SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Foy called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manger Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Representatives from UNC were Vice-Chancellor for Finance and Administration Nancy Suttenfield, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Construction Bruce Runberg, Director for Facilities Planning Anna Wu, Associate Vice Chancellor for Campus Services Carolyn Elfland, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Local Relations Jonathan Howes, Coordinator of Local Relations Linda Convissor, Senior Vice President of Planning for the UNC Healthcare System Mary Beck, and Transportation Consultant George Alexiou of Martin Alexiou Bryson.
Item 1 - Briefing on UNC’s Development Plan Modification No. 2
Mr. Horton expressed appreciation to the UNC staff for coming this evening to brief the Town on the Development Plan modification proposal. He asked Planning Director Roger Waldon to explain how this fits into the overall process.
Mr. Waldon explained that a few years back the Town Council had approved a Development Plan for construction of new and expanded facilities on UNC's main campus. Following the approval of that Plan, he explained, work had begun and the Town had seen a number of new facilities come under construction on campus. Last year, the University had seen a need to amend its Development Plan and had come before the Council with a modification proposal, Mr. Waldon said. He noted that the process for modifying a Development Plan is the same as for the initial approval. The modification proposal must come to the Town, go through a staff evaluation, be reviewed by the Planning Board, and come to a public hearing before any Council action can be taken, Mr. Waldon said.
During the review of Development Plan Modification No. 1 and its aftermath, the Council had expressed interest in being able to have information and dialogue with University representatives earlier in the process, Mr. Waldon explained. He said that the Council had discussed the possibility of trying to adjust the procedure or of asking the University to come forward earlier in the process to present proposed modifications to the Council, as private developers do with concept plans. Mr. Waldon stated that UNC had responded to that request by offering to come before the Council very early in the process and allow citizens and Council members to see information, ask questions, and offer comments on the modification proposal. The application for Modification No. 2 had just been submitted to the staff, Mr. Waldon said. He noted that the ordinance calls for Council action within 90 days. So that would put the date for action on this application at about the end of June, Mr. Waldon pointed out.
UNC Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield expressed appreciation to the Council for finding time to hold this meeting in the midst of its budget review season. She trusted that the Council would find this early presentation useful as they deliberate on the proposed changes to the Development Plan, she said. Ms. Suttenfield explained that UNC representatives would focus tonight on the six projects in Modification No 2.
Ms. Suttenfield said that during creation of the OI-4 zoning district UNC had anticipated the future need for modifications to their Development Plan. This would be necessary as the result of engineering, design, other specialized studies that they would do on specific projects, and overall project sequencing, she said. Now that they were in the midst of implementing the Development Plan, Ms. Suttenfield explained, UNC had identified the need to make some changes to it. They had also anticipated that there would be unforeseen needs as they refine program objectives for their academic research and public service missions, she said. So the projects included in Modification No. 2 fit these criteria for the University and as well as the UNC Healthcare System.
Ms. Suttenfield explained that four of the projects to be modified were in the interior of the campus: the Bell Tower Parking Deck; Bell Tower Chiller Plant; NC Clinical Cancer Center Physicians Office Building; and, addition to the Fetzer Gym. The other two were on the edge of campus: an addition to the Morehead Planetarium; and, an addition to 410 East Franklin Street, known as the James Lee Love House.
Ms. Suttenfield said that the proposed Love House addition had been presented to the Historic District Commission (HDC) in March 2004 for its concept plan review. HDC members had been quite positive in their remarks, she said. She noted that tonight's briefing was one of several steps that UNC had taken to bring these modifications before the public. Besides delivering 60 copies of the Plan to Town Hall, they had notified 20 neighborhood and community groups about the submission, Ms. Suttenfield said.
Ms. Suttenfield explained that UNC representatives would not talk tonight about the OI-4 review process, other than to say, as she had written in a March 15th letter to the Town, that UNC welcomes community input early and often and looks forward to working with the Council and members of the community on how best to obtain that. She proposed that it would benefit all, and particularly Council members who were not on the Council in 2001 when OI-4 was created, to have an informal meeting with a joint presentation by UNC and the Town staff. The purpose would be to review the background and thinking that had lead to the current OI-4 regulations and the special nature of those regulations as they apply to the campus. UNC would be happy to work with the Town Manager to schedule such a discussion as soon as possible, Ms. Suttenfield said.
