SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2006, AT 4:00 P.M.

 

Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Council members present were Laurin Easthom, Sally Greene, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, and Jim Ward.

 

Council Member Bill Thorpe was absent, excused.

 

Council Member Harrison arrived at 7:04 p.m.

 

Staff members present were Town Manager Roger Stancil, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Principal Planner Phil Mason, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

 

Item 1 - Public Hearing: Starbucks at Eastgate Shopping Center:

Application for Special Use Permit Modification

 

Principal Planner Phil Mason provided a brief introduction to the Starbucks at Eastgate Shopping Center application for a Special Use Permit Modification, and recommended the Council adopt Resolution A.  He noted that Booker Creek runs beneath the Starbucks location and through the Eastgate Shopping Center.  Mr. Mason said that the property was located in a commercial zoning district, with office and institutional zoning across the street.  He said the property was also located in a conservation district and in a regulatory floodway.

 

 

Mr. Mason noted that the floor area of the existing building would not be expanded.  He said there were bus stops on each side of Franklin Street and the driveway to the property would access from Franklin Street.  Mr. Mason said that the applicant’s proposal was to retrofit the existing building for use as a Starbucks.  He said that internal buffers were not required, and pointed out that federal regulations would allow the building to be flood-proofed to 18 inches above flood elevation.

 

Mr. Mason said that even with 10 parking spaces the site would still be short 45 spaces of the number allowed by ordinance.  He said the developer’s reasoning was that the site was an integral part of the shopping center and patrons could park elsewhere in the center.

 

Mayor Foy said the advisory boards were all recommending 13 parking spaces, but staff was recommending 23, and asked why.  Mr. Mason responded that the applicant had provided information indicating that there was an overall shortage of parking at the Eastgate Shopping Center site, and allowing for the ten additional spaces would still not make up that shortage.  He said their reasoning was that the site was an integral part of the shopping center and people could park there but visit other areas of the shopping center.  Mr. Mason indicated that the information provided by the applicant had come forward after this had been reviewed by some of the boards, adding he believed only the Planning Board saw it.

 

Council Member Ward said that 310 feet of roadway would turn it into a Town road.  Mr. Mason said that the applicant would give the Town a public access easement from East Franklin Street to Brueggers Bagel Bakery.  He noted that the Town would eventually like to get the easement through the entire site. Council Member Ward said he would like to see the improvements in this project continued through that roadway/parking lot, such as additional speed tables and making sure there were continuous sidewalks.

 

Council Member Greene said she was curious about the current status of the environmental remediation.  Mr. Mason said that had been done and the work had been accepted as complete.

 

Council Member Easthom recommended some kind of plantings that would break up the visual impact of the pavement and provide some shade.  Mr. Mason said he believed the buffer plan would better indicate the impact of the plantings, and pointed out some of the vegetation planned on the site map.  He noted it would be an improvement over what was now present at that site.

 

George Retschle, with Ballentine and Associates, provided more detail on the landscape plans.

 

Chris Weber, with Federal Realty and a landscape architect, said that the landscape plan would be a vast improvement over what has been there for the past 20 years.  He said they could work with NCDOT to provide something with a more positive look.  Mr. Weber described some other aspects of the plantings, including the location of four large trees.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said the Franklin Street entrance was an area where motorists pick up speed.  Mr. Weber said the entrance would be a right-in and right-out configuration and the Traffic Engineer had indicated that met the Town’s requirements. Council Member Kleinschmidt said nonetheless, that was still a difficult intersection because of the speed.  He said he wanted more information from the Traffic Engineer on that issue.

 

Council Member Greene said she would also like to see some alternatives to the entrance, noting that people increased their speed in that location to move up onto the bypass, and they would not be paying attention to whoever was coming out of that location.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like to see some other alternative to what was proposed.  Mayor Foy asked if he was advocating that the entrance not be used at all.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not believe a case had been made to keep it open.

