that we have right here, right now, I don’t see how you could possibly conclude that the application conforms to the first finding, which relates…does it maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare? I believe it actually deteriorates it. Now there’s ways you can talk about how the applicant can mitigate that and that’s another discussion.

“But I wanted to address the first finding and I don’t believe that the application meets that first finding. And I just wanted to say something about parking. You all know that I work for the EPA and in that position I work often with many people in transportation across the country. I work with people who’ve done dissertations on traffic and travel behavior and in this country the single most determinant of whether you use public transportation or not is the availability of parking. And 951 spaces is not going to encourage people to use public transportation. That’s another reality. I heard the reality abut the bank loans and all. I just know that with regards to driving behavior, people, if they have access to free and ample parking, they will drive. Even if you have lockers, even if you have showers, even if you have bike paths, they’re going to drive, because they can park for free. That’s just the way it works in this country.

“And just getting back to the maps, I notice that the applicant has sidewalks and bike paths here along 54, there’s supposed to be a tunnel for crossing here, but remember the kids and the seniors who live here in Glen Lennox, they’re not going to walk up to a tunnel to cross 54 and come back down to Glenwood where they can grocery shop or go to school. They’re going to want to cross here and this is the problem that needs to get solved before we add more fuel to the fire. Thank you.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Thank you. Robert Chessin.”

Robert Chessin: “My name is Bert Chessin and I’m a Chapel Hill resident for twenty-four years. I’ve spent a significant amount of time living in other college towns, which have managed to maintain a quality of life, that is maintain and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. I’ve also spent too much time in Atlanta. Or as I was on my way over here two weeks ago to talk to this Council, Lawrence Ferlinghetti had just made a speech, he was the poet-laureate of San Francisco, and one of the wonderful spirits in California, was talking about development in San Francisco. He called it “Autogedden,” which I think we should keep in mind. Anyway, Atlanta is a place I’ve spent some time recently and many of you may know, and many of you may not, that Atlantans spend more time on average commuting in their cars than the people in Los Angeles. And I think Atlanta is a model we need to be thinking about as we are looking at this and other developments. My remarks will both be general and specific in nature. All developments need to be assessed in the context of managing community-wide changes. Each approved plan adds or detracts in some way to the general welfare of our community. Traffic increases, higher and more frequent ozone alerts. This is something that I don't know how it’s being taken in our community, but at RTI, I work out in the Research Triangle Park, and I get a daily…whenever there’s a red or a orange ozone alert, or red ozone alert, I get told of that every day and this is something we’ve just instituted this year. I don’t know if the City is doing this for city employees and all, but I think it helps put perspective on the whole community, within which we live. Anyway higher and more frequent ozone alerts, greater numbers of accidents, more time spent waiting in traffic, come about not just because of Southern Village or Meadowmont North or Meadowmonth offices, or Meadowmont hotel, but because of all the large and small changes that are happening here. I encourage all of us to look at this in the broad context of maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare.

“Some specifics—I’m going to talk really about traffic and bicycle use. The present average use, I understand, on Highway 54 is about thirty thousand cars per day, based upon the numbers, the square footage in the offices and in the hotel and all. And I’m repeating a bit of what Valerie said here, that there will be some, I have a figure of about 8,000 additional vehicles on 54 just because of this office/hotel development. That’s fifteen percent of the projected approximately 55,000 car trips per day on Highway 54, projected for the completion date of the whole Meadowmont complex.

“According to the North Carolina Department of Transportation the closer one gets to maximum carrying capacity the higher the accident rate is per vehicle, not just on a per day basis. Also, as the numbers of lanes increase, even at the same percentage of carrying capacity, the greater the vehicle accident rates are. So when we’re talking about having a six-lane road or an eight-lane road on Highway 54, accident rates increase actually at a higher rate than just the traffic itself. I do have a question related to this, and that is, on Highway 54 there’s actually quite a limited access road coming from I 40 up to the hospital. I travel on I 40 a lot. If there’s an accident, when you reach, when you’re getting close to carrying capacity on a road, and there’s an accident, it backs things up, or it backs things up big time. Or one of my thoughts is as emergency vehicles are goingIghHigh High to be coming down 54, trying to negotiate the 15/501-54 intersection problem, if there’s an accident, if there’s an emergency vehicle trying to get through backed-up traffic, the options for the hospital are going to be, they’re very limited. There’s the southern route, really almost impossible, going down Barbee Chapel Road, takes you all the way out almost to Jordan Lake before you can get back to the hospital. Valerie has already mentioned the situation with trying to cross 54 as a pedestrian, further down, we’re not talking about the Meadowmont area, but just to the west of there, for the pedestrian traffic trying to get over to Glen Lennox.

“I was quite encouraged to see and hear about the plans to encourage bicycle use. I think there’s some real thought given to that. I am asking, proposing, that the City of Chapel Hill be as pro-active as we can to encourage bicycle use. I think it’s good providing showering facilities, providing secure parking spaces. I thought those were excellent ideas. But I think we should actually be, and it wasn’t really addressed by the transportation fellow, but one of the things that strikes me is that the Friday Center. I’ve heard actually very little discussion in the last two sessions here about the Friday Center as a transportation hub. We’ve talked about buses being able to drop people off in front of the door of this office or that office, or having pull-off lanes on Highway 54, but I really think both the bus traffic and the bicycle traffic should be looked at in the context of a transportation hub at that Friday Center. We talk about parking spaces at the office building. There’s already a lot of parking at the Friday Center and it’s a transportation hub. We should be thinking about encouraging people to be on bikes, to use their bikes to get around to the Office Complex, to get up to Meadowmont’s residential. I think Joe had a good comment last time.

“About not putting the bike paths right along 54. Bikers don’t like to be right next to six lanes of traffic. Think about rerouting some of that and be as pro-active as we can in encouraging bicycle use or other self-powered, roller bladers, or whatever. I mean, there really is a big potential. We live in a college town. I used to bike to the Research Triangle Park. I used to be able to bike University Drive going in Cornwallis into the Research Triangle Park. I have done that probably once in the last ten years. I miss that. I know there are a lot of people here in town, people in Durham, if we had bicycle-friendly, bicycle-supportive ways of doing it.

“There is a bigger potential here than I think a lot of people are willing to think about in the context of these developments. I even have a crazy idea, and I don’t like this to be taken as “He’s just a guy off the, off the deep end.” But I think we ought to even be thinking about the office development. We talk about affordable housing. We should also be talking about affordable office spaces. Encouraging those kinds of groups that might tend to use public transportation and those are the kinds of groups that might want to use bicycles as well. O.K. We can’t do anything about the price of gas, and we can only do so much about the natural growth forces in Chapel Hill and the Triangle. But what we can do, we should be doing. The significant impacts of the office complex and the hotel complex put in question in my mind that this development meets the need to maintain and promote the health and safety of the general welfare. I hope that the decisions of this fine Council and the various planning departments make will be viewed as decisions that contribute to this first requirement of the Master Use Plan.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. Thank you. I want to let the Council know and the audience know that Joyce Brown was feeling terrible and that’s why she left. So we need to excuse. I doubt if she’s glued to her T.V. She looked like she was headed for bed. We…I guess we’re up to the time of questions by Mayor and Council Members. Are there questions of the staff or applicant? Julie.”

