SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

                                           THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1998 AT 5:00 P.M.

 

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.  Council Members in attendance were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie McClintock, Lee Pavăo, and Edith Wiggins.  Also in attendance were:  Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Town Accountant Kay Johnson, Computer Analyst Bob Avery, Solid Waste Administrator Gayle Wilson, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, and Deputy Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

 

                                                          Web Site Demonstration

 

Bob Avery and Kay Johnson of the Town’s Finance Department provided an introduction to the Town's Internet information site, noting the types of information presently available and information planned to be added in the near future.

 

Council Member Foy asked how the web site was being publicized.  Mr. Horton answered that this evening was the first public announcement of the web site address and it would be widely publicized.

 

Citizen Petition

 

Valerie Broadwell petitioned the Council for traffic calming devices in her neighborhood, including Rogerson Road and Oakwood Drive.  She stated that cut-through traffic was a problem, and that the streets are straight which invites speeding.    Ms. Broadwell said she would soon be presenting a formal petition to the Council requesting that Rogerson and Oakwood Drives be made one-way streets on the first two blocks, and that the island on Rogerson Drive be closed at NC 54, as well as the installation of additional stop signs.  Ms. Broadwell also said she believed that the intersection at the park should be a four-way stop, and other areas needed three-way stop signs.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if it would be possible for Town staff to report back on this matter at the August 24th meeting.   Mr. Horton said this would be possible.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER FOR A REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON AUGUST 24TH.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOULSY.

 

                        Item 1 - Response to Letter from Orange County on Solid Waste

 

Mr. Horton recapped what had been agreed upon in the Council’s previous meeting.  Referring to sections of the staff memo, he noted the following keypoints:

 

·        No changes had been made to A-1.

·        In A2-4, that the second point from County Commissioner Chairperson Brown’s letter be added, and that the term “solid waste operations” be substituted for the term “LOG.”

·        In A-5, clarify that the use of resources of municipalities would be considered by the Council to be double taxation.

·        A-6, A-7, and A-8 had no changes.

·        Some discussion of changes to A-9, but no decision was reached.

·        In the first paragraph under “Administration”, the word “unneeded” was changed to “not needed”.

·        In regard to timing, it was the Council’s expectation that the County would make a formal proposal in the fall, and we were asked to encourage them to meet that goal.

 

Council Member McClintock said in A2-4, she would like to have added a statement that tipping fees would be used until conversion to a "pay as you throw" system.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski said pay as you throw relates to the Town's collection system, not the landfill itself.  Council Member McClintock said the pay as you throw system would provide an incentive to reduce the amount of trash in order to reduce the fee charged.

 

Council Member Brown said she would like this question referred to the Landfill Owners’ Group’s Finance Committee for their report.

 

Mr. Horton said there had been discussion of a pay as you throw system, so instead of having a direct effect on the landfill, it would have a indirect effect on the collection system.  He added that other alternatives were being looked at.

 

Council Member McClintock asked whether the Town was moving toward a “pay as you throw” system.  Mr. Horton said he thought it would be possible to continue construction of a construction and demolition facility, but it would also be possible to have a fee that would subsidize such a cost.

 

Council Member Foy said a pay as you throw system is an option, and he believed it would be appropriate to add to A2-4, last paragraph, after the word “including”, the phrase “pay as you throw and”.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if any other items needed to be discussed.  Mr. Horton said in the items on page 6 and 7, items 2, 3, and 4, it was their intent to mention that reference to a transfer station as well as a materials recovery facility be included.  He suggested adding a slash after each mention of a materials recovery facility and add the words “transfer station.”  Mr. Horton noted that the same addition of a slash and the words “transfer station” should be included in item #2 under “Recommendations.”

 

Council Member McClintock said she did not want to limit the options considered on a construction and demolition site.

 

Council Member Brown noted she had distributed to the Council a memo noting three additional suggestions to be included in the letter to the County, as well as additional wording to the resolution.  Mayor Waldorf stated that each of the items on Council Member Brown’s memo would be discussed one at a time.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council favored including the first item on Council Member Brown's memo in the letter to the County, which stated   “All of the system employees will be transferred to the County staff (and become County employees subject to the supervision of the County Manager).”   The Council agreed by consensus.

 

Regarding the second item, which stated “Administrative costs will not substantially increase”, Mayor Waldorf asked whether it would be helpful to add the actual dollar figures for clarification.  Mr. Horton said the dollar figures changed from year to year.

 

Council Member Brown asked that under item #3, a period be placed after the phrase “financing methods for solid waste operations,” with the remainder of that sentence deleted.

 

Council Member McClintock said these policy decisions should be made before Orange County takes over operation of the landfill.  She said statement #3 has a negative feel to it, and she would like to make it more positive.

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested rewording the first part of the sentence in item #3 to read, “We believe that all of the solid waste issues now pending, before any agreement on change in governments is made, should be resolved.”  Council Member Brown agreed to the change.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked did this mean that all three governments would have to vote and that any one of them could veto?  Mr. Horton answered yes.  Mayor pro tem Capowski said it is possible that no progress would ever be made.