Bruce Runberg, UNC Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Construction, concurred with Ms. Suttenfield's statement that the University had fully expected there would be eventual changes when they were developing the OI-4 ordinance. Theirs is a very fluid program, he said, noting that it includes $1.3 billion worth of work over an eight year period. Mr. Runberg proposed that this endeavor was one of the largest, if not the largest, higher education programs in the country. It is large, complex, and includes hundreds of dependencies that UNC constantly battles with day to day, he said. Mr. Runberg pointed out that there were more than 50 higher education bond program projects and about $510 million worth of work. These are integrated with all of the University's other projects, he said, noting there is a State bond oversight committee that quarterly reviews UNC's progress on all projects. So UNC is constantly being required to execute them and to report on that execution, Mr. Runberg said.
Mr. Runberg remarked that several of the projects that would be discussed tonight, particularly the infrastructure projects, "have dependencies" on other bond projects. So UNC needs to move ahead rapidly, he said. He explained that they had planned to construct the Science Complex Parking Deck and Chiller Plant north of South Road, but had found that the concept had three different functions in one building with a deck underneath, some academic functions at one end and a chiller plant at the other end. But that doesn't work, Mr. Runberg explained, because the academic requirements cannot be affected by the bouncing or the vibrations that are caused by a deck. He pointed out that this aspect had not been looked at in detail until recently.
Mr. Runberg explained that these are the kinds of things that UNC finds out about as they get further into the program. He stated that UNC's overall track record in mitigating concerns such as transportation management, environment, stormwater, and pedestrian safety demonstrate accomplishments. On a State-wide basis, UNC is the exemplar of those types of best practices, he said. Mr. Runberg noted that Mr. Waldon had in the past kept a list of questions that the Council and citizens had asked during meetings with UNC. UNC responds as they receive that list, he said, even when they don't have all the answers on the spot. Mr. Horton offered to provide such a list and a copy of the minutes as well.
Anna Wu, UNC Director for Facilities Planning, used a PowerPoint presentation to describe a compilation of material that UNC had presented to the Council in their submittal. She displayed a map of the Development Plan Modification No.1 and indicted the projects for which UNC had received site development permits. The process had been working very well, Ms. Wu remarked, adding that UNC appreciated all the time and effort the Town had devoted over the years to developing a good submittal and review process and to expediting that. She then mentioned the six projects included in Modification No. 2, noting that four of them were in the center of campus and two were on the northern boundary.
Ms. Wu discussed the improvements that UNC would make in its pedestrian corridors, including a bridge over South Road, a bridge connecting the Science Complex building with the Bell Tower development, and another bridge going south to Medical Center Drive. The bridge that currently crosses over from the Dogwood Deck to the Hospital Complex will become integrated into the Physicians Office Building and the NC Cancer Center, she said. Ms. Wu mentioned an updated impervious surface analysis, noting a slight increase in both impervious surface and run-off volume for the two hundred and one hundred year storm events. UNC is required on each site development permit application to identify the details of the mitigations for each individual project, she pointed out. Ms. Wu said that UNC handles that on a project by project basis. So each project is asked to calculate the increase and then do the designs to mitigate that, she said.
Ms. Wu displayed an update of the proposed utility corridors and a description of the six projects. One of the modifications was to delete infrastructure projects that had been approved in the original Development Plan, she said. Ms. Wu explained that the University had intended to build a 600-car parking deck into the hillside at the Science Complex. But further investigation had revealed that the site was all bedrock, she said, explaining that it was not a cost-effective place to build parking. So, Ms. Wu explained, when we looked at combining the infrastructure projects, which were more compatible programmatically than combining them with the academic building, it showed that those two buildings were being pushed to become a stand-alone structure, which, on that particular site, we did not think was an appropriate location.
Ms. Wu informed Council members that UNC intends to take the 600 parking spaces originally proposed to be north of South Road and combine them with the parking deck that had already been approved at the Bell Tower. That would bring the total number of cars in that interior site to 1,600, she said. Ms Wu explained that UNC would then take the capacity of chilled water production that they had anticipated building and combine it with the north chiller plant in a site adjacent to the parking deck. She displayed photographs of the existing site and explained that the surface parking lot would be transformed into structured parking. There will be pedestrian access up to Medical Center Drive, said Ms. Wu.
With regard to the Physicians Office Building, Ms. Wu reminded Council members that UNC had informed them, during last year's discussion of the Jackson Circle Parking Deck, that they wanted to set that deck far enough south to allow for development of a building on Manning Drive that would face the road rather than another parking deck. This new building will house physicians offices and support spaces and will allow the UNC Healthcare System to bring physicians from various disciplines together in close proximity to the Cancer Center, Ms. Wu explained. She noted that this would enable physicians to respond better to patients' needs.
