SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Mayor pro tem Pat Evans was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Senior Long Range Planner Chris Berndt, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, Superintendent of Parking Services Brenda Jones, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook
Item 1 - Ceremonies: None.
Item 2 - Public Hearings: None
Item 3 - Petitions
1. Andrea Rohrbacher, Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission, regarding Naming of Park Adjacent to Rashkis Elementary School.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
2. Wayne Poerio, regarding renovations to his property.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 4 - Consent Agenda
Council Member Bateman removed 4f, Further Response to Petition from Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board regarding Proposed Development on Eubanks Road. She asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos if he thought that the Council's request regarding broadening its discretion to set aside properties would be controversial at the State legislature. Mr. Karpinos replied that he did. Council Member Bateman asked to discuss this at the end of the meeting.
Council Member Kleinschmidt removed 4c, Update on Automated Red Light Enforcement System, and asked to discuss it later in the meeting.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1 WITH 4C & 4F REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2003-05-12/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
|
a. |
Nominations to various Boards and Commissions (R-2). |
|
b. |
Project Ordinance for 2002-03 Transportation Capital and Planning Grant (O-1). |
|
d. |
Budget Amendments for Town Operations Center Design (O-2); (O-3); and (O-4). |
|
e. |
Demolition of House Located at 127 Greene Street (O-5); (O-6). |
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2003-05-12/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:
Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission
Erica Rothman
Historic District Commission
Joan Guilkey
James Spencer
Library Board of Trustees
Martha O’Hara Conway
Brandon Rector
Robert Schreiner
OWASA
Michael Clarke
Transportation Board
Gary Barnes
Eleanor Howe
Brandon Rector
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BUDGET FOR A TRANSPORTATION GRANT (2003-05-12/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant projects are hereby established:
The Urban Area Formula Program (Section 5307) funds are from 2003 federal funds from an agreement with the Federal Transit Administration.
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the implementation of the project within the terms of the grant agreements executed with the Federal Transit Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation within the funds appropriated herein.
The following revenue is anticipated to be available to the Town to complete activities as outlined in the project application:
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307)
|
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) |
$437,537 |
|
N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) |
26,592 |
|
Town of Chapel Hill (local match) |
82,792 |
|
Total |
$546,921 |
The following amounts are appropriated for the FY2003 Section 5307 project:
|
Salaries - Full Time |
$90,000 |
|
Fringe Benefits |
13,145 |
|
FICA |
6,856 |
|
Supplies - Fleet |
200,000 |
|
Building and Equipment Rents |
14,800 |
|
Miscellaneous Contracted Services |
29,578 |
|
Professional Services Capital Equipment |
32,500 160,042 |
|
Total |
$546,921 |
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND "THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002” (2003-05-12/O-2)
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
Non-departmental
Transfer to Public Works
Current Revised
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS ORDINANCE FOR RENOVATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES FUNDED FROM 1996 BONDS (2003-05-12/O-3)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina that the following capital project established for Public Works Facility renovations funded from 1996 bonds approved by the voters in November 1996 is hereby amended as follows:
The capital projects as authorized by bond referenda approved in November, 1996 and as determined by the Town Council, includes the capital costs of renovating and adding facilities to support Public Works operations.
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with implementation of these projects within terms of funds appropriated here.
Revenues anticipated to be available to the Town to complete the project are amended as follows:
Current Revised
Budget Budget
Amounts appropriated for the project are amended as follows:
Current Revised
Budget Budget
Public Works Renovations and Improvements $518,000 $ 545,677
The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of the project in an informational section to be included in the Annual Budget, and shall keep the Council informed of any unusual occurrences.
Copies of this ordinance shall be entered into the Minutes of the Council and copies shall be filed within 5 days of adoption with the Manager, Finance Director and Clerk.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE FOR A NEW TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS CENTER (2003-05-12/O-4)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project is hereby amended as follows.
Funds available for this project include local contributions from the Town’s Transportation Capital Reserve Fund and potential grants and agreements from the Federal Transit Administration.
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the implementation of the project within the terms of grant agreements executed with the Federal Transit Administration and the funds appropriated herein.
Revenues anticipated to be available to the Town to complete activities as outlined in the project budget are hereby amended as follows:
Current Revised
Budget Budget
Town of Chapel Hill (local match from
Transportation Capital Reserve Fund) $168,000 172,950
Federal Grant 0 44,577
Total 168,000 217,527
Amounts appropriated for the project are hereby amended as follows:
Current Revised
Budget Budget
Transportation Operations Center $168,000 $217,527
The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of the project in an information section to be included in the Annual Budget, and shall keep the Council informed of any unusual circumstances.
Copies of this project ordinance shall be entered into the Minutes of the Council and copies shall be filed within 5 days of adoption with the Manager, Finance Director and Town Clerk.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PROCEED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 2 OF THE CHAPEL HILL CODE OF ORDINANCES AS THEY APPLY TO THE DILAPIDATED HOUSE AT 127 GREENE STREET, TAX MAP NUMBER 7.33.E.9 INCLUDING HAVING THE STRUCTURE DEMOLISHED AND A LIEN FOR THE COST OF DEMOLITION PLACED ON THE PROPERTY (2003-05-12/O-5)
Be It Ordained by the Council of The Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A. The Council finds, based on the report of the Town Manager dated March 24, 2003, that the Chapel Hill Inspections Department has taken the procedural steps required by Chapter 9 of the Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances with respect to the residential structure at 127 Greene Street, Chapel Hill (TMBL # 7.33.E.9) prior to adoption this Ordinance.