Council Member McClintock: “Yes, I’ve got a few and most of these could be addressed to the material coming back to us. First of all on the stormwater. One of the things that I mentioned in the last public hearing was availability of some more materials on more sophisticated best-management practices. These are bio-retention areas or sand filters or all kinds of different things, which are now available to be used. And I really disagree with the evidence that was introduced about whether wet-detention ponds are always the best and the most effective best-management practice. And I asked the Department of Environmental Water Quality to send me some material, which I’ve shared with our engineers and I would be happy to share it with the engineer of this project, if you’re interested, because two staff members of this department traveled throughout the eastern United States last year and gathered all the latest data on what is being used. And so I would like to pass that on to you and I also made it available to the Council, so that it could be brought within the public record, and I have a copy upstairs if you’re all interested.

“So I think that there are two things here to consider on the stormwater. One is amount and the second is water quality. And on the first matter, the Town Engineers assure me, and I would like to be reassured by the Town Manager, that the figures and calculations that have been done and the engineering work that’s been done, will keep this area from flooding. And I guess the issue is whether you’re going to, what amount of flood you’re going to plan for and I think twenty-five years is a reasonable amount, although I know many areas in Town that have a hundred-year floods. So I would just like to ask the Town staff just for my information, information for the Council to know what would happen if there were one hundred-year flood with the calculations that have been done. And if I understand it, this area where the offices are to be built is across the street from the rest of the Meadowmont project, and it’s downhill from it and there are existing storm drains that go underneath 54 that bring water from across the street on to this property.

“And so that’s why we have to be really sure that what we’re approving really is going to work, because not only do we have the water on site, we have the water coming from off site to deal with, which is going to go somewhere else. And while we don’t have, in this case, the Finley Condos directly back, there’ll be something there as the University develops that land.

“The second issue is water quality. And that’s where I think these best-management practice book would be really helpful for the applicant to look at to see what would be the state-of-the-art facilities that could be built here to ensure that water flowing off these parking lots, and I appreciate the decks that are being built because I think that’s a much more ecological approach, but there’s still a lot of paved surfaces here, that that water coming off those parking lots, containing metals and so on, which eventually we don’t want those to go into our future drinking water supply. So that’s why that’s important. That’s stormwater. I guess we did get a stormwater map, so I won’t follow up on that.

“Two, on transportation. I’d like a little bit more information on the statement that was in our material about UNC might, that there is some negotiation going on on roads, future roads access to Friday Lane, and I’m really interested in that, primarily because I’m unhappy, I think that the part of this project which is the least attractive is the fact that there’s a collective road in front. And I think that that is going to mar the attractiveness of this area. And I’d like a little bit more information on that. Also, in terms of the bikeways. There was something in the staff report that said that the applicant was going to be talking to the University about gaining some easements, so that there could be a bike plain in front on the pieces of property to either end of the offices. And as Chris van Hasselt said earlier, if we don’t have, if the central piece of this project doesn’t fit with the surrounding pieces, then we don’t have a coherent bikeway system. So I would like to see that easement acquired now from the University, or some commitment, because if we wait, the Town could end up building it, or maybe the University might want to something else, whatever. But it seems to me we need a coherent bikeway between Finley Road and Friday Lane. Also, another bikeway question. Could we investigate with the State DOT and find out if these bikeways can be designated as bikeways. Because I know that in the past DOT has had liability concerns, and has not wanted to let us designate bike lanes that are located on major roads as bikeways, which obviously discourages use. These are going to be off the road, I understand from the specifications, that they’re six to eight feet off the lane that’s farthest to the right. And so I would like to know if these could be designated as bikeways. And we could press for that with the DOT. Let’s see, what else on transportation.

“On the traffic plan, I’d like to ask for the same information that I asked for on the hotel project. The applicant has something like twenty-five, ninety-two cars generated from the office buildings. I would like to ask Town staff, such as David Bonk to look at Mr. Horn’s numbers and use the maximum assumptions from the Trip Generation Book, so we can get a range, because we’ve all seen these traffic figures sort of move around a lot and it would be helpful just to have another number to look at, and consider what the range of extra cars we could expect from this project.

“I think it would be very helpful to have, not a cross-section but a bird’s eye look looking down, and I’ve looked at all the maps and there’s so much on all of these maps that we’ve seen that it’s really sometimes hard to see individual elements. But it would really be helpful for me to see a bird’s eye view, looking down, of just the roads, where they are and where the lanes are, so that we can clearly see, while that’s a physical model, but I think it would be very helpful to have one drawn to show the actual roads and the number of lanes that we’re dealing with.

“I’m curious on the tree situation. I know that the Entranceway Plan did have some very specific language that Josh Gurlitz has talked about. About the canopy of trees being above the building and the like. I would like a report from our Town Forester on the condition of the pine trees, to know whether those pine trees are going to be standing, because as most of you know, we’ve had a massive pine-beetle infestation in Chapel Hill. I just want to know whether they’re going to be there or not.”

Mayor Waldorf: “I’d like to just stop for a second here and essentially ask the Council a favor. I need to leave soon. When the Council set this meeting, I said it wasn’t a good night for me, because I’m leaving Town early in the morning. And I need to go home and help my son study for Spanish. So I gather that Council questions are going to go on for a while. I know Joe has a good number. I wanted to ask if the Council might to be willing to consider just pausing in the question-asking right now, and moving ahead to determine what “contiguous property” is for this project. Is that reasonable? Is that agreeable to everybody? O.K. and then, O.K. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. And then if whatever questions the Council doesn’t get to at the time the Council decides to adjourn tonight, if they could just be submitted in writing to the staff in the next few days, as we agreed to do with the hotel. O.K.

“Then, this is our first crack at making this determination about what “contiguous property” is. Mr. Attorney, do you want to give us any words of advice before we begin?”

Mr. Karpinos: “I think I’ve discussed it all already.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. Joe, do you have a….?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “I’d like to make a motion, yes. Given that this site is greater than twenty acres, indeed greater than ten acres, I’d like to make the motion that “contiguous property” here be defined to be a minimum of one thousand feet.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. Is there a second to that motion?”

Council Member Foy: “I second it.

Mr. Karpinos: I’m sorry. What I tried to do in the memo was explain that we need to establish what it is, not what the minimum is.”

Mayor Waldorf: “We need to establish a maximum.”

Council Member McClintock: “A minimum and maximum.”

