SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.

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

Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, Dorothy Verkerk, and Edith Wiggins.

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, Inspections Director Lance Norris, Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Urban Forester Curtis Brooks, and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

Item 1 – Ceremonies

1a. Recognition of Cornucopia House.

Becky Carver, Executive Director of Cornucopia House, stated that the Cornucopia House mission was to provide a nurturing environment where patients, families and others can gather to share and receive support, resources, and education to cope with cancer. She said that meant that they serve anyone touched by cancer, and that their services were free of charge.

Ms. Carver provided details of the types of services provided by her agency. She said in 2004 they had over 6,200 participant contacts, and had served at least 400 distinct individuals. Ms. Carver said many more were served through emails, phone calls, and other outreach methods. She then read some comments that had been made by recipients of services by Cornucopia House. Ms. Carver thanked the Town for its financial support and noted she hoped that support would grow.

Item 2 – Public Hearings: None.

Item 3 – Petitions

3a. Petitions by Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda:

3a(1). Meadowmont Community Association regarding Signage on Parkridge Avenue.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(2). East Franklin Street Business Owners and Businesses regarding Use of Sandwich Board Signs on East Franklin Street.

David Lindquist of Whitehall Antiques asked the Council to allow businesses on East Franklin Street to use sandwich boards in the same way that all of the businesses on Franklin Street in the downtown and outer Franklin Street now have permission to do. He said that nothing would be placed on the sidewalk or between the sidewalk and the street, but rather on the business’ side of the sidewalk. Mr. Lindquist presented a petition signed by 10 East Franklin Street business owners.

Mr. Lindquist said too often businesses in their neighborhood feel that the Town does not care about any businesses except those in the center of Town, yet their businesses generated over $100,000 a year in property taxes and tens of thousands of dollars a year in sales taxes. He noted that was just one block.

As an example, Mr. Lindquist noted that they were not allowed Christmas decorations, quoting that they had been told that they were not a part of the “real businesses” of Chapel Hill. Now we cannot advertise special events or other items on professionally made signs, yet the downtown can, he said. Mr. Lindquist said it was good for their businesses and good for the Town coffers to promote in a safe and dignified manner their events and hours of operation. As a test, he said Whitehall Antiques had placed a paper sign over their regular sign to advertise a three-day estate sale. He said that 42 people told them they had stopped just because they had seen that sign.

Mr. Lindquist said that sandwich boards were an important means of communication with the public and they would like to be able to join the rest of the Town and use that format.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(3). Winkie LaForce for El Centro Latino.

Winkie LaForce, Board Chair of El Centro Latino, gave a brief history of the work of El Centro Latino. She spoke about their mission, programs, and the services they provide to the Latino community. Ms. LaForce said that at this time, they find themselves in a shortfall of $30,000. She asked the Council to consider making a contribution of $15,000 in emergency funding to carry them through to the beginning of their next fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2005. Ms. LaForce noted that if the Town could contribute the $15,000, they believe they could match that with contributions from other sources.

Ms. LaForce said that El Centro Latino played a critical role in the community, and she hoped that the Council would consider their request for emergency funding. She asked that a small group of members of the Council meet with the Board of El Centro Latino to strategize about sustainable funding.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(4). Pauline Grimson for Westside Neighbors regarding the Animal Control Ordinance.

Pauline Grimson, representing the Westside Neighborhood Association, stated they had a problem in their neighborhood that did not appear to be covered by the Town’s Animal Control Ordinance. She said a resident in their neighborhood had two large dogs restrained by a perimeter electrical fence. Ms. Grimson said one of the dogs frequently leaves the yard and had “viciously” attacked at least two dogs. She said in both cases injuries were avoided because of the quick intervention of the dogs’ owners.

Ms. Grimson said in both instances the owner of the large dog appeared but did little to help and appeared unconcerned. She noted that complaints had been filed with the Animal Control Officer who had talked with the owner, but nothing had changed. Ms. Grimson said they were afraid a tragedy would occur if something was not done.

Ms. Grimson asked the Council to revisit the Animal Control Ordinance and consider requiring owners of dogs that are not properly and safely contained by invisible or visible fences and have demonstrated that they are a threat to other dogs and their owners be kept inside or be physically restrained by a leash or a visible fence that is high enough to contain it. She said this was a serious problem and asked to Council to consider it.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(5). Rich Cappelletti regarding a Stop Sign on Nuttree Lane.

Mr. Cappelletti stated that currently there was a stop sign that was placed at the corner of Nuttree and Brannon Court, which was supposed to be placed 75 feet from the corner but instead was placed 105 feet from the corner. Mr. Cappellitti said they would like to keep it where it is now as opposed to 75 feet, because it better addressed the safety issue at 105 feet. He said if it was placed at the 75 feet point it would not address the safety issue because it would then not be at the crest of the hill.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3b. Petitions by Citizens on Items on the Agenda. None.

3c. Announcements by Council Members. None.

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

Mayor Foy noted that a revised ordinance for Item 4d, Authorization to Purchase Public Art with Library Gift Fund Grant (O-1), had been distributed to the Council, and would replace the ordinance that was in the packet.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2005-05-23/R-1)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:

a.	Nominations to various Boards and Commissions (R-2).
b.	Authorization of Computer Replacement Schedule (R-3).
c.	Authorization of Vehicle Replacement Schedule (R-4).
d.	Authorization to Purchase Public Art with Library Gift Funds Grant (O-1).
e.	Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments, Modifications to Sign Regulations and to Regulations of Development Proposed by State and Local Government Units (O-2).
f.	Rejection of Bid for Town Operations Center Off-Site Improvement Project (R-5).
g.	Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a Hazard Mitigation Grant Agreement Involving Potential Camelot Village Acquisitions (R-6).
h.	Response to a Petition Requesting Installation of an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign on Raleigh Street (R-7).
i.	Public Art Plan 2005-2006.
	1.	Chapel Hill Arts Commission Report and Recommendations on 2005-2006 Annual Public Art Plan.
	2.	Recommended 2005-2006 Public Art Plan (R-8).

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES (2005-05-23/R-2)

WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and

WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:

Board of Adjustment

Glenn Wilson

Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission

Jeffrey Cohen

Janet Kagan

Greenways Commission

Jim Earnhardt

Gary M. Galloway

Stuart Solomon

Human Services Advisory Board

Winkie LaForce

Parks and Recreation Commission

Terry Blalock

Diane VandenBroek

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO SEEK FINANCING FOR COMPUTER REPLACEMENT PURCHASES FOR THE 2004-2005 FISCAL YEAR (2005-05-23/R-3)

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has developed a computer replacement plan to set forth a process for the purchasing and financing of Town computer equipment; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill currently has computer equipment that is scheduled for replacement in accordance with this plan; and

WHEREAS, funds were budgeted as a part of the 2004-05 adopted budget for this purpose;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to seek proposals from financial institutions for the financing of computer equipment totaling $192,000 scheduled for replacement during fiscal year 2004-05.

