The Mayor announced the Council would be going into closed session to discuss a property matter after the public hearing adjourns.

Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, explained the special use modification for UNC Park and Ride Lot at Chapel Hill Bible Church.  She said the request is to modify the existing permit.  She said the University is proposing to lease 241 existing parking spaces from the Bible Church for use by University employees.  The new express bus route to serve the proposed park and ride lot will approach on Old Sterling Drive and pick up passengers on the east side of the entry drive of the church, she explained.  Minor changes are proposed to the site which includes signage to identify the parking spaces and a new bus shelter, she added. 

Ms. Culpepper said the Town is recommending that a bus pull-off and pavement markings be added at Old Sterling and Sage Roads.  The Town is recommending approval of the application as stated in Resolution A, Ms. Culpepper said noting a correction in the memorandum that the traffic signal at the Sage Road and Erwin Road intersection is scheduled to be installed in January 2007 not January 2008. 

Mary Jane Felgenhauer, with the University?s Facilities Planning Department, speaking on behalf of the University, said the Town and the University have been searching for a park and ride lot in the 15-501 corridor for several years. When the church relocated to this site, it became a good opportunity to provide parking spaces for University employees and will not conflict with church activities, she explained.  The University has had conversations with neighborhoods, including Presque Isle, Providence Glen, Notting Hill and Walden at Greenfields, she said.  There are no significant site changes and the University is not requesting waivers to the zoning for the site, Ms. Felgenhauer said.  They have included the recommendations of several advisory boards to add bike racks, additional lighting and an additional crosswalk and proposed a new bus shelter at an existing stop with signage, she added. 

Chapel Hill Transit will develop an existing route beginning on 15-501 turning on Eastowne, following Old Sterling then left on Sage Road and returning on 15-501, Ms. Felgenhauer said. Approximately 27 percent of University employees live in the northern 15-501 corridor, she added.

The University?s Public Safety Office will issue permits to faculty and staff on a first come, first serve basis, she explained.  The permits will be used from 6 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday.  She said there will be no weekend or special event use as agreed with the church.  A traffic impact analysis indicates there will be no significant traffic impact generated with this use and this report was shared with the neighbors, she said. 

There will be a larger shelter at the existing bus stop and bike racks and the University will work with Chapel Hill Transportation staff on the location of the bus stop, Ms. Felgenhauer said.

Ms. Felgenhauer gave a PowerPoint presentation showing the existing transit lines and proposed bus shelters.  There will be signage in the parking lot, specific stripping for parking spaces and public safety, will provide enforcements and safety for users, she said.

She said the neighbors have concerns about people parking on residential streets and will walk to the bus stop.  Ms. Felgenhauer suggested that no parking signs may be a solution if it becomes a problem.

Ms. Felgenhauer agrees with Resolution A, but not with stipulation 2, which proposes a limit of five years on the lease.  The University prefers a lease that states the park and ride lot be for the duration of an agreement with the church and the University, she explained. The University has no objections to other recommendations to the staff report, she said.

She requested that if the operation is approved that express transit service be permitted to begin in January and the University would install new shelters. 

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked for clarification regarding the five-year limit on use. 

Ms. Felgenhauer explained that as the lease reads now there is a five-year lease renewable each year within the five years.  The University and the Church would prefer a lease for the duration of the park and ride lot, she said.

Council Member Greene asked if the University had talked to other property owners in the corridor regarding a park and ride lot.

Ms. Felgenhauer stated that the University did look at other areas in the corridor including undeveloped land and places currently held by private shopping centers.

Derek Poarch, Chief of Public Safety at the University said they have looked in the Durham and New Hope area and a number of different parcels along 15-501 in Chapel Hill.  Parcels smaller than an acre were priced at one-half million dollars or greater, he said.  The University will continue to look regularly along the corridor for future use of a park and ride lot and the University does not view the park and ride at the church as a long term, he explained.

Chief Poarch said there may be a possibility that the University may have to use the church lot longer than five years but it may be shorter under five years. They are hoping to find something within the 5 years, he said.  Chief Poarch said that if the park and ride does not work out for the church and it becomes a problem, the University will stop using the lot.

Council Member Ward asked for clarification on the five-year lease.

Ms. Felgenhauer explained that the lease is written for five years and renewable every year within that five years with a maximum of five years.  The University is asking that the lease be the duration of the agreement between the University and the church, she said. 

Mayor Foy asked the Town Attorney if he could propose some language for the lease.