Mr. Karpinos: “A determination of what it is, period.”

Mayor Waldorf: “And a determination is a minimum and a maximum?”

Mr. Karpinos: “It’s a set distance.”

Mayor Waldorf: “A set distance. O.K.”

Mr. Karpinos: “Some other objective standard.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “May I remake my motion?”

Mayor Waldorf: “Yes, please.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “I’d like to move that we define “contiguous property” to be a minimum of one thousand and a maximum of two thousand feet.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. Hold on. Let’s see if there is…the motion is..”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Is that O.K. Is that legally O.K.?”

Mr. Karpinos: “Effectively it means two thousand feet, that’s really the only point that’s…”

Council Member McClintock: “Why don’t you compromise and take one figure?”

Council Member Foy: “Oh, just make it two thousand feet, “contiguous property.””

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “O.K. I’ll do that. Just two thousand feet.”

Mayor Waldorf: “All right. Is there a second to that motion?”

Council Member Foy: “I’ll second that.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. Pat, you had a question?”

Council Member Evans: “Joe, could you tell me where two thousand feet, where it is?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Yes, I can. I can do that on the Master Land Use Plan or on that little map that Cal distributed to us earlier this evening. More or less. O.K. Let’s start with this one, the separate attachment one. That outer boundary is one thousand feet. And so this would include…if you take…go to the lower right on the map, which is down Finley Forest, in the Finley Forest area. Now you see the lower right corner of the densely diagonally lined area, which is the project site. Inside the racetrack. The lower right corner of the project site. From there is one thousand feet going to the lower right. Double that distance.”

Council Member Evans: “O.K. So we’re looking at the definition of “contiguous property” being in Durham County, right?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “I think we are in any case.”

Council Member Evans: “Because, you know, and I guess one of the questions that I raise, I can’t remember, when we were talking about trying to define “contiguous property” we got information on what other communities do, and I cannot recall exactly, but I don’t recall that Durham uses the same kind of wording that we do in their requirements for their own developments. And so I just, I raise that as a concern whether we ought to, maybe we should leave out Durham County. (Many talking at once.) But not all of this is. Alta Springs, for instance, that a previous speaker one time talked about with the traffic impact of the three-hundred units Alta Springs, that’s all in Durham County, Durham City.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “But that’s much greater than two thousand feet away, Pat.”

Council Member Evans: “Well, Joe, I’m not sure. You said to double that.”

Mayor Waldorf: “All right. So the motion has been made and seconded. Pat’s raised a question. Lee.”

Council Member Pavão: “Joe, if I take the space between the smaller dotted line and the larger dotted line, that goes from five hundred to up to a thousand, if I take that same space and add it to the outside of the long and short dot, will that give me the two thousand square feet?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “No, that gives you fifteen hundred. Then you have to do that one more time, Lee, and you’ll be up to two thousand.”

Council Member Pavão: “O.K. So that takes in Oakwood Drive, part of Oakwood Drive, Rogerson Drive.

Mayor Waldorf: “It basically goes to Glen Lennox to the east.”

Council Member McClintock: “I think it includes Hamilton Road, probably.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Right, it goes beyond Hamilton Road.”

Council Member Wiggins: “Joe, on the procedural recommendation it says that if we go beyond five hundred feet, we should enter into the record, the reasons supporting a larger area. So could you help me with those to go along with your motion?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Sure. Because this is a substantial office complex of 225,000 square feet, with 951 proposed parking spaces, a traffic count of approximately 8,000 cars per day solely being generated by these two buildings, with their impact on the surrounding areas.”

Mayor Waldorf: “Other questions or comments about the motion? You all ready to vote? All in favor please raise your hand. The yes’s are McClintock, Capowski, Foy, and Bateman, and Council Member Brown counts as a yes, because she was here but has been excused. All opposed. O.K. Those are Waldorf, Pavão, Evans and Wiggins. O.K. We’ve done that.

“Now the other kind of a procedural thing I wanted to bring up with the Council is that this same decision that we just made about “contiguous property” needs to be made about the hotel proposal, as well. And we didn’t do that, when that was before us in public hearing a couple of weeks ago, because this definition was new to us and we didn’t yet have a process to do it. But, in my opinion, we need to do that soon, so that the applicant and, let me finish, I worked with Ralph on this today so I’ve got something to propose, so that the applicant and the neighbors and who ever else might be affected and might wish to present evidence would know what is the standard they must use as they think about what evidence they want to present. So what I want to suggest to the Council is that so that we can get that done as quickly as possible, yet give ourselves time to notify everybody that we’re doing it, that on our meeting of December the 7^th, that’s a regular meeting, that we reopen the public hearing on the hotel for the limited purpose of setting what is the “contiguous property” standard and then recess back to January 11, which is when it’s coming back, anyway. Is that reasonable? Is that all right with everybody? So we can kind of informally agree to that. O.K. And then what I’ll do is I’ll bring a motion this coming Monday night calling a public hearing to do that on the 7^th, is that all right? O.K. good.”

Council Member McClintock: “I would appreciate a diagram such as the one that was prepared for tonight, for the hotel property, showing five hundred, a thousand, fifteen hundred, and two thousand feet.”

Mayor Waldorf: “O.K. Well good, I’ll bring that motion on Monday night and we’ll go back to Council members asking questions and I’m going to turn the meeting over to you, and excuse myself. Oh, Anne, did you have a question? O.K. well I think this will be fine. Go ahead.”

[Mayor Waldorf departed at 9:30 p.m.]

Ms. Stoddard: “I just wanted to enter into the record a letter that we have from Tom Heffner, who is an appraiser. He apologizes for not being able to be here or having updated his letter since the 21^st, he’s got a detached retina and has really been flat on his back, but did prepare a letter that related to the options you’ve been considering and they’re the affect of this property on “contiguous property.” I would just comment that Mike Horn is here and would be able to comment this evening on some of the traffic numbers that are being mentioned, because I think many of them are far too high. So.”

Mike Horn: “Good evening. My name is Mike Horn, I’m with Kimley-Horn and Associates, 3001 Western Parkway, Cary, North Carolina 27513.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Mike, are you sworn?”

Mr. Horn: “Yes, I am. Thank you. I believe numbers were put out by Ms. Broadwell, that there would be a five to ten thousand ADT increase, average daily traffic increase, due to the 225,000 square feet of office. The actual number’s around 2,600 vehicles a day.”

Council Member Bateman: “I got distracted. Would you just say what you said again?”

