SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC FORUM OF
THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
ON THE PROPOSED UNC MASTER PLAN
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the Public Forum to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Kevin Foy arrived at 7:04 p.m.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
University representatives present were: Interim Provost Dick Edwards, Vice Chancellor and Senior University Council Susan Ehringhaus, Interim Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Jack Evans, Associate Vice Chancellor for Auxiliary Services Carolyn Efland, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Bruce Runberg, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Dr. Sue Kitchen, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Services Dean Bresciani, Chief of Staff of UNC Hospitals Dr. Stan Mandell, Chief Planner for UNC Hospitals Mary Beck, Dean of the School of Public Health Bill Roper, Planning Team Adam Gross and George Alexiou, Division of Facilities Planning Linda Convissor and Anna Woo, and Stormwater and Environmental Planning Tom Cahill.
Mayor Waldorf reviewed the agenda for the evening’s public forum.
Item 1 – Presentation of Plan Answering Questions in the Petition of August 28, 2000
Jonathan Howes, University Representative to the Forum, said that the University was happy to participate in this meeting, as well as other meetings it has had with Town Council members and others. He reported that Chancellor Moesser was unable to attend tonight’s meeting because he was meeting with the UNC Board of Trustees. Mr. Howes introduced some of the individuals from the University who would be answering questions.
Mr. Howes said that the Master Plan was still a work in progress, begun in June of 1998, hopefully, to be presented to the University Board of Trustees in January 2001. He began his presentation by saying that the University of North Carolina was the oldest public university in America, housed on a campus for the original university, which he illustrated with slides. He continued describing the history of the planning of the University and its growth. He said the planning for growth was not as well done for the South campus as it was for the North campus. Mr. Howes said one reason for the current Master Plan was the need for a 30% increase in student enrollment by the year 2015. He said even if there were not an increase in the student body, there would still be a need for additional space for research.
Mr. Howes said some of the things identified that the University would need when the planning process began, were:
· The need to maintain the small campus feeling while maintaining growth.
· There should be a commitment to maintain the character of what is UNC and distill its essence.
· From Chancellor Robert House—“My first impression of Chapel Hill was trees; my last impression is trees.”
· Chancellor Hooker—“UNC’s single greatest asset, beyond its academic strength, is its physical beauty and its integration with the town.”
· Community Meetings and remarks at these meetings.
· Planning Principles:
· The essence of Carolina—growth can and should enhance and improve the physical quality of the University and the Town, by respecting and exporting the principles of Polk and McCorkle Places. In this way the responsible capacity of the land must be carefully analyzed to provide a guide for the university’s future.
· Memorable landscape and seamless connections—the sublime integration of the built and natural systems of North Campus define the ease with which internal and external connections take place. Extending the balance of buildings, open space and trees can maintain those qualities that are revered and repair those qualities that are reviled.
· Intellectual climate—intellectual climate should define the essence of the University and intellectual exchange should be woven into the fabric of everyday life. The intentions of the intellectual climate report should be manifest in the physical plan. Barriers to the intellectual life should be removed while new venues for intellectual life are created.
· Regional comprehensive solutions—the physical character of the university will rise and fall with the physical character of the region and the town. Comprehensive solutions to parking, transit, utilities and growth must be carefully coordinated with the ethics, values and challenges inherent in the region.
· Transit Services
· Physical and Regulatory Environment
Mr. Howes continued his remarks, saying that in December 1998 a Concept Plan for the Development of the Campus was drawn and then tested through a series of precinct studies, and these results would be discussed next. Mr. Howes introduced Adam Gross of Ayers Saint Gross, consulting firm working on the Master Plan for the University, and whose exclusive practice was working with campuses throughout America. Mr. Howe said that Chancellor Moesser understood the Plan and was deeply involved with it; understood the relationship between the campus and the community; and was pledged to continue the good relations between the University and the Town.
Mr. Gross said that his firm had been working on the Plan for two years, and he was concerned that the community viewed them as “the bad guys.” He said they were trying to collectively do what was the right thing for the University and also the region. He thanked the people who sat on the committees, other than University people. He said the Plan had much community involvement and had provided some areas of disagreement, but he felt that the planners had tried to address the issues raised.
Mr. Gross said the issues of planning, or lack thereof, of the South Campus were raised. He said that the environmental issues raised by Tom Cahill, especially those of stormwater runoff, had been seriously taken into consideration, and, as a result, one of the aspects the planners were looking at most readily were the areas of asphalt, and converting all of the surface parking on the campus to buildings and grounds. He said there were about 20 acres of asphalt that would be rethought, using about one-half of the areas for sites for new buildings, which would probably take about 20-40 years to build out.