The Attorney said he needed to look at the lease and had some concerns about linking a special use permit to a private agreement between two private parties.  He will report back to the Council with a recommendation, he said.

Harvey Krasny said he is opposed to the park and ride lot and the University should approach other shopping centers such as New Hope Commons or Patterson Place where infrastructure is already in place with accessibility and proper lighting.  He said Wilson Place and Dobbins Hill developments are being built across from the Chapel Hill Bible Church will add an extra 241 cars going to the park and ride lot.

George Cianciolo, a member of the Planning Board, said the Board approved this project unanimously.  He said he believes that this project is an excellent dual use of impervious surface.  He agrees with Dr. Krasny that the University should continue to look for other property but feels that it should be in addition to the existing park and ride lot at Chapel Hill Bible Church, he said. 

Kevin Hewison with Presque Isle Villas voiced concerns about changing the neighborhood and the impact of traffic.  He suggested that if the project is approved the Council needs to impress upon the University to look for other locations and limit the lease to three years instead of five to make sure the University is actively pursuing other options, he said. 

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked why there will not be a call box put on the lot.

Chief Poarch said that traditionally they do not put a call box on private property.  It would need to be decided whether it would call Chapel Hill Police or University Public Safety and who would respond, he explained.  With the operating hours of 6 am to 6 pm the University felt there was not a need for a call box, he said.

Council Member Harrison said that 15-501 was not in the traffic impact analysis.  He stated that he had looked into the potential use of Patterson Place through contacting the current owner, Mike Waldroup, and referring him to Caroulyn Efland. He had been informed by Mr. Waldroup that the tract of land he was inquiring about is still considered to be included in the site of a future interchange site on 15-501 and that one of the major land holders is the Department of Transportation, he said. 

Carolyn Elfland said she had met with Mike Waldroup and learned there is a tract of land, most of which belongs to the interchange, and a sliver of land which is owned by a private party.  She said the University pursued the idea of trying to acquire the property, with the idea that the University could use part of it for a park and ride lot and that the private owner could use some of it for the development.  She had talked with the Department of Transportation and they felt that it was too early to acquire the property because there are a number of years before it may be used. Therefore, the Department of Transportation is not interested in pursuing this at this time, she explained.

Mayor Foy asked exactly where this parcel of land was in relation to Patterson Place, and if it were northeast of the I-40/15-501 interchange.

Ms. Elfland said that was correct, and that the location was at the edge of Patterson Place, on the right heading into Durham.

Mayor pro tem Strom said he would like some issues addressed when this comes back to the Council.  He questions whether there is adequate lighting between the bus stop and parking lot and wanted to know how the pedestrian traffic was going to work and what will the intersection of Sage Road look like.  He said the Traffic Impact Analysis has listed a few intersections that will improve. He said 15-501 and Sage and Old Durham Roads will improve if built out and Cole Ridge Drive at Sage and Old Sterling Roads would also improve if built out.  He would like to have an explanation of this when this item comes back, said Mayor pro tem Strom.

Council Member Ward said he liked a citizen?s suggestion of restricting the use of this lot to employees who live in the northeast corridor.

Carolyn Elfland stated that the University can control this through permit distribution.

Council Member Ward asked about the capacity of the bus shelters at other park and ride lots versus what is planned for this lot.  He feels that the shelter should be built at a larger capacity, he said.

Chief Poarch said the shelter on Old Sterling Road is small and they are working with the Town on getting a larger one. 

Council Member Ward stated that he hoped the shelter?s capacity would be a number that everyone feels comfortable with.  He asked if the traffic light on Sage and Erwin Roads will have pedestrian signals and if there are bicycle loops.

Kumar Neppalli, Traffic Engineer for the Town, stated the traffic signal installed in January does include a crosswalk on one side of Erwin Road and also a crossing on Sage Road.  He said the new traffic signal will be coordinated with the existing signal on Weaver Dairy Road.  He will contact the Department of Transportation regarding bicycle loops, he said.

Mayor Foy asked about a crosswalk on the south side.

Mr. Neppalli stated that the Department of Transportation will not install crosswalks where there are no existing sidewalk connections. 

Council Member Ward asked about the anticipated pedestrian activity associated with the park and ride lot.  He said there is only one crossing at Sage and Erwin Roads, which seems inadequate.