B. The Council finds that the owner of this dwelling has been given a reasonable opportunity to bring the property into conformity with the Housing Code of the Town of Chapel Hill and has failed to do so.
C. The Council finds that the Inspections Department conducted a hearing for the purposes of determining whether the property at 127 Greene Street is unfit for human habitation and deteriorated.
D. The Council finds that the Inspections Department, as a result of that hearing, determined that the property is deteriorated and unfit for human habitation and in violation of the Town of Chapel Hill Housing Code.
E. The Council finds that the owner has failed to comply with the Order issued by the Inspections Department on February 28, 2002, to have the structure removed and demolished and that the time period established to comply with that order or appeal that Order has expired.
Section 2. Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 9-25 (b) of the Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances, that the Chapel Hill Building Inspector shall have the dilapidated residential structure at 127 Greene Street demolished and a lien placed on the property for the cost of the demolition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Ordinance be recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County indexed in the name of the property owner in the Grantor index.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002” (2003-05-12/O-6)
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 |
31,329 |
|
10.000 |
21,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspections |
717,000 |
10,000 |
|
727,100 |
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
Item 5 - Information Items
The Council accepted the Information Items by consensus.
Item 6 - Draft of Mayor’s Committee’s Report on
Proposed Habitat for Humanity Development
Mr. Horton explained that on November 25, 2002, the Council had authorized an acquisition loan of $50,000 to the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity to assist in purchasing land on Sunrise Road for a potential affordable housing development. Subsequent to that action, Mr. Horton said, Mayor Foy had appointed a Mayor’s Committee to study the site, to engage in discussions with Habitat representatives and the property's neighbors, and to develop goals and principles that the Council might adopt. Mr. Horton noted that the 17-acre property was located outside the Chapel Hill Town limits but was within its Urban Services Boundary. The property had been designated as a transition area under a Joint Planning Agreement between the Town and Orange County, he said.
Mr. Horton explained that the site was currently zoned Residential-2, which permits up to four units per acre. He said that under provisions of Chapel Hill's Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) a property owner may apply for approval of a subdivision or a SUP for this property. In the context of a SUP, Mr. Horton said, the Council has authority to modify regulations if it finds that public purposes are satisfied to a degree equivalent to that satisfied by full adherence to regulations. Mr. Horton added that a property owner may request a rezoning to another designation, which could include rezoning to another general use district or to a conditional use district in which any proposed development would require a SUP. If a rezoning request were submitted, he explained, the application would need to be reviewed by both the Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners because the site is in the transition area. However, Mr. Horton said, the Council alone has approval authority over any development proposed for the site, whether or not it is in conjunction with the rezoning.
Mr. Horton noted that the Mayor's Committee had met with representatives from Habitat and the surrounding neighborhoods. They had also walked the site, he said, and had sponsored two community meetings focused on possible development plans. Mr. Horton reported that residents from surrounding neighborhoods and from Habitat had suggested parameters for development. He explained that the Mayor's Committee had considered those parameters when preparing the goals and principles presented tonight. Mr. Horton stated that the Committee's proposal was intended as a guideline only and was not intended to help develop specific plans. He then outlined the 17 principles for Council consideration:
1. Retain present zoning: The present zoning of this property is Residential-2. For a property of this size in this district, development applications can be filed for either a subdivision or Special Use Permit that would accommodate most of the possible development scenarios that have been discussed. We suggest that development plans be drawn in a manner that meets the requirements of this zoning district.
2. Compliance with regulations: Plans should be drawn in a manner that would meet all regulations in the LUMO at the time that an application is considered by the Council. We note that the Council is continuing to monitor and evaluate the new LUMO, and that there may be adjustments made to the ordinance in the future.
3. Consider Clustering Development: Whatever density and/or intensity are permitted on this site under existing zoning should be clustered so as to take advantage of buildable areas and minimize disturbance to sensitive areas.
4. Consider Developing Housing for Varied Income Levels: Prepare plans, perhaps in cooperation with other agencies, such that the development provides housing opportunities for homeownership for persons of low and moderate income. Various building types and designs would be allowed in the present zoning district under the Land Use Management Ordinance in a manner that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Provide Recreation Amenities: If a subdivision application is prepared, it is required that land be set aside for recreation; if a Special Use Permit application is prepared, it is required that amenities for active recreation be provided. Regardless of the type of application, plans for development of this site should include active recreational amenities.
6. Consider Public Transit: Plans for development of this property should explicitly consider current and proposed transit routes, and provide reasonable access and sidewalks to public transit locations. If amenities are needed (e.g., a bus shelter), they should be included in the proposal and provided by the applicant.
7. Provide Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths: Provide adequate pedestrian paths to destinations in all directions from the site, including connection to a future greenway along I-40.
8. Building and Site Design: Careful attention should be given to site and building design, with sensitivity to the environment. Development should avoid the power line and Resource Conservation District (RCD) corridors and result in buildings that are attractive.
9. Minimize Impacts on RCD for Road Construction: Design the street network and utility systems so as to cross the RCD in the least disruptive locations, and with the fewest possible crossings.