Mr. Gross said a total of about 10 acres of new buildings, 5.2 million square feet of new buildings, could be built within the capacity of the land. He said the other 10 acres would go from impervious asphalt to grass and trees, which would extend the greenways discussed in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gross described the plan for the east South Campus which would become a residential village, primarily for undergraduates, family housing, and some academic space, and allow the Health Affairs portion on the west side of the South Campus to grow in a rational way. He said this would include the demolition of Odum Village, which would be replaced with a new forest as a greenway.
Mr. Gross described the connection road to US 15-501, to take the traffic off of Manning Drive, and allow traffic to flow directly into the Health Affairs areas of the campus. He said the proposal was to extend areas of greenways, new quadrangles, new parks (some on top of parking decks), connecting North Campus to South Campus. Mr. Gross said the buildings would be built around the green spaces. He added it would help the walking areas and make it a more quality area, for walking and bicycling. Mr. Gross said the overall plan tried to correct the differences between the compact buildings on the North Campus, with the scattered ones on the South Campus. He said 25% of the land planning on campus was for housing. Mr. Gross said the proposal was to daylight the existing streams which run across the campus.
Mr. Gross said the planners had been working closely with the students regarding the location of new buildings for housing so not to impact on recreation areas and other outdoor spaces. He said planning was for a whole new arts complex adjacent to Franklin Street, which was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan for a community arts center. Mr. Gross described a new area for the science buildings, tearing down Venable Hall and building an underground parking lot, with a building on top of it, and replacing the current parking lot with green space. He said a parking garage adjacent to the Carolina Inn had originally been considered, but because of concerns in the Westside neighborhoods about the extra parking, that plan was discarded.
Mr. Gross said that parking lots in the central campus would be expanded, but not to increase congestion on the roads, so roads wouldn’t need to be widened. Mr. Gross said the parking decks would have grass tops and sidewalks for pedestrians so they would not have to cross dangerous streets in order to get between North and South Campuses. He said another parking lot would be lost for increased building at the Public Health area and a parking lot on another site would be a two-story garage on Pittsboro Road. Mr. Gross said there would be another parking lot in front of the Hospital and there would be a cross-over pedestrian bridge on Manning Drive from the Dental School.
Mr. Gross said there were four new dormitories being built near the Business School, with more dormitories planned for the future. He said a new, four-story building was being proposed on South Columbia Street and the taller buildings proposed would be further away from the boundaries and closer to the Medical School, with a more traditional architecture. He reported that the original steam and power plant would be moved to another location adjacent to the Craig Deck, in response to concerns in the adjacent neighborhoods.
Mr. Gross said the last significant issue was the connecting road and transit connecting to US 15-501, and tearing down Odum Village. He said in order to build a train on Manning Drive it would have to be built high on stilts, where it would have difficulty turning, so the planners looked at flatter land to bring the transit system to the Health Care Facilities. Mr. Gross said the area they thought would be adequate for this system would cut through some properties not owned by the University, along roads near the Smith Center. This road, he reported, would be an alternate to Manning Drive which was already over capacity and where future student housing was to be built. He pointed out where the road was proposed and said that the planners knew that this proposal was very controversial and that they had looked at several alternatives, which he detailed on the maps. He added that the planners would be discussing these alternatives with the community.
Mr. Gross said that 90% of the plan for the campus would be derailed by eliminating the connector road. He ended by reading some quotes from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, which he indicated were the sentiments of the planners for the UNC Master Plan.
Item 2 – Summary of the Scope and Purpose of the 15-501 Major Investment Study
Mayor Waldorf gave some background:
· In 1989 the Triangle Transit Authority was formed and given the charge of developing plans for and operating a regional transit system for the area;
· In 1995 a Regional Transit Plan was adopted and it included a fixed-guideway transit;
· Phase I of this was in the advanced planning stages and should begin operation in 2007—a rail system from Raleigh to Cary to Morrisville, to RTP, to downtown Durham;
· Phase II of the system, which should extend from Ninth Street in Durham to the UNC Hospitals, is not yet planned, but was the purpose of the 15-501 Major Investment Study.
Mayor Waldorf said the Study began in August and should be completed in February 2001, and the partners in the Study are Chapel Hill, Durham, the Triangle Transit Authority, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Duke, and UNC. Mayor Waldorf said part of the reason for the Study was that in urban areas a Major Investment Study (MIS) is usually required if a community was planning to seek federal funding for a new transit system, and the other reason was to find the answer as to whether this system was needed. Mayor Waldorf said the MIS had to look at costs, benefits, and impacts of a variety of transportation alternatives. She reported that there were key facts about the study:
· Technology—busway, busway/mixed traffic, diesel multiple units (DMU), light rail or lighter rail.
· Corridors and Station Areas—from Ninth Street in Durham to South Square Mall; from South Square Mall to the Gateway property; from the Gateway area to Fordham Boulevard; from Fordham Boulevard to UNC Hospitals.(Any study of a corridor between the UNC Hospitals to the Horace Williams property has been deleted from the study.)