Ms. Wu explained that the addition to Fetzer Gym would be on its south side. There was also an opportunity with this building to integrate a pedestrian bridge across South Road connecting directly to The Pit, she pointed out. Ms. Wu said that the current Sports Medicine program was in a very confined space and needed to expand to meet the needs of its current requirements. This space would also house the varsity wrestling team, said Ms. Wu.
With regard to the two projects located on the northern boundary, Ms. Wu explained that one would be an addition for visitors and a new lobby at the Morehead Planetarium. UNC had presented this project to the Historic District Commission, she pointed out, and the HDC had expressed excitement over the possibility of having an entrance to the Morehead Planetarium directly off Franklin Street. Ms. Wu stated that this would be infill space and that the entire front area, including the rose garden, would be retained. She added that Chapel of the Cross had received UNC's proposal and that the University would work with them as the project develops.
Ms. Wu told Council members that the Center for the Study of the American South would be moving into the Love House and that UNC was proposing a 900 square foot addition to the southwest corner. They were also proposed establishing a perimeter transition area for 410 East Franklin Street, she said, explaining that it would run from the house northward to the OI-4 boundary and down Battle Lane. Ms. Wu explained that this would affect the front and side of the house. She noted the standards that go along with that dedication, which were listed in UNC's presentation.
UNC Transportation Consultant George Alexiou, of Martin Alexiou Bryson, reviewed the transportation elements of the Plan. He described the changes as "very slight," since UNC was only moving 600 parking spaces from the north side of South Road into the Bell Tower Parking Lot. Mr. Alexiou pointed out that there would be no change in the total number of parking spaces and/or daily trips. But moving parking would change traffic patterns a little in that area, he said, and it would cause minor changes in levels of service.
Mr. Alexiou said that the Development Plan had always included a second access that came out the back behind the stadium and onto Manning Drive by the Craige Deck. That would be a new and important access for the Bell Tower, he said. Mr. Alexiou said that moving those 600 spaces would cause a drop in level of service from B to C in the afternoon. It is not an issue unless it is at level D or E, he said, but he had wanted to point it out as a change. Mr. Alexiou stated that this would not require any geometric improvements at the South Road/Bell Tower Drive intersection, but merely a change in timing, since turning movements at the intersection would change once the parking deck was open. Mr. Alexiou said that the level of service would not change at the Manning/Craige Deck intersection, but UNC would optimize timing as needed there.
Mr. Alexiou noted that changes in traffic patterns would cause the Cameron Avenue/South Columbia Street intersection to drop from D to a "very good E." In the longer term, this location will reach an F even without the Development Plan, he said, because of background growth in the area. Because of the character of that area, Mr. Alexiou said, they had decided not to make changes to improve traffic efficiency. With regard to the South Road/South Columbia Street intersection, Mr. Alexiou stated that the level of service would remain at D/E, but there would be a few seconds of extra delay due to the change in traffic patterns. Mr. Alexiou pointed out that possible geometric improvements, such as removing the right turn slip lane and re-striping the McCauley approach, would improve efficiency of that intersection. These improvements had been recommended in the previous Development Plan, he said.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Alexiou to describe the South Columbia Street change once again. Mr. Alexiou replied that there was a proposal in the Master Plan and in the Development Plan that must be approved by the Town and by NCDOT. Four northbound lanes in this one-way section of South Columbia Street are not all needed to carry traffic, he said, and they are out of character with the area and create a hazard for pedestrians. Mr. Alexiou explained that UNC had proposed from the start that one of those lanes be removed and that one be dedicated to buses and bikes. UNC thinks that would be desirable, he said, but they had not yet reached the point of getting traffic numbers and sitting down with the Town and NCDOT to discuss it.
Mayor Foy asked when those changes might occur. Mr. Alexiou replied that he thought the stipulations were that they would make those changes before the last building opens under the current Development Plan. Other UNC representatives in the audience asserted, however, that only the slip lane and not the narrowing of South Columbia Street were in the Plan.
Mayor Foy ascertained that a "slip lane" was an exclusive right-turn lane and that the change would be to remove that lane and reconfigure the southeastern corner of the intersection. Mr. Alexiou replied that they would actually close the lane and change the geometry a little bit because trucks would still need to make that right turn. They would basically fill in the slip lane, he said.