10. Possible Development Partners: Partnerships with other nonprofit organizations may enhance the variety of housing opportunities that are developed on this site. It is expected that all housing built on this site will be affordable to individuals and families with income below 80% of the area median income.
11. Develop Designs that Promote Inclusion: Seek designs that will promote interaction between this proposed development and surrounding areas; avoid designs that would serve to isolate residents of this proposed development.
12. Provide Corridor for I-40 Greenway: Chapel Hill’s Greenways Master Plan contemplates a trail along the south side of Interstate 40. This proposal should provide easements along the portion of that trail that will cross this property.
13. Study Sunrise Road Access: Study the Sunrise Road corridor to select an access point for this development that addresses sight distance concerns for ingress and egress.
14. Consider How Best to Provide Sewer Service: Seek designs that minimize RCD disruption and allow for future extension of utilities to nearby properties.
15. High-Voltage Power Line: Prepare designs that minimize proximity of dwellings to the power line corridor.
16. Consider Stub-outs: Review adjacent development patterns, existing and potential, to determine if it is desirable/feasible to stub-out streets at the edges of this property, for possible future extension.
17. Future Workshop: It would be desirable for Habitat to sponsor a workshop, involving neighbors of this property, to consider possible designs for use of this property prior to preparation and submittal of a Concept Plan.
Council Member Bateman, Mayor's Committee Chair, thanked Mayor Foy for appointing the Committee. She described the meetings as a fruitful process that should be used again for future applicants. She noted that the Committee consisted of Council Members Mark Kleinschmidt, Edith Wiggins and Jim Ward.
Council Member Bateman repeated Mr. Horton's statement that the 17 principles were guidelines only and not legally binding on Habitat or any future Town Council. She said that a Committee goal had been to have everyone receive the same information at the same time from the same source. However, she said, despite their efforts there appeared to be some misinformation circulating and she wanted to correct that by emphasizing three facts:
· The site is in the Urban Services Boundary and is scheduled for annexation. Council Member Bateman explained that the property is not part of, nor adjacent to, the rural buffer. She pointed out that the rural buffer is north of Interstate-40, and that the site in question is south of I-40.
· Council Member Bateman explained that 68 units are allowed under the current zoning and by the LUMO. She emphasized that 68 units does not represent an exception that Habitat has received.
· Current zoning provides plenty of flexibility, she said, adding that the LUMO states that if a SUP is submitted the Town Council may modify regulations for a particular application under conditions, if they have been met. Council Member Bateman pointed out that this flexibility is available to any developer, including Habitat.
Council Member Bateman stated that the Committee's work would be finished after tonight's Council meeting. Habitat needs to move into its site planning process, she said, and she urged interested citizens to give Habitat an opportunity to get on with its work if the Council approves the 17 principles tonight.
Council Member Kleinschmidt praised Council Member Bateman for her exceptional leadership through a difficult process. He had found it rewarding to take part in such an extraordinary response to the community surrounding the area to be developed, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt emphasized that the developer had not initiated the process, but that the Council had done so in response to the community's concerns.
With regard to the first principle, Council Member Kleinschmidt reflected on the "enormous flexibility" that LUMO allows for just about every objective and goal that Habitat has for this project. He said that he was pleased that Habitat's goals would likely be met within the Residential-2 zoning and that many of the neighbors' concerns would be relieved.
Council Member Ward thanked Council Member Bateman and recognized Town Planning Director Roger Waldon for his "priceless" ability to give clear answers to questions and concerns. Council Member Ward pointed out that the guidelines reflect significant input from Habitat and staff as well as the concerns and support of those who live in the surrounding area. He added that the principles also reflect the values of the Council members who served on the Committee. Council Member Ward thanked Mayor Foy for initiating the process.
Council Member Wiggins praised the process, which she said would lead to subdivisions along Erwin Road and Sunrise Road deciding to help build a Habitat House. She added that a well-known nursery owner in the area would be helping with landscaping. Council Member Wiggins explained that such a cooperative outcome had been her ultimate goal.
Mayor Foy, noting that tonight's speakers had organized their presentations as the Council requested, agreed to give them extended time.
Sue Harvin, past president of the Habitat board and a member of the Sunrise Committee, thanked the Mayor's Committee and staff for all the time and attention put into this issue. She said that Habitat had always seen itself as a partner with the Town, with other community governments, and with other non-profit organizations in the effort to meet affordable housing needs. Habitat has been building affordable houses and communities in Orange County for 15 years, she said, and would soon finish its 110th house. Ms. Harvin noted that Habitat had also built mixed-income communities, such as Culbreth Park. She pointed out that the Town had played an important role by donated seven of those lots for Habitat houses.
Ms. Harvin explained that Habitat had spent a considerable amount of time trying to develop strategies to increase the number of houses it can build to meet the affordable housing crisis in Town. She said that the Sunrise Road endeavor was the result of the very focused planning that Habitat has been doing for many years. The Sunrise neighborhood will be near buses and an outstanding school system, and will provide accessibility to shopping and jobs, she said. Ms. Harvin noted that working people in Chapel Hill live in either substandard or crowded housing. They are paying more rent than they can afford, she said, or are living so far out of Chapel Hill that they have transportation problems.
