MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 AT 7:00 P.M.

Meeting Agenda:

Page

1. Hurricane clean-up status report............................................................................................. 1

2. Public hearing regarding East Franklin Street Corridor Study.................................................. 4

3. Rizzo Conference Center Zoning Atlas Amendment

and Special Use Permit Request .......................................................................................... 20

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the hearings to order. Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Richard Franck and Lee Pavao. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Mayor Waldorf Good evening. Welcome to this public hearing of the Chapel Hill Town Council. Tonight, we have on our agenda two major items for public hearing. One is the East Franklin Street corridor study. The other is the proposal by the UNC Business School to develop a conference center on part of the Dubose Property. Those items together are scheduled for about two hours. We hope we can hold it to that because the Council has to have a closed session after the regular meeting is over. With everyone on the Council’s permission, we’d would like to begin the meeting with a brief storm report from the Manager.

Item 1: Hurricane Clean-Up Status Report

Town Manager Cal Horton Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. We’ve made considerable progress in the past week and now we have updated our goals. Our principal goals at this point, in addition to maintaining our normal basic services such as transportation services and refuse collection, is to clear debris. There is a heavy debris load in many neighborhoods although some were spared. We also will be attempting to restore our non-basic services – such things as mowing rights of way and maintaining park areas as quickly as we can. We now have from town crews one crew concentrating on clearing creeks to remove obstructions that might cause flooding, three heavy crews that are cleaning debris and removing hazards from public areas and streets principally, one crew that’s concentrating on loading brush to remove it from the streets, two cleaning cemeteries, one clearing low traffic lines, one conducting a survey of streets today and tomorrow to report on the total accumulation of debris. And, we have another crew assigned to operation of a debris transfer point at the Public Works yard. We assemble large quantities there and then transport it in larger equipment to the landfill.

We have had extra forces. We’ve had three crews from the National Guard, and I’m sorry to report that today is their last day of service with us. That will be a blow. We hope however to have four crews furnished by the Federal Emergency Management Administration coming in tomorrow or no later than Wednesday. Those crews will have about 12 persons, including persons with chain saws, laborers, truck drivers with trucks, and loaders as well as a supervisor. We will assign one of those crews to each quadrant of town and hope that we will be able to make real progress in removing debris. Unfortunately, we may have those crews only for one week. We were hoping for two weeks, but it may only be one. All of the debris load has caused a considerable heavy schedule at the landfill and not just on yard ways. For instance, just from one grocery, we collected over 90 tons of spoiled food, and that’s one grocery. On a normal Saturday, we would have 80 to 100 loads delivered to the landfill. This Saturday, we had 921 loads delivered to the landfill, so it is a substantial operation -- at times, almost overwhelming -- but I give a lot of credit to our landfill crews. They found a way to keep this working.

At this point, we are continuing to burn debris because of the heavy load and the need to handle it as quickly as possible but we are also working to set up alternate operations to handle debris. We understand that UNC has purchased a tub grinder and that it may have gone into operation this afternoon. Certainly, we hope that it would go into operation soon. In a brief conversation with a University official today, we indicated our desire to see if we could work out a contract with them so that they would accept some of the material that we would be removing from town streets and we will follow up on that tomorrow. We also are attempting to get our regular contract shipper to come to our site so that we can begin shipping material. The fee that we normally pay is $10.25 a ton which is not a very bad rate although we expect that we could have 25,000 to 45,000 tons of material to chip if we tried to chip it all. We’ve had another chipper contractor offer us a price of $600 per hour. $600 per hour is a lot, and so we are looking at alternates.

We welcome the additional suggestions of citizens. We know that many people have small yard chippers and are doing their best to chip material at home. We know that others are going to mulch what they can. We know that there are a number of people collecting firewood and doing the best that they can with it but we think the problem is so enormous that it will require extraordinary measures at the landfill. The Forest Service with our encouragement and Orange County encouragement is attempting to find loggers who will come in and get pine trees. They can be used for a variety of things if they are cut to a certain length, and we are encouraging that effort.

In short, we are doing everything we can to investigate alternates and to pursue alternates and still trying to maintain a reasonable expenditure. In an urgent situation such as this, sometimes there is so much interest in solving the problem that folks forget cost and we’re certainly not going to do that. Sometimes, folks forget the normal values of the community and we’re going to do our best not to forget that as well, but we are going to do our very best to get all this material out of the neighborhoods so that they will once again be safe. We do have a concern about large accumulations of materials drying out and becoming a fire hazard.

We live in a forest. It’s a beautiful place because it is a forest. But, if we don’t get the material out of the yards and off the streets, we will be living in a forest hazard because the material will dry out and we could have an unusual fire exposure. Those are the key things I would mention there, except for one last issue: We know that there may be isolated cases of continuing power outage. We would welcome hearing from those folks so that we could do whatever we could to help them.

We also know that although most people have their phone service restored – in fact, many went without interruption – that there are some neighborhoods, like the King’s Mill area that still have not been restored. We understand that it may be as late as Thursday afternoon before King’s Mill will be restored, so we will do whatever we can to help identify those areas and ensure that people have their telephone service restored because they are necessary for emergencies. We will continue to operate the landfill on a seven-day-a-week basis until further notice. We will continue to do unusual things as necessary to respond to the storm event, and we welcome the further guidance of the Council on any of these issues and we welcome the creative ideas of citizens – any suggestion is welcome to help us get through this difficult time. Thank you Mayor.

Mayor Waldorf Okay, I think that was very well said and I just want to -- before we go to questions from the Council – I just want to once again remind people that while most of us are thinking about how to get our neighborhoods back to exactly where they were before the hurricane, there are still a few pockets in town that have much more severe challenges ahead of them. There are people who still have trees on their houses and holes in their roofs. There are still some neighborhoods that are still hard hit, so . . . are there any questions the Council members would like to ask of the staff at this point?

Council Member Andresen I appreciate the Manager’s comments about looking for creative alternatives to trying to dispose of this large amount of brush and waste, and I would just like to make one comment which I hope would be made by the public and that would be that if you have large lots and you want to store or make nice wildlife refuges, you can make a nice pile, not everything has to be picked up by the town. I think that’s a good point to make, and it’s actually good for the soil, good for the environment. The second point deals with the amount of burning that we are needing to do to dispose of the large amount of trees and branches and it does cause of course an air pollution source and is a problem and I understand the emergency that has caused this, but I hope you will also be alert to the opportunities if there’s someone out there who has land that can be donated on a temporary basis for example to collect wood which could be collected for firewood subsequently and age there for a year a two that would be a marvelous opportunity, for example, so that we wouldn’t need to burn as much. So, I’m also wondering how long you think the burning will continue.

Town Manager Horton I do not have any way of estimating at the moment. If the FEMA crews come in as they have promised, we will have an extraordinary load on the landfill for the next week or two and I think that will be the principal period. Our objective is to end burning as soon as we can get to a point so that we could process material by chipper without creating excessive delays at the landfill.

Council Member Andresen Okay, thanks. Thank you.

Mayor Waldorf Are there other questions? I think it’s great news that these FEMA crews are going to be available and even though their work is going to create an extraordinary load on the landfill, it’s going to be wonderful to get it off the streets for the fire hazards that you mentioned. It’s also I think a traffic issue on a lot of the streets. So, I’m glad that they are coming and let us know what we can do to help you keep them as long as you can.

Town Manager Horton We just got that word very late in the business day today and there is a need to continue to let the State know how much we need this help and anything that can be done to communicate that to our State delegation and to the governor’s office would certainly be a big help.

Item 2: East Franklin Street Corridor Study

Mayor Waldorf Okay, we got the message. Thanks. Other questions on the storm or the cleanup? Okay thank you very much. Let’s move on to the first public hearing item, which is the East Franklin Street corridor study. I understand that the staff and the Planning Board are essentially working together to make a presentation. Mr. Manager?

Town Manager Horton Yes, ma'am. That is correct. Planning Board Chair Mary Reeb will make an introduction for the Planning Board and Chris Berndt who led the staff work on this project then will make a quick review of it.

Planning Board Chair Mary Reeb So much has happened since we saw this last and so much has happened to me as well. I feel as though there is bifurcation in my life. Fran is probably the main cause of that and that one casualty is our momentum maybe relative to this corridor study. We thought we were going to get it done in hurry. We did actually do quite well at that and then lots of things have intervened, so I want my part of this double-team effort tonight to be a review of what your charge was to us which you may have not looked at lately and a bit about how the study was conducted and then finally why we made the decisions that we did make. The Council’s charge was made almost a year ago – November, 1995 – and it directed us – the Planning Board – to conduct a limited study of the portion of East Franklin Road between Elliott Road and WCHL.

And, it should be designed to do the following four things: review current land use policies for that area, consider access, circulation, parking and pedestrian connections; enhance the entrance way and street scope; and finally to encourage quality design. One of things that I discovered – I have been discovering all along on my tenure as a member of the Planning Board – is that starting with the southern area plan but all southern area plans that I’ve been involved with have had a tremendous amount of public input, mainly as members of the Planning Committee. It wasn’t possible to do this at this time, so what we decided to do in the case of this particular study was to involve the public at every one of our meetings but not as a member of the Committee. So, we did get a lot of comments from the community.