Mayor Waldorf said when the Study was completed there would be plenty of opportunity for public discussion and once the alternative has been chosen, with further environmental studies completed, application for federal funds called “new start money,” where the federal government would pay half the cost of the new transit corridor would be made. She said the most optimistic scenario for when construction might start would be 10-12 years from the date a locally preferred alternative was selected. Mayor Waldorf reported that in the interim rights-of-way could be preserved, protected, or purchased. She said the reason for this Study was because of the growing traffic congestion along this corridor, and that other studies should be made for the corridors to the Research Triangle Park. She said the Council would be derelict in its duties if it did not try to find ways to manage the increasing traffic congestion.
Item 3 – Questions from Designated Representatives of Neighborhoods
Ken Broun, representing the neighborhoods of Mason Farm, Whitehead Circle, and Westside and their petition, addressed his questions to Mr. Howes, representing the University. He asked Mr. Howes, if the University exercised one of the options of the Master Plan to acquire property for the connector road, how it planned to acquire the property. Mr. Howes responded that the University, when it wished to acquire property, waited until the property had gone on the market and then purchased it. He said this tradition had gone on for hundreds of years.
Mr. Broun asked, if the property did not come one the market at a time frame planned by the University, would the University claim the property under the powers of eminent domain. Mr. Howes said the University had not used that power in the past, and preferred not to. He asked the University attorney, Susan Ehringhaus, to address this question.
Vice Chancellor and Senior University Council Susan Ehringhaus responded that the University practiced acquisition of property through the open market, and that the University did not have the power for commitments, but that the State had the power of eminent domain. She said the planners were present tonight to reiterate that the University was not planning acquisition through eminent domain, but would continue to purchase property through the open market.
Mr. Broun suggested that the University might at some point, if the properties in question did not come one the open market, request the State to use the powers of eminent domain. Ms. Ehringhaus replied that she could not buy into Mr. Broun’s assumptions, pointing out that Mr. Gross had presented the other options that could be dependent, not on eminent domain, but rather on purchasing property, and the third option could be accomplished without the purchase of any additional property.
Mr. Broun asked again if the option for acquisition of property was chosen and the property did not come on the market, what would the University then do. Ms. Ehringhaus responded that there were three different options for the road being presented for consideration, that the university had not made a definite decision, and was present to discuss the various other options. She said the University had not reached a conclusion, as Mr. Broun had suggested. Ms. Ehringhaus said she was not willing to make the assumption that a conclusion had been reached because the governing bodies of the University had not made that assumption and were examining options to be responsive to the concerns of the community, as well as, responsive to the mission of the University.
Mr. Broun asked Ms. Ehringhaus if she would prefer that the University not take any property. Ms. Ehringhaus said she had not stated her preference, and what the planners were presenting this evening was a series of designs, each of which accomplished different things. She said two of the options were being presented in order to address the concerns of the community, and that no decision had been made.
Mr. Broun returned to option I and asked that the assumption be made that this was the option in the Master Plan, leaving out eminent domain. He then asked if that would not limit the salability of the properties in question to anybody but the University. Ms. Ehringhaus said the University would not respond to a scenario which had not been decided, but what it was looking at was a Master Plan that would accommodate everyone. She reiterated that all the options should be studied.
Mr. Broun asked Ms. Ehringhaus to put herself into the position of one of the owners of the properties under consideration for sale to the University under option I. He asked wouldn’t it be appropriate for these owners to worry that the University would either take their property by eminent domain, or inhibit the marketability of their property. Ms. Ehringhaus said, if the assumption was that the planners were all “bad guys,” then no one was going to get anywhere. She said what she proposed was to bring Mr. Gross back to the podium to discuss, once again, what the planners had done to address the neighborhoods’ concerns, and what they planned to do about them.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the University had a written policy on whether it would exercise eminent domain in adjacent neighborhoods, and, if it did not have such a policy, could it establish such a policy. Ms. Ehringhaus said the University did not have a written policy for establishing eminent domain, but it could establish a policy indicating a process through which it might move. She said the basic policy of eminent domain was set out in the general statutes of the State.. Ms. Ehringhaus said it was possible for a future Board of Trustees of the University to put in place a process by which it chose to invoke eminent domain.
Mr. Broun said he was getting the impression that the option presented previously, option I, was no longer the option, and asked if the University had backed off of that option. Mr. Gross said the Plan was not finished, and the planners were still trying to coordinate it with the report the Mayor presented, relative to transit. He said if a rail technology were to be selected then there were not other alignments that seemed to be workable relative to the properties north of Mason Farm Road. Mr. Gross said what the planners were sensing, was that the feeling in Chapel Hill and Durham was not to have a fixed–train guideway as a system, and, if that was the case, it appeared that the planners could accommodate an access road to take some of the pressure from Manning Drive and get better access to the Health Affairs area, on property the University already owned.