Ms. Harvin pointed out that Habitat families are important working members of the Community. She noted that one must have good credit and be able to make mortgage payments in order to be a Habitat homeowner. When people become homeowners they also become taxpayers, she said, pointing out that one Habitat resident, Anne Mason-Hunter, had recently been named "most valuable staff member" by students at the UNC Dental School. Ms. Mason is not atypical, Ms. Harvin said. She asked Council members to vote in favor of the resolution and to endorse the goals and principles developed by the Mayor's Committee.
Habitat for Humanity Director Susan Levy thanked Council Member Bateman and the Mayor's Committee for their fine work. She also commended Habitat's Board of Directors. Ms. Levy praised the Board for their vision in pursuing opportunities to purchase land in Chapel Hill and their commitment to improving the lives of those who cannot afford a decent home. Ms. Levy stated that homes for people earning below 80% of the median income could not be built in this community without financial subsidy from the public. The lower the income, the greater the subsidy needs to be, she said.
Ms. Levy stated that Habitat had received about $500,000 in State and local affordable housing funds in fiscal year 2001-02. She said that they had leveraged those funds with privately raised dollars, almost three to one, to meet their $1.4 million budget. Ms. Levy explained that Habitat would continue to raise most of its funds from the private sector. They will be asking the Town and County for funds that are earmarked for affordable housing, she said, so that the Sunrise project will reflect the quality that everyone wants. Ms. Levy encouraged Council members to adopt the Mayor's Committee’s guidelines.
Reverend Tim Kimrey, a retired pastor from the Church of Reconciliation who lives in the Sunrise area, noted that Chapel Hill is a town that values its history. He recalled how upset he had been when a vast number of trees were taken down to build Cedar Falls Park and when Chandler's Green was built. But, said Reverend Kimrey, he had driven through the community just yesterday and recognized that it is very nice. Things change, he said, noting that there had been an enormous outcry when East Chapel Hill High School was built, too. But the proximity of "East" is now one of the main selling points for Chandler's Green, he said.
Reverend Kimrey told Council members that the people who had lived on Sunrise and Oak Hill Roads, when he moved there 27 years ago, had been working people. Prior to that, the entire area was a farm, he said. Reverend Kimrey pointed out that none of those former residents would be able to afford even their own homes today. Opponents of the project ask for something that is "in keeping with the character of our neighborhood," he said, pointing out that those who now oppose affordable housing had changed the character of the neighborhood. Reverend Kimrey expressed hope that the area would continue to be the kind of mixed economic community that Chapel Hill prides itself on having. He urged Council members to support and endorse the principles and goals set out in the proposed resolution.
Robert Dowling, Director of Orange Community Housing Corporation and Land Trust (OCHC), thanked Mayor Foy for forming the Mayor's Committee. He also thanked Committee members for their hard work and for conducting meetings that enabled a remarkable exchange of ideas. Mr. Dowling said that Habitat might be interested in having OCHC build affordable townhomes on Sunrise Road. He said that OCHC had developed 24 townhomes on 1.4 acres of land on Legion Road and 32 townhomes on 2.5 acres at Meadowmont. All of those homeowners earn less than 80% of the median income, he said, adding that they typically earn between $28,000 and $45,000. With regard to the 17 guiding principles, Mr. Dowling asked Council members to allow some flexibility so that Habitat would not have to bear extraordinary costs if they face unanticipated obstacles. He pointed out that Habitat was not like most developers in Chapel Hill who simply built extra costs into the cost of the home.
Mr. Dowling commented that the Committee had done a good job of taking the neighbors' concerns into account when forming the 17 principles. He described those concerns as understandable, but pointed out that the same fears had been expressed by neighbors of the Legion Road project and they had not been realized. Those neighbors are pleased with what has been built there, he said, predicting that the same would be true of the Sunrise Road site once it is serving as homes for individuals and families who are the core employees of the community. Mr. Dowling explained that affordable housing, as practiced by Habitat and OCHC, provides people with a home they can afford, in the Town where they work, in a place where they want their kids to go to school.
Marquita Garrison, Family Services Coordinator for Habitat for Humanity, read a statement by Habitat homeowner Anne Mason-Hunter, who could not be present at tonight’s meeting. In her letter, Ms. Mason-Hunter explained that she had been born and raised in Chapel Hill and had worked at UNC for 18 years. It has become increasingly difficult for people like her to live in Town, she said, noting that she'd had to live out in the County at one point even though she wanted to live in her hometown, near her job, with her child enrolled in Chapel Hill schools. But her dream came true when Habitat built Culbreth Park on land donated by the Town, she said. Ms. Mason-Hunter wrote that she now has a home with three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, and a small yard in which she loves to work with her flowers. She said that Habitat had given her something to work for and to be proud of. Her son is getting a quality education, she said, and the fare free bus service takes her to work in ten minutes.
Lenier Blum, Program Director for the Center for Affordable Living at Triangle J Council of Governments, shared statistics that put the Sunrise project in the context of the region's need for affordable housing. Studies have shown that properties surrounding new subsidized housing developments continue to increase in value or show no impact from the new development, she said. Ms. Blum emphasized that even the house next door has shown no impact. She asked Council members to help calm the fears of the surrounding neighbors as they approve developments with a mix of housing types and costs. The Town can feel confident that housing prices in Chapel Hill will continue to rise as fast as they would otherwise, she said. Ms. Blum added that Chapel Hill's housing prices would rise faster than the rest of the region no matter what size home is built next door.
