SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 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, Dorothy Verkerk, and Edith Wiggins.

Council Members Bill Strom and Jim Ward were absent, excused.

Staff members present were Acting Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk, Principal Community Development Planner Loryn Clark, Acting Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Public Works Director Bill Letteri, Mayoral Aide Emily Dickens, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Item 1 – Ceremonies

1a.       Introduction of Liz Parham, Executive Director of the Downtown Partnership.

Mayor Foy introduced Liz Parham, the new Executive Director of the Downtown Partnership.  He noted she was a native of Chapel Hill, and wanted to take this opportunity to officially introduce her to the Council and citizens in her new role.

Ms. Parham said her Board had recently adopted a downtown revitalization plan that consisted of four components: organization, design, promotions, and economic restructuring, which were all geared toward economic development.  She said they would be establishing a comprehensive program that would include public forums and focus groups so that the public could give them information on what they believe is important for the downtown.  Ms. Parham said that feedback would help guide their efforts and establish a plan of work in order for them to move forward.  She said they were looking forward to the work ahead.

1b.        Proclamation regarding Active Living by Design.

Mayor Foy stated that Active Living by Design was part of a project funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that the Town was involved in, that encouraged people’s lifestyles to be facilitated by the way they design their community. For example, he said, if they expect people to take the bus, which they do, then bus stops should have easy access.

Mayor Foy read the proclamation aloud, and then presented it to Terry Blalock with Active Living by Design.

1c.       Proclamation regarding Banned Book Week.

Mayor Foy said it was his honor to proclaim this week as Banned Book Week, noting the Library and the Library Board of Directors were particularly interested in making sure that people were free to read what they choose to read, and that their First Amendment rights to freedom of association and their ability to engage in discussion that revolves around intellectual freedoms is preserved.  Mayor Foy read the proclamation.

Item 2 – Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding the

Calculation of a Payment-in-Lieu in the Affordable Housing Strategy

Mayor Foy announced that Council Member Ward was out of town on business, and Council Member Strom was in Mississippi working on hurricane relief efforts.  He said that Town Manager Cal Horton and Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller were at a conference in Minneapolis.  Mayor Foy noted that Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin would be Acting Town Manager for tonight’s meeting.

Principal Community Development Planner Loryn Clark said tonight’s hearing was for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would clarify how the payment-in-lieu option in the affordable housing strategy was calculated.  She said that currently the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) calculated this option by multiplying the number of affordable units to be provided in that subdivision by the cost that it would take to make a unit in that subdivision affordable to a family earning less than 80 percent of the median area income.  Ms. Clark stated that the Comprehensive Plan language was a little more vague, and referred to payment-in-lieu for affordable housing as a general policy.

Ms. Clark said they proposed that the language in the Comprehensive Plan be amended to be consistent with the language in LUMO.  She said the Planning Board had recently reviewed this amendment and voted to recommend it, and the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was for adoption of the attached resolution to clarify the payment-in-lieu option for providing affordable housing.

BY CONSENSUS, THE COUNCIL REFERRED THIS MATTER BACK TO THE MANAGER, AND RECESSED THE HEARING TO OCTOBER 10.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 3 – Petitions

3a.       Petitions by Citizens

3a(1).   Steven Stover regarding the Naming of a Baseball Field at Umstead Park.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

3a(2).   Tom Hanlan regarding Traffic Calming at Southern Village, Arlen Park Entrance.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

3a(3).   Deleted.

3a(4).   Town of Carrboro regarding the Rogers Road Annexation.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council refer this issue to the Assembly of Governments, to be placed on the agenda for its next meeting.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

3a(5).   Randy Kabrick regarding the Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee Status Report.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

3a(6).   Burell Ware regarding a Petition to Reduce Disturbance from Garbage, Trash, and Recycling Collection Noise.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

3a(7).   John McPhall regarding a Petition for No Neighborhood Conservation District for the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Community.

Mr. McPhall, noting he was representing other homeowners in his neighborhood, petitioned the Council to remove Winter Hill Subdivision from the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) process for the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Community. He stated that they were proud to be their own neighborhood and did not care to be part of the proposed NCD.  Mr. McPhall provided the Council with an excerpt from the Morgan Creek Subdivision restrictive covenants that were amended by the owners in Morgan Creek in 2002.  He noted that item 16 did not allow access from their subdivision to Morgan Creek, making them not inter-connected.

Mr. McPhall stated that private property rights as well as personal rights were much too important to just drop a map and overlay restrictions on a neighborhood that did not want or need them.  He said the Town should let neighborhoods through restrictive covenants take care of their own issues in the courts.

Mr. McPhall named the nine neighborhoods that were affected by this NCD process, and wondered who was responsible for drawing the boundaries of the NCD.  He said it was interesting that there was no Kings Mill subdivision within the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek NCD process, only a road by that name.

Mr. McPhall said the NCD was at best a tool to help the less fortunate, and at worst a way for relatively affluent neighborhoods to try and maintain their way of life by suppressing other people’s property rights.  He said that none of them knew what the future held, but to limit future owners of these properties for their own selfish desires seemed at best shortsighted.  Mr. McPhall said if the owners of property in the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek NCD wanted more protection why not let them rewrite their covenants with a true majority of the owners in agreement with the changes, not just 51 percent.

Mr. McPhall asked that the Council remove the Winter Hill Subdivision from the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek NCD process.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

3a(8).   Gerald Cecil regarding an Announcement of Seminars on Energy.

Mr. Cecil announced a seminar series through the Robertson Scholar Program and UNC and Duke University on the issue of energy.  He said they would have speakers of a national level.  Mr. Cecil said the first presentation was two weeks ago, with the next one scheduled for this Wednesday on the topic of natural gas.  He urged the Council and citizens to pay attention to these presentations, adding that many of them heat with natural gas, and with the recent storms natural gas prices may have “stunning” increases this winter which were unprecedented.

Mr. Cecil said that next week’s presentation would be on bio-fuels, which was of interest to the Council, and noted that further information could be obtained from www.powerdown.us.

3a(9).   Eleanor Howe regarding Transportation Board Nominee Russell Paulson.

Ms. Howe, Chair of the Town’s Transportation Board, submitted a recommendation for appointment to the Transportation Board.  She noted the Board currently had only seven members with two vacancies.  Ms. Howe said the Board met last week and recommended that Russell Paulson be appointed to one of the vacancies.  She said they had met with Mr. Paulson and believed him to be a strong candidate who would be a contributing member to the Board.

