SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002, AT 7:00 PM
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Planner Than Austin, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Recreation Planner Bill Webster, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 - Ceremonies: None.
Item 2 - Public Hearings
2a. Forum on 2025 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Regional Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative.
Senior Transportation Planner David Bonk explained that the purpose of the public forum was to review the final preferred fiscal constraint alternative for the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. He noted that the Council had reviewed five alternatives in September 2002 and had recommended that Alternative C, with several additions, be used as the base for the preferred alternative. Mr. Bonk said that the fiscally constrained alternative before Council members tonight included all elements that they had recommended during their previous review of the plan. He pointed out that Carrboro had requested an extension of the high capacity transit corridor to Carrboro Center. Carrboro had asked that the extension run along Jones Ferry Road and up the bypass to Carrboro Plaza, he said. Mr. Bonk stated that this extension was the only substantive addition that would affect Chapel Hill and that it had been incorporated into the Plan.
Mr. Bonk presented a list of roadway and transit elements that would affect Chapel Hill directly. He noted that the Council had already reviewed and endorsed these elements in September as part of Alternative C. He displayed various transportation maps and pointed out that one roadway corridor had been changed to have its western end at Roxboro Road in Durham. Mr. Bonk said that Orange County had agreed to accept that with several caveats from Durham related to any future extension of that line.
Mr. Bonk noted that the fixed guideway section of the plan included several different possible technologies and showed a bicycle component. He pointed out that Chapel Hill would continue to have some congestion in some corridors under the plan which was being put forward. Mr. Bonk pointed out that the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) was scheduled to approve a plan on December 18, 2002. He said that a public hearing would be held in Durham on December 4th and a public workshop would be held in Chapel Hill on December 5, 2002. The Town Council will then take the matter back up on December 9 and make a recommendation to the TAC, he said.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Bonk to explain that Council members were not actually endorsing some of the roadway widenings and were expecting transit assumptions to offset them. Mr. Bonk replied that Mayor Foy was correct that the 2025 Plan, as currently proposed, included several assumptions about future roadway widths, such as widening Weaver Dairy Road to five lanes, which leaves the Council with two choices. The Council could, for example, recommend that the Weaver Dairy Road cross section be reduced, he said, or it could let the normal negotiations between the Town and State determine that road's width. Mr. Bonk said that the problem with the second approach is that a new air quality analysis has to be run every time a plan is revised to change regionally significant projects. He recommended that the Council include a certain cross section for a certain roadway in the plan if it intends to have it there.
Cameron-McCauley resident Ray Fauber read a statement from the Westside and Westwood Neighborhood Associations regarding the adverse effects of any fixed guideway rapid mass transit corridor going through historic neighborhoods. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan and resolutions passed by the Town Council over the past few years have given these neighborhoods special protection. The letter requested that the Council add a statement to the Plan which says that the Town Council removes from consideration any fixed guideway rapid mass transit corridor going though any part of the West Chapel Hill National Register Historic Districts.
Kingston Drive resident Burwell Ware praised aspects of the 2025 Plan but pointed out that only 1.7% of the estimated $6.4 billion was for non-motorized transportation. Only $18 million is for sidewalks and pedestrian walkways, he said. Mr. Ware also questioned whether some of the numbers were stable, such as the number of trips projected for the Weaver Dairy/Airport Road intersection. He also wondered why Weaver Dairy Road, Smith Level Road and Elizabeth Grady Road were still listed in the plan as five-lane cross sections. Mr. Ware recommended that the Town add language that would protect these roads from being over-widened and that would protect historic neighborhoods. He said that the Plan was being rushed to meet the federal deadline and proposed asking the Town's congressional delegation to intervene so that the Town would have more time to come up with better alternatives.
Council Member Harrison expressed support for the Transportation Board's recommendations, particularly on page four. He said he hoped the new plan, which will begin after this one gets approved, will be more realistic and that the same Council will be around to discuss it.
Mayor Foy inquired about the cycle for adopting this Plan and beginning the new one. Mr. Bonk replied that the Town was required to maintain a plan and to update it every three years. February 28, 2003, will mark three years since the last approved update, he said, noting that there would be three more years to prepare another Plan after this one is approved.
Council Member Verkerk asked how the 2025 Plan takes into consideration the Triangle's poor national ranking with respect to air quality. Mr. Bonk explained that, from an administrative planning process, there are two local regions: the Greater Raleigh area, and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro-Durham area. The State has divided air quality budgets by county, he said, adding that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro-Durham area will easily meet its budget. But that budget is based on the current standard, Mr. Bonk explained, which will soon become much more stringent. He noted that the State had already said that the 2025 Plan, if applied to that new budget, would fail. Mr. Bonk explained that planners would address that issue during the next planning process.
Mayor pro tem Evans suggested correcting the inaccuracies that the Planning Board had noted in the report.
Council Member Strom, who is the Council's representative to the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) Board, pointed out that a lapse would affect Phase I of the Fixed Guideway TTA project. Full funding grant negotiations are concluding between TTA and the State, he said, and the TTA would likely receive a federal record of decision in early January. This will allow TTA to move toward final design approval in late February, Council Member Strom said, adding that a lapse would not affect the schedule for implementation of Phase I.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Bonk to submit language, before this comes back to the Council on December 9, that would address the concerns of the Westside and Westwood neighborhoods. He also suggested that the Town clarify its position on the relationship between fixed guideways and historic neighborhoods. Mr. Bonk replied that the Historic District Commission had reviewed the Plan and had said that the concepts were not completely incompatible with historic neighborhoods. The HDC noted that there would have to be much attention paid to how it was implemented and would want to be involved with that process, he said. Mr. Bonk pointed out that federal rules require that the HDC be involved. Council Member Strom replied that he still would like to have the Council approve specific language addressing that concern.
Regarding the discussion of shortfalls in the "non-traditional revenue sources" in section 1.3, Council Member Strom asked Mr. Bonk to clarify the paragraph describing the process. Mr. Bonk replied that it was unfortunate if one would read that as an implication that money would be taken from bus or transit. He explained that it meant that of the two revenue streams -highway and transit - the transit stream seemed to have a shortfall. Mr. Bonk agreed that the language should be clarified to reflect that there is a highway stream and a transit stream but there is also a stream that is undefined that can be used on either side of the equation. Council Member Strom recommended language qualifying that the Town can direct this third source of money toward projects that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is favoring.
Mayor Foy asked for information when this comes back on the implications for the 2025 Plan if the Council asks that it be revised to conform to its expression of interest that Weaver Dairy Road remain a three-lane cross section and that Fordham Boulevard remain four lanes. Mayor Foy then explained that Eno Drive in Durham could go west into Orange County even though it does not do so under this Plan. He said that Chapel Hill had requested that the Durham County Commissioners and Durham City Council give assurances that they have no intention of extending that road west of Highway 15-501. The Town had also requested that the old Eno Drive easements be dedicated as conservation easements, Mayor Foy said.
Council Member Harrison noted a discrepancy among different models with regard to numbers, particularly on Weaver Dairy Road.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO RECEIVE AND REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY, FOR A REPORT BACK ON DECEMBER 9, 2002.