Mr. Neppalli stated that he requested a crosswalk on Erwin Road and he does not believe there will be an increase in pedestrian activity. He does agree that pedestrian activity will increase crossing Sage at Old Sterling Road and he will investigate the possibility of installing a crosswalk and a pedestrian refuge island on Sage at Old Sterling, he said.  Pedestrian warning signs will be installed on Sage on both sides, one between Erwin and Old Sterling and  between Old Sterling Road and Lowe?s Home Improvement, he explained. The Town is looking into traffic calming options for Old Sterling Road, he said.

Council Member Ward inquired about bike lanes on Old Sterling.

Mr. Neppalli felt they could establish bike lanes on Old Sterling Road and will do this through maintenance funds. They will not need to attach it to the special use permit, he said.

Council Member Ward asked to consider narrowing car lanes and giving bike lanes five feet.

Mr. Neppalli responded that this could be done.

Council Member Ward asked how confident the Town was with the installation of the traffic light?

Mr. Neppalli stated that it is approved and it is number 3 on the project list of safety improvements with the Department of Transportation.  He said he can not assure that it is not going to change but it is planned for January and normally construction takes three weeks to install the signal.

Council Member Ward feels the traffic signal should be in place before the park and ride lot begins operation. 

Council Member Ward asked will there be Chapel Hill Transit routing changes in regards to the park and ride lot?

Steve Spade, Transportation Director said the D route runs ever 20 minutes during rush hour and 40 minutes during mid day and this will continue.  The D route makes pick-ups on a regular basis. 

Council Member Harrison said Eastowne Drive was not in the Traffic Impact Analysis and wanted to know why.

Mr. Neppalli stated that the Council in 2001 approved guidelines on preparing traffic impact analysis and the guidelines specifically addresses boundaries.  The Town?s consultants followed these guidelines to be consistent in preparing reports, he said.  The analysis was based on traffic on Sage Road and 15-501 traffic intersection and examined worst conditions, he explained.  He said that he would be glad to get the information concerning Eastowne Drive and have it available at the next meeting. 

Council Member Easthom asked to have the Town consultants look at Eastowne Drive and come back with another traffic impact analysis. 

Council Member Greene asked the University to work on putting in a call box and said she felt it is very important to have one on the lot.

Chief Poarch stated that they would explore all the options on providing a call box and have the information for the next meeting.

Council Member Greene said the citizens mentioned the request about a user ticket system and wanted the University?s thoughts.

Ms. Felgenhauer said they did look into a user ticket system, but since the Town has fare-free transit they wanted citizens from the neighborhoods to be able to ride the bus to campus and not have to worry about where to get a ticket.  The express bus would not be restricted for park and ride users only, she said.

Council Member Greene expressed concerns about monitoring the cars in the lot.

Chief Poarch stated that the University will have a parking monitor there for several hours during the day and especially during peak hours.  There will be hang tags on each car to park there and if the vehicle does not have a hang tag they will be given a warning ticket. If it happens again they will be towed and it will be enforced every day, he said. 

Council Member Greene asked about environmental concerns regarding run off to the nearby RCD.

Ms. Felgenhauer stated the University felt these are approved and existing parking spaces and they are using the spaces as they were designed and approved from the previous permit.

Council Member Greene asked the staff to go back and find all the correspondence regarding this special use permit and try to find answers for the citizens that have concerns before a decision is made.

Council Member Ward asked about additional demand on the Town?s Police Department to monitor and enforce inappropriate parking in this area.  He feels that if the special use permit is approved it would be appropriate for the University to come back in the future to report to the community to let people know how things are working and how they have dealt with problems, he said.  He asked the staff to include this is a stipulation. 

Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Recess the Public Hearing    THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Gene Poveromo introduced a proposal to modify the 2001 UNC Development Plan.  Modification #3 proposes to add 1.2 million square feet of floor area to main campus.  Mr. Poveromo made reference to a table that is attached to the Council?s memorandum and explained that it outlined the floor area from the main campus before the Development Plan as well as floor areas that were proposed and approved with subsequent modifications.

Mr. Poveromo noted that the LUMO requires the Planning Bard to make a recommendation to the Town Council.  The Planning Board was expected to review and would likely forward a recommendation at their November 21 meeting, he said.  Mr. Poveromo explained that the recommendation would come to the Council as part of this item on December 4.  

Mr. Poveromo said that UNC had made a presentation to the Transportation Board, the Community Design Commission, the Historic District Commission, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.  Their comments were attached to this item, he said.  