 

Council Member Harrison said it was difficult at best to park a bicycle anywhere at Eastgate.  He said when finished there was a major bicycle facility, the Booker Creek Greenway, that would come through Eastgate.  Council Member Harrison stated that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board was working on producing a design manual amendment to address on-site bicycle parking.  He said this would be the first place in Eastgate that would be doing it right, and hoped that the rest of the shopping center would take note.

 

Council Member Harrison said he understood the need to have access to that driveway, adding the only way it would work would be a right-in/right-out configuration.  Mr. Weber agreed, noting that 90 percent of the time that access was fine, but during peak hours it was a problem.

 

Council Member Hill said the alignment of the driveway did not trouble him. He said the configuration would eliminate the ability to drive through the lot and he thought that was a plus.  Council Member Hill said this was a commercial establishment and needed the access.

 

Council Member Ward asked that the applicant acknowledge the importance of the bike path that would come through this area and continue to the south, noting it would be a major artery.  He said that they had looked holistically at the entire shopping center in terms of parking, and asked that they look at bike parking in the same manner.  Council Member Ward asked that they double the bike parking on the site, emphasizing the importance of parking for bicycles as well as cars.  He said he believed that right-in/right-out could be done safely.  Council Member Ward recommended that some additional plantings be added at the culvert, using large planting bollards to provide additional green and restrict cars.  He also suggested that the proposed butterfly bush plantings be replaced with a less invasive plant.  Council Member Ward offered his expertise in choosing plantings.

 

Council Member Ward asked if the pedestrian signs were in the street right-of-way and centrally located.  Mr. Weber stated they were.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the applicant would respond to the concerns expressed about the right-in/right-out configuration.  Mr. Weber said their preference was for the right-in/right-out onto Franklin Street.  He said that was the best result they were able to work out with the help of the Town traffic engineer.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was pleased that Mr. Weber had written notes regarding Council Member Ward’s offer regarding the plantings, but noticed that he had not made a note regarding the bike parking.  He encouraged Mr. Weber to take good notes so that he could response to each suggestion rather than dismissing them.  Council Member Kleinschmidt requested that staff come back with further information about the driveway, adding that he needed to be convinced that it would not create a safety hazard.  He said the safety issues were larger than purported to be.  Council Member Kleinschmidt encouraged Mr. Weber to look carefully at any information provided by the staff and to carefully consider all options.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested that Mr. Weber prepare options for the Council to consider that addressed each of the issues brought forth tonight. He said he would also like to see the information provided to the staff, including the presentation on the Council Chamber laptop.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would also appreciate a more respectful response.

 

Lee Ann Brown, attorney for the applicant, said that they had been very respectful of the Council’s concerns regarding traffic safety.  She said it would also show that the Town’s Traffic Engineer had addressed the concerns and that the record contained traffic impact information that address the concerns stated.  Ms. Brown said the record would also show that the applicant was yielding to the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation.

 

George Ballentine, with Ballentine and Associates, provided photos of the site and explained access.  He said the plan provided for two entrances to the site, 23 parking spaces, a pedestrian speed table, proposed outdoor seating, bike racks, a drainage plan, and replacement of existing drop inlets.  Mr. Ballentine said the plan met other LUMO requirements by reducing runoff.  He stated they had also provided a landscaping plan, dry flood-proofing for the building, and an upgrade of the building’s interior and exterior.  He said that Starbucks would be a better use than the previous gas station located there and would provide a better appearance for the Town.

 

Mr. Ballentine said, in summary, they were requesting a modification to the existing SUP for use and site improvements, including an upgrade of the existing building’s interior and exterior.  He said benefits of this project included environmental protection of the site, reduced impervious area and increased landscaping, better use of the land, and a more visually appealing entrance.

 

Lynne Cane offered comments in support of the Starbucks, and said she hoped the traffic issues raised by the Council would not thwart its construction. She said it was a business and that businesses need traffic.  Ms. Cane said she lived closed to Eastgate and walked that area frequently.  She rarely saw bicyclists in that shopping center, and the bike racks were rarely used, she said.  Ms. Cane added that she never had a problem crossing the street.  She added that a Starbucks was a good idea for the site and a welcomed addition.