2b. Forum to Consider a Potential Change in Cablevision Public Access Fees Paid by Cablevision Television Customers.
Mr. Horton noted that, except for Public Access, federal law preempts most local rights to regulate Cablevision services. In 1996 the Town Council had negotiated an agreement with Time Warner that would allow the collection of a public access fee from each of the Cablevision system users and pass it on to the Town, he said. Mr. Horton explained that the Town then negotiated an agreement with the People's Channel to provide independent public access television services. This "truly is a hands-off arrangement in the spirit that the Council desired," he said. Mr. Horton noted that each year the Council hears from the public about whether to maintain, increase, reduce or eliminate the 70-cent public access fee. The Town could increase the fee to 71 cents, he said, adding that the total amount generated from fees is about $105,000 annually.
Bob Gwyn, president of The People's Channel Inc., said that the studio had been used on 93 days from January to December 2001. It had been used on 170 days in 2002, he said, noting that increasing numbers of people were doing programming and asking The People's Channel to report on their events. These include candidate forums, issues programs, Spanish, Asian-American and African-American programming, local music, and programs for seniors to name a few. Mr. Gwyn stated that a women's issues program had recently begun and that Chapel Hill Bandstand was up and running, which broadcasts teens dancing to their own music. Mr. Gwyn explained that a group of home-schooled students were learning to use the equipment, as was a group from 4-H. He stated that some of the four year-old equipment needed to be replaced and asked the Council to approve an increase in the fee.
Senior Center Director Jerry Passmore outlined a weekly program, "In Praise of Age," which is run by seniors. He said that the program helps homebound people, documents the contribution of key leaders in the community, and documents the history of Chapel Hill. Mr. Passmore explained that he hopes to make copies of "In Praise of Age" so that those who do not have cable TV will be able to take them out on loan. He urged the Town Council to support the increase in the fee.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that this would be the third year that she had encouraged The People's Channel to improve the sound quality of their programs. She said that she still receives complaints about poor sound.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO RECEIVE AND REFER TO THE THIS ISSUE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY, FOR A REPORT ON DECEMBER 9, 2002.
Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
1. Larry Nobles, regarding a request for installation of speed bumps on Lonebrook Drive through the Parkside and Northwood subdivisions.
This was a written petition and there were no speakers.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3b. Petitions by citizens on items on the agenda.
1. Lindsay Schworer, Friends and Neighbors of Sunrise, regarding Habitat for Humanity proposal.
Ms. Schworer, representing the Friends and Neighbors of Sunrise, presented a petition in response to Habitat for Humanity's request for funds to purchase a 16.5-acre tract off Sunrise Road. She asked that funding be postponed until specific issues have been addressed, such as the environmental impact on the area and the rezoning. Mayor Foy noted that this would be coming up later as Agenda item #7.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.
2. Scott Radway for the Planning Board, regarding the Timing of Planning Board Review and Recommendations.
Mr. Radway noted that projects the Planning Board was reviewing might come under the new Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) by the time they get to the Council. He asked the Council to adopt a resolution that would direct the Board not to take action on those projects until the Council has decided on the effective date for the LUMO.
Sally Greene, also of the Planning Board, added that the authority to enact such a resolution was addressed by the current Development Ordinance. The current Development Ordinance says that the Council may by resolution give the Planning Board more than 35 days to act upon applications that come to them, she said.
Mayor Foy pointed out that the Board was asking the Council to take this action tonight.
Council Member Ward asked the Town Attorney if there must be a date certain established for this, noting that there was no end date stated in the resolution. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that he had not yet seen the resolution, but stated that to take action on a petition requires unanimous consent of the Council.
Mayor Foy asked if the Planning Board had given any consideration to a time limit. Mr. Radway replied that there was no objection to one. Ms. Greene added that setting a time limit would be a prudent thing to do, and suggested that a Council member propose one.
Council Member Bateman questioned the appropriateness of asking those who had applied under the old ordinance to wait until the new LUMO is enacted. She pointed out that this approach would affect Chapel Hill Tire, which was on tonight's agenda. Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Horton to comment on that. Mr. Horton agreed that a number of applicants had gone through the process assuming that their applications would be considered and acted upon under the ordinance in effect at that time. He said that some of them could be adversely affected if they were considered under the proposed new regulations because they had not prepared their applications with those regulations in mind. Mr. Horton offered to have the Planning Director list those who were at that stage of the process. Planning Director Roger Waldon listed Chapel Hill Tire, Cross Creek, and Morgan Estates.
Mayor pro tem Evans inquired about how this had been addressed when the Town changed regulations in the past. She commented that she thought the rules that are in effect when the application is submitted are the rules that should apply. Mr. Waldon replied that the Town staff had been advising applicants for the past year and a half that the ordinance would change and that they could either move forward with their application or wait until a time of greater certainty. He said that the staff's approach had been to review an application in the context of the rules that are in place at that time. Mr. Waldon stated that he believes the Town is required to take this approach with those who choose to proceed. For those who are in process right now, he said, the Planning Department was evaluating applications under the current regulations and adding a section on how the new LUMO, if adopted, might affect their application.
Council Member Harrison recalled that the Manager had said that a project not yet approved by the time the ordinance was adopted would have to meet the standards of the new ordinance. He commented that this did not agree with what the Planning Department was proposing. Mr. Horton stated that the same was true of actions taken by the Planning Board. He noted, though, that the Council had not yet reached agreement on an effective date, even though it does have plans to take action on January 6, 2003.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Karpinos if the Council could amend the resolution to say that the Planning Board "may defer" taking action on major subdivisions rather than "is directed to," which leaves it in the discretion of the Board. Mr. Karpinos repeated that he had not yet read or had time to study the Planning Board's resolution. He noted that there was no date on it and said that he thought the current ordinance states that no recommendation by the Planning Board is deemed to be an approval of the proposal as submitted.
Mr. Radway said that delaying the matter to December 9 so that the Council can receive the Attorney's advice would not jeopardize any project. He noted that Chapel Hill Tire, a site plan, was not in the category that the Board was concerned about. Ms. Greene added that the Board would hear at least one application on December 3. So neighbors will be commenting on a plan with a different Resource Conservation District (RCD) line, and so forth, than the new ordinance will require, she said. Ms. Greene explained that the goal is to have an application come before the Planning Board that citizens can comment on that will be the real application and not different from what the Council will pass later on.
Mayor Foy pointed out that the Council cannot suspend the rules without unanimous consent, which he doubted there would be. He suggested referring the request to the Attorney for a recommendation on December 9.
Council Member Strom asked for a show of hands to see if there was unanimous consent. Only Mayor Foy and Council Member Strom raised their hands in favor of suspending the rules.
Council Member Wiggins recalled that the Council had previously discussed what to do about projects in the pipeline. Mr. Horton agreed that there had been discussions but said that he did not recall the Council taking a specific vote on the issue.
Mayor Foy stated that the Council had discussed the fact that they must implement the ordinance on a specific date. They had some discussion of having that date be on or later than the date they adopt it, he said, but had not made a decision. Mr. Karpinos noted that there were two issues involved here - the effective date, and the status of the application on that date.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO REFER THE ISSUE TO THE ATTORNEY, FOR A REPORT ON DECEMBER 9, 2002.
