SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
(Continuation of June 23, 2003 Meeting)
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Council Member Flicka Bateman was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Finance Director Jim Baker, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Director George Small, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 2 - Public Hearing
a. Reconvening Public Hearing and Action on Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: Revised Memorandum of Understanding.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A REVISED SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, AND AN ADDENDUM TO THAT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (2003-06-25/R-1)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has adopted a Memorandum of Understanding and enacted an ordinance, both designed to initiate Chapel Hill’s participation in a countywide Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance system; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Attorney has advised that the Memorandum of Understanding be amended to remove development constraints related to high school capacity until a new, third high school is opened in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that its enacted ordinance can remain intact, and that the high school capacity issue can be addressed with changes to the Memorandum of Understanding and adoption of a new Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves a Revised Memorandum of Understanding and an Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding, as presented in the Town Manager’s memorandum of June 23, 2003.
This the 25th day of June, 2003.
Item 9 - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:
Application to Modify Development Plan
· Reconvening Public Hearing
Town Manager Cal Horton explained that Mayor Foy and UNC Chancellor Moeser had met and discussed this issue, and the University would present further information.
Planning Director Roger Waldon pointed out that the revised Resolution A, which the staff had presented on June 23, 2003, had recommended approval of the University's plan with a number of conditions. Tonight, he said, the staff was presenting supplementary information covering what had happened in the two days since June 23. Mr. Waldon explained that Resolution A was exactly the same as it had been on June 23, except for the following additional conditions, listed in Attachment #1 of the materials:
A. Add the following sentence to condition #9, under "Road Improvements": "The new traffic signal at the Gimghoul-Country Club intersection shall be installed prior to the start of construction on the Cobb Deck/Chiller Plant.
B. Add the following sentence to condition #9, under "Road Improvements": "That the University work with the Town of Chapel Hill to install a striped pedestrian crosswalk across Country club Road, in the vicinity of the Gimghoul Road intersection, by fall 2003."
C. Add the following new condition under "Miscellaneous Stipulations": "Plans for utilization of the Cobb Parking Deck shall include a provision that allows for limited reservation of visitor parking spaces, on a pre-arrangement basis, for cemetery use."
Mr. Waldon noted that Attachment #2 offered language to address additional ideas raised on June 23. Attachment #3, he said, was a summary of the main issues that had been raised at that June 23 meeting.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if the crosswalk proposed in Condition B would be an electronic one. Mr. Waldon explained that there would be a pedestrian activated signal installed.
Council Member Bill Strom asked Mr. Waldon to add an "H." to the list of possible additions (A through G) in Attachment #3. He requested that addition H. include language for deleting the Cobb Deck/Chiller Plant.
Council Member Verkerk noted that the distance between Gimghoul Road and the Raleigh Road/NC 54 intersection was about 50 yards. She asked if it was standard practice to have traffic lights that close together. Mr. Waldon replied that the distance was shorter than the industry standard. He pointed out that the Town had installed signals at less than industry standard distances before, such as at Weaver Dairy and Westminster Roads on NC 86.
Town Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli noted that Cameron Avenue/Pittsboro Street and Cameron Avenue/Columbia Street are the same distances as Gimghoul and Raleigh Road. Installing lights that close together is not standard Town practice, he said, but it has been done in the Downtown area.
Council Member Verkerk established that there was a 2001 Council-approved plan to add turn lanes at the intersection on Country Club Road. Mr. Neppalli verified that this would improve traffic flow for both pedestrians and automobiles and allow less waiting time for pedestrians. Council Member Verkerk argued, though, that having to cross more lanes would not be good for pedestrians. She said that pedestrians do not have to cross five lanes anywhere in the Downtown area. Mr. Neppalli replied that even though there are not as many lanes Downtown there are wider intersections, such as the Franklin Street/Columbia Street intersection. Council Member Verkerk established that the Country Club Road intersection would be wider than the Franklin Street/Columbia Street intersection.
Council Member Harrison verified that the Country Club Road signal would be the “countdown” type. Mr. Neppalli explained that the staff planned to place countdown signals at about the same time as the road widening in December 2005. But if the Council wishes to install countdown signals before the road widening, he said, the staff would accommodate that.
· Presentation by the University
Nancy Suttenfield, UNC Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Nancy, noted that the University had submitted its application to modify the Development Plan on April 3, 2003. The ordinance provides for a Council decision within 90 days, she said, which means by July 5, 2003. Ms. Suttenfield confirmed UNC's willingness to postpone a decision on the Cobb and Jackson Circle parking decks until the Council's first meeting after the summer break, on August 25. She explained that University representatives had met with neighbors and had presented information regarding the Cobb Deck that they would also present to the Council tonight. The Gimghoul neighbors had expressed strong concern about the impact of traffic on surrounding streets, Ms. Suttenfield said. She agreed with the proposal to spend more time and reach a better solution, expressing hope that the University would return in August with a proposal that all could support.
Ms. Suttenfield pointed out that the University was continuing to seek approval tonight for the chiller plant. She said that the noise and design issues had for the most part been resolved and that the neighbors' primary concern was traffic. With regard to the Jackson Deck, she said that UNC would continue to review the impact of traffic on that area and would identify mitigation measures to lessen its impact. Ms. Suttenfield stated that UNC agreed with all of the stipulations with the exception of #7C, the second to last bullet in #12, and #16. She asked the Council to remove the miscellaneous stipulations related to the two decks until those decks come back for a final decision. Ms. Suttenfield reaffirmed UNC's commitment to looking at issues regarding the cemetery.
Bruce Runberg, UNC Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Construction, asked to comment on distances and buffers if the issue of building H21 is brought up later in the meeting. He again emphasized UNC's need to have 6,000 tons of chilled water on line by March 2005. Mr. Runberg introduced Brad Petterson, of Affiliated Engineers, Christine Hilt, of CLH Design and Landscaping, and Project Architect Jerry Guerrier to make the presentation.
Mr. Petterson clarified plans for the Country Club intersection with South Road. He explained that there would be two left turns, one straight-through right lane, and one northbound only lane. Mr. Petterson noted that there would be only four lanes at the intersection heading southbound on Country Club Road into the South Road intersection. The current width of the road would remain as it is, he said, but it would be re-striped and re-signaled.