 

Council Member Greene said the Council had a responsibility to the public to ensure traffic safety, and agreed that more bike racks were necessary.  She questioned improvements to the building being held to 50 percent of its value and the consequences if it exceeded that amount.  Mr. Mason said the applicant had initially agreed not to improve the building beyond 50 percent of its current appraised value.  He added that since that time, the applicant had agreed to dry flood-proof the building, which was an option under the ordinance.

 

Council Member Easthom said she was excited about the Starbucks and just wanted the applicant to push for more greenery and landscaping.  She suggested that where the trees were located could be expanded to provide a more visual break, but noted it may mean losing one parking space.

 

Council Member Ward asked what kind of leverage the Town had in ensuring that traffic improvements took place.  Mr. Mason replied that the Town’s Transportation Planner reported annually.  Ms. Culpepper said staff was now scheduling an annual report for the October 23 Council meeting that would address how the Town had been using the information in Traffic Management Plans.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt provided more detail on the kind of information he wanted from the staff regarding the driveway.   He said the report, on page 55, talked about the distance between the driveway and the traffic signal, which was outside the minimum as required by NCDOT but inside the minimum spacing required by the Town’s Design Manual.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said when he looked at the other exit, and the way the planting areas were configured, that the common sense exit out of that lot if traveling towards Durham would be through that driveway.  He said where the report talked about this other exit mitigating the impact, it also said it was not likely to be necessary to close it.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not believe that it appropriately mitigated the impact.  He asked the staff to address that when this issue came back before the Council.

 

Council Member Harrison reiterated previous comments regarding the landscaping.  He recommended that the applicant look at the approved list of plantings maintained by the Town, stating it was a workable, practical list. Council Member Harrison said regarding bike parking, the obvious spaces were not obvious, and they should have clear signage and be readily accessible.  He added his suggestion that more bike parking be added and that a canopy be provided.  Council Member Harrison agreed that the right-in/right-out issue would be the most difficult to overcome.

 

Council Member Ward asked if you were traveling on Franklin Street towards the downtown, would it be permissible to make a left-hand turn into the Starbucks driveway.  Mr. Mason said no.  Council Member Ward asked if it were physically impossible to do it.  Mr. Mason said it was not impossible, but difficult.  He said the intersection could be designed in such a way as to make it impossible.  Council Member Ward said that should be the outcome.

 

MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 6, 2006.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO FORWARD ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

Item 2 - Concept Plan: Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Project

 

Ms. Culpepper introduced the MLKB Project, also referred to as the Northampton Terrace Apartments, and provided some brief background information.  She displayed an area map and pointed out the location of the proposed project.  Ms. Culpepper stated that the 9.2-acre site was located at 604 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and was currently occupied by the Northamption Terrace Apartments.  Ms. Culpepper said the proposal included demolition of two of the three existing two-story apartment buildings, and the addition of two five-story multi-family buildings.  She said the proposal would add 180 new dwelling units with approximately 266,050 square feet of floor area.  Ms. Culpepper said the existing 24-unit apartment building would remain for a total of 204 dwelling units.

 

Developer Joe Patterson said the property in question had access only to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.  He noted that the Comprehensive Plan allowed for eight units per acre.  Mr. Patterson said the property was located in a low-lying area, adding that the current apartment complex had been in existence for 40 years.  Mr. Patterson said the property was completely buffered by trees or bamboo.

 

Mr. Patterson said the development was pedestrian and transit-friendly, and the project would contribute to the rejuvenation of the downtown.  He stated that the project called for preservation of green space, and contributed to affordable housing.  Mr. Patterson said the total number of units was 180, and that the Orange County Land Trust supported the project.

 

Mr. Patterson said he planned to keep the buffers to the north, east and west, and would install stormwater retention facilities.  He said the units would have a Brownstone look with doors that opened out onto the property.  Mr. Patterson indicated that he had received the support of the neighbors.