Mr. Alexiou reviewed the progress that the University and Town had made together since June 2001 regarding transportation:
· Fare-free transit
· Increased transit services (including express to park-and-rides)
· Addition of over 1,300 park-and-ride spaces
· Plans for additional 650 spaces
· Hiring a Transportation Demand Management Coordinator
· Introduction of Commuter Alternative Program
· Introduction of "zipcars"
He noted the improvements on campus since 2001:
· More than 60% increase in transit ridership
· 60% increase in park-and-ride
· Decrease in traffic through campus
Mr. Alexiou said that a lot of good things were happening, adding that they had probably happened quicker than anyone had anticipated.
Comments by Citizens
There no comments offered by citizens regarding this item.
Questions and Comments by the Council
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Horton to comment on some of the discussion that had been occurring in the community about access to the Planning staff by UNC staff. Mr. Horton replied that the question had first come up at the Town Council's planning session in January 2004. As the Town had explained, with University representatives present, the staff is glad to answer questions about Town ordinances and stand ready to do that, he said. Staff members realize that they have a responsibility to provide an interpretation of the LUMO and the Town's other requirements, and are pleased to do so, said Mr. Horton.
Mr. Horton stated that the staff was also pleased to review any applications for development that the University or any other applicant submits. He explained that the staff had, in fact, spent a lot of time this year reviewing materials, particularly a number of site plans that had come through. Mr. Horton mentioned that it had reached the point where Town staff had established a regular Tuesday meeting to focus principally on University development proposals. More recently, he said, the staff had spent much time reviewing the University's Development Modification application and things related to that. Mr. Horton stated that UNC was, in reality, the biggest customer the Town has. The staff spends more time providing information to the University than to any other single citizen or developer, he pointed out.
With regard to the Carolina North plan, Mr. Horton noted that UNC had not yet submitted an application to the Town so there was nothing the staff was currently reviewing or evaluating. But they would be pleased to review and evaluate any application that comes forward to the Town, he said, and would do so as the Council directs and in the normal course of things.
Mr. Horton said that the Town had been working with the Council-appointed Horace Williams Committee and that the Council had directed that the Committee's report be transmitted to the University. That report will provide useful information to the University about the Council's and the community's view of key principles, issues and goals that should be sought at the Carolina North development, Mr. Horton said. He added that the staff had, therefore, devoted resources to that as well.
Mr. Horton pointed out that the Town had limited staff resources and that staff members were working well beyond the normal hours. As a result, he will recommend adding at least one position in the Planning Department in the next budget, he said. Mr. Horton reported that a considerable portion of the time spent had been related to the University's various proposals and applications. Mr. Horton expressed confidence that UNC did not expect the staff to serve as a consultant, noting that the University had put together one of the best teams of consultants he could imagine. UNC had one of the finest campus planners, an excellent transportation planner, and excellent staff to assist them full time, he said.
Mr. Horton pointed out that UNC had wonderful resources. He could not imagine that there was any expertise on the Town's staff that UNC could not already call on from their own excellent staff or from the very good cadre of consultants that they have engaged, he said. Mr. Horton emphasized that the Town staff does have a special expertise. Staff members have a unique understanding of the Town's Land Use Management Ordinance and they stand ready to provide interpretations and guidance about what that ordinance means, he said. What they are not able to do, Mr. Horton stressed, is to begin negotiations at the staff level about an application that has not yet been submitted. Nor are they able to discuss principles and goals, specific outcomes and traffic requirements, and the sorts of things that might come if an application is submitted or if the Council chooses to engage in further discussions with the University about such topics. Only the Council is able to do that, Mr. Horton said. He concluded that staff had spent a lot of time on University work, was pleased to spend more, looks forward to it, and will do it as best they can.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins requested more information about UNC's meeting with the HDC regarding the Love House, and asked if the HDC expressed any concerns about that addition. Ms. Wu replied the Paul Capp, UNC's Historic Preservation Manager, had made the presentation to the HDC using the same PowerPoint presentation that she had shown the Council tonight. She and Mr. Capp had explained that the intent was to make sure that the massing of that addition did not go above the peak of the existing house, she said, adding that the appearance should remain the same from Franklin Street. They had also discussed their intent to ensure that the House would be compatible with the neighborhood, Ms. Wu explained. She added that Mr. Capp had told the HDC that the University would do the rehabilitation and the addition in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior standards. Also, Cultural Resources in Raleigh would review both of those projects, said Ms. Wu.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins verified with Ms. Wu that the HDC had not raised any concerns or issues regarding the proposal.