Mr. Horn: “225,000 square feet of office will generate approximately 2,600 cars a day. The generation. It’s not five, it’s not ten thousand. It’s approximately 2,600. Alright, we also heard volumes of traffic on N.C. 54. Currently, it’s about 35,000 vehicles a day. You’ve heard me, since 1994 now. I’ll say the same speech. About 35,000 vehicles a day on N.C. 54. Meadowmont will add traffic to N.C. 54, there is not a doubt. We have estimated about 24,500. Again, a number I’ve used throughout, since 1994. Understand that Ms. Broadwell did stipulate that, you know, there should be some mitigation, well, there clearly is mitigation going on. In fact, if you look at your staff report and what is being put forward, the staff has come back and has put in place the improvements that are to be in place before any issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the office development is there, and that is on page 14, of the staff report. Again, it requires the widening of N.C.54, turn lanes of left turn lanes and right turn lanes, improvements of traffic signals. I mean it’s a, I make one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, different mitigation factors. With these mitigation factors we will have an accessible level of service at Friday Lane, Meadowmont Lane, that’s Friday/Meadowmont Lane at Burning Tree Drive and Finley Golf Course, at Barbee Chapel Drive, and, also at, it’s been changing names, but the Hilltop Collector and the secondary drive, which is the main access point here at the office. So, I would only tell you that if they did not do these improvements, then it would not operate an accessible level service. But I have identified, the staff has agreed with what I have identified as improvements, they are a point of provision here that they will have to be provided before the first Certificate of Occupancy before the office building is allowed. So they have, you know, that mitigation is there.”

Council Member McClintock: “I have a follow-up question for Mr. Horn.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Mike, do you have further or are you ready to accept questions yet?”

Mr. Horn: “Well. Those were basically most of the comments that were with, of course the traffic that the office would have and then the amount of traffic that was out on N.C.54, so yes, I’m happy to answer any questions that you have.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “O.K. Before we do questions, I just want to wish Tom Heffner a good recovery from his eye surgery. A detached retina is a serious thing. Good luck, Tom, if you’re listening. Are there Council questions for Mike?”

Council Member McClintock: “Yeah, I just had a follow-up to your statement that you felt that mitigation measures had been taken. In terms of how you felt that that had been addressed, are you talking about turning movements, or are you talking about traffic flowing from east to west and west to east on 54?”

Mr. Horn: “Well, N.C. 54 is being widened to a six-lane facility to match what is, maybe I don’t understand your question, it includes through lanes on N.C. 54 as well as turn lanes on N.C. 54.”

Council Member McClintock: “So that rates of acceptable service, and I’m talking about a car, coming from I-40 to get to campus, and someone from downtown Chapel Hill trying to get on I-40 in the morning. What level of service are they going to experience at those intersections?”

Mr. Horn: “With the build-out of the project?”

Council Member McClintock: “With the build-out of the project, and considering that, you know, you’re making improvements in front of Meadowmont, but other improvements aren’t being made. So we’re still, you’re still going to have to count, you know, the back-ups and the whatever in order to calculate that level of service, aren’t you?”

Mr. Horn: “Yes. So…”

Council Member McClintock: “It’s like a garden hose, I mean, you can widen part of it, and then if it’s narrow at either end, it’s going to improve turning movements for the intersections, but is it going to help the…so that’s specifically what I’m interested in and, you know, you don’t need to answer it now. At some point, I’d like to have it.”

Mr. Horn: “Well, I think I can try and answer. Let me see if I understand the question. Let me answer the way I understand the question and see if I’ve hit your question. The intersection, let me start with Barbee Chapel Road with N.C. 54, I’ll start on the far side and come back in. At the year 2006, with a built-out of Meadowmont, understand when I say the build-out of Meadowmont I am talking about the entire development, the entire 435 acres. With that and the improvements that have been identified, that have been agreed upon it, each of the SUP permits that have been forwarded in front of you, that Barbee Chapel Road/N.C. 54 will operate a level service C. Alright, during the a.m. peak and level service B and the p.m. peak. Now I’m looking at the through movements on east to west, specifically in here, I see that they’re operating at level service B. Alright? B and A. If I want to get very specific in looking at through movements. Intersection of Meadowmont Lane/Friday/N.C. 54 that intersection during the a.m. peak, level service D in the a.m., level service D in the p.m. Through movements again on…”

Council Member McClintock: “ And define D level of service for those people who don’t know what that means.”

Mr. Horn: “Level service, I’m sorry, is a grade that traffic engineers have set up, we typically use a letter grade from A to F. It’s not quite like it is at school, however, we, or the traffic engineers use level service D as our minimum thresh hold of looking at signalized intersections during peak hour of operation.”

Council Member McClintock: “And so how long do you have to wait at a D level?

Mr. Horn: For the, during the a.m. peak at Friday Lane, the average is 27 seconds and for the p.m. peak it’s 25.7 seconds.

Council Member McClintock: And is that one light change? (Voice off mike). I think I’m asking Mr. Horn the question.

Mr. Horn: “I’m not sure that it can be quantified in the way that you’re asking that question. I can quantify it in as far as that delay that I gave you. The secondary site intersection at Hilltop Collector, which is the entrance here to the office building that’s in question. A.m. peak is level service B, p.m. peak level service C. The intersection of Burning Tree Drive and Finley Golf Course, a.m. peak is level service C, p.m. peak level service C. So those are the level of service.”

Council Member McClintock: “Thank you, thank you. It does answer my question.”

Mr. Horn: “Any others?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Any other questions for Mike? I have one for Mike. Mike, have you ever calculated the level of service in the year 2006 at the corner of Hamilton and Raleigh Road?”

Mr. Horn: “No sir, I have not”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Thank you. Anne, is there anything further from the applicant other than receiving questions? Further Council questions for anyone? Edith.”

Council Member Wiggins: “One for Ralph. Ralph, what are some considerations that would fall under, in the general welfare category?”

Mr. Karpinos: “I’d like to get back to you on that one…”

Council Member Wiggins: “O.K. Thank you.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Pat?”

Council Member Evans: “Yes. I have several questions, but I’m glad Chris is still here, because I was going to bring up the bicycle and pedestrian issue, too, because in our recommendations it has points where the bike lane, they say it needs to be six to eight feet away from the transit whatever. I think it really needs to be further away than that. This is a bike and pedestrian facility and I know that, you know, I bike recreationally not commuting-wise and I think sometimes commuters like to be closer to the road because it’s more direct, but recreational bikers prefer to have some kind of a buffer between them and the traffic and certainly walkers do. So where the pedestrian/bike lane comes up right close to the highway, I would be more comfortable if we could keep it a little further away. I’d also like to point out that in Recommendation A, Stipulation 5a, we require a bike lane between Finley Golf Course Road and Friday Center Lane, which then puts it, Julie, this was one of your questions, it puts it, it means that this applicant is required to build a bike lane in front of both of those University properties. That’s a requirement in Recommendation A.

“My other issue I have raised, in regard to the hotel, also, and it is in regard to reclaimed water. I don’t, if there is someone who has talked to OWASA, I know that reclaimed water is going to be used for irrigation of the new golf course, and I don’t know whether there will be adequate facilities, adequate supply to have it used further, but, and I don’t know whether you’re planning on having some irrigation of landscape but I think drip irrigation is better than the other kind, and it would be really nice if it was using reclaimed water. And I’d even go so far to have the issue of it being used within the building, also addressed. I’d appreciate that.