3. Cam Hill regarding Proposed Parking Lot on West Cameron Avenue by UNC.
Mr. Hill asked the Town Council to look into UNC's plan to build a parking lot on a part of West Cameron Street that is zoned R-3. The parking lot would encourage more traffic in an area that has too much already, he said, and it will destroy the neighborhood and seriously impact property values. Mr. Hill said that UNC claims to not be bound by the zoning because it is not constructing a building. He described this as being in complete opposition to the Town's stated goals and requested that the Council intervene. The matter affects him directly, said Mr. Hill, because the parking lot will be right next to his house. He explained that he had recently begun building an addition to his house with the understanding from UNC that they would not do anything with that property within the next ten years.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Ward inquired about rules that allow the University exemptions for parking lots. Mr. Karpinos replied that State statutes say that buildings of the State and its subdivisions and agencies are subject to zoning. If they are not constructing a building, he explained, their use of the property is not subject to Town zoning regulations.
Item 4 - Consent Agenda
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2002-11-25/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. |
Approval of Minutes (October 7, 16, and 21, and Special Meeting of November 13). |
|
|
b. |
Nominations to Various Boards and Commissions (R-2). |
|
|
c. |
Solar Grant Budget Ordinance Amendment (R-3); (O-1). |
|
|
d. |
Compensation Increase for Town Manager and Town Attorney (O-2). |
|
|
e. |
Change in Authorized Hours for Assistant to the Mayor Position from Part-Time to Full-Time (O-3a); (O-3b). |
|
|
*f. |
Proposed Purchase of Open Space Adjacent to Prichard Park (R-3.1). |
|
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2002-11-25/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:
Horace Williams Citizens Committee
Henry Branson, III
Joyce Brown
Joe Capowski
James Coley
Barbara Driscoll
Cam Hill
Paul Jansen
Kathleen Kearns
Julie McClintock
Margaret Morse
Blair Pollock
Joyce Preslar
Ruby Sinreich
Del Snow
Diane VandenBroek
Street Fair Review Committee
Greg Bell
Linda Carol
Mildred Council
H.J. Mickey Ewell
Sarah H. Fallin
Fabian Farrington
Don Gaddo
Joe Herzenberg
Rickie Howard
Julie Jennings
Lynn Knauff
Edward Lebetkin
Meg McGurk
Christy Moore
Wylie Quinn III
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GRANT (2002-11-25/R-3)
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Energy has made funds available for implementing projects that raise the public’s awareness of the benefits of solar energy; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s grant application, submitted on behalf of the Chapel Hill Solar Roofs Committee, was approved by the N.C. Solar Center in the amount of $4,000; and
WHEREAS, the grant funds would be used for a solar display at Hargraves Community Center and other projects, such as the publication of informational materials and the development of a web site;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to accept the U.S. Department of Energy Grant and to make all necessary assurances.
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002” (2002-11-25/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, 2002” as duly adopted on July 26, 2002, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
|
ARTICLE I |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPROPRIATIONS |
Current Budget |
Increase |
Decrease |
Revised Budget |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GENERAL FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning |
1,008,717 |
4,000 |
|
1,012,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE II |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
Current Budget |
Increase |
Decrease |
Revised Budget |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GENERAL FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grants |
516,510 |
4,000 |
|
520,510 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN DATED 2002-06-24/O-6 (2002-11-25/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan (2002-06-24/O-6) is amended as follows:
In Section IV, part B, under Elected and Appointed Officials, DELETE the lines
Position: No.
Town Manager 1 $127,050
Town Attorney 1 $115,500
and ADD the lines
Position: No.
Town Manager 1 $131,852
Town Attorney 1 $119,865
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AUTHORIZED POSITIONS TABLE WITHIN THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (2002-11-25/O-3a)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill:
Change Section IV Part B. from:
Position No.
Assistant to the Mayor 1 Grade 37 (part-time)
to:
Assistant to the Mayor 1 Grade 37 (full-time)
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002” (2002-11-25/O-3b)
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, 2002” as duly adopted on July 26, 2002, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
|
ARTICLE I |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPROPRIATIONS |
Current Budget |
Increase |
Decrease |
Revised Budget |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GENERAL FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Departmental |
|
|
|
|
|
Contingency |
26,329 |
|
15,500 |
10,829 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mayor/Council |
234,797 |
15,500 |
|
250,297 |
|
|
||||
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO USE TOWN OPEN SPACE BOND FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF A PORTION OF A PARCEL (IDENTIFIED AS CHAPEL HILL TAX MAP LOT 7.44.G.12) TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 1,667 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE AUDUBON ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PRITCHARD PARK FOR $6,000 (2002-11-25/R-3.1)
WHEREAS, on November 27, 2000, the Council adopted the Report of the Pritchard Park Conceptual Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Pritchard Park Trail is anticipated to be completed in December 2002; and
WHEREAS, the current location of the Audubon Road trail access requires a flight of stairs; and
WHEREAS, a purchase of land would allow the trail to be relocated without stairs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to use approximately $6,000 of 1996 Open Space bond funds to purchase 1,667 square feet of property (identified as a portion of Chapel Hill Tax Map 7.44.G.12) at the intersection of the Audubon Road right-of-way and Pritchard Park for $6,000.
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
Item 5 - Information items
With regard to 5a, Update on Recruitment and Selection Process for Advisory Boards, Council Member Bateman requested that the process include a question regarding address when applicants are notified of vacancies.
Mayor pro tem Evans removed 5b, Response to Petition regarding Chapel Ridge Development, since there were people present who wished to speak to it.
Council Member Ward removed 5c, Response to Petition regarding Site Plan Approval for Chapel Hill Tire, for the same reason.
Council Member Strom removed 5d, Report on Potential Resource Needs for Implementation and Enforcement of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
With regard to 5b, developer Dave Stockman said that he was available for discussion about opening up Northfield Drive.
5b. Response to Petition regarding Chapel Ridge Development.
Rebekah Bryant, a second year medical student at UNC and a Brookstone Apartments resident, expressed concern about transforming Brookstone Drive into a pubic highway. She said that none of those who recently moved into the complex had been informed that Brookstone Drive would become the only access to a huge, three-story student housing complex. Ms. Bryant questioned the decision to close Northfield Road, which does not run through any community at all. She asked that another road be built or that Northfield Road be reopened. Ms. Bryant also asked Council members to visit Brookstone and see how Brookstone Drive cuts straight through the middle of their apartment complex.
Nancy Jeannechild thanked Council members for allowing citizens to speak on this issue. She pointed out that having a legal right to use Brookstone Drive does not make it right to do so. A memo to Brookstone residents from the Town had not responded to any of the concerns that she and her neighbors had expressed in their letters, she said. Ms. Jeannechild asked that their concerns be heard and taken seriously.
