SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 8, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Laurin Easthom, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, and Bill Thorpe.
Council Member Jim Ward was absent, excused. Mayor Foy noted that Council Member Ward was out of Town on business.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, Planning Director J. B. Culpepper, Senior Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Item 1 – Ceremonies
1a. Greenway Commission’s Open Space Awards.
Glenn Parks, chair of the Greenways Commission, announced citizen and honor awards:
Mayor Foy offered thanks to Mr. Parks and to the Commission members for their hard work and leadership they were providing in moving forward with completion of the Greenways Master Plan.
Item 2 – Public Hearings: None.
Item 3 – Petitions
3a(1). Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership regarding The Giving Kiosk, an Alternative to Panhandling.
Andrea Rohrbacher said the petition was first a request that the Council adopt the concept of The Giving Kiosk and the installation of The Giving Kiosk downtown, and secondly to modify the ordinance that restricts panhandling near ATM machines to include The Giving Kiosk.
Liz Parham, executive director of the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership, explained that The Giving Kiosk was a structure that would serve as a collection site for monetary donations to six agencies: the Interfaith Council, Mental Health Association, Freedom House, El Futuro, Club Nova, and Emergency Management Services. She said the kiosk would serve as a public art piece, and would be a permanent addition to the streetscape in the downtown.
Ms. Parham said the kiosk would inform citizens of ways to donate money to the particular agencies that were charged with addressing the downtown’s human services needs. She said the purpose of the kiosk was to give people the option of donating money to these agencies rather than to the panhandlers.
Ms. Parham said the proposed location was in the 100 block of East Franklin Street across from the Tar Heel Book Shop, just off the sidewalk against the railing and out of the pedestrian flow of traffic. She said the kiosk would be completely funded by a local citizen.
Ms. Parham asked for the Council’s endorsement and to allow the Town Manager to assist them in getting the kiosk installed by August when students return to Town. She noted that an education campaign would be undertaken to inform students and citizens about the kiosk.
Mayor Foy said this petition asked for two specific actions, one regarding the location of the kiosk and the other a modification of the ordinance. He suggested the Council receive the petition and refer it to the Manager to respond to those two requests.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked what process was used to identify the artist and the design of the kiosk. He said he had reflected on the process used by the Town for public art projects, in that they integrated the community into the design process. Council Member Kleinschmidt said since the kiosk would be in such a prominent location, he wanted to know what role the stakeholders in Town may have played in choosing the design or the artist. He said if they had not used such a process, he wanted to know why they had made the decision not to use one similar to what the Town’s Arts Commission used.
Ms. Parham said they had worked with the Public Arts Commission on this project. She stated the Commission had worked with them and reviewed the information going out to artists to make sure it was accurate. Ms. Parham stated that of the approximately 75 artists who were sent information, they received only one response. Ms. Parham said the Board of the Downtown Partnership had chosen the design, but it could certainly be looked at again if necessary.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was pleased to hear that they had conducted a broad search for an artist. He stated that one of the things in the process that the Arts Commission used was to connect the artist with the stakeholder community to develop a vision for the art.
Council Member Easthom asked if there was a possibility for a second kiosk in the future at a different location. Ms. Parham said there was that possibility, but they had wanted to do this one first and judge its success.
Council Member Hill said the drawing provided was not descriptive. Ms. Parham said their plan was to produce construction documents once they received approval from the Council to move ahead.
Council Member Hill said the description provided indicated that the roofline would be at chin to eye level for an average person. He said that appeared to him to be dangerous. Ms. Parham said the top of the roof was seven feet. Council Member Hill said that the roof sloped down from seven feet. Ms. Parham displayed a drawing of the proposed kiosk.
Council Member Hill said that attention needed to be paid to how the kiosk interacted with pedestrians. Ms. Parham said more information could be provided once they produced the construction drawings. She said they had worked with the Police Department regarding how to safely remove the money from the kiosk, noting the proposed location was in a well-lighted area near a street light.
Council Member Hill suggested that the Council reserve the right to approve the final design before construction and installation of the kiosk.