 

Council Member Foy suggested that the County assume management of solid waste disposal at the beginning of the next fiscal year.  He said setting a time limit would produce pressure for a decision to be reached.  Council Member Foy said that if these issues were not resolved by that time, then whoever takes it over would make the decisions.

 

Council Member Brown asked if new language could be suggested.

 

Mayor Waldorf said Council Member Brown is asking the Council to stand behind her to ask the County to address these issues and deal with them, and if they can't integrate them then tell us why not.  She asked if the Council agreed with Council Member Brown’s suggested wording in item three, which stated  “Resolve all of the solid waste issues now pending before any agreement on change in governance is made, including the need for a construction and demolition waste landfill, siting a C & D landfill, siting a materials recovery facility, siting a transfer station and resolution of future financing methods for solid waste operations.”  The Council agreed by consensus.

 

Council Member Brown offered to give the Council a full report of Landfill Owners’ Group activities at the next regular meeting.  The Council agreed to receive the report by consensus.

 

Moving to discussion of the proposed resolution, Council Member Brown noted that a suggested change would be to delete the reference to the number of representatives under the second "WHEREAS".   She said that item #1 under “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved” in the resolution should be substituted with item #1 in her memo.

Mayor Waldorf asked whether the three sites mentioned in this paragraph could be specified.  Council Member Brown answered the three sites were as follows:  the Blackwood property, the Greene tract, and an unspecified site.

 

Council Member McClintock suggested switching the order of the first and second sentence in item #1 under the heading of “Resolution” in Council Member Brown’s memo.  Council Member Brown agreed to the suggested change.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked whether the Council should be more specific than "fall", such as setting a specific month or date.   Council Member McClintock said she preferred to leave the wording as is.

 

Council Member Brown moved to item #2 of the resolution.

 

Council Member Pavăo asked if the Landfill Owners’ Group was considering other sites.  Council Member Brown said she hoped the Landfill Owners’ Group would have a full report available by the fall.

 

Council Member Bateman asked for clarification of the phrase "Acquire a site, if necessary".  Council Member Brown said she added that to include the Greene tract.

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested substituting “if acquisition is necessary” for the phrase “if necessary.”  Council Member Brown accepted the change.

 

Council Member Foy said the Landfill Owners’ Group had sent Requests for Proposals to consultants to help them choose a materials recovery facility.

 

Council Member Evans said she wanted to be sure that all options remained available and would be explored.

 

Council Member Bateman asked if there was any merit to saying that the three sites already identified be given priority, and if a decision cannot be reached on those, then other exploration should occur.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if the third site was the addition of the EDD site?  Council agreed by consensus.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if this rules out the possibility of building a materials recovery facility on land that is currently owned, excluding the Greene tract?  Mr. Horton said he did not believe there was any land at the landfill area that would be suitable for use as development of a materials recovery facility or a distribution center.

 

Council Member Bateman said she would like to amend her suggestion to say that only the two original tracts be considered, rather than three.

 

Council Member Brown suggested keeping the original language, since it does refer to the sites as “possible” sites.

 

Council Member McClintock suggested replacing the phrase “Recognize the need for a transfer station” with the phrase “Plan for locating or utilizing a transfer station,” since this is our intent.  Council Brown accepted the change.

 

Mayor Pro tem Capowski said he did not believe we should wait until the landfill is full to build a transfer station, and suggested deleting the phrase "when our present landfill is full".  Council Member Brown agreed to the change.

 

Council Member Brown then asked for comments regarding statement #4.

 

Council Member Foy said we should be focusing on solid waste reduction, and we need to push this to extend the life of the landfill and encourage recycling.

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested amending the statement to read, “Use the Landfill Fund reserves to finance the acquisition of sites for and construction of solid waste facilities.”

 

Mr. Horton said we had funds for purchase of any land which had been discussed, and would still have sufficient funds to build a transfer station at a cost of around $2 million.  He noted we would expect that the materials recovery facility could be privately arranged.

 

Council Member Brown moved on to issue five.  The Council agreed to this issue by consensus.

 

Council Member Brown continued with issue six.

 

Council Member McClintock said this paragraph is saying we are going to continue with the present management.

 

Council Member Pavăo said he believes the Council agrees that the County should take over the landfill, and at some point we have to make a decision.

 

Council Member McClintock said in the end no matter who runs it, we still have to be in agreement.

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested rewording the beginning of statement 6 as, “We desire a quick resolution to the governance issue, but until that time continue...”.  Council Member Brown accepted the change.

 

Council Member Brown moved to statement 7.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if a decision on what to do with the Greene tract must be made before the County takes over the landfill?  Council Member Brown said discussion should begin so that some decision can be made regarding the Greene tract.  Mayor pro tem Capowski agreed, but must a decision on the Greene tract be made before the County takes over?