Herbert Slapo said that Northfield Road was designated as a public road but was being handled as a private road. No vehicles other than those "attached" to the Mercedes Benz auto station had been on that road in the past few years, he said, adding that Mercedes Benz uses the road for additional parking. Mr. Slapo stated that those who live in Brookstone Apartments, and whose kids play in the street, have always considered Brookstone a private road. Turning it into a bypass that cuts right through the center of the community would demean those residents, he said, by lessening the quality of their lives. Mr. Slapo added that it makes no sense for Chapel Ridge Apartments not to build its own egress.
Mayor Foy inquired about the number of units in Chapel Ridge and when they would be occupied. Planning Director Roger Waldon replied that there were 180 dwelling units. Mr. Stockman said that buildings two, three, and four, on the south side, were ready if they could get Certificates of Occupancy. Otherwise, he said, the entire project would be ready in six or seven months.
Council Member Strom asked about parking spaces, and Mr. Stockman replied that they had been allowed 370.
Council Member Strom described the staff's memo to the Council as a fair discussion of the situation. He said that he had recently driven through Brookstone Apartments and into Chapel Ridge to see the area in question. Council Member Strom noted that he had voted against Chapel Ridge Apartments in the first place, but had supported the Brookstone entranceway. But given the scale of Chapel Ridge and the number of cars that would be going through a very small neighborhood, he said, he disagreed with the staff's recommendation to take no action at this time. Council Member Strom suggested getting information from the staff on the repercussions to Airport Road of opening Northfield Drive. He suggested doing this rather than creating "what looks like a ridiculous scenario," which the Council approved at the time they approved Chapel Ridge.
Council Member Ward agreed, adding that the Town might add right turns in and out, since the Council's main concern was the great number of people on Airport Road who would need to go north from Northfield. He recommended obtaining some engineering assessment of how that would affect the volume of traffic going through Brookstone. Council Member Ward noted that stipulation #17 required a sidewalk and that this had not yet been completed.
Council Member Wiggins suggested that this issue be part of a recent Council action to recommend looking at safety issues all along Airport Road. Many students from Chapel Ridge will be crossing Airport Road, she pointed out. Council Member Wiggins expressed support for opening Northfield Road if doing so would relieve congestion on Brookstone Drive. But she stressed that she wanted to know what the Town was going to do to improve safety in that area.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED TO REFER THE ISSUE BACK TO THE MANAGER TO ADDRESS THE BROOKSTONE RESIDENTS CONCERNS AND TO ADDRESS WAYS IN WHICH THE TOWN CAN PROVIDE BETTER ACCESS TO CHAPEL RIDGE WITHOUT IMPACTING AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SECONDED.
Council Member Bateman asked for a response to one speaker's assertion that there is a possible alternative road.
Council Member Ward noted that an alternative road had been indicated in the original design but changed during the process. He asked that the staff's report include information on how buses will serve this area and what kind of pedestrian movements will be required as a result of where the bus pullouts will be.
Council Member Wiggins agreed, repeating that she would like safety issues to be addressed specifically.
Council Member Ward asked for more information on how the process in stipulation #7 can be started and what its current prospects are.
THE MOTION, AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS TO ADDRESS SAFETY ISSUES SPECIFICALLY AND AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD TO INCLUDE A STUDY OF BUS SERVICE AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT AND HOW #7 ON PAGE SIX WILL BE ADDRESSED, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
5c. Response to Petition regarding Site Plan Approval for Chapel Hill Tire.
Elizabeth Stanfill, owner and developer of the property for Chapel Hill Tire for Larry Braxton, asked what would happen to her application if the Planning Board did not meet in December and the new LUMO were enacted in early January. Since Chapel Hill Tire was already on the calendar for early December, she asked, would they be considered under the old ordinance? Mayor Foy suggested that Ms. Stanfill ask the Town Attorney, but Mr. Karpinos suggested that she address that question to her own attorney.
Council Member Bateman commented "So nobody can answer the question?" Mr. Horton replied that the ordinance that is in effect at the time an application is acted on would be the ordinance that would control it.
Item 6 - Presentation by the Friends of Bolin Creek regarding
Possible Creation of a Bolin Creek Open Space Master Plan
Former Council Member Julie McClintock, representing Friends of Bolin Creek, introduced Chair Dave Otto, Vice Chair Doug Cook, and members Dave Nicholas and Jonathan Parkinson. She explained that more than 100 people had been meeting for more than a year with an idea that every city resident should be within a 10-minute walk of a natural area. Ms. McClintock asked the Council and Mayor to support the Bolin Creek Open Space Master Plan, which would create a nature park/preserve along Bolin Creek and connect communities, parks and schools with a greenway corridor.
Dave Otto noted that the Mayor of Carrboro had described Bolin Creek as the heart and soul of Carrboro and perhaps Chapel Hill as well. He displayed the Creek and its watershed on a map, and indicated Booker Creek and Little Creek as well. Mr. Otto pointed out that development on the upper stretches impacts the entire watershed, particularly in the Chapel Hill section. He listed characteristics of the Chapel Hill section of Bolin Creek:
· Has an established greenway
· Is mostly privately owned land
· Has the most expensive real estate
· Is largely built out
· Is the most degraded part of Bolin Creek
Mr. Otto discussed two sections of the Creek that are located in Carrboro. One section stretches from Estes Drive to Homestead Drive and the other is upstream of Homestead Road. He listed characteristics of the Estes to Homestead section:
· Contains key privately owned tracts. (Adams and Craig)
· Primary stakeholder is UNC (Horace Williams Tract)
· Last significant natural area in Carrboro-Chapel Hill (extremely high ecological value)
· Intensively used for recreation
· Prime area for proposed park
Mr. Otto then listed characteristics of the section upstream of Homestead Road:
· Mixture of private and public lands
· Primarily rural agricultural, undeveloped
· Area of intense development (Hogan Farms & Winmore)
· Lloyd-Andrews Historic Farmstead (121 acres protected by a conservation easement)
· Connects downstream sections with natural areas, proposed county park, Greene Tract and Duke Forest
Mr. Otto listed two of four reasons why members of Friends of Bolin Creek believe that the Bolin Creek corridor should be preserved:
1. This is a critical period in Bolin Creek Watershed for managing urban growth.
2. It establishes connectivity of natural areas parks and greenways
Mr. Cook then listed the other two reasons why the Bolin Creek corridor should be preserved:
3. To protect the last intact stretches of native forest habitat remaining in southern Orange County.
4. To leave a legacy to future generations.
Mr. Cook referred to Rock Creek Park, which is in the middle of the northwest sector of Washington D.C. He said that Congress had had the foresight to designate that land as a national park in the 1890s. Now is the time to do the same for Carrboro-Chapel Hill, he said. Mr. Cook explained that an Open Space Master Plan for the area would do the following:
· Build cooperation between Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County, OWASA, UNC & Duke University to protect this regional resource.
· Integrate existing parks, greenways and open space plans into a comprehensive plan.
· Identify the critical environmental areas for protection and acquisition.
Mr. Cook asked the Town Council to consider this as a petition, and to join with Carrboro and Orange County in committing to protect the Bolin Creek corridor. He asked Council members to appoint a joint advisory committee to oversee an Open Space Master Plan process. The next steps, Mr. Cook said, would be to:
· Form an advisory committee will work with planning staff to identify funding sources and hire a consultant to develop a Master Plan.