We always had a portion of our meeting time devoted to public time and everybody we thought who wanted to speak did speak and then we had one major – oh and we also have had a lot of written comments, too – but one major event was a meeting that we held at the Senior Center which was attended by probably all these citizens here and maybe even others. It was not a very well conducted meeting in the sense that we weren’t in our usual place and we weren’t expecting quite that many people but what came out of that for me was that I heard something from the community that I thought was useful for us and one of the things that came out was the fact that some of the people there – not everyone probably – thought that Franklin Square was a reasonable model to replicate – I mean not replicate – that’s not a good word -- but as a metaphor for whatever should be there. So anyway, as a result of all this public input, we did try to come up with something that would satisfy people. I don’t think we have, but we certainly did try that. And, we have expressed these ideas to you in a document that is a sister document if that is a term for it that corresponds to a study done by a much smaller group of people relative to the next phase – or the next piece – of East Franklin Street -- the other side of Elliott Road. Finally, I’ll just say that if you do adopt this plan, it will become part of our comprehensive plan and will be used as a model I presume by you and other subsequent councils to evaluate what developers come up with for this part of Franklin Street. We like the ideas that we are presenting to you and hope you will and have agreed with us.

The key items that we wanted to incorporate in the plan were a consequence of what we thought the public was telling us. This is a place that if you don’t take the left turn off of 15-501 and go out Fordham Boulevard, you do come into town at this site. And, this is probably where most people come in even though there is probably a tie between this and the 54 entrance, this is a key entrance to town, so we call this gateway into the community and that appears in the document, so we don’t want this . . we had all kinds of ideas of how you wanted to signal that happening and not all of them were retained in our final document, but it might be possible to retain some of that.

We talked about lighting, we talked about gates, we talked about flashing lights, we talked about a lot of things but in the main we want at least something to signal that this is arrival here in town. We also recognize that East Franklin Street is a kind of corridor or dividing line at this point in town. It is not yet a commercial area. It has commercial establishments in it. It has a major shopping center –two major shopping centers -- as you come into town. But, on the right side of the road, there is a good deal of vegetation. There are small scale buildings. Almost every retail establishment on the right side of the road is built to pedestrian scale. Some of these actually look like houses. There is a residential quality there that we wanted to retain. We also felt that probably naively that we wanted to retain some pedestrian orientation although there may not be much there but we wanted to enhance whatever was there and maybe even encourage more. One of the reasons we wanted to do that is because we tried to cross the street when we went on our tour of the place and I’m not a great runner anymore. It was kind of scary to cross the street there, so we needed to think about ways in which pedestrians are threatened when they cross that street. There isn’t enough time to get from one side of Franklin Street to the other if you are walking, so there are a lot of things that need to be improved out there for pedestrians.

So, given all these things that people did think that Franklin Square was a reasonable model for us, that there is retail in the area on that side of the street but it is residential in character and at least in design, that we wanted to decrease the amount of traffic that came into that part of town, and we wanted to also try not to make this a major surface parking area. I think given its gateway quality that would be a mistake. We wanted to make sure that the place was somewhat safer, and we wanted to encourage people who were working or living in the area to stay there and not take their own cars and go somewhere else or even encourage people who are passing through to come in and drive in, not to have what I call big box development erroneously. I thought it meant that when you had big box development you’d have the kind of development that requires that you use a car seat to put the big box in the back of it. That isn’t what it means – but you know what I mean – we don’t want that kind of development here where you have to bring your car to do your shopping. We wanted this to be a pedestrian-friendly part of town. And, so, with all of those things in mind, this is what we came up with: I hate to use this term – another metaphor -- it’s probably fine-grained mixed use.

We suggest that the kind of thing that be done in this part of town be accessory retail if anything – very limited -- only for people that might work in the area who might keep their cars parked all day and not drive around, who after dinner want to go for a yogurt can go push a stroller, where a kid who wants to go buy a baseball card can take his own bike and buy it by himself or herself, and that when it gets dark and people are frightened and there might be some safety problems there might even be some residential material there so people are there all night sort of keeping guard over the parking. So, with that, it’s Chris’s turn.

Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt Thank you. I’d like to tonight just briefly review the main highlights of the of the East Franklin Street corridor study. The study area is shown behind me in the yellow area that is highlighted and runs from Elliott up to the WCHL area along Franklin Street. The plan itself has three main parts to it. First of all, listing objectives and then it goes into specific area guidelines, and finally it has a key implementation section. The objectives are five that are the main ones developed by the Planning Board. In turn, each of these objectives have strategies listed so that these strategies show how these key objectives might be carried out.

The objectives are first to enhance the village-like character of East Franklin Street as a major gateway into Chapel Hill. Secondly, to look at the system of access for cars, pedestrians and bicycles in the area – to have an improved overall coordinated system than what exists today. Third, that the plan be very sensitive to existing residential neighborhoods that adjoin the area, especially to the north. Fourth, to provide a mix of uses in the area organized around that smaller scale village concept which Mary was talking to you about – that is, to have some office residential and a limited amount of retail. Finally, to develop design guidelines for the area so that buildings would be in harmony with each other and the area in general. And the report suggests a number of specific design guidelines for building and landscaping in the area.

The Planning Board turned to specific guidelines for specific parcels within the study area and there were four main areas identified which include the WCHL site, the Lowes site, the Coleman property and finally a parcel which is behind the current United Carolina Bank property. These specific area guidelines were designed to more fully explain or explore the key objectives and strategies in terms of those particular sites. Finally, an implementation section was developed and this section is very similar to the 1991 East Franklin corridor study in which the key implementation technique was to use the plan as a guideline for reviewing development such that if a developer or an applicant were to propose conditional use rezoning and a special use permit process simultaneously, the Council could use this plan to evaluate specific development proposals.

So tonight the plan is being brought forward by the Planning Board as their recommendation to you to become a component of the Town’s comprehensive plan. The East Franklin corridor study is, I’d like to stress, conceptual in nature. It would be part of the Town’s long-range plan for the development and preservation of Chapel Hill. It is not a specific zoning proposal. There is a suggested technique within the implementation section which suggests that conditional use zoning and special use permit applications could be pursued. So, with that I’d like to close just briefly by recapping our notification process where I wanted to mention that tonight we did do a mailing to property owners within the area and within a ½ mile of the study area as well as to our interested citizens mailing list which we’ve developed over the project as well as ads appearing in the local newspaper. The next step after the hearing tonight and receiving comments. The normal process would be referral back to the manager with all of the comments and preparation of a follow-up report with that normal schedule being with your council meeting in October upcoming this time being Wednesday, October 16, is the projected day it would return to Council with your permission.

Mayor Waldorf Okay, Chris. Thank you very much. Are there representatives of other advisory boards here who wish to speak on this? Ruby. Ruby Sinreich, the Chairman of the Transportation Board.

Transportation Board Chair Ruby Sinreich Thank you . This will bet pretty brief. You have our comments already. I just want to point out that we generally think it is a good idea as we’re doing as, for example, the Timberlyne area is growing and kind of compressing things right in there so that lots of uses will be near each other which is kind of like a half way towards mixed use things since we are learning the benefits of mixing uses and the conveniences that this is another place that has a lot of stuff there and a lot of destinations but they are very heavily weighted towards commercial, so it’s a probably a good idea – this would be a good way to do a fine grain mixed use which we definitely like would be to add in more different types of things but not do it ah . . . the Transportation Board thought a transition would be a good thing for this place since the style of the neighborhood is kind of at conflict with the style at Eastgate -- that something that would blend the two – for example, a slightly more dense residential development utilizing all the other uses around there -- would definitely be a gain for the Town to get mixed uses in this corridor just to start with and it would definitely be a loss to us to lose the density that we have there since it is already there.

Definitely I would say don’t give up on pedestrians just because it is impossible for pedestrians there now doesn’t mean that we should give up on them for whatever we do in the future. It means that it’s another opportunity for us to make it better and that will definitely add to mixed use. And, as far as big box, you probably know but what that refers to is big box like the shape of a building like a big Circuit City building, or at least that’s my understanding of it. The end result is what Mary’s definition of it was is and it doesn’t add to mixed use, it doesn’t add to pedestrian character and it doesn’t generally help the community out very much, so a fine grained mixed use would be a great thing to have, but this isn’t a small scale area. There are large developments here and not little tiny ones. They are not little specialty shops for the most part, so we shouldn’t try to conflict with that but bring the two spirits together.

Mayor Waldorf Okay, thank you Ruby. Are there other representatives of advisory boards here? Okay, then I’ll move on to the list of several citizens that have signed up to speak on this and I’ll just call on you in the order in which you signed up. The first one is Daniel P. McCauliffe followed by Jesse Baskir.

Daniel P. McCauliffe Good evening, Mayor, council members and others in attendance tonight. I’m Daniel McCauliffe and I’m the president of the Coker Hills Neighborhood Association. I and a number of neighbors in and around the study area attended the Planning Board’s East Franklin Street corridor study meetings and then read the final report. Its recommendations have been discussed at several neighborhood meetings with residents from Coker Hills, Oxford Hills, Elliott Woods Apartments and parishioners from the Church of Reconciliation. Collectively, we highly commend the Planning Board for their recommendations advocating residential scale development within the area and with special attentions to traffic flow and aesthetics as well as pedestrian access. Additionally, the Planning Board’s stance that no large scale commercial development be allowed on the north side – that is the residential side of Franklin Street has also been very well received.