Mayor Foy asked what the University had heard from neighbors regarding the Love House. Mr. Runberg replied that there had been a number of informal discussions between senior representatives from UNC and most of the more than 12 nearby neighbors, including President Friday and others. All but one had responded positively, he said, adding that he had heard, second hand, that one neighbor was not pleased with the idea. Mayor Foy asked about the nature of that neighbor's dissatisfaction, and Mr. Runberg replied that he thought the person felt it should remain residential.
Mayor Foy determined that there would be two parking spaces added. Mr. Runberg pointed out that the plan was to wall off the parking area that tenants of the Love House currently use. UNC would then combine parking off another driveway that already has about six spaces, he said. So there would then be one parking lot that would feed the two University buildings, and one driveway rather than two, Mr. Runberg explained.
Mayor Foy verified that the Love House had been used as a residence but was currently vacant. Mr. Runberg said that two donors had given a fair amount of money to do the complete rehabilitation and renovation. As a residential unit, it had been difficult to maintain to a proper standard, he said, so UNC views this as a positive project from a number of directions. Mr. Runberg commented that the Study of the American South has a good connection there and that this would be a very wise use of the building.
Council Member Ward inquired about the kinds of traffic issues associated with the building, including maintaining bike and pedestrian corridors during construction. Mr. Runberg replied that he did not foresee a problem, pointing out that UNC was renovating three residence halls 50-75 feet south of the area. They had put a construction fence around those and had not had any difficulty, he said. Mr. Runberg added that UNC would use a construction fence at the Love House, just as they had with other projects. He did not see congestion as a major issue because there is a little setback and the fence would be away from the road behind the rock wall. There would be good access off the drive and workers would use the one drive between the two buildings during construction to simplify things and make it safer, Mr. Runberg said. Council Member Ward replied that he would determine if his concern is still there after he looks more closely at the materials.
Council Member Harrison noted that the Town's second mobility report card would soon be coming out. Chapel Hill was the first place in North Carolina that had pedestrian and bicycle counts in addition to car counts and transit use counts, he said. Council Member Harrison described the pedestrian usage numbers around the Bell Tower as "stunning…probably something like 13,000 pedestrian trips in a twelve hour period, measured in November 2001, compared to 10,000 car trips." So the idea of two pedestrian bridges is really exciting, Council Member Harrison said. However, he could not find those in the application, said Council Member Harrison, adding that they probably already were part of the Development Plan. He added that he also could not tell if they would be built and ready when the Bell Tower lot opened, and he asked what the timing was on those. Mr. Runberg replied that UNC intended to build the bridge closest to the Bell Tower with the Genomic Sciences building, which they are designing as part of the Bell Tower project. That should be completed in 2008, he said, and the bridge would be completed with it. Council Member Harrison asked if that had been stipulated. Mr. Runberg replied that it was incorporated into UNC's project, although it was not stipulated in the modification proposal. Mr. Horton remarked that the staff had not prepared any stipulations at this point. Council Member Harrison asked if it was in the stipulations for the original Development Plan adoption, and after checking with UNC representatives in the audience, Mr. Runberg replied that it was. Mr. Runberg agreed that there was a lot of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. UNC was very supportive of getting that bridge in, he said.
Mayor Foy asked how many spaces were at the current Bell Tower lot. He also asked what the top of the proposed deck would look like. Mr. Runberg replied that the deck would have cars on the top. Part of the problem with building the deck that had originally been envisioned and approved for the Science Complex area, he explained, was that it was too small and too expensive. Combining and having 1,600 spaces in a single deck with a somewhat simple interior design yields greater efficiencies and economies, Mr. Runberg said. He noted, though, that some cars would be parked on at least a portion of the top floor, just as they are with most other UNC decks.
Mayor Foy recalled that there had been a plan for that deck to be a connecting open space. Carolyn Elfland, Associate Vice Chancellor for Campus Affairs, replied that one thought had been to have a green plaza on top of the deck. But, with the Rams Head project that was currently in progress, they had learned a lot about trying to put a green roof on the entire top of a deck, she said. Ms. Elfland explained that UNC had backed away from doing the entire top of the deck as just a green plaza. This deck will be somewhat taller than they thought when they were planning to put only 1,000 cars there, she said, so they now plan to put a bridge across and have some kind of a green space with a pedestrian connector that probably will go between Genomic Sciences and the deck. The deck itself will have cars on the top and a brick railing, or some kind of treatment, around it, Ms, Elfland said. So you won't actually see the cars and the pedestrian circulation will be on the side, she said, adding that UNC had not yet designed it but that this was their current thinking.