 

 Mayor Waldorf answered no.  Mayor pro tem Capowski suggested language to say, “Recognize that a decision regarding whether to keep the Greene tract as publicly owned land should not delay the issue of governance, and what if any uses....”.  Council Member Brown agreed to this change.

 

Council Member Evans said Carrboro had approved Chapel Hill's Northwest Small Area Plan, and asked if there was some way of incorporating the plan for this land?  Council Member Brown said she believed that would complicate the decision-making process.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the Finance Committee was a part of the Landfill Owners’ Group?  Council Member Brown answered yes.  Mayor pro tem Capowski suggested adding a condition that "All financing issues be sensitive to the double taxation of Chapel Hill and Carrboro residents.”  The Council agreed by consensus.

 

Council Member McClintock suggested that in the letter to the County, a closure be added stating: "We in Chapel Hill look forward to receiving your proposed agreement in the fall, and recognize that whoever operates the solid waste facility, we will all need to work together to make these decisions.”

 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO FORWARD THE LETTER TO ORANGE COUNTY REGARDING SOLID WASTE ISSUES, AS AMENDED, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1, AS AMENDED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 A RESOLUTION ASKING THE TOWN COUNCIL’S REPRESENTATIVES ON THE LANDFILL OWNERS’ GROUP TO PURSUE EIGHT OBJECTIVES (98-7-2/R-1)

 

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is one of three governments which own the Orange Regional landfill; and

 

WHEREAS, representatives of the governing body of each owner from the Landfill Owners’ Group, which advises the governments on matters of solid waste management; and

 

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill, under the 1972 agreement, operates the landfill; and

 

WHEREAS, the three owners of the landfill have raised significant questions about future means of reducing and disposing of solid waste, and about future governance of solid waste management in Orange County;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that its representatives on the Landfill Owners’ Group are requested to pursue the following objectives:

 

1.      Join with the other Landfill owners’ Group members to hold a public hearing in September on the three sites presently under consideration by the Landfill Owners’ Group.  Acquire a site for a construction and demolition waste landfill by fall of 1998.   Continue to be open to other possibilities that may arise.

2.      Acquire a site, if acquisition is necessary, for a materials recovery facility by fall of 1998 and proceed to plan and build it.  The site next to the landfill on the north side of Eubanks Road is one possible site and the power of eminent domain should be used if necessary; the Greene tract is another possible site which would not require acquisition.

 

3.      Plan for locating or utilizing a transfer station, if no alternatives, including use of existing transfer stations in other locations, can be found.  Begin to identify possible locations.  The site next to the landfill on the north side of Eubanks Road is one possible site and the Greene tract is another possible site.

 

4.      Use the Landfill Fund reserves to finance the acquisition of sites for and construction of solid waste facilities.

 

5.      Acknowledge at this time that there will be no search for a future landfill site recognizing that this will not be binding on any future governments.

 

6.      We desire a quick resolution to the governance issue, but until that time continue with the present arrangement of Chapel Hill administering the solid waste operations in Orange County and the Landfill Owners’ Group continuing to discuss solid waste matters and making recommendations.

 

7.      Recognize that a decision regarding whether to keep the Greene tract as publicly owned land should not delay the issue of governance, and what if any uses would be suitable.

 

8.      All financing issues should be sensitive to the double taxation of Chapel Hill and Carrboro citizens.

 

This the 2nd day of July, 1998.

 

Other Solid Waste Matters

 

Mayor Waldorf asked for the Council's time to discuss an option regarding another solid waste matter, specifically a proposal for governance of the solid waste system.  She gave a brief overview of her written proposal, which she stated does not conflict with any of the decisions just made by the Council.  Mayor noted her proposal was in three steps: 1) conclude site selections for a construction and demolition disposal facility and a materials recovery facility and transfer station; 2) agree that Chapel Hill will administer future solid waste management operations; and 3) agree on dimension of shared budget oversight, and whether we should have an advisory board.  Mayor Waldorf noted that these steps should be accomplished quickly.

 

Mayor Waldorf indicated that basic assumptions were made in order to achieve the three steps.  Regarding personnel, she stated that qualified solid waste management staff would retain their jobs, as employees of the Town of Chapel Hill, with the Manager, Assistant Managers and Attorney continuing to provide management and legal advice.  Mayor Waldorf noted that regarding collection, the method used for collection would remain a decision made by each local government.  In regards to the annual budget, Mayor Waldorf stated that Chapel Hill staff would develop the annual budget for solid waste operations, with review by the Board of Commissioners, Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the Hillsborough Town Board.

 

Mayor Waldorf noted that tip fees would be charged for both construction and demolition and municipal solid waste.  She stated it is clear to everyone that another source of revenue would e needed in the future, and that equity requires that this be a County-wide source of revenue.  Mayor Waldorf added that State law requires that any County-wide source of revenue must be imposed by the Commissioners.