Ms. Hilt displayed a map and slides of the existing campus, with approximately 370 parking spaces in the Cobb Dorm area. She also displayed the proposed site design and indicated where existing parking would be converted to open space. Ms. Hilt explained that UNC was attempting to "make more happy feet than happy cars" by redesigning the area with pedestrians in mind.
Mr. Guerrier displayed slides of model designs and described the concept behind the parking deck/chiller plant. He noted UNC's goal of having a pedestrian-friendly building that is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Guerrier explained that the parking deck would be at the same elevation as Cobb Dorm. He presented a slide intended to show UNC's sensitivity to the view from the cemetery toward the parking deck and the landscaping beyond. Mr. Guerrier explained that the deck/chiller would be about 15 feet higher than the Cobb Dorm roof. The deck could be lowered by one level, he said, making it approximately the same height as the Cobb Dorm. Mr. Guerrier pointed out that lowering the deck would reduce the amount of available parking.
Council Member Ward verified the location of the proposed roofline, and asked for clarification of traffic flow in and out of that structure. Mr. Petterson explained that the Paul Green Theatre drive and the drive behind Cobb Dorm would be the two main exits and entrances to the site. Council Member Ward verified that the design anticipated morning traffic entering from Raleigh and Country Club Roads. But the road that goes out to Country Club is a two-way street, he said, while Raleigh Road is only one lane.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if Raleigh Road could be two lanes. Mr. Petterson replied that the width between Winston Dorm and the cemetery did not allow for that.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked about possible stacking problems for people turning left onto Paul Green Theatre Drive, considering the traffic coming from the northern part of downtown Chapel Hill. Even though there would be two turn lanes to make left turns onto Raleigh Road, she wondered, would there be adequate space for cars there and for additional cars to turn and go straight ahead. Mr. Petterson acknowledged that this was a concern that required further analysis of the stacking and geometry of those intersections. Mr. George Alexiou would be assisting with those studies, he said.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if UNC had considered having the major entrance come in from South Road, since that would mean a right turn going in. Mr. Petterson replied that there was not enough space to make that road wider than one lane. Mayor pro tem Evans commented that it may be possible.
Council Member Verkerk remarked that the architectural style being presented was sometimes referred to as "fascist" or "brutal." "No matter how you dress this thing up," she said, “it does not address the problem of putting 600 parking spaces in the center of campus.”
Council Member Ward asked what efforts had been made to address pedestrian flow along the northern or western edges of the cemetery. Ms. Hilt explained the plan to remove parallel and perpendicular parking from the Paul Green Theatre. This would allow a large brick path with landscaping to cross in front of the chiller and deck and connect with a pass-through to the center section, she said.
Council Member Ward asked UNC to address the suggestion by some that pedestrians would use the center access of the cemetery as the preferred way of coming and going. Mr. Runberg replied that this concept was just moving into the schematic phase and that detailed answers to such questions still need to be worked out. Ms. Hilt noted, however, that the deck would serve as a buffer to people coming though the cemetery. She pointed out that various design decisions had taken traffic through the cemetery into consideration. UNC was concerned about that as well, said Ms Hilt.
Mayor Foy reported on his conversation today with Chancellor Moeser. The University had suggested deferring further consideration of the two parking decks while the Council and University worked to resolve the issues that confront these two plans, he said. Mayor Foy told Council members that he had conveyed their concerns about traffic and the change in traffic flow that the two decks would create. He had also tried to impress upon the Chancellor the Council's concerns about the impact on neighborhoods and on the pedestrian nature of the campus, he said.
Mayor Foy stated that the Chancellor had agreed to appoint representatives to the Mayor's Committee, which will bring a recommendation back to the Council on August 25. He said that he had told Chancellor Moeser that the Council was prepared to take action on Family Housing, the Utility Plan, and the Information Technology building. Chancellor Moeser felt that the need for the chiller had been demonstrated, and explained that the University wants to have the chiller in place to accommodate the needs of new and renovated buildings, Mayor Foy said. Mayor Foy added that UNC was asking the Council to at least determine that the site for the chiller was acceptable.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked Mayor Foy to clarify his position regarding the Cobb Deck. He noted that Mayor Foy had said the case had been made that the chiller was a necessity but had also said that the deck and chiller were one unit. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the intent of delaying the decision until August 25 was to allow time for Council to "come around." Mayor Foy replied that this was not the intent, nor the suggestion. The Council had made it clear that the proposal for the deck was an unfavorable one, he said.
Mayor Foy pointed out that there already is parking in the area and that enhancements to that might be made that would not negatively impact the Town. The Council needs to spend the next several weeks figuring out how that would come about in a way that would be acceptable to them and the community, he said. Mayor Foy remarked that it was unlikely that UNC had any illusions that the same proposal would be received more favorably in August. But UNC has made the case that a chiller plant is necessary to proceed with what they are doing on campus, he said. Mayor Foy emphasized that the Council's only rightful concern, as a regulatory body, was what impact the University's activities would have on the Town and whether the site is appropriate for a chiller plant.
· Comments from Citizens
Glenn Wilson reported that Gimghoul residents had a couple of "vigorous" conversations with UNC representatives and that both partied now understood their differences. He requested that the Council create a small committee of six to eight people to discuss these issues. Mr. Wilson suggested that the committee consist of Council members, Gimghoul residents, UNC representatives, and possibly one student who had expressed an interest.
UNC student Robert McConville described himself as one of about 500 people on campus who use the Gimghoul area for jogging. He also pointed out that the proposed parking deck entrance was directly across from intramural fields, which are a major source of student recreation. Mr. McConville expressed concern that an increase of 230-250 parking spaces and cars would be a source of danger to students.
Tommy Griffin, Chair of the UNC Employee Forum and a member of the UNC Advisory Committee for Transit and the UNC Safety Committee, said that the Cobb and Jackson Decks were necessary parts of the plan to improve transit and parking on campus. Mr. Griffin pointed out that parking fees help support the transit system. He noted that many UNC employees cannot ride the bus to work because of their schedules. Mr. Griffin stated that 215 UNC employees work at or below the poverty level. But they are forced to pay for parking due to their work schedule, he said. Mr. Griffin pointed out that security is a big issue on campus, especially for females using the library and gym at night. He stated that having fewer than 600 parking spaces would put a financial burden on employees and staff because the revenue from those spaces had already been figured in. Until there is more affordable housing in Town, Mr. Griffin said, there will have to be parking on campus for employees.