Ms. Howe said they would be reviewing other applications in the future for the other vacancy, but requested that the Council consider their recommendation for appointment of Mr. Paulson.

Mayor Foy asked if there were other applicants that were considered.  Ms. Howe noted than three applications were received by the Board, but Mr. Paulson was the only one who they were able to contact to come to the Board meeting.  She said the second applicant had recently been appointed to another board, and the third applicant would be attending the Board’s next meeting.

Mayor Foy asked if the Council had any objections to taking action on this request at this time.  There was no objection.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO NOMINATE RUSSELL PAULSON FOR A SEAT ON THE TOWN’S TRANSPORTATION BOARD.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO APPOINT RUSSELL PAULSON TO A SEAT ON THE TOWN’S TRANSPORTATION BOARD.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

3a(10). Will Raymond, regarding Agenda Item #5b, Fuel Supply, Cost and Budget Issues for the Town’s General Municipal Fleet and Transit Bus Fleet.

Mr. Raymond petitioned the Council regarding Agenda Item #5b, Fuel Supply, Cost and Budget Issues for the Town’s General Municipal Fleet and Transit Bus Fleet.  He noted he had sent the Council an email regarding the purchase of bio-diesel fuel, and was pleased that shortly after that the Town had purchased 1,000 gallons.  Mr. Raymond said that was a “fantastic” first step and hoped the Town would follow up on that, noting that at the present time bio-diesel fuel was 20 to 30 cents a gallon cheaper than diesel or kerosene.

Mr. Raymond said there appeared to be some confusion in the agenda item, noting there had been some discussion that they could burn bio-diesel fuel in their buses, and now they were saying that maybe they could not.  So, he said, he had called Detroit Engine that made the engines for the buses, and they were recommending to their customers that a 20 percent blend was “perfectly suitable” for those engines.  Mr. Raymond said that Detroit Engine had indicated they would be happy to work with the Town and could possibly get that blend higher.  He encouraged the Town to contact them and take that action.

Mr. Raymond also suggested that since they were running at a deficit within the fuel budget that they today start with targeted reductions in the amount of fuel they were using.  He said they still have vehicles that idle wastefully, and that yesterday he had observed a Town vehicle left idling for two hours.  Mr. Raymond said with the price of gasoline that was unacceptable behavior.  He asked that the Council take immediate action to conserve fuel.

THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO REFER MR. RAYMOND’S COMMENTS TO AGENDA ITEM #5b.

Announcements by Council Members.

Council Member Harrison regarding a Community Service Award from the Community School for People Under 6.

Council Member Harrison announced that the Community School for Children Under 6 had presented the Town a Community Service Award on Friday evening.  He also noted that it was the school’s 35^th anniversary, and the Town had presented them with a Proclamation celebrating that anniversary.  Council Member Harrison said it was an enjoyable occasion, and it was nice to receive the award and to present the proclamation.

Council Member Harrison said that Sue Russell had 35 lessons from the past and the future, which she had learned in the 35 years since she helped found the Community School.  He said two of them that struck him that were entirely different were “politics are everywhere and it pays to pay attention,” and “you can carry a swing set down Cameron Avenue.”  Council Member Harrison said another that had struck him was “you can only get a dad to dress up once as the Queen of Hearts and prance down Franklin Street.”  He said apparently she had talked her husband into doing that to help raise money for the school, but only that once.

Council Member Harrison regarding a Hybrid Vehicles Tour and a Local Solutions Guide to Global Warming.

Council Member Harrison also announced that the National Sierra Club was putting together a nationwide hybrid vehicles tour and a Local Solutions Guide to Global Warning.  He said apparently the only two cities in the State who had mayors who had signed on to the International Climate Protection Agreement were Durham and Chapel Hill.  Council Member Harrison said they were one of only two “cool” cities in the State, and this was the “cool cities” tour.  He said they were targeting Chapel Hill for November 16 and would be in contact with Mayor Foy.

Council Member Kleinschmidt regarding the Late Joseph Straley.

Council Member Kleinschmidt requested a moment to remember the late Joe Straley for his humanitarian acts and efforts to promote diversity.  He said this past summer while attending the Kennedy School one of his professors said that whenever you sit back and think about your life, there were different kinds of people in the world.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said the professor noted there were people like his students, and then there were the “widget makers.”  He said the professor noted that the widget maker gets up every morning, gets in his car and drives to work, sits at his desk, and comes homes to eat the same dinner and watch the same TV shows, then gets up the next day and does the same thing over again.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said the professor had noted that it was a life that when lived and at its end, the person who had lived that life often asked himself “why am I living this life?”  He said the professor stated then there were those other people who got up every day and they fight the good fight, and they never had to ask “why,” because every day that they were awake and breathing they were giving back to their community.

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that this week they had lost an extraordinary member of the community who had never had to ask why when he woke up every morning. He said he wanted to take this moment to remember Joe Straley and the extraordinary gifts he had given to this community.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said Professor Straley had made a significant impression on him when he was an undergraduate 17 years ago.  He said he had too many days where he asked himself “why am I doing this,” and hoped that when those times came in the future that he would remember Joe Straley’s example and live every moment as eagerly and as full of enthusiasm and with the appropriate outrage as Joe Straley had.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins echoed Council Member Kleinschmidt’s sentiments, and thanked him for offering that tribute to Mr. Straley.  She stated that Joe Straley, like Charlotte Adams and Jerry Gerley who had all passed away over the last six months, had a profound impact on her.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said when she moved to Chapel Hill 40 years ago, they were the only people who were working hard to break down the extreme segregation and discrimination that was present in Chapel Hill.  She said when she sees people like that pass on her feelings about Chapel Hill begin to change because they had made Chapel Hill “okay” for her.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said what Chapel Hill was now for many people, these individuals were working for 40 years ago.

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY    (7-0).

Item 5 – Information Reports

Information Reports were accepted as presented by consensus of the Council.

Item 6 – Concept Plan: Chapel Watch Village Special Use Permit

Acting Town Manager Bruce Heflin stated that tonight’s discussion was a Concept Plan review, but was unusual because it was within the context of a pending Special Use Permit (SUP).

Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper said the Council had originally considered this Concept Plan on May 16 and had referred the item to the Transportation Board, who was asked to consider two questions related to a possible roadway connection between Larkspur Subdivision and the proposed Chapel Watch Village.

Ms. Culpepper said the Transportation Board’s recommendation as well as various other documents and emails concerning this Concept Plan had been distributed to the Council.  She said that several key staff were present to answer any questions that might arise.  Ms. Culpepper said they were recommending that the Council adopt a resolution transmitting comments to the applicant.

Ms. Culpepper stated that the next steps would be that following tonight’s meeting, staff would continue the process of reviewing the applicant’s SUP application. Once that review was completed, she said, the application would be scheduled for review by the Planning Board, the Community Design Commission (CDC), the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Greenways Commission who would then forward recommendations to the Council.

Phil Post, representing applicant Gary Buck and Crosland Homes, provided a brief history of the SUP application first presented in 2003.  He said over the two-year period, the number of units had been reduced from 350 units to 120 units but the basic layout and infrastructure had remained the same.  Mr. Post noted the staff had indicated that was a significant change and required that the applicant go back through the Concept Plan process, which was where they were now.

Mr. Post said in December of 2004 when the amended application was received by the Town, they had believed that the process would take only a few months, although no promises were made.  He said now they had been at it almost 10 months, just trying to get comments on the Concept Plan.  Mr. Post stated they were interested in receiving firm guidance from the Council on the Plan.

Mr. Post said in response to concerns from neighbors regarding access, they had developed a slightly different plan that would provide emergency only access. He suggested that they already had the benefit of comments on these plans from both the CDC and the Council in May, and felt like they had received both from the neighborhood and from the Council and others the full measure on the Concept Plan.  Mr. Post said the reason they were before the Council this evening was to focus on one single question, which was should there be full vehicular access from Maywood Road to the end of Eubanks Road.

Mr. Post said he brought this up because there had been some communication that possibly there was a third way that they could have some sort of combination between the original plan and this plan, which was not full vehicular access although the original plan had full vehicular access.  He suggested from the standpoint of the developer that there was no third way.  Mr. Post said the theory was that if they had a modified form of full vehicular access then maybe they could mitigate all the problems suggested by the neighborhood.  He stated you either had full vehicular access or you had something less than that.

Mr. Post commented that Maywood Road, as it was originally designed and approved by the Council, was a local road, which was a narrow road with sidewalk on one side only, and not intended for a lot of traffic.  In fact, he stated, it was designed for less than 1,000 vehicles per day.  Mr. Post stated that when they met with the Transportation Board and heard opinions on how Maywood Road might be used, they were taken by surprise to learn that a future bus route had been designated along that roadway.  He stated that it was unexpected that the roadway they were discussing had the capability or interest for such a use, and was even on a tentative plan as being designated as a future bus route with the extra traffic associated with that.

Mr. Post said for that reason, there was no third way.  He said if they had full vehicular access it was their view that eventually you could have a bus route through Maywood and through Chapel Watch Village.  Mr. Post commented that they respectfully asked that they be allowed to move forward with their SUP application.  He said if the Council had a strong opinion regarding full vehicular access, they would like to hear that tonight.  Mr. Post said they received a mixed reaction as they had from the Transportation Board, who had voted 4-3 to have the full vehicular access, and would like to receive a definitive response from the Council.

Mr. Post said for those who had suggested there might be a third way, he believed there may also be a fourth way.  He stated that if the Council was not prepared tonight to decide on the question of full vehicular access, the fourth way might be to let the developer use his creativity as they move through the SUP process to look at options.  Mr. Post remarked that if that option was chosen, the developer would work “very closely” with the Larkspur neighborhood.  He said it was their desire that when they came back with the SUP application, that they were not only friendly with their neighbors but actually had them see any plans that were developed as being helpful to the neighborhood in which they lived.

Mayor Foy made it clear that they were not making a decision tonight regarding any issue, since the Council was reviewing the Concept Plan at this time.  He said when the SUP came back before the Council it would make definitive decisions at that time.  Mayor Foy said this was an opportunity for the developer to hear comments from the Council and the public.

Robin Cutson remarked that she had appeared before the Council in the past to advocate for the protection of neighborhoods, and she was speaking tonight because the cutting down on increased traffic flow was protecting neighborhoods.  She said full vehicular access was not needed, noting that school buses did not need the connector road for mobility, bus stops could be reached via pedestrian routes, the neighborhood did not want it, and the developer would be fine without it. Ms. Cutson said this seemed to be clear that the access was not necessary.

Ms. Cutson suggested that a decision on this should be expedited, not only for the developer who needed to move forward, but for the citizens who were concerned about this and did not need to worry about it further.

Laurin Easthom commented she wanted to make the Council aware that there had been a minority opinion offered by herself and two other members of the Transportation Board.  She said that she did not believe that a connection to Larkspur would increase neighborhood connectivity or increase the use of mass transit, but would only drive residents inside their homes and off the streets and sidewalks where they currently play.

Ms. Easthom said the key was safety, noting that with the design with no connector, both neighborhoods had internal loops for good traffic flow.  She said that the neighborhoods wanted to be connected in the “people sense” but not by car.  Ms. Easthom said the Comprehensive Plan strived to reduce dependence on the automobile.

Ms. Easthom said the preservation of buffers was a good thing, noting more trees and landscaping was something the developer was happy to design for.

Ms. Easthom said she also wanted to counter the argument regarding connecting Pinehurst Drive to Meadowmont, so why not connect Maywood Road to Larkspur.  She stated that Pinehurst Drive was a full three feet wider and the houses were set back further from the street.  Ms. Easthom stated she hoped the Council would try to expedite the process.

Jungsang Kim, a resident of Larkspur, pointed out that it had been said that the neighbors were blocking the connection out of selfishness.  He said they all wanted a safe Chapel Hill which was in the best interest of their neighborhood.  Mr. Kim said the idea that they were trying to make Larkspur a big cul-de-sac and block everybody else out was far from the truth.  He said they all wanted a safe place to raise their family.

Mr. Kim said he came to realize that this tension was between the Town’s traffic engineers in their job to establish the flexibility for future traffic flow management and the concern of the neighbors.  He said some had argued that the complaint that his neighborhood had made that such a connection would put their children at risk may not be founded, but at the same time how much was the connector really needed for flexibility?  Mr. Kim said no one could predict the future, but there may never be any need for this road to be connected.