Bruce Runberg, UNC, presented an overview of the projects included in Development Plan Modification #3.  He introduced members of the UNC team who were present.  Mr. Runberg said that this was the first modification since the revisions to the OI-4 zoning text, adding that the modifications had been broadly reviewed by the public and others, including the committees that Mr. Poveromo had mentioned.  He noted that the plan included improvements beyond the buildings themselves, such as landscape, streetscape, and pedestrian safety improvements.

Mr. Runberg mentioned energy savings initiatives included in the plan as well as a reclaimed water tower and system developed in cooperation with OWASA.  He said that UNC continues to pursue sustainable design efforts on campus and that 11 planning professionals had recently received their LEED accreditation, through national testing. 

Anna Wu, UNC, discussed the original Development Plan which was approved in 2001, and its subsequent modifications.  She noted several of the resulting positive changes on campus.   Ms. Wu said that the proposed modifications included the highest priority projects from UNC?s planning and funding process. 

Ms. Wu presented a drawing showing the location of projects in Modification #3, including Dental Sciences Building A-14, which would redevelop the site currently occupied by the Dental Research and Dental Office Building and require 175,000 additional square feet.  She described the UNC Imaging Center, which would be 330 square feet, the reclaimed water tank, and a new 200,000 square-foot building for the School of Information and Library Sciences. 

Mayor Foy ascertained from Ms. Wu that there was no accompanying parking if she did not mention it.  She said that parking would be highlighted in a later presentation.

Ms. Wu outlined a proposal to redevelop Davie Hall and replace it with a building of comparable square footage and shift the footprint to restore the streetscape and pedestrian connections.  She proposed to develop a structured parking deck to accommodate 231 spaces on the Ram Village site.  

Ms. Wu said that the Development Plan had approved 1,579 new parking spaces on campus in structured parking decks.  She said that the major change in Modification #3 is to break apart the 1,600 spaces that were approved in the Bell Tower lot and to relocate 890 to an expanded Craige Deck, thus eliminating the need for a new road near the Bell Tower Deck. 

Ms. Wu said that UNC had submitted a full traffic impact analysis with its application and had subsequently conducted additional traffic impact analyses, which have been submitted to the Town and reviewed by Town staff. 

Ms. Wu went over a series of revisions to the Bell Tower area, including a proposal to build A5 in a different location than had been proposed in Modification #2.  She requested a reconfiguration of footprints R1, R2 and R3, with no increase in square footage, and noted A 21, a new building in the area that would add 80,000 square feet.    

Ms. Wu discussed a proposal for a new Medical Office Building, which includes 180,000 square feet for faculty offices.  She noted a proposed a 12,000 square-foot addition to the Alumni Center on the southernmost wing.  Ms. Wu discussed proposed improvements to Boshamer Stadium, a 25,000 square-foot increase in area that would include expansion to the concourse, facilities for concessions and tickets, improved team facilities, and streetscape improvements.  Ms. Wu said that UNC had met with neighbors on October 23 and had heard positive comments about the planned pedestrian improvements. 

Ms. Wu described projects for two additions to Kenan Stadium, including 8,800 new seats and approximately 125,000 square feet of improvements.  She said that UNC had an existing approved project for the Arts Common, and the site development permit for phase 1 had been approved.  With regard to phase 2, said Ms. Wu, they need to clarify the language regarding the peak height of the main building, and she suggested some wording.

Loren Hintz, of 804 Kings Mill Road, remarked that the UNC plan included a number of great projects, and that UNC officials had spoken about their efforts to promote pedestrian safety, erosion control, and cycling through campus.  He said that it was not clear to him where the bike routes would go through campus, especially with the new construction.  Mr. Hintz expressed concern about the construction on Mason Farm Road and on Manning Drive, noting that curb cuts and sidewalks had not been installed after past construction.   He recommended that the Town require stipulations, in particular regarding sidewalks on both sides of Mason Farm Road and Manning Drive, and retrofit curb cuts on all current sidewalks.  Mr. Hintz expressed concern about an increase of traffic associated with new parking decks on Manning Drive, adding that additional improvements to southern edge of campus is the only way to make this tolerable.  He urged the Council to approve Plan modification #3 with stipulations, especially those that would incorporate the recommendations of the Fordham Boulevard Safety Workgroup and other recommendations that would be heard tonight.    

Thomas Henkle, an independent sustainable energy consultant, expressed regret that UNC?s submission had not mentioned the Carbon Reduction program.  He said he was glad to hear, however, that at least one building would have a 40 percent reduction in energy use compared to similar buildings on campus.  Mr. Henkle pointed out that the failure to design energy efficient buildings can have a negative impact on public health. 