Diana Steele, whose Mason Farm Road home is surrounded by University land and next to building H21, said that she'd been encouraged by the University's willingness to talk with the Mayor and Council members regarding parking. With respect to building H21, she explained that traffic would be much more dangerous on Mason Farm Road if the entrance to H21 is moved to the other side of that building, as planned.
Ms. Steele expressed appreciation for the staff's comment on page 17 of the materials regarding the UNC dumpsters next to her property. But she stressed that she was concerned about traffic as well, in what she had understood would be a vegetative buffer zone. Ms. Steele noted that there was a remaining question about UNC's use of the back of her lot. She also pointed out that the plan for a building on the eastern side of Mason Farm Road seemed to have doubled, on average, from 25 to 45 units. Ms. Steele wondered if building H21 would do the same.
UNC neighbor Kimberly Kyser responded to the University's comment that citizens were only concerned about traffic. She pointed out that the chiller plant was a major concern as well. Ms. Kyser described the chiller as a "large industrial monolith" and encouraged Council members not to approve it since it was an integral part of a design that includes the parking deck. Ms. Kyser read a portion of Chancellor Moeser's response to her letter in which he said that the deck/chiller would beautify the area. She disagreed, she said, arguing that it would be an eyesore in spite of the fact that some of the proposed landscaping seemed quite lovely. Ms. Kyser noted that UNC does not have to build a deck in order to improve that landscaping. She added that the proposed buffer around the cemetery was narrower than the standard for historic districts.
UNC student Robert Brown told University representatives that they had his permission to take away his air conditioning and allow him to "sweat it out" like the alumni before him. They could also take more of his money to fund low income housing, light rail, or a more advanced transportation system, he said, since those are the solutions he had been taught at UNC. Mr. Brown said he had been taught that including cars in the planning of a community is a "nightmare and a mistake." He asked Council members to find out exactly why UNC was in favor of this plan and why they had abandoned more ambitious decisions in favor of short-term solutions that won't work.
Oteys Road resident Philip Rees agreed with Ms. Kyser that the location of the Cobb Deck/chiller plant would be a serious mistake in terms of its effect on the cemetery. He wondered if the University had considered every other possible location for the chiller. Mr. Rees described it as "hard to believe" that there was not another location for the chiller plant that would not have such a deleterious effect on this important part of Town.
Gimghoul resident Linda Folda wondered what, if any, studies UNC had conducted on the traffic impact of the proposed Cobb Deck. She walks through that area everyday, she said, and there has never been a time when there was no Raleigh Road traffic going into and out of the area that the University wants to close off. She asked where were all those cars going to go, and how will they get in and out of that area? Ms. Folda also wondered why the chiller plant, an obvious necessity for the campus, had suddenly been so necessary at this location.
UNC student Michael McSwain pointed out that the north campus parking lots do become an essential element of student life during the nighttime. He often ends up driving around looking for a parking spot, he said. Mr. McSwain noted that there were no pedestrian passways through the Cobb/Joyner parking lot even though it is an area of campus where many students walk day and night.
Westwood Drive resident Elaine Barney remarked that UNC representatives were so involved with details that they sometimes do not make themselves as clear as people want them to be. And sometimes what they say is not the reality that citizens come to find out through the Council's questioning, she said. For example, Ms. Barney explained that "modest modifications" was quite an understatement for the scope of what UNC was really asking. She pointed out that UNC had described the parking deck as having been deleted - but not really. The fact that it had merely been postponed, not deleted, had become clear through Council questioning, she said.
Ms. Barney noted that UNC had said the Manning Deck was considered proximate parking, not peripheral. But since no one wants to walk there it was being postponed, she said. Ms. Barney noted that the Town had also been told that parking near Health Affairs would be for patients and visitors. But now it seems to be for employees, and perhaps staff, because UNC employees do not want to use park and ride lots, she said. Ms. Barney described listening to UNC representatives as like having tea with the Mad Hatter. She asked Council members to continue to pay attention to what was not being said, and addressed, particularly with regard to the impact on nearby neighborhoods.
Ron Strom, developer of the Student Family Housing project, explained the proposal to put the driveway on the "western" side of building H21. Since the 24 units would not be commuter students, UNC did not envision cross traffic, he said. Mr. Strom agreed to look at the issue, however, and said that he was "cautiously optimistic" about resolving that and the dumpster issue to Ms. Steele's satisfaction. Mr. Strom explained that UNC preferred to build the driveway on the western side of the building because of the topography. Building it there would allow under-building parking, he said, noting that this would lead to less impervious surface and less stormwater runoff. It would also preserve the future transit corridor, he said, and create less site disturbance and less need for retaining walls. Mr. Strom noted that this issue had not been raised during the meetings with the neighbors. He also stated that UNC was providing the required buffers between residential and UNC property.
Westwood Drive resident Mark Shreve asked Council members to focus on the fact that both new parking decks would cause significant traffic problems. He also asked them to consider that the new parking scheme was completely contradictory to the original Development Plan that the Council approved.
· Comments and Questions from the Mayor and Town Council
Mayor Foy noted that Mr. Horton had distributed a resolution based on the Council's previous discussions. Resolution A would continue the public hearing on the proposed modification to UNC's plan and defer consideration of the Jackson and Cobb Decks, he said. Mayor Foy explained that the resolution would also defer consideration of the chiller plant, but he pointed out that this had been based on an earlier conversation and understanding.
Council Member Ward clarified that Resolution A does not separate the Cobb Deck from the chiller plant.
Mayor Foy pointed out that the University had asked that the chiller be addressed separately. He also noted that Attachment #2 included stipulations from the Manager's recommendation, to which UNC had objected.