Mayor Foy asked Ms. Elfland what the lessons were that UNC planners had learned from the Rams Head project. Ms. Elfland explained that it was extremely expensive to support the kind of structure that you have to build to hold soaking wet soil when it rains. It is much more difficult and expensive to support that than to support cars, she said. Ms Elfland added that it was just not financially feasible to do the entire deck with grass. It was much more expensive than building a level for cars because of the weight that has to be supported at that height, she explained.
Council Member Greene stated, with regard to the Love House, that she had talked with Professor Harry Watson about the possibility of having the "NC rehab code, which the Town does not have but could have." He had raised that question with Paul Capp, and maybe John Hawkins, she said, so she was raising it again in case UNC representatives wanted to talk about it. Mr. Runberg asked his assistant, Kevin McNaughton, to comment. Mr. McNaughton explained that some at UNC had wondered about being able to enjoy the benefits of the rehab code. But, as a State agency, that would have to be approved by statute, he said. Mr. McNaughton mentioned a pilot program in which local jurisdictions have the option, and there is always the possibility that UNC could become part of that program. Mr. McNaughton agreed that the code would be a great asset for UNC to have, particularly with historic buildings.
Council Member Greene remarked that she had assumed that if Chapel Hill had applied to the pilot program then UNC would fall under that. Mr. McNaughton replied, however, that the jurisdiction for that code compliance review is with the State for the State facility.
Council Member Greene asked about lighting at night at the Love House. Ms. Wu replied that the lighting would be residential in character. Council Member Greene verified that UNC would work with the neighbors to ensure that.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that the Bell Tower deck had originally been timed with what was going to be the Science Complex. He asked if the new deck being timed to coincide with the Genomic building would make it later than with the new Science Complex. He wondered what the next few years would be like with a new Science Complex coming on line and not having those parking spaces for two or three more years. Ms. Elfland replied that the original plan had 600 spaces with the next phase of the Science Complex. And then the deck and the Bell Tower would have followed that, she said. But now, those 600 spaces for that phase of the Science Complex won't be there, she pointed out, because they're moving to the Bell Tower. So the new Bell Tower deck will be sort of in between, "timing-wise," Ms. Elfland explained.
Ms. Elfland noted that UNC's original plan with two separate decks on either side of South Road had included the Manning Deck in the Development Plan. But that had changed since then, she pointed out, and the Jackson Circle and Cobb Decks are now in the plan. UNC will build the Jackson Deck first, Ms. Elfland explained, and they will not take the Bell Tower off line to do this construction until the Jackson Deck is open. Then "Jackson will be about 100 more spaces than what we would lose in the Bell Tower," she said, "so we won't be forcing all of those cars off campus without a place to park. We'll wait until Jackson is finished before we start the Bell Tower."
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that Ms. Elfland had spoken about lessons learned from Rams Head. He asked if UNC was scaling back on that green space. Ms. Elfland replied that the Rams Head project had not changed. There will be a dining building and a recreation building and a large plaza on top of the parking lot, she said. The University had planned to do a similar thing at the Bell Tower, Ms. Elfland remarked, but they had learned from Rams Head that it creates financial strain. So, the new plan was to build the deck and the buildings and flank the decks on the sides but not build over the top, Ms. Elfland said.
Mayor Foy inquired about access to the Bell Tower from the south. Ms. Elfland replied that there was a road that comes in between Morrison and the Department of Public Safety. This road would be reconfigured to continue around the edge of the Public Safety parking lot and enter the southeast side of the deck, she said. Ms. Elfland noted that it was the same road that had been approved with 1,000 cars. Mayor Foy asked if the road would provide access to anything else. Ms. Elfland replied that they were looking at the possibility of this road connecting through the parking lot so that it could, if needed, be an alternate access to the Emergency Room. But it is not designed to carry traffic around anywhere else, she said.
Council Member Strom remarked the huge success in OI-4 had been the commitment that UNC had made to controlling stormwater to standards that really set the bar high and then the Town had followed with LUMO. He pointed out that changing the deck roof would mean having to make adjustments elsewhere in stormwater management. How would that work and how UNC would monitor the performance of stormwater mitigations that had been put in place, he asked. Ms. Wu replied that UNC had developed a maintenance plan for those Best Management Practices (BMPs), some of which are structures and some land use conversions. So there is a range of types of stormwater BMPs that they have installed, she said. Ms. Wu noted that some of that, such as the street sweeper that improves water quality and a maintenance plan to look at stormwater inlets and clean them on a regular basis, had been included in the write-up. There is an ongoing program for that, which UNC is developing through Facilities Services, Ms. Wu explained.