Mr. Henkle said that the American Institute of Architects (AIA) had recently issued a policy statement calling for all new building construction in the US to achieve a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions 2010.  It also called on them to design buildings to be renewable energy ready so that they will make increasing use of clean renewable energy systems and be carbon neutral by 2020, he said.  Mr. Henkle stated that this could be achieved through usual energy efficient measures with some passive solar design.  However, in order to be carbon neutral by 2020, building will have to include integrated renewable energy systems, such as solar pv and solar thermal, he said.  Mr. Henkle urged Council members to stipulate that UNC adhere to new AIA guidelines for its new construction.

Ms. Wu outlined a proposed 15,000 square-foot addition to the east wing of the Carolina Inn and a plan to renovate Whitehead for use as additional suites for the Inn.  She said that the Historic District Commission had reviewed and recommended this as an appropriate use in the historic district.    

Ms. Wu discussed a 50,000 square-foot addition to the Law School, which is in the perimeter transition area.  This would include pedestrian improvements such as a sidewalk along Ridge Road, she said.  Ms. Wu remarked that there had been positive comments from the neighborhood regarding this project. 

Ms. Wu said that the 48,000 square-foot William Hubbard Grounds Facility was also a perimeter transition area project and that UNC believes it can shift the building to increase the buffer, as was recommended in the staff memo.    

Ms. Wu displayed a Streetscape Improvements and Pedestrian Safety Map, showing campus projects that are either completed, in process, or under study.  She said the University had developed off-campus mitigations in the community, and she displayed a map showing where UNC had designed and funded traffic-calming measures.  Ms. Wu noted that UNC had installed signal timing improvements, new signalization at intersections, improved intersections, and improved pedestrian crossings.  Ms. Wu said that UNC also partners with Chapel Hill Transit to fund the fare free transit system and continues to work on park and ride locations around the community.

Andrea Rohrbacher, representing the Orange-Chatham Sierra Club, requested that, given the recommended air quality ratings and the current traffic volume, the Council deny UNC?s request to add 990 spaces to the Craige Deck.  She said that the consolidation of spaces from other areas into this single site would have negative environmental impacts on traffic congestion and air pollution, and was not aligned with the University?s commitment to reduce carbon emissions.  She expressed concern about the intensity of traffic impacts associated with events at the Smith Center, especially the simultaneous departure of cars from at the end of events and the idling traffic on Manning Drive.  Ms. Rohrbacher also asked for installation of sidewalks and ADA curb-cuts along streets where construction would occur and on or near streets where increased traffic would occur.  She said that bus pull-out lanes and shelters should be provided, and asked that the Council require bike paths and building footprints to be set back from street to allow shade trees, protection of trees during construction, and the removal of plants and invasive species from wooded areas of campus.

Diana Steele said she had thought the central campus was already built out.  That was the reason for the big push to build another campus on the Horace Williams property, she said.  Ms. Steele described UNC?s plan as a huge amount of building construction in addition to the already-approved and already-existing central campus. 

Ms. Steele said that OI-4 zoning did not provide enough time to adequately assess and address the ramifications of this much construction.  She said the Town needed time to put safeguards in place to ensure that new construction promotes public health, safety and general welfare, and complies with the neighborhood and Town protections described in the Town?s 2000 Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Steele read Sections Two and Three of the Comprehensive Plan.  She said these sections were particularly relevant to her request that the Council delay their vote until new and creative responses could be developed to offset the potential adverse impacts of this plan.

Joyce Brown recalled a time 15 years ago when there was little traffic on South Columbia Street and when Chapel Hill had voted against widening it.  She said that traffic there now was bumper-to-bumper at peak hours, but she thinks the decision not to widen the road was correct.   Ms. Brown said that many Chapel Hill neighborhoods had become daytime parking lots for UNC.  She asked the Council to develop an effective traffic management reduction plan.  With regard to energy, Ms. Brown reviewed comments that UNC officials had made in recent years regarding fuel consumption.  She asked for estimates from UNC about how the proposed modification would affect those plans, and how it would affect the carbon reduction program.  Ms. Brown expressed concern about the power plant, saying there was a need to build so that UNC uses less rather than more coal.  She said it was especially important for the Council to bring in outside energy experts.  Ms. Brown noted that UNC had said it needed Carolina North because it had just about reached the limits of its growth on campus.  How can they say that and yet continue such massive building on central campus and admit that the master plan won?t be built-out for years, she asked.