Numerous residents, however, were dismayed at the Planning Board’s recommendation to include limited retail development on the residential side of the street. Many feel that the idea of retail development of this side of the street is poorly conceived largely because the backyard neighbor concerns, traffic concerns, and the fact that this part of town already is served by numerous retail shops, Ram’s Plaza, Eastgate Plaza, Village Plaza and University Mall. Additionally, in earlier meetings we were relieved that Planning Board members included language in the report that would have prohibited warehouse or high rise type buildings from being built on this corridor. Citizens were somewhat alarmed however when during the 11^th hour of the final corridor meeting one Planning Board member successfully argued to scratch that language from the document.

We would like to see more explicit residential scale building guidelines restored to this document. Immediately following my presentation, nine representatives from Coker Hills and Oxford Hills neighborhoods will in turn elaborate specific concerns regarding backyard neighborhood issues, traffic issues, and site specific usage issues. With the Council’s permission, I would like to ask citizens in attendance to indicate their support for these concerns by applauding after each speaker has finished. In this manner, the members of the Town Council will better appreciate the magnitude of these concerns. We deeply hope that our input at this hearing will help the Town Council better assess the ramifications of future development in the study area. Our challenge as well as our opportunity here tonight is to improve upon the Planning Board’s recommendations. Hopefully, our collective effort will better ensure that future development along East Franklin Street not only preserves but also enhances the beauty and the quality of living for residents and travelers along this major entry way into our community. Thank you.

Mayor Waldorf Mr. Baskir, I’m going to attempt to exercise a prerogative of the chair here and ask that you not applaud but that you just raise your hand. We’ll look up and we’ll see you. Thank you.

Jesse Baskir My name is Jesse Baskir and I’m a resident of Oxford Hills. I live at 101 Red Cedar Place and I’ve also been following the development of East Franklin corridor study since the first Planning Board meeting and I think that there is a very good vision that’s expressed in there and I hope that a lot of the development that happens is in keeping with the spirit of that plan, but I think one area where the plan really missed the mark was the on the north side of East Franklin Street and we have a number of people that are going to be talking specifically about issues which directly affect the neighbors who live on the properties on the north side of East Franklin Street and that are directly affected by this corridor study. We are all concerned about the potential for retail development on the north side of East Franklin Street and the potential negative impacts that this could have on our neighborhoods and in our comments we’re basically asking you to remove the language in the corridor study that encourages this retail development on the north side of Franklin. The reasons that we are concerned about retail development is that we’re concerned about crime and safety, about noise, lighting, and other direct impacts and about storm water and other environmental impacts. In the remainder of my time, I’m going to be talking about some of the crime and safety concerns from the perspective of an Oxford Hills community member. Donna Hudson is going to be talking about -- she has property that actually borders directly on some of the properties on the north side of East Franklin and she’s going to be talking about some of the spillover effects hat she’s concerned about and then Ken Jones who’s a resident who has property on Oxford Hills Drive will be talking about some of the storm water and environmental issues raised by development. And although we’re residents of Oxford Hills, there are some of the things we’re saying that also affect some of the residents of Elliott Woods and some of the other surrounding communities.

Oxford Hills which is located on the back side of this property is a very quiet community. Assuming that you don’t have a hurricane coming through, it’s quiet at night and the streets are empty and if you look at some of the crime statistics for the area, there’s really not that much in the way going on. There’s only been three calls in the last year for police assistance. Now, what we’re concerned about is that when you bring in retail development to the north side of East Franklin Street and Franklin is actually a pretty good buffer against some of the things going on the other side of the street. When you bring in retail to the north side, this brings in a lot of people who aren’t residents of the area. It bring in a lot of activity at all times of the day. People could come in, cut through the back side of the properties and get into our neighborhoods and they are relatively hidden from view. If you look at the statistics for crime in some of the retail areas – particularly Eastgate and Village Plaza -- you get several pages of things like damaged property, burglary, armed robbery, breaking and entering, vandalism, assault and these aren’t things that we want to bring into our neighborhood. So, I think you can understand that obviously when you bring in retail you also bring in people who are looking for money.

Another issue is the safety of children. When you have large parking lots and a lot of traffic coming in and out, you have an attractive nuisance or an attractive hazard for these kids -- the dumpsters, the materials there, the traffic, the places that you can skateboard and that sort of thing. And it’s a real hazard, particularly for the people who are living at Elliott Woods, who would have their property right next to the areas where these things would be developed. So, we understand that retail is important for the Town, but Eastgate and Village Plaza really brings enough of the retail development to this part of town and we ask that you leave the buffer of Franklin Street between our neighborhoods and the retail development on the other side of the street. Think of this not as just an abstract development issue, but you know if you had your house in this area and you were thinking about somebody potentially building fast food or a bar or a restaurant or a 24-hour grocery store next to your house, how would you feel about that?

Mayor Waldorf Thank you, Mr. Baskir. Donna Hudson and then Ken Jones.

Donna Hudson Good evening. My name is Donna Hudson and I’m at 103 Red Cedar Place. If I can, I’ll show you . . I live right here . . which you’ll see backs up to Milton Avenue which is . . so the backyard issues are very much a concern for me. Some of the concerns that I have are noise brought in by vehicle engine noise and traffic, truck deliveries, dumpster pickups during the early morning hours, and just large groups of people in and out of the stores, talking, music from the cars, car alarms, outside air conditioning units cutting on and off, refrigerator units, lights from the parking area that will probably stay on 24 hours a day, and possibly the retail staying open 24 hours a day itself, vehicle lights entering and exiting the parking area, odors from the dumpsters, litter, pollution from the vehicles. The biggest issue for me and our neighborhood is privacy and that we feel like retail will increase the vulnerability of our neighborhood which may increase crime and it may upset the peace and tranquillity that we have in our homes and we feel that that would be greatly threatened. As I look around this room and at each of you I would like to ask you to consider as you make your decision that if you don’t want retail in your back yard, I probably don’t either. Thank you.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you Ms. Hudson. I appreciate you all raising your hands. Ken Jones and then Joy Murphy.

Ken Jones Good evening. My name is Ken Jones and there are a couple of issues that I’d like to bring to your attention tonight. First of all, I would like to thank those individuals who were on the Planning Board. We attended lots of their meetings. They put in a lot of time. They actively sought feedback from the community, and I was impressed by that. And, I agree with the vast majority of the report. I do have some concerns about the last minute you know sneaking in at the last minute of retail on the north side of Franklin Street. But, other than that, the report I think was a very good one. Two issues that I intend to bring up tonight are environmental. One is the issue of flooding. We all saw that two weeks ago when Fran went through. I moved onto Oxford Hills Drive right up here not quite four years ago and in that time my backyard which is according to Map GIS 296 above the flood plane My backyard has flooded three times – okay I’m talking about running water in my backyard way above where that map shows the flood line. I find that this at least somewhat concerning.

I would strongly urge you to institute a study of this obviously sensitive water shed. As shown by Hurricane Fran two weeks ago, when Booker Creek floods, the result is more than an inconvenience for a few homeowners. I wonder whether the current map takes into account the development which has occurred along the creek in the last 15 or even 25 years. Would it not be wise to investigate the impact of this development before we allow more building? Should we not at least try to prevent the same kind of situation which exists in nearby Bolin Creek. While I’m not an engineer, it would seem obvious that the more pavement we put down in the water shed, the more we’ll have to worry about runoff being dumped directly into an already overburdened stream. Should we not at least study this issue? Require whomever develops this land to take into account the issue of potential flooding? The second issue is the animals. A stream goes right through the property. If restaurants or other food establishments are permitted to take route along the creek, will their dumpsters not become an open air smorgasbord for the vermin. In nature, when you increase the food supply, the population increases also. Currently, Booker Creek is home to snakes, raccoons, possums, squirrels, deer and likely rats and mice although they’re usually too small to see. No one likes wildlife more than I, but wildlife should be in the wild and not in a suburban neighborhood. With rabies on the rise, and snakes in residence, do we really want to cause a population explosion that close to a neighborhood full of children? What action can or will the City or any potential developer take to protect me and my family from the various animals which would surely become more than a nuisance? Neither of these issues is insoluble but if we think ahead and try to anticipate problems before they occur, we can avoid learning what we should have done after we should have done it. Thank you.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you, sir. Joy Murphy and then Rudolph Juliano.

Joy Murphy Good evening. It’s very nice of you to include us and our ideas. As a 25 year resident of 406 North Elliott Road, I would like to call attention to the following concerns which I have regarding the development of the properties between WCHL radio station and Elliott Road. Elliott Road is the center street of Coker Hills. Coker Hills is named for the most famous botany professor at the University of North Carolina. The streets in this area are named for very famous botanists such as Elliott, Curtis, Clayton, Lyons, Michaux, and Audubon. This area has lived up to its namesakes by protecting the natural beauty of the trees and flora. It has presented an attractive, inviting residential scene to visitors and residents of Chapel Hill. Several years ago, cars were going too fast through Elliott until the neighborhood protested and requested help from the City. The City installed stop signs which have helped tremendously. Now, more young families with young children live on Elliott enjoying the advantage of the nearness of the schools. The stops signs at Elliott and Curtis have helped protect the crossing there which leads to a pathway to Estes Elementary School and Philips Junior High. I worry that a large supermarket or an assortment of retail stores on Franklin so near Elliott could cause a greater stream of traffic endangering children and also destroy the atmosphere of Coker Hills. Commercial interest build up does not seem as important as protecting the essence of a safe and beautiful neighborhood which in turn helps to preserve the reputation of Chapel Hill. The land in question for development could be used to enhance and not detract from this entrance to Chapel Hill. Thank you very much.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you. Mr. Rudi Juliano followed by Fran Weaver.