“Back to the pedestrian and bike—I can’t tell on the maps and maybe you can answer whether there’s a pedestrian connection between the two office buildings and the jogging path, for instance, because, and whether there’s a direct connection, so that people who work at the Friday Center or at meetings at the Friday Center, or work at the Principal’s Executive Program, or WUNC, can walk through here and make use of the underground corridor. You want to answer that question? That’d be great.”

Ms. Stoddard: “Can I go over to the model or should I speak from the podium? I know there’s some sensitivity about this.”

Council Member Evans: “Yeah, you’d better speak from the podium to get it on the record. Maybe you could just say, ‘Yes, there is a great pedestrian path there.’”

Ms. Stoddard: “Yes, we have, there’s a connection…the white line that you see along the back here is not our property line, it’s the UNC jogging track, and we do have a couple of little connections to that shown, and would intend to have connections into that.”

Council Member Evans: “The jogging track is on University property, right? Not on your property?”

Ms. Stoddard: “Not on my property. That’s correct.”

Council Member Evans: “So some of the trees on this model then are on University property.”

Ms. Stoddard: “That is correct. There is a sewer easement back along that back property line, so we felt like it was appropriate to show those trees just because they have been important in our discussions with the staff and the Town Forester, and also that they will still be there, they’re on a sewer easement.”

Council Member Evans: “I also can’t, because I didn’t see where the Friday Center building is in relation to this it seems it’s somewhere behind the second building, isn’t it?”

Ms. Stoddard: “Yes. The portion of the site that is behind the first building, the larger L-shape building, that’s the golf course. And the second building, there is a fair amount of land and then you come to the Friday Center. There is only very schematic stuff shown on the University’s plan for that area between our property line and the Friday Center. There is a fair amount of land there. So it doesn’t directly abut the Friday Center.

“Let me also just comment on the bike path. I don’t really feel strongly about where it ought to be. I really would sort of, you know, I’m totally open to working with the bicycle folks and whoever else has an interest to move that around if they would like to. I mean, it’s shown where it is because that’s where, I believe, it was shown on the Master Plan, but if that’s something that people would like to consider, I’m totally open to that.”

Council Member Evans: “Well, I don’t know when the Bike Committee’s going to, maybe Chris can tell us, when do you meet next, Chris.”

Mr. Van Hasselt: “We have to reform them first. That would be very good if you could.”

Council Member Evans: “Well, anyway. Other issues. The pond. Is there going to be aeration to prevent algae formation, I mean, how do you prevent algae formation. We haven’t had much water, and most of the ponds now are pretty bad.”

Mr. Ballentine: “That’s a design question that will be determined in the next phase.”

Council Member Evans: “But you plan to mitigate algae formation so that…is that one of the criteria for water quality?”

Mr. Ballentine: “Sure.”

Council Member Evans: “O.K. Thank you. And then, it seems to me that, and I didn’t find it in the stipulation that when Phase 2 is built we should have another connection. And is that part of the recommendation that...is it there? O.K. But not with Phase 1, is that correct. O.K. Thank you. And then Julie said something about storm drains that run under 54, you know, a lot of us have hiked this site several times. I don’t recall any except for maybe the cattle tunnel. Are there storm drains that run under 54, Bruce?”

Mr. Ballentine: “There are. Excuse me, I’m sorry. There’s a main storm crossing here, which drains the stormwater pond that’s located in the meadow, on the north side of 54. The Village Center is located here, this is the large meadow, and you’ll recall there’s a stand of trees here and this is….”

Council Member Evans: “These are future drains we’re talking about not existing ones.”

Mr. Ballentine: “Well, this is a future pond ….”

Council Member Evans: Right. And that’s a future storm drain.

Mr. Ballentine: “…Now, it’s just a drainageway that flows down to 54, where there’s a pipe under 54. And this stand of trees that is shown here is a stand of trees because it borders that little drainageway, so that when these were meadows on either side, those trees were removed, the ones along that stream remained. And this design takes that into account, where we have saved the existing trees in this location, that go along that little drainageway.”

Council Member Evans: “And my other question has to do with, you know, our long-term vision is to have either a rail line or some kind of connection between Durham and the University. And, of course, we’d proposed that it’ll come through Meadowmont, and I know that one of the proposals will probably be to run it up the back side of this site, and I don’t see an easement of any kind on your site taking that into account and I don’t know whether the plan for the golf course has taken that into account, but I don’t want us to approve development that will make it more difficult to do this.”

Mr. Ballentine: “The transit corridor crosses 54 and is on UNC land and it turns west and is actually on UNC property. That’s the way it’s shown on all the documents to date. So that it’s located ….”

Council Member Evans: “O.K. So we don’t need an easement from you, then.”

Mr. Ballentine: “Well, the location. You wouldn’t need one from this property because it crosses to the east, turns west and runs parallel to this property on further to the west. It’s all on UNC property at that point.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Further questions, Pat?”

Council Member Evans: “No, that is it. Thank you.”

Council Member Foy: “Yeah, for our staff. I wanted to know if we have an idea of what the UNC plans are for that whole area, the future development plan and especially for the parcel next to this one, between this and Friday Lane.”

Manager Horton: “We can bring material to you at your next consideration of it. It shows the UNC Development Plan for that area, to the extent that they have made known what they desire to do.”

Council Member Foy: “O.K. And also are there sidewalks proposed along the internal streets?”

Mr. Waldon: “Yes.”

Council Member Foy: “And is there a Resource Conservation District variance required in this permit?”

Mr. Waldon: “No.”

Council Member Foy: “I wanted to know, part of the information we have shows that all of the site is within the watershed protection district. I don’t know what the specific requirements are for that, and I don’t need to know right now, but, unless you want to.”

Mr. Ballentine: “All of this portion of Meadowmont is within the high-density option. And so that has a ceiling of fifty percent of impervious surface and requires retention ponds. What that means is that all the run-off from the parking lots and the buildings need to be captured and treated and that’s what these ponds are there for.”

Council Member Foy: “And then a question I have about the permit itself, on page 25. I’m interested in Stipulation #9 about ownership and responsibility of the common areas, and I wondered if, how this applies, or whether this applies, regarding an owners association. Well, anyway, I just wondered if this applies, because what I’m interested in is who has responsibility for maintenance of the meadows and what that responsibility is.”

Mr. Horton: “As I understand it, the Town would not be maintaining the meadows and an owners association would. Roger, you want to…how that works.”

Ms. Stoddard: “We will be forming an owners association that will cover this part of the property and it will be that owner’s association’s responsibility to maintain the ponds on this property, as well as the meadow. It will be the responsibility of the owner of both of these office buildings to do that.”

