SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

ON THE UNC DEVELOPMENT PLAN

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2001, AT 7:00 P. M.

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

Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Before beginning the public hearing, Mayor Waldorf read the following statement:

I regret that enforcement of the Town's sign ordinances has distracted all of us from focusing on more important community and national issues.  In that spirit, I request the members of the Town Council to join me in instructing the Town Manager to immediately suspend enforcement of the Town's sign ordinances that regulate or prohibit temporary non-commercial signs on private property unless such signs are determined, due to structure or location, to constitute a hazard to public safety.  We recognize that in our country political speech has greater protection than commercial speech.

I further request the members of the Council to instruct the Manager and Town Attorney to prepare and bring to the Council for its future consideration a comprehensive report on the Town's development regulations and current ordinance development policies pertaining to non-commercial signage.  This will enable the Council at some future time, at this time unspecified, to consider all of the policy, legal, and constitutional issues that pertain to these provisions of the Town's regulations.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO INSTRUCT THE TOWN MANAGER AND TOWN ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AND BRING TO THE COUNCIL FOR ITS CONSIDERATION A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE TOWN'S DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND CURRENT ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES PERTAINING TO NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Regarding the recent national tragedy at New York City’s World Trade Center, Mayor Waldorf commended Chapel Hill's Fire Department on its fundraising effort for people associated with the New York City Fire Department.

Mayor Waldorf noted that several people on the Town staff are in the military reserves and would therefore be subject to being called for service.  She specifically mentioned Robert Borgese of the Fire Department, Sam Erwin of the Fire Department, Barry McLamb of the Fire Department, Doug Klein of the Fire Department, Mary Blevins of the Fire Department, Tony Oakley of the Police Department, and Andrew Fuentes of the Public Works Department.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:  Development Plan Application

Planning Director Roger Waldon highlighted a few of the points made in the Manager's packet of information regarding the Development Plan before the Council tonight.  He explained that Council approval of the overall Plan would enable the University to bring individual site development applications to the Town for approval.  Mr. Waldon explained that a few issues had risen to the surface during staff evaluation of the Development Plan.  He referred the Council's attention to addendum #2 of the University's materials, which focuses specifically on the Mason Farm corridor. 

Mr. Waldon noted that the University would present more specific detailed information when it submits site development permit applications.  He pointed out the accompanying request for authorization to abandon the Smith Center Special Use Permit (SUP), and commented that while this would come to the Council at a later time it is useful background information that relates to development being proposed in the Mason Farm area.   Mr. Waldon explained that the staff would bring back a report on October 3^rd and the Council may take action at that time if it so chooses.  He commented that the staff was attempting to provide a balanced evaluation and as much information as they have on the proposals.  

Presentation by the University

Nancy Suttenfield, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, noted that the University’s Board of Trustees had approved the Master Plan for the main campus in March 2001.  She said that tonight's hearing on the University's eight-year Development Plan and its two accompanying addenda would represent only a portion of the Master Plan and would not involve any properties that the University does not presently own.  Ms. Suttenfield said that the Board of Trustees had directed the purchase of three properties north of Mason Farm Road and any located in the triangle area between Mason Farm Road, Oteys Road and US 15-501 as they become available.  She noted that the Development Plan does not provide for road expansion.  Ms. Suttenfield expressed appreciation to the Town staff for adhering to the schedule, but expressed concern about some of the stipulations which she deemed "inappropriate."

Anna Wu, Director of Facilities Planning, expressed concerns over several stipulations and the process in general.  Specifically, she said, the University has been receiving increasing demands, and new expectations have emerged after apparent agreement, and that this has created an uncertain process rather than the ordinance-defined process.  Ms. Wu argued that mandated workshops, as stated in Resolution D, would be inappropriate and that the details of how the staff would implement Resolution D are unknown.  She said that the Manager's recommendation to require property owner notification when the site development permit applications are submitted  goes beyond the intent and language of the ordinance and adds costs.   She argued that there was no need to impose this requirement given the University's commitment to involving the neighbors in the design process.

Ms. Wu remarked that the change in the signal timing plan laid out in Stipulation 17 was an example of changes being proposed after agreement had already been reached, adding that this change would be unduly burdensome.  She explained that the University also objected to stipulations requiring it to submit plans for the Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) and Student Family Housing to the Council at a later date.  Ms. Wu explained that the objective of providing a Development Plan was to avoid having to come back to the Council on individual site plan issues.    She said that they also continue to object to the amount of setback and buffer specified in the stipulations, adding that the University would "in no event" locate any building closer than fifty feet from the southern O&I-4 lot line.  She said that the University had agreed to the 100-foot setback for the ACC but objects to the stipulation that no part of it can be disturbed.  Noting that the Manager had requested the University's thoughts on revised language for Stipulation 36, she said that the University prefers the first substitution to the non-severability clause.   

Ms. Wu noted that the Manager's September 19^th memo states that the parking deck for the ACC will be three stories, and pointed out that addendum #1 of the Development Plan corrects that and identifies the parking deck as being one story.  She requested that the staff provide a list of proposed changes to the draft resolution well before the October 3^rd proposed vote so that the University may review them in advance.

Ms. Wu noted that the University had sent a letter asking for abandonment of the Smith Center SUP.  She asked Council members to consider it concurrently with the Development Plan.

Sue Kitchen, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, noted that when the University first discussed increasing enrollment in 1997 there was much concern about the impact on the Town and it was then that the University had pledged to build "a bed for every head."  She said that UNC used the Master Plan process to site its first new residence halls on south campus in a manner that would transform four high rise buildings into four communities in a design similar to that of north campus.  The University sited about 3,000 possible new bed spaces to accommodate enrollment growth, she said.

Ms. Kitchen explained that the University had identified three main goals: to honor its pledge to meet enrollment growth, to accomplish fire safety upgrades that would install sprinklers, and to renovate three high rises in order to retain students on campus.  She explained that this lead to a construction/renovation plan which includes the following:

·        Four new residence halls under construction  - 950 beds

·        Construct new Student Family Housing - originally 500 units

·        House undergraduate students in Odum Village while renovating high rises

·        Construct additional undergraduate halls as sites become available on campus

Ms. Kitchen said that the only way to accommodate the University's three goals is to proceed in the above order as outlined.  If the University cannot move students into Odum Village temporarily upon completion of new student family housing in 2005, she said, then those student will be forced to move into the community. 

George Alexiou, a transportation engineer and principal with Martin Alexiou Brysin, reviewed the main points of the transportation component of the Development Plan.  He noted that the Plan responds to the guidelines of the transportation impact assessment that the University developed jointly with the Town, which include:

·        Estimates of new employees and student students

·        Estimates of parking changes

·        Description of alternative modes of travel

·        Projections of traffic

·        Analysis of intersections

Mr. Alexiou stressed that the transportation study being submitted will be updated in December and every two years after that based on new data, new counts, and new surveys.  He stated that it will become the basis for monitoring the progress and impact of alternatives and for refining the plan as needed.  Mr. Alexiou commented that the approach to transportation in the Development Plan is consistent with that taken in the Master Plan:

·        Reinforce pedestrian-oriented campus

·        Minimize additional traffic

·        Minimize amount of additional parking

·        Improve and promote the use of alternative commuting modes.

Regarding parking statistics associated with the Development Plan, Mr. Alexiou noted that they would displace 3,880 surface spaces (roughly 26-27 acres of impervious parking surface) with a net increase of 1,550 spaces.  He said that 1,355 spaces would be dedicated to visitors and patients and 435 will be for employees.  There will be a loss of 240 parking spaces for resident students, he said, and they will be  accommodated in off-campus storage lots.

Mr. Alexiou explained that the Development Plan includes a number of trip reduction strategies, such as:

·        Expanded local transit

·        Increased regional transit

·        Increased park-and-rides

·        Improved bicycle facilities

·        Expanded ride-sharing program

·        Teleworking

·        Housing

He noted that the University was building on a lot of trip-reduction measures that it already had been implementing, such as:

·        Financial support for Chapel Hill Transit (CHT)

·        100% funding for predominantly University routes

·        Free park-and-ride

·        Emergency ride back

·        Preferential parking for vanpooling

·        Ridesharing programs

·        Bicycle facilities

·        Students living within two miles of Bell Tower, and freshmen, not eligible for parking permits.