Rudi Juliano Members of the Council, ladies and gentlemen. I’m a member of Coker Hills Neighborhood Association and would like to spend a few minutes addressing traffic issues raised by the East Franklin corridor study. First let me say that many of us are very strongly opposed to the possibility of placing a supermarket north of Franklin and east of Elliott on the so called common property. In act, many of us are concerned about any retail development on this site, but particularly about restaurants, convenience stores, gas stations or other businesses that are likely to be open at all hours. The development site for retail operations is likely to have several negative impacts on traffic flow into our neighborhood. Please remember that Coker Hills is a quiet, safe place where children walk to the local school, where people walk and bike on the local streets and where people appreciate peace and tranquillity in their homes and yards.

First, more retail of any type will bring an overall increase in traffic, meaning more noise and more congestion in our neighborhood. Second, retail operations draw customers from a large area and will mean more through traffic in our neighborhood. Already many parts of town have found that they can avoid the traffic gridlock at Estes and Franklin by turning off at Estes Hills School, cutting down on Elliott Road to Franklin Street. If there were more retail operations in the Franklin-Elliott area, this would mean more people cutting through our neighborhood and unfortunately this route takes cars on streets where children walk to and from school. Clearly this is not an ideal situation. The streets in Coker Hills are designed as collector streets and not as thoroughfares. We have enough problems now with traffic spilling over into our neighborhood. Let’s not make it worse by allowing additional retail development activity at Elliott and Franklin. Finally, I think we need to consider that a large increase in traffic on Elliott would potentially mean that the fire station driveway at Elliott and Franklin can be blocked at times which is once again a very undesirable situation. I think that most of us at Coker Hills realize that the area north of Franklin will eventually be developed. However, it seems to us that a more appropriate use f this area will be for office and housing space rather than for retail development.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you, sir. Fran Weaver then Mr. Art Thurber.

Fran Weaver Thank you very much members of the Council. My name is Frances Weaver. I live at 407 Elliott Road and I’d also like to comment the commission for the corridor study especially as it relates to enhancing the village character of the entry way to Chapel Hill and protecting the surrounding neighborhood. I would say to you that I believe the traffic on Franklin Street has a profound effect on Coker Hills, and there have been three recent developments on Franklin Street that have greatly increased the traffic in Coker Hills.

Retail development on the north side of Franklin Street would only add to those problems. The three recent developments are the building of the office buildings on Franklin Street between Estes and Elliott. That has already had an impact on traffic down Franklin Street towards Eastgate and there is still considerable building to be done – that enormous hole next to Dickenson’s will indicate that there is to be a large building in there or something that will greatly contribute to the traffic which will probably in most cases flow towards Eastgate and therefore affect the Coker Hills community. Another development and this is a happy one – it’s been a great success of the buildings and the stores on South Elliott Road in what is now called Village Plaza. There’s a great deal of traffic coming and going to Village Plaza and that has affected not only in quantity but in character the nature of the traffic on Franklin Street. As people come towards that intersection of Elliott and Franklin, they are rapidly changing lanes to get over to make a right into Village Plaza or they are going around cars that have slowed to make a right. Because traffic is so jammed and because they’ve already had to wait at Estes, they often speed through an amber light – speed through a red light – and people often impatient with making a left out of Elliott make lefts on red lights as the oncoming traffic is coming, so I would say to you that any increase in retail on Franklin would only add to that condition.

A third factor, of course, is the great success of Eastgate. At last, Eastgate is a successful shopping area, but that thoroughfare through Eastgate is an absolute jam. It’s often three lights to get out of Eastgate onto 15-501 or onto Franklin Street. I would suggest to you that if there is an intersection on the north side of Franklin Street that would provide immediate access into Eastgate, we will just have one humungous jam and even gridlock at that intersection and at Eastgate itself. So I would urge the Council to delete the portion of the corridor study that suggests retail development on the north side of East Franklin Street. We have a lot of retail development – we all use it and I don’t think we need more.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you Fran. Art Thurber then Albert Geiger.

Art Thurber Thank you very much for inviting us here tonight. My name is Art Thurber. I’m a resident of Coker Hills. I live at 400 Clayton Road with my wife and two school aged children and a dog and a cat. Still a relatively quiet park like area, despite the recent problems, with lots of kids of all ages, elementary school as you know is just up the road within easy walking distance. Needless to say, persons living in the area would like for it to continue as a desirable family neighborhood safe for kids, quiet, without the intrusion of more and more vehicles on trips through the neighborhood as a short cut – through streets never intended as in Town plans for that kind of traffic. But I want to focus in particular your attention on an issue that is broader and affects more than just our lovely neighborhood, and I’m referring again to the traffic issues along Elliott and in particular the Eastgate traffic jams due not only to the apparent need to cut through as if it were a public road but as was just noted to the success of merchants located there. We are certainly happy about such successes, but the very successes should alert us because as a result of traffic problems should alert us to potential traffic problems in any new developments as well. What is crucial at this time is to think very carefully about the coming years how quickly they come upon us and that we must do everything practical to plan ways to minimize traffic problems. I don’t hear anyone disagreeing that the volume of traffic down Franklin and in and around Eastgate will do anything but increase with each passing year even if everything remained exactly as it is today. There are developments along Franklin which have yet to add to the painful load the road will be asked to carry.

We need to do everything we can to minimize traffic problems. The effects of a commercial development on the north side of Franklin across from Eastgate -- what would happen if a significant stream of traffic was created? We think it’s bad now – I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet. We don’t want to look back and say in the future “why did we let this happen?” An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In fact, sometimes I worry that if there is no prevention perhaps there will be no cure. I’m grateful for the awareness of so many people regarding the future of the corridor, the time and effort being given to this important issue and concerned that traffic is an increasing problem no matter what and that development ought to be guided to minimize traffic increases and all of the attendant problems.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you Art. Albert Geiger then Larry Miller.

Albert Geiger Good evening Mayor and Council Members. I’m going to talk about tax issues. My name is Albert Geiger and I live in Coker Hills. One of the arguments in favor of allowing retail operations either large or small scale on the north side of the East Franklin Street corridor has been the anticipation of an increase in tax revenue and the resulting decrease in our real estate taxes. Conventional wisdom teaches that increased commercial development lowers property taxes but there are many instances where the converse is true. In fact, it could be harmful or at the best have little impact on property taxes while causing us all to suffer the consequences of increased traffic and backyard neighborhood issues.

I’m sure you’re all familiar with many of the articles in a local paper by Chapel Hill resident Ed Glasman -- one of the real facts behind this myth. So, will pass onto other considerations. Many of us are concerned that increased competition form either small retailers or from large scale supermarkets in an area already oversaturated with in these services in the various plazas -- that this increased competition would force some of these businesses to fail. In such cases, not only would we lose their tax revenues but would possibly be burdened by paying unemployment benefits and other public assistance for those who had lost their jobs as a result. One of our Coker Hills residents, an owner of two retail stores at University Mall testifies that since the opening of the New Hope shopping center, business at University Mall has dropped tremendously. It’s very empty in there a lot of times now she says. Merchants have had to shut shop and is very difficult to rent the vacant spaces. This lady unfortunately unable to attend tonight sends a message to the Town Council that after two years of being on the market, University Mall has finally been sold. The new owners are promising to do everything possible to reinvigorate this mall and she asks you to give it a chance to thrive again by not allowing more retail operations in this already over-commercialized area.

Another aspect of the tax issue is the distinct possibility that if retail buildings and in particular any large scale market should be built adjacent to road that border Franklin, the market value of these homes would decrease and so would the revenue from the real estate tax. Finally, I would like to point out that even if this scenario of tax loss should prove false if tax revenue was enhanced, the Town of Chapel Hill would be morally wrong to allow the resulting problems and even dangers to develop in the backyards of the adjoining homeowners. To permit this for monetary gain would really be morally indefensible in my opinion.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you Mr. Geiger. Larry Miller and then Lorraine Geiger.

Larry Miller I’m Larry Miller. 206 Oxford Hills Drive. One wife, three cats. I’d like to add to what my fellow residents have said with a brief discussion of land use. The residents of Coker and Oxford Hills agree very strongly with many of the recommendations of the Planning Board, particularly to enhance the village like environment and the pedestrian access on Franklin Street. We also agree with the recommendation for mixed land use, with the ideal being a mix of low density office and residential uses. The decision of the Board to allow retail on the north side of Franklin Street were taken in part after comments from local residents. Our community members originally felt that limited retail as set forth in the Planning Board documents would be an appropriate use -- for example, coffee shops, boutiques, and specialty shops.

Upon further discussion at community meetings, we realized that it would not be possible to regulate the types of businesses on the site or the hours of operation for such businesses. We could imagine a business such as a night club which could generate high levels of noise late into late in the evening. Therefore, we would like to ask that retail development of any type be restricted from this zone. In addition, we are concerned that retail development now could pave the way later for large scale commercial developments, which we feel are completely inappropriate and would be damaging to our local community.