Council Member Greene said she and Council Member Kleinschmidt had been sitting in on meetings of the Public Arts Commission regarding their Master Arts Plan for the community. The Plan laid out locations where it was conceivable to place public art, which was broad enough to encompass private art in public places. She said once that Master Arts Plan was in place it would likely entail stakeholder participation in a very public process, including the design and possibly a wider call for artists. Council Member Greene said the process used for the kiosk would be of concern for her as this moved forward. She said it needed to be an open and collaborative process that produced something that the community approved of.
By consensus the Council received and referred the petition to the Manager.
3a(2). Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board regarding Pedestrian/Motorist Safety Education.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3a(3). Brian Sanders regarding Delay of Coker Hills Neighborhood Conservation District.
Brian Sanders, a resident of Clayton Road in Coker Hills, noted he was not speaking for all of Coker Hills. He said the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) process had fractured his neighborhood down to its foundation. Mr. Sanders said the drama his neighborhood was facing could be summed up on three different levels. He said he did not believe that the process, the intent, or the expense had been thoroughly considered in the NCD process.
Mr. Sanders said neighbors had struggled to get basic questions answered about the process, such as setbacks. He said they had asked questions such as would NCD restrictions supercede R-1 zoning. Mr. Sanders said his neighbors had struggled about whether to use the word “rezoning” in neighborhood communications and that had divided the neighborhood in half, with one half insisting that using the word rezoning would scare people. Now, he said, there were signs at every entrance to their neighborhood that stated Coker Hills was under consideration for rezoning.
Mr. Sanders said when you took a neighborhood of relatively small lots and placed restrictive setbacks on it, they questioned whether the intent of keeping the neighborhood spirit and flavor alive was what this would achieve. He said there was a belief that there were consequences that neighbors would no longer be able to update their properties, such as build a garage or an extension because of the setbacks and where the homes currently sat on the lots. But, Mr. Sanders pointed out, a builder would be able to come on and strip the lot, relocate the foundation, and build a 7,500 square-foot “pink elephant” and the NCD would not prevent that from happening.
Mr. Sanders asked what the expense to neighbors would be who wanted to do normal enhancements to their homes that might require tree-cutting or the pouring of concrete to move the enhancement to an unnatural place on the lot. And, he asked, what would be the expense that taxpayers were paying for the Town to constantly defend and enforce these NCD restrictions.
Mr. Sanders said these issues had caused a huge rift in his neighborhood. He said their original covenants required a 75 percent consensus of the neighborhood to make any change to the covenants. Mr. Sanders said fundamentally, the NCD would be a change to their covenants. He asked the Council to halt the NCD proposal for Coker Hills
Jill Blackburn, President of the Coker Hills Neighborhood Association, stated the Board of the Neighborhood Association had drafted a letter to the Council and sent it via email. She said the statement made previously that there was a rift in the neighborhood was not true. Ms. Blackburn said the NCD process had started in 2004, and she outlined what had taken place sent then.
Ms. Blackburn said three months ago the residents on Clayton Street had opted to petition the Town to exempt them from the NCD process. She said the Association had immediately drafted a letter to those residents, adding they were surprised that the residents had never expressed their concerns to the Association prior to the petition. Ms. Blackburn said any “fracturing” of the neighborhood had started with the Clayton Road residents stating they did not want to be a part of the NCD.
Ms. Blackburn stated another interesting thing was that when you looked at the original signers of the petition to start the NCD process in Coker Hills, of which over 62 percent of the neighborhood signed, all but a very few of the residents of Clayton Road had signed. She said two of the people whose names were on the petition requesting that the NCD process be stopped had never signed the original petition requesting the NCD in Coker Hills.
Ms. Blackburn said it was conflict, because they had R-1 zoning and restrictive covenants. She said it would become more complicated when they had the NCD added to the mix. Ms. Blackburn said the recommendation made by Clarion Associates and the original recommendation made by the Planning Board was to include the restrictive covenants and then some add-ons.
Ms. Blackburn suggested that the Council accept that recommendation and not the alternative that the Planning Board recently made. She said when this matter came back before the Council, she would provide more data regarding the support in the neighborhood.