Mr. Broun said that option I was still an option, but he understood that was not an option that the University had decided upon. He said, if it were still an option, then the properties would still have to be acquired in some way, and one way to acquire them was to wait until they came on the market. Mr. Broun said the University would either have to buy the properties on the open market or it would have to condemn them. He asked if this was correct. Ms. Ehringhaus said the answer was that if the University wanted to purchase property, it did so on the open market. She said, should an option be selected that would involve option II, there would still be three pieces of property, which the University would try to acquire on the open market. Ms. Ehringhaus said there were no plans to exercise the power of invoking eminent domain, but no official of the University had the authority to say this would never happen. She asked that the past practices be looked at, and that the additional two options had been developed under the leadership of the new Chancellor, Chancellor Moesser, who was seeking to hear the neighborhoods concerns. Ms. Ehringhaus said the first option had not been abandoned, but the other two options would also be presented to the Trustees in January.
Mr. Broun said the first option would be an invasion of the neighborhood, but assuming that the connector road and the transit were not built, and that Manning Drive would continue to be used, he asked how much of the Plan would be affected. He asked if the North Campus would be affected. Mr. Gross said the North Campus would be affected, and as new venues were established, Manning Drive would still have to be the way into the Campus, if people were coming from the south and did not use South Columbia Street as an access.
Mr. Broun said it wouldn’t affect the green spaces, the amount of buildings, but only changed the way of access to campus. Mr. Gross said the Plan would significantly change the character of Manning Drive, with the addition of brick sidewalks, street trees, low stone walls, reducing road width and turning lanes, and making it better for pedestrians.
Mr. Broun asked if there were ways of dealing with Manning Drive—with the problems of transportation, the problems of access, and pedestrian crossings—with the addition of pedestrian bridges. Mr. Gross said three pedestrian bridges were planned, adding that one of the goals of the planners was to make the arrival of patients at the hospital simple and easy, which was not the case on Manning Drive.
Mr. Broun asked if Manning Drive could be made easier and simpler. George Alexiou, of the Planning Team, addressed the question by pointing out that the issue was not with Manning Drive, itself, but the explosive growth of the region that resulted in the bypass carrying considerably more traffic in the future. He said the congestion would not be so much what was happening on the campus, but what was happening on the bypass. Mr. Alexiou explained several alternatives which the planners had considered, and said they were not acceptable. He said the conclusion was that one additional access point to and from the campus, especially the hospital, would be needed.
Mr. Broun asked if it was fair to say that it was not Manning Drive that would fail, but the intersection with US 15-501. Mr. Alexiou said it was correct from a traffic engineering point of view, but from a safety and environmental view it was the increasing number of students and other pedestrians already on Manning Drive.
Mr. Broun asked if adding another light, several hundred feet from the traffic light at Manning Drive, wouldn’t cause more problems than adjusting the intersection at Manning Drive and leaving it a single exit from campus. Mr. Alexiou said the amount of traffic would remain the same on the bypass, either way, but what the planners were trying to do was the best they could with constraints, by providing two outlets to the University and to the hospitals. He said the two signals could be coordinated to prevent back-up on the bypass, but there would still be some delays. Mr. Alexiou said more and more cars were using Mason Farm Road as a cut-through to the campus, in order to avoid Manning Drive.
Mr. Broun asked if the only place the proposed trains could go into the campus was the transit corridor mentioned in the options, but if buses were used, instead, couldn’t they use Manning Drive. Mr. Alexiou said light rail could not use Manning Drive, unless it was built on a structure of concrete, which in some places along the road would have a very steep grade, affecting its safety. He said there would also be less room for other traffic.
Mayor Waldorf asked if there was any elevated railway that could use the Manning Drive corridor without a structure. Mr. Alexiou said there was no known rail technology in the United States, even with some of the new developments using no electrical power.
Mr. Broun asked if the buses could still use Manning Drive, and if a lane could be dedicated at certain times of the day to the buses. Mr. Alexiou said it could if there was another access road, because it was even more imperative if a lane was deleted from Manning Drive. Mr. Broun responded it could also be done on Manning Drive. Mr. Alexiou responded that there would have to be some way to deal with the traffic.
Mr. Broun asked if there would be a possibility of extending the rail service from the hospitals to the Horace Williams property. Mayor Waldorf said the situation was that the Town was not interested in either extending a rail corridor, or any fixed guideway corridor through the Westwood/Westside neighborhoods along the corridor identified by an earlier TTA fixed guideway study. She added that the University had stated that it would not allow a fixed guideway to be built from the hospitals through the campus to the co-generation plant, where it would connect to the rail line and would go to the Horace Williams Tract. Mayor Waldorf said that the issue of a fixed guideway system had been taken out of consideration in the study, and the way through the campus to the co-generation plant railway line would remain buses and mixed traffic.