Mr. Kim said there were two ways to go.  He said either make the connection now and when a problem arose then shut it down.  Or, he said, keep it closed and when a real need was evident then open it up.  Mr. Kim said that having traffic calming devices in the Chapel Watch Village only, when none exist in Larkspur, would only encourage cut-through traffic in Larkspur.  He stated that was of great concern to them.

Mr. Kim said they spend a lot of taxpayer money on a flexibility that they may never need, and then when a child was hurt or killed they would know they had made a mistake.  Alternatively, he said, let’s preserve the character of the neighborhood and the safety of the children and see if this connector was really necessary to allow buses or school buses to travel through, and make the connection at that time.

Eleanor Howe, Chair of the Transportation Board, said the Board had voted 4-3 in favor of the connector.  She said the Board had considered this the first time about three or four years ago, and had actually voted against the Larkspur development.  Ms. Howe stated they had voted against Larkspur because they had wanted to wait and consider these two developments together so as not to have the kind of issue that they were now facing regarding the connection between the two.  She said she was not present when the vote was taken on August 16, and had she been present the vote would have been 5-3.

Ms. Howe said speaking as a private citizen, she asked the Council to consider the larger environmental issues.  She said to choose a course that would by its nature make them more dependent on gasoline and make their major arterials more clogged seemed foolhardy, especially in light of the recent disaster.  Ms. Howe asked the Council to look at the issues with a ‘big mind” and to vote accordingly.

Rachel Emerson, a resident of Larkspur, said it was an “unfair” surprise to their community that this road had a potential to be connected.  She said their community was built in two stages, which resulted in no signs being posted to inform new property owners that the road had the potential to be connected. Ms. Emerson stated that the Town had neglected to put a stipulation in the SUP requiring the informational sign, and it was not posted until July 2005.  She noted that her home was directly adjacent to one of the areas where the road would go through.

Ms. Emerson said when they purchased their home certain things should have been disclosed, and the possibility of this connector was never disclosed to them. She said they did not know about it until two weeks after they had moved in. Ms. Emerson expressed some frustration about this, noting they learned about it from neighbors.  She displayed a photo of the location of the sign, noting that for the past month it had been partially obscured by a 20-foot dumpster.

Ms. Emerson asked the Council to protect the children of her community by not allowing the connection on Maywood Road.  She said her neighborhood would welcome the emergency access as well as the pedestrian foot path traffic.

Kate Flores, a resident of Larkspur, said she lived three houses from the intersection in question.  She said her most important role was as a mother to her two children, adding that there were now over 90 children in her neighborhood.  Ms. Flores said the Council had an opportunity here to do something better than vehicular access.  She displayed a drawing of how school bus stops might work without the connector.

Ms. Flores said her vision was a pass through with wild flowers and benches, where Chapel Watch Village residents would come and enjoy the neighborhood and perhaps walk through to Northwood.  She asked wouldn’t it be nice to move into Chapel Watch Village and know that your children had a safe and clear visual path to the bus stop.

Amy Chute, a resident of Larkspur, said she had conducted research to discover how they had arrived at this contentious point.  She said what she found was that the original plans for Larkspur called for a vehicular connection at Hunter Hill Road, and provided a brief overview of how the roads were designed and why.

Ms. Chute said this was a deal, not a plan, that was offered as a compromise by developers back in 2002 to the Town to accommodate the Northwood’s residents’ protesting of the Hunter Hill extension.  She said there was a lot of new information to consider, noting that the Maywood connector was not on the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Chute commented that after it was agreed to close Hunter Hill Road and open Maywood to Eubanks, no one went back and modified the road design to make sure it would be a safe road for Larkspur residents.  She added that the Maywood extension signage was not even included in the resolution to approve Larkspur in February 2002.

Ms. Chute said residents of Larkspur did not believe the traffic impact study was adequate, noting that the Transportation Board could not comment on its adequacy.  She noted that no traffic was assumed from all of the commercial properties on Eubanks, including the Town Operations Center and Carolina North.  Ms. Chute requested that a new traffic impact study be conducted.

John Dehart, a resident of Larkspur, said he had purchased a radar gun and had tracked a Mercedes on Weaver Dairy Road Extension traveling at 70 miles per hour.  He said he lived on the second lot on Larkspur Way and could see Weaver Dairy from his home.  Mr. Dehart said it was rare that anyone traveled the speed limit.

Mr. Dehart said one of the best characteristics of the neighborhood was the way it had been designed to blend the Land Trust homes with other homes.  He said he believed that was where the most negative effect of the traffic would be felt. Mr. Dehart said if the traffic became too bad he could move, but he did not believe the people living in the Land Trust homes would have the same opportunity.

Ron Herring spoke about the transportation issues, noting it appeared that it was necessary to have a connector because it was necessary to have a bus.  He said there was no study done as far as the need for public transit within Larkspur, although they were in favor of mass transit.  Mr. Herring said this was a small community, so any additional ridership to Chapel Hill’s system would be small.

Mr. Herring said the proposal for the connector was a “vague” proposal made without any data to support it.  He emphasized that Larkspur did not compare to Meadowmont, with 66 homes versus 1,060 homes respectively, so why officials used Meadowmont as a comparison was frustrating. 

Mr. Herring said that bus service was already available to Chapel Watch Village because of the park and ride lot, so there was no need for buses to come through Larkspur.  He said that using Weaver Dairy Road Extension was a better plan, and that the Town should consider a new route that included Rogers Road.  Mr. Herring said using that loop would enable Larkspur residents to access the buses.

Mr. Herring pointed out language contained in the Council’s memorandum on page 7 of Attachment 3, which he said was indicative of why they believe that the traffic impact analysis was “simply bogus.”  He said that language indicated that “25 percent of the Chapel Watch Village residents would be UNC students, and 50% of these trips would be made on transit or other non-auto modes,” and “25 percent of the Chapel Watch Village residents would be UNC staff, and 15 percent of these trips would be made on transit or other non-auto modes.”  Mr. Herring said these statements directly contradicted the developer’s resident population, which he indicated would not be a UNC population.  He said the statements posited lower daily trips for Chapel Watch Village than Larkspur even though Chapel Watch Village would have twice as many units, and ignored the other 50 percent of the Chapel Watch Village population in terms of its traffic impact.