Mayor Foy confirmed that this issue was on the Council’s agenda for next Monday. He asked the Manager to provide options regarding how to proceed given that this was the Town’s first experience with a neighborhood that was not unified about the NCD. Mayor Foy said it would be helpful for the Council to have the staff provide some background, such as how quickly they should act and if there was an immediate threat to the neighborhood. Mr. Horton responded that the staff would provide the best information possible on how the Council might proceed.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3a(4). Orange County Economic Development Commission regarding Appointment of Council Members to Serve on the Commission.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the committee evaluating whether or not the Town needed to hire an economic development officer was also approached by Chair Keith Cook, who proposed a partnership between the economic development officer and the Town with the County. He said the Committee had not discussed that, but it was on its agenda for May 23. Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested deferring this petition until they had a better understanding of what their economic development program would be, including whether or not they would have an economic development officer and how they would proceed with their economic development initiative. He said when those questions were answered then the Council could act on the petition.
Mayor Foy suggested referring this petition to the committee and asking for a recommendation at the appropriate time.
The Council by consensus referred the petition to the committee evaluating the need for an economic development officer.
3a(5). Elders for Peace at Carol Woods regarding a Resolution Calling for Impeachment of President George W. Bush.
Bob Gwynn, representing Carol Woods Elders for Peace, noted that they lived in a democracy centered in the Constitution, and the Constitution was under attack. He stated that they had a President who was taking power unto himself and away from the Congress and from the courts. Mr. Gwynn quoted from a statement made by a UNC Public Health official, which described what they believed the President was doing, including domestic eavesdropping.
Mr. Gwynn said they had brought this to the Council because it was the closest governing body to the people, and many of them were angry. He said people were concerned and confused, and wanted some kind of action taken. Mr. Gwynn said by adopting the proposed resolution they had provided, Chapel Hill would go on record as opposing this eavesdropping without a warrant. He asked the Council to support their request to adopt this resolution.
Hank Elkins said the Elders believed that the President had acted contrary to law and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He said the President was altering the balance of power by denying Congress its proper role, and causing the United States to act in contravention of international law.
Mr. Elkins said they were calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush. He stated the President had lied to Congress and the American people and launched an illegal war of aggression, and he noted other offenses they believed the President committed. Mr. Elkins called on the Council to support the resolution to impeach the President, and to contact representatives and senators to urge support of impeachment. He said that vote would be a vote for democracy.
Nancy Elkins said they had collected several hundred signatures on their petition, and believed that the nature of the country demanded that the President be impeached. She said citizens would be hard put to imagine any higher crimes than the ones committed by the President. Ms. Elkins said the President had started a war under false pretenses, had encouraged wiretapping of citizens in direct violation of legislation passed specifically to prevent it, and had allowed the torture of individuals and then tried to design legislation to make such torture legal.
Ms. Elkins said these crimes and others compelled them and all other thinking citizens to call for the President’s impeachment. She said if citizens did not stop this, what would future citizens think about them for allowing this to happen.
Council Member Kleinschmidt thanked the Elders for bringing the petition forward, noting that many of our citizens agreed with their statements.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, ENDORSEMENT OF THE RESOLUTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3a(6). First Baptist Church and Manley Estates Board of Directors regarding Exclusion of Property from the Overlay District.
COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EASTHOM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Announcements by Council Members.
Council Member Easthom announced the Municipal Wireless Network Public Forum on Thursday, May 18 from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Council Chambers. She said it would be broadcast on the local government access channel, and would include a question and answer segment.
Mayor Foy announced that Adam Schaffer from his office would be traveling to Denver at the end of the week to attend a conference in connection with Chapel Hill’s participation in the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness. He said the conference would take up homelessness as a national issue. Mayor Foy said as they continued forward with the 10-year plan, it would be helpful to know what other communities had done and what had been successful. He noted that the Council would soon hear from Martha Are, who was considered to be an expert in this area.
Mayor Foy updated the Council on the efforts of the Manager Search Committee. He noted that the applications deadline was on Friday, April 28, so that part of the process was closed. Mayor Foy said they had about 120, and every application had been read and considered. He said the Committee had met today, and had selected 15 finalists for further evaluation who most closely identified with the candidate profile they had developed.