Council Member Foy: “So, it’s not going to be office condominiums.”

Ms. Stoddard: “No.”

Council Member Foy: “So the ownership of the office buildings, though, could be two separate…”

Ms. Stoddard: “It could. Which is why there’s an owners association being formed so that there’s a unity of interest in terms of the maintenance of that property.”

Council Member Foy: “O.K. Well, the last thing I want to say to the Council is that I think that the applicant should be allowed to have some way to talk to our Bicycle Task Force and I'd like to, I know the Task Force is not exactly constituted, but I think we should ask the Task Force to look at this and talk to the applicant so that they have some formal way of getting some input on bicycle concerns.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “I would totally agree with that, Kevin, and I would also agree with Pat, that the last thing we want to do, in my opinion, is put the bike paths right next to a major six- to nine-lane road, with that much traffic on it. I mean if you’re not hit by a truck, you’ll be asphyxiated by the fumes.”

Council Member Foy: “So can I move to refer this, at least informally, to our Bicycle Task Force for comment. Is that all right, Ralph?”

Mr. Karpinos: “I think that’d be fine. I that either now or at the time the matter is recessed to a date of certainty you could include that in the motion.”

Mr. Horton: “They’ve been a very agreeable group and I would expect that they’d be willing to take on this task.”

Council Member Evans: “Why don’t we do it now? It gives them more time.”

Council Member Foy: “Well, I move that we refer this to our Bicycle Task Force for information back to us as well as to work with the applicant on the design of the bicycle path.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “ Second. Any discussion on this motion?”

Attorney Karpinos: “We’re not recessing the hearing at this time.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “All we’re doing, as I understand it, all we are doing is referring the Special Use Permit application for the Office Complex to the Bicycle Committee to come back to us at the time, whenever it be, that we will reopen this public hearing. Is that right, Kevin?”

Council Member Foy: “Right.”

Mr. Horton: “Mr. Chairman, if there’d be no objection, I would recommend that we ask them to look at the hotel project as well, at the same time.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Are you happy with that, Kevin?”

Council Member Foy: “I am.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Then any more discussion on the amended motion. All in favor say Aye. Ayes. Opposed, No. It passes unanimously. Kevin, have you more questions?”

Council Member Foy: “Well, just one last question. The staff is recommending, it says eliminating 70 parking spaces under 6a. That the 70 parking spaces be eliminated, but it also says under Stipulation #2 that the permit authorize up to 951 parking spaces, so what’s the deal there? Are you recommending that they be moved or eliminated?”

Mr. Waldon: “What this pair of Recommendations says, we’ll take them together, is that, if you go to your first one you read on page 23, which is 6a, that the 70 parking spaces along the southern property line be eliminated, that they go away from that spot and then if you combine that with what you just read about the up to 951 parking spaces will be authorized by this permit, the implication is there is that they could be relocated somewhere else on the site. So I think that that's the way it would read right now, if it were adopted with language like this. Would leave open the door that those spots could be relocated somewhere else on the site.”

Council Member McClintock: “So that’s the way the Stipulation is now? O.K. Seventy have been taken away, but somewhere else they’ll be situated.”

Mr. Waldon: “But it says that those 70, not be there.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: (off mike) “…that Resolution A approved 951 spaces. Any more questions before I go? Julie.”

Council Member McClintock: “Yeah, I just had a couple just to finish off from my previous questions. On the bike plans I think what would be really useful, and I think that this should happen first, a conversation between the applicant and the Bike Committee, but would be really nice to have in mind exactly where these bike plans are going to be in these applications and how they link up with the existing bike plan that’s been presented by the Bicycle Committee. So all of us can have a map to look at, so we can see how this thing works. I’d also like to ask the staff to think about a transportation management plan that might be a little bit more demanding that what’s been proposed in the Special Use. And what I’m thinking about is something that would provide for a requirement in the Special Use for van-pooling or car-pooling. Something that would call for hours that would be counter-cyclical, in other words, not all traveling 54 just when everybody else is. The University has done this voluntarily as part of a plan. At one time we considered a transportation management plan for the whole town and then we kind of realized that some of the major employers were already doing it, like Blue Cross-Blue Shield and the University. But here we’ve got another little employment center here, it’s not as big as those, but it’s going to add appreciably to a major artery. So I’d like to ask for some ideas from the staff on that what would be reasonable to request.

“I’d also like to ask the staff how the development that you’re recommending here, the timing of it, interrelates to all the other pieces of this project. Because what I don’t want to happen is massive construction, and I understand this is going to be built over a period of years. Well, I want to understand what’s going to be built when. So that we don’t kind of run into a some, ’86 problem, where everything is being done at once. And it just makes an impossible traffic jam for a very long time for Chapel Hill commuters. So I know that perhaps you don’t have precise ideas on this, but I would like estimates on the basis of the latest information you have on the developer of the various pieces of this Meadowmont proposal.

“And then last, I would like to just come back to the water quality item and ask the staff to consider some alternative BMPs than that have been proposed, such as the bio-retention areas, reconstructed wet-lands, sand filters. And I don’t know which one is going to be the best for this particular proposal, but I would like you all to take a look at the North Carolina materials and see what might be done that would give us really a state-of-the-art project here. So that school kids could come and say. ‘Oh, this is a reconstructed wet-land, this works in this high-density development to control and treat run-off water, so that the water quality is improved in our water-shed supply.’ So I’d really like to see us do something really good there, and I would like the developer to consider that also.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Anything…Anne.”

Ms Stoddard: “I just wanted to submit for the record that the draft Transportation Management Plan that we had done earlier for the Transportation Board, and Ms. McClintock, I note in here that one of the elements of it is promotion of car-pooling and TTA ride-share. The owner will solicit and maintain a list of employees interested in car-pooling from among the businesses in these buildings. The list will be available to other interested employees for them to arrange car-pooling. I think there’s even more of an opportunity here than just talking about making it available within companies. I think here we’ve got a group of companies together, and we can, the owner and the manager, can serve as a clearing house for the whole group. So I understand your suggestion and we’ve acted on it.”

Council Member McClintock: “Thank you.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Thank you, Anne, and, Mr. Manager, I assume that that piece of evidence and the previous one, that was the letter from Tom Heffner, will be distributed to us quite soon.”

Mr. Horton: “Yes, sir. That is correct.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Good. Further questions? I have one, I have a few actually. My first one is to Mike Horn. Mike, when I was in fifth grade, I had a teacher named Miss Davis. Now I had a terrible crush on her, ‘cause she had red hair and she was a great softball player.”

Mr. Horn: “Mine was Miss Taylor.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Really? Now, but Miss Davis taught me some math, and I listened. And you confused me a while ago, when you said, and I’ll try to quote it accurately, so correct me if I’m wrong, that Highway 54 now has about 35,000 cars on it and Meadowmont will increase it by about twenty-four and one-half thousand.”