Ms. Suttenfield stated that UNC had made a thorough study of other possible sites for the chiller plant. This was the only viable site, she said, because of the number of pipes and lines that converge there. Ms. Suttenfield explained that the primary reason for wanting to separate the chiller from the deck was to not lose any design time for the only available site. She said that UNC was behind schedule for delivering chilled water two years from now and could not afford a two-month delay.
Council Member Ward asked about implications of approving the revised utility lines without committing to the chiller plant being in that location. Mr. Waldon displayed a map of the proposed utilities, and Mr. Runberg explained that the lines were part of a system of loops.
Council Member Wiggins asked Ms. Steele for her reaction to what Mr. Strom had said regarding building H21. Ms. Steele replied that Mr. Strom had discussed putting the driveway on the west end of H21, which is where she wanted it. The dumpsters already are on the west end, she said, so it made sense to let that area double up rather than carve out another space. With regard to the buffer, she agreed that there was a 60-foot setback to the building, but asked if there was not also supposed to be a vegetative buffer.
Council Member Wiggins explained that Mr. Strom had misspoken and that he actually wanted the driveway to be on the eastern side of H21. Mr. Strom stated that he'd prefer that it be on the east side, adjacent to Ms. Steele's property, for all the reasons that he had given before. The dumpster to which Ms. Steele had referred would be torn up and replaced by landscaping, he added.
Council Member Wiggins recommended trying to make this a win-win for the neighbors and the University. She did not want to give a thumb’s up or thumb’s down to anything tonight, she said.
Mayor Foy suggested that Mr. Runberg make a note of requests such as Ms. Steele's, and determine whether they would be a suitable part of the overall agreement. He pointed out that Council Member Wiggins had asked to defer building H21.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the chiller plant would be noisier without a parking deck. Mr. Petterson replied that the driving factor would be meeting the 55 decibel limit set by the Town’s Noise Ordinance at the cemetery property line, whether there's a parking deck there or not.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked UNC to explain what effect a temporary chiller might have on the area. Mr. Runberg replied that UNC already was behind schedule and that a consultant's study had indicated that the only place to put this chiller plant was where it was being proposed. Putting it elsewhere would add several million dollars to the cost, he said. Mr. Runberg explained that temporary chillers are extremely noisy and that the cost of putting them in the Cobb area would be prohibitive. He remarked that the Council's decision was critical relative to those costs for the University.
Council Member Strom stressed that elements of UNC's Development Plan, not its Master Plan, were on the table for Council discussion. He was becoming resentful, he said, because of the suggestion that the Town had created this problem for the University. Council Member Strom argued that waiting until August would be a much smaller risk for a construction project such as the chiller plant than the weather would be. Continuing to grapple with the impacts of these significant changes on surrounding neighborhoods and visitors to the Town would lead to a better product and a more livable community, he said. Council Member Strom cautioned Council members against going into a discussion with a major element of the discussion already decided.
Council Member Strom noted that staff approval of site plans was one component of OI-4 zoning. So the notion that the Town is delaying this is "really preposterous," he said, adding that the Town should not be backed into a corner on this. Council Member Strom suggested that Council members finish their conversation, close the public hearing, start voting, and approve what they can. They should continue to talk, if UNC is willing to do so, he said. If not, then vote it up or down.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. THERE WAS NO SECOND.
Mayor Foy asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos for advice on how to proceed. Mr. Karpinos recommended taking action on the resolution to defer if the Council wants to defer any part of the project. Then that part of the public hearing could remain open to August 25, he said. Mayor Foy explained that moving the resolution printed in red would recess the hearing to August 25 on specific matters. Mr. Karpinos suggested determining what delay that the University would be willing to accept on the chiller plant: the project, the design, or the detail? That would clarify the situation, he said. Then the Council could recess the hearing as to those points until August.
Mr. Karpinos pointed out that the Town did not have a clear statement from UNC as to what its position was on the chiller plant. Mayor Foy requested such a statement from the University. Mr. Runberg said that UNC did not want to defer the decision on the chiller plant. They were willing to bring the design back at various times for review and approval, he said, but the ramifications of delay would be millions of dollars. Mr. Runberg stated that the only location, as provided by UNC's consultants, was the Cobb location.
Mayor Foy established that the University would agree to defer the chiller plant to August 25 with regard to everything except its site. Mr. Runberg said that was a reasonable statement of the University's position. Mr. Horton told Council members that the staff had drafted language that would allow the Council to approve the site but defer consideration of the design. Mr. Karpinos noted that in order for the third “Whereas” clause in the resolution to be correct in that case, the previous whereas clause should include the phrase "the design of" before the phrase "chiller plant." In the "Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved" clause, it would be appropriate to say "design of" before "the Cobb Chiller Plant," he said, noting that this would clarify what was being left open.
Council Member Verkerk expressed unwillingness to cede the site. Agreeing to that would mean agreeing to the chiller plant, she said. Council Member Verkerk wondered how the University had planned its air conditioning system before the chiller plant idea came up. She did not know how to proceed now, she said, since Mr. Karpinos had suggested the new wording. Council Member Verkerk stressed that she did not want to approve any resolution that approved the site. Mr. Runberg commented that UNC would agree to the new wording as long as it also said that the Town would be responsible for any costs associated with delaying the chiller plant.
Council Member Kleinschmidt emphasized that the Council had not approved this plan. The University had come to the Council in 2001 with a Development Plan that did not include the Cobb and Jackson Circle Decks or the chiller plant, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt remarked that there had been no cooling crisis in 2001, adding that Ms. Barney had effectively pointed out the ambiguity of UNC's statements. He said that the conclusion is difficult to believe when it is presented without any substance behind it. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that he did not doubt the veracity of the conclusion but would just like to test it. The Council had not been provided with any information with which to test this crisis in cooling, he said. He argued that it was perfectly reasonable to delay consideration of a chiller plant for two months when development for the entire northeast corner of campus has been in process for ten years. Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed support for the resolution printed in red, as it stands, without the adjusted language.
Ms. Suttenfield replied that Council Member Kleinschmidt's comments had second-guessed the University's expertise as well as the studies that had been done for UNC to identify what the chilled water capacity must be to meet the University's service load and to satisfy its mission of research, instruction and public service. With respect to the crisis, she said, UNC had never intended the Development Plan to be cut in stone for the next 8-10 years. They had always anticipated that there might be a need for a modification as new information became available, she said. Ms. Suttenfield emphasized that there was a chilled water crisis that they did not know about two years ago. Since then, she said, they have completed a strategic energy plan for the campus and have learned that they will need additional chilled water two years earlier than they had thought.