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO SEEK FINANCING FOR VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PURCHASES FOR THE 2004-2005 FISCAL YEAR (2005-05-23/R-4)

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has developed a vehicle replacement plan to set forth a process for the purchasing and financing of Town vehicles; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill currently has police cruisers and other vehicles that are scheduled for replacement in accordance with this plan; and

WHEREAS, funds were budgeted as a part of the 2004-05 adopted budget for this purpose;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to seek proposals from financial institutions for the financing of three-year vehicles totaling $214,000 and seven-year vehicles totaling $472,400 as set forth in Attachment 1 during fiscal year 2004-05.

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2005-05-23/O-1)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004” as duly adopted on June 14, 2004 and the same is hereby amended as follows:

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE to CHANGE THE wALL SIGN PROVISIONS AND TO CHANGE PUBLIC LAND PROVISIONS (2005-05-23/O-2)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed text amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance regarding wall sign provisions and regarding public land and finds that the amendments are warranted in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:

Section 1. Section 5.14.8(4) of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance is hereby revised to read as follows:

“5.14.8(4) Wall Signs

A wall sign is a sign attached to or painted on a wall or building, with the exposed display surface of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of the wall to which it is attached or painted, and including signs affixed to or otherwise displayed on or through a façade window.

Wall signs may be erected and displayed on a zoning lot in compliance with the maximum percentage of façade coverage limitations contained in Subsection 5.14.9, provided:

Wall signs placed in the space between windows located vertically one above the other shall not exceed in height two-thirds (2/3) of the height of the taller of the adjacent windows.
Wall signs placed in the space between windows located horizontally beside each other shall not exceed in height two-thirds (2/3) of the height of the taller of the adjacent windows.
No wall sign shall protrude more than twelve (12) inches from the wall to which it is attached.
No wall sign shall extend above the parapet or eave line, as appropriate, of the building to which it is attached. If the building consists of more than two (2) stories, wall signs shall not extend above the second story.
The display area of wall signs painted on, affixed to, or otherwise displayed on or through a façade window shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the area of the window.
Wall signs shall not cover up or interrupt major architectural features.
The message of wall signs shall be limited to the name(s), trademark(s) and servicemark(s) of the establishment(s) located on the zoning lot and/or a multi-use development located thereon. Additionally, the message of wall signs may include information necessary to direct patrons to the business where the business may not have a direct entrance from the street or pedestrian and bicycle way.
Wall signs shall be located above the principal doorway to the building, or on either side of doorway such that the principal message is at eye level and that no portion of the sign extends higher than eight (8) feet above ground level.”

Section 2. Section 1.4 of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance is hereby revised to read as follows:

“1.4 Applicability

This Chapter shall be effective throughout the Town's planning jurisdiction. The planning jurisdiction of the Town comprises the area described by Chapter 473 of the Session Laws of 1975, as modified from time to time in accordance with Section 160A-360 of the North Carolina General Statutes.

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Chapter, no land or structure shall hereafter be used or occupied, and no excavation, removal of soil, clearing of a site, or placing of fill shall take place on lands contemplated for development, and no structure, or part thereof, shall be constructed, erected, altered, renovated, or moved, except in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of this Chapter.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, regulations established in this Chapter as enacted on January 27, 2003, with the exception of occupancy restrictions for single-family and two-family structures, shall not apply to valid Special Use Permits, Development Plans, and Preliminary Plat applications approved by the Town Council, and valid Site Plan Review applications approved by the Planning Board, prior to the effective date of this enacted Chapter. Such developments shall be subject to regulations that were applicable immediately prior to the effective date of this Chapter as enacted on January 27, 2003, with the exception of occupancy restrictions for single-family and two-family structures.

The Ordinance shall apply to all public land(s) ~~buildings~~ and private land(s), and use(s) thereon over which the Town has jurisdiction under the constitution(s) and law(s) of the State of North Carolina and of the United States, including any areas within the jurisdiction of the Town pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 160A-360. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute Section 160A-392, the zoning regulations in this Chapter enacted under authority of North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 160A, Article 19, Part 3, are applicable to the erection, construction, and use of buildings by the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions; provided, however, that land owned by the State may not be included in an overlay district or conditional use district enacted under that Part without approval of the Council of State. The Planning Department (hereinafter known as the "Department") of the Town can be contacted for further information about the use of this Chapter.”

Section 3. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Section 4. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

A RESOLUTION REJECTING THE BID FOR THE TOWN HALL OPERATIONS CENTER OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (Bid# PO5-111) (2005-05-23/R-5)

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has solicited formal bids by legal notice in the Chapel Hill News on March 27, 2005, and The Diversity News on March 31, 2005, and subsequently solicited re-bids in the Chapel Hill News on May 4, 2005, and The Diversity News on May 5, 2005, in accordance with General Statute 143-129 for the Town Operations Center Off-Site Improvements Project; and

WHEREAS, the following bid was received and opened on May 12, 2005:

BASE BID

Company: Total Bid:

Mountain States Contractors $4,465,000.00

WHEREAS, the bid amount exceeds the amount budgeted for this project;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council rejects the bid.

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL AND THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INVOLVING THE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION AND DEMOLITION OF AS MANY AS THREE BUILDINGS AND THE ACQUISITION OF LAND IN THE CAMELOT VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX (2005-05-23/R-6)

WHEREAS, on July 16, 2004, the Town of Chapel Hill applied for federal assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to purchase and demolish three buildings and to acquire land in the Camelot Village condominium complex; and

WHEREAS, the buildings in question in Camelot Village are located within the regulatory floodway and floodplain of Bolin Creek and experience repeated flood losses causing substantial damages to the units and resulting in public health and safety risks; and

WHEREAS, on May 26, 1998, the Council adopted the Chapel Hill Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan which set as a goal the construction of a trail along Bolin Creek from the Community Center Park to Fordham Boulevard; and

WHEREAS, the proposed acquisitions in Camelot Village would connect with the Town’s Community Center property creating a link suitable for part of the proposed greenway; and

WHEREAS, the proposed acquisitions in Camelot Village would reduce health and safety risks of occupants and emergency rescue units during flood events; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management have approved a Hazard Mitigation Grant for the purchase and demolition of as many as three buildings and associated lands in Camelot Village; and

WHEREAS, the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management has agreed to fund the required 25 percent local share of the grant;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to execute a Hazard Mitigation Grant Agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management involving the potential acquisition and demolition of as many as three buildings and the acquisition of land in the Camelot Village condominium complex..

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO INSTALL IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNS (2005-05-23/R-7)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has received a petition requesting that the Town install an in-street pedestrian crossing sign at a mid-block crosswalk on Raleigh Street; and

WHEREAS, The Town Council is concerned about pedestrian safety at unsignalized mid-block crosswalks and congested intersections in the Town; and

WHEREAS, the in-street pedestrian crossing signs have proven to be effective for improving pedestrian mobility and safety; and

WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration approves of the installation of in-street pedestrian crossing signs at applicable locations; and

WHEREAS, the Council received a report from the Manager recommending installation of in-street pedestrian crossing signs on Raleigh Street and at other locations where warranted;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council herewith authorizes the Manager to purchase and install an in-street pedestrian crossing sign on Raleigh Street south of E. Franklin Street using the funds designated for traffic calming projects in the Capital Improvements Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to evaluate other potential locations that could benefit from the installation of in-street pedestrian crossing signs based on the Guidelines for Use of In-street Pedestrian Crossing Signs provided in Attachment 4 of the Manager’s report dated May 23, 2005.