· Hire a consultant to study the corridor, pull together existing plans, and recommend open space protection on Bolin Creek.
· Integrate Master Plan recommendations into the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan, Carrboro Plan and Orange County Plan.
Mr. Cook recommended that the advisory committee be composed of fifteen total members, with each government appointing four member each. He proposed that OWASA, UNC and Duke each appoint one member.
Council Member Ward expressed "wholehearted support" for the vision described and the multi-jurisdictional composition.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO TREAT THIS AS A PETITION AND REFER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 7 - Request from Habitat for Humanity for Assistance
to Purchase Property off Sunrise Road
Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt outlined the main components of Habitat for Humanity's request for funding:
· To assist with Purchase of 16.45 acres on Sunrise Road
· Orange County is also being asked to participate in this joint effort
· The purchase price is $400,000
· Habitat is raising $100,000
· Habitat is asking for $300,000 from Chapel Hill and Orange County.
Ms. Berndt displayed the proposed site on a map and provided the following information on zoning:
· Property is Residential-2
· Habitat stated that the "request for funding is not tied to a request that the property be rezoned."
· Site is in the Joint Planning area, so any change such as rezoning would require joint action of Chapel Hill and Orange County
· Development review process could take 12-18 months
Ms. Berndt listed the various possible funding sources:
· Housing Loan Trust Fund (perhaps $50,000)
· Community Development Funds (Council could reallocate $37,000 to this project)
· General Fund Balance
· Additional State Revenue Expected in the Current Year
· Orange County Funding
Ms. Berndt listed various options for proceeding:
· Allocate $300,000 as requested
· Allocate a portion of request
· Use Housing Loan Trust Fund
· Use Community Development funds
· Consider other funding sources
· Do not allocate funds for this project
Ms. Berndt noted the staff's recommendation was that the Council consider amending the guidelines of the Housing Loan Trust Fund so that funds can be used beyond the city limits. She explained that the Council could then allocate $50,000 from that fund for either an extended option on the property (the staff's preferred recommendation) or to assist with acquisition.
Mr. Horton pointed out that whether the Council chose to facilitate this project or not would not affect what it might consider if it received a development proposal. That would be a quasi-judicial process which has not yet started because there is no application before the Council tonight, he said.
Mayor Foy emphasized that tonight was only a request for funds and not a request for rezoning. This is not a public hearing on any particular housing proposal, he said. Mayor Foy pointed out that the Town Council could not rezone this property without cooperation from Orange County, since it is not within the Chapel Hill city limits.
Richard King said that Habitat for Humanity hopes to develop this project jointly with its neighbors. He explained that Habitat was not asking for rezoning tonight, but noted that they might do so in the future. Mr. King invited the neighbors to join with Habitat in planning the site. He stated that Habitat wanted to separate the issue of purchasing the land from the issue of developing it.
Steve Herman stated that the current neighborhood was not made up of snobs, as some had suggested. He objected to the characterization that the neighborhood did not want to live next to affordable housing. Mr. Herman pointed out that he and his neighbors had fought against another development where houses would have cost more than $1/2 million. They were not battling low income developments, he said, but the adverse environmental impact of poorly planned developments in their neighborhood. Mr. Herman expressed admiration for Habitat for Humanity and its goals, but pointed out that his and his neighbors' input had not been sought and that their environmental and safety concerns had not been addressed. He urged the Town Council not to approve this request until the neighbors' concerns have been addressed.
Allison Hunter Coleman spoke in support of funding for Habitat and said that she felt offended by information describing the proposed development as a "low income housing project." Ms. Coleman explained that she had been raised in an upper middle-class black family and did not consider herself "low income" just because she will be getting a Habitat home in Efland, NC. Ms. Coleman pointed out that the units are separate from each other. She said that Habitat residents are required to take classes in homeownership. She had learned so much about home construction by helping to build her own home, she said, that she is considering volunteering to work with Habitat overseas. Ms. Coleman recommended that people "be educated" about Habitat for Humanity.
Mark Chilton asked the Town Council to do what it could to help Habitat purchase the property because Chapel Hill needs all of the pieces that make up a town. What Habitat wants for its clients is exactly what the neighbors in this area want for themselves, he said, which is an opportunity to build family wealth through home ownership. Mr. Chilton stated that the project seemed economically viable with the zoning as it is. He referred to a time in the past when Council Member Bateman stood up in support of a worthwhile project that was opposed by its neighbors. Mr. Chilton said that the Council had the opportunity tonight to prove again the it was still that kind of Town.
Local builder and Habitat board member Glen Greenstreet stated that this was becoming a divisive issue. Addressing the audience, he said that all of the issues would be handled in the context of the ordinances, which are there to protect everyone's interest. Mr. Greenstreet expressed hope for a dialogue with the neighbors and said that the process would include sharing of information. He explained to the Council that the seller's agent had said that an option was very unlikely. Regarding Resolution B, Mr. Greenstreet asked for language that would give Habitat more flexibility to come up with additional funds if Orange County provides some money.
Robert Dowling, director of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, described his organization as a possible participant in this project, even though no commitment had yet been made. He said that the Board had voted to support the application whether they participate in developing it or not. Mr. Dowling noted that it was very difficult for an affordable housing group to get this kind of land. He described this as a wonderful opportunity to secure land for future development. Mr. Dowling added that Habitat probably had neglected to reach out to the neighbors because they had been so overwhelmed by the project. He predicted that Habitat would create a project that will be amenable to all concerned.
Alan Lucier, of 4719 Oak Hill Road, explained that he and his children had been volunteers with Habitat for Humanity. What he had heard tonight, he said, was not consistent with the values of the Habitat groups he had known. Mr. Lucier noted that an attachment on page 11 of the agenda item showed a very detailed proposal from Habitat for 95 units on 16 acres. Habitat's intent is to build a high-density development, including apartments and townhomes, in a neighborhood that has a semi-rural character close to downtown, he said. Mr. Lucier explained that he resented the implication that he and his neighbors had made up the high-density insert.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED R-4b, AMENDED TO INCLUDE "OR OTHER SOURCES" IN THE LAST SENTENCE. COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN SECONDED.
Council Member Strom noted that there seemed to have been a communication gap between Habitat and the neighbors. Habitat had a "tremendous commitment to making this a stronger community by making it a more diverse community," he said. Council Member Strom remarked that he believed that Habitat would follow through on the promise that their Board chair had made tonight to engage in a dialogue with the community. He said that the action that the Council seemed poised to take was no indication of what action they would take at application time. Council Member Strom added that the Council would use the new LUMO to address impacts that a development of this type might have on surrounding neighbors.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING UP TO $50,000 FROM THE HOUSING LOAN TRUST FUND TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, ORANGE COUNTY FOR A 16-ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY ON SUNRISE ROAD (2002-11-25/R-4b)
WHEREAS, the Town has an ongoing interest in the development of affordable housing in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2002, the Council received a request for funding from Habitat for Humanity, Orange County for assistance to acquire property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council allocates up to $50,000 from the Housing Loan Trust Fund to Habitat for Humanity, Orange County for either an extended option on the property or a loan to assist with the acquisition of a 16-acre parcel of property on Sunrise Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to execute a Performance Agreement with Habitat that would establish conditions consistent with the memorandum to Council of November 25, 2002.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any use of Town funds for property acquisition is contingent upon receiving the remaining balance needed from Orange County or other sources.