 

Mayor Waldorf commented that all four government bodies had adopted the Solid Waste Management Plan, and adopted the same set of waste reduction goals.  She stated that as policy, this plan is in force for our system, though not fully implemented.

 

Regarding community benefits, Mayor Waldorf said this issue has been successfully severed from the governance issue, with several requested benefits already provided.  She stated data to help determine where the water lines should go is being studied by an Orange County intern, and an Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro committee has been appointed to recommend how water provision should be financed.

 

Referring to her memo, Mayor Waldorf stated that under "Open Matters", this refers to matters that do not have to be decided through an interlocal agreement.  She said two of these are the creation of a citizens advisory board, and the use of the Greene track as a landfill asset.

 

Council Member Brown moved that the Mayor's suggestions be endorsed as an option for the Council's consideration, and forward it to Orange County, Carrboro and Hillsborough for their consideration and comment.  She added that the Council might want to make some changes to the Mayor's suggestions.

 

Council Member McClintock said she was reluctant to send this document to the other governing bodies until the Council has had a chance to thoroughly study the document.  She said we needed to refine the proposal before it was sent forward.

 

Council Member Foy said the reality is that either the County or Chapel Hill would run the solid waste program.  He said he was hoping that the County would provide the Council with an option when they reported back in the fall.   Council Member Foy said he believed this document might provide the County with needed information about what the Council’s intentions were, so that efforts were not duplicated.

 

Council Member Pavăo agreed, adding that we have the expertise to run the landfill, and past problems are associated with not having full power to operate the landfill.  He applauded the Mayor's efforts and endorsed her proposal.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO FORWARD THE MAYOR’S SUGGESTIONS TO THE COUNTY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

 

                          Item 2 - Status Report from Noise Ordinance Study Committee

 

Council Member Brown said no additional comments were offered other than submittal of the report.

 

                         Item 3 - Proposed Process for Updating the Comprehensive Plan

 

Mr. Horton said a key point is the staff’s belief it would be useful to engage a consultant to assist the Council, the community, and the staff in this process.  He noted this would allow a fresh look at our community, and to move the process along at a faster pace than could be done without additional resources.  He said there was some value in having this process in place while this Council was still seated.

 

Mr. Waldon said key decisions before the Council include whether or not the Council wanted to embark on a revision process, and what process would be used.  He noted the memorandum suggests a time frame that would deliver a final draft Comprehensive Plan to the Council by November 1, 1999.  Mr. Waldon said if the Council decides to pursue this, then the next step would be to hire a consultant.  He noted the schedule outlined would require some work over the summer in order to have a consultant hired by September.

 

Council Member Pavăo commended the staff on the proposed process and recommendations.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-2a.

 

Council Member Brown said this resolution does not include all Council comments and suggestions made previously.  She said she would prefer more discussion before the Council adopts a process, and that it is important that we have Council and Planning Board involvement, as well as citizen involvement.

 

Council Member McClintock stated the Council had decided to move ahead with updating the Comprehensive Plan, but she had concerns with spending $100,000 for a consultant.  She noted she would prefer spending these funds on updating the Development Ordinance.  Council Member McClintock said we know what elements are missing - not enough public involvement, not enough Council involvement, and not enough use of previously discussed long range goals.  She asked why was a consultant necessary for this project?

 

Council Member Bateman said she believed the reason was so that the updating could be completed before another Council election, so that the seated Council could oversee the revisions.

 

Council Member McClintock said if that was the case, then the funds would pay for what the staff would be unable to perform during the time frame specified.

 

Council Member Pavăo said the consultant is important not only to augment and help the staff but to focus on the direction that we need to be moving within the time table specified.  He noted that if we want this done by 1999, then this is the way to go.

 

Council Member Wiggins said she believed Council Member McClintock's concerns could be addressed.  She stated a consultant is needed to stay on task and would take their instructions from the Council, such as citizen participation, with the Council stating guiding principles.  Council Member Wiggins said these concerns could be passed on to the consultant.  She added that the Comprehensive Plan is an important tool, and $100,000 is not too much money to dedicate to this project.

 

Council Member Brown asked how could the previously discussed goals be included in the process, adding why go forward with a new Comprehensive Plan update when goals of the current 10-year plan have still not been addressed?  She said it is important to address these issues before moving forward.

 

Council Member Pavăo said if you look at the proposed process, all of Council Member Brown's suggestions are included.

 

Council Member Wiggins said that philosophically she is not opposed to Council Member Brown's suggestions, but it was important to stay on schedule.  She said those goals not addressed by the current Plan could be included in the new updated Plan.

 

Council Member Foy said he believed that when they reviewed the Strategic Plan the Council would extract those items which were believed to be most important and address them.

 

Council Member Evans said many communities update their Comprehensive Plan every five years, but this does not mean they throw out their strategies and start over.  Rather, she noted, issues are carried forward into the new document.  Council Member Evans said the process outlined and the hiring of a consultant to keep use focused and on schedule is of benefit to the citizens, ensuring them that the goals of the Council will be met in a timely manner.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski said a motion was on the table, and suggested the following change to Resolution R-2: under the heading “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved....” , at the end of the sentence, change the period to a comma and add, “and all steps include the general public to the greatest degree possible.”  Council Member Pavăo accepted the amendment.