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PUBLIC ART PLAN FOR 2005-06 (2005-05-23/R-8)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill adopted a Percent for Art Program on March 4, 2002; and

WHEREAS, this program includes an annual consideration by the Town Council of a Public Art Plan to be recommended by the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission; and

WHEREAS, the Public Arts Commission has recommended such a program, including several projects which should include one percent of the project budget for public art; all eligible Capital Improvement Program projects which should allocate one percent of their proposed budget to create a Percent for Art Fund defined as pooled funds for public art commission, acquisition, maintenance and/or conservation; and several previously identified projects and approved pooled funds to this new Percent for Art fund;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager in conjunction with the Public Arts Commission is authorized to implement the following Public Art Plan:

Previously identified and approved Percent for Art projects which have not yet commenced, including:

Extraordinary Maintenance of Community Center on Estes Drive
2003 Bond Expansion of Public Library on Library Drive
2003 Bond Sidewalk/Street Improvements Projects
2003 Bond Streetscape
2003 Bond Expansion of Greenways Projects
Roof and Exterior Repairs of Downtown Post Office

In addition to previously approved Percent for Art projects, include the following projects also be approved as appropriate for percent for art funds:

Small Park Improvements
Bolin Creek Trail, Morgan Creek Trail, Dry Creek Trail, and Other Greenways
Pritchard Park Art Garden
Parking Lots 2, 5, and the Wallace Deck
Streetscape

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the program will be implemented according to the guidelines adopted in Resolution 2002-03-04/R-8, and only to the extent that funding is appropriated for the capital projects, and that the source of funding allows expenditures for public art.

This is the 23^rd day of May 2005.

Item 5 – Information Reports

Regarding Item 5a, Time Warner Annual Report, Council Member Harrison commented that he appreciated that the report noted that certain customers in Town pay more than others. He said on the east side of Town there was now a third cable system serving one neighborhood. Council Member Harrison said there were now a couple of other systems servicing the Town besides the Chapel Hill cable system. He said the Manager had several years ago sent a letter to Time Warner stating that it was preferable for all citizens in Chapel Hill’s corporate limits to be on the same system, and the response was a dismissive note that there were only 30 customers affected. Council Member Harrison noted that that was 1986 figure and there were many more now.

Council Member Harrison said he had wanted that situation pointed out, and thanked the Manager for sending that letter and suggested he might want to send it again.

Regarding Item 5b, recommendation from the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness, Council Member Greene said they were moving along and would be hiring a project manager to help them develop a plan. She said that process would begin in the fall.

Item 6 – Rental Licensing Committee Report and Recommendations

Mayor Foy noted that the Committee’s recommendation was that the Council allow the Rental Licensing Program to expire at the scheduled sunset of June 30, 2005. He noted that Council Members Strom and Kleinschmidt were the conveners of that Committee.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said the additional recommendation from the Committee had to do with nuisance ordinances, which the Committee believed were not being effectively addressed by the Program as it was constituted, and the Committee felt it was important to reiterate to the Council that those issues become a priority and be addressed. He said the additional recommendation was that a report be provided to the Council on current enforcement measures for the noise, occupancy, front-yard parking, and the refuse receptacle ordinance, and a report on the potential for the Town to consolidate tracking mechanisms to include all nuisance complaints. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the idea was that they would improve enforcement by consolidating different nuisances, which were currently handled separately by different departments.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, REQUESTING THAT THE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS BE REFERRED TO THE STAFF FOR CONSIDERATION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 7 – Recommended Downtown Improvement Projects

Urban Forester Curtis Brooks noted he had provided a report to the Council four weeks ago that had recommended that four projects be considered for implementation for downtown improvements, and at that time the Council had referred them to the Downtown Economic Development Corporation, the Historic District Commission, the Public Arts Commission, and the Community Design Commission. He said on May 11 subsequent to that Council’s meeting he had attended a meeting of the Downtown Economic Development Commission and a joint meeting of the Historic District Commission, the Public Arts Commission, and the Community Design Commission.

Mr. Brooks said that at those meetings they received comments which were included with the Council’s materials. He said they had then reviewed their proposed plans and made a few adjustments, most notably the proposed mast arm improvements and crosswalk improvements have been amended to include just the crosswalk improvements, deferring the mast arm improvements to a later time. Mr. Brooks said there was also a minor revision in the design elements in the proposed construction project in front of University Square.

Mr. Brooks provided the Council with a condensed version of the presentations he had made to the various advisory boards, so that the Council could better understand the advisory boards’ responses. He explained the public processes involved with the Streetscape Master Plan, noting that process had begun in 1990 and included multiple design charettes. Mr. Brooks said the result was a set of guidelines for specific improvements to the public right-of-way.

Mr. Brooks provided further explanation of the process used for developing the Streetscape Master Plan. He displayed various slides that showed before and after pictures of particular locations and the improvements that had been made under the Streetscape program.

Mr. Brooks stated that the proposed projects for 2005 and which he had presented four weeks ago were:

· Mast arm traffic signal poles and crosswalk upgrades: $230,000.

· Sidewalk reconstruction adjacent to University Square on West Franklin Street: $240,000.

· Custom lighting on the south side of the south side of the 500 and 600 block of West Franklin Street from Roberson Street to Merritt Mill Road: $60,000.

Mr. Brooks noted that the first recommendation was no longer estimated at $230,000 since the mast arm improvements were being recommended for deferral. The estimated amount, he said, for the crosswalk upgrades was $50,000. Mr. Brooks said the second recommendation for sidewalk reconstruction was still being proposed.

Regarding the custom lighting, Mr. Brooks provided photos of what the mast arms looked like, noting that the general consensus was that the mast arm improvements be deferred. He noted for reference that the large mast arms used by the University were not recommended for use in Chapel Hill. Mr. Brooks then provided some additional photos of the crosswalk upgrades planned. He displayed photos of crosswalk upgrades and sidewalk reconstruction “before and after” shots, noting they planned to remove tripping hazards at sections pushed up by tree roots and Bradford pears between sidewalks and walls in front of University Square.

Mr. Brooks said the minor modification to the proposal in front of University Square proposed by the Community Design Commission was that the curb be extended as previously proposed, but building an eight-foot sidewalk in place of the proposed 10-foot sidewalk, adding a bus shelter if possible, and working with the adjacent property owner to improve pedestrian access to University Square from Franklin Street. Mr. Brooks noted building an eight-foot sidewalk would mean they would not have to realign the curb, leaving that two feet available if at some time redevelopment occurs across the street.

Mr. Brooks then described the lighting improvements on the south side of West Franklin Street from Roberson Street to Merritt Mill Road. He said because of several large trees in the area and other reasons the lighting level at the sidewalk level is inconsistent, and the customer lighting system would “vastly” improve lighting in that area.