Council Member Strom asked about the impact on the parking deck of removing the grass roof. Ms. Wu replied that they would mitigate stormwater there through other alternatives. These could include a captured and reuse for stormwater, she said. Ms Wu pointed out the pedestrian connection is not likely to have full size trees, but there will be green areas. Another possibility would be to look at a cistern, or that kind of structure, she said. Ms. Wu stated that they need to look at this very closely from the beginning of the design. She stressed that UNC understands what its commitment is and that this will be reflected in the design program.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Alexiou to explain how many more trips would result from the larger parking deck. Mr. Alexiou replied that the changes would not be large in some cases but only slight changes within the same level of service. Council Member Strom determined that the Planetarium and Fetzer expansions would not have any affect on trips because there is no additional parking associated with them. He asked about drop-offs, but Mr. Alexiou replied that the Planetarium did not expect to have more visitors than they currently do.
With regard to Council Member Strom's first question regarding traffic increases, Mr. Alexiou said that he would have to compare the two UNC reports. He guessed, however, that a maximum of 60 vehicles might be added in a particular lane in one direction. And it might be 10 or 20 in another direction, he said, and in some cases it will drop a bit. Mr. Alexiou pointed out that this would be in the peak hour, which might carry 500-600 vehicles.
Mayor Foy asked if the pedestrian bridges on South Road would increase the capacity of the roadway. Mr. Alexiou agreed that having a pedestrian bridge extracts traffic from the ground level and improves the efficiency. Mayor Foy ascertained that UNC would not prohibit road crossings. Mr. Alexiou replied, "no, because there will always be some people who, for whatever reason, will cross at the street level.”
Council Member Hill verified with Mary Beck, Senior Vice President for Planning and Program Development at UNC Hospitals, that the deck at the Bell Tower would be more than two levels, probably four to five. He asked how tall the Physicians Office Building would be. Ms. Beck said it would be about five stories with a little mechanical penthouse at the top. Council Member Hill clarified where the access road was and that it would increase traffic but would not change efficiency because it would remain at the same level of service. Council Member Hill determined that the UNC representative believed there would be no increase in parking associated with the Physicians Building. "So everybody who's going to work in that building already works there," he said, adding "It's not a big issue with me. It just seems like a less than perfect way to evaluate it."
Mr. Alexiou explained that the Development Plan already included increases in student, staff and faculty on the campus. Council Member Hill replied that, at some point, there must be limitations in that way of looking at things. A 130,000 square foot building has to have an impact in terms of the number of people who come to that location because right now nobody comes there, he said.
Ms. Elfland explained that the parking for those extra people is already defined in the plan. There is no additional parking requested with the building, she said, adding that those people will be allocated parking that already exists or is approved in the development plan, or they'll be in a park and ride lot or take transit. Council Member Hill explained that he was just questioning the methodology since a new 140,000 square foot building must have an impact.
Mayor Foy asked "Aren't you taking down the Gravely Building?” Ms. Elfland replied that they were. In reply to the comment about methodology, however, there was an ITE methodology where you look at the building and building type and it automatically tells you what kind of trips it will generate, she said. Because UNC was limiting the amount of parking that can exist on campus, Ms. Elfland explained, that methodology does not really apply because UNC was not building that number of parking spaces with the new facilities. She said that the agreement between the Town and UNC transportation people was that UNC would use parking "as the driver of the trips." They have an approved 1,550 new spaces, she said, and that has not changed.
Mr. Alexiou added that UNC had never identified occupants for these new spaces, which had merely been recognized as a ceiling amount that would be added to the campus. Now we're finding people to occupy this net increase in parking as buildings emerge, he said. If UNC ends up with more people on campus, Mr. Alexiou said, they will have to encourage more transit or provide more park and ride space.
Mayor Foy inquired about the Gravely Building. Ms. Beck replied that it would be demolished and left as a green space once the new Cancer Center had been built. It might have parking under that hill one day, she said, but it will be covered by green space. Ms. Beck pointed out that there would be some new people in the Physicians Building. But, for the most part, it will be people who are now housed in other buildings on campus, she said. Ms. Beck agreed with others that some people will park in the lot and others will ride their bikes or use park and ride lots. The idea was to combine the medical staff in a location where they can interact better with each other and be close to the care they provide to the patients, she pointed out. Ms. Beck added that these physicians would have easy access to the Lineberger Cancer Research Center across the bridge.