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ENACT O-4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002” (2002-11-25/O-4)
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, 2002” as duly adopted on July 26, 2002 be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
|
ARTICLE I |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPROPRIATIONS |
Current Budget |
Increase |
Decrease |
Revised Budget |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOUSING LOAN TRUST FUND |
337,012 |
50,000 |
|
387,012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE II |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
Current Budget |
Increase |
Decrease |
Revised Budget |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOUSING LOAN TRUST FUND |
337,012 |
50,000 |
|
387,012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
Item 7.1- Items Related to Pritchard Park
7.1a. Report of the Pritchard Park Art Garden Committee.
Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal explained that the Art Garden had been conceptualized when the library was developed in 1994. In 1996, she said, the owner of the Sienna Hotel had asked to purchase a portion of that land for parking and was told to wait until there was a plan for the park. The Council then accepted a conceptual plan for the park in November 2000, she said, and the Pritchard Art Garden Committee completed its report in March 2002. Ms. Loewenthal explained that there were plans for the Art Garden that both included and excluded the Sienna Hotel.
Andrea Rohrbacher, chair of the Art Garden Committee, outlined two options: Option A involves transferring title of slightly more than 1/2-acre to the Sienna Hotel, she said, and Option B includes a land swap and the transfer of about 1/10-acre of land to the Sienna Hotel. Either option would be paid for in a manner acceptable to the Council, she explained. Ms. Rohrbacher listed a third option, to develop the Art Garden without accommodating any additional parking. She said that the Committee had voted unanimously to recommend option A. This would provide two accesses to the library, property taxes for the Town, and additional parking for the Art Garden, she said. Ms. Rohrbacher noted that the Sienna Hotel had also offered to help fund development of the Art Garden.
Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission member Jimmie Haynes spoke in favor of the land agreement. He pointed out that the land that the Sienna wants to use for parking is not conducive to the kind of display of art that the Commissions plans for the Art Garden. That land would be much better suited to a parking lot, he said, and the agreement would generate funds that will help build the Art Garden.
Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission member Terri Tyson, vice chair of the Art Garden Committee, also recommended the venture. She predicted that this public/private partnership would result in a centrally located sculpture garden for all to enjoy. Ms. Tyson describe the Art Garden as an amenity for Chapel Hill and asked Council members to support the collaboration.
7.1b. Proposed Cooperative Venture with the Sienna Hotel Including Sale of Town Land.
Ms. Loewenthal explained that the Sienna Hotel had agreed to a purchase price of $489,000 per acre. They have offered a price for 1/2-acre, she said, but the dimensions of that land might change because the LUMO's RCD requirements. Ms. Loewenthal proposed that the Council concur with the price being offered and with the general proposal. The Sienna Hotel will then amend the plan to accommodate the new RCD, she said, and the Art Garden Committee will review that and come back to the Council with a final recommendation. If the Council approves the final proposal, she said, there will be a modification to the Pritchard Park/Library SUP, a rezoning of the land transferred to the Sienna for parking, and a requirement that the Sienna get a SUP to include the revised parking. Ms. Loewenthal explained that if the Council approved all of that the Sienna would pay $85,000 toward the Art Garden and purchase the land'. Land would then be swapped and construction would begin, she said.
Council Member Verkerk verified with the staff that money obtained through sale of the property would have to be spent for park purposes.
Council Member Bateman praised the difficult and creative work that Committee members had put into this long process. Ms. Loewenthal commented that Recreation Planner Bill Webster had "spent much of his life on it."
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-4.1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO PROCEED TOWARD A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SIENA HOTEL FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF PRITCHARD PARK AND PARKING FOR THE SIENA HOTEL (2002-11-25/R-4.1)
WHEREAS, the Council desires to build Pritchard Park; and
WHEREAS, the Siena Hotel desires to increase its parking; and
WHEREAS, the Pritchard Park Art Garden Committee has recommended the development of an art garden on the park property adjacent to the Siena Hotel; and
WHEREAS, the Pritchard Park Art Garden Committee also recommended that the Council work with the Siena Hotel to plan and construct facilities that would enhance both the park and the hotel;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to proceed toward a public/private partnership with the Siena Hotel that would allow construction of an art garden in Pritchard Park and would allow the Siena Hotel to gain an additional 25-30 parking spaces conditioned on the issuance of a Special Use Permit for the hotel and a Special Use Permit Modification for Pritchard Park and on the rezoning of about one-half acre from R-2 to Community Commercial.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is authorized to execute a conditional letter of intent with the owner of the Siena Hotel that states the following conditions set by the Council:
· The Town and the Siena Hotel must jointly design a space that merges the uses of the two properties in a coordinated and sensible manner.
· The Siena Hotel must agree to make its additional parking available to the public.
· The Siena Hotel’s formal outdoor seating and use area that would be created by this partnership would be open for public use except when in use by the Siena.
· The Siena Hotel must agree to participate in the security and maintenance of the area.
· The Siena Hotel must agree to place signs that would direct the public to the parking lot in the rear of the Hotel for the purpose of parking for visitation of the art garden.
· The Siena Hotel must incorporate all buffers on the Hotel’s side of the new property line. If that is not possible there should be an agreement that would require the Siena Hotel to be responsible for the costs of providing the buffer on the Town side of the line.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council does not at this time commit to any sale of land nor to the approval of any Special Use Permit or Modification or Zoning Map Amendment; rather it commits to pursuing the process outlined above and if joint agreement is reached on all points, any land sold to the Siena shall be sold at the price of $489,323 per acre.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Pritchard Park Art Garden Committee shall be reestablished for the purpose of making recommendations to the Council after review of revised plans that avoid the anticipated expansion of the Town’s Resource Conservation District.
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
Council Member Ward remarked that the design for parking and the commitment to save trees were mutually exclusive unless the plan was reconfigured. Mr. Horton replied that he would ask the parties to address that. Council Member Harrison verified that the money could be used as the Council determines as long as it is used for park purposes.
Item 8 - Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities Construction Plan for 2002-03
Town Planner Than Austin noted that this was a follow-up report on the public forum. There were two resolutions before the Council tonight, he said. Mr. Austin explained that R-5a would approve the top ten projects on the Town's sidewalk priority list and initiate a process to apply for direct allocation funds for the Airport Road sidewalk. R-5b directs the Mayor to initiate conversations with the University about potential cost sharing for a sidewalk on Country Club Road. Mr. Austin noted that the Town had begun the South Graham Street sidewalk project, which will be built with Community Development funds, and recommended that the Council adopt both R-5a and R-5b.
Council Member Bateman inquired about sidewalk material in the two Historic District projects, adding that she thought the Historic District Commission had requested Chapel Hill gravel.
Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that these sidewalks were on the other side of the street from those that had been discussed. Mr. Horton added that the Town would not be able to get approval to build a brick sidewalk in those areas without approval from the HDC.