Regarding sidewalk reconstruction, Mr. Brooks provided some detail regarding the three projects:

Project A – North side of West Franklin Street from Chapel Hill Tire to Crook’s Corner Restaurant.

Project B – South side of West Franklin Street from Parking Lot 3 to Roberson Street.

Project C – South side of West Franklin Street from Parking Lot 3 to Kenan Street.

Tony Sease stated he was here tonight with Lex Alexander, who would explain their purpose for appearing before the Council.

Mr. Alexander stated that he, Mr. Sease, and Mr. Phil Szotack owned a building on West Franklin Street, and they had spent some time talking about what they would like to see on the west end of Franklin Street, which he defined as from Crook’s Corner down to Granville Towers and across to Rosemary Street, and even onto Cameron Avenue. He said they had talked about the opportunity there, and it was his hope to live and work in a walking community.

Mr. Alexander said that they had formed a group called WECAN, which was the West End Charette Action Network. He said they would like to begin the process of a community-based initiative with the streetscape projects on the west end.

Mr. Sease noted that the “C” in WECAN acronym could also be for “collaborative,” since they see it as a process that engages the retail merchants, practitioners, tenants and property owners in the area. He said they believe the time was right to establish a small area planning process that was a neighborhood-based initiative that was in collaboration with the endeavors of the Town.

Mr. Alexander said there was also a group of west end merchants who meet periodically, and those merchants had allowed them to come in under the merchants’ umbrella to make this proposal to the Council.

Mayor Foy noted that were three possible resolutions before the Council. He said the first was the upgrade to the crosswalks at the intersection of Franklin and Columbia Streets and the intersection of East Franklin Street and Porthole Alley. The second, he said, was the Streetscape improvements on the south side of the 100 and 200 blocks of West Franklin Street adjacent to University Square. Mayor Foy said the third was a lighting request to Duke Power for the West Franklin Street area in the 500 and 600 blocks. He suggested that the Council consider one resolution at a time.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-9a, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO upgrade crosswalks at intersection of Franklin and Columbia Streets and at the intersection of East Franklin Street and Porthole Alley and to utilize $50,000 in 2003 sidewalk bond funds for the improvements (2005-05-23/R-9a)

WHEREAS, the Council adopted the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan as part of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, resurfacing crosswalks for pedestrian safety is part of the Town’s Downtown Streetscape Master Plan; and

WHEREAS, $50,000 currently exists in bond funding to implement a portion of the Streetscape Master Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Council has received a report from the Town Manager describing options for downtown improvements;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to upgrade crosswalks at the intersection of Franklin and Columbia Streets and at the intersection of East Franklin Street and Porthole Alley, intersections, and to utilize $50,000 in 2003 sidewalk bond funds for the improvements.

This the 23^rd day of May, 2005.

Mayor Foy commented the he believed that the proposed construction of Lot 5 across the street from University Square meant that this area was in flux, and he was not comfortable with voting for Resolution B.

Council Member Verkerk agreed, suggesting that the Council wait on this one.

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that the presentation regarding Lot 5 that the Council had heard this morning had put this area in a new perspective, and helped him to see that area in a whole new context.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-9b. THERE WAS NO SECOND, AND THE MOTION FAILED.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED RESOLUTION R-9c, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK.

Council Member Strom said he would not support the resolution, because he believed further analysis needed to be done about the actual lighting that we are installing. He said he found that pedestrian lights had not lived up to his expectations, noting the light was not even enough nor bright enough, and believed we should do some analysis of the specifications that we were using. Council Member Strom suggested that they wait for an additional process to revisit the elements of Streetscape, including the lighting.

Mayor Foy determined that this item was not time-sensitive, and asked the Manager how to get to a point that the Council felt the lighting was okay. Mr. Horton responded they could bring forward a report from a lighting engineer that measured the evenness and the quality and quantity of the lighting. Mayor Foy suggested that the Manager go forward with that.

THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN.

Mayor Foy said there was sentiment on the Council for revisiting some elements of Streetscape, but not the full program. He said that Streetscape was a program that took two years, with a great deal of community involvement. Mayor Foy said he believed the Council needed to redefine some elements of the Streetscape plan, and suggested he would like to have a Streetscape proposal come before the Council earlier in the year, by January, for the next year.

Mayor Foy said in the mean time, they needed some help to make sure they were happy with the Streetscape program as it was currently envisioned. He said one possibility was to ask the advisory boards to help with that.

Council Member Hill said he believed that Mr. Sease and Mr. Alexander represented quite a few people on the west end of Franklin Street that were interested in this and would be impacted. He suggested getting them involved in this along with the boards and commissions. Council Member Hill said it may be as simple as reviewing the current plans and making minor modifications.

Mayor Foy said referring to the items that the Downtown Economic Development Corporation had pointed out was that Rosemary Street did not get the right treatment in Streetscape that it should get, and that there were issues especially in regard to rights-of-way and trees that were in the way of sidewalks that the Council needed to make decisions about and resolve.

Mayor Foy said Rosemary Street might be different in their vision for the future than it was 10 or 15 years ago, and suggested that the Public Arts Commission, the Planning Board, the Transportation Board, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and the Community Design Commission be asked to look at the current Streetscape program and offer suggestions for revisions. Mayor Foy added that if they just refer this to the advisory boards, they would not get anything cohesive back other than miscellaneous comments. So, he suggested that the Council ask these boards to form an ad-hoc street review commission by placing one member from each board on it, then ask that ad-hoc committee to provide a report to the Council in October.

Council Member Strom suggested that two members from each of those boards could participate.

Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested including representatives from the west end merchants on that ad-hoc committee. Mayor Foy responded that the advisory board members who form the committee could decide on that issue, noting that there were east end merchants to be considered as well. He said we had to be careful about excluding people. Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed, but said that Streetscape was now moving away from the east end, and once you got beyond Granville Towers he believed you began to see a different kind of Franklin Street. He said he would like the Council to look at Streetscape with an eye towards accommodating the differences. Council Member Kleinschmidt said Streetscape functioned well in the 100 block, but noted those businesses were of a different kind. He said he was not wholly confident that Streetscape applied just as well to the west end of Franklin Street or to Rosemary Street, and he would not like to necessarily see us place an overlay the west end with the same construction.

Mayor Foy said he was not suggesting that, but did not know what would come from this process. He said he was objecting to including others by appointing them to an ad-hoc committee besides the boards and commissions unless it was done through a public process.

Mr. Horton suggested that he bring forth a proposal before the summer break that would address the types of issues that had been mentioned tonight, that would involve the boards but would also lay out a public process to make sure that all of the groups that were interested in the downtown would have an opportunity to offer comment.

Council Member Hill asked had any long-term or extensive master plan been done for Rosemary Street. He said if so, that would affect every aspect of Streetscape in that area. Mayor Foy responded that we only had the Downtown Small Area Plan. Council Member Hill said right now that area was an “empty page,” with only sidewalks. He said that area was changing, and this was an opportunity to have some input into that. Mayor Foy agreed that they needed to be looking towards the future.