Mr. Alexiou noted that they were proposing a substantial increased in the use of CHT. He displayed a map showing where students and employees live and where the transit routes are, and pointed out that many who drive could easily use transit to get to campus.  He explained that there will be more transit available for the following reasons:

2001/02

·        Entire CHT fare free

·        Additional local transit service

·        Service expansion planned by Town

·        Triangle Transit Authority doubling frequency in early 2002

2002/03

·        Extend peak hour service frequency through midday for heavy routes C, P, S, N/S

·        Extend service to midnight on Routes C, J, G, T

He displayed another map showing where employees live in relation to park and ride lots, and indicated where and when more park and ride is needed. 

2001/02

·        300 spaces available in existing lots

·        100-space lot on Franklin Street

·        Jones Ferry lot to open in spring 2002

·        Increased express transit service to Friday Center and Airport Road Complex

·        Service to all lots extended to 8:00 P. M.

·        Needed buses ordered by Town

2002/03

·        Additional lots needed, particularly north on 15/501and east on NC 54

·        University analyzing sites

Mr. Alexiou added that making the University an active campus for bicycles was an important component that is being incorporated into site plans.  For example, he said, the Ram's Head lot will have a bike path through it and bike lockers as well.  He stressed that the University would work with the Town to determine what improvements need to be made and how to fund them.  He then listed other University initiatives:

·        Hired an experienced, full-time Travel Demand Management Coordinator

·        Extend emergency ride home for CHT users

·        Preferential parking for car-poolers

·        Move forward with State telecommuting initiatives

·        Housing on campus

Mr. Alexiou pointed out that if this were a typical suburban development it would generate about 28,000 daily vehicular trips.  With the alternative strategies being proposed, he said, the Development Plan would generate less than 10,000 trips on a typical day.  Finally, Mr. Alexiou referred to an analysis of intersections, to be revised this fall, and said that the Development Plan would reduce the level of service by one letter grade in some areas because it concentrates parking.  He said that they would revisit this again, when there is more recent data, and will come up with a refined list of improvements.

Tom Cahill, a civil engineer and principal with Cahill Associates, spoke about sustainable development and the issues that dominate stormwater:  increase in run-off volume due to an increase in impervious surfaces, and quality of the run-off which carries pollutants.  He said that the Development Plan includes a strategy to address volume and quality and that it sets standards and monitors stormwater draining from the campus to make sure that there is no significant increase in those two concerns.  Mr. Cahill stated that the Development Plan would:

·        Limit new impervious surfaces

·        Use impervious surfaces and infiltrate stormwater

·        Manage landscapes to reduce non-point source pollution

·        Store rainfall in rooftops of underground storage systems

·        Restore natural drainage systems

He said that the University was committed to:

·        No increase in the volume of runoff

·        No increase in the rate of runoff

·        No increase in the quantity of non-point source pollutants

·        Overall decrease in the volume of stormwater runoff, the rate of runoff, and the amount of non-point surface pollutants

The way to make all of this happen, Mr. Cahill said, is to use the following best management strategies to put the water back into the ground:

·        Porous bituminous pavement/porous concrete

·        Storage infiltration beds

·        Vegetated rooftop systems

·        Woodland berms

·        Infiltration trench

·        Stream restoration

Mr. Cahill said that the University is engaged in the process of making all of this happen. 

Mary Beck, Senior Vice President of Planning for UNC Healthcare, discussed the Ambulatory Care Center (ACC), which she said will be a musculoskeletal center that will include orthopedic, rehabilitation, spine pain, rheumatology, and physical and occupational services. The ACC will bring all of these services together in one location, she said, which will make it easier for those who need coordinated, comprehensive musculoskeletal care.  Ms. Beck explained that UNC Healthcare also intends to provide expanded ambulatory surgery, operating rooms, and support and extended-stay space in that building, but there will be no in-patient beds in the facility.  She said there would also be food and support services, and outpatient services for other clinics. 

Ms. Beck pointed out that the ACC will be housed in a 196,000 sq. ft. building and will have a 350-car underground garage below it.  She said that it will be three stories above ground so that people can walk from one building to the next.  She explained that the design for the project was not yet underway but that UNC Healthcare has a basic program from the Master Plan.  Ms. Beck explained that they had modified the project in response to neighborhood concerns.  For example, she said, the building footprint has been moved back from the property line and the building structure has been modified.  She expressed concern about the stipulation relating to undisturbed vegetation because, she said, they need to be assured that they can do what they have planned to mitigate stormwater.

Ms. Beck explained that they had modified the times of garbage pick-up in response to complaints by neighbors.  She said that they also had modified lighting several times, turning it off at about 10:30 p.m.  Ms. Beck stated that UNC Healthcare had created an email list of neighbors who attended a meeting and that they are committed to communicating with those neighbors once they begin planning the building.  She said that the ACC is an essential unit of the UNC Healthcare system's effort to serve North Carolinians, particularly those with musculoskeletal problems, and reiterated her commitment to work with neighbors as the building evolves.

Dean Bresciani, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Services, spoke about student family housing.  He reiterated the University's need for 500 units of below market rate on-campus housing.  He explained that this was about 200 units more than they have now and that those families will unlikely be able to find affordable housing and/or childcare in the Chapel Hill area.  Mr. Bresciani said that the implications of not meeting this need are that almost 1,000 undergraduates would be forced into Chapel Hill's rental market and some young families would be forced out of UNC-Chapel Hill.

Mr. Bresciani said that the University had identified the southern border of campus as the best location for student family housing and that it intends to involve the Mason Farm community in the planning for that.  He expressed a shared interest with the Town in preserving Baity Hill as well as an appropriate buffer between the campus and the neighborhoods.  In response to the criticism that this seems to be happening too quickly, he pointed out that the University had been studying this for more than three years and has a very narrow window of opportunity to meet the housing demands and its commitment to provide a bed for every head.

In response to the question of why the University cannot build fewer units, he repeated that there also is a need for even more units than this and that any fewer would result in undergraduates being forced into the community.  In response to suggestions to house all students at Baity Hill and off-campus, Mr. Bresciani said that there would be some severe environmental impacts and affordability problems for families attending the University.  He added, though, that off-campus locations will be used in the future. 

Anna Wu discussed the McCauley/Pittsboro Street perimeter transition area.  She pointed out that that the Development Plan proposes an academic building of three levels constructed on top of a two-level parking deck, with a 100-foot setback from the centerline of Pittsboro Street.  The landscape, she said, will consist of low stone walls, brick sidewalks, trees, shrubs and grass.  Ms. Wu noted that there were additional transition areas in the Development Plan but that the University had chosen to focus on these three.

Recommendation of Planning Board

John Hawkins, Planning Board Chair, said that the Board had recommended approval of Resolution A with the exception of three of the perimeter transition areas:  the ACC, and the two Mason Farm parcels.  He explained that the Board had recommended that a hold be put on these three areas until the University and Town staff have had an opportunity to work out the problems.  Regarding the ACC,  Mr. Hawkins noted  the conflict between the Town staff's recommended buffer width and the University's position that this would compromise its stormwater management strategy.  Regarding the two Mason Farm parcels, he said that the eastern one presented the most questions, such as how reasonable buffers might be provided during possible construction of a four-lane road.  Mr. Hawkins reported that the Board had also approved a motion to request the Council to direct the Manager to arrange for mechanisms to notify neighbors when a site development permit application for a perimeter transition area is submitted.  He then commended all parties for their diligence, hard work, and constructive attitude in dealing with this important and complex process.

Recommendations of Other Boards and Commissions

Greenways Commission.  Joe Herzenberg, representing the Greenways Commission, asked that the University be a better neighbor with regard to the greenways.  He asked, in particular, that the University acknowledge, maintain, and post signs at the Battle Branch greenway.

Transportation Board.  Loren Hintz, Transportation Board Chair, expressed concern about the status of the regional transportation corridor, adding that the Development Plan appears to locate buildings in places that will make it difficult to extend the corridor to Manning Drive and potentially to the Horace Williams tract.   He said the Board supported the Town staff's request for additional information relating to traffic analysis, intersections, and regulation.  Mr. Hintz noted that the language regarding who will pay for transit expenses may be subject to different interpretations.  He added that the Plan should be more explicit in making sure that safe pedestrian access will be provided on at least one side of the road during construction.