Council Member Verkerk asked if the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had any discussion of Mr. Craig Scheffler's request regarding Barbee Chapel Road. If they had, she asked, how did it rank on the rating system? Mr. Austin replied that the project had received a ranking of six, which puts it half way down the list.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-5A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2002-2003 SIDEWALK AND BICYCLE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION PLAN (2002-11-25/R-5a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has available approximately $60,000 in Capital Improvements Program funds, and an estimated $20,000 in Community Development program funds, for sidewalk and bicycle facility projects in the 2002-2003 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the Council may pursue other sources of funding for sidewalk projects, including Direct Allocation funds from the State of North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed projects for possible use of these funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Program funds and Community Development program funds be used to construct the following sidewalk projects, as indicated:
Legion Road #2 (south side), Clover Road to Ephesus Church Road
Culbreth Road (south side), between Cobble Ridge Drive and Rossburn Way
Seawell School Road #3 (east side), Savannah Terrace to High School Road
McCauley Street (south side), Brookside Drive to Pittsboro Street
South Graham Street (east side), Cameron Avenue to Franklin Street (Community Development funds)
University Drive (north side), Pittsboro Street to Ransom Street
Legion Road #1 (south side), Scarlette Drive to Martin Luther King Jr. Street
Ephesus Church Rd #1 (south side), Eden Lane to 15-501 Bypass
Estes Road Extension #3 (south side), Seawell School Road to Airport Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the Town Manager is directed to apply for up to $100,000 of Direct Allocation funds with a local match of $25,000 for the following project:
Airport Road (east side), Timber Hollow Court to Homestead Drive
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
Council Member Ward said that the sidewalk above the Forest Hill Theater did not seem like a high priority to him.
Council Member Verkerk agreed that other sidewalks are more important because they are unsafe.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-5b. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO INITIATE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA REGARDING A POTENTIAL SIDEWALK ON COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (2002-11-25/R-5b)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill wishes to pursue sidewalk improvements on the north/east side of Country Club Road, adjacent to Battle Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Council directs the Mayor to initiate discussions with the University to seek their participation in the cost of the work of sidewalk improvements on the north/east side of Country Club Road, adjacent to Battle Park.
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
Item 9 - Status Report and Request from EmPOWERment, Inc, for 503 Sykes Street
Ms. Berndt stated that the Town had provided $35,000 to EmPOWERment for purchase of a house on Dykes Street for $72,000. She noted that EmPOWERment had been contracted to sell the house by September 30th but had discovered substantial termite damage after the purchase. The Town had worked with EmPOWERment to develop a new proposal to demolish the house and to build another at the same location, she said. Ms. Berndt outlined the staff's proposal that Council replace the $35,000 in Community Development (CD) funds with local funds from the Housing Loan Trust Fund from a line item for Neighborhood Revitalization Projects. This would give EmPOWERment more flexibility in proceeding so that they would not be bound by the stricter federal requirements, she said.
Ms. Berndt noted that the staff also proposed using CD funds to demolish the structure. She said this would be done under the provisions that allow the Town to eliminate slums and blighting conditions. Ms. Berndt explained that a new house could then be built and that Resolution R-6 would require EmPOWERment to submit a plan for that house for approval. Resolution R-6 would also amend the current performance agreement to incorporate this, she said, and would establish a new completion date of June 30, 2003. Ms. Berndt pointed out that these actions would help revitalize the Sykes Street neighborhood.
Mayor Foy verified that the Town would not be allocating new money. It would be shifting money by removing CD funds and putting in Housing Loan Trust Fund money to give EmPOWERment more flexibility, he said. EmPOWERment's director, Mark Chilton, explained that they had bought a "really bad house" and needed the Council's help in giving them the flexibility to continue their work in the Sykes Street area.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO ADOPT R-6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION OUTLINING PROCEDURES FOR PROCEEDING WITH 503 SYKES STREET (2002-11-25/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Town has an ongoing interest in community development activities in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Council has provided $35,000 of Community Development Neighborhood Revitalization funds to EmPOWERment to acquire 503 Sykes Street; and conversion of the Town’s funds into a grant to Orange Community Housing and Land Trust upon sale of the house to a qualified homebuyer;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the following regarding 503 Sykes Street:
1. Replace $35,000 of Community Development funds invested in this project with funds from the Housing Loan Trust Fund Neighborhood Revitalization budget;
2. Use Community Development Neighborhood Revitalization Funds to demolish the existing structure located at 503 Sykes Street; and
3. Amend the Town’s Performance Agreement with EmPOWERment to provide for construction of a new house on the property that would be purchased by a lower income homeowner and extending the time of performance to June 30, 2003.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to request EmPOWERment to submit plans for construction and financing of a new house for approval by the Town Manager prior to initiating work.
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
Mr. Horton commented that the Town was grateful that EmPOWERment was willing to do things that private developers would never take a risk on. EmPOWERment will run into trouble sometimes, he said, and this is one of those times.
Mayor Foy thanked Mr. Chilton for EmPOWERment's work on Sykes Street. Mr. Chilton replied that EmPOWERment appreciated all of the work that Ms. Berndt and Mr. Barnes had done on this resolution.
Item 10 - Town Annexation Issues
Ms. Berndt indicated on the Urban Services Area map areas that the Town intends to consider annexing in the future. She said that Resolution R-7 states that the Town intends to annex these parcels at some time in the future.
Ms. Berndt noted that seven different areas were listed in the report to the Council. But this year's focus was on the Northwest Area (area one), she said. Ms. Berndt added that the Town would also consider whether to annex Parkside II and possibly Vineyard Square. The Town was evaluating those areas, she said, and would come back with a Resolution of Intent on January 13.
Council Member Ward asked why Larkspur was not included in the recommendation along with Parkside and Vineyard Square. Mr. Horton replied that neither Larkspur nor Vineyard Square would meet the legal requirements and that Parkside II was the only one that would qualify for annexation this year. Council Member Ward asked what the dividing line was and Ms. Berndt explained that the statutes require specific numbers of people to be living there. She commented that Vineyard Square might use surplus density form Parkside II even though it probably would not qualify on its own this year. Ms Berndt noted, however, that Mr. Horton had just said that only Parkside II would qualify.
Mayor Foy asked if there was a long-term plan for water and sewer in area four. Mr. Horton replied that there was no plan that would fund it. He suggested that the staff bring back information that it had developed in the past on all of these areas. That would include the difficulties and costs associated with bringing water and sewer into some of them, he said.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE AREAS DESCRIBED WITHIN AS BEING UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ANNEXATION (2002-11-25/R-7)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill:
SECTION 1
That pursuant to G.S. 160A-49(i), the following described areas are identified as being under consideration for annexation by the Town of Chapel Hill, under provisions of Part 3, Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes of North Carolina:
Generally, the unincorporated areas between Chapel Hill’s existing corporate limits and the Town’s Urban Services Boundary as identified on the 2000 Land Use Plan that was adopted by the Council on May 8, 2000.
The above-referenced areas are specifically shaded on the attached map (“Areas Under Consideration for Future Annexation – November 25, 2002”), which shall be incorporated into this resolution by reference, in accordance with N.C. General Statute 160A-49(i).