Council Member Kleinschmidt repeated his statement that he did not question the veracity of whether or not there was a crisis. He wished that the Town had been given an opportunity to test that and had been given the necessary information to "come on board," he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that to merely present a conclusive statement is to "second guess" the abilities of the Council and staff to understand the problem.
Mayor pro tem Evans explained that she had worked on the Master Plan as a Council representative and neighbor. She noted that she had also been on the Council during the Development Plan approval. Mayor pro tem Evans said that she views the Development Plan as being like the Town's LUMO, which is also not “set in stone”. She asked Mr. Waldon to confirm that a chiller plant had always been identified behind the Paul Greene Theatre and that there had always been a parking deck identified there.
Mr. Waldon replied that he had recently looked back at his files and did find a reference to a parking deck and chiller plant at this location on the Master Plan. He noted that it had not been on the Development Plan, however, when that was approved in 2001. Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that the Development Plan was for 8-10 years, adding that UNC was merely moving ahead with what was on their Master Plan.
Council Member Kleinschmidt emphasized that the Council had never approved the Master Plan. Council Member Verkerk stated that UNC could have miniature NASCAR and a brothel sketched in at Polk Place on their Master Plan if they wanted to. But that would have nothing to do with the Town Council, she said.
Council Member Verkerk asked why the chiller plant had not been on the Development Plan. Mr. Waldon deferred to UNC for the answer, but before UNC replied, Council Member Strom asked Mr. Waldon if there had been any guarantee that the Town would approve something from the Master Plan being put in the Development Plan. Mr. Waldon replied that the only staff references to the Master Plan were acknowledgements that it exists. The ordinance establishes standards for review, and approval or denial, of a development plan, he said. Mr. Waldon stated that those are the standards that the Council used in 2001 and they are the standards that the Council must refer to when taking action on a request for modification.
So, said Council Member Strom, "it has always been known to the citizens of the Town and to the University that changes to the Development Plan would go through this public process and the Council would use its best judgment, as far as health, safety and welfare, to decide up or down on components." Mr. Waldon replied that this certainly was the way the ordinance was structured. Mr. Horton added that to "maintain the value of adjacent property" was the other standard.
Council Member Ward recommended that approval of the site be as broad as possible so that the footprint would not be anchored. Mr. Runberg replied to Council Member Strom's comment about the Town not having to approve anything in the UNC master plan, which is merely a guide for the University. UNC had begun discussing its Master Plan only because others had brought up the transportation strategy associated with it, Mr. Runberg said.
With regard to Council Member Ward's request about broadening the definition of the chiller plant site, Mr. Runberg said that it must be built where the pipes come together and around the parking area where the basketball parks are. Council Member Ward noted that this was broader than the footprint of the deck. He asked what the perimeter could be, and Ms. Elfland replied, "We want it to be somewhere in the Cobb parking lot." Council Member Ward expressed appreciation for that specificity.
Mr. Runberg offered to provide the utility study to any Council member for review, noting that no one had ever asked for it. Council Member Ward described himself as "torn" by UNC's statement of urgency. He pointed out that the only site for UNC's Public Works Department had once been on Estes Road Extension. The University had said they must have it there by September, he recalled, pointing out that it finally was built on a different site. Council Member Ward said that the University had been magnanimous in that instance, adding that he was trying to trust in the accuracy and urgency that was being stated tonight.
Mr. Runberg replied that he appreciated the thought that UNC had been magnanimous. But, siting Public Works had been a political decision, he said, and was not in the same category as the chiller plant. In this situation, said Mr. Runberg, engineers have said it will cost several million dollars less to put the chiller plant in this location because the piping is already under the ground.
Council Member Wiggins asked the staff if the University needed approval from the Town to put temporary chillers in the Cobb parking lot. Mr. Waldon replied that, as he had understood State law, erection of buildings on State-owned property is subject to local zoning regulations. He did not know, however, if a temporary chiller was considered a building. Mr. Horton added that chillers can be truck-mounted pieces of equipment that would not be considered buildings.
Council Member Wiggins recommended that Council members consider the possibility that the University might drive trailers in with noisy chillers and that the Town would have no way of protecting the neighborhood. She was not tempted to plan for the University, she said, because her responsibility was to assure that what the University does is not detrimental to the Town. Council Member Wiggins advised other Council members not to be shortsighted and end up with no protection of the neighborhood.
Council Member Wiggins described it as "troubling" that the Council was not finding a way to work with UNC. She did not understand how anyone could think that the Council could be the driving force for a State institution that will serve all of the people of North Carolina, she said. If the Council is not careful, warned Council Member Wiggins, the State legislature, the Board of Governors, the Board of Trustees, and the UNC administrators who were sitting in the room, "will believe that the Chapel Hill Town Council wants to be the ultimate planners and determiners of the future for the University. And they won't stand for it."
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION WITH THE AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that he did not want to be seen as trying to jump into the University's drivers seat merely because he wanted 90 days to decide whether a chiller plant should go next to the cemetery. He pointed out that the Council had approved many other changes, realizing that those were not in their purview.
Council Member Wiggins stated that she did not need to see an engineer's report because she did not think that the University would lie to the Council. Council Member Kleinschmidt replied that he wanted to see the report in order to determine whether there might be some less than optimal locations that would work. Council Member Wiggins argued that to insist on that would start the Council down a road that they will regret. "Everyone on this Council will bear that legacy for their service," she said.
Council Member Verkerk agreed that Council members should not try to design for the University. But the Council does have a responsibility to the cemetery, she said, adding that she wanted to see historic preservation reports before making a decision. Council Member Verkerk repeated her view that the Town Council should study the impact of putting an industrial plant next to a cemetery.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK PROPOSED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRINTED, WITHOUT THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY. COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT SECONDED.
