SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 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, Engineering Director George Small, Current Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Item 1 — University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

Development Plan Application

Mr. Horton requested that all materials submitted to the Council before tonight's meeting (including those submitted by the University on October 1st and 2nd) be entered into the record, without objection. 

Mr. Waldon pointed out the four resolutions in the main packet.  He said that Resolution A was the Manager's revised recommendation for approval of the University Development Plan with a set of conditions.  Mr. Waldon said that Resolution B, the Planning Board's recommendation for approval, included a different set of conditions.  Resolution C would deny the application, and Resolution D, he pointed out, would request the University to conduct design workshops with neighbors prior to issuing applications for site development.

Mr. Waldon noted that Council members had asked the staff to help them visualize what some of the buildings would look like, particularly those at Pittsboro Road/McCauley Street and along Mason Farm Road.  The staff had not been able to find a match for the Pittsboro/McCauley building, Mr. Waldon said, but the Southern Village apartments and condominiums give an idea of the scale and appearance of the student housing units planned on Mason Farm Road. 

Mr. Waldon noted that a phrase "this new building would be set back 60 feet from the private property to the east" had inadvertently been struck from the second line in condition #32a on page 25 in Resolution A.  He said that it had not been the staff's intent to delete that requirement, and suggested adding another phrase, "the residential building proposed to be constructed in this area should be set back at least 60 feet from the private property to the east as shown on map 2 in addendum #2" at the end of 32a.  This would replace the language that had been deleted in error, he said. 

Regarding the agenda item requesting abandonment of the Smith Center Special Use Permit (SUP), Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Council may approve that if it finds that the development use authorized by the SUP no longer requires an SUP and that all conditions of the SUP have been satisfied.  The development no longer required a SUP, Mr. Waldon said.  He added that the second requirement for abandonment would depend in part on whether or not the Council approved the University’s Development Plan application.

In summary, Mr. Waldon said that the staff recommended that the Council adopt Resolution A, to approve the Development Plan with conditions, and Resolution D, which requests design workshops.  If the Council adopts both, he said, then the staff recommends that they also adopt the resolution to abandon the Smith Center SUP.

Presentation by the University. 

Nancy Suttenfield, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration at the University, stated that the Town and University had worked hard since adoption of the O&I-4 ordinance to formalize the Development Plan, its two addenda, and the stipulations in Resolution A and Resolution D.  She said that approval of Resolution A and Resolution D would begin an important new approach to development on campus that would focus on community-wide systems as well as individual buildings.  Ms. Suttenfield pointed out that the University had proposed a new direction with regard to stormwater management and transportation that would benefit the community.  She thanked both Town and University staffs for working so diligently for many months to get to this juncture on schedule.  She asked that her comments tonight, as well as all of the University's previous comments and written submissions, be made a part of this hearing.

Ms. Suttenfield stressed that the construction of a new road to provide campus access was not, and never had been, a component of the University’s Development Plan.  She added, though, that it was important to preserve the flexibility to be able to build that road at some future point.  Ms. Suttenfield pointed out that the University had discussed the road merely to clarify issues of siting in relation to buffers.  She referred to her October 1st letter to the Town Manager in which she had made the following points:

· The University supports Resolution D and is fully committed to including neighbors in this work.  

· The University supports the Town staff's recommendation for and urges the Town Council to adopt Resolution A, with several minor changes regarding stipulations numbers 5, 31b, 32, and 33. 

Ms. Suttenfield said that the University had shown throughout its submission that this Development Plan, including addenda one and two, maintains the public health, safety and general welfare, as well as adjacent property values.  She requested approval of Resolution A, Resolution D, and the resolution authorizing abandonment of the Smith Center SUP.  Ms. Suttenfield said that this would allow the University to move forward with implementation of its Development Plan, which would include "side-by-side" work with residents of adjacent neighborhoods.       

Comments by Citizens.

Floyd Fried read a statement written by Ken Broun, who was out of the country.  Mr. Broun expressed support for his neighbors' objections to all of the University’s development plans in the Mason Farm area.  He said that he was willing to see a compromise solution, though.  Mr. Broun suggested that the University's plans for an access road, transit corridor, and student family housing could be accommodated with minimum impact on the Mason Farm/Whitehead neighborhoods if they put the road and corridor north of the housing units and limit access to Mason Farm Road from the housing units.  Mr. Broun said that he and other neighbors had met with the University over this matter and had been told that the plan was a workable one. He added that the majority of neighbors thought that such a solution would be acceptable, though not ideal. 

Mr. Broun wrote, though, that the University’s Board of Trustees had not agreed with either the neighbors or its own planning staff.  He said that the Board had rejected the compromise, thereby showing a total disregard for the interests of the neighborhood and the people of Chapel Hill.  Mr. Broun asked the Town Council to approve the University's Development Plan, with the stipulations reflected in Option #3/Attachment #3 filed by the Planning Department. 

Claudeline Lewis, a Chapel Hill resident for 40 years, said that her livelihood depends, in part, on renting an apartment in her Oteys Road home to graduate students.  Ms. Lewis explained that the University has plans to obtain her property, which she shares with her sister, "when it becomes available."  She pointed out that she and her sister had contributed to the Town as a hospital employee and schoolteacher, respectively.  She said that she was having difficulty trusting the University and that recent rulings by the University’s Board of Trustees had left her and her sister feeling depressed and hopeless.  Ms. Lewis asked the Town Council to ensure that: 

· The sidewalk along the north side of Mason Farm Road is built before construction begins on student housing.

· The University plants trees and supplemental plantings as buffers.

· The meetings suggested in Resolution D really do occur, since they cannot be mandated. 

· The access road is placed north of student family housing since placement close to children would be dangerous.

Cam Hill, a lifelong Chapel Hill resident, said that the University's proposal was incomplete and not in the best interest of Chapel Hill.  He predicted that Chapel Hill will become "overstuffed" with new development and emphasized the negative effect on traffic, parking, and the housing market.  Mr. Hill described the proposal itself as vague and incomplete.  He said that numerous questions still needed to be answered and that the Town should be comfortable with all parts of the plan before approving it.

Susan Fellner, a Mason Farm Road resident, said that she was a member of a small group of residents who had been meeting with the University over the past four weeks.  She stated that the University had never mentioned widening Mason Farm Road at any of those meetings, but that an article in the Chapel Hill News had referred to an eventual widening.  Ms. Fellner asked the University to clarify whether or not the newspaper was in error.

Mayor Waldorf asked the University and staff to respond to Ms. Fellner's request.  Mr. Horton said that he thought it was a newspaper error.  University spokesman Jonathan Howes said that it was an error in the Chapel Hill News, adding that he did not see how anyone could glean that from the information the University provided.  Mayor Waldorf replied, "So, it is an error then.  There is not a plan on the part of either the University or the Town to widen Mason Farm Road as a part of this Development Plan or any other plan. Correct?"  Mr. Howes said that was correct, and Mr. Horton added that the stipulations the Town proposed in Resolution A reflect that. Mayor Waldorf apologized for the newspaper error, adding that she had received emails from concerned citizens.

Elaine Barney, a Westwood Drive resident, asked the Town Council to do several things:

· Adopt the Development Plan, but exclude the perimeter transition areas (Mason Farm, Westwood and Cameron/McCauley neighborhoods) until the residents of each area agree with the proposed changes.

· Strengthen Resolution D to state that the Town Planning Director be included in meetings between the neighborhoods and the University

· Strengthen Resolution D to include a level of accountability from the University to the Town Manager and the neighborhood representatives that accurately reflects the areas of agreement and unresolved points.  Also, that the University state these areas of agreement or disagreement in an accurate and unbiased manner to the Board of Trustees. 

Ms. Barney urged the Town Council not to allow the University to abandon the Smith Center SUP. 

Joe Wilber, a Mason Farm Road resident, said that the University's Board of Trustees had "obliterated all promise of a compromise through meaningful dialogue" when it decided that there would be no flexibility in the Master Plan regarding placement of the new access road in the west and east transition areas.  Mr. Wilber remarked that the University was being inflexible, had ignored citizens, and that the development would increase traffic and endanger children by directing rush hour traffic near the housing complex.  

On behalf of his neighborhood, Mr. Wilber requested that the access road be located as far north of the buildings as possible.  Regarding Option #4/Attachment #2 in Resolution A, 32a & 33a, he asked that the Council consider removing the housing transportation corridor and replacing it with wording consistent with those found in Option 3-1a of Attachment #3, page 50, in which the access road would be placed north of married student housing.  He expressed support for approval of Resolution D and asked that the voices of those most affected by the plan be heard.

Ruby Sinreich urged the Town Council to vote for Resolution C denying the entire Development Plan.   She said that the University had failed to address community concerns and had not respected the process of O&I-4 when adding the transportation corridor late so that it received only 30 days of review.   Ms. Sinreich stated that even though those speaking in favor of the Plan had said that it would provide more parking on campus it actually would provide less.  She expressed disappointment that there had been no mention of transportation issues in the staff's response and argued that it would not be fair to citizens to approve the transportation corridor after only 30 days of review.