SECTION 2
That pursuant to G.S. 160A-49(i), persons subject to annexation by this Resolution of Consideration are hereby notified of their rights under North Carolina General Statute Subsections 160A-49(f1) and 160A-49(f2).
Subsections 160A-49(f1) and (f2) provide as follows:
(f1) Property Subject to Present-Use Value Appraisal. – If an area described in an annexation ordinance includes agricultural land, horticultural land, or forestland that on the effective date of annexation is:
(1) Land that is being taxed at present-use value pursuant to G.S. 105-277.4; or
(2) Land that:
a. Was on the date of the resolution of intent for annexation being used for actual production and is eligible for present-use value taxation under G.S. 105-277.4, but the land has not been in use for actual production for the required time under G.S. 105-277.3; and
b. The assessor for the county where the land subject to annexation is located has certified to the city that the land meets the requirements of this subdivision
the annexation becomes effective as to that property pursuant to subsection (f2) of this section.
(f2) Effective Date of Annexation for Certain Property. – Annexation of property subject to annexation under subsection (f1) of this section shall become effective:
(1) Upon the effective sate of the annexation ordinance, the property is considered part of the city only (i) for the purpose of establishing city boundaries for additional annexations pursuant to the Article and (ii) for the exercise of city authority pursuant to Article 19 of this Chapter.
(2) For all other purposes, the annexation becomes effective as to each tract of such property or part thereof on the last day of the month in which that tract or part thereof becomes ineligible for classification pursuant to G.S. 105-227.4 or no longer meets the requirements of subdivision (f1)(2) of this section. Until annexation of a tract or a part of a tract becomes effective pursuant to this subdivision, the tract or part of a tract is not subject to taxation by the city under Article 12 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes nor is the tract or part of a tract entitled to services provided by the city.
SECTION 3
That a copy of this resolution shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
Item 11 - Reconvening, Recessing Public Hearing
on Proposed Land Use Management Ordinance
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECONVENE AND RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 12 - Appointments
12 a. Horace Williams Citizens Committee.
12 b. Street Fair Review Committee.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO DEFER THE APPOINTMENTS TO BOTH COMMITTEES TO DECEMBER 9, 2002.
Item 13 - Petitions
13a. By the Mayor and Council Members.
1. Mayor Foy - OWASA Joint Meeting Request.
Mayor Foy explained that this was a request from OWASA to meet jointly with the OWASA Board of Directors, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the Orange County Board of Commissioner to discuss proposed improvements to the Water Conservation Ordinance in light of the recent drought. He noted that adopted of Resolution R-9 would amend the Council’s calendar to include this meeting.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A JOINT MEETING WITH THE OWASA BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN, AND ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (2002-11-25/R-9)
WHEREAS, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors has invited the Town Council to a Joint Meeting with the OWASA Board, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the subject of the meeting will be to discuss proposed improvements to the Water Conservation Ordinances, in light of the County's worst drought on record;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby schedules a joint meeting with the OWASA Board of Directors, Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and Orange County Board of Commissioners at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 16, 2003, at a location to be determined.
This the 25th day of November, 2002.
2. Council Member Strom - Petition regarding Small House Rules within the Fourth Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Council Member Strom said that he had petitioned the Council to change the fourth draft of the LUMO to apply the Small House Rules to major subdivisions. This would move the threshold from thirteen down to five, he said, noting that it would give the Council additional input and the ability to speak to applicants about housing options early in the process. Noting that the fourth draft was on Council members' desks, Council Member Strom asked Mr. Horton for advice in the matter. Mr. Horton replied that the staff would note, when preparing for the hearing, that such a change was being considered by the Council.
Mayor Foy ascertained that the staff would also provide language to make the amendment at the time the Council considers the LUMO.
Council Member Verkerk requested that the Council also discuss deleting the minimum parking requirement at the public forum. Mr. Horton offered to prepare similar language for that.
Mayor pro tem Evans expressed concern that lowering the threshold might create a backlash whereby developers will come in with larger houses on estate size lots. She wondered if there were other alternatives and asked the staff to address other options.
Council Member Wiggins commented that a recent discussion with developers had appeared to persuade those developers. She asked why Council Member Strom would not just allow that approach to continue. Council Member Strom replied that the staff had been frustrated because it could not really achieve the Council's goals due to language in the ordinance. Council Member Wiggins said she agreed with Mayor pro tem Evans that developers will try to come in under any threshold. She suggested that the Council only set a limit in the LUMO that it is prepared to accept.
Mayor Foy asked what the Council had done with the Small House Ordinance when they modified it for Larkspur. Town Planning Director Roger Waldon replied that the Ordinance requires that 25% of the lots carry restrictions on size. Larkspur had asked to provide 15% affordable housing in lieu of that 25% requirement, he said. Mayor Foy remarked that this is one option the Council might like to consider for small subdivisions. Mr. Karpinos agreed that it was an option that could be considered. Mr. Horton added that this would be consistent with other Town principles, such as accepting a payment-in-lieu when there is not enough land to fulfill the recreational space requirement.
Council Member Strom said that it would also be useful on December 9th to have an analysis, with illustrations, of the implications and possible effects of changing from 50% to 70% impervious area for non-residential sites. He asked that this be added to the petition for information to come back at the public forum.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD TO RECEIVE AND REFER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY A REQUEST TO LOOK AT SMALL HOUSE RULES, MINIMUM PARKING, AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Harrison verified from Mr. Waldon that the fourth draft of the LUMO gives the Council some ability to modify standards when there is a SUP. Mr. Waldon explained that if the Council makes a public purpose finding it can modify any regulation in the ordinance for a particular site.
Council Member Harrison inquired about the appropriate procedure for dealing with unresolved issues in the LUMO. Mayor Foy suggested bringing up concerns at the public hearing, adding that Council members can also email concerns to the Council and staff so they will be ready to act at the meeting after the 9th.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO LOOK AT INCLUDING FLEXIBILITY IN THE RCD FOR SMALLER PARCELS OF LAND WHERE THE IMPACT OF CHANGING BACK TO 75 FEET WOULD NOT BE ENVIRONMENTALLY DANGEROUS. THE MOTION FAILED (5-3), WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS VERKERK, STROM, HARRISON, WARD, AND FOY VOTING NAY, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS, EVANS AND BATEMAN VOTING AYE.
Item 14 - Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items
5d. Report on Potential Resource Needs for Implementation and Enforcement of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Council Member Strom stated that by not discussing this, the Council would be passively endorsing three new positions. He requested alternative proposals for ways to reorganize staff to address these concerns.
Council Member Ward agreed that additional staffing should be the last resort.
Mayor Foy said that he did not see it that way because the Council would address new positions during the budget process. Mr. Horton explained that the report had been an effort to give the Council a sense of how the staff sees the draw on resources so that the Council could consider this while thinking about how to proceed.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that she wanted to know what the increase in staffing might be. Mr. Horton noted that he had only recommended that the Council take the cost of enforcement into consideration when setting fees for development application review and inspections.
Council Member Harrison said that he would rather discuss this during the budget process because that's the rational time to do so.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.