Regarding Mason Farm Road, Mr. Hintz stated that the final Plan should include stipulations to ensure that sidewalks lacking ADA ramps will be installed, that there will be a bike lane going uphill, and that the recommended sidewalks be on both sides of Purefoy Road and then continue all the way to Fordham Boulevard.  He suggested that sidewalk design include the possibility of winding around trees to provide more shade for pedestrians.  Mr. Hintz stressed the importance of installing crosswalk and pedestrian signal lights at Fordham Boulevard and Manning Drive and suggested that consideration be given to a pedestrian cut and light at Oteys Road and Fordham Boulevard.

Mr. Hintz said that the Transportation Board was concerned about the lack of discussion on housing for future employees.  Mr. Hintz reported that the Board was please that the Town and University were making efforts to connect the bicycle system, but were concerned because the Development Plan focuses on park and ride lots and they want to see more consideration of regional transit.

Mr. Hintz expressed concern about the increased traffic flow to and through campus and skepticism about whether the proposed routes will be able to handle the traffic, especially during times of construction.  He said that it was vital that the Plan make it easy to incorporate the regional transit corridor that eventually will be developed.

Historic District Commission.  Chris Belcher, representing the Historic District Commission, said that Commission members had expressed concerns over the transition areas.  He encouraged the University to work more with the neighbors in the McCauley/Pittsboro area to mitigate the effects of the new building and parking in that neighborhood.  Mr. Belcher extended the Commission's offer to look at elevations and to mediate between the neighbors and the University.  He said that members of the Commission had also expressed concern about the traffic impacts and parking, noting that three historic districts share borders with the University and will be highly impacted by its plans.  Mr. Belcher noted that the Town will have to do some mitigating, such as traffic calming, after the University is finished with its expansion.

Parks and Recreation Commission.   Mayor Waldorf read a memo from the Parks and Recreation Commission saying that they were particularly concerned about having adequate recreation and park opportunities in the areas where the University would provide housing for families.

Comments from Citizens

Gerald Bolas, Director of the Ackland Museum, explained that the Ackland would be doubled in size, as conceived in the campus Master Plan, and will anchor the "Carolina Arts Common," a collaboration of art, music and performance programs in a community arts village with an entrance on Franklin Street.  He remarked that this project will help to "unpave the campus" by transforming a parking lot into a park.  He said that it will contribute to the quality of Town life and will provide an incentive for the best arts faculty and students to come to Chapel Hill.

Cynthia DeLaFuente, a single mother of two who lives with her children in UNC's family housing, discussed the convenience and affordability of living on campus and noted that families need to be able to live on campus as other students do.  Ms. DeLaFuente submitted a petition from 158 people in support of student family housing. 

Frances Ferris, Chair of External Relations for the UNC-Chapel Hill Student Government, explained that students support the Development Plan because it addresses issues such as parking shortages, greenspace, and the difference in appearance between north and south campuses.  She said that she had moved off campus because the only space available to her was in south campus, which she finds undesirable.  Ms. Ferris pointed out that passage of the Development Plan would benefit the University as well as the Town.

Scott Jones, Vice Chair of External Relations for the Student Body at UNC, reported that UNC's Journalism Department had conducted a poll and learned that the majority of responding Chapel Hill residents were in favor of all general growth measures, including the Horace Williams tract, Mason Farm Road, and increased student enrollment. Mr. Jones pointed out that there was no polarization between those affiliated with the University and those who were not.  He asked the Town Council to keep in mind that the general public in Chapel Hill supports this Development Plan.

Kathleen Lord, owner of Emma Contemporary Fashions on Franklin Street and Chair of the Downtown Commission, expressed enthusiasm over the Development Plan, particularly the Ackland expansion, the renovation of Memorial Hall, and the eventual renovation of Hill Hall.  She congratulated the University and Town for coming together in a considered and cooperative manner.

Thomas Clegg, a Chapel Hill resident and University member for 33 years, pointed out that faculty members like having a dense central campus.  He said that they need more laboratory and office space, and complained that the wait for space will be too long in this Plan.   Mr. Clegg said that this was the most complex planning process he had seen and asked the Town Council to approve the Plan so the University can get started.

Sharon Rutherford, a single parent and an undergraduate student who lives with her daughter in Student Family Housing, spoke about the advantages of living in such a family-friendly atmosphere.  She noted that the University's administrative office sponsors activities for residents and families who encourage inclusion and a strong sense of community.  Ms. Rutherford praised her daughter's nearby school and noted the cultural advantages associated with raising a child in that environment.  She also pointed out that the campus is safe and affordable and said that she would not be able to afford the increase in rent if she had to leave Student Family Housing.

Peter Tompkins, Board Chair of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, recommended approval of the Plan which he said allows UNC to maintain its key functions on the existing campus near a successful and existing business district and keeps the campus walkable.  He noted that the Plan also maintains and improves the scenic value of the campus, making it more attractive which in turn helps nearby businesses and employees thrive.  Mr. Tompkins also pointed out that the Development Plan will allow the University to maximize the positive economic aspects of the Horace Williams development.  He said that enhancing the Arts Common will add mightily to Chapel Hill's culture and bring accompanying economic benefits.

Fred Price, a nurse manager at UNC hospitals, pointed out that some nurses who are unable to afford to live in Chapel Hill are being forced to use park and ride lots.  He expressed pride in working at UNC Hospitals and recommended that the Town approve the Development Plan.

David Cooper, Residence Hall Association (RHA) president, explained that the RHA represents about 7,000 students who live on campus.  He said that residence halls Hinton James and Morrison need renovation, adding that both have lead-based paint, asbestos, and lack of air conditioning in most rooms due to electrical problems.  In order to improve these buildings, Mr. Cooper said, the halls must be closed for at least one year, which would displace nearly 1,000 residents in each building.  He pointed out that housing them on campus depends on approval of the Development Plan.  Mr. Cooper stated that there would be no place to house these students on campus if the Development Plan is not approved.   He stressed the need for affordable housing that only the University can provide, since it is not available in the surrounding community.  Mr. Cooper added that an academic and social environment cannot be easily accomplished off campus.

Cameron Hill, a Chapel Hill native who has lived on Cameron Avenue for 23 years, questioned whether the Plan would provide a bed for every head and wondered if limiting parking really would result in fewer cars.  Noting that there are many good aspects to the Development Plan, he urged the Council to reject the parts of the proposal that will tax the already overcrowded Town.

David Godschalk, former member of the N.C. Commission on Smart Growth, professor of City and Regional Planning at UNC, Chair of the UNC Buildings and Grounds Committee, former member of the Town Council, resident of Chapel Hill since 1967, and former resident of UNC Student Family Housing, addressed two questions:  What is "smart growth?"  And, does the UNC Development Plan meet the objectives of "smart growth?"

Mr. Godschalk said that the goal of smart growth is to direct growth to areas that can support it and away from areas that are unsuitable for it.  Smart growth balances three elements, he said:  livability, environment, and economy.   He argued that the UNC Development Plan not only meets the objectives of smart growth, but sets a new, higher standard and model for future development in Chapel Hill.  The reasons are that it creates:

·        a walkable, transit-oriented campus

·        a connected, moderate-density mix of education, administration and recreation uses

·        judicious infill and redevelopment of existing campus areas

·        new and rehabilitated affordable housing for students and student families

·        an expanded network of pedestrian paths, plazas and common open spaces

·        a management plan for conserving  and restoring natural systems in areas

·        future rights-of-way for regional transit access.  

Mr. Godschalk commended the Plan, adding that approval would  signal to the rest of the State that smart  growth is welcome and appreciated in Chapel Hill.

Doug Eyre, a retired UNC faculty member who is a Chapel Hill News columnist, stated that UNC had been sensitive to preserving historic districts.  He expressed hope that the Town and University will work in a cooperative spirit as conflicts arise over preserving the historical character of the central Town.  Mr. Eyre noted that there still was some concern on McCauley Street about the size of the building that will replace the open air parking area and whether it will generate additional traffic flow and new directions of traffic.