 

Council Member Brown said we need to put those goals in the process before any update or rewriting takes place on a new Plan.  She said focus should not be on a consultant or a time table.

 

Council Member McClintock suggested we review the present Comprehensive Plan and identify specific areas for referral to the consultant.  She suggested that on page 4 of the memo, that the following be substituted for the statement in the calendar for February:  That when preliminary information is taken to the community for review and reaction, it be presented to the Council at the same time to ensure more Council participation.

 

David Brower urged the Council to adopt Resolution A.  He said this is an imaginative and creative step for Chapel Hill to take.  Mr. Brower stated he agreed with Council Member McClintock's suggestion, and said having the final draft delivered to the Council so close to the election is awkward.  He suggested that on page 14 of the memo, either the last two lines be held off until after the 1999 election so that the preliminary draft is delivered in mid-September.  Alternatively, he noted, if you do want the present Council to vote on the new document, move everything up about a month, so that data is collected in early December of early in 1999.  Mr. Brower stated this would give public opportunity to vote for Council members based on the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Council Member McClintock suggested accepting Mr. Brower's suggestion regarding moving the schedule up by a month.

 

Mayor Waldorf stated a suggestion had been made to add a comment to the calendar on page 3 of the staff memo, under the “July 8” heading, to read, “Identify sections that should be executed immediately, sections with goals that the Council believes should be preserved, sections of concern to the Council, and make a report to the public.”  She added that on page 4, under the heading of “February”, add, “Dialogue with Council by the Planning Board Work Group.”  Mayor Waldorf stated she agreed with Mr. Brower’s suggestion regarding moving the schedule for the final draft up a month, to be in October rather than November.

 

Council Member Bateman stated under the "summer" schedule, she suggests that Council appoint a sub-group of Council to interview citizens who might serve on the Work Group for the Comprehensive Plan by September. 9.    Council Members Bateman and Foy and Mayor Waldorf agreed to serve on the sub-committee.

 

Council Member Wiggins said when we publish a schedule, it's important to stick to it.  She said she made it a goal to attend all Council meetings, and was concerned that Council members are being asked to conduct sub-committee meetings during the scheduled summer break.  Council Member Wiggins said this practice prohibits some Council members from volunteering to serve on committees that meet during a scheduled Council break.

 

Council Member McClintock suggested that citizens who have not previously served on Council committees be recruited.

 

Directing her comments to the three-member Council Subcommittee, Council Member Wiggins said that when interviewing citizens for this Work Group, it is important that we have broad neighborhood, racial, and socio-economic diversity, as well as age, gender, disabilities, and the like.

 

THE COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION R-2a, AS AMENDED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WORK ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TOWN MANAGER (98-7-2R-2a)

 

WHEREAS, Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan was last fully updated in 1989;  and

 

WHEREAS, conditions in the community have changed in a manner that warrants an initiative to revise the Comprehensive Plan;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council intends to initiate a process to revise the Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by the Town Manager in a memorandum dated June 22, 1998, and all steps include the general public to the greatest degree possible.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Town Manager to begin initiating the steps as recommended in the June 22, 1998 memorandum, with amendments to the proposed process calendar.

 

This the 2nd day of July, 1998.

 

                                  Item 4 - Draft Policy and Implementation Process for

                                                 Neighborhood Traffic Management

 

Engineering Director George Small noted that the questions and comments from citizens and Council members generated during the May 11 public forum have been addressed and included in a new Draft Policy and Implementation Process for Neighborhood Traffic Management.  He noted that they believe it is important that a significant majority of affected residents both support and become involved in the project identification and development process.

 

Council Member Brown asked for the time needed to test the draft process.  Mr. Small answered about a year to get through the process and come back to the Council with results.

 

Council Member Bateman said regarding areas of influence, obtaining two-third’s of the property owners’ signatures is extremely difficult, and suggested this be changed to 60% for those who want it, with the burden on the group who wishes that traffic calming not occur.

 

Council Member McClintock agreed with Council Member Bateman, adding that in Carrboro just the residents of the particular street need to submit a petition for traffic calming, not the entire area of influence, since those on the particular street are the most affected by the calming measures.

 

Council Members Evans and Foy said they were willing to give Council Member Bateman's proposal a try.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member Bateman to restate her proposal.  Council Member Bateman said under the heading “Area of Influence” on page 2 of the staff memo, the second sentence would read, “These sections require that petitions be signed by at least 60% of the property owners directly affected.  A petition form is prepared by the Town based on the area of influence involved.  The requester circulates the petition, which must be signed by at least 60% of the property owners whose property is directly on the affected street.  In the area of influence beyond that street, a counter-petition to prevent traffic calming devices on that street must be presented with 60% of the signatures of property owners of the affected area, that the two-third’s requirement for property owners’ signatures be amended to 60%.”