Ms. Sinreich said that the University should increase enrollment when there is space for new students, rather than threatening that the huge increase in new students will spill over into the Town.  She added that there was space for all of the new students and more on the Horace Williams property and that there was no reason not to use that.  Ms. Sinreich said that the Development Plan did not meet the criteria for maintaining public welfare or property values and probably would do the opposite.  She asked the Town Council to approve Resolution C, denying the plan, or to at least deny any portion of the development south of Manning Drive in the area of the transportation corridor.

Roy Fauber, a Cameron/McCauley neighborhood resident, argued that the University’s Development Plan lacks the detail that the O&I-4 Plan requires for a complete assessment of the impact of development in the perimeter transition areas.   He said that visual impact and intangible effects on neighborhood character had been virtually ignored.  Mr. Fauber noted that nothing in the packet explained what "expansion of utility corridors" means, and this was an important issue to his neighborhood because utility corridors run through it.  He said that the material being provided tonight raised more questions than answers. 

Mr. Fauber explained that he was not opposed to having a building on the corner of Pittsboro and McCauley Streets.  He was opposed to the blanket approval of the Plan, he said, because it removes citizens as an integral part of transition area development.  Mr. Fauber argued that the Council and citizens need more information and answers before completely approving developments in the perimeter transition areas.  He asked Council members to withhold approval of the areas that need more details. 

Council Member Bateman requested that someone from the University outline the proposed staging of housing unit construction and roads.  She asked them to describe what would be constructed and at what point the University would like to reach a decision about possible road placement.  Council Member Bateman also asked whether or not some housing units would be postponed.

University Facilities Manager Bruce Runberg replied that housing construction along Mason Farm Road consisted of one unit on the far west, three units west of Baity Hill, and about eight around Baity Hill.  He said that after the plan was approved the University would hire a consultant (probably a designer/builder) and develop a project with details on where staging would go and what houses would look like.  Mr. Runberg said that the University would like to have the neighbors participate in a process that will take about a year and a half, or more, to get to the point of housing construction, which will take at least 18 months.  He noted that the University had wanted to build about 500 units but was limited to 306.  Mr. Runberg said that there would only be construction of one access road to the three units immediately west of Baity Hill.  He pointed out that the University had not yet completed a design.

Council Member Bateman asked if there had been agreement that the three houses on the property north of Mason Farm Road would not be built until either 2008 or when the University acquired them.  Mr. Runberg replied that during early discussions the Town had requested that one of those units be moved farther east, which the University did.  He added that the University had never indicated a position that would delay construction of the 306 units and had always said that they needed to do those at one time. 

Mayor Waldorf remarked that she did not recall those discussions the same way.  She asked the Manager to respond, and Mr. Horton said he thought the Council had requested, and the University had agreed, to make that shift and to also shift the unit that would be built near Ms. Steele's property.  In addition, Mr. Horton said, the University had withdrawn its original request for rezoning of properties in that area and had delayed that for a period of time.

Mayor Waldorf asked if it had also been agreed upon that the building farthest to the northwest would be delayed until 2008 or until the property was acquired.  Mr. Horton did not remember the precise date but pointed out that it could be determined by looking in the record.  He noted that there had been no indication that the University intended to do anything but honor its promise. 

Mayor Waldorf asked if Council Member Bateman felt her question had been answered.  Council Member Bateman replied that it had not.  She then asked Mr. Runberg at what point the University expected to start planning for an access road.   Mr. Runberg replied that there would be an access road to serve the three units along Mason Farm Road and one to serve the unit farthest to the west.  He said that the University had not made any plans for construction of the main access road, except in terms of the where it is in the Master Plan and in the stipulations to Resolution A.  

Mr. Horton stated that Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos had determined that the construction date that Mayor Waldorf had inquired about was July 1, 2009.  Mayor Waldorf added "or until such time that the property is acquired," and Mr. Horton said that was correct.  Regarding the approval of road design, Mr. Horton explained that the Town would become involved in that when the Transportation Advisory Committee takes it up.  He pointed out, though, that a road could be constructed entirely on University property if built with only State and/or gift funds.  Mr. Horton noted that a Council member would propose a Resolution later in tonight's discussion that would require the University to bring that design to the Council for approval before construction could begin.  He added that the Mayor had talked to Chancellor Moeser about this and that the Chancellor had agreed with the proposed language.

Council Member Foy asked Mr. Runberg to clarify whether or not he had said that there was no plan for this road in the Development Plan and the University does not plan to build it for eight to ten years.  Mr. Runberg replied that the University did not have a project for it, or funding for it, and that it was not in the plan.

With regard to stipulation #33d in Resolution A, Council Member Ward asked Mr. Horton what his approach would be to minimizing construction vehicle traffic on Mason Farm Road as he evaluates the University's construction management plan.  Mr. Horton replied that, in this case, it would mean that all traffic would use an alternate route.  He said he anticipated that the University would be able to access its construction site through University-owned property.  But, during the Baity Hill construction, Mr. Horton said, the University might need to go a short distance on Mason Farm Road, from Fordham Boulevard to the entrance to the Baity Hill development.  In general, he explained, the Town would try to limit traffic and to eliminate any that was not essential. 

Mr. Runberg pointed out that the access road was an important part of the University's Master Plan and that the University does have an opportunity under the Ordinance to request a modification.  Mayor Waldorf said that all were acknowledging that the roadway is part of the Master Plan, but since it is not expected to be built within the next eight years it is not part of the Development Plan.

Council Member Foy asked, regarding Resolution D, if the University had any objection to adding a member of the Chapel Hill Planning Board as a participant.  University representatives replied that they did not object. 

Council Member Foy asked when the University anticipated that neighborhood involvement would begin.  Mr. Runberg said that earliest involvement would be regarding the Mason Farm housing in about four or five months.  They would begin to advertise for construction firms at about that time, he said.  Council Member Foy asked for a timeframe on the Cameron/McCauley building.  Mr. Runberg replied that it would be spring of 2002.

Council Member Brown asked the Manager to explain the difference in language among pages 25, 26, 32c and 33e.  Mr. Horton replied that those were two separate sections.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).  

Comments and questions form the Mayor and Town Council.

After pointing out that the plan reached by the University and neighbors together was no longer viable, Council Member Wiggins moved Resolution A with the adjustments that Mr. Waldon had mentioned and with the University's recommendations, except those that were unacceptable to the Manager.

Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Horton to outline those unacceptable recommendations.  Mr. Horton said that the staff agreed with the proposed change in stipulations 32 and 33, but recommended against changing the language in stipulation 31b. Mr. Horton asked the Attorney to comment on stipulation #5 regarding historic district review.  Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that there was a disagreement on interpretation of the law.  He said that his reading of General Statute 68.400.9, paragraphs A and F, was that stipulation #5 was written as authorized and was consistent with the General Statute.

Council Member Wiggins MOVED That the Town Manager and Town Attorney's objections be included in an amendment.  Council Member Evans seconded the motion.

Council Member Evnas asked to add an amendment to new item G to condition 33 that would say, "The existing 10-foot, chain-linked fence with barbed wire that was required as part of the Smith Center SUP shall be removed.  A fence-controlling access to the Smith Center may be installed as a replacement, as indicated in addendum #2, but shall be shorter and without barbed wire."  COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

REGARDING CONDITIONS 32A AND 33A, COUNCIL MEMBER WARD ASKED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:  "DESIGN OF ANY STREET OR TRANSIT FACILITY TO BE BUILT IN ANY OF THESE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION."  COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS AND EVANS ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN ASKED TO MAKE THE FIRST SENTENCE IN STIPULATION #7 AS A, AND THEN TO ADD A SECOND POINT, B, TO READ: "NO UTILITY CORRIDOR THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY.  THIS APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE NOR AUTHORIZE DEVELOPMENT OF A UTILITY CORRIDOR THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY." 

Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Horton to comment on that proposed amendment.  Mr. Horton said that the staff could not recommend that language. 

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS DID NOT ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.  COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN THEN MADE THAT AS A MOTION, BUT IT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN SUGGESTED ADDING AN ITEM D TO #8 THAT WOULD READ, "NO FREESTANDING TOWERS ARE ALLOWED IN THE PERIMETER ZONE." 

Mr. Horton, noting that the University had not proposed any towers, asked the University representatives to comment on that.  Mr. Runberg said that although the University had no plans to place towers there the amendment was a good idea. 

COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS AND EVANS ACCEPTED IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

REGARDING #13 ON PAGE 16 OF THE MATERIALS, COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN PROPOSED CHANGING C AS FOLLOWS:  "INTERSECTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:" BEFORE THE LIST OF INTERSECTIONS. 

Mr. Horton replied that the staff had spent a lot of time negotiating over every word in that section and that he would not recommend changing it. 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN’S MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

REGARDING #14 (TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN) AND ON PAGE 17, COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN ASKED TO ADD AN F WHICH WOULD SAY, "A MEANS OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ACTUAL REDUCTION IN NUMBERS OF TRIPS TO THE UNIVERSITY." 