Mr. Horn: “The trip generation for Meadowmont is roughly about 24,500, correct. New cars.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “If I add those two numbers together I get 59.5 thousand cars, thank you, Miss Davis.”

Mr. Horn: “59,500. You’re very good.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “So, is that, that did not include back-ground growth on Highway 54 over the ten years, I think you were talking two percent per year?”

Mr. Horn: “The background growth that was used in the analysis worked out with the staff, taking into account Meadowmont, because in itself it is a development that is adding new traffic that a reasonable background growth, taking the Meadowmont into account was a two percent growth. That if you were not to take Meadowmont into account then that growth would be higher.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Therefore, if we add, we do add these three numbers together, the current 35,000, what I’m trying to come up with is what I think we concluded to be a 57,000-car figure, but now I’m confused. What will the total 2006 traffic on Raleigh Road be?”

Mr. Horn: “And let’s remember that Meadowmont has several entrances and exits out on to it. Barbee Chapel Road, Meadowmont Lane, and the Hilltop Collector. They’re going to go one of two directions, either to Chapel Hill, back into Town, or back out of Town. Not all 24,500 are going in one direction.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Is 57,000 the number you still stand on for a great estimate of what Raleigh Road will look like in the year 2006, if Meadowmont is constructed as proposed?”

Mr. Horn: “I think that was the highest volume. I tried to pick the highest link, you know, in from Burning Tree to Barbee Chapel, what was the highest link volume between all of these intersections and 57,000, I believe, was the number that we did come up with. Yes, sir.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Good. Thank you very much. I got to needle Josh. Josh, I love maps and I love models and I love architects. But if that’s a 57,000-car per day road, it looks to me like you’re about 56,995 cars short.

“I have a question for Roger. Roger Waldon. Roger, your recommendation to us is Resolution A, to approve this Special Use Permit.”

Mr. Waldon: “Preliminary recommendation, yes indeed.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “And that means you’re recommending that we make the finding that this Special Use Permit will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.”

Mr. Waldon: “We believe…our preliminary recommendation is that we believe that finding, you could make that finding.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “When you made your recommendation, how did you consider the safety of the school kids at Glenwood School?”

Mr. Waldon: “Well, as it has been pointed out tonight, the starting point for this is the presumption that the finding can be made. So the starting point is that the Master Plan has been approved by the Council and establishes the presumption that the finding can be made and so the purpose of this hearing is to for the Council to hear evidence. And so we’ll be listening, as you are, for evidence that would indicate that the finding shouldn’t be made.”

Mr. Horton: “We had no evidence before us at the time that we were considering this, that would have raised any question about Glenwood School in such a manner as to cause us to believe that the finding could not be made. Just what Roger is saying.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “O.K. So basically, in all of your analysis at least so far, Roger, you have not considered the safety of the kids at Glenwood School.”

Mr. Horton: “I would say it a little differently. I would say that we have not had anything presented to us prior to this evening that would have caused that question to be raised for consideration.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “O.K. Now let me turn to a different subject. When we were talking about the hotel, I had asked you to put up the two transparencies, one the Master Land Use Plan, and one the Special Use Permit, and talk about the differences between them. Could we run that process again for this Special Use Permit, please. And to review, you are saying that one site plan conforms to the Master Land Use Plan.”

Mr. Waldon: “Both the language is consistent. Is the…does the Special Use Permit Application propose a site plan, propose a Development Plan that is consistent with the Master Plan. And our preliminary recommendation to you is that you would find that it is consistent.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “O.K. And, in spite of the fact that the lake has been….one of the ponds has been substantially reduced in size…”

Mr. Waldon: “Yes.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “…and in spite of the fact that there seems to be more parking shown, especially on the west side of Building #2…”

Mr. Waldon: “Yes.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “…and in spite of the fact that as paragraph 14.i on circled page 59 of the Master Land Use Plan indicates…prohibits…the west-most parking lot extends north of the building. “

Mr. Waldon: “The west-most parking lot…”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “The western…you got it, that one, yes. O.K. that by paragraph 14.i of the Master Land Use Plan, on page 59, the parking areas for buildings along the highway corridor shall be at or behind the building line. This is exactly the same problem we faced at the hotel.”

Mr. Waldon: “Well, as we looked at this, and I guess the answer I’ll give you here is that is similar to the one I gave with the hotel. We looked at the elements and the components of the Master Plan and our first look was at the buffer, and to look to see if the buffer that was shown on the Master Plan is being respected and reflected in the Special Use Permit. It is. Buildings are in the same location, ponds are in the same location, although you’re correct this pond is smaller in surface area than that pond is. And I would suggest to you that the fact that the pond, that this pond is smaller in surface area than that pond, does not mean that that is not consistent, that this plan is not consistent with that plan. Again, as I mentioned before, I don’t believe that the…that identical is the test, but that consistent, all of the site elements are in the same locations that they are and that these two sketches are very, very similar. And so we believe that the findings could be made that it is consistent. So is your suggestion about this parking area that because the bay is further north than the corner of the building, is that…?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Yeah, in this case, it’s not as significant, it’s not as substantial as it was in the case of the hotel, but it exists, nonetheless.

“Let us turn to…I want now to turn to the correspondence between the Special Use Permit Application and the Entranceway Guidelines. O.K. And I believe early in your presentation, Anne, you said that one of your four challenges to your architects was to meet those guidelines, is that correct? Now, Roger, in our packet on page…starting on circled page 84 in our packet, and correct me if there’s something wrong, but these are excerpts from the Council-adopted east Entranceway Plan. Circled page 84 of our packet. Please turn to page 85. And there’s a half a dozen of these excerpts that, as I read them, they absolutely do not begin to match. So let’s go through them. Let’s start with the third one on page 85. It says, “include office and retail located within a quarter mile of most dwellings in a neighborhood area.” Now, if you can put a lower-scale map on this that will show, maybe the Master Land Use Plan. Quarter of a mile is 1,320 feet, thank you, Miss Davis, that will barely take you up to any housing at all.”

Mr. Waldon: “From the office building.”

Mr. Horton: “Council Member, I think a comment on comparison would be in the next paragraph, where we comment on the overall application of that standard. Our comment was intended to be about the overall comparison. I understand your comment as well.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “All right. Well, then now, let’s go down to the next one. Two- to three-story building, we’re talking about office and retail buildings, two- to three-story buildings with living units on the top floors. How does a 150,000 square foot four-story office building match “two- to three-stories” with living units on their top.”

Mr. Horton: “I believe that was listed by saying, “for example” and there are such examples in the Village Center.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “O.K. The next one is harder. Limit the office and retail components to accommodate primarily the neighborhood needs. Now as….”