Mr. Herring said he believed it was important to draw the Council’s attention to the “total incongruity” in the data.

Helene Brown, a resident of Larkspur, said she lived in the area where no sidewalks were present on either side of the street.  She said her children play in the street every day.  Ms. Brown said if the Council did as the residents asked and did not put a connection through, then they supported connecting to Weaver Dairy Road Extension a second time at the Butterfield Road stub out.  She said that would allow for two school bus stops that would serve children from both Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village.  Ms. Brown said it was an obvious place to connect, was safe, and would supplement the traffic flow for her neighborhood.

Ms. Brown said she wanted to make the point that they were not against connectively, and that was not the issue.  She said the issue was should her neighborhood be a “pressure release valve” for the traffic that was on Eubanks Road now and in the future.  Ms. Brown said it should not be, and urged the Council to consider the high traffic volume and the large number of children, noting it was a disaster waiting to happen.

Demetra Vlachos, a resident of Larkspur, displayed a map that she said summarized the residents’ concerns and illustrated the high incentive there would be to use the Maywood Road connector as a cut-through for her neighborhood.  She indicated that the connector would result in high volumes of cut-through traffic because of the direct route, adding that the Maywood Road connector would allow drivers to bypass four traffic lights.

Ms. Vlachos exhibited another map that extracted the average daily trips that had been developed from the various traffic impact analyses done for the Town Operations Center, for Chapel Watch Village, and for Larkspur.  She said her point was to show the “tremendous” amount of pressure on the arterials in the vicinity of Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village.  Ms. Vlachos said those studies indicated there would be 2,000 average daily trips coming from the Town Operations Center, 5,400 average daily trips at the intersection of Millhouse Road at Eubanks Road, and 6,600 average daily trips at the intersection of Eubanks Road and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.  She said that last intersection was projected to be one of the most congested intersections in the Town according to the 2030 Transportation Plan.  Ms. Vlachos said this morning during her daily commute, there were 15 cars backed up at that light waiting to turn.

Ms. Vlachos said that speeding was an issue on these roads, noting that last Thursday she was behind a school bus on Weaver Dairy Road Extension that was traveling 40 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone.  She said if a connector road was opened between Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village, that in itself would become an enforcement issue.

Ms. Vlachos said if Larkspur got even a small percentage of the surrounding traffic as cut-through, it would be too much to handle.  She stated that a good part of the roads within Larkspur were designed to be local roads, not collector or arterial roads.  Ms. Vlachos displayed a diagram to prove her point, noting that local roads according to Town guidelines were built to accommodate 1,000 to 1,500 average daily trips.  She said that with the connector Maywood Way and Old Larkspur way would quickly become a collector road.  Ms. Vlachos said that using logical predictions, the average daily trips would be 2,000, and that did not take into account traffic generated by Carolina North.

Gary Waldo, a resident of Larkspur, thanked the Council for its patience throughout this process.  He said they had made it easy for residents to access information and had listened to their concerns.  Mr. Waldo said that Mr. Buck and Mr. Post had also been gracious and had listened to the concerns of Larkspur, and they deserved the opportunity to move ahead with their project.

Mr. Waldo pointed out an item that was identified as an advantage to making this connector, that being that it would alleviate some of the arterial traffic flows.  He said he found that to be a “disturbing proposition,” but understood that in some circumstances that might be beneficial in larger neighborhoods. Mr. Waldo said that the traffic impact analysis for this project suggested a small usage for this road, along the lines of 10 to 15 trips per day.  He said it seemed inconsistent to him to have traffic analyses that said the road would not be used much more than it was now, but that one of the advantages of opening the road was that it would alleviate some of the arterial traffic flows.  Mr. Waldo said that was an inconsistency.

Council Member Verkerk stated that she had some questions for the staff, but did not expect an answer tonight.  She said the darker blue area on the map indicated the area that fell outside the quarter-mile goals for bus service, and adding a bus route would put residents within the goal. Council Member Verkerk asked if her assumption was correct. Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk responded that the light blue represented the current area served by public transit.  He said with the addition of a route that would utilize Chapel Watch Village and Larkspur we would be adding the residents that fell within the darker blue area.

Council Member Verkerk asked if there were sidewalks on either side on that bus route. Mr. Bonk said he did not believe so on the upper end of the area, and in Larkspur there would not be necessarily sidewalks on both sides.

Council Member Verkerk said that Larkspur was a new community, and the Town seemed to be receiving a number of requests for retrofits in new neighborhoods.  She asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos what was the realtor’s responsibility for disclosure.  Mr. Karpinos replied that he would report back to the Council with an answer.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said at the beginning of Mr. Post’s statement he had said he wanted to leave tonight’s meeting with some indication of how individual Council members felt about the plan.  She said she believed that he would understand the Council’s position in responding to that request, because an application had already been submitted which put them in the judicial position of remaining open until all the evidence was received.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that included receiving information from the advisory boards and comments from the public hearings.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she felt freer responding to this, because it would most likely come back before the Council when she was no longer a member.  She said she felt a lot of empathy for the three sitting Council members who were candidates for re-election in November, who were in a bind because they could not “stake out” a position, whereas those running for election could say whatever they chose.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the Council was in a quasi-juridical situation and hoped that the public would understand that comments made by those three members might sound as if they were “waffling,” but they really were not.  They simply could not respond with much more than they would have to wait for the evidence, she said.

Council Member Harrison thanked Mayor pro tem Wiggins for her comments, noting he had already been caught in a bind at a public forum where someone asked him for a fixed opinion on this issue and he had spent his comment time explaining that he could not give an opinion.  He said that Mr. Post and Mr. Buck did need some direction, as well as the Transportation Board and the neighbors.

Council Member Harrison thanked Council Member Verkerk for asking what the responsibilities were for realtors regarding disclosures.  He said that one piece of evidence that Mr. Post had presented this evening that he was not aware of was the standard to which the road was built.  Council Member Harrison said that was news to him, and he paid attention to that kind of information both professionally and personally.  He said there were different standards for whether a road was an arterial, a collector, or a local road.  Council Member Harrison said if it was built as a local road, then it was not meant by the Town to act as a collector although some did.  He said he did not believe that local streets were meant to carry what collector streets carry, and as one of the neighbors pointed out the Comprehensive Plan did designate their arterials and collectors, and this road had not been so designated.