Mr. Horton explained that the staff had spent months working on this section and they think it provides a clear process.  He recommended not changing it. 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN’S MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

REGARDING #24 RELATED TO NOISE, COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN PROPOSED ADDING, "DURING THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL STAGES, THE APPLICABLE NOISE ORDINANCE WILL BE THE ONE IN PLACE APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2001, OR ONE WITH MORE STRINGENT NOISE REGULATIONS IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL AT THE TIME OF THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL." 

Mr. Horton said that he believed it was clear that the noise ordinance that is in force at the time that a site plan permit is requested is the one that applies, and Mr. Karpinos agreed. 

Council Member Bateman asked where that was written, and Mr. Horton replied that it was in both the Development Plan materials and in the record of the approval of the Noise Ordinance.  Council Member Bateman asked where it was written in the Development Plan and Mr. Horton indicated the fifth line, "will not exceed the levels allowed in the Town Noise Ordinance as established at the time each site development permit application is approved by the Manager."  

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS DID NOT ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT. 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN PROPOSED DELETING THE LAST SENTENCE, WHICH SAYS "THIS NOISE RESTRICTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE O&I-4 ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS THE SAME OWNERSHIP AS PROPERTY…" AND SUBSTITUTING "PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OUTSIDE THE O&I-4 DISTRICT IS SUBJECT TO WHATEVER TOWN ORDINANCE REGULATIONS EXIST WITH RESPECT TO NOISE AND LIGHT, AND NOTHING IN RESOLUTION A WOULD CHANGE THE APPLICATION OF ANY APPLICABLE TOWN ORDINANCES TO PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ACTIVITY ON THAT PROPERTY." 

Council Member Brown said that would make it much clearer.

Mr. Karpinos stated that the Ordinance and the Resolution already were clear as written.  He added that the Resolution regulates and deals with what the University is proposing on the O&I-4 property and in the Development Plan.  Mr. Karpinos explained that the Resolution does not address what noise is going to be generated on property outside the O&I-4 district, which will be subject to whatever noise regulations are then in place within the Town.  He said that if the University chooses to have a situation on its campus that has an effect on its own property outside of the O&I-4 district insofar as noise and light are concerned, the Town will not enforce the noise and light standards on the University's own property.  Mr. Karpinos noted that the Ordinance does not address noise and light outside of the Development Plan and the O&I-4 district.  

Council Member Foy commented that the key statement in Mr. Karpinos' memo was the last sentence:  "Property outside the O&I-4 district in private ownership is protected by the noise and light standards."  He added that this opinion from the Town Attorney could not be clearer and should be sufficient.   Council Member Foy asked the University if the stipulation meant anything different to them than the Attorney's interpretation of it.  Mr. Runberg pointed out that the stipulation had not been included at the University’s initiative and that they had no strong feelings about it.  Council Member Foy said, "But you don't dispute Ralph's interpretation."   Mr. Runberg replied, "No, we don't."

Council Member Brown commented that she did not see the harm in adding the two sentences, since they were the Attorney's own language and they did not appear anywhere in the document.  Mr. Karpinos replied that since he had not seen what she was quoting from he did not feel comfortable adding it.  He stated that the language that is in the stipulation says that the noise standards apply to University property within the district and if it is the University’s property outside the district then those standards do not need to be met.  Mr. Karpinos noted that the Resolution only addresses development within the O&I-4 district and the Development Plan and does not regulate property outside of that. 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED THE TWO SENTENCES, BUT THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED TO REMOVE STIPULATIONS #30, 31 AND 32, AND TO SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:  "STIPULATIONS RELATED TO THE PERIMETER TRANSITION AREAS (MASON FARM, WESTWOOD, AND CAMERON/MCCAULEY NEIGHBORHOODS) WILL BE ADDED AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY, TOWN AND NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES TO REACH AGREEMENT ON THESE AREAS AND ESTABLISH TRANSIT AND HIGHWAY CORRIDORS."  THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR #33 THE LANGUAGE AS REQUESTED BY KEN BROUN, FOR THE MANAGER'S PROPOSED OPTION #3 ON PAGE 50 OF THE MATERIALS INSTEAD.  THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

MAYOR WALDORF PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT WITH WHICH SHE SAID THE UNIVERSITY HAD CONCURRED, AND DISTRIBUTED COPIES OF WHAT SHE DESCRIBED AS "LONG, BUT SIMPLE IN CONCEPT." 

Mayor Waldorf pointed out that in stipulations #32 and 33 the Manager was recommending that the University be given flexibility about where it might eventually locate a road or a transit-way.  She added that these stipulations set forth two options, and asked that the Council be explicitly permitted to add a third option, which the University staff and neighbors had developed last week in their series of meetings: this option would be the one listed in the Manager's memo as option three.

Council Member Brown pointed out that this was the same option she had proposed, but Mayor Waldorf responded that she was asking that it be "expressly permitted," rather than required by the Council, as an option for the University to consider as it moves forward with this plan.

MAYOR WALDORF OFFERED IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, REPEATING THAT THE UNIVERSITY ALREADY HAD AGREED TO IT.  COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS AND EVANS ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. 

Council Member Wiggins explained to Council Member Brown that she had not understood her motion to be the same thing.  Council Member Brown replied that it had been similar but was not exactly the same.

Council Member Brown proposed making sure that the sidewalk on Mason Farm Road would run all the way to Fordham Boulevard, rather than only to Oteys Road.  She asked the Manager if making a change in the wording of 33e on page 26 would accomplish that. Mr. Horton requested that the University comment on the suggestion, and Dean Bresciani, Associated Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, said that would be a troubling addition since there was no safe pedestrian access at Fordham Boulevard. 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ADD THAT 33E BE CHANGED FROM "OTEYS ROAD TO THE EASTERNMOST ROAD" TO “OTEYS ROAD TO FORDHAM BOULEVARD."  COUNCIL MEMBER WARD SECONDED, ADDING THAT THERE ALREADY WAS PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ON THAT SECTION OF THE ROAD AND THAT IT WOULD INCREASE.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (5-4), WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, BATEMAN, WARD, BROWN AND FOY VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS, EVANS, WALDORF AND PAVÃO VOTING NAY.   

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED TO AMEND STIPULATION 36 ON PAGE 27 BY ADDING "BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTIONS" AFTER THE WORD "INVALID" TO MAKE IT MORE CERTAIN THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE VOLUNTARILY SEVERED.  COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS AND EVANS ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. 

Council Member Brown, stating that it was obvious that this resolution was going to pass, commented that the Town had disregarded its own Comprehensive Plan and the resolutions regarding protection of the neighborhoods.  She stated that the Town Council will be letting down the neighborhoods that it had pledged to protect, and will be setting a bad precedent.  Council Member Brown said that she would vote against the resolution.

Council Member Bateman remarked that she found it difficult and demoralizing to be an elected official who was being pressured by the State.  She commented that the Town would have gained more if they had been able to continue the dialogue and negotiation.  Council Member Bateman said that she would support Resolution A, but reluctantly.

Council Member Foy said that he thought there were a lot of good things in the Development Plan and in the new zone that the Town had negotiated with the University, particularly regarding the environment and the impact that this growth will have on traffic.   He said that the Town and University had established a new way of working together than might carry forward to the benefit of both as they discuss the next step, which is Horace Williams.  Council Member Foy added that he was not satisfied that this was the best agreement possible, but said he was convinced that it was the best one they could negotiate.  

Council Member Foy stated that there were glaring problems with the agreement, particularly with regard to Mason Farm Road, but that the plan does give some possibility of revising the Mason Farm Road configuration.  He called upon the University, particularly the Board of Trustees, to understand and to consider that the Town’s and the University’s destinies and aspirations are linked together.  Council Member Foy asked the University’s Board of Trustees to understand that, to take the Town Council's judgment and requests on behalf of citizens into account, and to seriously reconsider the road alignments along Mason Farm Road.  Council Member Foy described his vote tonight as a "practical" one, which was a grim duty and which he resented.  He said that the University had not lived up to its highest ideals in this Development Plan, but he pointed out that the University still had the opportunity to do so.  

Council Member Wiggins agreed with most of what other Council members had said.  She pointed out that none of them was happy about what they had to do.  They were doing it because it was the practical thing to do, Council Member Wiggins said, because the Town might have no regulatory relationship with the University otherwise. 

Council Member Strom expressed admiration and respect for the neighbors who he said had presented their perspectives with passion and clarity and had helped the Town through the negotiations.  He also expressed regret for the Council's failure to win certain important points, but commented that the Town was limited in what it could do. After talking with the local delegation and a member of the University’s Board of Trustees, Council Member Strom said, he became convinced that members of both the House and Senate in Raleigh think that Chapel Hill had given the University “a time”.  He explained that the cards were stacked against the Town if questions were again raised in Raleigh, and that the University’s Board intended to take its case directly to the State legislature if significant changes were made to Resolution A.  Council Member Strom stated that the University’s Board clearly intended to seek relief from all zoning control which the Town currently holds, which he thought would include Horace Williams as well.  Council Member Strom suggested passing Resolution A and then moving on with what will continue to be a challenging relationship with the University.