Habitat for Humanity Vice President John Terrell, who has been a member of the Habitat Board for more than eight years, thanked the Mayor's Committee for bringing the community together and for bringing forth a set of guidelines and principles that will make Sunrise project an exemplary, affordable housing community. Approving the 17 principles would be a significant step toward realizing the Town's affordable housing goal, he said. Mr. Terrell stated that the Sunrise Road project would be an outstanding community for hardworking families who otherwise would have a difficult, if not virtually impossible, time finding housing in Chapel Hill. He said that Habitat would gladly accept the goals and principles as well as the challenges they present. Mr. Terrell commented that he looked forward to the day when children who grow up in the Sunrise neighborhood graduate from East Chapel Hill High and go off to the colleges of their choice.
Michelle Kleckner, President of the Chandler's Green Homeowners Association, reviewed the Association's involvement in the project and noted they would assign members of their Architecture Committee to meet with developers as the project moves forward. Ms. Kleckner said that the Association supported the principles put forward by the Mayor's Committee, particularly the suggestion to move forward with the current zoning and compliance with land use. The Association will pay particular attention to the number of proposed units, she said, as well as to the impact on the Urban Services Area, rural buffers, and existing neighbors. Ms. Kleckner thanked the Mayor's Committee for their commendable work and recommended that the Council adopt the suggested goals and principles without change.
Sudha Srikantaswany, Vice President of the Silver Creek Homeowners Association, thanked the Mayor's Committee and asked the Town Council to focus on the issue of zoning. Oh behalf of Silver Creek, she expressed support for low-density development. Ms. Srikantaswany referred to RCD restrictions in the LUMO, especially with regard to OWASA and streets and bridges, pointing out that streams run through the site. She said that the Silver Creek Homeowners Association would continue to scrutinize plans as they develop, especially with regard to impact on adjacent neighborhoods and schools. Ms. Srikantaswany encouraged the Town Council to adopt the Committee's guidelines and to continue keeping an open profile throughout project development.
Sandra Cummings, representing the Sunrise Coalition, explained that she has lived within a one-mile radius of the location in question for 25 years. Ms. Cummings thanked the Mayor's Committee for their thoughtful recommendations and Mayor Foy for forming the Committee. She said that the Sunrise Coalition wholeheartedly supported the 17 principles and asked the Council to adopt them with no change. Ms. Cummings said that the Coalition had requested, in particular, that the project adhere to present zoning. The Sunrise Coalition continues to be concerned about density, she said, not about affordable versus more costly housing. Ms. Cummings asked the Town to move away from trying to determine how many houses, affordable or otherwise, could be built. The Town should concentrate instead on how many this piece of property, with its constraints, can reasonably and safely support, she said.
Ms. Cummings listed four major issues that drive the Coalition's concern for density: increased traffic, environmental constraints, noise, and pollution. She said that a high-density development on Sunrise Road would not contribute to the public good. Ms. Cummings stated that the neighborhood supports the project in general, but added that the Town cannot solve all of Chapel Hill's affordable housing needs on this one piece of land. Ms. Cummings urged the Town Council and Habitat to continue balancing the need for affordable housing with the need to protect existing neighborhoods.
Al Lucier, an Oak Hill Road resident and Sunrise Coalition member, praised the Mayor's Committee's report for being balanced and objective. However, he said, the tone and content of Habitat's response to the report was "very disappointing." In the interest of time, said Mr. Lucier, he would mention only two of his central concerns. First, Habitat refers to the development as "The Sunrise Neighborhood," he said, adding that Habitat ignores the fact that there already is a diverse neighborhood there. Mr. Lucier described this as disrespectful to his neighborhood and a major source of disappointment to him personally. By calling the project "the Sunrise Neighborhood," he said, Habitat for Humanity "obviously views itself" as building a new neighborhood inside and separate from the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Lucier continued, stating that Habitat “reserves the right” to seek rezoning. He interpreted that as a lack of commitment by Habitat to the Mayor’s Committee's goal of retaining present zoning. Mr. Lucier urged Council members to focus on preserving the unique, semi-rural character of the existing neighborhood.
A second issue, Mr. Lucier said, is the overall process of financing and developing affordable housing in Chapel Hill. He stated that Habitat had been functioning as a public housing authority and was being managed as a private corporation. Mr. Lucier intimated that Habitat had lacked diligence and been fiscally irresponsible in its recent dealings with an appraiser.
Terri Tyson noted that many ordinary Chapel Hill citizens see a need for affordable housing for the many hard working people who provide services to the Town. She noted that restricting development to protect the environment cuts down on the amount of land available. Some intervention is needed to help people of below average means afford a home, she said. Ms. Tyson pointed out that Habitat for Humanity has a wonderful reputation and has built some neighborhoods that have been good neighbors to the adjacent ones. The attitude of adjoining neighborhoods is an important part of the formula for obtaining community support, Ms. Tyson pointed out. She said that community approval contributes to the success of the project.
Mayor Foy expressed appreciation to all of the speakers for being forthright about their goals and objectives.