Council Member Harrison said if the staff could clarify what standard the Town required that street to be built at for its full length that would help him in his decision-making.  He said Mr. Post and Mr. Buck should be ready to prepare multiple versions of their proposal, which would give them more latitude in dealing with what he termed the “crap shoot” that was involved in bringing an SUP application before this Council.  Council Member Harrison said he hoped he was still on the Council when this issue came back so that he could offer an opinion, but hoped his comments helped them at this time.  He said his guidance to Mr. Buck and Mr. Post was to bring the Council a set of options.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not necessarily believe the SUP process was a “crap shoot,” rather the Town had some well-articulated policies in place that were coming into conflict here.  He said he had expressed his frustrations earlier when the Council learned no sign was ever posted at Larkspur warning of the future connection.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said when a speaker had mentioned the Hunter Hill connection and the “deal” that had been worked out, he did not remember it as a deal.  He said he found it curious that when the Hunter Hill connection was voted down during the Larkspur approval, that there wasn’t some analysis from the Planning Department about the Maywood Way road.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was following up on what Council Member Harrison had said about the way that road was developed as a local street.  He said he was curious as to why that was not done, and wanted to know why.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said as he looked at the map regarding transit, he said the Northwood Drive road looked like a nice shortcut to bypass what was to him an annoying stoplight at Eubanks Road and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.  He asked to get information about how that road was used, noting he wanted to get information about how traffic was functioning in real time in that part of Town and if Northwood was being used as a cut-through.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said that information would help him to understand how much this new connection might or might now be used.  Mr. Heflin responded they would try to get that information, but that street was not in the Town limits so the same type of data collection may not be available for that street.

Council Member Greene said she was not on the Council when the decision was made not to provide the cut through to Larkspur from Hunter Hill.  She said she had gotten the idea from a previous discussion, and although she would not characterize it as a “deal,” it appeared there had been a trade-off for not connecting Hunter Hill, and that was the assumption that Maywood would be connected at some point.  Council Member Greene asked for clarification of whether that was true or not.

Mayor Foy said the Council had received a communication from George Cianciolo who was currently serving on the Planning Board, but was the Chair of the Transportation Board when a lot of this was originally discussed.  He said that Mr. Cianciolo had talked about traffic calming measures that the Council should institute if this connector was opened.  Mayor Foy asked what plans specifically that would entail.  He asked if that were done who would do it, how it would be paid for, and how it would affect traffic volumes.

Mayor Foy said one of the speakers tonight had said you could open it now and close it later, or you could close it now and open it later.  He asked how both of those scenarios would play out.  For example, Mayor Foy said, if you close it now and open it later how would that be done, and if they open it now and close it later on what basis would they do that, and in what period of time the staff would make such a recommendation.

Mayor Foy said other questions had been raised, such as where the sidewalks were located, and what were the standards to which this road was built.  He said given all of that, the Council could not give any guidance at this time.  Mayor Foy said guidance had to be given using some greater level of information, but did not believe that guidance would be given until the Council received answers to tonight’s questions so that they would be better informed.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council ask the staff to answer these questions which would most likely take a couple of weeks, and then possibly the Council could give some guidance.  Mr. Heflin said given the current work loads and the amount of information requested, it was likely this would not come back to the Council until a November meeting.  The Council had no objection.

Speaking to the public, Mayor Foy stated at that time, the developers would most likely be given guidance, not a decision.  He said the developer could come back having ignored the Council’s guidance, but the SUP process that the developer was going through would be followed and a decision made at a much later date.

THE COUNCIL BY CONSENSUS ADOPTED RESOLUTION R-14, TRANSMITTING COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 7 – UNC Master Plan Update

Bruce Runberg, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Construction at UNC, said that recently the University had offered to return to the Council with an update on its Master Plan.  He said from 1998 to 2001 they had worked diligently on a Master Plan that they expected to last for four to five decades.  Mr. Runberg said they then had a large program of capital projects that came together for about $1.5 billion, so looking at the end of this decade they would have completed over half of that Master Plan.  He said last year, they felt it was important to look at the changes that had occurred during that heavy period of construction and update the Master Plan.

Mr. Runberg said they had spent the last year doing that update, and what they were showing the Council this evening was a work in progress and was still somewhat fluid.  He said they had made this same presentation to the UNC Board of Trustees in July, and then again in September they provided some additional information.  Mr. Runberg said they had learned lessons from it, one of which was cost installation on projects which has an effect on how they approach the program.

Mr. Runberg said they were holding three public meetings, two of which were scheduled for October 6, from 12 noon to 2 p.m. at the Student Union and 7:30 to 9:00 at one of the academic buildings, and then another one in October at the Student Union.  He said they would hope to bring this update to the Board of Trustees in November.  Mr. Runberg introduced Anna Wu, Director of the Facilities Planning Department and the University Architect, who would take the Council through the PowerPoint presentation.

Ms. Wu began the presentation by noting what they had envisioned the 2005 Campus Plan Update doing:

· Update maps on growth to date.

· Design updates in specific areas.

· Revisions to knit the plan with the ongoing projects.

· Questioned and confirmed commitment to principles

· Re-evaluate the responsible and serviceable capacity of the main campus.

Ms. Wu said from 1998 to 2001 during the creation of the Master Plan, there were four guiding Principles:

· Support Carolina’s mission.

· Export the qualities of McCorkle and Polk Places.

· Enhance the University’s intellectual climate.

· Support local and regional Planning Principles.

Ms. Wu said what the Trustees had asked them when they embarked on the Master Plan was, “What is the responsible capacity for buildings and open space within the character and culture of this institution?” and “How much can fit here and what will it look like.”  She said they had gotten a very early concept sketch from Ayers Saint Gross which was a diagram that intended to characterize the elements of campus.  Ms. Wu said that diagram indicated a use of the lessons of north campus to bring order to growth in south campus, and that they should respect both the soft edges on the east/south and the Town edges on the north/west.

Ms. Wu said the other elements that had formed their update was what their experience was from the current development plan.  She said they had started in 2004 and were about half-way through that plan.  Ms. Wu said that UNC was growing at a fast pace, and the Council was aware of that through the development plans that had been brought forward to them.