Pete McDowell, Program Director at NC Warn, pointed out that whenever there is fundamental change there are organizations and institutions that are slow to assess the importance and implications of that change.  He said now was the beginning of a new kind of an era, which would require terribly urgent changes in priorities with regard to climate change.  Every decision that impacts energy use and greenhouse gas emission has to be held up to a new standard, Mr. McDowell said.  He urged UNC to take on the challenge of sustainability, which he said was a matter of institutional and political will.  Noting that Chapel Hill was one of the most environmentally progressive towns in the country, Mr. McDowell pointed out that the Town had not yet found a way to integrate energy sustainability into its zoning and development review process.  He urged the Council to commit the Town to a thorough review of this proposal with regard to energy sustainability.  Mr. McDowell also recommended hiring an independent outside expert to help with that review.  He urged UNC to voluntarily commit itself to cooperating with the Town toward the end of building UNC for excellence in the 21st century?s most important environmental priority.  The proposal should not go forward as is, Mr. McDowell said.    

Allison Carpenter, representing Students United for a Responsible Global Environment, asked the Council to look at communities, both within the US and abroad, that have dealt with such issues in creative ways and assess those that could serve as a model for Chapel Hill.  She praised the Council and UNC for joining the carbon reduction program, but asked for a more detailed set of objectives for approaching those milestones.  Ms. Carpenter said that UNC?s plan for a million square feet would be an opportune time to initiate such measures immediately and to begin to work toward the 60 percent carbon reduction goal for 2050.  She requested that green construction standards be applied and that a panel of experts be consulted to review the plans.  Prior to approval of the proposed modification, there should be specific Town proposals in place to address the transportation and energy concerns that had been raised tonight, Ms. Carpenter said.

Elaine Barney, a Westwood neighborhood resident, stated her and her husband?s full support for the proposals to delay approval of UNC?s modification #3 until the necessary safeguards are in place to deal with the anticipated increase in traffic.  She expressed their support for the carbon reduction plan for new buildings. 

Joseph Lewis said he was present on behalf of UNC to answer questions.

Betsy Malpass, of Woodbine Drive, spoke to reinforce the main concerns that had been expressed tonight, including increased traffic, increased carbon emissions, and run off, particularly silt.  She said that modification #3 was an opportunity for UNC and the Town to solve one of the Town?s most dangerous intersection problems, at Fordham Boulevard and Manning Drive, and to plan for safe bicycle and pedestrian routes through campus that will connect with other greenways. 

Ms. Malpass noted that issues of travel, transportation and air quality affect the entire town.  She pointed out that land use on campus affects the land off campus, noting the predicted increase in impervious surface of Morgan Creek after modification #3.  Ms. Malpass said that the 25 percent drop in woodland acreage on this watershed was frightening to her.  She argued for strong stipulations to modification #3 for controlling and cleaning-up silt that escapes the campus.   

Council Member Ward commented that the Town could plead ignorance in the past about the need to design buildings in more efficient ways.  However, now the Town has the information and a future before it that makes it incumbent upon everyone to do things differently, he said.  Council Member Ward agreed with citizens? comments relating to energy.  He said that reclaimed water needed to be part of the projects and that they should follow AIA guidelines for new construction.  Council Member Ward emphasized that these one million square feet of buildings might exist for hundreds of years.  It would be inexcusable for the Town and UNC not to do their very best, he said.   

Since UNC and the Town have signed on to the carbon reduction program, they should not miss the opportunity to include that here, said Council Member Ward.  He encouraged UNC to be a leader in high-performing buildings. Council Member Ward questioned the logic in a letter from UNC, which stated that traffic would not increase since they were not adding parking spaces.  Concentrating them more along Manning Drive had lead him to believe that traffic impacts in the area would increase, he said.  Council Member Ward agreed with citizens that approval of this modification must hinge, in part, on mitigating the decrease in pedestrian and bike safety and connectivity along Manning Drive.  He said that the Fordham Boulevard Safety Committee had recently laid out some rational and appropriate safety measures, and he asked that the University look at those recommendations.  

Mayor Foy, noting that there would be a later response from UNC to the theme of energy efficiency and the AIA guidelines, asked if UNC officials wanted to comment tonight. 