Mayor Foy said those 15 finalists would be asked to respond to a questionnaire that they hoped would allow the Committee to further identify in greater detail some of their attributes. He said based on their applications and their responses to the questionnaire, the Committee would meet a week from Friday, May 19, and try to identify eight candidates to move forward with. Mayor Foy said those eight people would be interviewed via telephone by members of the Committee, and the Committee would meet again on May 30 to identify the three or four finalists. He said those three or four finalists would be invited to Chapel Hill on June 20 and 21 to meet with the public and to meet with the Council both publicly and privately. Mayor Foy said after that, the Council would need to make a decision on how to move forward.
Mayor Foy said all of the information regarding the 15 candidates remained confidential, but the candidates had been told that they were welcome to visit Chapel Hill on their own if they wanted to find out more the Town and the Council, and were welcomed to talk with him or with Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin.
Item 4 – Consent Agenda
Council Member Thorpe said regarding Item #4l, Street Closing for NCAA Baseball Regional Tournament, that the public should be notified. Mr. Horton responded that UNC would be asked to do that.
Council Member Greene noted that Council Member Ward had requested that Item #4f, Response to Petition regarding Expedited Review for Silver LEED Certified Developments, be delayed until he was present.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1 WITH ITEM #4f REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 5 – Information Reports
Council Member Greene pulled Item #5c, Orange Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Report. She noted that a citizen wanted to speak on that item.
Mayor Foy pulled Item #5d, Orange Water and Sewer Authority Water Supply Advisory.
#5c, Orange Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Report.
Gary Richman said he would like the quarterly report to include some of the data OWASA was collecting regarding their Odor Monitoring Compliance Program, having to do with a series of thrice-daily “sniff” tests around the boundaries of the plant, evaluation of odors at different levels, and what happened if that evaluation warranted further evaluation. Mr. Richman asked for data from OWASA’s hydrogen monitoring system, and information regarding complaints from neighbors and OWASA’s efforts to follow-up on those complaints.
Mr. Richman provided some background on what prompted his request, noting the struggle they had encountered in eliminating odor from the plant. He said he wanted to determine if the complaints were useful in identifying the cause of the odor and in eliminating them.
Council Member Greene thanked Mr. Richman for bringing this issue forward, and asked the Council to urge OWASA to collect this data.
Mayor Foy suggested forwarding OWASA a formal request to respond to these concerns.
#5d, Orange Water and Sewer Authority Water Supply Advisory.
Mayor Foy stated it was important that the public not be confused about what was happening in the region regarding water, especially since Raleigh had recently lifted its water restrictions and it had been raining the last few days. He stated that we were still in a serious drought situation, and page eight of the report showed a comparison between May 26, 2002 and May 26, 2006.
Mayor Foy said the comparison was important because the April 2002 date preceded the severe drought when the Town had experienced severe problems. He said that OWASA had issued a water advisory to make everyone aware that although they had enough water for this year, they could face a much more serious shortage next year if the current drought conditions continue through the summer and fall.
Mayor Foy said that OWASA’s water advisory was important because if conditions worsened, then they would be forced to move to Stage One water conservation measures that would impose mandatory restrictions on water usage that would cut usage by 10, 15, and then 20 percent. He said it was important for citizens to understand that the Town and its citizens, as well as OWASA, had done a good job of conserving water. Mayor Foy said the weather had been erratic and the Town may be on course for more water restrictions in the future.
Mayor pro tem Strom said the OWASA home page at owasa.org had good links, noting that one could access information regarding the actual stream flow from two major water sources, Morgan Creek and Cane Creek. He stated that even after last week’s heavy rain the stream flow had gone back down to near-drought conditions. Mayor pro tem Strom thanked the OWASA Board for taking this advisory step and encouraged them to be proactive in maintaining water supplies.
Item 6 – Potential Legislative Requests
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos commented that this was the next and most likely last step in the process to develop the Town’s legislative agenda for the upcoming session of the NC General Assembly.
Mayor Foy remarked that this year would be a short session of the Legislature. He noted that Resolution R-12 would forward the Council’s policy positions to the General Assembly for consideration.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-12. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 7 – Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment
to Add Provisions to Payment-in-Kind on Affordable Housing
Planning Director J. B. Culpepper said a public hearing was held on April 19, which was being continued this evening. She said this was a proposed text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO), which would modify the requirements of LUMO regarding housing floor area restrictions for major subdivision and planned developments to allow an applicant to provide a payment-in-kind of affordable housing for floor area restrictions.