Mayor Waldorf stated that the Town staff and Town Council had worked hard to do the best job they could in this very long, challenging and difficult process.  She pointed out that the Development Plan contained much improved control of noise and light impacts than in previous University construction.  Mayor Waldorf said that there was much improved control of stormwater quality and rate as well, and a systematic traffic management plan, better pedestrian safety, additional housing for students, and a commitment from the University that they will pay their fair share of the cost of transit operation and capital growth.  She described it as an aggressive plan to get students and employees out of their cars and onto buses, and one that gives predictability about the future of the main campus.  Noting that this was no solace to those who live on Mason Farm Road, Mayor Waldorf said it was important to state what had been achieved. 

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION A AS AMENDED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (8-1), WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.    

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL (2001-10-03/R-1a)

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill and the University of North Carolina are bound by a shared history and desire a unified vision for the future; and

WHEREAS, the University serves as the economic mainstay of the Town while offering a wealth of services from cultural amenities to quality medical care; and

WHEREAS, the Town serves as an attractive and desirable home for faculty, staff and students while offering valued services to the University; and

WHEREAS, the University and Town recognize the need to allow for growth while mitigating transportation, environmental, noise, light, and other impacts; and

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council enacted a new zoning district on July 2, 2001 to address the need to allow for growth while mitigating impacts, and applied this zoning district to the University’s Main Campus; and

WHEREAS, the University submitted a Development Plan to the Town that maps out a decade of campus growth and addresses mitigation of impacts;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that development proposed by the Development Plan application of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for property identified as parts of Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps numbered 71, 73, 74, 86, and 87, if developed according to the Development Plan dated July 3, 2001, modified as indicated in an Addendum dated August 7, 2001, and a second Addendum dated September 10, 2001, consistent with materials included in the July 3, 2001, August 7, 2001, and September 10, 2001  documents,  and in compliance with the conditions listed below, and specifically under both of the alternative Options 1 and 2 listed below for Stipulations 32 and 33, would:

1.         Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and

2.         Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of adjacent property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Development Plan in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

General Stipulations

1. Level of Development:  This Development Plan approval represents preliminary authorization for demolition and construction of facilities as shown on Addendum Map 2, and Addendum Maps 11 through 17, from the “Addendum #1” dated August 7, 2001. Additional information is included in the July 3, 2001 “Development Plan” and the August 7, 2001 “Addendum #1” that describes detail about facilities proposed on these maps, and which is hereby incorporated into this approval, except as noted below.  In any case involving conflicting information, the controlling component of this Development Plan shall be the Map called “Addendum Map 2.”  The controlling maps for Perimeter Transition Areas shall be Addendum Maps 11-17.  The Development Plan proposes new floor area of 4,016,227 square feet; and a net increase of 1,550 parking spaces.  (Note:  In the Development Plan application, the proposed new floor area is 5,901,277 square feet.  However, 1,885,000 square feet of that amount is proposed as parking deck, which does not count as floor area under the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, and is therefore excluded here, resulting in the proposed amount of new floor area being 4,016,227 square feet.)

2.      Site Development Permit Required: No construction activity related to any facilities proposed in this approved Development Plan may commence until the Town Manager has issued a Site Development Permit authorizing construction.

3.      Consistency of Site Development Permit Application with Development Plan:  No application for a Site Development Permit for areas within the boundary of this Development Plan, as shown on the attached Addendum Map 2, shall be approved unless such application is consistent with the Council-approved Development Plan.  Consistent does not mean identical; building footprints and landscaped areas shown on the Council approved Development Plan, except as otherwise noted below for certain Perimeter Transition Areas, shall be considered to indicate approximate size and location.

4.      Interpretation of Map 7:  Addendum Map 7 shall be considered to indicate, approximately, areas of pervious and impervious surface that will exist within the area covered by this Development Plan after full development has been completed.  Except for incidental paving for walkways and fire lanes, areas shown as “Wooded Areas” and “Pervious Surfaces” will be expected to be pervious surface after full development, either with existing vegetation left undisturbed or with new vegetation planted and maintained, unless further specified by stipulations below.

5.      Approvals Required for Street Improvements:  All public street improvements within the area covered by this Development Plan and/or proposed as part of this Development Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to commencement of construction.  Any structure  (including masonry walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and pavement) or other appurtenant fixtures proposed within one of Chapel Hill’s local Historic Districts must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to construction of the improvement.  All new streets created pursuant to this Development Plan shall be owned and maintained by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, or the NC Department of Transportation.

6. Utility Lines: All utility, service, and communication lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be underground with the exception of (1) utility, service, and communication lines that are directly attached to specific structures such as roadway and pedestrian bridges; and (2) above-ground steam/chilled water lines for which the Town Manager has approved a plan that specifically shows enclosure structures and accompanying landscaping designed to provide screening and buffering.

7.      No Utility Line Through Jones Park:  This approval of a Development Plan does not acknowledge nor authorize development of a Utility Corridor through Chapel Hill’s Jones Park, shown on Addendum Map 8 as a line extending to the southeast outside the boundaries of the Development Plan.

8.      Telecommunications Antennas Permitted:  Accessory antennas, defined as facilities customarily incidental to a building for the above-ground transmission and/or reception of airborne signals, are hereby authorized for installation on buildings/structures within the boundary of this Development Plan provided that (a) Any existing accessory antenna may remain and/or be replaced in a form generally consistent with the existing form; (b) No portion of any new accessory Telecommunications Antenna or associated facilities shall be located on any building within Perimeter Transition Areas in a manner that is visible from any ground-level vantage point outside the boundaries of the Development Plan; (c) No portion of any new accessory Telecommunications Antenna on a structure not in a Perimeter Transition Area may extend more than 25 feet above the roof of the building to which it is attached; and (d) No free-standing towers are allowed in the Perimeter zone.

9.      Fire Protection Requirements:  Hydrant spacing (distance from one hydrant to another) may not exceed 500 feet unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager.  The maximum distance from a fire department connection to a fire hydrant may not exceed 50 feet, unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager.  Fire Department connections must be located on the street side of each new building.  Arrangements shall be made with all new buildings that activation of the sprinkler system shall activate both a local building alarm and a supervisory alarm at a twenty-four hour service. For all new construction, once the building is above the foundation level, an operable hydrant must be available within 500 feet unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager.  There shall be fire lanes that are maintained and meet the N.C. Fire Code definition of a fire lane.  Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, with adequate roadway turning radius capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus and having a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches.  During construction, when combustibles are brought onto the site in such quantities as deemed hazardous by the fire official, access roads and a suitable supply of water acceptable to the Fire Department shall be provided and maintained.  To ensure an adequate supply of water for fire protection a minimum of 2,500 gallons of water per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi shall be available at all fire hydrants necessary to meet the fire protection requirements for this development.  This fire flow requirement shall be certified by an engineer licensed by the State of North Carolina.

10.    Smith Center Special Use Permit:  No Site Development Permit application may be submitted for a location within the area encumbered and constrained by the existing Special Use Permit for the Dean Smith Student Activity Center until the Special Use Permit for the Smith Center is either modified or abandoned in a way that permits this proposed construction.

11. Stormwater Management Standards: 

Post-construction Stormwater Runoff Volume shall:

a)      Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service methodology for runoff depth, not exceed the pre-development (existing conditions) volume of runoff for the 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event (or 96% of the rainfall that statistically would occur in a 100-year period based on the record data) at locations where stormwater exits the OI-4 Zoning District. This may be achieved by hydrologic abstraction, recycling and/or reuse, or any other accepted scientific method.  All new development and re-development shall conform with these criteria; and

b)      Be included in a stormwater improvement plan that the University is currently undertaking that is intended to implement projects that reduce the volume and rate of runoff from existing campus development.  This plan will assure that no increase in volume will be generated from the University main campus following new development.          

Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Rate shall:

Be controlled such that the discharge rate of post-construction runoff, at all locations where stormwater runoff exits the land area in the Development Plan, shall not exceed the pre-development or existing conditions discharge rate for the local 2-year (3.60 inches), 10-year (5.38 inches), 25-year (6.41 inches), and 50-year (7.21 inches) frequency, 24 hour duration storm event.

Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Treatment shall:

a) Be designed to remove 85% of Total Suspended Solids;

b)      Occur on the volume of stormwater runoff resulting from the first 1 inch of precipitation;

c)      Be such that either the post-development runoff volume draws down to the pre-storm design stage within 5 days but not less than 2 days; or, the post-development discharge rate shall be no larger than the pre-development discharge rate for the 1-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event (3.00 inches); and

d)      Occur prior to entering the Waters of the State.

Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Control Measures shall:

Utilize best management practices, which shall be installed coincident with or prior to Site Development Permit activities.  Each Site Development Permit application shall include and comply with the following stormwater management practices and criteria for land area in the Development Plan:

a) Design(s) for all structural best management practices associated with a Site Development Permit shall be sealed by a Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of North Carolina, with demonstrable expertise in stormwater management engineering practices.

b)      At a minimum, any structural best management practice(s) for sedimentation and erosion control, post-construction stormwater treatment, and discharge rate control shall be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable federal and State design, construction and maintenance requirements.

c)      Any structural or non-structural best management practice may be implemented to manage stormwater runoff in accordance with the post-construction runoff control criteria.