Our views are reflected in more than 160 signatures that have been turned in on a petition circulated in Coker and Oxford Hills. One of the Planning Board’s intents was to increase the retail ability for the immediate surrounding residents. However, we feel that our communities are already served well by the copious retail development in our area including Ram’s Plaza, Eastgate Plaza, University Mall and Village Plaza. We feel that additional retail is not needed or wanted on the north side of Franklin Street. The Planning Board originally called for limitations of size and scale of development. For example, a limitation of square footage and heights of buildings to something like 2 ½ stories. However, at the April 23 Planning Board meeting, these provisions were removed. The local homeowners had no opportunity to comment on this removal. We would ask that such restrictions be returned to the final language of the corridor study in order to help restrict large scale development.

In conclusion, we would ask the Council to set guidelines on the north side of Franklin Street from Elliott Road to WCHL as a small scale, village-like development which is especially important as this area is a main gateway into Chapel Hill. This would include mixed office and residential uses consistent with other inclusions of the Planning Board’s recommendations. We feel that small footprints of such buildings would most easily achieve the goals of the study. Lastly, we feel that restriction of retail development is critical to achieve the objectives of the town and the Phase II Franklin corridor study and to produce the village-like environment that we would like to maintain for ourselves and our children. Thank you very much.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you Mr. Miller. Ms. Lorraine Geiger then Johnny Morris.

Lorraine Geiger My name is Lorraine Geiger and I live in Coker Hills. The residents of Coker Hills and I as one of their representatives are extremely concerned about the possibility of any increase in traffic congestion that would result from the improper use of the north side property or in the redevelopment of Lowes property in the East Franklin Street corridor. Such an increase would be a disastrous increase to the present congested traffic pattern in the area. The Council has an important opportunity to meet the challenge of adopting developmental plans for the corridor that will keep the traffic burden to a minimum. A thoughtful use of these properties must consider the fact that the street running through Eastgate Shopping Plaza is presently a serious problem of traffic volume. This street is already serving approximately 34 stores and two service stations. This street is already serving too many needs as a traffic throughway to Highway 15-501 as a large and many times overcrowded parking lot for the many stores in the plaza – there are approximately 34 and two service stations. Also, for foot traffic navigating passage from one side of the mall to the other.

Many residents in this community also feel threatened by the heavy traffic intersections especially when children are attempting to cross over the three busy crossings at Eastgate, Elliott Road and Estes Drive, and we hope you will address that situation. Our main concern is that the north side of East Franklin would be developed for large scale supermarket use or even for smaller scale retail operations. No matter how carefully traffic entrances and exits and entrances are planned, this type of use would add measurably to the area traffic which is just what the Planning Board did not want to happen. We urge you to keep the zoning for this property as residential or at the most permit small scale office buildings which would certainly not add to traffic congestion as retail use would.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you Ms. Geiger. Johnny Morris and then Mark Labranch.

Johnny Morris Mayor and members of the Council. I want to speak to a very specific part of the plan – namely the vacant site behind UCB. I’m currently working jointly with Mr. and Mrs. Roger Jennings and with UCB in an effort to modify UCB’s special use permit on that site and to achieve a site plan approval for the development of a medium size – probably less than 8,000 square feet – professional office building to be used primarily by the company that Mr. and Mrs. Jennings own. It occurred to me that in the comments on the study where it speaks directly to the vacant site behind UCB that it speaks very generally about and currently so to O&I that it be developed for office uses and that it be buffered by the surrounding neighborhood and I thought it was appropriate to make the comment that we are far along with the site plan.

We understand and appreciate the sensitivity to the residents of Coker Hills and to the neighbors behind those neighbors and that the curb appeal and the buffering is essential to gain the neighborhood’s satisfaction. This would be a single-level what I would define as a residential grade office building and what I mean by that it is architecturally in keeping with residential architectural detail. I simply want to request that you allow the existing buffer yards that are specified in the ordinance to remain and that buffer yards not be widened. We think and we’ve spoken to the staff and I believe they feel – I won’t put words in their mouths -- that certainly adequate buffering can take place in those existing buffer yards. You may recall that on the I guess that’s the west or north side, which is the neighborhood boundary, there’s already an existing buffer – a fairly established buffer which is also divided by a driveway that accesses a multi-family homes to the rear and then the church property. So, we want to make two requests. One that you maintain the buffer yards as is and if we have to maximize or we have to go to an alternate buffer, then so be it. And to let you know that we are making every effort to be sensitive to the neighborhood and to let you know I can put myself in that neighborhood. But this is going to be very much of a moderate office building. Thank you.

Council Member Andresen I just want to clarify this is where the present UBC Bank is on the corner of Estes and Elliott, right?

Johnny Morris Yes, it is presently a vacant site.

Council Member Andresen Franklin and Elliott, excuse me.

Johnny Morris There’s currently an access road that goes up into UCB. That access road – that easement would be used to access the subject site. We understand that there would be no additional curb cuts so that access would access the future office building as it does at UCB.

Council Member Andresen And are you adding square footage also? Are you adding square footage to the building?

Johnny Morris Not to the existing building. This is a detached, this is a new project.

Council Member Andresen Oh, a new project, okay.

Johnny Morris This is a driveway that I was referring to.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you. Mark Labranch.

Mark Labranch Hi. Thank you. My name is Mark Labranch. I live in Coker Hills on Michaux Road with my wife and two children. I too am concerned about having retail developments on the north side of Franklin. This is property that borders on residential land on houses and I feel that’s not really in keeping with that location. There’s plenty of retail around us, some of which we walk to. We have walked to Wellspring. We walked to TCBY. I grant crossing Franklin is kind of a problem and maybe putting some sort of traffic lights that allow pedestrians to cross without cars turning would a lot easier solution than trying to put a lot of retail on the other side of the road. I think that may be something to consider as an upgrade, but I don’t feel building more retail just to have it a little bit closer to us and to have more of a mixed use – I don’t think that is appropriate use for that land for the noise factors, for the traffic factors.

Whatever does go in there what I would have would be to try to minimize that amount of paved parking, both for the environmental reasons– the runoff that we heard -- and for aesthetic reasons. I live on the corner of Velma and Micheux and will often take walks up Velma and as I look out I see the back of the parking lot of that new office complex right next to ballet school and it’s quite extensive – it comes right out pretty much to the road. And, it’s quite a shocking effect having not seen that before having lived in the neighborhood before that was built. So, I would urge that what goes in there to try to have a minimal footprint and certainly retail would not accommodate that and some sort of large complex would also not be in keeping with that kind of style.

Mayor Waldorf Okay. Thank you sir. That’s all the citizens who signed up to speak on this item tonight. I’d like to thank you all for coming and participating in the Planning Board’s process. I know this is not the first meeting you’ve been to. And, thank you for your courtesy and your patience and for doing a good job of making your comments concise. At this point, I’d like to throw it open to questions by Council members. Joe.

Council Member Capowski When this comes back to us, I just have few questions. First, I understand that WCHL is moving its studios or some part of its operation. What will if anything be the change in WCHL radio towers? The second question is we’ve talked about the street through Eastgate Shopping Center a lot and how bad it is. Who owns that?

Town Manager Horton The Eastgate Shopping Center.

Council Member Capowski Is there anything we can truly do about that even independent of this study?

Town Manager Horton It’s private property.

Council Member Capowski Okay. And would you please answer when this returns what is happening on Milton Avenue. Why are there a number of houses there that are now unoccupied and decaying? And, my final question is . . there’s a comment in the report and in the memo that says that “for the McClamroch Properties, which is the WCHL area, the study notes that development should be avoided in the meadow.” How exactly would we regulate something like that short of buying the property?

Council Member Brown I think that this reads real well. I think that the Planning Board did a nice job. When it comes back, though, I’m concerned about some of the sort of general statements that are not necessarily defined. Some of the people have mentioned the village-like character that is mentioned, but on page nine it also mentions design compatibility of new structures with other structures in the study area and other structures in the study area include two shopping centers and I think that we need to sort of define some of the things that are in here because I think it sounds real good and I appreciate the language.

I’d also be interested in knowing what actually could be developed if this present language is put into the comprehensive plan . . what actually could be developed? For instance, it says development would actually be encouraged to be designed in a manner that is consistent with these guidelines, but encouraged is very different from mandated. And so I would like to know what are the possibilities if someone if we do put this in the comprehensive plan if someone does come in with a new rezoning application what actually could be allowed in this area. I have a number of specifics about some of the language in here, and I think it would probably be better to write a memo and most of them are related to how some of the words are defined. For instance, medium size – how is that defined? Create enjoyable human spaces. These sound real good but how do they define and how do we make sure that what I think that we all understand what actually is going to be happening. I think those kinds of things are very important and rather than taking up more time, I’ll just outline the specifics and let you all know. But, I think the gist of my concerns have been expressed.

Council Member Andresen I’m interested in knowing from the staff . . I think traffic is a big problem and will continue to be on this road and also the concerns that the neighbors have brought about the cut-through traffic. I’m wondering about what a rule of thumb from the planner on what kinds of difference in amount of traffic we could expect from an office versus residential condos which could be built there or what we would call small scale retail. And, in terms of the sentiments that were mentioned tonight about the concern about how do you get limited retail development or basically most of the neighbors didn’t want it at all. I sympathize with the Planning Board’s comments for desire for a limited retail development just because if you have all offices and you don’t have a coffee shop or a sandwich shop to serve those people, those people end up getting in their car and going elsewhere. But I will say to the Council that we have had real trouble realizing that goal and Meadowmont is a classic example where we talked a lot about limited retail and in fact we got a whole lot more. So, I think that that’s a difficult to accomplish and therefore when we do move from this plan stage to the zone stage that’s the critical – the zone is still the critical phase.