Mr. Broun said buses might be the way to have service into the hospitals, instead of fixed guideways. Mayor Waldorf said it might, and that was the purpose of the study and that the data would give the jurisdictions a better basis for deciding what technology and corridor alignment would be best.
Mr. Broun asked if one of the alternatives would be for the rail to stop at Meadowmont, and the buses would take over from there. Mayor Waldorf said she believed that was a viable alternative and she would like to see it pursued in the study.
Mr. Broun asked if it wouldn’t be a viable alternative to have some of the student and graduate student housing at the Horace Williams property, and have the students use the bus service to campus. Mr. Howes responded said there was some consideration of housing at the Horace Williams property, both market and student. Mr. Broun asked if the housing were there, would the University still need the amount of housing shown planned for the main campus. Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Dr. Sue Kitchen, responded that the Plan represented, at this point, growth in the undergraduate level, and one guiding principle of the enrollment plan was that part of the undergraduate experience at the University was the residential nature within the academy itself. She added that additional housing would probably have to be placed at Horace Williams, but that would more likely be for graduate students and married student housing. Dr. Kitchen said the current plan was to retain the 300 units the University now has for married students.
Mr. Brown said that the married students could all be moved out to Horace Williams. Dr. Kitchen said that one of the options for married student housing fitted, without the use of any additional property that the University did not own. She added that the married student housing was very compatible to the neighborhood where it was located, and the commitment remained to keep at least the level already on campus of married students for the campus experience.
Mr. Gross said the planners felt it would not be wise to put the Odum Village replacement on the Baity property because it was a steep slope and would have heavy stormwater runoff, and recommended leaving the Baity property as a natural preserve for perpetuity. He added that another benefit of keeping the married student housing on campus was the fact that the students could walk to classes and not have to rely on transportation.
Mr. Broun asked why not renovate or tear down the buildings in Odum Village and rebuild them at the same location. Dr. Kitchen said the University wanted to respond to the pressure of enrollment, and, respond to the Town’s request for adequate housing for increased enrollment, and these students would have to find housing in the Town, while the buildings were rebuilt. She said the high-rise buildings also needed renovating, so they were staging their reconstruction.
Mr. Broun asked if a staging plan could be used for renovating Odum Village. Mr. Howes said there were two other reasons for not renovating Odum Village: expansion needs for Health Affairs, and the other was environmental.
Tom Cahill, Stormwater and Environmental Planning, said that keeping Baity property a natural preserve and returning the property at Odum Village to its natural environs was a healing of the entire Southern Campus area.
Chief Planner for UNC Hospitals Mary Beck said in the Health Affairs and hospitals area there was concern about how this area would grow and develop and how to make it compatible with the surrounding area. She said there were very few places where these could grow beyond a very crowded area and they needed to have areas to grow into, such as the Odum Village property, for more needed research buildings and services for the public. In addition, she added, they wanted to create more green space and better ambiance for the public.
Mr. Broun asked if there was any free-standing research which could be relocated at the Horace Williams property. Ms. Beck said at some point this might be possible, but a majority of the research and the interaction between the patient care process needed to be connected.
Chief of Staff of the UNC Hospitals Dr. Stan Mandell responded to Mr. Broun’s question by adding that what made this hospital unique was that there was a blend of the basic sciences and the clinical sciences on a common campus, and the intellectual interchange was extraordinarily important to the benefit of multiple parties concerned. He added that by separating these, a very dear price would be paid. Dr. Mandell said that the hospital, both in-patient and out-patient, was growing rapidly, and the patients needed a simple and quick way to get to the hospital complex, and this was also necessary for recruiting new personnel.
****Mr. Brown asked……… if that would add any new parking spaces or deal with those parking spaces that existed at the present time. Mr. Howes said it would replace the parking spaces already there and may add a few more. Mr. Gross said there were currently two parking lots on the crescent and there would be a replication of what was currently there—about 300 spaces.
Mr. Broun said in order to complete the process the University needed its own internal approval and the approval, in some aspects of the plan, of the Town Council. Mr. Howes said this was correct, noting approval would be needed for zoning, a Special Use Permit for the Smith Center which would have to be modified, the Development Ordinance cap on floor area space on campus, and, if the road was to be built, it would have to be included on the Town’s Thoroughfare Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program with the State.
Council Member Wiggins asked how many units of student housing at Odum Village would be lost if the University chose option III. Mr. Gross said the planners were in the early stages of testing that question but the goal was to accommodate with 400 units, replacing the 300 units torn down. He hoped they would not lose any units.
Council Member Ward asked how well the existing capacity of the bypass would fit the increased parking planned. Mr. Alexiou said the plan was to eliminate a lot of surface parking, impervious asphalt, and replace it to minimize the amount of future parking and create a more pedestrian-friendly campus. He said this philosophy came out of a task force on parking and transit, and they had tried to keep to this philosophy in planning for the parking. Mr. Alexiou said parking would only be increased by 15%, and parking availability would decrease. He added the bypass was problematic and was a regional problem, making it difficult for persons on the campus to access and exit.