Council Member Ward asked the staff to characterize the two access points and explain if the southern one was minor compared to the one off South Road. Or are they equal in terms of how UNC would manage access in and out during morning and afternoon peak, he asked. Mr. Alexiou recalled an estimate that about 55% of traffic would still use the access to South Road, and about 45% would go south to Manning Drive. This was a function of where people were coming from, he said.
Council Member Ward asked about the level of service at the Raleigh Road/South Road/Country Club Road intersection, noting that Mr. Alexiou had not mentioned it. Mr. Alexiou replied that he had not mentioned it because it either stayed D or better, or did not change. He offered to bring that information back. Council Member Ward asked if a level of services was a fairly broad range. Mr. Alexiou pointed out that a level of service D means average delay between 35 and 55 seconds and E means between 55 and 80 seconds. Council Member Ward noted that D to E then could mean from 35 to 80 seconds. Mr. Alexiou agreed, but noted that it could also mean a difference of two seconds. Council Member Ward stated that the Council could more easily understand the significance of a precise change rather than identifying the letter of the level of service. Mr. Alexiou agreed to provide that.
Council Member Ward noted that Mr. Alexiou had said that the South Columbia Street/ Pittsboro Road/Cameron Street intersection was performing so poorly they would not make any changes, noting he did not understand that. Mr. Alexiou explained that there were problems at that intersection now that would be worse in 2010. There had been talk about changing the timing or restricting some movements, but there had never been a conclusion on what might be the best solution or even if there was a solution, Mr. Alexiou said.
Council Member Ward verified that the Modification No. 2 proposal was available on the web at www.fpc.unc.edu.
Council Member Greene inquired about a map (figure 412) at the back of the transportation section regarding traffic calming and pedestrian improvements. She asked what a speed table was, and Mr. Alexiou explained that it was a raised piece of pavement that slows traffic. Council Member Greene asked if that was being proposed for this project, and Mr. Alexiou replied that there would be one at the Rams Head Project. Council Member Greene asked about the landscaped median on Manning Drive. Mr. Alexiou said that it had been talked about a lot and would be related in part to what ultimately happens with a new southern access road to the campus and how much traffic that takes off Manning Drive.
Council Member Greene asked where UNC stood with regard to that new access road, which she understood was not part of OI-4. Mr. Alexiou replied that it was still in the master plan but that the University was not actively doing anything to move it along. He understood, though, that NCDOT was studying how much traffic it might carry, Mr. Alexiou said. Council Member Greene remarked that they already know and understand that with all the housing development and the cumulative impact on the southern end of campus. It is a real problem getting out of Mason Farm Road, she said, adding that just making a U-turn at Kings Mill Road would be a dangerous thing to do and not a sustainable solution. Mr. Alexiou agreed, adding that this was why they had proposed the new access road as part of the master plan.
Mayor Foy asked what the pedestrian bridges over South Road would look like. Mr. Runberg replied that they had not designed them yet but envisioned that they would be wide and possibly covered. Mayor Foy verified that one would come from Stadium Drive, where the new Fetzer addition is. Mr. Runberg said that both would go over South Road and one would start from the elevation of The Pit and come across there and tie into the other side of the road. He repeated, however, that UNC had not taken this to a design stage yet and it was just an idea at this point. The other bridge would be in the general area of the southeast corner of Kenan Labs and the new building that is going in there, Mr. Runberg said. It would be elevated about 20 feet, come across, and tie into an area where they have already designed its junction on the corner of the Stone Center, he explained.
So, for both of them, Mayor Foy clarified, you don’t have to walk up steps to get on the pedestrian bridge because they will pretty much tie into a level. Mr. Runberg explained that this would vary depending on where you are when you try to get on the bridge. Coming from Pope Place on the north side you would get on at that elevation and walk straight across and then walk "at somewhat of a ramp angle" all the way up to the north side of the Hospital. Mr. Runberg repeated that UNC had not worked out all of the details yet. But the concept is to try and allow people a straight shot on a walkway, he said. Mr. Runberg stated that the Rams Head was moving along nicely. The idea there was to get rid of the valley and allow people to move across at the same elevation, he said, adding that they are almost to the point now where one can see how that will be effective.
Council Member Ward asked if bikes would be allowed on the pedestrian crossovers. Mr. Runberg said again that UNC was not at that stage of design but that one probably would be able to walk a bike across.
Referral of Comments to the Manager and Attorney
Mayor Foy thanked UNC representatives for taking the time to bring this to the Council and for giving them an opportunity early on to look at these proposals.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m.