Debra Gillham, a nurse manager from UNC pediatrics, noted that parents who come to stay with their hospitalized children frequently complain about the lack of parking.  She pointed out that there was a national shortage of nurses and said that she recently hired twenty-two new nurses, but for each position filled there were two others who did not accept.  Ms. Gillham explained that one factor that applicants consider is parking.  She asked the Town Council to approve the Development Plan because the additional parking would benefit the hospital as well as the ACC.

Amy Levine, a UNC student and representative of the Orange County Green Party, urged Council members to reject the Development Plan in its entirety.  She said that the University had lost sight of its mission and that its plans trivialize its stated goal of becoming a world class institution.  Ms. Levine argued that it was bad policy for the State to cram hundreds of millions of dollars into a community that is already bursting at the seams while neglecting other areas that could benefit from such an infusion of State-funded activity.  She noted that the Triangle area has the eleventh worst air quality in the nation, and said that it would be unconscionable to put tens of thousands of vehicles onto the roads at this time.  Ms. Levine commented that UNC makes no provision for the housing and transportation needs of its low-income workers, and stated that it was neglecting teaching in favor of grant-oriented research activities, adding that the new Plan would move it even further in that direction.  Ms. Levine reported that the Green Party does support the bond referendum projects, but she urged the Town Council to reject this Development Plan.

Anita Wolfenden, a Mason Farm area resident since 1970, read part of her statement to Council members in which she stated that she and other neighbors had been going to meetings with UNC for years and that their suggestions were ignored in the final version of the Master Plan and have been completely ignored in the Development Plan.  She remarked that attending those meetings had been a waste of time because residents had been misled by UNC's assurance that their input would count.  Ms. Wolfenden pointed out that the 200-foot wooded buffer had been granted to her neighborhood when the Smith Center was built, and that they oppose the four-lane highway that UNC proposes to build in that buffer.   She said that UNC's stated policy of buying up property as it becomes available is an outrage and threatens everyone who lives anywhere near UNC.   Ms. Wolfenden stated that residents along the northern side of Mason Farm Road are facing "what amounts to condemnation," and asked the Council to do everything in its power to preserve the rest of the Mason Farm/Otis Road/Whitehead Circle neighborhood.   She urged them to approve Resolution B, which asks for more information from UNC and more discussions between the neighborhoods, the University and the Town. 

Albert W. Gard, national co-chair with his wife of the Carolina Parents' Council, read from their letter to the Mayor on behalf of the Carolina Parents' Council, which is composed of parents of nearly 15,000 undergraduate students at UNC-Chapel Hill.  He said that the Parents' Council supported the Development Plan in its totality so that students can live in a safe and secure educational community on campus.  Mr. Gard reported that the entire membership heard about the Plan on September 16^th and then unanimously voted to endorse it.  Mr. Gard requested that the Town Council vote affirmatively and allow the University to move forward in implementing its Plan.

Sean Simone, who works in family housing at UNC, explained that students there are living in such small quarters that there is nowhere to put their strollers.  He said that he feared the situation might not be improved if the Development Plan is rejected.  Mr. Simone reported that numerous families had told him that they would not have been able to come to UNC-Chapel Hill if it were not for student family housing.  He then read a prepared statement from student Becka McQueen, in which she argued that the future of UNC's reputation could be at stake if the Plan is not approved, because the best and brightest students will likely go elsewhere.

Floyd A. Fried, a Whitehead Circle resident, said that the stated reasons for UNC's modification on Mason Farm Road seemed to be: beautification of the south campus, concerns regarding student safety, and convenience of patients and improved vehicular access to the south campus.  Regarding beautification, Mr. Fried noted that UNC had not beautified Manning Drive but had lined it with parking decks and surface parking lots and large brick buildings that resemble prisons, and had eliminated trees.  Regarding safety, he commented that the University had addressed student safety rather than "people safety."  He commented that a fourth bridge over Manning Drive would make the area safer during peak traffic times.

Joe Wilber read a joint statement from him and his wife, Kathy Wilber, asking the Town Council to remove the student family housing east and west perimeter areas from consideration because the proposed roads and buildings would severely affect the character, safety and value of the adjacent neighborhoods.  Mr. Wilber stated that the University has not explained why it needs to build on this narrow 200-foot piece of land that they had promised never to build on and which is protected by the Smith Center SUP.   He noted that the Town Council had assured the neighbors that the O&I-4 district, with its mandate that the University submit a detailed Development Plan, would afford the neighborhood the protection it deserves.  He pointed out that the proposed Development Plan and its addenda afford no consideration to the concerns expressed by homeowners of this effected neighborhood.

Mr. Wilber asked the Town Council to provide the neighborhood with the following protections: 

·        Retain the neighborhood protection of the Smith Center SUP, which provides a 200-foot vegetative screen plus a fence insulating the Smith Center from the neighborhood

·        Do not approve the family housing east and west perimeter transition area sections of the Development Plan because there is too little land to accommodate all of the proposed development

·        Do not allow Oteys Road and Mason Farm Road to become the dumping ground  for excess campus traffic. 

Mr. Wilber noted that residents had been voicing their concerns for two years through community forums, but had never been invited into a meaningful dialogue with University representatives.  He said that if the University had any real desire to reach compromise with the neighborhood they would have done so by now.  Mr. Wilbur asserted that the proposed Development Plan would destroy the Mason Farm area, and asked the Town Council to protect the neighborhood from this "ill-conceived plan."

Peg Rees, a Chapel Hill resident, said that she had emailed her statement to the Council and that much of it had been covered by previous speakers, particularly Ms. Wolfenden and Mr. Wilber.  She noted that it is not the houses but the road that concerns the neighbors, adding that there had been no dialogue with the University.  Ms. Rees described as "ludicrous" the recent proposal to make Mason Farm Road two-lane eastbound so that the University only has to develop the two-lane westbound part of their four-lane road.

Ruby Sinreich objected to Anna Wu's characterization of the Town's request for more information as unreasonable.  She argued that the University had changed the rules many times too and in radical ways, and had gotten every substantial thing that it had asked for.  Ms Sinreich expressed support for the entire statement made by the Green Party and explained that her vote in the Planning Board's unanimous support of Resolution B was based on a misunderstanding. Ms. Sinreich remarked that the University had a fairly uncooperative attitude throughout the process and said that this had made it difficult to work out small details, such as perimeter setbacks, utility lines through Jones Park, specific numbers of students, and fiscal issues.  She urged the Council to make certain that these issues are resolved and to nail them down firmly because there will be no other opportunity for negotiation after this.

Regarding transportation issues, Ms. Sinreich pointed out that many assumptions had not been backed up and that ratios that have worked for the University in the past may not continue to work.  She listed various standards that need to be examined and referred to language that needs to be tightened.  Ms. Sinreich pointed out that a new road paralleling Mason Farm Road had never been proposed to the Planning Board and that Map 17 does not show it.  She said that since the Town had given the University everything it wanted the Town should not cave in on these stipulations.   Ms. Sinreich also remarked that the University does not have to increase its enrollment now.

Joe Capowski, a former Council member, spoke regarding the Ambulatory Care Center region.  He requested that the Town make changes in some of the following stipulations in Resolution A:

·        Stipulation 7 - include language to prevent a destructive utility corridor being put through private property south of the ACC. 

·        Stipulation 24 - delete the last sentence of the stipulation.  Mr. Capowski remarked that the Planning Board agrees that these clauses should be removed.

·        Stipulation 25g - delete condition 25g for the same reasons as Stipulation 24 .

·        Stipulation 31 - delete the phrase "except for paved driving areas" in the second paragraph of stipulation 31C.  Mr. Capowski said that UNC had not provided adequate information to show the relationship between the ACC improvements and the homes on Chase Avenue.

·        Manager's approval of changes - change this to say that it will not be permitted in the perimeter zones in large units.

·        Parking for cars owned by new on-campus students - require that the University find storage for the increase in student cars. 

·        Reconstruct damaged roads - require the University to reconstruct damaged roads near on-campus bus stops, or do not approve the building until UNC DOT repairs them. 

Mr. Capowski noted that transportation planners had not called for a major widening of South Columbia Street.  He expressed support for the stipulation that the University must notify neighbors within close proximity to buildings in the perimeter zones. 