Council Member Ward asked what the number of increased parking spaces was, and was it a good idea to increase the number to 15% since there would be growing gridlock on the bypass. Mr. Alexiou said the increase of parking was just a small component, there was a lot more emphasis of park and ride lots, regional transit, and increased housing available, so people could walk to class and work. Mr. Gross said there were 13,000 cars presently parking on campus, and there were another 2,500-3,000 cars that park in existing park and ride lots as part of the University system. He said if the ratio of cars to people was kept, 10,000 cars would be added to the main campus. Mr. Gross said the planners were recommending to the University that only 2,500 cars be added to the existing number on campus presently, in the long-term view of the build-out. He added that most of that increase was for the hospital, for patient-care and visitors to the hospital. The way to deal with the increases in traffic to the campus, Mr. Alexiou said, was to have more park and ride lots and increased dedicated bus service on campus; encourage more people to use the Chapel Hill bus network now existing; and build as much housing on the main campus as possible so people would not have to use cars.
Council Member Bateman asked if the need for a new road was to make Manning Drive more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Alexiou said that was one important reason, and the other was that, as traffic increased on the bypass, it would be increasingly more difficult to use Manning Drive alone to travel to and from the campus, adding that another outlet is needed.
Council Member Bateman asked if this would be “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Mr. Gross said it was just the opposite, there were several other factors suggesting the need for a second access road to the Health Affairs part of campus: narrowing Manning Drive so that traffic would flow more slowly, accommodating the more than 2,500 more cars expected in the future on campus, a new hospital building for patients, and the need for a direct access to the hospital.
Council Member Bateman said she was not happy about the prospect of taking peoples’ houses, and asked why a compromise regarding pedestrian bridges over Manning Drive would not work. Mr. Gross said there was an alternative to taking people’s houses, by building a boulevard on University property, unless a rail transit was chosen for the transit system. He said the bridges the planners were suggesting were near Health Affairs, and there were not many appropriate locations in the area of Ridge Road and Manning Drive, but there still was a bridge in the plan, if it were a possibility.
Mayor Waldorf said there would probably be trade-offs in the final decision: Manning Drive in its current capacity, the new proposed road, and the proposed transit corridor road. Mr. Howes said that the South Columbia Street proposal, which could be an option, had been removed from consideration as a joint effort of the University and the Town.
Council Member Foy asked if the new proposed intersection with Fordham Boulevard would be accessible from all directions. Mr. Howes said it would be equipped for left turns.
Council Member Foy asked how many students would be accommodated in the new proposed housing of 1.1 million square feet. Mr. Gross said that 1,800 square feet would be beds for undergraduates, in addition to the 1,000 square feet under construction in the fall. He said the 400-unit target would be included in the 1.1 million square feet.
Council Member Foy asked if there was additional parking planned to accompany the additional housing. Mr. Gross responded that for the Odum Village replacement about 1.5 cars per unit were planned, but none for the undergraduate housing. He said if the students had cars they could park them in the suggested park and ride lots and decks, such as the ones planned for the Friday Center and the Horace Williams property.
Council Member Brown said the issues of utilizing the Odum Village land for future hospital expansion and turning it into a green space seemed contradictory, and asked for an explanation. Mr. Gross pointed out the area where Odum Village was scattered, so that some of it could be torn out for a green space surrounding the stream that flows through the area. He pointed to the top of the area, which was flat and was where the proposed 4-5-or 6-story hospital buildings would be located.
Council Member Brown asked if there would be a possibility to leave Odum Village and to locate the hospital research buildings on the Horace Williams property. Ms. Beck said it would not be very practical to move the research buildings to the Horace Williams property, except for some selective research, because the buildings proposed would be integrated into the surrounding patient care areas and would be intermingling.\
Mr. Gross said the area proposed for the research buildings would be sitting next to the power plant, two large parking garages and future planned hospital expansion, and it was not a place to put family housing. Dr. Mandell added that a very dear price would be paid if the research areas were separated from medicine and the clinicians.
Council Member Brown asked about the underground parking lots on Pittsboro Street, and whether the planners were only proposing one instead of two. Mr. Gross said that one of the suggested parking garages, located at the side of the Carolina Inn, had been eliminated from the plans, and the plan now suggested building only a small, three-story brick academic building there instead. He said the one parking garage would be underground, so it would not be seen from the street.
Council Member Brown asked if the planners were planning to construct new buildings on top of the underground garage. Mr. Gross said they planned a three-story building, comparable to the ones across the street.
Council Member Brown said the question was traffic in the area, and noted that if there were new buildings there would be new traffic in the area. Mr. Gross responded that would not be if there was no place to park and the planners were only suggesting allowing for parking already on the site.