Council Member Harrison said he believed that a Rosemary Street person would not think that area was even in the picture for Streetscape. He said it was obvious from the hours spent this morning discussing the development of Town-owned land in the downtown that Rosemary Street was very important to this Town and could change in beautiful ways in the future. Council Member Harrison said he did not know if this was the right time to do a master plan for Rosemary Street, but it was time to bring it up because it was an intriguing area of our downtown

Council Member Verkerk said she appreciated the idea of keeping an ad-hoc committee small, but she believed it would be beneficial to have persons from West Franklin involved. She asked if the committee get out of control if they added members from the Rosemary Street area as well. Council Member Verkerk said there was a time element and we wanted to keep moving on this. She said if we create a committee and add West Franklin members, then add West Rosemary Street members, she did not think that would add that much time to the process.

Mayor Foy said he believed the Manager could bring back some options, and depending on what those are the Council could then make a decision about the scope of our request and also how to structure the committee.

Council Member Strom said he was interested in having some participating from the neighborhood groups to receive feedback.

Council Member Verkerk asked if the money that supported Streetscape was bond money. Mr. Horton replied that it was, and had a limitation that it must be spent within two years after the bond money was issued. He said we would have to spend it within the next 12 months. Council Member Verkerk asked if there were geographical elements. Mr. Horton replied that there was, and that Rosemary Street fell into that.

Mayor Foy asked if the bond money could be spent anywhere in the downtown. Mr. Horton replied it could be spent in Town Center-1 and Town Center-2 zoning districts.

Mayor Foy asked when a proposal could be brought back to the Council. Mr. Horton replied before the Council’s summer break.

Item 8 – Parking Regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance Text

Amendment to Bicycle and Vehicular Parking Regulations

Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper stated that this review of bicycle and parking regulations began back in January of 2003. She said at that time the Council adopted the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) without changes to the parking provisions. Ms. Culpepper said the Council commissioned a study of Chapel Hill’s parking habits, which began in the fall of 2003, and consultant Ray Moe provided the Council with a study in November of 2004, and then called a public hearing for February 21, 2005.

Ms. Culpepper said at the February 21 public hearing, Mr. Moe presented minimum and maximum parking recommendations based on current conditions. She said they had extensive data that Mr. Moe provided based on how parking spaces were used today. Ms. Culpepper said the Council had indicated at that time that they wanted to consider parking regulations that would address future transportation behavior.

Ms. Culpepper said the Council had shown particular interest in a recommendation from the Planning Board that recommended that minimum parking requirements be eliminated completely, and the Council referred that idea to advisory boards for consideration. She said they were back before them tonight with options for consideration.

Ms. Culpepper said they were recommending enactment of new minimum and maximum vehicular parking requirements generally, with no minimum requirements in the Town Center zoning districts. She said they believed it was a workable recommendation, and that was reflected in Ordinance A.

Ms. Culpepper said another option was to eliminate minimum parking requirements Town-wide, noting they had some reservations about that. Another option, she said, was to keep minimum requirements with the new maximum requirements. Ms. Culpepper said they believe that was workable as well. She said another option was to take no action and study the option further.

Ms. Culpepper said they were recommending Ordinance A. She noted that a slight adjustment had to be made to the Ordinance so that it correctly reflected the Manager’s recommendation. She then distributed an amended page 10 to be included in the Council’s materials.

Mark Zimmerman said through the work of the staff and the consultant, the Town was close to having a working parking ordinance that used the best of real world local practice and national standards. He stated that the Chamber had conducted an analysis that tested the consultant’s proposal on current businesses and they were happy to report that although the consultant did not propose as much parking as they would like they were generally pleased with its recommendations.

Mr. Zimmerman said there was one proposal that the Chamber did object to, and that was the elimination of minimum parking requirements. He said they were concerned about the impact that would have on existing businesses, future commercial development and the retail and services businesses that would occupy those future business development areas and impact on existing neighborhoods. Mr. Zimmerman said consequences could be:

1. Uncertainty in the development process, not knowing the minimum base parking that would be allowed that would increase risk for projects and could lead to difficulty in financing projects.

2. Potential negative impacts on businesses and neighborhoods around developments that lack necessary parking.

3. The elimination of the payment-in-lieu option that benefits the Town and all the merchants.

Mr. Zimmerman said the Chamber realized that the downtown provided the best opportunity for eliminating minimum parking because of its increased accessibility through transit, bicycling and walking. However, he said, there was more work to be done before we could expect a plurality of patrons to go to places other than work or school.

Mr. Zimmerman said the Chamber supported the Budget Committee’s and the Transportation Board’s recommendation to further comprehensively study parking downtown. He said they fully support the Town’s transit system and support the Town in providing positive incentives such as increased frequency and level of service to encourage people to ride the bus. Mr. Zimmerman said negative incentives such as eliminating parking without first looking at ways to encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation would harm businesses and neighborhoods, and as such would harm our Town.

Mayor Foy asked about the attachment he had given to the Council. Mr. Zimmerman replied that what the Chamber had done was taken an analysis of the recommendations of the consultant and overlaid that on existing businesses and the existing parking associated with those businesses in order to see what it would look like had those recommendations been adopted earlier and how it would have affected current businesses. Mr. Zimmerman said they were attempting to make sure that their current membership would not be unduly affected, and most of the current businesses were in the range of what the consultant recommended.

Laurin Easthom said she wanted to “unofficially” clarify the Transportation Board’s position on eliminating the minimum parking requirements. She said they would like more information before they consider this issue. Ms. Easthom said the vote of 7 – 0 in no way suggested that all members were not in favor of eliminating minimums, but they felt they needed more information before they made their decision. She said they encouraged public transportation to the fullest, but felt that some sort of study or studies were necessary in order to ensure that the elimination of minimums was best for everyone.

Delores Bailey said as a member of the Chamber and as a community member, she had talked with residents whose neighborhoods bordered the Town Center area. She said she had also attended the Transportation Board’s meeting when this issue was discussed. Ms. Bailey said she was convinced that eliminating minimum parking requirements was not the answer at this time. She stated that more study needed to be done, and she believed that the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown would become the parking spaces that were about to be eliminated.

Ms. Bailey recommended that the Council take no action at this time, and that a study be conducted of the effects such an action would have on the surrounding community.

Hugh Morrison said as a resident, he was concerned that eliminating the minimum parking requirements downtown would hurt retail and send people out to Southpoint Shopping Mall or other shopping areas nearby.

Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, asked the Council to think comprehensive about how we address our parking issues. He distributed a study that was conducted in Boulder, Colorado entitled “20 Characteristics of ‘Best in Class’ Parking Programs.” Mr. Nelson said what Boulder had done was brought together users, enforcers and stakeholders and conducted a comprehensive study, understanding that they needed to know what their objectives and principles were when they started.

Mr. Nelson said in Chapel Hill, we had not had the opportunity to consider alternatives comprehensively, instead we had dealt separately with on-street or off-street parking, meters or pay stations as they came up, and now we were talking about minimums. He said all of these issues needed to be talked about and considered comprehensively before more decisions were made.