Mr. Horton: “And that was debated by the Council, and rightfully so.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Would you please explain to us, Roger, how a 951-space parking lot is needed to accommodate the neighborhood needs?”

Mr. Horton: “That was debated by the Council and we accept the Council’s decision, in that regard, and we don’t have any further comment to offer about it.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Go over to page 86, please. The fourth one: The nature of the business should appeal to pedestrian traffic. Roger, how does 951 parking spaces appeal to pedestrian traffic?”

Mr. Horton: “Mr. Mayor, again, this comment was intended to apply to the entire Master Land Use Plan, not to this particular segment.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Now, I understand that.”

Mr. Horton: “And I understand your comment as well.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Are you saying that this segment is not part of the Master Land Use Plan?

Mr. Horton: “What I’m saying is that the comments that we have made on this in the document that you’re referring to were intended to comment on the entire Master Land Use Plan. That’s all. I understand your comment, though.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “And I guess I can only counter by saying, of which this is a substantial compound.”

Mr. Horton: “Yes, sir.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Indeed, it is approximately one-third of it’s non-residential space.”

Mr. Horton: “And I would not argue to the contrary to that.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Ralph, could you either answer this now or answer it when we return, in writing. What leverage do we have to require an applicant to build an overpass for pedestrians at Hamilton Road? If, for example we could make a link between increased traffic at Hamilton Road, at the corner of Hamilton and Raleigh Roads, and this Special Use Permit Application? Or would you like to answer that now?”

Mr. Karpinos: “I’ll comment later.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Later. O.K. “

Mr. Horton: “Is that an issue you would like for us to pursue with the applicant?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Absolutely.”

Council Member Wiggins: “I’d support that because I had wondered about that myself.”

Council Member Foy: “May I comment on that? If you are going to pursue that I’m not sure that it necessarily has to involve an overpass, there are other ways to potentially deal with that.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Let me broaden my request to say ‘mitigating the increased traffic’ on the school kid’s safety and the safety of other pedestrians who must be able to cross Raleigh Road in the Hamilton Road area.

“I’m trying to eliminate the ones I can just write. When, Ralph or Roger, when we wrote a provision in the Special Use Permit for the infrastructure that said there would be no construction traffic on the neighborhood streets, does that apply to the Special Use Permits on the south side of Raleigh Road?

Mr. Waldon: “To the extent that any of the, some of the infrastructure work. I think it’s cross-referenced here, I guess Highway 54 improvements. But in terms of the application to these buildings area that’s, for which this Special Use Permit is the first Special Use Permit authorizing work, no, it wouldn’t.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Then I would like to request the staff to return with a condition of the Special Use Permit prohibiting construction traffic due to, actually both of the Special Use Permits on the south side of Raleigh Road, for construction traffic on all those neighborhood roads except, of course, for Raleigh Road.”

Mr. Karpinos: “Let me just follow up something Roger said. I’m not as sure as he is about what happened. The other thing I want to point out is that there may have been, and I just need to look at the document, there may have been terms of the settlement agreement in the law suit that established some terms for the construction traffic. We were not part of that settlement agreement. I need to check that as well. So I don’t want anything that was said this evening to suggest that there’s a possibility of construction traffic if there isn’t. I just want to check the record and be clear on that. If people are concerned about that.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Roger, do we have, a while ago I asked Mike if he had done a calculation for the year 2006 of the intersection of Hamilton and Raleigh Roads. And he said no. Have we ever done that? And if not, could we do it by the time this thing comes back to us.”

Mr. Waldon: “I’m not aware of a 2006 analysis that’s been done for that intersection. Maybe there has, I’m just not aware of one.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Then I would like to ask that we have that information in order to help make our decision about this.

“And believe it or not, my final question has, is actually for the applicant and, I guess, probably for Bruce Ballentine. Bruce, if you’re not the right person to ask about parking space numbers, direct me to the right person, please. On page 2 of the Preliminary Site Plan you describe the parking spaces and you include cars parked on the surface and cars parked in decks.”

Mr. Ballentine: “What are you looking at?”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “I’m looking at the big page 2 of the site plan. Cars parked in a two-level deck, the top floor of that deck is really like surface parking, rain falls on them, sun shines on them, they suffer from the same urban heating that a black asphalt surface parking lot suffers from.”

Mr. Ballentine: “…like surface parking, but one of them is, if you eliminated the deck you would still have one level of parking on the ground.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Now, I understand that. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but you have 645 cars parked on the top level of something, either literally on the ground or on the top of a deck. Surface - 91, surface Phase One, Deck Upper Level - 86, Deck Upper Level Parking B - 155, Surface - 247—add them up—total is 645.”

Mr. Ballentine: “That’s approximately right.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “If I did my math right, it’s exactly right. Now, so in effect, I like to contrast parking lots to Lowes, because we know Lowes and that’s 700 parking spaces. So this is 645 surface parking spaces, by the definition of “visible from above” spaces.”

Mr. Ballentine: “Keep in mind that Lowes has all the parking constructed for two buildings.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Still 700 spaces.”

Mr. Ballentine: “No, I understand that. There’s a second building that is to be built on that site and that’s why there is additional parking space.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “True, but it’s still 700 spaces and Lowes’ site is twenty-one acres. Your site is 21.8 acres, so it’s the same size as Lowes. And the Lowes building is 130,000 square feet. And you’re proposing 225,000 square feet. What I’m trying to do is visualize what we’ve got here by parking and building size, and this is 225,000 square feet of building in contrast to 130,000 for Lowes, and 645 parking spaces in contrast to 700.”

Mr. Ballentine: “I don’t think there’s any comparison to Lowes parking lot and what we’re going to have on this site. This, what is going to be constructed on this office park, the best visualization you can have is this photograph, this picture, or the model. And you never see all that parking in one space like you do in that Lowes lot, that is one big parking lot. This is about five or six separate lots that are interconnected with the drive.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Bruce, does rain fall on 645 parking spaces on that project?”

Mr. Ballentine: “Approximately.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Thank you. Is it 225,000 square feet?”

Mr. Ballentine: “Yes.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Thank you. I have no more questions. Are there any further questions? Or any comments from the audience.”

Council Member McClintock: “Lee hasn’t said anything.”

Council Member Pavão: “I have nothing to say.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “I would be happy to entertain a motion to recess the public hearing to, the Manager is suggesting January 11, are you still happy with that, Cal?”

Mr. Horton: “Yes, sir.”

Council Member Pavão: “So moved.”

Council Member Evans: “Second.”

Mayor pro tem Capowski: “Any discussion on this? All in favor to recess the public hearing until January 11, say Aye please. Opposed. It carries unanimously.”

Council Member Pavão: “Move to adjourn.”

Council Member Evans: “Second.”

By a unanimous vote the meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m.

The minutes of November 4, 1998 were adopted on the 11^th day of January, 1999.

__________________________________________

Joyce A. Smith, CMC

Town Clerk