 

Mr. Horton asked if after the initial petition was received, would the Town post signs to alert residents of the requested traffic calming devices, so that those with concerns would have an opportunity to circulate their counter petition, or would the Council wish to identify the area of influence and notify those residents that a petition had been received?  Council Member Bateman said she had no preference, that whichever was simplest should be done.  Mr. Horton stated the simplest method would be to post signs.  Council Member Bateman agreed.

 

Council Member McClintock suggested adding “by the traffic calming devices” to the end of the first sentence.  Council Member Bateman agreed.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if this is adopted, what would be the legal aspects?  He said for example, if someone just wanted a stop sign added, would they be required to go through this process?  Mr. Small answered a stop sign is a traditional traffic calming device, so this process most likely would apply.  He added that the purpose of this process is to assure the residents get what they want.

 

Mr. Horton suggested that the Council could exclude stop signs from this process.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski said he believed we would be put in the position of resolving neighborhood disputes.  Mr. Small said the policy being proposed would not create a conflict, but Council Member Bateman's proposal may.  He stated that if two-third's don't want it, then the majority rules.  Mr. Small noted that Council Member Bateman's proposal would allow the minority to protest.

 

Council Member Pavăo asked if it would be a year before the policy is finalized?  Mr. Small said he believes there would be a lot of interest and public comment, and it would take at least a year to complete a proposal.

 

Council Member Pavăo thanked the staff for the excellent report. He stated that in some countries speed humps are known as “sleeping policemen,” and believes the Council should put this draft to bed, let it go to sleep, and move on.  Council Member Pavăo said he would not vote in favor of the Neighborhood Traffic Management plan.

 

Council Member Evans said she can see many potential conflicts arising between neighbors, and does not want that to happen.  She agreed that the proposed plan should be laid to rest.  Council Member Evans said another issue is safety in neighborhoods, and there are different ways in which this should be addressed.  She suggested that sidewalks would remove pedestrians from the roadway, and some funds should be expended to add sidewalks in some areas.

 

Council Member McClintock offered two suggestions: 1) eliminate the 3,000 vehicle trip threshold, because of the areas it would eliminate; and 2) add what Carrboro has - if you put in a device, it must stay for three years, then it can be removed if it is determined to be detrimental.  She stated this a simple way to deal with the area of influence debate is to remove it altogether from the process.

 

Council Member Pavăo said the test humps installed on Lakeshore Drive were to have been in place for one year, but they only lasted two months.  He said he believed the humps were producing results.

 

Council Member Brown said the area of influence is established by the staff, and suggested that maybe a simple majority should be all that is necessary.  She suggested more citizen involvement if an area of influence was to be determined.  Mr. Small commented the problem with the area of influence is that there are so many different opinions so what that area may be.  He said residents, nearby residents, commuters, and so on want to be included.

 

MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, THAT THE REPORT BE REJECTED AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE END.  

 

Council Member Brown said she believed this issue to be important, and would vote against the motion.

 

Council Member McClintock said she would also vote against the motion, and that there is some merit to the policy.

 

Council Member Foy said he believed the policy should be implemented now, give it a chance to be refined, then take another look at it in two to three years.

 

Council Member Bateman asked how many staff positions would it take to implement this policy?  Mr. Horton said without knowing exactly what the Council wanted, anywhere from several to a dozen.  Council Member Bateman asked if the Council was still interested in electronic surveillance, adding that the Council should at least state its interested in pursuing the electronic surveillance aspect.

 

Council Member Wiggins said in the interim the Manager and Police have been very responsive to citizens concerned about speeding in their neighborhoods, and would like for that to continue.

 

Council Member Foy said he was not interested in electronic surveillance and did not want staff time spent on it.

 

THE MOTION TO REJECT THE REPORT AND THAT CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE END WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH MAYOR WALDORF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS CAPOWSKI, EVANS, PAVAO AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, FOY AND McCLINTOCK VOTING NAY.

 

                         Item 5 - Proposed Development Ordinance Text Amendment on

                                                  Definition of Contiguous Property

 

Mr. Horton stated the Council had asked for further information on this issue, and staff had prepared four options for the Council’s consideration.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK, THAT OPTION 4 BE INCLUDED IN ORDINANCE O-1.

 

 

Council Member Evans said we need a precise definition of contiguous to know exactly what we are addressing.  She said Option 4 states, “property adjoining”, which she believes is precise.  Council Member Evans continued, saying that the term “neighboring” is not defined in our ordinance.  She asked does it mean in the subdivision, or nearby” Council Member Evans noted the definition in Option 4 does not clarify the issue.

 

Council Member Foy said if we are talking about the impact a proposed development has on contiguous properties, then we are speaking of a narrower group of people than the community at large.