Council Member Bateman asked for clarification of one speaker's reference to Habitat's former "sweat equity model." Mr. Terrell explained that about fifteen years ago Habitat built on infill lots in existing communities that were invariably socio-economically diverse. As output has increase over the years, he said, it has become more affordable for Habitat to buy larger tracts of land and put in infrastructure to create neighborhoods. Mr. Terrell explained that one of Habitat's goals is to get back to the original model, however. He also explained that Habitat requires 325 hours of work as a down payment from homeowners. This has not changed, he said, noting that "sweat equity" is at the very core of what Habitat does. Mr. Terrell expressed hope that Habitat would build on lots in neighborhoods through collaboration with OCHC and Land Trust and others.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED RESOLUTION R-4.1 TO ENDORSE THE MAYOR’S COMMITTEE’S GOALS AND PRINCIPLES. COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SECONDED.
Council Member Harrison inquired about a principle that had been removed regarding an acoustical engineer. Council Member Bateman explained that Habitat had made a compelling argument that other developers were not required to do so, and the Committee had removed that principle. She said that the Committee did not want to comply with the request to treat Habitat as other developers on the one hand and required something extra of them on the other. Council Member Harrison predicted that the NC Department of Transportation would not put a noise wall along the widened stretch of I-40 near this neighborhood. There is not much that people can do about that noise beyond how they site the houses, he said.
Council Member Strom thanked his colleagues for putting the 17 principles together, adding that it speaks well of the community and the process that virtually everyone was in support of the 17 principles. Council Member Strom remarked that there is a tremendous opportunity for dialogue between the Council, the applicant, and the community before a developer submits an application. But, he pointed out, what the Council can do after that is severely limited. Council Member Strom described this as an excellent example of what can be done when the Council takes leadership and fosters dialogue to hone in on issues and meet everyone's needs.
Council Member Harrison suggested that the Council include Ms. Blum's statistics in future discussions of affordable housing. He stated that an annual rewrite of her report would be helpful as well.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING GOALS AND PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY ON SUNRISE ROAD (2003-05-12/R-4.1)
WHEREAS, the Orange County Chapter of Habitat for Humanity has indicated intent to develop a 17-acre property on Sunrise Road in Chapel Hill, for the purpose of creating affordable housing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, a Mayor’s Committee has reviewed the subject site and engaged Habitat representatives and neighbors in discussions about development possibilities; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor’s Committee has prepared, for the Council’s consideration, a set of “Suggested Goals/Principles” to serve as guidelines as plans for this property are further developed; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that these goals and principles would be useful guidelines to use and refer to as discussions proceed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council endorses the “Suggested Goals/Principles” as contained in a May 12, 2003 memorandum from the Mayor’s Committee to the Council, for use and consideration by Habitat for Humanity as plans for development of its Sunrise Road property are pursued.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
Item 7 - Draft Analysis of Transit System and Consolidation Study
Mr. Horton commented that Chapel Hill was the kind of community where any idea is open for consideration, no idea is prejudged, and all ideas are considered after careful analysis. He pointed out that merely participating in a study does not mean that the Council has reached a conclusion about an issue. Mr. Horton noted that many other steps would be taken before the Council would reach a conclusion. These steps include the Council's normal public discussion, consideration by advisory boards, and consideration by the Town's transit partners (UNC and Carrboro), he said. Mr. Horton then introduced Sanford Cross, of the Triangle J Council of Governments.
Mr. Cross spoke about the idea of merging bus systems in the Triangle region. He expressed appreciation to the Town for its interest in "looking into this idea." Mr. Cross stated that Triangle J had received a grant that will pay for 80% of the cost of completing a plan. Through a competitive process they had selected AECOM Consulting to prepare the plan, he said, adding that the plan is scheduled for completion by August 1st. Mr. Cross described this as a complex process. He introduced Scott Baker of AECOM, who presented a project update.
Mr. Baker presented the project's purpose and process. He reviewed the proposed consolidation and recommended staging, discussed the benefits/pitfalls of consolidation, and outlined the next steps. From February to April, he said, AECOM had been collecting data and interviewing a large number of public officials and interest groups around the region. Mr. Baker noted that they had worked with a regional technical advisory committee that had included Chapel Hill’s Transportation Planner David Bonk and Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka. AECOM will issue a draft report in June, he said, which will show how a consolidation of transit systems could take place. They will then review feedback and assemble a final report in July for publication in August, Mr. Baker said.
Mayor Foy inquired about the connection between dedicated funding and the advisory boards. Mr. Baker replied that there were two connections. First, he said, all of the local funding would come from the municipalities until dedicated funding is in place. "So it is perceived that there is some continued accountability and need for the municipalities to have a way to monitor the use of their funding," he said. "If dedicated funding is enacted, which relieves some or most of the responsibility for municipal funding, and there is a region-wide base level of service that is provided by the regional system, we expect that there would be a migration towards a base uniform service policy across the region with the individual municipalities only contracting for additional service that they might want over and above the regional base, and less need for local bodies reviewing and advising on service policy," Mr. Baker explained.
Transportation Board member Robert Koontz suggested that the Council focus on why and if it wants to consolidate by asking what is the purpose, what is driving this, and what is in it for Chapel Hill and for Chapel Hill riders. Mr. Koontz pointed out that the Town could find itself being asked for money for a process even though it has not analyzed whether or not it wants to be involved.