Ms. Culpepper said the applicant for this text amendment was the Bradley Green Subdivision developer, and the staff recommendation was for enactment of Ordinance O-4.
Doug Schworer, speaking for the Sunrise Coalition, said this LUMO change had been prompted by a current situation involving the developer of Bradley Green and Habitat for Humanity of Orange County. He said the Coalition had two concerns.
Mr. Schworer said first, the proposal did have potential benefits, but in the present instance Habitat had claimed they could not afford to build a smaller, neighbor-endorsed development because their per-unit cost would be too high. He said Habitat believed that the proposed change would enable a cooperative solution that would substantially reduce their infrastructure costs. Mr. Schworer said the question was how Habitat would use those savings. He said the Coalition hoped it would be able to scale back the size of their project in line with Community Development Commission and neighborhood recommendations, so that it conformed with federal guidelines and be eligible for HUD funding. Mr. Schworer said their fear was that in the absence of clear Council guidance, the more than $500,000 benefit would simply be viewed as a windfall, and Habitat would persist with its 48-unit plan as originally proposed. He said this would be another step in the wrong direction.
Mr. Schworer said the Coalition’s second concern was that in granting this kind of arrangement to a donor developer, the Town must presume that the Habitat development would be approved and built as planned. He said they questioned whether it was fair to authorize the donor developer to provide services-in-kind to an affordable housing project that was itself in the midst of an approval process with an uncertain outcome. Mr. Schworer said that would constitute an action predicated on a certain subsequent action by the Town. He noted it was essential that every project be evaluated solely on its own merits and not affected by previous official actions.
Mr. Schworer stated that the Coalition recommended that:
any financial benefit to the affordable housing developer resulting from a services-in-kind subsidy be designated to be used to maximize design excellence, insure compliance with local, State, and federal environmental standards, and maintain the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood; and
that granting a services-in-kind arrangement be handled in a way that did not compromise the independent evaluation of the associated affordable housing development.
Kelvin Green asked that the Council support the staff recommendation to amend LUMO to allow for payments-in-kind for affordable housing.
Council Member Greene asked the Council and the Attorney, if the Council approved this LUMO amendment would it mean that the Council was obligated to approve the Bradley Green Subdivision when it came back before the Council. She said she did not believe it did, stating that the Council continued to have open minds and had not made a decision as yet.
Mr. Karpinos agreed with Council Member Greene, noting approval of this amendment did not obligate the Council in any way regarding consideration of future applications. He said approval tonight would have no affect on the Council’s consideration of the Bradley Green Subdivision.
Mayor Foy said the Council at this time did not know how approval of the amendment would affect the Bradley Green Subdivision. Mr. Horton stated that was correct, noting they had no estimates of how it might affect that development.
Mr. Karpinos said it might have some affect on the Bradley Green project as well as the Habitat project, but that would not happen until the Council considered the Habitat project on its own merits.
Council Member Greene stated that this LUMO amendment would allow the Council to take that step if it chose.
Mayor Foy commented that would be true for any project. Mr. Karpinos stated that was correct.
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE O-4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 8 – Draft 2006-2007 Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Planning Work Group
Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk explained that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization was required by federal regulations to prepare and adopt an annual Planning Work Program. He stated that Program must include a summary of the allocation of federal transportation funding used for planning activities in the entire region. Mr. Bonk stated that as part of that approval process, the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) had released the draft 2006-2007 Planning Work Program for public comment.
Mr. Bonk stated that the Work Program had been summarized in the memorandum, noting that on page two there was a chart that noted how the Work Program proposed to use the funding, which totaled $5.4 million. He said that included funds that came to the region just for planning purposes, as well as Surface Transportation Direct Allocation Funds, which were flexible and could be used for either capital or planning activities.
Mr. Bonk said there were two main uses for the funds. First, he said, the TAC had identified several special projects proposed for funding, listed on page 34 of the materials. Mr. Bonk said those were by their nature projects that affected multiple jurisdictions and were intended to either support the ongoing development of the region’s transportation model which was used to develop regional transportation plans, or several sub-elements of the federally-mandated transportation process.
Mr. Bonk said they had identified on pages two and three what those special projects were and had provided comments. He said page 34 included a proposed funding split, which was normally split in proportion to population between Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Durham. Mr. Bonk noted that the local match that Chapel Hill was being asked to contribute was approximately $42,000. He said the total amount of local match was over $250,000.