Mr. Nelson requested that the Council talk about the objectives they wanted to achieve, to think about how we would accomplish them, and to do it comprehensively. He said there is much retail development going on around Chapel Hill and more and more often we hear about issues concerning parking. Mr. Nelson said many times people believed it was easier to just shop somewhere else. He said he agreed that when you constrict supply and increase expense, you move people to transit. But, Mr. Nelson said, he believed that worked almost exclusively in employment centers, and did not work in retail and service centers. He said instead, we were seeing more and more people in vehicles traveling to other shopping areas.

Mr. Nelson requested that the Council begin to think more comprehensively about the parking issues, adding that maybe now was not the time to consider eliminating minimum parking requirements.

Mayor Foy asked if the study he had distributed was the prelude to something Boulder was doing, and what was the product they gotten. Mr. Nelson replied the Chamber had tried to look at communities that they would most like ours to be like, such as what were the top 10 most walkable communities, and it had lead them to this report.

Virginia Knapp, Assistant Director of the Chamber, noted that the report Mr. Nelson had distributed was the opening presentation from the consultant that Boulder had hired to look at their parking, noting that there was a follow-up presentation on Boulder’s website which was the stakeholder input, so they were still in the process of deciding what would happen in their downtown.

Mayor Foy asked if Boulder was looking at parking maximums and minimums as we were. Ms. Knapp said they were mostly looking at public parking in their downtown area, such as lighting and signage, how you get there, how you use it, how much it costs, use of meters and the like.

Mr. Nelson added that the consultants were also looking at how all of that was integrated with existing parking that was privately held. He said they would be watching to see how Boulder dealt with these issues.

Mayor Foy noted that Ordinance A would amend the Town’s parking regulations by eliminating minimum parking requirements in the Town Center districts and by calculating bicycle parking requirements in relation to proposed development. He said that Ordinance B would amend the Town’s parking regulations as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

Council Member Harrison said he was present during the Transportation Board’s discussion of this issue, and it was not that they did not want the Council to change the parking regulations, rather they wanted further information including the Boulder study. He said there were good ideas brought forth, and believed there were more good ideas yet to come from the Transportation Board. Council Member Harrison said the Transportation Board was “a room full of boosters of the transit system,” so it was not like they did not want people to ride transit. He said they did believe in restrictions on parking, but there was some feeling that they needed to have a more in-depth discussion that what took place at that meeting.

Council Member Harrison said he had participated in the discussion, and he believed the idea regarding bicycle parking should be considered. He said that bicycle parking became important to applicants because depending on how you use the formulas they could end up devoting a lot of space for bicycle parking that would not get used, because bicycle use depended more on how easy it was to get someplace and the destination itself than on the bicycle parking available.

Council Member Harrison said this issue needed more study, noting the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had already done some hard work on this although he was not sure he agreed with their conclusions just yet.

Council Member Verkerk said she had been strongly in favor of the elimination of minimum parking regulations for the past three years, primarily through her contacts with Mark White who had been hired by the Town to help write the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO). She said that Mr. White had emailed her his reasons why he supported the elimination of parking requirements. Council Member Verkerk said she would like to have Mr. White contacted again to get his comments and expertise on the elimination of parking requirements, noting he had worked with the Town for years. She said she had requested in the past that his report on this issue be distributed to the Council, but that had not happened.

Council Member Verkerk said she felt strongly about this. She said that the notion that people would take public transit out of the “goodness of their hearts” was probably not the case. Council Member Verkerk said if you have a lot of parking, people will drive because it was more fun. But, she said, if there was not parking people would take the bus. Council Member Verkerk said we needed to think about 20 years down the road, and to think about Chapel Hill in a way that did not involve a car. She said she would like to have Mark White’s opinion on this distributed to the Council and made available to the public.

Ms. Culpepper called the Council’s attention to Attachment 4 in the materials, noting that document was the White paper on Parking Ratios that Council Member Verkerk had requested. She said that report contained his reasons why he supported parking maximums, and said on page 8 of his report there was a discussion regarding minimum parking standards.

Council Member Strom stated when Ray Moe was before the Council, they had asked some questions of him. He asked if Mr. Moe’s service contract to the Town was complete. Ms. Culpepper responded that it was. Council Member Strom said if we eliminated minimum parking requirements for the Town Center districts as Ordinance A would do, practically what would that mean. He asked would we retain some negotiating position with applicants. Council Member Strom said it did mean that we would never get any more parking downtown, or did it mean we could get some through some negotiations. Ms. Culpepper replied that in Ordinance A on page 12, it stated that the Council in the context of a Special Use Permit would have the ability to look at specifics of a situation to reduce parking requirements. But, she said, what they were talking about was actually eliminating minimum parking requirements.

Ms. Culpepper said with current regulations, the Council had a lot of flexibility in both the Town Center-1 and Town Center-2, noting there were a variety of ways to satisfy the minimum parking requirements, such as off-site parking, payment-in-lieu, or provision of a transportation management plan. She said if the Council did eliminate minimum parking regulations in the downtown, those provisions would no longer be applicable. Ms. Culpepper said the Council would be giving up some of its negotiation that it had in looking at those varieties of ways to provide parking in the downtown.

Council Member Strom asked if we would still be able to maintain the standards of “health, safety, and public welfare” provisions from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Culpepper said she believed so. Mr. Horton replied that he believed that they would, and would also be able to apply the provision on a Special Use Permit about maintain and enhancing value.

Mayor Foy said to be clear, what the Manager was saying was that the Council could use those rationales in order to acquire a certain amount of parking, but only in the context of a Special Use Permit. Mr. Horton and Ms. Culpepper responded that was correct. Ms. Culpepper said it could also be considered with a new development of 20,000 square feet of floor area or more.

Mayor Foy asked if the current regulations allowed a payment-in-lieu of providing parking. Ms. Culpepper said there was a provision for a payment-in-lieu to providing minimum parking, by making a contribution to the Town’s parking fund. She said it had only occurred once or twice. Mayor Foy asked how it was calculated. Ms. Culpepper replied that the Town Code contained a formula to calculate the payment-in-lieu, and she believed the dollar amount per space was reduced seven or eight years ago to $3,500 per space.

Council Member Greene pointed out that the Planning Board had supported the elimination of minimum parking.

Council Member Verkerk said there was an idea that they had talked about that was in concept stage right now. She said it would be very dense and it would put a strain on the transit system. Council Member Verkerk said they had considered, if it was legal, to ask that instead of road improvements and providing more parking, would it be possible that the payment-in-lieu could be put towards the transit system. She said she believed the Attorney was looking into that. Mr. Horton responded that this question was on the list of objectives that the Council had been asked to work on, but it was far down the list and had not been considered as yet.

Mayor Foy said that raised the question if it was possible under the current ordinance to waive minimum parking requirements. Ms. Culpepper replied that during the Special Use Permit process there was a provision that allowed the Council to modify regulations if it could be determined that public purposes were satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree.