Council Member Strom expressed support for the substitute motion. He pointed out that OI-4 zoning is extremely complicated. The Town Council had approved millions of square footage in order to support the University's mission, he said. And when the Council did that, "they pledged to the citizens of the Town that they would be extremely cautious in sensitive areas, and in perimeter areas, and vigilant about how this ambitions billion dollar building program is going to impact community lifeways," he said.
Council Member Strom argued that he would be remiss in his responsibilities to the citizens of Chapel Hill if he did not advocate for 60 days for a discussion. He noted that Mayor Foy and Chancellor Moeser had agreed to a process to discuss this in a constructive way so that all could become more comfortable and knowledgeable about the circumstances and impacts. Council Member Strom reminded Council Member Wiggins that OI-4 zoning has several quick, low-threshold approval methods in it that the University benefits from. The weather would have more impact on the chiller plant than 60 days for community review, he said.
Council Member Wiggins explained that she supported the motion to delay but objected to how the delay is being tied to the cemetery. Ms. Rebecca Clark had come to the staff and Council repeatedly over the years and had not received much support for that cemetery, she said. "Isn't it interesting that Ms. Clark is supporting the University's modification because she sees it as probably one of the last opportunities to get some enhancements and protections for the cemetery." Council Member Wiggins stated that Council members really would have failed the citizens if they do not see the long-range political reality that they need to have a regulatory relationship with UNC.
Mayor Foy commented that he preferred the printed motion that Council Member Verkerk had moved. But, he said, he had been persuaded by the University that they need a decision and that they will not be able to provide the Town with any information that will lead Council members to the conclusion that better location exists. Mayor Foy explained that he believed there would be sufficient protection and improvements to the cemetery and noise protections for the neighborhood. The Council would be approving the site, not the design, he said, adding that the design is where the difficulty will be with regard to the neighboring community and the cemetery.
Mayor Foy said that it would make sense to defer the chiller plant to August 25. But this is not the agreement that the University is willing to accept, he said, so he would support the modified version that Council Member Wiggins had put forth.
Council Member Verkerk stressed that she wanted the 60 days to get reassurances from Governor Easley's office that the cemetery would be protected. The Council was not being obstructive, she said. "What if the report comes back saying that putting an industrial site next to a cemetery will degrade it?" Council Member Verkerk argued that approving the site would essentially approve placing a chiller plant there and that she could not do that without more information.
Council Member Ward asked UNC representatives if they expect a response from the State regarding the historic site. Mr. Runberg replied that UNC had been in touch with the Department of Cultural Resources in a process that would continue throughout development of the project. Council Member Ward pointed out that the chiller footprint was now larger and was no longer linked to the parking deck. He felt comfortable with that site, he said, but was looking forward to rigorous discussions regarding the chiller design. Council Member Ward pointed out that the Council had not relinquished protection of the cemetery.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if Mayor Foy had understood during his conversation with the Chancellor that the University was agreeing to discuss the three issues (Jackson Circle Deck, Cobb Deck, and Cobb Chiller) on August 25. Mayor Foy replied that they had come to a verbal agreement that was less detailed than it might have been if they'd had more time for discussion. Mayor Foy explained that Chancellor Moeser thought it was integral to the efforts of the University that the site is assured, but not anything else.
Mr. Horton pointed out that the motion before the Council probably should not include the third "Whereas, the University has agreed to extension of the normal 90-day review period for the purpose of allowing additional discussion of these three components." He said that the University had agreed in part and disagreed in part. So, for purpose of the resolution, they have disagreed, Mr. Horton said.
Council Members Verkerk and Kleinschmidt accepted that as an amendment.
Council Member Harrison said that the original resolution printed in red was the one he preferred.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK AMENDED HER MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SUBSTITUTE THE RESOLUTION WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE CHILLER BUT WITH THE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE UNIVERSITY'S AGREEMENT. THE MOTION FAILED (4-4) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS VERKERK, KLEINSCHMIDT, HARRISON AND STROM VOTING AYE AND WIGGINS, WARD, EVANS AND FOY VOTING NAY.
The Council then considered what is now the main motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AUGUST 25, WITH AMENDMENTS TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE PARKING DECKS AND DESIGN OF THE CHILLER PLANT. THE MOTION FAILED (4-4) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS, WARD, EVANS AND FOY VOTING AYE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS VERKERK, KLEINSCHMIDT, HARRISON AND STROM VOTING NAY.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Council take a five-minute recess. When they returned, Mayor Foy asked Vice Chancellor Suttenfield to summarize his discussion with her that took place during the Council’s break. Ms. Suttenfield explained that the University was willing to live with the original draft of the resolution, which defers decision on the chiller plant along with the two decks until August 25. UNC will take the risk of continuing to design that site, she said, adding that they were confident that the Council would support their decision after digesting the engineer's report. Ms. Suttenfield added that the University was committed to working with historic preservation authorities to address all concerns with the cemetery.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRINTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION CONTINUING A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE UNC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2003-06-25/R-20.1)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has held a Public
Hearing on June 16, 2003, continued to June 25, 2003, to consider an application for Modification
of the UNC Development Plan (previously approved October 3, 2001); and
WHEREAS, the Council has found that three components of the proposed modification, specifically the construction of an 800-space parking deck at Jackson Circle, a 600-space parking deck near Cobb Dormitory, and a Chiller Plant near Cobb dormitory, raise questions that warrant further study; and
WHEREAS, the University has agreed to an extension of the normal 90-day review period for a Development Plan Modification application, for the purpose of allowing additional discussion of these three components;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thatby the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill the
Town Council that the
Council continues the Public Hearing on this application to
August 25, 2003, for the sole purpose of considering further the proposed
Jackson Circle Parking Deck, Cobb Parking Deck, and Cobb Chiller Plant.
This the 25th day of June, 2003.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-20A.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked to remove the requirement for a fence "except where steep slopes determine that it is a safety hazard." Mr. Horton pointed out that the University would not need a permit to construct the type of fence that she described. Mayor pro tem Evans asked, therefore, to remove the requirement for a fence.