I guess I would think that we wouldn’t want to zone in any retail and then if someone comes with a special plan – a conditional use or something – which says we want a limited scale Weaver Street or we want a coffee shop or something then maybe we can get it. But, by opening the door to commercial, it’s obviously a problem. We have difficulty getting what we want. And also think that the wishes of the neighborhoods should carry weight along with our other objectives. I agree with the speaker who talked about creating additional commercial is not an anecdote to rising taxes by any means. And, we need to really upgrade our present commercial properties rather than building more. There’s a lot of evidence that all the new commercial that’s going on all throughout our country now. They’re just not realizing the sales that they thought they would realize. There just isn’t a pent up demand for all this commercial property that’s being produced. And, also, I very much liked in your report the emphasis on the pedestrian and what we can do to open up, for example, Village Plaza so that you can walk easily. You can obviously walk between there and Lowes now, but it isn’t exactly encouraged. The degree to which we can do that and then I would just like to say to the public that on the 24^th we’re going to have a storm water hearing where we’re going to be talking about those problems and it’s ten wide and just so you are aware of that, we’re going to hold a public hearing to talk about requiring a storm water impact statement for all large development.

Council Member Evans I’d like to raise a question. When you visit other communities, oftentimes, good use is made of water ways whether they be large or small or ponds or whatever. Most of Booker Creek is underneath Eastgate. An edge of this area amazingly surfaces and fishing is available there and I wonder if maybe we could think of this as maybe hopefully in the future developing a linear park along here that could be used and hopefully used as a connection between the areas on Elliott Road and over like if people who lived in these neighborhoods wanted to go to Mariakakas for dinner or for lunch they wouldn’t have to walk along Elliott Road, they could walk along a nicer area, so that’s my suggestion.

Council Member Brown I’ve forgotten a couple of things. Several people have mentioned the language that was removed and I would like to see that language to know exactly what was removed. That was a concern and we should consider it. And, I’d like to have some sort of mapping which would show the potential for flooding in that area. I think that this is a concern. Since we don’t have a mixed use category that includes all these things -- I don’t think we do in our zoning – I would like to know how this would fit in with our present zoning what shorts of things if we actually do include retail in this what actually could happen.

A MOTION TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mayor Waldorf Thanks to the Planning Board for your good work. I know you did this when you had a lot of other things on your plate, so good job. When do we expect this back – do you know?

Town Manager Horton October 16th.

Item 3: Rizzo Conference Center Zoning Atlas Amendment and SUP Request

Mayor Waldorf If you all could go ahead and leave quietly, we’ve got another item we need to go ahead and take care of. If I could ask everyone to leave fairly soon. We’ve got another public hearing that we need to conduct. Thank you. Anyone who wishes to speak on the rezoning request and the special use permit application for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center should come forward and sign up. Let’s move on to the second item which is a public hearing on a rezoning request for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center.

Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper This public hearing has been called to consider a rezoning application that involves the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont. I put up an overhead which identifies the 28-acre parcel that we are talking about tonight. It’s located on the north side of Highway 54. This overhead identifies the master plan that was approved for the Meadowmont Development and identifies the zoning of the property in that area and the cross patched area is the landlocked 28-acre parcel that we are talking about tonight. It has the former Dubose Estate on it. The request before you tonight is to rezone the property from residential 1 to residential 5 conditional. And, this rezoning application is being considered concurrently with the special use permit application for the residential conference center for executive education that is associated with the Kenan-Flagler Business School.

When the Council considers a rezoning application, they may approve a rezoning request if you can make one of three findings. The applicant has focused on two of those findings in the materials that are before you. The applicant points out that they believe there are changed or changing conditions in the area and the applicant notes that the Council did recently approve several rezoning applications in the Meadowmont master land use plan and the area that’s on the overhead identified as orange shows a recently rezoned residential 5 conditional property and there’s an area outlined in brown which is the mixed use zone designation that’s been assigned to properties both on the north and the south of Highway 54. And the cross patch box is the 28-acre estate, and the request is to extend the residential 5 conditional zoning in that area. The applicant also notes several goals and objectives from the comprehensive plan in their statement before you tonight.

In addition, we would like to note that the Council recently adopted a document called Goals for the North Carolina 54 east entrance way as a component of the comprehensive plan and among the goals that are identified in that document are goals that call for a mix of uses in this area, goals that call for designation of land for public facilities as well as goals that suggest development that might occur at higher density for interior locations in order to help preserve green spaces. I think I’ll stop there. We are recommending Ordinance A that’s before you tonight in your packet.

Mayor Waldorf Okay, thank you. Would the applicant please come forward? That’s Theresa Crossland and David Steis.

Teresa Crossland During the special use application, we were going to show you the site plan development. One question did come from the town staff or a statement came to us from the town staff about the rezoning of an overlay district on state property and believe it or not this is the first time the University of North Carolina has been in this situation but we have talked to people at State and it’s happened before at the Centennial Campus and also at the Farmer’s Market in Raleigh and that there is a process in place to handle this and to ask you the town to work out the details with the University on the rezoning application then we would write a letter to the State Property Office asking them to put us on the agenda to meet with the Council of State asking for approval of this rezoning and that would take several months for us to do once you had already made your findings. So, this is a first.

Mayor Waldorf So, if this council approves this rezoning that you are requesting, because of the nature of it, you would have to get a State approval subsequent to that.

Teresa Crossland That’s right, but we would ask your approval first. We would not be allowed to go before them until we have your approval.

Mayor Waldorf Okay, anything else you all would like to say about the rezoning? Okay, Mary Reeb of the Planning Board. No elaboration? Okay, I don’t see any representatives of any of the other boards here so I guess they didn’t feel compelled to come. All right, did the Town staff want to say anything further about a preliminary recommendation? Okay, I don’t have any citizens who signed up to speak on this. Is there anyone in the audience who failed to sign up? All right. Are there questions or comments by the Council members?

Council Member Andresen Okay, what we’re considering here is a zoning change, not dealing with the special use right now. So we’ve got a zoning change from R1 to this conditional use category to R5C which I take it permits a lot more density but also it is conditional on a special use to my question to the staff is this is going to . . well we don’t know exactly what the special use is going to be until we get the special use process but we’re going to see a lot more traffic at this particular site. And I guess I’m interested in knowing whether that that can be handled. This is the first part of that whole huge area being developed and I’m just wondering how that’s going to be handled.

Town Manager Horton We’ll be glad to follow up on that.

Council Member Andresen Okay, and I have some more specific concerns on the entrance way – how this area is going to be accessed, but I’ll wait for the special report.

Mayor Waldorf Any other questions on the rezoning?

Council Member Brown I just want to be clear. In the statement just for the rezoning, they mention certain square footage, but then in the staff report there is a different square footage in the staff report. I assume it’s 40,000 square foot, but in the staff report it’s a much larger square footage for the total buildings. I didn’t know if you just left something out of the rezoning.

David Steis I believe and this can be confirmed Cal. But I believe that the staff report had Phase II included in the square footage. So it may be an issue – this is a two-phase project. It may be that the staff report had both phases in the square footage. And what you’re seeing here is Phase I.

Council Member Brown But you’re asking for the rezoning for the whole area?

David Steis Yes.

Council Member Brown Phase 1 and Phase 2?

David Steis Yes.

Mayor Waldorf And the square footage – the additional square footage for Phase I would be an additional 40,000 square feet?

David Steis For one building and the second building is 25,000 to 30,000 square feet.

Mayor Waldorf Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

Council Member Andresen One other. Sorry, I forgot about storm water. And, I know that the present structure sits up on a knoll and I’m just wanting to know from the staff what will this increase in square footage – how that will that be accommodated in terms of the flow of water vis a vis the zoning change.

A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE HEARING AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mayor Waldorf Okay. Now, we’ll move on to the public hearing on the special use applications. All right we’ll have another introduction by Ms. Culpepper.

J.B. Culpepper This public hearing has been called to consider the special use permit application proposing an office institutional plan development -- the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center. As I mentioned earlier, this is the application that is being considered concurrently with the rezoning application. On this particular overhead, the 28-acre parcel that we are discussing tonight is outlined in dark green on the overhead that shows the illustrative plan approved for the Meadowmont Development that master land use plan. The proposal before us tonight involves reuse of the existing 20,000 square foot structure that’s the former Debose home and the addition of two new structures with approximately 31,000 square feet of floor area. The primary point of access is proposed to be Meadowmont Lane and Meadowmont Lane is shown on the master land use plan. Meadowmont Lane intersects Highway 54 and is proposed to be four-lane, median divided roadway and it has been approved as part of the Meadowmont master land use plan. The primary issue with this particular special use permit application is related to infrastructure and to timing. We have received and we have begun reviewing several special use permit applications that are associated with the 425 -acre Meadowmont Development that surrounds this 28-acre conference center parcel. It is our hope that the Conference Center will be able to coordinate access and utilities with the larger Meadowmont proposal but if the Conference Center proceeds ahead of the larger Meadowmont Development, we are recommending that certain roadway improvements be in place.

We’re recommending that access to the Conference Center be from two lanes or at least two lanes of the Meadowmont Lane that’s identified on the larger Meadowmont Development master land use plan. Related issues involve construction access. Right now, there is a one-lane driveway that leads up to the former Debose house. And this one-lane driveway is proposed to eventually be abandoned and areas along this one-lane driveway are shown on the larger Meadowmont Development master land use plan to be preserved. If this one-lane drive is proposed to be used for construction traffic, we are recommending that it not be widened and that tree protection fencing be placed along that driveway to protect that vegetation that’s shown to be preserved in the Meadowmont Development master land use plan. So, we are recommending approval with Resolution A, and I think I’ll stop there.