 

Regarding affordable housing, Mr. Patterson noted several points:

 

Mr. Patterson noted the following benefits of the MLKB project:

 

Mr. Patterson said he needed feedback from the Council on the issue of the plaza and terrace being developed under the same Special Use Permit.  He said he believed the first step to take was to separate the properties, and then bring the property up to current LUMO standards.  Mr. Patterson said he did not want the property owner to have to change his boundaries. He said he needed to know now if something was going to be a “deal breaker.”

 

Caroline Donnan said she was a neighbor and she was opposed to the project primarily because of the potential for cut-through pedestrian traffic through her property.  She requested that if the project were approved that the applicant be required to install a fence with a gate that locked to provide for utility work.

 

Conrad Weider asked that the Council look at all development in this area because this was going to be the footprint of what was going to happen between Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and the downtown area.  He noted traffic concerns on Hillsborough Street and pedestrian cut-through on the property. Mr. Weider also requested a fence.

 

Philip Benfey concurred with Mr. Weider’s statements.  He called the Council’s attention to concerns that were stated in the petition they had submitted last week. Mr. Benfey said the major concern was the height of the buildings, stating his belief that the five-story buildings would be distracting from the historic district.  Mr. Benfey said the developer was asking for a major change in zoning but he saw nothing about them giving back to the community.

 

Paul Cheek said he lived south of the Donnan property, and he supported Mr. Weider’s request for a fence.

 

Nancy Tilly said she had two concerns, one being a nice stand of magnolias and the other being an antique tree at the bottom of the parking lot.  She said she had heard nothing about them being preserved.

 

Shelley Defosset, a resident of 304 Hillsborough Street, said she was concerned about the density of the project.  She said this property and the three properties below it should be connected with walking paths and blended.

 

Faye Kalman, a resident of 414 Hillsborough Street, said she was concerned about the height of the buildings and the density of the project, noting five-story buildings would look like “monsters.”  She said this project would endanger the quality of life in the area as well as endanger one of the Town’s few historic districts.  Ms. Kalman said she also would also like to know if the townhouses would be rentals or owned, noting that would make a difference as to how the property was managed.

 

Council Member Ward said he did not see how the projects could be kept separate in terms of their access onto MLK Boulevard.  He added that traffic had to be addressed, and that visual aids would help the Council understand bikeway and greenway opportunities.  Council Member Ward said the location of the bus shelter internal to the site did not make sense, and suggested providing bus sites that were not so internal to the site.  He added that the affordable housing plan was interesting, and wanted to know what the Land Trust would receive in addition to the building, for instance, the parking lot. Council Member Ward said he was excited about the project and would work to solve some of the problems in order to take advantage of the affordable housing offer.

 

Council Member Ward said he wanted this project and others in this area to include improving areas for wildlife in the RCD, or restore the property to native wildlife where possible.  He said balloons placed in the trees during the winter months would demonstrate the height impact of the buildings.

 

Council Member Ward said it had been mentioned that the applicant had not yet taken advantage of any green building options due to the fact that they were in the early stages of planning.  He said they had to make that commitment early or it would be seen as an add-on.  Council Member Ward encouraged the developer to do that now, adding he believed they would be pleased with the outcome.

 

Mayor Foy said there had been a similar issue regarding the Special Use Permit with the Sheraton and maybe there was a way the staff could talk to the applicant about that.  Mr. Karpinos said staff needed to converse with the applicant and look at that case to see what the options were.

 

Mayor pro tem Strom said the Concept Plan was an opportunity to look at the broad issues.  He said he saw a lot of positives in the proposal, but they had a long way to go.  Mayor pro tem Strom said he believed that neighbors would raise concerns that must be addressed, including impacts of traffic, access, and other issues.  He said the Council was deeply interested in protecting historic areas as well as deeply interested in putting density in Town in places that could handle it.  Mayor pro tem Strom said both sides of that must be worked out.  He said this was a coherent proposal and he looked forward to continuing to work with the applicant.