 

Council Member Evans asked if there would every be a case when contiguous property was not affected, but surrounding property would be affected?  She said it seems that any time surrounding property is affected, then adjoining property is most certainly affected.  Council Member Foy agreed, adding that it would not preclude nearby residents from saying they were affected.

 

Council Member Wiggins said when its time to make a decision, how do we draw the parameters?  She stated we could have citizens saying they are affected, so how do we decide?  Council Member Foy said we would use our judgment as to what is "nearby" in each case.  Council Member Wiggins said without a precise definition, does the Council have more legal exposure?  Council Member Foy said it was not the Council's job to take one person's property value and make a decision on that.   Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Karpinos to comment on Option 4.

 

Mr. Karpinos said he was not comfortable with Option 4, because some questions still remain about its definition.  He said he is concerned that it does not define what evidence the developer is responsible for.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if State law has a definition of contiguous?  Mr. Karpinos said there is nothing in the law that pertains to Special Use Permits.  Mayor Waldorf asked if in practice, the definition of contiguous would be touching?  Mr. Karpinos said use of a standard definition would be appropriate.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if Option 4 is the best option to use if we want to say houses several lots away may be affected?  Mr. Karpinos said he favors Option 3, that the word contiguous establishes a line, but the word neighboring is vague. Mr. Karpinos said the report presented to the Council in February provided a sliding scale of who might be affected.  He added that the parties involved would have to know what that scale is.  Mayor pro tem Capowski asked how would the Council determine if the statement regarding "maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare" was maintained.  Mr. Karpinos answered that the statement refers to the public, not an individual or what he believes may or may not affect his property.   He stated that if a sliding scale is used, it must be included in the ordinance what the boundaries of that scale is.

 

Council Member Bateman said she supported changing the definition and giving it more teeth, maybe by adding a certain radius in the language.  She asked Council Member Foy to accept this amendment.

 

 

Council Member Wiggins supported that suggestion, saying that we could use option 4's definition of contiguous, and add a certain radius of affected property.

 

Council Member Foy suggested referring this back to the staff and ask for suggestions on including a sliding scale to the ordinance.  He withdrew his original motion.

 

Council Member Brown said even if we have some clearer definition, the possibility remains that someone may have clear evidence that does not fit the ordinance.  Mr. Karpinos said if someone 1,000 feet has evidence that his property is affected, then an adjoining property owner would most certainly be affected.  He reminded the Council that the burden of proof is on the applicant that the property values were adversely affected.

 

Council Member McClintock said she would support referring this back to staff for the inclusion of a sliding scale.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE STAFF.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if this action would require another public hearing.  Mr. Karpinos stated he would research this question.

 

                                          Item 6 - Items Relating to Administration of

                                                          Development Ordinance

 

6a. Time extensions, Minor Changes to Special Use Permits, and Special Use Permit

Violations

 

Mr. Waldon stated the Council had requested an annual report regarding Special Use Permit violations, a report about administration time extensions, and a report about the difference between minor changes to a Council approved Special Use Permit and those changes requiring Modification of a Special Use Permit.  He gave a brief overview of examples of each of these issues.

 

Council Member McClintock asked how violations are dealt with.  Mr. Horton said there is a process of notice, with a fine involved, and ultimately a court appearance.  Mr. Karpinos added an appeal would be made to the Board of Adjustment, with the next step being a hearing before the court.  Council Member McClintock asked what is the first step?  Mr. Horton answered to notify the property owner and ask for compliance.  Council Member McClintock asked that current status of violations be included in the report.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if there was a question as to whether a change was minor or major, would it be brought before the Council?  Mr. Waldon responded yes.  Mr. Horton added that on several occasions we have reviewed an issue and believe it to be in compliance, but we recognize that the Council may conclude differently, so it is brought to the Council before a decision is finalized.

 

 

Council Member Brown asked for examples of modifications that were brought before the Council.  Mr. Horton noted there had been very few, but the Chapel Hill North development was brought back before the Council, when they were addressing issues that arose regarding the widening of Highway 86.

 

Council Member Foy asked if the number of minor adjustments could be tracked and reported to the Council.  Mr. Horton said he would need specific information about what a minor adjustment is, for instance is a ten foot adjustment considered minor?

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPTED RESOLUTION R-4.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO PROVIDE AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT SPECIAL USE PERMIT VIOLATIONS

(98-7-2/R-4)

 

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has requested information about Special Use Permit violations; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council requests an annual report regarding Special Use Permit violations;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby requests a report from the Town Manager at the first meeting in August of each year regarding formal written Special Use Permit violation notices.  This report shall identify the number of formal written Special Use Permit violations notices and shall describe the nature of the violations.

 

This the 2nd day of July, 1998.

 

6b.  Stormwater Impacts at Windsor Park

 

Mr. Waldon presented a brief description of what had taken place to date.

 

Council Member Brown said she believed the Council had intended to have State review of the dam, but the wording was not specific.  Mr. Waldon said he did not believe we could force the State into a regulatory role that it may not want to assume.