Council Member Strom commented that, given the technology of communicating, he did not see why the research facilities had to be massed together, and that had to be weighed against some of the other judgements such as traffic and residential issues in that section of the campus. Mr. Howes responded that was a good comment and the University was leading in the communication technology, but that propinquity did count, especially on a University campus. Mr. Gross said, despite the communications technology, for a student on campus, on site was the best way for students to learn and mature and be near the areas of their interests.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the option for the connecting road would be chosen before the plan was presented to the Board of Trustees. Mr. Howes said the Trustees would chose the options, but there would be more meetings with campus residents and community residents, and that options would be discussed further and added to or modified, in all probability before the Plan went to the Trustees.
Council Member Wiggins asked if there would be more public opportunities for discussion, especially if there was a fourth option. Ms. Ehringhaus said the Trustees would be presented with the plan as has been seen this evening.
Mayor Waldorf asked how much the University expected the medical complex to grow and whether an adopted UNC Master Plan could control that expansion. Ms. Ehringhous assured the Mayor that the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor were committed to growth expansion following the directions of the Master Plan. Mr. Gross said the University, through the direction of the Board of Trustees, had asked the planners to develop specific design guidelines for expansion.
Mayor Waldorf asked for an estimate of square footage. Ms. Beck said they would need to add these up to answer the question, adding that the hospital was planning to coordinate its growth with that planned by the University. Mr. Gross added that the growth overall, particularly in Health Affairs and Sciences, was addressing current deficiencies in space for research.
Mayor Waldorf asked what would the planners propose to accomplish in the first ten years, if they had all the permissions and the funds. Interim Vice Chancellor for Finances and Administration Jack Evans responded that the University did have a phased plan. He outlined the past two years in the planning stage, when first the Legislature turned down a bond issue in 1999 to finance the Statement of Needs of $6.9 billion for the University System, and following was the development of a multi-year plan for each of the 16 Universities in the University system which extracted each of the Universities’ piece of the bond referendum legislation passed in the last Legislative session. Dr. Evans said that the bond bill referred to a five-year plan for financing, and the University at Chapel Hill’s share of this bill is approximately $499 million. Dr. Evans said, in addition to this funding, the University had as supplements private fund raising, the use of overhead receipts and self-financing, and some self-liquidating projects. He said there was a multi-year plan, and there was a sequence in the plan to achieve it.
Item 5 – Further Questions or Comments from Other Members of the
Audience and University Representatives
Roland Giduz spoke in favor of the University Plan and the MIS Study which Mayor Waldorf had discussed. He said he hoped the controversy over the connector road would not derail progress on the Plan, itself.
Shawn Mitchell, six-year resident of Odum Village, supported leaving Odum Village where it was because it was convenient for the residents to live on campus where they could walk to work or to classes and use the facilities of the University without having to use the bus system. She added that many of her neighbors did not have cars, so it was important that they be able to walk, especially at night, when public transit did not run.
Lisa Allen, resident of Odum Village, said the residents preferred to stay in the current housing, since most of them studied or worked on campus. She said it was convenient to them to be able to walk and it allowed them to spend more time with their families. She added that the hospital facilities and student life were nearby, and easily accessible.
Peg Rees, President of the Mason Farm/Whitehead Neighborhood Association, commented that the proposed construction of the connector road called for the destruction of 13 homes in the neighborhood, five of which the University had acquired over a period of years. She added that many of the people who lived in the neighborhood had worked at the University and had enjoyed the convenience of being able to either walk or bicycle to campus. Ms. Rees said the buffer between the neighborhood and the Dean Dome was a chain-link fence and 200 foot buffer, which the University had declined to allow as a dedicated greenway when the Special Use Permit had been issued for the Dean Dome.
Philip Rees said he did not think that the option III road proposed was an attractive option for Oteys Road.
Betty Cloutier, Co-President of the Chapel Hill Preservation Society, said the members were especially concerned about the fate of the old buildings on campus, as well as the historic neighborhoods. She said they supported the plan to renovate and restore some of these old buildings.
Bitty Holton, Co-President of the Chapel Hill Preservation Society, spoke as an alumni of the University of North Carolina, and said that Chapel Hill and the University were considered synonymous. She said the members of the Society urged the planners to upgrade and modernize the campus, but if, at all possible, to preserve the unique charm, beauty and diversity of the buildings.
Jim Lea, as a member of the Chapel Hill Preservation Society, asked the University planners for: a statement as to the degree to which the preservation and restoration of the historically and architectecturally important older buildings was a part of the process of Master Planning; what comprehensive renovation meant for the buildings earmarked in the bond package; and the planners reassurance that the transparency of the process would continue as the steps toward the final presentation evolved. Mr. Howes responded that the process would continue to remain transparent. Mr. Gross said he believed there should be a statement about the preservation and restoration of the old buildings in the Master Plan.