Ms. Wu emphasized that, with the exception of Genomic Sciences and Dental Sciences, the buildings included in modification #3 had not yet been designed.  She said they had incorporated energy and daylight modeling in the projects they already had designed.  Ms. Wu stressed that UNC was committed to ramping up the energy efficiency of its buildings.  She said UNC would also continue its commitment to streetscape, pedestrian safety improvements, and the other improvements that she had outlined.

Ms. Wu explained that UNC intended to build a pedestrian bridge across Manning Drive that would connect the Dental Sciences Building to the upper plaza at Thurston Bowles, and thus catching all pedestrian traffic from South Columbia within the Health Affairs Research Campus.  She said that the cancer hospital would be reconstructing its pedestrian bridge as well.

Ms. Wu described the proposed streetscape improvements along Manning Drive.  She said those improvements would channel pedestrians to signalized crossings.  UNC would come back with a more detailed response to citizens? comments, she said.

Mayor Foy commented that the Council, as a whole, was not very familiar with AIA guidelines, but they were somewhat familiar with LEED certification.  He asked that UNC provide them with information on what they had done and what they were committing to do with regard to LEED certification. 

Ms. Wu replied that UNC?s design and construction guidelines were currently in place and the projects designed under those guidelines should be LEED certifiable at a silver level. She said UNC does not go through an application process for each building, but does use the LEED checklist as part of its design process. Ms. Wu said UNC was including sedimentation and erosion control during construction, and construction waste requirements as baseline in its projects.    

Council Member Harrison asked about the traffic impact analysis transit study questions.  With regard to a map that compared "no build" to "build" for 2010, he noted a jump of 7 percent with no build from 2005 to 2010 for Country Club Road.  The jump was 40 percent with build, he said.  Council Member Harrison asked what projects in the plans would add 40 percent in trips to Country Club Road in five years. 

UNC Consultant Joseph Lewis replied that most of it would be attributed to the Cobb Deck opening.  "But not 4,000-5,000 trips a day," said Council Member Harrison.  Mr. Lewis replied that nothing specifically jumped out at him, other than shifts in traffic patterns within campus.   He offered to take a closer look at that and return with an answer.

Council Member Greene asked Ms. Wu about traffic calming measures for Manning Drive.  Ms. Wu replied that UNC had looked at the streetscape and would plant planting strips, traditional bollards and chains, street trees, and buildings sited closer to the street.  All of these would signal that one is entering the campus, she said.  

Council Member Greene highlighted the report by the Fordham Boulevard Work Group, which recommended that a pedestrian bridge be a stipulation to modification #3.  She described that as a rational idea, noting that much UNC activity takes place on the other side of the bypass.

Council Member Hill ascertained from Ms. Wu that the Carolina Inn expansion project would be self-funded by Inn receipts and would not be funded by the state. Ms. Wu said that the state legislature would approve the borrowing but that no state money would be included in the debt service. 

Council Member Hill expressed disappointment that the addition to the Carolina Inn would cover up the grass.  Ms. Wu emphasized that the plan was just "a concept."  Council Member Hill said that the Council was being asked to approve an addition to a hotel that does not pay property taxes or occupancy taxes.  He said the Inn would take business away from other hotels in Town that do pay taxes.  Council Member Hill said he did not see how it would be in the Town?s best interest to approve this addition.  Now would be a good time for something to be done about fiscal equity, he said. 

Ms. Wu replied that UNC would respond to that comment at the Council?s next meeting

Mayor pro tem Strom said the Town had pushed UNC hard on rate, quality and volume of stormwater during initial Town/UNC meetings regarding OI-4.  He said he thought UNC was glad they had pushed ahead and put a progressive stormwater ordinance in place.  Part of that agreement was to take the square footage cap off, Mayor pro tem Strom pointed out.  He said it had been a very good program overall. 

Mayor pro tem Strom asked that UNC take tonight?s comments on energy very seriously and that it self-impose a higher standard. 

Mayor Foy commented on the Fordham Boulevard/Manning Drive intersection and its prominence in the Town?s thinking about how to deal with Fordham Boulevard and the University?s interaction with the other side of the boulevard. He noted that the proposed modification would have a big impact on that intersection.  Mayor Foy urged UNC officials to look at the citizens? report and to be careful and thoughtful when planning. 

Council Member Ward noted a possible requirement to include infrastructure associated with a transit system--such as a bus shelter, electricity to a bus shelter, or sidewalks.  He said that the proposed projects should do those things as a matter of course so that they or the Town would not have to come back and retrofit them into an existing built environment.  