Council Member Strom, the seconder, did not accept that a friendly amendment. There had been much testimony from citizens wanting that requirement, he said.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FENCE. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-20A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION NO. 1 FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL (2003-06-25/R-20a)
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, on October 3, 2001, after reviewing Development Plan materials submitted by the University, dated July 3, 2001, and Addenda dated August 7, 2001 and September 3, 2001 the Town approved a Development Plan that maps out future campus growth and addresses mitigation of impacts; and
WHEREAS, the University submitted a Development Plan Modification No. 1 application dated April 3, 2003 and Addenda dated May 23, 2003, seeking to amend the Development Plan approved by the Council on October 3, 2001;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that development proposed by the Development Plan Modification No. 1 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 Modification No. 1 dated April 3, 2003 and Addenda dated May 23, 2003, and Modification #1, Addendum #1, Map 4, dated June 3, 2003, except for construction of a parking deck at Jackson Circle, a parking deck near Cobb Dormitory, and a Chiller Plant near Cobb Dormitory, and in compliance with the conditions listed below, 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 Modification No. 1 in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
General Stipulations
1. Relationship to 2001 Development Plan: This approval modifies the terms of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Development Plan approved by the Town Council on October 3, 2001. Except as specifically authorized or modified by this document, the terms and conditions of the Development Plan Resolution as adopted by the Council on October 3, 2001, remain in effect.
2. Level of Development: This Development Plan Modification No. 1 approval represents preliminary authorization for demolition and construction of facilities as shown on “Modification No.1- Map 2 and Maps 6 and 7 Addendum No.1” from the “Development Plan Modification No. 1 Addendum No. 1,” dated May 23, 2003. Additional information is included in the April 3, 2003 “Development Plan Modification No. 1” and the “Development Plan Modification No. 1 Addendum No. 1,” dated May 23, 2003, except for construction of a Parking Deck at Jackson Circle, a parking deck near Cobb Dormitory, and a Chiller Plant near Cobb Dormitory, modified by conditions outlined below.
In any case involving conflicting information, the controlling component of the “Development Plan Modification No. 1” shall be the Map called “Modification No.1 Map 2 Addendum No.1,” dated May 23, 2003. The controlling maps for Perimeter Transition Areas shall be “Maps 6 and 7 Addendum No.1” from the “Development Plan Modification No. 1 Addendum No. 1,” dated May 23, 2003.
3. Land Use: Unless otherwise modified by conditions herewith, this Development Plan Modification No. 1 authorizes the following:
A. As shown on “Modification No.1, Map 2 Addendum No. 1,” dated May 23, 2003:
· Removal of a parking deck (1,500 spaces) approved with the October 3, 2001 Development Plan and identified as structure P-7;
· Construction of an academic building (105,000 square feet) identified as structure O-3 Mod; and
· Increased student housing floor area for structure H-21 from 24,300 square feet to 30,050 square feet.
B. As shown on “Map 6 and 7, Addendum No.1,” dated May 23, 2003:
· Construction of student housing (424,400 square feet) identified as structures H-13 through H-20.
C. Pedestrian corridor improvements as shown on “Modification No. 1, Map 5, Addendum No. 1,” dated May 23, 2003.
D. Pervious and impervious surface areas as shown on “Modification Map 3, Addendum No. 1,” dated May 23, 2003.
E. Utility corridor improvements as shown on “Modification No. 1, Map 4, Addendum No. 1,” dated June 3, 2003.
F. Area and parking space calculations for the following list of structures as shown by “Table 3 – The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Development Plan – Modification No. 1- Addendum No.1, Area Calculations for Proposed Buildings,” revised, dated June 16, 2003:
· Student Housing structures H-13 through H-21; and
· Office structure O-3 Mod
4. Parking deck structures P-7Land Use Intensities: Land Use Intensities, authorized by the October 3, 2001 Development Plan, are modified as specified below:
|
Land Use Intensity |
Development Plan Modification No. 1 |
|
Student Housing Floor Area |
+ 147, 550 sq ft (increase ) |
|
Office Floor Area |
+ 105,000 sq ft (increase) |
|
Student Dwelling Units |
+ 91 units (increase) |
|
Parking |
+ 29 spaces (increase) |
|
Impervious Surface Area |
- 0.9 acres (decrease) |
5. Consistency of Site Development Permit Application with Development Plan Modification No. 1: No application for a Site Development Permit, for land use authorized by this permit within the boundary of this Development Plan Modification No. 1, as shown on the “Modification No.1-Map 2 Addendum No.1’” dated May 23, 2003, shall be approved unless such application is consistent with the Council-approved Development Plan Modification No. 1. Consistent does not mean identical; building footprints and landscaped areas shown on the Council approved Development Plan Modification No. 1, except as otherwise noted below for certain Perimeter Transition Areas, shall be considered to indicate approximate size and location.
6. Interpretation of “Modification No.1-Map 3 Addendum No.1:” “Modification No.1-Map 3 Addendum No.1” dated May 23, 2003 shall be considered to indicate, approximately, areas of pervious and impervious surface that will exist within the area covered by this Development Plan Modification No. 1 after full development has been completed. Except for incidental paving for walkways and fire lanes, areas shown as “Forest” and “Cleared Woodlands” 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.
Stipulations Related to Transportation
7. Requirements for Ongoing Data Collection and Analysis for Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis:
a) 2020 Analysis of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts with the Future Mason Farm Road Corridor: In addition to the existing, no build, and build analysis of average daily traffic counts, the 2003 and subsequent Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis shall include analysis of the projected 2020 average daily traffic counts for all the ADT counted locations with the future Mason Farm Road Corridor. Assumptions made in the projections of 2020 ADT analysis with the future Mason Farm Road Corridor shall be approved by the Town Manager. Results of the 2020 ADT numbers shall be provided in a table format.
8. Traffic Signal System Improvements:
a) Traffic signal timing plans for the Development Plan Modification No. 1, shall be studied and revised for all the intersections that are analyzed for Level of Service criteria. The revised timing plans shall be implemented in coordination with Town staff between June 13, 2003 and August 1, 2003.
The University shall be responsible for the above traffic signal system improvements.
Stipulation Related to Perimeter Transition Areas
Student Family Housing East
9. Student Family Housing East - Perimeter Transition Area: For the Student Family Housing-East Perimeter Transition Area:
a) A Housing Corridor, between 60 feet and 73.5 feet wide, shall be established parallel to Mason Farm Road.