Stormwater Management Standards described above are subject to revision as necessary to conform with any applicable revision(s) to federal or State regulations where such revisions would establish a stricter standard.

Requirements for Ongoing Data Collection and Analysis

As called for in Stormwater and Traffic Management Guidelines, ongoing data collection and analysis shall be performed as described below:

12.    Outfall Monitoring:  Outfall monitoring shall occur periodically as described below and, following each monitoring period, copies of all data shall be submitted to the Town.  The types of monitoring are to include stream gauge or stream flow data collection, visual inspection, and/or benthic sampling depending on the location.

a)      Meeting of the Waters outfall:  A stream/rain gauge shall be installed and operated to collect and measure precipitation, stream flow, selected ambient water chemistry and stormwater data. Benthic sampling shall be conducted at a minimum every 6 months based on appropriate scientific methodologies.  Visual inspections shall occur quarterly within the floodplain of the boundaries of the North Carolina Botanical Garden or south of Fordham Boulevard, to monitor and report physical conditions including channel stability, scour, sedimentation, or any other physical characteristics associated with stormwater runoff exiting the tract.

b)      Morgan Creek outfall:  Visual inspections shall occur quarterly at the outfall behind the south chiller. These inspections shall monitor and report physical conditions including channel stability, scour, sedimentation, or any other physical characteristics associated with stormwater runoff exiting the tract.

c)      Battle Branch outfall:  Visual inspections shall occur quarterly at a selected location where the stream becomes clearly defined below the confluence with its tributaries. The same visual monitoring methodology shall be used as described for the Morgan Creek outfall above.

d)      Bolin Creek outfall(s):  Visual inspections shall occur quarterly at appropriate inlet locations along the tract boundary and Franklin Street. The inspections shall monitor for sedimentation and/or debris buildup.

13.    Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses:  An Updated Transportation Impact Analysis and subsequent Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses shall be submitted in accordance with the Guidelines approved for the OI-4 Zoning District, as follows:

a)      An Updated Transportation Impact Analysis shall be submitted in December 2001.  Subsequent updates shall be submitted in December 2003 and biennially thereafter  (referred to as Biennial Updates) until construction of the buildings included in the Main Campus Development Plan is substantially complete or until a new Development Plan is approved.

b)      Collection of new data (as described under the Methodology section of the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for development and redevelopment in the Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) Zoning District, adopted by the Town Council on July 2, 2001) shall be undertaken for the December 2001 submission of the Updated Transportation Impact Analysis and subsequent Biennial Updates.  This data shall be collected in September/October of the applicable year.

c)      Consistent with application of the approved Guidelines, the Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses shall analyze additional intersections for existing, no-build, and build conditions Level of Service (LOS) if the intersections meet the requirements outlined in the Guidelines.  Intersections to be considered for possible analysis include:

1.   NC 54 and Friday Center

2.   NC 54 and Office Drive/Hilltop Collector Road (proposed signal)

3.   NC 54 and Burning Tree Drive

4.   NC 54 and Hamilton Road

5.   Fordham Boulevard and NC 54 Ramp

6    Fordham Boulevard and Estes Drive

7.    Fordham Boulevard and Willow Drive

8.    Fordham Boulevard and Elliott Road

9.    Fordham Boulevard and Ephesus Church Road

10.  Airport Road and Hillsboro Street

11.  Airport Road and Estes Drive

The number of intersections requiring analysis may increase or decrease depending on whether the intersections meet the analysis criteria established in the Guidelines.

d)      Traffic signal warrant analyses at the following locations, to include peak hour volume warrant and accident warrant, shall be submitted as part of the Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses:

1.   Mason Farm Road and East Drive

2.   Mason Farm Road and West Drive

3.   Mason Farm Road and Oteys Road

4.   Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road

5.   Manning Drive and Skipper Bowles Drive

Traffic signal warrant analyses must include projected traffic associated with the approved Development Plan.  If either the Peak Hour Warrant or Accident Warrant is satisfied at a location, then the University shall conduct a full warrant analysis at that location.  The University will be responsible for installing warranted traffic signal(s) within eighteen months after fulfillment of the associated warrant(s), subject to approval by the Town Manager and the NCDOT.

14.    Transportation Management Plan:  A Transportation Management Plan shall be prepared every three years. The first Transportation Management Plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager in December 2001.  Subsequent updates shall be submitted in December 2004 and every three years thereafter until construction of the buildings included in the Development Plan is substantially complete or until a new Development Plan is approved.

The Transportation Management Plans will be reviewed by the Town Manager, who may suggest changes to existing and proposed programs or may suggest additional programs.  The Plans may also be amended to reflect the development of alternative transportation programs.

Each Transportation Management Plan shall include:

a)      Designation of a Transportation Coordinator for each department.

b)      Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives.

c)      Provisions for disseminating transit and ridesharing information.

d)      Descriptions of programs designed to encourage greater use of alternative modes of transportation and an assessment of the anticipated impact of these programs.

e)      A mode split survey of employees of the University and UNC Hospitals and UNC students

15.    Refuse:  As stated in the Development Plan, refuse collection shall be by a means other than Town collection.

Required Improvements

Transportation conditions shall be measured, monitored, and analyzed on an ongoing basis, as articulated in the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines  endorsed by the Chapel Hill Town Council on July 2, 2001, and as described above.  Based on the best data available at this time, improvements and requirements related to transportation are specified below. 

The Guidelines establish procedures, processes, and measures for identifying impacts and mitigation relevant to local transportation systems(s).  As further information is obtained and analyzed, and as conditions change, it is possible that currently identified mitigation measures will need to be modified; that new and/or different measures will become necessary; and that previously identified measures will no longer be appropriate or necessary.

Upon review of additional information that will be gathered as outlined below, the University shall propose such adjustments as are necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, including additional or fewer or different improvements needed to mitigate the transportation impacts of growth authorized by this Development Plan.  The Town Manager shall approve such adjustments if he determines that the adjustments are reasonably consistent with the Development Plan approved by the Council   In the event that the Town Manager determines that the adjustments proposed by the University are not reasonably consistent with the Development Plan approved by the Council, no further Site Development Permits shall be approved until acceptable adjustments are proposed by the University and found by the Town Manager to be consistent with the Development Plan.

The following improvements shall accompany construction of facilities approved in this Development Plan:

16.    Provision of Park/Ride Spaces:  The University shall arrange for provision of 1,361 parking spaces in park/ride lots to accompany construction of new facilities as proposed in the Development Plan. No application for Site Development Permit may be submitted in a given fiscal year, unless it is demonstrated that the number of park/ride parking spaces shown as being available in the previous fiscal year, as shown on Table 7b in the August 7, 2001 Addendum, have been made available, or unless documentation is submitted to and approved by the Town Manager demonstrating that facilities proposed in a particular Site Development Permit application will not generate demand for park/ride spaces.  Each Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis, beginning with the 2001 submission, shall provide information on the status of providing the park/ride spaces as outlined in Table 7b of the August 7, 2001 Addendum.  This analysis shall also include information on park/ride spaces to be provided during the next two years, including the number and probable location of anticipated facilities.  The total number of park/ride spaces to be provided as part of this Development Plan shall be evaluated based on an assessment of future employee and student growth and a review of mode split information gathered from the Transportation Management Plan survey of employees and students.  In the event that the Biennial Updates and/or Transportation Management Plan Updates indicate that assumptions about travel behavior that contributed to the calculations in Table 7b prove to be inaccurate, the University shall propose corrective measures, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to approval of any subsequent Site Development Permits.

17.    Traffic Signal System Improvements:  The University shall be responsible for the following traffic signal system improvements:

a)      Traffic signal timing plans shall be studied and revised as necessary at all intersections that are analyzed for LOS criteria (presently 36 intersections).  Signal timing plan studies  shall be submitted in December 2003 and biennially thereafter  (referred to as Biennial Updates) until construction of the buildings included in the Main Campus Development Plan is substantially complete or until a new Development Plan is approved.

b)      The following signalized intersections shall be upgraded by replacing the existing 8” signal heads with 12” signal heads:

1.   Cameron Avenue and Pittsboro Street

2.   Cameron Avenue and Columbia Street

3.   South Columbia Street and Mason Farm Road

4.   Pittsboro Street and McCauley Street

The upgrades must be approved by the Town Manager and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and construction must be completed prior to the end of calendar year 2005.

18.    Road Improvements:  The University shall be responsible for constructing and implementing the following roadway and intersection improvements or their equivalent prior to the end of the calendar year 2005, provided that the results of the 2001 traffic study demonstrate that these are desirable and that approval is obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation:

The following items a) through d) as proposed by the University:

a) Columbia Street and South Road

   Reconstruct the separate right-turn slip lane from South Columbia Street onto South Road to provide a tighter urban-type intersection

b)      South Road and Country Club Road

   Widen the north side of Country Club Road to provide a double left-turn lane.