Council Member Easthom emphasized the importance of the energy issue.  If the Town and UNC were truly committed to reducing carbon emissions by 60 percent, she said, then she wanted to know how all of this development and expansion would help or hinder that cause.  Council Member Easthom asked for detail about each building next time, specifically about how the proposed development modification would be sustainable. 

Council Member Thorpe said he was delighted about the previous Tuesday?s national mid-term election.  He also said that he was pleased that UNC had brought the entire modification package to the Council at one time, rather than bit by bit, as they had in the past when he previously sat on the Council.

Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Recess the Public Hearing to December 4, 2006   THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, said the Public Forum was called to hear citizen comments on whether adjustments to the Town?s campaign contribution regulations should be considered by the Council. The current regulations were established in 1999 by the Town Council, he said.  He said in 2006 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion, Randal v. Sorrell, providing additional guidance on the rationale needed to justify campaign contribution restrictions and he reviewed the Supreme Court Opinion for the Council.

Kevin Wolfe said he believes that substantial change of limits would not benefit the Town.  He appreciates there have been some changes in the law but still feels that Chapel Hill should keep its limits low.  Mr. Wolfe referenced a recent race for Judge and quoted figures of how much the candidates have raised for their campaigns.  On other issues, He said he felt it was inappropriate to contract with Tim Dempsey as a consultant since Mr. Dempsey had been Bill Strom?s campaign manager.  He said that he has volunteered for three of the Town Boards and had not been appointed.  He felt that the campaign contribution information and the previous vote by the Council to extend the Mayor?s term was curious.

Council Member Kleinschmidt felt that it is not necessary to change the Town?s current campaign restrictions.  He said it is possible to finance a campaign with $100 and feels there is no need to adjust for inflation.  He was intrigued by the memo from the National Voting Rights Institute analysis of the Randall decision.  He said there may be more ways to control campaign spending on a local level and to look closely at public financing and he encouraged the rest of the Council to read the memo and suggested it may offer some strength in Town arguments with its local representatives.

Council Member Hill said he agrees with Council Member Kleinschmidt not to change the existing limits.  He stated that before he became a Council member he applied for advisory boards and was appointed.  He was able to accomplish this by contacting Council members to encourage them to vote for him. Now, as a Council Member, when he votes for people to be appointed to an advisory board he either takes the recommendation of the advisory board or he may vote for the citizen if he has been solicited or lobbied by the applicant, he explained.  He said Tim Dempsey is a valued consultant for the Town and that he felt it is not a money making endeavor and Mr. Dempsey?s connection with the Council is totally incidental to getting the job, Council Member Hill said. 

Council Member Green agreed with Council Members Kleinschmidt?s and Hill?s comments.  She clarified that there is no connection to campaign contributions and when the Council changed the law of the election of the mayor.  She said it was a housekeeping change and a responsible action to be in conformance with the state constitution.  

Mayor Foy stated that the point of adopting the campaign contribution regulations in 1999 was to forestall the influence of campaign contributions which were growing astronomically in surrounding areas.  He said the amount set is successful and he is in agreement with Council Member Kleinschmidt.

Mayor pro tem Strom said the key element or the Town?s local campaign contribution ordinance is an effective disclosure element. Having the disclosure at $20 allows voters to see who is supporting their candidates.  He said he would like to see earlier reporting of campaign contributions.  He suggested the Council think about changing the Town?s reporting requirements that would require candidates to report earlier.

Council Member Easthom asked about voter owned elections.

Mr. Karpinos said that did not get favorable treatment in the General Assembly.

Council Member Easthom said it was important to encourage people who cannot afford to run for office to do so. 

Council Member Ward spoke in favor of supporting campaign contributions that stay low.  He values keeping the lid on money that one feels they need to raise to have an appropriate campaign.   He said that if you keep the lower figures on contributions it will encourage newcomers to envision running for office.  He agrees with Mayor pro tem Strom regarding earlier reporting.

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that some of the most expensive Council races have been failures.  He said there was a lot of money spent by the candidates and they lost the race.  The political reality is you can get yourself elected by getting out in the community, he said.

Council Member Thorpe said he has run for office many times. He said the limits are good and should remain the same.  He said the key is to get to as many people as you can when you are campaigning. When he managed a judge?s campaign, he said, if they received a two dollar contribution, it was reported. Council Member Thorpe stressed how important it is to report everything. 

The Public Forum was adjourned by consensus.