 

Council Member McClintock said there was a process for review by the State, and it may take some time but it would eventually be reviewed.  Mr. Horton said we would have to ask for a courtesy review and the State would decide whether or not to perform the review.

 

Council Member Bateman asked if it was possible for a Town inspector to perform a review.  Mr. Small answered that Town staff performs routine inspections.

 

 

 

                                                Item 7 - Request for Closed Session

 

Council Member McClintock stated she believed that there was an expectation from citizens present that the Meadowmont issue would be discussed in open session, even though the Council would discuss it tonight in closed session.  She asked the Attorney to comment.  Mr. Karpinos replied that it was entirely up to the Council when and if the issue was discussed in open session.

 

Attorney Michael Brough stated the Council had received his letter yesterday, and his clients would like some assurance by the Council that it would consider their suggestions and give some guidance as to the Council's intentions.  He said the Council's response to his letter would have a direct impact on how his clients proceed and how the issues could be resolved.  Mr. Brough asked the Council to provide some direction.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski said he made the motion that the Council discontinue discussion of traffic calming measures, but that did not mean that the Council agreed.  He added that his motion meant that he did not agree with the traffic calming measures suggested, not that he was against traffic calming measures in general.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Brough to comment on the opening of Pinehurst Drive at the time the school is opened.  Mr. Brough noted this issue is problematic, and what he is asking for in way of clarification is, will the road be opened at the time of the school opening, or at the time 201st building permits have been issued?  He said it seems that it means if the school never opens, then the road is opened when 201st building permits are issued, but this condition appears vague.  Mayor pro tem Capowski asked about the 90% buildout issue, and if they are proposing deleting that.  Mr. Brough said that would be ideal, but it does not conform with the existing conditions of the Special Use Permit.  He said he did not believe it would be possible to get Council agreement before the scheduled July 24th hearing.  Mr. Brough said what he is asking is that the existing condition regarding the road opening be clarified, so that his clients know if the school opening is the triggering event, or the issuance of the 201st building permit.  Mr. Brough noted it is very likely that the 201st building permit will be issued well before the opening of the school.

 

Settle Dockery, a landscape architect, said the condition specifically stated that Pinehurst Drive would be opened when the school opened, or when the 201st building permit was issued.  He said he believes this condition is crystal clear and does not need clarifying.  Mr. Dockery said if further clarification is attempted, the Council would be clarifying the already adopted Special Use Permit, and this would not be fair.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

The Council moved into closed session at 9:01 p.m.

 

The Council returned to open session at 10:21 p.m.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked for a motion on the resolution just discussed in closed session.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION DISCUSSED IN THE CLOSED SESSION.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski said he believed the Council had violated their agreement regarding the discussion of the terms of the settlement in open session, and apologized to those present.

 

Waldorf encouraged the attorneys to meet together to seek resolution.

 

THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE CLOSED SESSION RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED 8-1, WITH MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI VOTING NAY.

 

A RESOLUTION STATING THE POSITION OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE MEADOWMONT LITIGATION (98-7-2/R-5)

 

WHEREAS, the Council has considered the July 1, 1998 letter from the attorney for the Pinehurst neighbors to the Developer’s attorney, the June 22 petition to the Town Council, and other appropriate factors;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council responds as follows:

 

1.     Traffic Calming Devices.

 

The Council affirms its intent to continue to pursue the development and implementation of reasonable traffic calming measures in all the neighborhoods surrounding Meadowmont.

 

For the purposes of settlement of the pending legal proceedings challenging the Town’s approval of the Meadowmont Village Center and Infrastructure Special Use Permits, the Council states that it sees no present reason why the traffic calming devices along Pinehurst Drive, proposed by the petitioners and referred to in the July 1 letter from the Pinehurst neighbors’ attorney to the Mayor and Council, could not be implemented, subject to:

 

a.      Consideration of public input under the Council’s policies for receive and consideration of such input;

b.     Technical review of all such devices; and

c.      Availability of  private funding, including the previously pledged $75,000.

 

Absent significant public opposition from the residents of the surrounding neighborhood and assuming funding is available and technical criteria are met, the Council sees no reason at this time why the proposed traffic calming devices referred to in the July 1, 1998 letter would not be approved.  Moreover, the Council believes that consideration and implementation of the proposed traffic calming devices can proceed in a timely manner, following the settlement of the pending proceedings.  Assuming that settlement, along with financial and technical feasibility and public support as described above, the Council believes the devices can be installed prior to the opening of the Pinehurst connector and prior to any substantial development of Meadowmont.

 

2.     General Observations

 

The Council expresses its hope that the litigation arising out of the approval of the Meadowmont Special Use Permits can be resolved by settlement.  The Council urges all parties to the proceedings to work in good faith in an attempt to resolve their differences if at all possible.

 

The Council requests its attorney to meet with the other attorneys involved to seek resolution.  The Council believes it is necessary that the terms of any settlement should be made a public record.

 

This the 2nd day of July, 1998.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.