Above stipulation a) shall modify the 60-foot-wide Housing Corridor width authorized by Option 1 Stipulation #32 in Development Plan Resolution adopted by the Town Council on October 3, 2001.
b) The submittal of a Site Development Permit application for the Student Housing Family-East Perimeter Transition Area shall include the following additional information:
· A street cross- section detail for Mason Farm Road. The scaled cross-section detail must identify the Housing Corridor, two Transit Corridors, reserved for future street or transit improvements and proposed utility corridors.
· A utility plan for the new utility corridor as shown on “Modification No.1-Map 4 Addendum No.1,” dated June 3, 2003. The plan must identify the type of utility, clearing limits and easement areas. The utility plan must include the areas between Manning Drive/Skipper Bowles Drive and the western edge of the Perimeter Transition Area as identified on “Modification No.1-Map 4 Addendum No.1.” The plan must verify that utility installation will not conflict with future roadway or mass transit corridor improvements.
· Baity Hill-Manning Drive Pedestrian Connection: That pedestrian connection from Baity Hill to surrounding areas to the north and northeast is required as Site Development Permit applications are designed and submitted.
· A pedestrian path connecting the new Family Housing to a transit stop.
· A Construction Management Plan, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the start of construction.
· Replacement of the 10’ chain link fence to the north of the Family Housing site with a shorter, lockable fence to remain open except during special events.
· A plan, to be approved by the Town Manager, for placement of parking monitors during special events to limit parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Student Family Housing West
10. Student Family Housing West (H-21) – Perimeter Transition Area: Except for those stipulations contained within this document modifying floor area, parking, dwelling unit numbers, impervious surface area and utility improvements, the proposed access changes to the Student Family Housing West Perimeter Transition Area, as proposed by this application, are not authorized. A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Manager prior to the commencement of construction.
Miscellaneous Stipulations
11. Parking Decks and Chiller Plant (P-9 Mod, P-10 Mod, and I-3 Mod): This resolution does not approve the addition of the proposed Jackson Circle Parking Deck, the Cobb Parking Deck, or the Cobb Chiller Plant to the Development Plan. Such addition may be authorized by resolution of the Town Council at a subsequent date, pursuant to further discussion of material presented during the June, 2003 Public Hearing on this proposed Modification of the Development Plan.
12. Continued Validity: Continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
13. 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 Modification No. 1 by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in accordance with the terms, conditions and limitations contained above.
This the 25th day of June, 2003.
Revised
Resolution A
Manager’s Revised Recommendation
(Modified
on 6/25/03 to Defer Consideration
of Two Parking Decks and a Chiller Plant)
Mr. Runberg said that the University might be able to reach agreement with Ms. Steele regarding placing the driveway on the west side of building H21.
Mayor Foy pointed out that Council Member Wiggins had wanted to set H21 aside for further discussions. Mr. Horton noted that if conversations between the University and Ms. Steele were fruitful then the two parties could return to the Council together for a modification. But Council members agreed by consensus to give the Manager authority to make that change.
Item 13 - Options for Providing Free Access to the Local Government
Cable Channel for Town council Candidates
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-23A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL WITH FREE ACCESS TO THE GOVERNMENT CABLE CHANNEL THROUGH SUBMITTAL OF VIDEOCASSETTE TAPES (2003-06-25/R-23a)
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2003, the Town Council discussed options for providing financial assistance to candidates for elective office within the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Council asked the Manager to institute an interim measure for the 2003 election with free public television time; and
WHEREAS, the least-expensive option to provide this free television time is for candidates to submit videocassette tapes of their remarks to the Manager’s Office, as outlined in Option A of this memorandum;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to provide a method for candidates for Mayor and Town Council to have access to the governmental cable channel as outlined in Option A of this memorandum.
This the 25th day of June, 2003.
Item 14 - Report on Parking Rate Revenues
Mayor pro tem Evans said that it was useful to know that there is a revenue neutral position that can be taken. She suggested deferring the issue to the parking consultant for study. The Council agreed by consensus.
Item 15 - Appointments
a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. Richard Killingsworth, Nicholas Lurie were appointed.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Foy |
Bateman |
Evans |
Harrison |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Daniel Brisson |
|
A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jed Dube |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
Christine Khoury |
|
B |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Killingsworth |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
6 |
||
|
Nicholas Lurie (Carrboro) |
X |
S |
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
5 |
||
|
Claire Millar |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
3 |
||
|
Brian Pence (Carrboro |
|
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brynda Smith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Smith |
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Barry Starrfield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nathaniel Stookey |
|
T |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
|
|
3 |
||
|
Karen Whichard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rickie White, Jr. (Carrboro) |
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
|
|
3 |
||
|
Dennis Zaenger (Carrboro) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
b. Housing and Community Development Advisory Board. Daniel Brisson and Tracy Dudley were appointed.
c.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Housing and Community Development Advisory Board |
Foy |
Bateman |
Evans |
Harrison |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Daniel Brisson (Town) |
X |
A B |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
7 |
||
|
Tracy Dudley (Public Housing) |
X |
S E |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Karen Whichard (Town) |
X |
N T |
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
3 |
||
|
||||||||||||
c. Human Services Advisory Board. William Powers was appointed.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Human Services Advisory Board |
Foy |
Bateman |
Evans |
Harrison |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
William Powers |
X |
AB- |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Other |
|
SENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
d. Personnel Appeals Committee. Gholam Mainuddin was appointed.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Personnel Appeals Committee |
Foy |
Bateman |
Evans |
Harrison |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Gholam Mainuddin |
X |
AB- |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Other |
|
SENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
e. Technology Committee.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-24 TO EXTEND DOUG NOELL'S TERM ON THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE FOR ANOTHER YEAR. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE TERM OF DOUG NOELL ON THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR (2003-06-25/R-24)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby extends for one year the term of Doug Noell on the Technology Committee, with an expiration date of June 30, 2004.
This the 25th day of June, 2003.
Item 16 - Petitions: None.
Item 17 - Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items if Necessary: None.
Item 18 - Request for Closed Session to Discuss
Property Acquisition, Personnel, and Litigation Matters
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.