Ms. Wu exhibited a chart that showed the meetings, workshops and presentations that had been held beginning in 2003 and through July of this year.  She then displayed side by side slides of the 2001 Campus Master Plan and the Draft 2005 Campus Plan Update in map form.  Ms. Wu provided a description of the changes in the north district, the southwest district, and the southeast district.

Ms. Wu noted that the north district contained Davie Hall, the Arts Common, Porthole Alley, the Science Complex, housing revisions, Jackson hall, and pedestrian improvement to South Road.  She stated that the southwest district contained adjustments to the 2003 precinct study, the Bell Tower development, Kenan Stadium improvements, the Dental Sciences Building, the western Mason Farm Road alignment, the Campus Support Facility, utility infrastructure sites, and South Columbia Street improvements between Manning Drive and South Road.

Ms. Wu noted they had taken a much closer look at the Bell Tower area, which was included in the second modification to the Development Plan.  One thing that they continue to look at, she said, was the amount of infrastructure.  Ms. Wu said what she meant by that was the number of parking spaces they had allocated in that area.  She said the Bell Tower area was an opportunity for them to add some much needed academic and research space, but also to look for significant new open space opportunities.  Ms. Wu said they had proposed in their second Development Plan that the number of parking spaces in that area be increased from the original 1,000 spaces.  She said after much study, they had come to the conclusion that 750 cars was the real responsibility capacity of that site. She said they would restore the remainder of the parking lot into open space which would also allow them to perform some stormwater mitigation in that area.

Ms. Wu remarked that the southeast district contained the Ridge Road improvements, the Boshamer Field improvements, refinements to the housing plan, the addition to the Craig Deck, a central parking area, the Skipper Bowles lot, Manning Drive improvements, and the south campus access.

Ms. Wu said they were still showing a south campus access road and wanted to reiterate the University’s interest in adding that connection to Fordham Boulevard to service the south campus growth.

Ms. Wu noted that overlays would be included in the final plan of the following:

· open space network

· pedestrian circulation

· accessible routes

· building service areas

· phases for implementation

· street improvements

· parking changes

· utility infrastructure

Ms. Wu exhibited slides that showed the pedestrian circulation and the open space networks, as well as a side by side summary slide comparing the 2001 Campus Master Plan and the Draft 2005 Campus Master Plan showing the changes in open space revisions.  She noted that bringing open space to campus was still a part of their update.

Ms. Wu displayed a slide that showed existing buildings or buildings under construction in a darker gray, with buildings in the design phase and that had construction funding depicted in a lighter gray.  She said that the buildings shown in orange were buildings in the remaining footprint, which totaled about 4.5 million square feet of development remaining.

Ms. Wu exhibited a slide of the original Development Plan, the Development Plan Modification 1, and the Draft 2005 Campus Plan Update.  She said they had remaining only about 10 unclaimed building sites.  Ms. Wu said the conclusions they had reached were that their long-term capacity was limited, that they should look carefully at the opportunities they have remaining, that they still want to pursing an access road from the south of campus to Fordham Boulevard, and as the growth opportunity on campus becomes limited they do realize that they have another resource at Carolina North.

Ms. Wu said the areas of ongoing study were Miller/Whitehead, Ridge Road, Student Health, the UNC-CH Service Area, the Public Safety Building, the Skipper Bowles Lot, and the tennis courts.  She said they would continue to work with programs to look at specific recommendations for these areas.

Ms. Wu said in terms of their transportation context, she said in many ways it was similar to where they were in 2001, where the limiting aspects were the regional road networks.  She said they had come to realize that the regional transportation improvements they had anticipated as part of the original Master Plan were farther behind the pace of their current construction.  Ms. Wu said they had made “remarkable” advances in terms of their park and ride and transportation demand management on campus.  She said they had actually added slightly more that 2,000 new spaces to park and ride lots than they had originally committed to in the Development Plan.  Ms. Wu said that they had more than doubled the number of employees who use the park and ride lots.  She said the other important fact was that they had experienced a decrease in the number of employees who drive alone by 10 percent.

Ms. Wu said regarding growth in the south campus area, they still had a commitment to the south access road, and the Master Plan included a preliminary concept for that, which incorporated two existing lanes of Mason Farm Road and construction of two new lanes north of that on University property with the connection to Fordham Boulevard falling somewhere between Otis Road and Mason Farm Road.

Ms. Wu stated that the Master Plan maintained the transit alignment.  She said their goal with the original Master Plan was to provide this south access road to relieve pressure on Manning Drive and South Columbia Street.  Ms. Wu said they understood that planning a new road was a long process and took time, maybe as much as 10 years.

Ms. Wu noted that UNC had produced a Landscape Heritage Report that would soon be on the University’s web site.  She said it highlighted some critical places, spaces, and trees on campus and was a good document both for development as well as to provide historical background to the open space on campus.

Ms. Wu said she also wanted to share some acknowledgements that the University had received on their Master Plan.  She noted that they had received the 2005 Excellence in Planning Merit Award for an Existing Campus from The Society for Campus and University Planning and The American Institute of Architects.  Ms. Wu said the University had also received the 2005 Sustainability Award from N.C. State Government, which recognized outstanding sustainability initiatives in campus policies, practices, and curricula.

Ms. Wu said their next steps would be continued refinement of the Master Plan, holding the public meetings mentioned by Mr. Runberg, as well as the final presentation to the Board of Trustees scheduled for November.  She noted that the information she had presented tonight was available on their community web site at www.unc.edu/community.

Mayor Foy commended the University for its continued commitment to transportation, which he knew had been difficult.  He pointed out that the University’s growth plan was ahead of schedule, but that regional transportation plans were on schedule and that was what was creating the gap.  Mayor Foy said he hoped the University did not lose faith in regional transit initiatives to catch up with the University’s growth.

Council Member Harrison asked where on the map was the Craig Deck located, asking was it in the southeast quadrant.  Ms. Wu pointed out the location on a map, noting it was on Manning Drive on south campus.  Council Member Harrison asked what buildings adjoined what was called Central Park.  Ms. Wu pointed out the Kenan-Flagler Business School, the Business School parking deck, and the new William Blythe Road that would ultimately connect to Hibbard Drive.  She said what currently occupied some of that space of Odum Village.  Council Member Harrison asked if that would be reforested.  Ms. Wu responded that was certainly the long-term goal.