   Widen the south side Country Club Road to provide a separate right-turn lane.

c)     South Columbia Street (Between Manning Drive and South Road)

   Narrow the street to three lanes (two 11-foot traffic lanes and one 14-foot bus/bicycle lane on the east side).

   Widen the eastern sidewalk by four feet to narrow the pavement to the required dimensions noted above.

   At the southern end of the street section, eliminate the excess pavement on the west side by extending the curb out to achieve a symmetrical section.

d) Ridge Road (At Rams Head Lot)

   Eliminate last parking space on the right side of the drive at Ridge Road.

   Eliminate last two parking spaces in the curve on the left (north) side of Ridge Road approach to the drive.

   Eliminate parking spaces between the gate to the hockey field and the drive on north side of Ridge Road.

   Move the sign 20 feet back from Ridge Road.

In addition:

e) Mason Farm Road

   Construct a sidewalk with curb and gutter on the north side of Mason Farm Road, from the Purefoy Road intersection to new Student Family Housing intersection closest to Fordham Boulevard, provided public right-of-way is available. This sidewalk section shall be installed prior to occupancy of the Family Housing units proposed as part of the “Student Family Housing-East” Perimeter Transition Area.

19.    Traffic Calming Improvements:  A proposed traffic-calming plan and implementation schedule for the Development Plan shall be prepared by the University for review and approval by the Town Manager and the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to occupancy of the first Site Development Permit structure submitted under the Development Plan. Traffic Calming measures may include speed tables, round-abouts, rumble strips, median improvements, and other measures as appropriate for specific applications.

20.       Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvements:

a)   Signalized Intersections:  The following signalized intersections shall be upgraded with pedestrian “count down” heads and remarked crosswalks prior to the end of calendar year 2005:

1.   Cameron Avenue and South Columbia Street

2.   South Road and Raleigh Road

3.   Manning Drive and Ridge Road

4.  South Columbia Street and McCauley Street

b)   Battle Branch Trail:  The University shall improve and maintain a pedestrian trail through the University-owned portions of Battle Park, for use as a pedestrian corridor to access the campus.

21.       Public Transportation System

The University shall provide in each Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis, beginning in 2001, estimates of increased public transit service anticipated for the next two years.  The University is expected to provide all funding necessary to purchase capital equipment and provide operating funds for additional service primarily benefiting the University (for example, express park-and-ride service) and to provide its pro rata share of funding necessary to purchase capital equipment and provide operating funds for additional service benefiting all transit system partners.  The Town of Chapel Hill shall prepare estimates, in consultation with the University, of anticipated capital and operating needs related to the Development Plan.

Information Requirements for Site Development Permit Applications

22.       Site Development Permits-General Information:  Each application for a Site Development Permit shall include the following information, in a format specified by the Town Manager:

a)   A Site Plan showing building footprints, access drives, pedestrian circulation (with connections to existing pedestrian networks), parking areas, and clearing limits.

b)   A Grading Plan.

c)   A Utility Plan showing how all utilities will be provided to buildings, and approval from the applicable utility.

d)   A statement of floor area to be constructed/demolished, and statement of number of parking spaces to be created/lost.

e)   The number and location of bicycle storage facilities in the vicinity of each building.

f)    A Construction Management Plan, consistent with the University’s “Construction Management Guidelines” contained in the August 7, 2001 Addendum, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to commencement of construction, indicating measures to be taken during construction in the following areas:  Traffic Management Plan for movement of motorized and non-motorized vehicles on any public streets (maintained and operated by the Town or the NCDOT) that will be disrupted during construction, including detour information;  Pedestrian Management Plan indicating how pedestrian movements on or adjacent to public rights-of-way will be safely maintained;  a Construction Traffic Management Plan, indicating routes for construction-related traffic  and including parking arrangements for construction workers.

g)   Description of how emergency access to and around buildings will be provided both during and after completion of construction (note standards for access described previously).

h)   Other information determined by the Town Manager to be reasonably necessary in order to evaluate consistency with this approved Development Plan.

23.       Stormwater Management:  Every application for a Site Development Permit shall include:

a) A signed and sealed letter from a Professional Engineer indicating the locations in the drainage area and the methodologies of how stormwater management measures associated with Site Development Permit application will meet or exceed the approved Stormwater Management Performance Standards, as approved by the Chapel Hill Town Council on July 2, 2001.  Stormwater management and treatment practices shall comply with all applicable federal and State regulations, and revisions thereof.

b) A sub-basin map indicating locations within the sub-basin(s) of the stormwater runoff control measures associated with each development activity.

c)   A table indicating stormwater runoff volume and discharge generated by and mitigated by each development activity, in accordance with the approved performance criteria.

d)   Plans indicating grading, plantings, erosion control and stormwater runoff control best management practice(s) design and details, in accordance with the performance criteria.

24.       Noise Ordinance:  Every application for a Site Development Permit shall include a signed and sealed letter from a Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of North Carolina and with demonstrable expertise in acoustical design and attenuation practices, certifying that any increase in measurable noise above existing pre-Development Plan noise levels on property outside the OI-4 Zoning District will not exceed the levels allowed in the Town Noise Ordinance as established at the time each Site Development Permit application is approved by the Town. This noise restriction shall not apply to property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District that is in the same ownership as property within the OI-4 Zoning District.

25.       Lighting Plan:  Every application for a Site Development Permit shall include a lighting plan, sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina and with demonstrable expertise in lighting design and mitigation strategies, that shows existing and proposed lighting fixture types and locations, and indicating by isolux contour diagram and grid points the measured and calculated pre-development and post-development foot-candles at grade on property where lighting impacts are expected.

The following standards apply to new lighting associated with an approved Development Plan.

a)   All lighting, including that used in and around buildings, recreation areas, parking areas, walkways, roadways, and signs, shall be designed to minimize spillover light onto property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District.

b)   All lighting shall be designed to prevent glare that could impair vision and/or otherwise deteriorate normally accepted qualities and uses of property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District.

c)   Outdoor lighting, except sports and athletic field lighting, shall be mounted at heights no greater than fifteen (15) feet for non-cutoff lights; and no greater than thirty-five (35) feet for cutoff lights.

d)   Lighting for sports and athletic fields must include glare control features and must be designed so that the primary illumination is directed onto the play area and immediate surroundings, and such that offsite illumination/glare is restricted.

e)   Increases in illumination on property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District shall not result in lighting levels in excess of 0.3 foot-candles, measured at ground level.

f)    No increase in measurable lighting levels shall occur on property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District where existing ambient lighting levels are in excess of 0.3 foot-candles.

g)   These lighting restrictions shall not apply to property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District that is in the same ownership as property within the OI-4 Zoning District.

Requirements for Perimeter Transition Areas

26.       Perimeter Transition Areas-General Information:  All areas shown on Addendum Maps 11-17 shall be considered Perimeter Transition Areas.  In addition to the information noted above that is required for all Site Development Permit applications, all applications for Site Development Permits in Perimeter Transition Areas, as shown on Addendum Maps 11-17, shall include the following information:

a)   A description of any demolition to take place, along with description of proposed new buildings and parking areas.

b)   A Construction Management Plan that will include, in addition to the information noted above, indication of construction staging areas.

c)   A site plan showing what areas are to be left undisturbed by construction activity, and what areas will remain otherwise as vegetated open space.

d)   All points of vehicular access to and around buildings.

e)   The number and location of parking spaces in the vicinity of each building.

f)    Building elevations, showing heights of all structures.

g)   Landscaping Plan, including the view of each building from all adjacent streets.

h)   Demonstration of compliance with statements included in Maps 11-17 of Addendum #1.

In addition, the following information shall be required for the following specific Perimeter Transition Areas:

27.       Battle Lane Perimeter Transition Area: For the Battle Lane Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:

a)   New construction shall be designed to maintain the existing setback line separating the existing building from Battle Lane.

b)   No surface stormwater management facilities shall be placed between the new/existing buildings and Battle Lane.

28.       East Franklin Street Perimeter Transition Area:  No additional stipulations shall apply for the East Franklin Street Perimeter Transition Area.

29.       South Columbia Street Perimeter Transition Area:  For the South Columbia Street Perimeter Area, the following additional stipulations shall apply:

a)   Landscaping between the new buildings and the street shall be similar to existing street/sidewalk areas between the existing Ackland Museum and South Columbia Street.

b)   No surface stormwater facilities shall be placed between the new buildings and South Columbia Street.

c)   Any access to the proposed new parking deck from South Columbia Street shall be designed to limit access to right-in, right-out.

30.       McCauley/Pittsboro Perimeter Transition Area:  For the McCauley/Pittsboro Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:

a)   The new building shall be set back at least 100 feet from the centerline of Pittsboro Street.

b)   Landscaping between the new building and the streets (Pittsboro and McCauley) shall be similar to existing street/sidewalk areas between the existing Tate Kuralt Building and Pittsboro Street.

c)   No surface stormwater facilities shall be placed between the new building and Pittsboro Street.