Mayor Foy asked if the Planning Board could waive the requirements if it were not a Special Use Permit process. He said the Planning Board had proposed that they be able to waive minimum parking requirements if an applicant could demonstrate the proposed reduction would not negatively impact surrounding property owners or otherwise create a problem. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said that people don’t apply for a Special Use Permit if one was not otherwise required, so if it was a matter that could go to the Planning Board otherwise they could now come to the Council and ask for a Special Use Permit, adding there was nothing to prohibit that.

Mayor Foy said the Council could also give the Planning Board the discretion to waive the minimum requirement. Mr. Karpinos said to do that, the Council would have to modify the ordinance. Ms. Culpepper said in Ordinance A, there was a provision that vehicular parking requirements by the Council could be reduced by the Council in the context of a Special Use Permit or by the Planning Board in the context of a site plan review approval if evidence was submitted to demonstrate.

Mr. Karpinos noted that these ordinances as currently drafted eliminate minimum parking requirements in the Town Center.

Mayor Foy said the provision cited by Ms. Culpepper would then be applicable to areas outside the downtown. Mr. Karpinos replied that was correct. Mayor Foy said it could be that the Council could make that provision apply everywhere in time. Ms. Culpepper responded that would mean you would not be eliminating the minimum parking requirements downtown.

Council Member Ward said he detected a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty about the impact of these changes, and did not understand totally the goal other than to push people into public transit. He said if you worked at the University or downtown that was one reason to ride the bus, but if you wanted to go to a restaurant in the evenings, then riding the bus was not such a good option.

Council Member Ward said because of the lack of certainty, he was not ready to move on this issue. He said through the Special Use Permit process, the Council had the ability to turn the number of parking spaces allowed into zero if it chose, and he encouraged the Council to look for opportunities to do that. Council Member Ward said it also seemed as if the Council would be giving up a useful lever regarding Special Use Permits to have a minimum in terms of applying that requirement in the form of a payment-in-lieu. He said maybe the day is coming when that would be used as an appropriate alternative.

Council Member Greene said on page 12 of the ordinance, the language was describing a waiver. She said when she thinks of a waiver she thinks of an applicant requesting that a provision be waived, and asked how it would work. Council Member Greene asked what if the applicant wanted minimum parking. Would that provision, she asked, allow the Council or Planning Board to be able to involuntarily waive it for the applicant. Ms. Culpepper said there were other areas in the ordinance where it specifically states that the applicant may request and the Council or the Planning Board may do whatever was requested. She said the language on page 12 indicated that the minimum parking requirements where they would apply may be reduced by the Council or by the Planning Board.

Council Member Greene said now the word waiver was not in there, so we could be in a situation where an applicant was requesting parking, and we would be saying if you want a Special Use Permit you would not get any parking.

Council Member Greene commented that in the materials the Council had received from Mark White on pages 48 and 49, it speaks to what Council Member Verkerk had referenced regarding reasons why you might want to eliminate minimum parking, adding it was a clear rationale. She added it was a forward looking argument that we are molding a town with molding behavior through this mechanism.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that sometimes you let the market work itself out, and this might be one of those situations where the market might solve its own problem when you eliminate a minimum. He said he could imagine a developer coming to the Town Council and said he did not want the parking, and when we ask why, he might say because he believed he could build a building and fill it with tenants who would not need parking. Council Member Kleinschmidt said then they do that and are successful. He said it seemed the market answer that problem for us whereas the minimum would force us.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said it was clear what we would gain, which would be lots of small private parking lots downtown. He said he goes downtown often to eat dinner and he never takes the bus, adding when he drives he never parks in a private lot. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he uses parking lots 3 or 5 or on-street parking. He said if his favorite restaurants were being built today and the Town was enforcing minimum parking regulations, he believes it would be eliminating a part of the downtown that many people love. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed we would gain a lot by not forcing ourselves to create unnecessary private lots.

Council Member Harrison said he would like to see this go back to the Transportation Board, to analyze this issue and put more work into it. He said he believed there was a great deal of interest by that board to take another look at this. Council Member Harrison said the Council could set a timeline for their response.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton if a decision on this was time sensitive, and if there were projects coming through that this might be applicable to with regard to the Town Center. He said if we send it back to the Transportation Board for further advice, when could the Council get it back. Mr. Horton said he could not say for certain, but it would most likely be sometime in the fall. He said his advice was that if the Council wanted to be conservative, then adopt the ordinance that maintained the minimums and then assign the work to focus on whether or not the minimums should be removed. Mr. Horton said in that way everything else gets done, and he believed it would be good to move ahead at least that far.

Mayor Foy said they could also do the opposite, by eliminating the minimums and sending it to the Transportation Board and see if they think we should revise it back. Mr. Horton commented he had said his way would be the conservative way. He said if the Council was worried about what the outcomes would be by eliminating the minimums then a way of avoiding that was not to eliminate them.

Mayor Foy asked if the Council wanted to adopt Ordinance A and send this issue back to the Transportation Board and ask for further advice on eliminating minimums in the Town Center.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not understand the Mayor’s question in terms of what would be the risk of making or not making a change right now. Mayor Foy said apparently there was no risk.

Council Member Greene asked what the status quo was right now regarding minimums and maximums. Ms. Culpepper responded they were working from the years old parking regulations that had not been changed when the new LUMO was adopted. She said the Council had set minimums, and a policy that applied a 110 percent rule to maximums. Mr. Horton stated they believe there were changes that Mr. Moe had suggested and that the boards had endorsed that would be worth moving ahead with.

Council Member Greene asked would that mean a different kind of minimums. Ms. Culpepper replied yes. Council Member Greene said then the Manager’s conservative recommendation would be for a new ordinance with minimums but that were different from what we currently have. Mr. Horton said that was correct, and that was contained in Ordinance B, with the minor change Ms. Culpepper had mentioned at the beginning of her presentation.

Ms. Culpepper said that Ordinance B also contained the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendation that bicycle parking be calculated based on the number of parking spaces. Mr. Horton said if you lifted the Town Center portion of Ordinance B and placed it in Ordinance A, that would work, and he would recommend that.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said if the Council wanted to do that, then let’s do it, and if we want to send it back to the Transportation Board, then let’s do that as well but act afterwards. She said if she were sitting on the Transportation Board she would be somewhat “miffed” if the Council took action then asked for her opinion.

Mayor Foy said when would the Council want to get it back from the Transportation Board. Mr. Horton responded realistically it would be in the fall. He stated there was not time left before the Council’s summer break.

Council Member Harrison noted the Transportation Board would meet over the summer, but the Council would not.

Council Member Strom asked that they add the issue of payment-in-lieu to the charge. He said he did not know why the Council had dropped the payment-in-lieu, if it was intended to make it easier for people to buy out of building parking or what. Council Member Strom said he would like to know the pros and cons of altering that payment-in-lieu contribution of $3,500. He said the Council had discussed this morning during the Lots 2 and 5 development meeting parking spaces costing $30,000 to $35,000.

Mayor Foy said he would like to know regarding the information on page 12, if those findings were really broad enough so that there would be wide enough discretion for the Council or the Planning Board to make the determination that it was okay not to have minimum parking requirements in a particular project.