Philip Rees, an Oteys Road resident, asked the Town Council to deny the part of the Development Plan that relates to student housing until the University has devised a proposal for housing and roads in this area that satisfies the neighbors' concerns.

Mr. Rees said that University officials must realize that it would be a mistake to site a building that would house children near a four-lane road that will be as busy as Manning Drive, which carries about 16,000 cars a day and a transit corridor which will someday have high-speed rail or bus service.  Where will the playgrounds be? Mr. Rees asked.   He proposed that if the Town denies this part of the Development Plan then the University would find a better location for its housing and/or new road.  Mr. Rees stated that all conditions of the SUP had not been met because the University had never carried out the supplemental planning called for in Stipulation 10.  He pointed out that three-story buildings are not the same as a 200-foot buffer and other vegetation.  Mr. Rees said that he strongly opposed the University's proposal to run a utility corridor through Jones Park.

Kimberly Brewer, a professional planner who lives on Purefoy Road, commended the University for giving more attention to stormwater management and to student housing.  She explained, though, that she does not support the Plan as written.  Ms. Brewer distributed copies of her detailed concerns.   She said that the projections for additional employees and students seems low to her, and that if you use current ratios of space per person you get 11,500 new people rather than the 8,400 that the University had projected.  This population increase would have a significant impact on traffic, parking, and levels of congestion, Ms. Brewer pointed out.  She also strongly opposed the use of Jones Park for a major utility corridor.

Ms. Brewer stated that she supports a bed for every head but not along Mason Farm Road.  Until residents have sold their property to UNC or have reached an agreement with UNC on the proposed housing and road alignment, the existing 200-foot vegetative buffer should be maintained, she said.  Ms. Brewer added that the existing SUP should not be vacated until the Town determines that the conditions of the permit have been met.  She recommended that there be a minimum 120-foot vegetative buffer screen, that the substantial transit corridor on the Master Plan become a transportation corridor.  The proposed road could be located there, she said, behind the student housing units.

Loren Hintz spoke regarding material he had previously submitted to the Planning Board and was now giving to the Council.  He outlined several reasons why the new development would increase traffic on campus, increase road noise and create safety problems.  Mr. Hintz agreed that there should be student housing on campus but argued that the Mason Farm location would be a mistake, and remarked that the Town has an obligation to prevent this "bad situation" from occurring.  Mr. Hintz recommended that the Town stipulate an immediate physical barrier and temporary seeding to reduce erosion and the placement of prominent signs advertising TTA on the campus.  He also asked that the trees be left standing in Odum Village.

Diana Steele, a Chapel Hill native who graduated from UNC and operates Willow Hill Preschool on Mason Farm Road, said that her livelihood depends on her continued presence in that house.  She said that several years ago her lot and others had been accidentally listed as belonging to UNC and included in a list of properties that UNC gave to a design team.  She explained that it took a long time for that to become public so that it could be corrected.  Ms. Steele suggested that University officials would have made different plans if they had not thought that they owned her property.  She argued that the public health and general welfare of the neighborhood already has been compromised by this ongoing source of stress, and urged the Council to approve the good things in the Development Plan without approving the parts that are vague.  Ms. Steele commented that number two on page four of the addendum mentions a buffer that is shown on another map as a ten-foot strip.  She described this as a "rotten place" to put families with children and urged the University to take more time to think about what they are doing on the southern edge rather than feeling locked into what accidentally got approved in the Master Plan.  Ms. Steele concluded that there was much good on the other end of the Plan but much “mess” at the bottom.  

Elaine Barney, a Westwood Drive resident and Chair of the Greater Westwood Neighborhood Association,  mentioned some of the concerns listed in the written report which she submitted to Council members.  She said these included the lack of a process for informed citizen input on individual plans, the plan to build a utility corridor through Jones Park, and the plan to locate stormwater management facilities in the 100-foot setback area which was supposed to be a buffer between Chase Avenue residents and the ACC.  Ms. Barney pointed out that there is no mention of the concerns that neighbors expressed over the size, mass and visual impact of the proposed three-story addition to the ACC.  She agreed that the vegetation buffer must remain on Mason Farm Road and asked that UNC's request to abandon the SUP be denied.

Ken Broun, former Chapel Hill Mayor and a resident of the Mason Farm neighborhood, expressed concern over the placement of roads in relation to housing because placing them in the way that they are suggested in either of the alternatives in the addendum will destroy the entire neighborhood.  He expressed willingness to have buffer consisting of houses but stressed that the road should be placed behind those houses so that traffic will not flow in front of them.  Mr. Broun presented a petition signed by virtually everyone in the Mason Farm neighborhood asking that no road be constructed between Mason Farm Road and the new student family housing.  He emphasized that the road providing access to the housing should be on the campus side of the housing.   Mr. Broun also asked that outlets to and from the south side of student family housing be limited to a single entry from the access road connecting to Fordham Boulevard.  He also requested that all construction traffic be directed toward the campus side of the construction.  Referring to University statements that there had been consultation with the neighbors, Mr. Broun explained that neighbors had received information from the University but there had been no dialogue with UNC.

Dan Coleman, representing the Sierra Club, said that the executive committee had agreed on seven points, which he distributed to Council members.  Mr. Coleman explained that the seven points were in the form of questions and suggested that the Town Council answer them.  The questions were:

·        How exactly does UNC define open space?

·        Will UNC make a commitment to incorporate high efficiency and renewable energy technologies and use designers familiar with these technologies?

·        Is there a commitment to clean up the waters and keep them clean?  What species and what habitats will be restored?

·        Where will the park and ride lots be located, how much has been set aside as funding for those, and who will pay?

·         How can the Town proceed on this Development Plan without the University's updated transportation impact analysis  having been submitted yet?

·        How extensive will the use of pervious paving be as a stormwater management control and is it a proven stormwater management technology for this area?

·         Does UNC have plans for the tremendous amount of construction and demolition waste that will occur, and where is the comprehensive waste reduction strategy for C&D waste?

Martin Feinstein argued that the O&I-4 ordinance is consistent with the SUP in that general health and welfare and property values have to be considered.  He added that there also has to be a level of detail that is consistent with what is in an SUP.  Mr. Feinstein argued that issues such as proposed new streets, setbacks, buffers, and so forth are far too important for the Development Plan to be passed with the idea that they will be considered later on.  He read from the Intent section of the O&I-4 ordinance:  "a key feature of this district is the preparation of a Development Plan that would allow the owner and the community to understand specifically what levels of development are being proposed and what impacts would likely accompany this development."

Baird Grimson, president of the Westside Neighborhood Association, expressed concern about the mass of the building at the corner of Pittsboro and McCauley Streets and asked for the Council's help in significantly reducing the height and width of the building.  He said that the Neighborhood Association was "extremely upset" about the following language: "these noise and light standards shall not be enforced and need not be met on property outside of the O&I-4 zone that is in the same ownership as property within the O&I-4 zone."  Mr. Grimson asked that this language be deleted from the Development Plan. 

Roy Fauber, a Cameron/McCauley Historic District resident, said that the Development Plan largely ignores the issue of visual impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.  He said that he shared the concerns of many speakers regarding the lack of detail for the perimeter transition areas, and pointed out that there were vague descriptions of buildings and far too many uses of the words "approximately" and "consistent with."  Mr. Fauber stated that many of the details that citizens expected to see in the Development Plan will now be included in the site plan, which does not involve citizen or Council input.  He agreed with the previous speaker about the height of the building at McCauley and Pittsboro Streets and asked for more details and implications regarding expansion of the utility corridors before approving a plan.

Robert Humphreys, a Chapel Hill native, expressed support for the University's changes and trust in the Council and staff to manage this growth in a way that gets the best deal possible with regard to transportation, acquisition of private properties, transfer of downtown properties to commercial uses, and protection of the historic areas.  Mr. Humphreys also said that he trusted the leadership of the University to move forward with its plans without destroying the community component of what makes this Town a great one.  He urged the Town Council to approve the Development Plan.