 31.      Ambulatory Care Center Perimeter Transition Area:  For the Ambulatory Care Center Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:

a) The new building shall be set back 100 feet from the University property line.

b) The University shall submit a plan showing coordinated stormwater management and buffer strategies for the entire length of the 100-foot setback shown between the existing and proposed Ambulatory Care Center buildings and private properties to the south, demonstrating how a buffer can be provided between the University development and the private properties.  This plan shall demonstrate that a 30-foot, Type D buffer will be provided between the Ambulatory Care Center buildings and private properties to the south.  This plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Manager for review and comment prior to submittal of any Site Development Permit application for this Perimeter Transition Area.

Option 1 for Stipulations 32 and 33

32.       Student Family Housing-West Perimeter Transition Area:  For the Student Family Housing-West Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:

a)   A Housing Corridor, 60-feet wide, shall be established parallel to Mason Farm Road.  The new buildings shall be located within this corridor.  Two parallel Transportation Corridors, one immediately to the north and one immediately to the south of the Housing Corridor, both of identical width, shall be established and reserved, each at least 90 feet wide.  The residential building proposed to be constructed in this area shall be set back at least 60 feet from the private property to the east, as shown on Map 2 in Addendum #2.  The location of all corridors shall be measured from the northern edge of the pavement on Mason Farm Road.  Use of the Transportation Corridors shall be reserved for a possible new street or transit line, but may be used initially for parking, play areas, walkways and landscaping.  The design of any street or transit facility to be built in either of these Transportation Corridors shall be approved by the Town Council prior to construction.

b)   The new building may be sited and landscaped in a manner that varies from item a) above if the Town Council approves a plan for the Mason Farm Road corridor that addresses building, street, and buffer configurations in a different manner.

c)   Sidewalk, along with curb and gutter, shall be installed along the north side of Mason Farm Road, from the Purefoy Road intersection to the Oteys Road intersection.

33.       Student Family Housing–East Perimeter Transition Area:  For the Student Family Housing-East Perimeter Transition Area:  The following additional stipulations shall apply:

a)   A Housing Corridor, 60-feet wide, shall be established parallel to Mason Farm Road.  The new buildings shall be located within this corridor.  Two parallel Transportation Corridors, one immediately to the north and one immediately to the south of the Housing Corridor, both of identical width, shall be established and reserved, each 75 feet wide at the eastern edge of the proposed building area (adjacent to the entrance to Baity Hill), widening to the west to the greatest extent practicable up to a width of 90 feet.  The location of all corridors shall e measured from the northern edge of the pavement on Mason Farm Road.  Use of the Transportation Corridors shall be reserved for a possible new street or transit line, but may be used initially for parking, play areas, walkways and landscaping.  The design of any street or transit facility to be built in either of these Transportation Corridors shall be approved by the Town Council prior to construction.

b) Buildings shall be located as described in (a) above, unless the Town Council approves a plan for a new street in the Mason Farm Road corridor (as described in item c) below).  Buildings shall be designed in a manner such that the elevations facing Mason Farm Road shall include main entrances served by walkways; no refuse collection or other service-related areas may be located between the buildings and Mason Farm Road.

c)   The new buildings may be sited and landscaped in a manner that varies from item b) above if the Town Council approves a plan for the Mason Farm Road corridor that addresses building, street, and buffer configurations in a different manner.

d)   In addition to Construction Management information described above, the Construction Management Plan for this Perimeter Transition Area shall include measures that will minimize construction vehicle travel on Mason Farm Road. (Construction Management Plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to start of construction.)

e)   Sidewalk, along with curb and gutter, shall be installed along the north side of Mason Farm Road, from Oteys Road to Fordham Boulevard.

f) A Site Development Permit application for the new 1,500 space parking deck shown as facility P-7 may not be approved until an access plan for the deck, addressing access issues on Mason Farm Road overall and particularly for peak-hour and special event times is approved by the Town Manager.

g) The existing 10-foot, chain link fence with barbed wire that was required as part of the Smith Center Special Use Permit shall be removed.  A fence controlling access to the Smith Center may be installed as a replacement, as indicated in Addendum #2, but shall be shorter and without barbed wire.

“Option 2 for Stipulations 32 and 33.

34.       Student Family Housing-West Perimeter Transition Area:  For the Student Family Housing-West Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply: 

a)   A corridor shall be reserved for a new street, connecting the Health Affairs area to Fordham Boulevard, in an alignment to the north of proposed new family housing buildings.

b)   Plans shall be drawn for the new street in the alignment of a proposed transit corridor that is shown on the UNC Master Plan, with the intention that, if the road is built in that corridor and future plans for transit become imminent, the road would be shifted to the south to allow construction of transit facilities.

c)   The cross-section for the new road is anticipated to be a four-lane, median divided road; however, the median may be eliminated in the portion of the new road immediately south of the Smith Center, for purposes of narrowing required right-of-way in this location.

d)   Simultaneous with completion of the proposed new access road between the Health Affairs area and Fordham Boulevard, the University shall construct a physical barrier, in a form approved by the Town Manager, at the intersection of the new road and Mason Farm Road, which restricts access to Mason Farm Road west of the new road.  The barrier shall be designed in a manner such that it can be quickly removed in event of emergency.

e)   No access from the proposed new parking deck (P-7 on the Development Plan) shall be permitted to the proposed new family housing area on Baity Hill (which has access onto Mason Farm Road), until the new access road connecting the Health Affairs area to Fordham Boulevard is constructed and access to the west to Mason Farm Road is closed, as required above.

f)    New family housing buildings shall be oriented such that either building fronts or building sides face Mason Farm Road.

g)   Parking lots for the proposed new family housing shall not have direct access onto Mason Farm Road, once the new access road between the Health Affairs area and Fordham Boulevard is constructed.

h)   The portion of required sidewalk on the north side of Mason Farm Road that is west of Otey’s Road shall be constructed and available prior to the occupancy of any of the proposed new family housing buildings.

i)    The University shall prepare a construction traffic management plan, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Site Development Permit for this Perimeter Transition Area. Staging areas and access points shall be to the north of the building sites for the proposed new family housing so that construction traffic on Mason Farm Road can be minimized.”

j)    The new building may be sited and landscaped in a manner that varies from these provisions if the Town Council approves a plan for the Mason Farm Road corridor that addresses building, street and buffer configurations in a different manner.

k)   Sidewalk, along with curb and gutter, shall be installed along the north side of Mason Farm Road, from the Purefoy Road intersection to the Oteys Road intersection.

35.       Student Family Housing –East Perimeter Transition Area:  For the Student Family Housing-East Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:

a)   A corridor shall be reserved for a new street, connecting the Health Affairs area to Fordham Boulevard, in an alignment to the north of proposed new family housing buildings.

b)   Plans shall be drawn for the new street in the alignment of a proposed transit corridor that is shown on the UNC Master Plan, with the intention that, if the road is built in that corridor and future plans for transit become imminent, the road would be shifted to the south to allow construction of transit facilities.

c)   The cross-section for the new road is anticipated to be a four-lane, median divided road; however, the median may be eliminated in the portion of the new road immediately south of the Smith Center, for purposes of narrowing required right-of-way in this location.

d)   Simultaneous with completion of the proposed new access road between the Health Affairs area and Fordham Boulevard, the University shall construct a physical barrier, in a form approved by the Town Manager, at the intersection of the new road and Mason Farm Road, which restricts access to Mason Farm Road west of the new road.  The barrier shall be designed in a manner such that it can be quickly removed in event of emergency.

e)   No access from the proposed new parking deck (P-7 on the Development Plan) shall be permitted to the proposed new family housing area on Baity Hill (which has access onto Mason Farm Road), until the new access road connecting the Health Affairs area to Fordham Boulevard is constructed and access to the west to Mason Farm Road is closed, as required above.

f)    New family housing buildings shall be oriented such that either building fronts or building sides face Mason Farm Road.

g)   Parking lots for the proposed new family housing shall not have direct access onto Mason Farm Road, once the new access road between the Health Affairs area and Fordham Boulevard is constructed.

h)   The portion of required sidewalk on the north side of Mason Farm Road that is west of Otey’s Road shall be constructed and available prior to the occupancy of any of the proposed new family housing buildings.

i)    The University shall prepare a construction traffic management plan, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Site Development Permit for this Perimeter Transition Area. Staging areas and access points shall be to the north of the building sites for the proposed new family housing so that construction traffic on Mason Farm Road can be minimized.”

j)    Buildings shall be located as described above, unless the Town Council approves a plan for a new street in the Mason Farm Road corridor (as described below).  Buildings shall be designed in a manner such that the elevations facing Mason Farm Road shall include main entrances served by walkways;  no refuse collection or other service-related areas may be located between the buildings and Mason Farm road.

k)   The new buildings may be sited and landscaped in a manner that varies from above if the Town Council approves a plan for the Mason Farm Road corridor that addresses building, street, and buffer configurations in a different manner.

l)    In addition to Construction Management information described above, the Construction Management Plan for this Perimeter Transition Area shall include measures that will minimize construction vehicle travel on Mason Farm road. (Construction Management Plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to start of construction.)

m)  Sidewalk, along with curb and gutter, shall be installed along the north side of Mason Farm Road, from Oteys Road to the eastern-most road segment that leads into the Baity Hill housing area.

n) A Site Development Permit application for the new 1,500 space parking deck shown as facility P-7 may not be approved until an access plan for the deck, addressing access issues on Mason Farm Road overall and particularly for peak-hour and special event times is approved by the Town Manager.