Council Member Harrison asked what specific language he was referring to. Mayor Foy said you had to make one of the three findings listed there, and the first one said together with the number of parking spaces that were proposed, transportation needs are adequately served. He said he guessed that even when there were none, that was okay, but he wanted to make sure of that.

THE COUNCIL BY CONSENSUS REFERRED THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD WITH THOSE SPECIFIC COMMENTS.

Item 9 – Request for Reimbursement from OWASA for Oversized Utility Lines

Mr. Horton said he believed the Council was familiar with our concern. He said they had earlier asked OWASA to reinstitute its former policy so that the Town would be able to recover at least ultimately about $400,000 in cost that we would bear under its present policy. Mr. Horton said they understand and agree with the reasoning of OWASA that it was best to install the appropriate size lines and equipment on the original entry into an area that was new development. He said they did object to the notion that the public would be spending its money in this case, and coming right behind us would be private developers who would have a windfall.

Mr. Horton said OWASA had considered the Council’s request to institute the former policy and they have indicated they do not wish to do that. So, he said, we come back before the Council to ask that they request OWASA to bear the cost directly itself. Mr. Horton said there may be some other way to do that and we would welcome an alternate proposal from OWASA, but we felt compelled to come and seek this money.

Council Member Strom said he had talked with the Chair of the OWASA Board today about this, and requested that the Council take no action on the resolution at this time but ask the Manager when he needed a definitive answer, allowing further discussion to a date certain and what that date certain was. He said the OWASA Chair said he does understand the Town’s interest, and it was hopeful that if the Manager and OWASA’s director had a little more time for further discussion, which might require that the Mayor and the OWASA chair be involved, then there may be a reasonable solution to this impasse.

Council Member Strom said he had made it clear that he thought that the Town’s interest in this was real and we were entitled to the savings outlined in the Manager’s report. He said the OWASA chair had insisted that allowing further discussion would be fruitful and may allow a solution to be worked out.

Mr. Horton said he would be happy to participate in any activity that would produce a solution. He said they were trying to get this resolved in time to have an impact on the budget for the project, and we were trying to come back to the Council by June 15 in that regard. So, Mr. Horton said, he would hope this could be resolved by that time.

Council Member Strom suggested that we delay action on this item and put it on the agenda for June 15.

Robin Cutson said she did not believe it would work to ask OWASA to bear the cost of the $400,000, mainly because it would have to be passed on to customers via higher water rates. She said the Town should have been aware that this policy was in place, and now the Town was saying that there was almost $400,000 in cost that they had not anticipated. Ms. Cutson said if the Town incurred the cost, the Town would pass it on to taxpayers through higher taxes, and if OWASA incurred the cost on behalf of the Town it would be passed on to water customers. She said either way, citizens would bear the cost.

Ms. Cutson said if that was the case, she would prefer that the Town incur the cost because the Council was an elected body. She said that at least would at least mean that we would have taxation with representation. Ms. Cutson said the OWASA board members were appointed, that citizens did not vote them in. She said if the Town incurred the cost, then at least if taxpayers were dissatisfied they could vote the Council out of office.

Ms. Cutson reminded the Council that they had approved public art for the Town Operations Center at $420,000, and now we were running into an unanticipated cost of almost $400,000. She said it had been suggested by other citizens that the Town take that $420,000 and use it to cover unanticipated costs.

Ms. Cutson said with any resolution, taxpayers would wind up paying the cost.

Mr. Horton said one correction to what Ms. Cutson had said was that this was not an unanticipated cost, that we had been fully aware of the OWASA policy and had been working for over a year trying to figure out how to solve this problem.

Ed Kerwin, Executive Director of OWASA, said that the OWASA Board would be meeting this week and this issue was on their agenda. He said the Board was aware that this was discussed at the Assembly of Governments meeting on April 28, but the Board had a scheduled meeting that evening and was unable to attend. Mr. Kerwin said he wanted to assure the Council that the OWASA Board was aware that the local governments were not pleased with the results that was contained in his letter to the Manager, and they would discuss it this week.

Mr. Kerwin said he wanted to make it clear that OWASA did have the authority to reinstitute a developer reimbursement program, and also had the authority to pay costs up front. But, he said, OWASA did not have to authorize to treat customers differently because they were public or private adding that they could not differentiate in rates, adding that was a requirement in their bond order.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the OWASA Board meeting would be televised. Mr. Kerwin responded that it would.

Council Member Hill stated that he was familiar with the issue, and that OWASA had a stated policy that the end user pays the cost of the improvements. In this case, he said, the end use does not pay the cost of the improvements because the future developers who come along will not have to pay. Council Member Hill said he would like to request that if OWASA did not change the policy that they quit saying that. He said OWASA had stated it to him, but the end user did not pay the cost, rather the first person they could get the money from paid the cost.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, THAT THIS ITEM WOULD BE MOVED TO THE JUNE 15^TH AGENDA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 10 – Appointments

10a. Board of Adjustment.

The Council appointed Charles Flowers, Susan Franklin, Yves Gnamien, Del Snow Clair Williams, and Glenn Wilson to the Board of Adjustment.

Council Members

Board of Adjustment

Foy

Greene

Harrison

Hill

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Neal Bench

Jennifer Bennett

Edward Couch

Charles Flowers

Susan Franklin

Augustin (Yves) Gnamien

Steve Peck

Wendy Sarratt

Del Snow

Claire Williams

Glenn Wilson

10b. Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission.

The Council appointed Jeffrey Cohen, Mary Ellen Goyer, Janet Kagan, Ann Kendall, Lowell Roberts, Louise Stone and Elizabeth Taylor to the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission.

Council Members

Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission

Foy

Greene

Harrison

Hill

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Jeffrey Cohen *

Mary Ellen Goyer *

Kathryn James*

Janet Kagan

Ann Kendall

Mark McGrath

Laura Noyes *

Claire Reeder *

Lowel Roberts

Bonnie Schaefer

Matthew Scheer

**Wilhelmina Steen (also Library Board of Trustees)

Louise Stone

Elizabeth Taylor

Amy White *

Other; please list:

10c. Library Board of Trustees.

The Council made no appointment at this time.

10d. Personnel Appeals Committee.

The Council appointed Anita Badrock, Bernard Law, and Pikuei Tu to the Personnel Appeals Committee.

Council Members

Personnel Appeals Committee

Foy

Greene

Harrison

Hill

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Anita Badrock

Bernard Law

Pikuei Tu

Other; please list:

Item 11 – Petitions – None.

Item 12 – Discussion of Consent Agenda Items – None.

Item 13 – Request for Closed Session to Discuss Property Acquisition,

Personnel, and Litigation Matters

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY N.C. GENERAL STATUTE SECTION 143-318.11(a)5 TO CONSIDER THE POSITION IT MIGHT WISH TO TAKE REGARDING THE POSSIBLE PURCHASE AS A GROUP SEVERAL SPECIFIC PARCELS OF LAND AS OPEN SPACE. THE PARCELS ARE IN TWO GENERAL LOCATIONS, THE NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOUTH OF THE TOWN’S URBAN SERVICES DISTRICT NEAR THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.