Council Member Evans Do I understand correctly that you want a two-lane road up to the green line and then a one-lane road from the green road up to the construction sites. Is that correct?

J.B. Culpepper We’re recommending that at least two lanes of Meadowmont Lane – that four-lane, median-divided roadway -- be constructed to provide access to the Conference Center. Regarding construction traffic, there is a proposal if Meadowmont Lane is not in place, the applicant would like to be able to use that one-lane driveway that meanders through the property up to the estate for construction access. We’re concerned and would prefer not to see that one-lane driveway widened for construction access because it’s within areas that are shown to be preserved on the master plan for the Meadowmont Development so the one-lane roadway is proposed to be use for construction access and it’s our hope that the Meadowmont Development and the Conference Center will be able to coordinate their construction activities and that we will see access provided to the Conference Center from Meadowmont Lane as it is shown as far as alignment on the Meadowmont master plan.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you, J.B. Would the applicant like to make a presentation now?

David Steis I think what we’re prepared to do is to give you a brief overview assuming that most people – I feel like we’ve done this so many times that most people are aware of the project. We’re going to start with the site plan of the grounds as in your document – your briefing document – this is a 28-acre site willed to the University. The focal point for the project will be the Debose home. Basically we will be housing restaurant, dining, and lounge type of facilities in that home plus four bedroom suites. There will be two new buildings built on the grounds – one is a residence center and it’s important to note that what we’re establishing here is a full-fledged executive conference center very similar to what goes on at major universities or top tier type of business schools of which we believe UNC-Chapel Hill is one. We have not had this type of facility in the past and we believe from a competitive type of standpoint this has hurt our program and also the business school itself, and that’s really kind of background of what we’re trying to do here.

The 40,000 square foot building is a residence center. It will have 56 exec suites within it – mainly a lobby area and a check in area and that type of activity. The second building is the Conference Center and that is as we discussed a 25,000 to 30,000 square foot building that will house two-tier classrooms, approximately 15 break-out rooms where the main thrust of the executive training will take place during the day time and also the administrative offices of the executive education program will be in that building also. On the grounds are a parking lot to the south which is basically buffered from the home and buffered by a tree line and also a tow pole that really slopes down and so therefore it hides itself. At any points on the grounds, the home is on the knoll. The home is the focal point and the home verticality wise is the tallest structure on the site.

The residence center is a two-story building. The executive Conference Center is a one-story building that slopes out into a walk out service area. The parking on the facility is – there is a 70-space lot I was mentioning to the south. There’s some parking adjacent to the Conference Center which will be used by the administrative people and there is some parking -- minimal parking -- about 10-12, 14 spaces next to the residential center which would be handicap – people that need close access. The thought behind this program as far as minimizing traffic is the fact that we are not building parking to build out with the type of volume that would be on there. Most people are asked not to rent cars – are bussed in, shuttled in and for the most part are there for a duration of which they are going to be somewhat self-contained outside of the activities which we take them into Chapel Hill and do things within the Town and village. It is a two-phase project. The Conference Center has the capability to expand another tiered classroom and some additional breakout rooms. The residence center if it was ever built out would have the expansion capability of adding another 60 rooms to it. With that in mind, that’s really all I wanted to do as far as describing what we are planning to do on the site.

There is one issue that the University feels and I would like to read a statement from the University -- we agree with the Town staff’s recommendations and the special use permit here except there is one area that we would like to clarify. I guess you could say it is an area that we believe still has some grayness to it and still needs some work. The deed of the gift to the endowment foundation stated that the University could use the drive for access to and from Meadowmont when it was given to the University. In 1994, the endowment foundation agreed with East West Partners to release that access in exchange for an easement over a new road that would be built by East West Partners that as a recorded access easement and obviously is the Meadowmont Lane that’s discussed at this point specifically.

It is the University’s position that the conference center has sufficient access by the current drive, the University has no legal authority to develop Meadowmont Lane and with the statements concerning Meadowmont Lane, we feel that the two projects are becoming somewhat blended together – the bigger Meadowmont project versus our smaller one. The bottom line is that we are uncomfortable with the aspect of or object to the condition with us being the prime developer to drive Meadowmont Lane and we object to the fact that it’s a condition to our special use permit. We are, however, willing to and planning to meet with East West Partners and Mack Dubose to work this issue cooperatively , especially issues relating to timing like J.B. mentioned enter into an aspect that would prohibit us from getting our center open if there are delays on the other projects. So, we’re sensitive to the issue. We just object to the aspect of having it tied to the SUP.

Mayor Waldorf Okay, thank you. Did you want to ask question of the applicant now?

Council Member Capowski Could you clarify something please? You said there is a 40,000 square foot residence hall and about a 30,000 square foot conference center. And yet our memo says that this project would add two new buildings with 131,000 square feet of floor area. Help.

David Steis Okay, that is the point I was making earlier. 131,000 square feet of floor area would be if both phases were built out and include the home. That would be the total project.

Council Member Capowski What are you asking for in this special use permit application then – both phases or one phase?

David Steis Both, aren’t we asking for both? Both, yes.

Council Member Capowski And the home is about 20,000 square feet?

David Steis The home is 20,000 square feet.

Council Member Capowski So, where will the initial 40,000 square feet go?

David Steis In the two new buildings.

Mayor Waldorf Why don’t you just point that out on the map one more time if you don’t mind.

David Steis This is expanded area of the conference center and it would consist of another class room and back there it’s a little cut off but you can see the dotted line would be a basically because of the slope of the land, this would be three stories, another 60 rooms, and that would probably be about 30,000 - 40,000 and this would be about 10,000 – rough estimates.

Mayor Waldorf Thank you. Did you have another question?

Council Member Brown Could you show us which is Phase I and which is Phase II?

David Steis Phase I is the dark for that building and the same thing over here the dark shaded area and obviously .

Planning Board Chair Mary Reeb We (the Planning Board) were sensitive to the staging issues that everyone body has mentioned tonight. And the solution that the staff came u p with which was in effect to have this project responsible for half of Meadowmont Lane with all of the North Carolina DOT approvals attendant to that seemed sort of out of sync with the other projects that are coming on board and we didn’t know how to handle that and so I think that on the evening of our meeting we kind of said well whatever the staff and the applicant can work out was what we would agree with and recommend and it turned out the be Resolution B. And I’m not absolutely what we finally decided relative to this access. I guess what I thought it was that you guys would use your own driveway without widening it. And, it’s called a one-lane driveway but it’s probably wide enough for more than one car to pass every now and then but in effect until something can be worked out with Meadowmont, that’s what we thought would be reasonable to do and I think it won’t be too long before what will be worked out will be worked out.

Council Member Andresen I guess my question to the staff which I would like to get at a later time would be: could we approve a special use permit that allowed a temporary access which would be required to be closed at a later time. I’m very concerned about the tie-in here to Meadowmont Lane and my understanding is that the DOT is having some very big problems with these intersections now and maybe wanting us to do something other than just an intersection. I’m not saying a clover leaf, but triangles and whatever they call diamond shapes and all that kind of stuff. So, I would be very reluctant to approve any project that would build us into a certain solution on Meadowmont Lane. I think that would be very foolish of us. Now, we’ve agreed to an expedited review to this project. We put it ahead of other projects. It was a project that some educational purpose I suppose so we’re doing that but I do not think that we should jeopardize the ultimate safety and how that intersection would work and I just have a couple comments on that .

One would be that the present access – the driveway – whatever it’s called – carrying on Mary’s idea – that one would be the access to this property until things get worked out with Meadowmont Lane and then it should be required to be closed in my opinion because if you have yet another entrance onto 15-501 it’s going to be madness – not 15-501 – Highway 54, excuse me. This may sound a little off the wall to my colleagues, but it’s a long-standing concern I’ve had. As you know UNC operates the airport at Horace Williams, and it occurs to me that the function of this thing will be similar to the Thomas Center in Durham , which has been immensely successful and I’m sure will be a rival and you hope you will be as successful and more so than they will be. However, I would assume that if execs are flying in from all over it would be very tempting to go to Horace Williams Airport and what I’m concerned about would be a significant increase in temporary use because as you know it’s an open airport now – the University operates it as such and anyone can fly in there – and there is a limit on the number of tie downs but that doesn’t mean that the number of temporary tie downs couldn’t be expected and we could have many more planes coming in at night. We could also have jets, which unfortunately some resident at the Governor’s Club thought that jets were okay and came into Horace Williams a few weeks ago so I think that that’s a real concern, particularly given the use of this. I want to commend I think in general it’s certainly a very worthwhile purpose and I like the fact that the building are going to be low and kind of fit in with the bucolic setting which I think is a real plus. I note on the sewer.

We’ve got a member of OWASA – we’ve got a member of the OWASA Board here and I would assume that the water and sewer could be put in a way which will disturb things in a minimal kind of way and I understand that we’re going to need a pump station of some kind. I’m not sure where that would be located and then the parking lots aren’t going to be tremendous but again unfortunately our ordinances aren’t progressive enough in my view and the degree to which you can build parking lots with trees in them – I think that would be very welcome and to continue the setting that I think you are trying to create here. So, my big concern is that connection and when that would take place and I would really like to see us not tie our hands in any way on that Meadowmont Lane.