The University shall choose between Option 1 and 2 for Stipulations 32 and 33 at or before the time it submits its first application for a Site Development Permit in the area referred for Student Family Housing as shown on the Development Plan application.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

36.       As-built Drawings:  The University shall provide as-built site plans for buildings, parking lots, public utilities, storm water drainage systems, street and sidewalk improvements, and new and existing impervious surfaces associated with each Site Development Permit. The as-builts shall be on a compact disk in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates. 

37.       Continued Validity:  Continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

38.       Severability:  If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other conditions shall remain valid and this approval shall remain intact.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Development Plan by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This the 3^rd day of October, 2001.

Regarding Resolution D, Mayor Waldorf noted that the University had agreed to this and had also agreed to have the workshop include a Town designee. 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN ASKED TO ADD A FIFTH WHEREAS: "WHEREAS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS HELPED IN MAKING PAST MEETINGS BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND NEIGHBORS EFFECTIVE; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL ASK THE UNIVERSITY TO CONDUCT DESIGN WORKSHOPS WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AS WELL AS THE TOWN PLANNING DIRECTOR ETC…" THEN, AS THE LAST PARAGRAPH, SHE ASKED TO ADD:  "NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT BE WRITTEN AND SIGNED BY THE UNIVERSITY, THE NEIGHBORS, AND THE TOWN BEFORE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES."

Mr. Horton suggested that the language be modified in the first addition to simply say "a Town staff representative," and Council Member Brown agreed.  Regarding the second sentence, Mr. Horton said that the Council may request whatever it wishes. 

COUNCIL MEMBERS WARD AND EVANS ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION D AS AMENDED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL TO CONDUCT DESIGN WORKSHOPS (2001-10-03/R-1d)

WHEREAS the Town Council has approved a Development Plan application submitted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, proposing new facilities on the University’s main campus and;

WHEREAS some of those facilities are located in Perimeter Transition Areas, as defined in the resolution approving the Development Plan application and;

WHEREAS neighbors of those Perimeter Transition Areas have expressed interest in participating in discussions about how facilities in those areas will be designed and;

WHEREAS the University has expressed interest in and willingness to engage in dialogue with neighbors about the design of Perimeter Area facilities; and

WHEREAS The Planning Director has helped in making past meetings between the University and the neighbors effective;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill Town Council asks the University to conduct design workshops, with opportunity for citizen participation, and attendance by a Town staff representative; for the purpose of discussing possible design features of new facilities in designated Perimeter Transition Areas as described above, prior to submission of Site Development Permit applications for such facilities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the areas of agreement and disagreement be written and signed by the University, the neighbors, and the Town before presentation to the Board of Trustees.

This the 3rd day of October, 2001.

Mayor pro tem Pavão offered a new Resolution requesting the University's Board of Trustees to reconsider the housing/road configuration in the Mason Farm Road area with attention to possibilities for aligning the new street to the north of the proposed student family housing. 

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, A NEW RESOLUTION (RESOLUTION 3).  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO RECONSIDER THE HOUSING/ROAD CONFIGURATION (2001-10-03/R-3)

WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has proposed a Development Plan for the main campus, proposing construction of new family housing north of Mason Farm Road; and

WHEREAS, the University’s Board of Trustees has adopted a Master Plan for the main campus, showing a new 4-lane street to be constructed between Mason Farm Road and this proposed new family housing; and

WHEREAS, residents of the Mason Farm Road neighborhood have raised safety and livability concerns, for both existing residents and new residents of the family housing, associated with potential construction of this new street as proposed in the Master Plan; and

WHEREAS, the existing residents have stated a clear preference for the new street to be located north of the proposed new family housing, for reasons of safety and livability for both existing residents and new residents; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has indicated its interest in the safety of those existing and new residents; and

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has approved the University’s Development Plan, with conditions that allow flexibility in the design of this new street and its relationship to the proposed new family housing and to the existing neighborhood;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council asks the Board of Trustees to reconsider the housing/road configuration, with attention to possibilities for aligning the new street to the north of the proposed family housing.

This the 3^rd day of October, 2001.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD TO ADOPT A NEW RESOLUTION (RESOLUTION 4) REQUESTING THAT THE UNIVERSITY CONDUCT A COURTESY REVIEW OF OFF-CAMPUS PARKING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

A RESOLUTION ASKING THE UNIVERSITY FOR COURTESY REVIEW OF OFF-CAMPUS PARKING (2001-10-03/R-4)

WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has prepared a Development Plan for the main campus, proposing addition of approximately 5 million square feet of floor area for new campus facilities; and

WHEREAS, significant new transportation demands will accompany this growth; and

WHEREAS, the University has proposed addressing those increased transportation demands by a series of future actions, including construction of park-and-ride lots away from the main campus; and

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has approved the University’s application for this Development Plan; and

WHEREAS, the University has stated, and the Town Council acknowledges, that State law exempts development on State-owned land from local land use regulation if no buildings are involved; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council notes that development of surface parking lots will be accompanied by stormwater impacts, and will affect traffic circulation and access in the immediate vicinity of such lots; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to be able to offer comments and input to the University as it contemplates development of such parking lots in the larger Chapel Hill community;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council requests that the University provide the Town Manager an opportunity for courtesy review of plans for off-campus surface parking lots related to this Development Plan, to be able to offer comments prior to development of such lots.

This the 3^rd day of October, 2001. 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO DIRECT THE TOWN MANAGER TO DEVELOP A TRAFFIC CALMING PROPOSAL FOR MASON FARM ROAD.

Council Member Brown asked if he would expand that motion to include other neighborhoods that will be affected by the University's expansion.  Mr. Horton noted that the Mason Farm neighborhood was the most immediate need, but it would be possible to work with other neighborhood groups as well one neighborhood at a time. 

Mayor Waldorf, pointing out that neighbors had approached Council Member Ward and asked for this, commented that it usually is better to wait until people ask for traffic-calming plans for their neighborhoods rather than assuming that they want them.  Council Member Brown dropped her request in the interest of going forward.  She suggested that other neighborhoods bring traffic-calming requests to the Town. 

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO DEVELOP A TRAFFIC CALMING PROPOSAL (2001-10-03/R-5)

WHEREAS, traffic on Mason Farm Road is likely to increase as a result of new development as proposed in the UNC Development Plan for the University’s main campus;  and

WHEREAS, existing residents of homes on and near Mason Farm Road have expressed concern about negative impacts that might accompany such growth in traffic;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill Town Council directs the Town Manager to prepare a recommended process that would lead to development of a Traffic Calming Plan for the Mason Farm Road corridor.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is requested to bring this proposed process to the Town Council no later than the end of November, 2001.

This the 3^rd day of October, 2001.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT A NEW RESOLUTION (RESOLUTION 6) REQUESTING THAT THE UNIVERSITY CONSIDSER PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE-ACTIVIATED SENSORS.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE UNIVERSITY TO CONSIDER PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE-ACTIVATED SENSORS (2001-10-03/R-6)

WHEREAS, pedestrian and bicycle travel are the primary modes of transportation to and on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, pedestrian and bicycle travel can be enhanced by the presence of sensors or switches at intersections that can be activated by the presence of a pedestrian or cyclist;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to consider, as it is designing transportation improvements at street intersections on and near campus, whether or not it is possible to include pedestrian and bicycle-activated sensors or switches at signalized intersections as a component of the improvements.

This the 3^rd day of October, 2001.

Item 2 — Consideration of University's Request that the Council Authorize

Abandonment of the Smith Center Special Use Permit

Ruby Sinreich asked the Council not to abandon the Smith Center SUP.  She stated that the fence was meant to protect the neighbors from the University and that there was a need for that protection.

Council Member Brown agreed with what Ms. Sinreich said, and explained that she would not support Resolution 2a. 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2A, AUTHORIZING ABANDONMENT OF THE SMITH CENTER SPECIAL USE PERMIT.  THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED (8-1) WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ABANDONMENT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (2001-10-03/R-2a)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council approved a Special Use Permit for the Student Athletic Center on July 14, 1980, authorizing development of an Auditorium; and

WHEREAS, the holder of the Special Use Permit, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has requested that the Special Use Permit be abandoned; and

WHEREAS, Section 18.6.4 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance states that the Council shall approve abandonment of a Special Use Permit if it determines that:

The development or use authorized by the Permit or Modification no longer requires a Special Use Permit, and all conditions of the Special Use Permit have been satisfied; and

WHEREAS, the Council hereby determines that this condition of Section 18.6.4 has been met;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves and authorizes the abandonment of the 1980 UNC Student Athletic Center Special Use Permit.

This the 3^rd day of October, 2001.

The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

The minutes for this meeting were adopted on November 12, 2001.

                                            ____________________________________

                                                                                    Joyce A. Smith, CMC

                                                                                    Town Clerk