Mayor Foy stated that there should be an explanation to the Council about opting in or out, as well as when that might occur and whether it needs to be done simultaneously with other municipalities.
Council Member Bateman asked if someone could address the more fundamental question posed by Dr. Koontz. Mayor Foy recommended hearing the answer to his own question first because he did not think the consultants had the answer to Dr. Koontz's question. Council Member Bateman agreed, but added that somebody should be able to answer that.
With regard to the question of timing and Town involvement, Mr. Cross said that the consulting team had been asked to complete the project by August 1st. He said that presentation of that plan to the elected officials would include information on how it would affect different systems in the region. At that point, he said, the Council could determine how far into the process of consolidation they would like to go, or if they wanted to go at all. Mr. Cross explained that there would then be a memorandum of understanding among the participating agencies that would set forward a plan to implement a consolidation plan. He hoped the plan would be flexible enough to allow other systems to come in up to a year later, he said.
In terms of background, Mayor Foy explained that there was a lot of interest regionally in a system that one can use as a consumer of public transportation. If the Town grows into a region that has rail, he said, it would benefit riders to get on and off rail and onto a bus and go from Carrboro to Zebulon without having to navigate four systems. This is the impetus behind why there would be this consolidation, Mayor Foy stated. He noted that Chapel Hill needed to be extremely cautious about this, because the Town's public transit system is closely linked to its Land Use Development Plan and the partner’s rely on the current system to function.
Mayor Foy pointed out that Chapel Hill Transit was carrying about 4.5 million passengers a year, which far exceeds what the other systems combined carry. He described Chapel Hill's system as unique and stressed that the Town has every intention of protecting it. But, he said, the Town should be willing to discuss something that its citizens might benefit from. Mayor Foy pointed out that the opt-in point for the Town might be four years away, after the other systems have matured to a different level. He said that he had brought this forward to the Council because he did not want to make a commitment without Council input.
Council Member Verkerk expressed reluctance to paying an amount equal to Raleigh, Cary, Durham and the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). She asked why UNC and Carrboro, Chapel Hill’s transit partners, had not been brought into the discussion. Mr. Cross replied that a meeting with Carrboro had been scheduled and that he had met with representatives from UNC.
Council Member Wiggins said that it seemed as though the Town was merely receiving information to see what a consolidated plan would look like and what the possibilities might be.
Mayor Foy agreed with Council Member Wiggins, but added that it would be useful to hear Council members' concerns and whether they think it would be beneficial, or detrimental, to have a regional system.
Council Member Harrison, the Council's liaison to the Transportation Board, reported that Hampton Roads and the Washington, DC area were the best examples of this. He noted that many people from the city of Durham and northern Chatham County travel to the UNC campus daily. The system ought to address those particular needs, he said, but added that it is not clear that it must be done with a consolidated regional system. Council Member Harrison pointed out that the Town of Cary does not have a transit system "as we know it" and might see this as a way to get one. Council Member Harrison urged the Council to focus on what the Town actually needs, noting that an expanded TTA system might solve the traffic problem along US 15-501. He recommended that the Town stay actively involved, keeping in mind that there might be alternative ways to serve the same purpose.
Council Member Verkerk stated that feedback from UNC was an important, but missing, part of the puzzle. She noted that UNC was able to pinpoint their employees' addresses and could be very helpful.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that he valued the current system's responsiveness on short rides, noting that the Town can eliminate some routes and experiment with adding others if it wants to. Such flexibility allows the system to truly meet the needs of its riders, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed concern about the decision-making being shifted to a regional authority, which is unlikely to be as responsive. He said that Chapel Hill's system is the envy of other communities and stressed the need for some mechanism to keep that responsiveness if this moves forward.
Council Member Ward commented that a regional system would be better for Chapel Hill in terms of costs and services. But, he agreed that having local control allows the Town to be much more responsive than a consolidated system would. Council Member Ward remarked, though, that the Town probably would eventually demand a system that goes beyond this community. He predicted that Chapel Hill would opt in before the end of the calendar year.
Council Member Ward acknowledged that change, even good change, is difficult for people. He recommended that the consultants show how people's fears in other regions had been alleviated by a better system. Commenting that the Town needs a better way to interact with TTA bus service, Council Member Ward suggested solving that problem rather than creating a huge bureaucracy that probably would not be able to address every concern and do it well. Council Member Ward inquired about how the design and timeframe fits in with TTA's plans.
Council Member Strom agreed with Mayor Foy and Council Member Wiggins that a $16,000 investment would be reasonable for this type of data. He noted that TTA ridership had dropped off dramatically since the Town began its fare free system. Council Member Strom requested that the report include a significant discussion of the fare interface for Chapel Hill Transit users with a regional system.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton how he envisioned the process working if the Town were to receive the final draft of this report in August. Mr. Horton recommended that the Council receive the report at that time and refer it to him and the Town Attorney. The Council might also refer it to the Transportation Board, and other boards as well, such as the Planning Board and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, he said. Mr. Horton explained that the staff would then consolidate the information and advisory board feedback and bring back a report. After that, he said, the Council could decide to either move ahead or to engage in further public process. Mr. Horton advised the Council to also receive comments from Carrboro and UNC regarding their possible areas of interest. He commented that the Chapel Hill process probably would take much longer than any schedule that Sanford Cross might envision.