Council Member Evans It’s my understanding that this home has some kind of designation and I don’t know whether it’s on the Historic Register or whatever and I don’t know whether it’s the home and grounds, but I wonder if a different an additional permitting process is necessary since it does have that designation in order to make changes to the property.

Mayor Waldorf Do you know the answer Theresa? It would be great to just go ahead and get it out of the way.

Teresa Crossland It’s a historic place. It’s on the North Carolina Register of Historic Places, and we have been working with the Department of Cultural Resources to work out issues that are of concern to them and the University is working through these issues with them, and that’s the extent of that. No there is no official permitting that’s required on that property.

Council Member Capowski Were there no members of the public signed up on this public hearing?

Rosemary Waldorf No.

Council Member Capowski I have a couple of disjointed questions. Everything will be low – there will be no visibility above the tree lines? Nothing will be visible above the threes? Okay. Cal, I remember when the Finley Forest Condominiums were being constructed out there and the tremendous destruction by the construction traffic that occurred to Barbee Chapel Road. What kind of precautions are we taking to make sure that there is not similar destruction during this construction and the later Meadowmont construction to Raleigh Road?

Town Manager Horton We can come back to you on that.

Council Member Capowski Okay, that is a concern. When the whole unit is in operation – both phases -- how many total people will be there everyday including employees, teachers, residents, the whole works?

David Steis The capability would be determined by those three-tiered classrooms that build out. There would be three of them and they all seat 60, so that’s 180. The staff of the executive conference center is about 20 people.

Council Member Capowski Including the hotel?

David Steis No, just running the program. And then the hotel and we haven’t really worked these with any detail but I guest I would estimate 20 - 30 at a given point in time – it will fluctuate – for either meal serving at night it will be less.

Council Member Capowski Well, with all due respects, how can you know if you haven’t worked out these details if 162 parking spaces is enough?

David Steis There’s a Phase II on the parking, too. There’s a 70 space parking also.

Council Member Capowski What I’m getting at is this: We frequently hear the argument we are making a center to train someone and we’re going to make sure those people get here on a bus, so we won’t have to build parking for the trainees, yet not enough thought goes into the total number of people who will be on site including employees of all types. When this comes back to us, will you please convince us that you have enough parking spaces for the total number of people of all types that you foresee?

David Steis Okay.

Council Member Capowski And, my final question has to do with fiscal impact. This project unlike most of the ones we deal with is owned by the State and yet the town is going to have to provide services to it – garbage collection, etc. What will the tax situation be and is there a possibility of some sort in lieu payments as we are discussing with the Horace Williams Track to cover the cost of the Town services that we will have to provide to the site. And, Ralph, specifically, do we have any legal authority to ask for these and require them as a condition of special use permit approval?

Council Member Brown Would it be possible when you bring this back to include in the solid waste management plan to include a plan for reduction of construction debris and waste? There is a stipulation for the management of construction debris but I’d like to know if it is possible for reduction. And, could you also have the Transportation Board supply us with information about the two people who voted against this particular project. Usually that is included in our information about the reasons and that was not included and so that would be helpful I think.

Council Member Franck I have three areas I wanted to cover. First of all it wasn’t clear when I was reading this that approval was being sought for both phases and I understand that now after hearing the comments tonight and reading over it again. So, with regard to the parking, I just heard you say that there is Phase II parking – you pointed to the area south of the original lot – on my map that looks about 32 parking spaces – is that approximately right? That’s in the ball park. So, roughly the first phase we’re looking at 130 parking spaces and I think the numbers look like 70,000 square feet of new construction plus the existing 20,000 so that’s about 90,000 square feet and 130 parking spaces, and I think that’s probably right. To me, I’ve always been an advocate of limiting parking and I think that the particular use that you’re going for here gives you a great opportunity to limit parking and so there’s no need to provide a vast excess of parking. The second concern on that topic has to do with the buildings. The first phase – the executive center – looks like 28,000 and it expands to 40,000 in that dotted area and that looks about right. The residence area initially is 42,000 and it expands to 90,000 which means that square footage more than doubles and on the map on the drawings I don’t see that. So the expansion is three floors – is that what she’s saying?

David Steis Well, no, I don’t understand the 40 to 90 I guess I don’t agree with that number.

Council Member Franck The Phase I looks like 42,017 square feet on the residential building and total with Phase II is 90,139.

David Steis No, then I think there is a mistake is what I’d say. Because that building should not double. In fact, the addition should be less than the original 40,000.

Council Member Franck That’s what the pictures look like, so if we could get that cleared up before the final . .

David Steis. Thank you. Good point.

Council Member Franck The next point I want to make deals with pedestrian access. Again, you made a very strong case that your visitors to the executive center are going to be captive in a sense – they’re not going t have cars and you’re going to encourage them not to have cars. I think it’s well first of all there is going to be a village nearby, hopefully, called Meadowmont to give people somewhere that they could conceivably walk to in the evening or when there’s nothing schedule at the center. The distance looks to me to be about ½ to ¾ of a mile from the conference center to the Village core area roughly depending on how you measure it. And, while that’s longer than we often consider being a walking distance, in this case I don’t think it is because of the captive nature of the people that we’re talking about and the fact that the perception and the sights that the people are going to be seeing as they are walk are going to be changing from the sort of wooded rural setting of the conference center into a sort of suburban setting of the houses and apartments on the Meadowmont plan moving into an urban setting in the Village core, so it seems to me it would be a very pleasant walk and something could easily be encouraged and the thing that I see on the plan that bothers me is that maybe the pedestrian access that provided on the site here is not quite adequate – specifically, the fact that there is a natural surface path which during certain weather may not be adequate at also it may not meet the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act which I think as a government agency you would be required to meet. So I would just ask you to look at that and really not give the idea short shrift that there are going to be a number of people that will find it very attractive to walk to and from the site and additionally employees because hopefully there is going to be a mass transit stop, a high density mass transit stop about ½ mile from this site, so employees certainly would be able to walk.

David Steis Can I respond to that? At the Transportation Board meeting, the same issue was brought up. We did not redraw it but one of the things we agreed to was that we would look at a paved path going out to where the transportation stop would be at Meadowmont Lane and also to address at the ADA portion of that and it would come from the parking lot in case they got a ride there and you could basically go from that parking lot to anywhere outside or within the confines.

Council Member Franck Great. Finally, I do want to talk about the Meadowmont Lane issue. Back during the approval process for Meadowmont, I actually had an opportunity to ride on the driveway that currently provides access to the site and I just don’t see that that is going to be sufficient for providing access to this conference center without some significant improvements and I think given the fact that it would have to be removed at some later point in order to meet the Meadowmont Master plan that the improvements there are not really warranted and you mentioned earlier the fact that you had made an agreement with East West Partners about giving up the access in exchange for the Meadowmont Lane access. While I don’t mean to appear unsympathetic, that sounds like an issue that needs to be worked out between you and East West Partners and that as a Council we have a responsibility to ensure that there is adequate access – namely, a two-laned paved road to this conference center before it can be approved. So, I’m leaning toward agreeing with the staff recommendation on that.

Council Member Capowski Can I follow up on two quick things?

Mayor Waldorf Yes.

Council Member Capowski One -- as you talk about pedestrian access to the developing area to the south, do remember bicycles. And, I agree with Richard and in spades I don’t see how that road could handle a 28 ton concrete truck.

Mayor Waldorf Or a fire truck even. Okay. I have one other question I want to ask. I think the Council has done a really good job of asking questions about the development proposal and this may seem a little bit odd but I know the Debose – I understand the Dubose -- family gave this historic place – this building and the land around it to the University which I view as a gift to the people of the State of North Carolina and now the mansion and the site are going to become if this approved essentially a project site for the business school. Is it still going to be open to the average citizen who might be interested in visiting a historic site or organizing some event in the mansion itself? I guess I think it’s – I know this is not part of our development review – but I think it’s important that the property be open to the state, to the people.

David Steis. We’ve discussed this at various points in time. I don’t if we’ve ever reached total consensus on it, but we believe the grounds and that part of the grounds and the home and things like that – you know, we have no problem sharing that and keeping that open. What we would be concerned about is a lot of traffic when you’re holding programs during the regular business hours because there would be traffic and some of the programs have outside venues and things like that, so that is a concern. We have purposely avoided any type of social type of venues you know we’re not endorsing weddings or things like that to be held out there. I don’t know if that totally answers your question.

Mayor Waldorf Well it does. I just want to make sure that the historical aspects of the property be available to be explored by people who are interested in those things.

Council Member Capowski Specifically there is not plan for a gate?

David Steis No plan for a gate. There is a plan for an entry way . . a formal type of entrance way.

Council Member Capowski But there’s no blockage – no man saying what is your business here?

David Steis No but you have to remember there are going to be people on that premise 24 hours a day so I mean to lock up a gate – you know, we’ve got to let people out too, so we’re not there to try to keep them in or keep somebody out.

A MOTION TO RECESS THE HEARING TO OCTOBER 16TH AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Council Member Brown I move that the Council go into closed session to discuss a pending lawsuit as authorized by North Carolina General Statute Section 143-318.11A3. The parties to the lawsuit are Forterra Corporation and the Town of Chapel Hill and there won’t be any information to report publicly regarding the resulting of the closed session.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting concluded at 9:08 p.m.