Mr. Bonk said they had identified two issues to bring forward to the Council. He said in the list of projects proposed for the coming year, there was a proposal to develop a collector roads plan for areas outside the urban areas that were not covered by existing or planned collector street plans. Mr. Bonk said they believed that project in particular carried a benefit that was directly beneficial to the counties, and that the County should provide the local matching funds for that project. He said because of that benefit the staff recommendation was that as part of the Council’s comments to the TAC, that Chapel Hill be eliminated from providing local matching funds for the collector street plan.
Mr. Bonk said the second issue was that in the list of projects to be funded by the Surface Transportation Director Allocation Funding was a proposal for approximately $200,000 for the proposed Chapel Hill Long Range Transit Plan, a continuing effort by Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the University in the development of a scope of work and also putting together a possible funding scheme. Mr. Bonk said that funding was currently in the plan and if approved would provide funding to the Town to pay for a consultant to undertake that project.
Council Member Harrison said he and Mayor pro tem Strom would be attending the TAC meeting on Wednesday, and he thanked Mr. Bonk for his excellent explanation of the Work Program. He said he strongly supported the positions the Council was being asked to take, noting that the counties seemed to be receiving “goose eggs” in terms of who was being asked to pay for some of these planning projects. Council Member Harrison said they did need to reaffirm support for the Long Term Transit Plan.
Mayor pro tem Strom confirmed that Durham, on page 34, referred to Durham City and not the County, and that Chatham County did not even appear. He said what they were asking was that Orange County contribute the funding. Mr. Bonk said what they were asking was that Chapel Hill be eliminated from being charged for the local match for the collector roads plan.
Mayor Foy said the proposed resolution requested that Orange County, Durham County, and Chatham County be asked to provide local match funding. Mr. Bonk stated that was correct. Mayor Foy asked if they received Plan funds. Mr. Bonk responded that Orange County did receive some planning funds as part of the overall program, but Chatham County did not. He said with Durham, the County and the City shared a planning department, so the funding that was allocated to that department was used for both County and City activities.
Mayor pro tem Strom asked how the RPO fit into this. Mr. Bonk said he was not completely clear on this, noting that the RPO was not a part of the MPO. He believed the RPO had to put together their own version of this Plan for the areas that were covered by the RPO, he said. Mayor pro tem Strom said then the TCC and the DCHC do not fund the RPO. Mr. Bonk responded his understanding was that there was no coordination for that.
Council Member Harrison said the Town Manager had a general rule not to use such acronyms. He noted that the RPO was the Rural Planning Organization, the MPO was the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the DCHC referred to Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro, and the TCC was the Technical Coordinating Committee.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-13. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 9 – Resolution Establishing a Charge and Composition
of the Downtown Parking Citizens Committee
Mr. Horton said this proposal had been prepared in response to a petition by a Council member, and had suggested key areas that might be included in the review, focusing on elements of the Comprehensive Plan that applied particularly to the downtown. He said they were fortunate to have accumulated a good deal of information in the past regarding the downtown and parking in particular, and he believed it would be possible to update that information without great expense. Mr. Horton said they proposed a charge for the committee that essentially asked them to look at every aspect of parking in the downtown, ranging from where it was located, who owned it, how it was used, and what possibilities there might be for rearranging parking regulations and making parking more available.
Mr. Horton said they had also proposed composition for the Committee, respecting that it was the Council’s decision.
Council Member Hill said he believed the charge proposed was complete, but suggested, regarding composition, that the Council retain some flexibility. He stated that some of the membership categories overlapped, and were too precise. Council Member Hill said that would be dealt with when the applications were considered.
Mr. Horton said if the number of members for each category were removed, it would not be precise at all. Council Member Hill agreed that was true and said that was acceptable to him.
Mayor Foy said that would mean the Council would adopt a resolution to form a Parking Citizens Committee that included the list of participants, but with no specified number from each category. Council Member Hill said that was his preference.
Council Member Easthom said regarding the charge, she assumed that the concept of shared parking would be considered for those parking lots that were unoccupied at certain times and/or days. Council Member Hill said the last bullet in the charge was broad enough to encompass that.