Dr. Evans said that comprehensive renovation would mean significant renovation and modernization in the interior, structural repairs externally, but no changes in the façade. He gave examples of some buildings contemplated.
Kimberly Brewer, member of the University Master Plan Committee as a representative of the neighborhoods, and a professional planner, said that the neighborhoods’ significant concerns still existed. She read excerpts from a resolution presented to the Town, the Hospital, and the University last fall from the concerned neighborhoods adjacent to the property under discussion regarding zoning, parking, use of diesel-fueled transits, the connector road through the neighborhood, and land purchase policies.
Baird Grimson, representing the Westside Neighborhood Association, asked if the University would consider the use of sound abatement techniques during construction to reduce the noise in the neighborhood. Division of Facilities Planning Anna Woo said that the buildings were subject to the Chapel Hill Noise Ordinance. Mr. Howes said the planners would get a more complete answer for Mr. Grimson.
Elaine Barney, a resident of Westwood Drive, said that the neighborhood concerns were of the heart as well as the head, and asked how the concerns of encroachment or the destruction of a neighborhood community could be explained. She said there was a need for compassion and sensitivity to the needs of the neighborhood if option I was approved. Ms. Barney asked what would happen if the University continued to encroach upon all the neighborhoods between its property and the bypass, ignoring the Town’s Comprehensive Plan concerning neighborhoods. She asked the University to rethink its Master Plan, and that the Town continue to support the Comprehensive Plan.
Anne Seymour, Westwood Drive, said Ms. Barney had expressed her concerns, and there was much to say about keeping the area as beautiful and scenic as it currently is. She said she believed that the University could work within its boundaries to build the buildings they wanted to have, and put other buildings elsewhere, keeping Chapel Hill “the sweetest little college town in America.”
Diana Steele said her house was one of the three houses the University proposed to buy and tear down, which would destroy her pre-school, her livelihood, and her retirement plans. She described her youth as a Chapel Hill resident, her adult years as a resident of the Westwood Drive neighborhood, the conversion of part of her home for living quarters for foreign medical students, and the present use of the house as a pre-school for the neighborhood children and the married students’ children. Ms. Steele said the destruction of the buildings and the road would destroy the nature of the area and asked if this would continue throughout the other neighborhoods south of the University.
William Barney, Westside neighborhood and teacher at UNC, asked whether there were plans for the current research lab being built on the property of the School of Public Health, to deal with highly infectious agents under a government-funded program to explore use of such agents in biological and chemical warfare. Dean of the School of Public Health Bill Roper said the building, as planned, was an addition of laboratories for the School of Public Health for infectious disease epidemiology, nutrition, and environmental engineering, and the work done on infectious disease would be a level three. He added that the University already has five level three labs on the campus. He said the buildings would be state-of-the art.
Pat Killian, resident of Mason Farm Road, reminded the University and the Town Council of two properties that had been purchased by the University, and turned into (1) a parking lot, and (2) the Smith Center, against the wishes of their owners, and asked them to consider the nature of the neighborhood they were proposing to tear down.
Jon Harper, UNC student, said that all the construction proposed would create horrible traffic on Manning Drive if another road were not built. He said he believed that light rail would be a good addition, in order to aid the traffic problem. Mr. Harper said he was part of a theatre group that performed at Swain Hall, but it did need to be renovated. He mentioned other buildings needing renovation as well. Mr. Harper asked what would happen to the arts during the building phase of the new arts center. Dr. Evans responded that the activities would be moved to an alternative space, and the materials would be packaged and moved to safe storage space until the renovation was complete. Mr. Harper asked what would happen to performance space. Dr. Evans said there would be an alternative identified where the activities could take place.
Julie McClintock said she was concerned about the University’s plans to add five million square feet of office space and other buildings into the Southern Campus, which, she felt, did not seem large enough to contain it. She said she was also concerned about environmental impacts. Ms. McClintock said she had heard there would be 10,000 more employees as a result of the additional research labs. She discussed the traffic studies, which would not be completed in time for the approval of the University Master Plan. Ms. McClintock discussed problems with the probability of a light rail transit system. She added the alternatives to rail service were good bus services, which needed to be built upon.
Council Member Wiggins asked the planners whether, after hearing the concerns of the neighborhood this evening, a fourth option might be proposed. Mr. Gross said he had hopes that many of the concerns had been addressed. He said the most controversial issue was the connector road, and it would continue to be addressed. Mr. Gross said the most important determination would be the decision of the future transit system choice.
Mayor Waldorf said that decision was supposed to be decided by February 2001. She said it had to be a choice that all the jurisdictions could agree upon.
Mr. Howes thanked the Council and the neighborhoods for the style in which the forum was conducted. He said the University would continue to make the process transparent, and would welcome input from the community. Mr. Howes reminded everyone that the University would continue to be a good neighbor.
Mayor Waldorf thanked everyone and said it was a very productive meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.