Council Member Harrison said Ms. Wu had placed some attention on what she called the south campus access road.  He said that was an important question for the Town as well, since all of that was not on University property.  Council Member Harrison said he knew transportation projects took a long time, and because that one involved the Town’s jurisdiction the University needed to work closely with the Town.  He said he brought that up because the first proposal that was brought forth to the State for a feasibility study on the Mason Farm Road relocation was done without any notice to the Town, and not involving the Town was not a good way to go about it.  Ms. Wu said she believed that study had involved the western end of Mason Farm Road.  Council Member Harrison said as the University went through that process, he believed the first thing they would need to do was get funding for a feasibility study.  He said the University should involve the Town and the neighborhoods as fully as possible in that process, because the neighborhoods would certainly assert themselves later if they were not included.  Council Member Harrison said the neighbors were not happy about what they were now hearing, but it seemed to him to be a connector that needed to be made.

Council Member Greene said she remembered two summers ago when the feasibility study came up, it included the eastern end and not the western end.  She said the proposed access looked liked a major road coming in at a T-intersection on Fordham Boulevard, and she believed it would be very difficult.

Mayor Foy asked Ms. Wu to clarify that there were about 900 spaces that would not be in the Bell Tower lot.  Ms. Wu said that during the Development Plan Modification 2, they had asked that the 600 spaces that were originally going to be located at a parking structure at Venable Hall be relocated at the Bell Tower lot, which would have brought that total to 1,600 spaces.  She said the current Master Plan showed a stand alone parking deck of approximately 750 parking spaces, with the proposal that we take 990 spaces, which was an additional three levels, to be constructed on the Craig Deck.  Ms. Wu said because the Craig Deck was located on Manning Drive where it sloped, it was their sense that the scale of Manning Drive could accommodate three more levels.  She said they had done some preliminary structural analysis to see how they could restructure that Deck and still maintain its operation while that happened.

Mayor Foy said that deck was not interior to the campus, but was on a roadway.  He said he wanted to bring up the fact that the Town had a “huge” problem with the deck on Rosemary Street, and right across the street was another deck and the two together serve to “kill the road.”  Mayor Foy said he wondered if they had thought about that with all the students that had been placed in that area and encouraging them to be pedestrians, and yet they had to walk past parking decks.  He said if they wanted pedestrians to use Manning Drive, they should think about that.  Ms. Wu replied that those kinds of mitigations, if and when they do additional design, they clearly needed to start thinking about those kinds of things.  She said they did want to maintain the pedestrian nature, which they were well on their way in establishing in front of the new residence halls.

Item 8 – Town Pay Plan Committee Composition

Mayor Foy noted the Council had established a Pay Plan Committee to review the Town’s pay plan, and tonight they needed to consider the charge and composition of that Committee.

Mr. Heflin said what they had provided to the Council tonight was a possible calendar that they may want to forward to the Committee, and a suggestion on one way to compose the Committee.  He said the staff recommendation was that the Council adopt the proposed resolution that would set the charge and composition, and would allow the Council to make appointments to the Committee later in the meeting.

Mayor Foy noted the charge to the Committee was located on page 3 in the resolution, which stated that the charge would be to review the current pay plan, review the total compensation plan, conduct a thorough review of how the current pay plan was developed, and evaluate the plan for orderly job progression, sufficient salary for the lowest paid employees, prevention of salary compression, comparability and competitiveness with area local governments and other pertinent issues, compare the Town pay plan to other local governments and other major public and private employers, make recommendations to the Council, and make the recommendations simple and easy to understand.  Mayor Foy said the resolution would also establish a calendar for that work to be done.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-15.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY  (7-0).

Item 9 – Appointment of Council Liaison to the Public Art

Contextual Plan Advisory Committee

Mayor Foy stated that Council Member Greene had volunteered to serve on this Committee.

Mayor Foy asked Council Member Kleinschmidt if he was willing to serve as an alternative member.  Council Member Kleinschmidt responded that he was the liaison to the Public Arts Commission, and would possibly join some of these meetings

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-16 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE AS THE LIAISON AND COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT AS AN ALTERNATE.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Items 10 and 11 –Designation of Delegates and Alternate Delegates to the

NC League of Municipalities’ Annual Meeting and the National League

of Cities Congress of Cities Meeting in December

Mayor Foy stated that he would be attending both the National League of Cities and the NCLM conferences, and he would be happy to serve as the voting delegate. He asked if any other Council members would be attending and would be interested in serving as an alternate.  There was no response.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-17 AND RESOLUTION R-18 DESIGNATING MAYOR FOY AS THE TOWN’S VOTING DELEGATE TO BOTH MEETINGS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 12 – Appointments

12a.     Town Pay Plan Committee.

The Council appointed Anita Badrock, Gary Barnes, Neal Bench, Robert Joyce, and Di Pikuei Tu as citizen representatives to the Town’s Pay Plan Committee.  Tracy Dudley and Alvin Ward were appointed as employee representatives.

	Council Members
Town Pay Plan Committee		Foy	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Verkerk	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Vote for 6 or 7 Town Residents
Anita Badrock (PAC)
Gary Barnes (BRAC)
Neal Bench (BRAC)
Rebecca Clark (PAC)
Harlan Cornell (BRAC)
James Huegrerich (Police Dept.) (also Employee)
Robert Joyce
Rolin Mainuddin (PAC)
Iris Schwintzer (Transp. Dept.) (also Employee)
Donald Tiedeman (BRAC)
Pikuei Tu (PAC)
Vote for 3 or 4 Town Employees
Dace Bergen (Fire Dept.)
Tracy Dudley (Finance Dept.)
James Huegrerich (Police Dept.) (also Resident)
Will Quick (Police Dept.)
Iris Schwintzer (Transp. Dept.) (also Resident)
Alvin Ward (Fire Dept.)
Other; please list:

Mayor Foy noted that a new ballot would be prepared and two more members would be scheduled to be appointed at the Council’s next meeting.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said there were two other employees listed on the ballot, and had been listed in both the employee and resident categories.  She asked if they had received votes in both categories.  Mayor Foy responded that they had.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that may have contributed to them receiving split votes but not enough for appointment.

Mayor Foy asked if the Council wanted to designate those two employees as members, or did they want to vote again at the next meeting.  The consensus was that the Council would vote at the next meeting for the two remaining seats.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.