Milton Heath, who has been a member of several committees that developed the noise ordinance, expressed concern that the University will be able to argue that it should be subject to the current noise ordinance rather than the new one that is about to be proposed.  He noted that the Council is scheduled to vote on the noise ordinance a week after it is scheduled to vote on the Development Plan, and pointed out that this would be contrary to the understanding that a number of people had regarding the noise ordinance.  Mr. Heath explained that the new noise ordinance will have a delayed effective date that runs to next March in order to allow for the purchase of equipment and training of staff.  He suggested amending the Development Plan so it would refer to the noise ordinance of October 10, 2001.  Or, he said, the Council could vote on the noise ordinance on September 24th and then change the effective date of the main body of the ordinance to that date.  Mr. Heath stated that he agreed that the provision that exempts the University from the noise ordinance outside the O&I-4 is unwise, and he urged the Town to eliminate it.

Cliff Heindel agreed with previous speakers regarding smart growth and the need to recruit more nurses.  He pointed out that the University could serve the State better if it had more satellite campuses.  Noting that Chancellor Moeser had recently mentioned the importance of informing people in the State as to why research is important, Mr. Heindel suggested trying to end the intellectual dissonance between theoretic work and what is actually practiced.

Comments and questions from the Mayor and Town Council

Council Member Wiggins thanked Town and University staff for their hard work, and for giving this issue priority over the last several weeks.  She said she had several primarily process questions and hoped they are not perceived as unreasonable.

Council Member Wiggins said she was assuming that the University and Town staff are both negotiating in good faith.  She said she was troubled when she hears that the Town has made some requests that are unreasonable and go beyond what was required in the agreement.   She asked Mr. Howes would it be possible to get some examples from the University of the requests that Town staff has made that the University feels are unreasonable and goes beyond the agreement.

Council Member Wiggins said she did not think the residents of the Mason Farm area and University staff are intentionally saying anything that is not true, but she is troubled by the difference in perception that the neighbors have been worked with and they have had input.  She said that Ms. Beck had said that some changes had been made to the ACC proposal based on contact with the neighbors, yet the neighbors say they have not had these sessions or meetings. She asked is it possible to get the Council some dates and summaries and any outcome or results that might have taken place as a result of those meetings.

Council Member Ward observed that in regard to the addendum map for the overall O&I-4, he believed that the Coker Pinetum is still included in O&I-4, and it was his understanding that it was withdrawn by the University.  If that is the case, he asked, then that should be clearly identified on a map, and he wondered if there were any other elements of O&I-4 that were withdrawn by the University during that discussion that may inadvertently have been included in the maps that are before the Council.

Council Member Ward said he sense is that the Town has generally asked the University not to use property immediately adjacent to some of the building projects for stormwater management areas.  He stated he would like the Town staff to continue the dialogue with Tom Cahill and other University staff to see whether that is necessary.  Council Member Ward said that in some places were you wanted to keep the existing vegetation that those two things could not happen in the same site.  But in other places, he said, if we broaden our view and knowledge of stormwater management they would be a wonderful amenity and an acceptable use of property, and would make stormwater management work better if they had that flexibility.

Council Member Ward said he wanted to echo what Dan Coleman said about addressing construction demolition.  He noted there would be a huge amount of that and it needs to be addressed in some comprehensive way within this plan.

Council Member Ward said the bulk of the comments tonight are about the Mason Farm area, adding he is troubled by the Plan.  He said that while he knows the housing is needed, it seems like the property is hemmed in by pavement, whether it is two or four lanes, or parking lots, or transit corridors.  And, he added, it is being put in the middle of these families with young children.  Council Member Ward said the University needs the housing, but he cannot imagine that these are safe things to put together, and urged a process to find some way of resolving this for the people who live there.

Council Member Ward noted the concern the Council had about the meaningfulness of the dialogue that is taking place between the neighborhoods and the University.  People are present, he said, but they do not feel like they are heard or they do not feel like significant changes are being made.  Council Member Ward expressed his worry that included in this Plan is a fifteen-day period for citizens to be notified.  He said he does not see anything in the description of that that would make him feel like that would be a meaningful process for the citizens.  If we are going to have those fifteen days, he said, and if we are going to ask the University to make those fifteen days available to notify the residents, then let’s make a process that is meaningful to both sides.  Otherwise, he added, it is a waste of time.

Council Member Evans said there was an issue that she did not think had been addressed in the stormwater considerations.  She said she had heard a little from Mr. Cahill tonight, but she has a concern that the post-development discharge rate will be equal to what runs through Jones Park now, as well as others.  Council Member Evans said it seems that the possibility exists that those could end up being much more than a trickle.  Of course, she added, the water is needed at the sewage treatment plant, and there are a lot of reasons why the rate needs to be maintained.  Council Member Evans noted she had been referring to Stipulations 11 and 12.

Regarding Stipulation 18, which has to do with Ridge Road and the widening of Ridge Road, Council Member Evans said she would strongly encourage the University and the Town to look at re-striping and not widening that road.  She said it is one of the more attractive entries as you come up Raleigh Road into the University, with the University marker and trees on all corners.  Council Member Evans said the more you widen the road the more difficult it makes it for pedestrians, and you cannot put in curb extensions.  She said it seems that people speed enough through there, and widening the road will increase that.  Council Member Evans said she had the same issue on Ridge Road.  She said if you eliminate the parking it makes it appear that the road is wider.  She said that traveling down by the Law School many people speed now, and eliminating parking in that area where there are many students who cross to go to the practice fields and sporting events is not a wise thing to do.  Council Member Evans said that traffic should be slowed in that area.

In stipulation 20, Council Member Evans said it talks about the pedestrian improvement for Battle Branch Trail, and she was delighted to see it.  She said she thinks that there are other pedestrian accesses that need to be addressed.  Council Member Evans said it is the responsibility of the University to do not only the academic part but also the meeting of the mind and spirit of the students, and also the body.  She said the major recreation area will be the old Country Club area, and there needs to be a more delineated and directional way for them to get there, and suggested a walkway from the stadium.

Council Member Evans expressed concern about the staging areas.  She said we have seen what happened with delayed construction at the Institute of Government and what it has done to the staging area there.  Council Member Evans said she hoped that will soon be returned to playing fields, because the students certainly need it.  She said she understands that Ehringhaus field is going to be put into temporary parking and believed that decision should be reconsidered.  Council Member Evans said we are not going to have it on top of the parking deck so the issue of staging areas and where parking will go, where construction workers will park, who are parking on Columbia Street for some of the projects going on now, all have to be addressed.  She said she believed that would be address in the site development plan.

Council Member Evans said she believes the University has ways in which they try to enforce pedestrian and vehicle movement, but said those issues need to be monitored in a much better way.

Council Member Evans expressed her concern about where utility impacts will be.  She said she believed it would be helpful if the University would inform the Council where its utility lines would be going.

Council Member Evans said she was “appalled” by action that was taken 20 years ago with the Smith Center.  She said she can understand the action that was taken, because of programs that were held there, but as a pedestrian advocate and a walker, she cannot tolerate in this community someone being separated by something else by a 10 foot high fence with three strands of barbed wire, adding that it is inappropriate.

Council Member Foy said he would like to know what the process would be for bringing the Council a reconfiguration of the family housing with the road pushed behind it the way many of the residents have suggested, because it sounds like a reasonable way to accommodate their concerns.  He said his question is would it be possible to see a reconfiguration like that.  Mr. Howes replied they could take a look at that.

Mayor Waldorf said she wished there could be a way for the University to do what is asked of it tonight.  She said there needs to be a meaningful substantive meeting with the residents of the Mason Farm area on these particular points, most importantly where the housing needs to go.  Mayor Waldorf said she understands that the construction of the road is beyond the timeframe of this particular plan, and that the University will need a road sometime in the future and wants to indicate a corridor.  Mayor Waldorf said she would “plead” that a meeting occur and if there is anything the Town can do to help, it will.

Mr. Howes responded that they could certainly work to do that, but time is limited.  He said that the road was not on the Development Plan because they were not ready to propose it.  Mr. Howes said there were too many questions outstanding, including the relationship of a road to the detailed location of the housing, and they would consider that as they would the detail design of the housing.  Clearly, he said, the Council wanted them to accelerate that, and those concerns were expressed by the Planning Board.  He said that as a result of that they had submitted Addendum 2.  Mr. Howes noted that now they are being asked to go beyond that and consider a specific alternative, adding they could take a look at that.  But, he cautioned, they are not ready to design that housing yet but do want to move into the design as quickly possible, as the need for it is urgent.