Mayor Foy asked if that last bullet would include looking at signage. Council Member Hill said he believed the language that referred to “strategies” covered that. He said anything would be specifically stated, but he believed that last bullet was a “catchall.”
Council Member Harrison asked what the plan was to advertise for applications. Mr. Horton responded it would be treated in the same manner as any other recruitment for service on a committee or advisory board, with advertisements in local papers, on the Town’s web site, and a few other locations as determined by the Town Clerk and/or the Town Information Officer.
Mayor Foy said it would be a good idea to sunset the Committee, so that if it was not recharged by the Council by June 30, 2007, that it would automatically be dissolved. Council Member Hill suggested making it a part of the resolution.
Mayor Strom asked if they were imagining Downtown Partnership Board Members as participants on the Committee. Mayor Foy said that was correct.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how many Board members there were. Mayor Foy responded there were seven. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that should be kept in mind when the Council made the appointments, so that the percentage of membership was weighted properly.
Mayor Foy said regarding the Downtown Partnership Board, the Council should know that at least one member would not reapply, so they needed to identify another candidate. He encouraged the Council to contact anyone they believed might be interested in applying.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-14 WITH THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS FOR EACH CATEGORY OF MEMBERSHIP REMOVED AND THAT THE COMMITTEE BE SUNSET BY JUNE 30, 2007 UNLESS RECHARGED BY THE COUNCIL. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 10 – Appointments
10a. Community Design Commission.
The Council appointed Mary Margaret Carroll, Chris Culbreth, Laura Moore, and Amy Ryan to the Community Design Commission.
|
|
Council Members |
||||||||||
|
Community Design Commission |
Foy |
Easthom |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Thorpe |
Ward |
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
|
|
|
Vote for 6 Applicants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Mary Margaret Carroll |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
B |
7 |
|
|
Chris Culbreth |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
7 |
|
|
Kathryn James |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
S |
3 |
|
|
Laura Moore |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
8 |
|
|
Amy Ryan |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
E |
8 |
|
|
*Judy Weseman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
|
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T |
|
|
10b. Historic District Commission.
Mayor Foy noted that appointments to the Historic District Commission were deferred until a later date.
10c. Planning Board.
The Council appointed Nancy Milio and Judith Weseman to the Planning Board.
|
|
Council Members |
||||||||||
|
Planning Board |
Foy |
Easthom |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Thorpe |
Ward |
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vote For 2 Applicants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
|
|
|
Kevin Beasley, Sr. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jessica Bell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B |
|
|
|
Jennifer Bennett |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loren Berlin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
|
|
|
Lukas Brun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Mary Margaret Carroll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E |
|
|
|
Dale Coker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Holtzman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
|
|
Kim Hoppin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reed Huegerich |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T |
|
|
|
Winkie LaForce |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Merklein |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
|
|
Nancy Milio |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
6 |
|
|
Charles Rankin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
|
|
Walker Rutherfurd |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donald Tiedeman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Judy Weseman |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10d. Transportation Board.
The Council appointed Augustus Cho and Marie Eldridge to the Transportation Board.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Transportation Board |
Foy |
Easthom |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Thorpe |
Ward |
TOTAL |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vote For 2 Applicants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B |
|
||
|
Augustus Cho |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
S |
5 |
||
|
Marie D. Eldridge |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
E |
8 |
||
|
Bharathwajan Iyengar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
||
|
*Matthew Scheer |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
T |
3 |
||
|
Marc ter Horst |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
Item 11 – Petitions
13a(1). Mayor pro tem Strom regarding a Request to Extend the Term of Solid Waste Advisory Board Member.
Mayor pro tem Strom said that Jan Sassaman had represented the Council and the Town as Chair of the Solid Waste Advisory Board for two terms, and that Board was in the process of compiling a report that would have significant implications on how we handled solid waste in Orange County. He recommended that the Council extend Mr. Sassaman’s term for one year in order to complete that report.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, TO EXTEND THE TERM OF JAN SASSAMAN FOR ONE YEAR. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Easthom requested information on how the Town had chosen Next Bus transit system, and wondered had we looked at companies that provided a wireless system for real time data about the buses. Mr. Horton said they would be glad to report back to the Council on that request.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m.