 

Mayor Foy said that neighbors raising concerns were not going to go away and that the Council would push the applicant to address those concerns and impacts as best they could.  He said this was a coherent proposal and he looked forward to working with them.

 

Mayor Foy said there were 180 units and 350 parking spaces.  Mr. Patterson replied there was a total of 204 units with the 24 affordable units.  He said 35 spaces were dedicated specifically to those 24 units, leaving 315 for the 180 remaining units.  Mayor Foy asked what the ratio was.  Mr. Patterson replied about 1.75, noting that 1.5 was required by LUMO.  Mayor Foy said this project was potentially a development where alternative transportation could be encouraged, and asked him to consider that concept as opposed to providing that much parking.  Mayor Foy said that this is an opportunity to rely on the use of buses, and he encouraged the applicant to do that.  Mr. Patterson commented that the ratio was figured using one parking space for the one-bedroom units and two parking spaces for two-bedroom units.  He said they would certainly look at that and consider other options.

 

Council Member Greene thanked the applicant for the affordable housing option, noting it was interesting and creative.  But, she said, he would have to do something about the façade of the building to be dedicated to affordable housing.  Council Member Greene said if nothing was done, that building would look “less classy” and appear different.  Mr. Patterson said they would address that.

 

Council Member Hill echoed Council comments about affordable housing.  He added that one entrance to both complexes may or may not be a good idea because that would attach it to Hillsborough Street and connect the projects, creating more traffic.  Council Member Hill commented that they had heard concerns about pedestrian safety and cutting through other properties, and would like to see the Town come up with a plan that worked for everyone.

 

Council Member Easthom thanked the applicant for the affordable housing plan, adding that she also had concerns about the facades of the buildings, the height of the new buildings, and the location to the historic district.  She said it had been mentioned that the building heights would be consistent with Chapel Hill architecture, and asked for an explanation of that.  Mr. Patterson replied that Chapel Hill architecture referred to something that would blend in the most likely way and that used a lot of brick.

 

Council Member Easthom said it was important to her that this particular building, which was to be used for affordable housing, be donated in good condition.  She suggested that an inspection be conducted to determine any problem areas or future maintenance issues.  Mr. Patterson said Mr. Dowling had already inspected the building, noting the building contained a new HVAC system and would be turned over to the Land Trust in a newly renovated state.  Council Member Easthom said she would still want to have some written report that spoke to that.  Mr. Patterson said they would be glad to provide that.

 

Council Member Harrison said the proposal reflected good thinking.  He said one issue that needed focus was the access to the site from MLK Boulevard, noting the RAM site would need a signal light.  Council Member Harrison said he was puzzled as to how this development’s entrance would function with a traffic light so close.  He said there was some question from the Community Development Commission as to whether they could coordinate from a single driveway, although he knew that would not be simple and may lead to complications.  Council Member Harrison said this project would be the lesser development on MLK, but would have the most problematic access.  He said they also needed to take the concerns expressed by the neighbors seriously and work to solve them.

 

Mayor Foy said the concerns stated by the Council reinforced the issue that the staff needs to look at this area in a comprehensive way.  He added that if there were a way to connect these properties by a greenway, or some existing path or sidewalk, mutual easements would be needed and they could be a part of the SUP process. 

 

Council Member Harrison said that last year he and Council Member Kleinschmidt had requested that the Council receive the names of CDC members who made comments regarding proposed projects.

 

Council Member Easthom asked how the Town would direct the staff, asking if this would amount to preparation of a limited Small Area Plan if the Town were to address traffic, pedestrian activity, heights of buildings, the number of projects involved, and have a specific set of parameters.  Mayor Foy replied that if neighbors needed to see visually what the height of the buildings would be, it would make sense to do that over all other proposed development heights marked as well.  He said he believed staff could likely give the Council a response on how best to achieve that.