As far as the road is concerned, Mr. Howes said, generally their thinking was that any road proposed would have to be approved by the Town anyway, that when they were in a position to propose that, that it would be either an addendum to the Development Plan or a separate process related to the thoroughfare plan or the TIP.  So certainly, he added, the Town would have the obligation to participate in the details regarding the location of the road.  Mr. Howes said they could advance that, and would.

Council Member Foy said the choice of where the buildings are put is going to dictate what the options are for the road, so in fact we are making a decision.  Mr. Howes responded that they are dealing with a lot of uncertainty here, the transit and the road and the timing of it.  What is definite in our minds, he said, is the timing of the housing.  Mr. Howes said that is the one piece that we have a high level of control over, so we will now more carefully consider that in consultation with the neighbors.

Council Member Foy commented that in Resolution D, it says that the Council asks the University to conduct design workshops with opportunity for citizen participation for the purpose of discussing possible design features of mixed new facilities in designated perimeter transition areas prior to submission of a site development permit application.  He said this is related to Council Member Ward’s comments, which is that once we get a site plan, there are only fifteen days and it is perfunctory – there is no real possibility for change.  So, Council Member Foy said, it would not be useful for the neighbors to make comments at that point.  He said the possibility for any meaningful conversation with affected neighbors would be when the University is actually working on a site plan.  In fact, Council Member Foy added, Ms. Beck said that was what the University intends to do, so he wondered what the objection would be to this resolution.

Mr. Howes said the objection would be to specify anything more than what the ordinance requires.  He said the ordinance is clear on what is does require, but recognizes that as they engage in the design and subsequent development of any project and getting it ready for submission as a site development request that they would certainly expect to involve the neighbors to the extent that it is appropriate.  Mr. Howes said they would do that more for projects that are in the perimeter transition area than for projects in the interior campus.  He said they would hate to see the Council extending beyond the specific requirements of the ordinance, invoking more detailed procedural requirements that would seem to go beyond what the ordinance requires.

Council Member Foy noted that this was a formal request from the Council, and still did not understand what the objection would be.  He said it does not alter the objection and is not binding, so what specifically is the objection?  Mr. Howes replied that they would take a look at the language and propose some alternatives.

Council Member Foy stated he was having trouble visualizing the building at Pittsboro and McCauley Streets.  He said he was also having trouble visualizing the student family housing buildings.  Council Member Foy wondered if it would possible to give the Council the location of a comparable building.  For example, he said, if the building at Pittsboro and McCauley is the same size as some other building in Town, some office building at Meadowmont or wherever the size comparable is so they can get an idea, he believes that might be useful.

Council Member Foy said he wanted to ask the question the Sierra Club asked regarding where will the park and ride lots be located and where will the funding come from.  He said that Loren Hintz also brought this up, and asked how are we going to pay for the transportation improvements and to what degree, and asked for some specificity rather than the vague language.  Council Member Foy said he has an idea of what is going to happen but he would like some assurance from the Town staff that the language is specific enough.

Mayor pro tem Pavão said there were several questions asked by Joe Capowski, and he would like to see if we can answer them  He said he was particularly interested in Mr. Capowski’s last question to reconstruct damaged roads near on-campus bus stops.   He said he was not familiar with those areas, but was sure that Mr. Capowski had bicycled on most of them.

Council Member Brown said she would prefer to get her comments and questions on record rather than having the University answer tonight.  She said she took it seriously during the Council’s discussion of O&I-4 that when they got to the Development Plan then the Council would get some detail.  She said she felt that there were a lot of details lacking.  Council Member Brown said she had gone over the Development Plan and the addendum very carefully and had some specific questions about several things.  She said she had also taken seriously the section that was read by Martin Feinstein regarding the new zoning district.

Council Member Brown said her first question relates to open space and the revised map on page 3 of the materials.  She said the University wants the new southern campus to be like the old campus, citing Polk Place and McCorkle Place as an example of open space.  Yet, she said, it is unclear how grass on new parking decks and buildings could be repeating Polk Place and McCorkle Place.  Council Member Brown said there are actually seven new designated sites as proposed landscape open spaces, and would like to know how many of these open space sites are actually like Polk Place and McCorkle Place.  And, she continued, how many are grass on top of parking decks and buildings, and how many are impervious paving or any other technology like that, rather than examples of Polk Place and McCorkle Place.

Council Member Brown said her second question relates to energy and the University’s statement that they will use natural features at the site to reduce building energy requirements, which it indicated meant passive heating, cooling, and natural ventilation daylight.  She stated she had talked to an energy professional and asked what daylight meant, and was told that daylight was not a technical term that is used by energy professionals.  Council Member Brown said she does not know what the University means by the term  “daylight”, and requested some guidance.

Council Member Brown said regarding the construction guidelines, only two areas in the construction guidelines relate to energy and it becomes just daylight and implications on siting of energy requirements, and that is much of the environmental section.  She said that did not sound to her like a commitment to incorporate renewable energy such as solar passive heating and cooling natural ventilating and day lighting.  Council Member Brown said the guidelines talk about analyzing only, and she would like to know if any of the new buildings in the analyses in the design stages now incorporate any renewable energy technologies, and will UNC make a verbal commitment to incorporate such technologies and use designers familiar with such technologies in all of its new buildings.  Or, she said, is the environment section simply window dressing.  Council Member Brown said she believed that this is critical in light of the fact that we know so much more about global warming and what cold fire plants are putting into the atmosphere as global warming gasses.

Council Member Brown, referring to the design of the road, said she would like to request that the University consider not taking homes, therefore not actually using private property.  She said in one of the sections there is a statement with reference to the species vs. diversity and habitat protection, yet how can we take that seriously if the University is actually planning to destroy habitat of some of its own fellow species with this plan.  Council Member Brown said she would like the University to reconsider using those private properties in its new design of the housing, therefore not invading the neighborhood to the south.

Council Member Brown said it is clear that the University is making assumptions based on old data and without the benefit of the TDM coordinator.  It is also clear, she noted, that the University is not taking into account the potential for increased traffic parking and therefore further degradation of air quality, as well as quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods.  Council Member Brown said that with traffic, transportation, and traffic congestion with this amount of growth, how can the Town rely on assumptions of the amount of traffic and as yet unidentified storage facilities and demand management tactics to reserve any kind of quality of life for Chapel Hill, including the University?

On page 319 of the Transportation Section, Council Member Brown said that the University recognizes the assumptions being made, yet goes on to say that a total shortfall of a certain number of spaces is not required until 2010.  With so much outdated data and transportation analyses yet to be done, she asked, how can such positive assessments be made?  She said that serious traffic and transportation problems exist now and yet the University does not seem to acknowledge that, but moves ahead heedlessly without actually preparing with facilities in place for the new traffic impacts.

In the section on stormwater management, Council Member Brown said the University has talked about day lighting streams but on the new revised map 3 only one potential stream is being shown as day lighted.  She noted that if there are others, she would like to know, but if this is the only one, she would like it noted that “streams” should read “stream”.

Council Member Brown said she would like to know how extensive the use of impervious paving will be.  She said she appreciated that the University had paid a lot of attention to this.  Council Member Brown said she also wanted to know if these technologies were proven technologies for our area, adding that it would probably be different for different areas.

Regarding Addendum #1 page 3, Council Member Brown said the University states that the Development Plan does not include any development in the areas designated as existing landscape and open spaces at this time.  She said that was a “frightening” statement.  Council Member Brown said this leaves open the possibility of development of those seven spaces in the future.  She asked if the University would make a commitment in writing to permanently preserve those spaces, most of them considered sacred to many people not only to Chapel Hill but the State, such as McCorkle and Polk Place?

Council Member Brown said she was puzzled about the statement that the University made about partnering with the Town to improve crossings on Fordham Boulevard.  She said she would like some response on what are the implications of that statement as future development occurs in that area.