 

Council Member Easthom said she also wondered how information from the Highway 86 Mobility Study completed a year or more ago might be used.  Mayor Foy agreed, noting that report contained specific recommendations that might be applicable along this part of the corridor.

 

Mayor Foy asked Ms. Culpepper if the staff had begun looking at this area comprehensively.  Ms. Culpepper said staff would be working with both applicants and coordinating their review of the applications as they moved through the SUP process.  She said as the process moved forward, they would bring that information to the Council.

 

Ms. Culpepper asked if the Council wanted to involve the Planning Board. She said currently there were two small site plan approval applications that involved seven or fewer dwelling units that were on their way to the Planning Board, and they would look at how those would adjoin these two particular developments.

 

Council Member Harrison said a transportation executive summary for both of these projects and their relationship to MLK Boulevard would be helpful.  Ms. Culpepper said she would pursue that.

 

Mayor pro tem Strom said it was very early in the process, but the Council’s and the neighbors’ concerns had been expressed.  He said those issues would not go away, and the success of moving these applications forward would depend on having continued dialogue with the staff and neighbors to address these concerns.

 

MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

Item 3 - Concept Plan: Oldham Subdivision

 

Ms. Culpepper introduced the item.  She explained that the concept plan consisted of 39 acres, with 22 single-family lots, on one-acre minimum lots. Ms. Culpepper said the project was outside the Town limits and Urban Services Area.

 

Tony Whitaker, on behalf of the applicant, said the project was a low impact design with large lots, public street standards, and grass drainage ditches. He said they were trying to avoid steep slope areas, and took the approach of locating the home sites instead of the lots, then structuring the lots around the home sites taking into consideration the natural features and the soil locations.

 

Mr. Whitaker called attention to the site map that depicted shaded areas. He said those shaded areas noted where a soil expert had indicated that sanitary sewer was suitable.  Mr. Whitaker said that drove the lot layout and parameters.

 

Council Member Harrison asked if they had communication with NCDOT that the location of the road was approved.  Mr. Whitaker said not yet, but he knew through experience what would be required and was comfortable that this was the “no brainer” location.  Council Member Harrison said he believed they would want to acquire a median cut and well as a driveway cut from NCDOT.

 

Council Member Easthom said the houses were in the $1 million range, and she would like to hear about the affordable housing proposed.

 

Bill Spang, the applicant, addressed questions asked by the Council.  He said the project was designed for a right-in/right-out entrance.  Mr. Spang said he was very cognizant that this was the first development with septic and wells that the Council had seen in some time.  Mr. Spang said the development contained 22 lots done in rural style, similar to Creekside.  He said he had talked with the Land Trust about affordability and they said they would not like to have units in this location due to the large lot size and high cost of maintaining them, as well as the septic and well situation.   Mr. Spang asked for Council suggestions.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he appreciated Mr. Dowling’s concerns and suggestions, although he was not sure he agreed with the assessment.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said it was the Council’s wish to have some affordability built into the project, preferably at 15 percent.  He said although the Land Trust was the preferred method, there were other organizations that could be considered as an option, such as EmPOWERment, Inc.

 

Mayor pro tem Strom said he appreciated that Mr. Spang had spoken to staff prior to coming to the Council.  He suggested that Mr. Spang look at the Larkspur development, since that developer had set the bar the highest.  Mayor pro tem Strom also suggested that he would be willing to be flexible on the 15 percent requirement due to the well and septic issues.

 

Council Member Greene said she agreed with both statements on affordable housing.  She said the policy guidance was clear, in that affordable housing would be in the project.  Council Member Greene questioned if they would be permanently affordable.  She said Council interest was in the real units on the ground and permanent affordability.

 

Council Member Ward said that Mr. Spang needed to look at ways to protect this property due to its location in a conservation district.  He said the eastern property was not built upon and was preserved.  Council Member Ward asked that Mr. Spang look at reducing the number of houses on the property, eliminate lots 10 and 11, and reduce the size of some adjacent lots so they were not considered buildable.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-2.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.