Council Member Brown said she was also concerned about construction and demolition waste, and appreciated Council Member Ward bringing that up.  She noted that the University has not used Orange County’s construction and demolition (C&D) waste site and the new waste site is very small.  Council Member Brown asked if any calculations had been made as to the amount of waste and the necessary capacity for burial of both C&D waste within this area.  She asked if Orange County had been consulted and made any calculations about the capacity of the new site relative to the building needs in Orange County and its capability of handling UNC’s waste as well.

Council Member Brown asked, referring to the bottom of page 9, Addendum #1 on local historic districts, why doesn’t the University state that they will comply with the local historic district regulations rather than comply with NC General Statutes?  She said it would be much more comforting to recognize the Town as being partners and recognizing the Town’s local historic districts.

Council Member Brown said that in a number of places, it is mentioned that specifics on certain things will be supplied later but specifics are suppose to be supplied now in compliance with the new O&I-4.

Council Member Brown said she would also like to check on the statement made earlier that UNC is the largest landowner in the Orange County Region, noting she did not know what it meant by the Orange County Region.  She said a recent study showed that Duke University was the largest landowner in Orange County.

Regarding Transportation on page 2, Addendum 1, Council Member Brown said that the University states that the amount of traffic that will be generated by the Development Plan is a function of the amount of parking that will be provided with improved alternative modes.  She said the question had been raised, noting it is unrealistic, and added that this goes back to another question.  Council Member Brown said the neighborhood streets are filled with students and this will be extended to a new area with this huge amount of development.  Also, she continued, the parking lots and decks in Town are in fact University parking lots.  Council Member Brown said this should be taken into account when traffic analyses are done, and UNC needs to take a realistic approach to this in looking at traffic and air quality.  She said the University generates a lot of traffic, certainly in the nearby neighborhoods.

In that same section, Council Member Brown asked if any studies had been done to determine if the current parking spaces for patients and visitors are actually used by patients and visitors, or can they be campus uses as well.

Regarding Transportation, figure 2.3 related to parking space impacts, Council Member Brown noted that two parking lots indicated losing 471 and 157 spaces, meaning that those parking lots would no longer be parking lots.  Yet on Map 7, she said, these two areas still appear to be parking lots, or at least there is no indication of anything being on those two lots.  Council Member Brown what, if anything, is planned for those two lots?

Regarding the power plant, Council Member Brown said that on Map 8, Addendum 1, there are four black areas noted as new or upgraded, and asked exactly what is proposed for each of these four areas?  In relation to the UNC power plant, she said she had a copy of the Steam System Master Plan of 1997, and asked does this take into account the new 6 million square feet of buildings proposed in this Development Plan.  Council Member Brown asked does this Master Plan take into account the next phase of the buildings proposed on the south campus, and if not, what thought has been given to the heating and cooling for this mass square footage?

Council Member Brown said that, regarding the request for renewable energy souces as a source of energy, is there a calculation for the amount of steam generation necessary per square foot of building?

Council Member Brown asked for an explanation of the differences in Map 3, Addendum 1, and Map 7 in open spaces and wooded areas, noting they do not seem to correspond.

Council Member Bateman, referring to page 57 under road improvements plans that the University will be responsible for, that under section “C” , it states that South Columbia Street would be narrowed between Manning Drive and South Road to three lanes.  She asked if that was a narrowing or reconfiguring.

Council Member Bateman said that regarding parking, it was mentioned there would be a loss of 240 spaces for residential students, but this loss would be accommodated in off-campus storage lots.  She asked for clarification of what that means.

Council Member Bateman asked if the net increase of 1550 spaces was mainly for visitors, and did that include the 350 that Ms. Beck mentioned in the ACC parking lot addition?

Council Member Bateman said it was discussed that trip reduction activities included free park and ride.  She said she hopes that means that park and ride lots will be free from the Town’s point of view.  Council Member Bateman said she is assuming the University will be able to find land to accommodate these lots.  She asked whose responsibility is it to find, identify and pay for park and ride lots?

Council Member Bateman said she had a question on the porous pavement methods that are going to be used.   She said it was her understanding that this probably would not work very well in the red clay surfaces present in Chapel Hill, and would like some response to that concern.

Council Member Bateman reiterated that we do not need to exempt properties from outside the O&I-4 zone from the Town’s noise and lightening ordinance.  She said she looked forward to seeing a reconfiguration for married student housing, stating her belief that the two proposed road alternatives are not acceptable.

Council Member Strom commented that he admired the thorough, well-reasoned and very reasonable concern that the citizens and the University put on the table tonight.  He said it seems like the flash points are very well documented and it seems the concerns expressed are reasonable.

Council Member Strom said we are looking at 6 million square feet and he wanted to ask Town staff to understand the magnitude.  He said when this comes back at the next Council meeting he wanted to take the extra step to respond to each citizen’s point specifically.  Council Member Strom said that often these reports come back and major concerns are lumped together, and said he hoped that we could give an extra effort in identifying all the specific concerns and have a discussion about that.

Concerning the off-campus parking as a mitigation strategy, Council Member Strom said his understanding is that the Town does not have zoning authority or review of surface parking lots, that the Town only reviews structures.  He said there is the possibility for significant parking lots in and around Town that we would not have authority over.  Council Member Strom said he would like to ask the staff to put on the table that the Town would have some review and some regulation of the location and design of those lots.  He said he believes that this is a dangler, and is directly precipitated by the 6 million square feet plan.  Council Member Strom said it is important to neighbors and to the Town in general.

Council Member Strom asked the Town Attorney to answer Martin Feinstein’s question, regarding whether we have enough detail here to legitimately understand and make a reasonable judgment on property values and health, safety, and general welfare.

Council Member Strom noted that the design workshops should be a stipulation but it seems that there will be more conversation about that.

Council Member Strom said that one thing that he found troubling in the presentation seems to be characterization of those who have questions about the married student housing on Mason Farm as housing expansion.  He said the issue for him is location, and it is not support for housing.  Council Member Strom said one of the Planning Board members asked can’t you come up with some alternative location for the married student housing options.  He said it is what the neighbors have asked for and fellow Council members have highlighted some of the safety issues associated with placing those units on Mason Farm Road.  He said he is interested in more conversation between the staffs about some alternatives.  Council Member Strom said one of the alternatives was the Country Club and they had received several different answers about why they could not do that.  He said he would like some real attention paid to that.

Council Member Strom said there is not enough detail on the Pittsboro/McCauley Street building for him to make a judgment about that, and requested more information.

Council Member Strom said the neighbors have made some very compelling comments and put them on the table about the Smith Center SUP.  He said this was a promise made and hoped that the staff report deals with replacing buildings with a vegetative buffer that is very specifically referred to when this SUP was originally approved.

Council Member Strom said the ACC design changes had been to make a 100 ft. buffer.  This building is still in design phase, he said, so why can’t we have a 100 ft. buffer between a huge building and a small neighborhood, adding the time to do it is now.

Council Member Strom said there was conversation about the UNC Board of Trustees authorizing the purchase of land in the Triangle.  He said he wanted Town staff to be specific about where we are in the conversation about buying land not in the Triangle, what is west of Columbia Street in the other neighborhoods.  Council Member Strom said this is a huge factor and part of his going along on the process was the Chancellor’s promise that they were defining the boundaries of the University by creating the Master Plan.  He said he believes that this is not a small point and it cannot be ignored at this juncture.  Council Member Strom said he wanted to understand where we are in the conversation and hoped that the Town would be advocating for a clear understanding of what the final boundaries of the University would be.

Mayor Waldorf, speaking to Mr. Howes, asked if the Town would have a commitment that they would meet with the Mason Farm neighbors on the housing, design process and the road.  She then asked if he had any questions.  Mr. Howes noted that this had been a constructive process.  He said the Council had put an array of questions to the staff, and knew that the answers were going to have to be extracted.  Mr. Howes said they are pledged to work with the staff to produce a good set of responses to the ones they are able to answer, and they will certainly work in particular on questions relating to Mason Farm Road. 

Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Horton if the questions can be answered and ready for October 3^rd.   Mr. Horton said he believes the University has the largest assignment and the vast majority of the questions.  He said a transcription of tonight’s discussion would be prepared and provided to the University as quickly as possible.

Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Howes if October 3^rd was a reasonable date to answer the questions.  Mr. Howes replied yes.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:26 p.m.