Mayor Foy noted that the San Diego model had about 25 separate systems that have been consolidated. But those systems still run somewhat independently, he said, noting that there can be enhanced service, such as Chapel Hill has, for a price. Mayor Foy agreed with Council Member Ward's remark that it would be helpful to have information on other systems from either the consultant or the staff.
Council Member Wiggins noted that Mr. Horton had said the Town would receive comments from Carrboro and the University. She suggested having some dialogue with those partners, however, rather than merely receiving reports. Mr. Horton replied that the Committee that had been formed with the partners would be the beginning point for that. Council Member Wiggins pointed out that she and Mayor pro tem Evans were on that Committee. But she would feel more comfortable, she said, if more representatives from the three bodies were involved. This issue is bigger than what the Committee usually discusses, Council Member Wiggins noted, adding that it falls into a different category of collaboration.
Item 8 - 1723 Homestead Road Subdivision:
Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper explained that the application proposes three lots from a 1.25-acre parcel on the south side of Homestead Road. She noted that the applicant had offered to voluntarily comply with the Town's Small House regulations and would provide one restricted floor area home. This condition is included in the approval resolution, Ms. Culpepper said. She stated that the staff continued to recommend approval with Resolution A and was not recommending that the applicant build a sidewalk along the Homestead Road frontage or make a payment-in-lieu for that sidewalk. Ms. Culpepper noted, however, that Resolution B would require a payment-in-lieu.
Council Member Verkerk ascertained that the applicant had dedicated sidewalk right-of-way to the Town.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED MY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED MY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-5a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE 1723 HOMESTEAD ROAD SUBDIVISION (2003-05-12/R-5a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the 1723 Homestead Road Subdivision, proposed by Preston Nesbit on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 109, Lot 9B, (PIN #9870-60-0777) if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated August 14, 2002 and revised February 4, 2003, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance:
These findings are based on the following:
Stipulations Related to General Issues
1. Expiration of Preliminary Plat: That this Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one year from the date of approval, subject to reapproval by the Town Manager in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
2. Number of Lots: That this approval shall authorize the creation of no more than 3 buildable lots on 54,537 square feet (1.25 acres).
3. Right-of-Way Dedication: That the applicant shall dedicate 20 feet of additional right-of-way along the property’s Homestead Road frontage.
4. Recreation Area Requirements: That the applicant shall provide 6,543 square feet of recreation area, with two benches, fencing, and a water supply, centrally located on the site that includes an area for fruit trees and a garden, to be deeded to the Homeowners’ Association and approved by the Town Manager.
Stipulations Related to Housing Issues
5. Provision of Restricted Floor Area Housing: That the applicant shall provide one restricted floor area dwelling unit with no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area. The floor area of the dwelling unit shall be restricted for a 30 month period from the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or for a 30-month period following recordation of the final plat if the house on Lot C is proposed to satisfy this stipulation and no Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues
6. Landscape Bufferyards: That the applicant shall provide a minimum of a 15-foot wide Type-‘B’ buffer along the Homestead Road frontage.
The landscape buffer shall be located within a landscape easement maintained and controlled by a Homeowners’ Association.
Landscape Buffer Summary
|
Buffer Location |
Buffer Required |
|
Homestead Road Frontage |
Min. 15 ft. Type ‘B’ Buffer |
7. Tree Protection: That the applicant shall protect a significant 30” diameter hardwood tree near the proposed shared driveway entrance off of Homestead Road during construction of water and sewer lines or any subsequent activity related to the development of individual lots.
8. Critical Root Zones: That the applicant shall clearly indicate the critical root zones of all designated significant trees on Final Plans.
9. Offsite Land Disturbance: That the applicant shall provide evidence that the property owner(s) will permit any off-site land disturbance, to be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
10. Homeowners’ Association: That a Homeowners’ Association shall be created that has the capacity to place a lien on the property of a member who does not pay the annual charges for maintenance of common areas, the landscape easement and the shared driveway, however designated. That a Homeowners’ Association shall not restrict or prohibit the use, installation or maintenance of solar collection devices. The Homeowners’ Association documents shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and shall be cross-referenced on the final plat.
Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues
11. Impervious Surface Restrictions: That the applicant shall provide impervious surface calculations for each lot prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and provide detailed information of stormwater management controls to be employed if the proposed impervious surface is greater than 24% on any lot, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
12. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, for infrastructure improvements or subsequent development on individual lots, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate and the post-development stormwater runoff volume shall not exceed the pre-development volume for the local 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards.
13. Integrated Management Practices: That the applicant shall employ Integrated Management Practices, such as directing sheet flow across lawns and vegetated areas and infiltration enhancements such as employing sandy/loamy soils in the vegetable gardens when development activity is proposed on individual lots. That the applicant shall employ additional Integrated Management Practices, if necessary, to comply with stormwater management standards. Final design and locations shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. These stormwater management features shall not be permitted within approved landscaped bufferyard areas.
14. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all structural stormwater management improvements, outside public right-of-way, shall be located inside reserved storm drainageway easements, per Town guidelines, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
15. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. We recommend that the plan include the owner's financial responsibility and include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it continues to function as originally intended and shall be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
16. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
17. That a performance guarantee be provided in accordance with Section 5-97.1 of the Town Code of Ordinances prior to issuance of any permit to begin land-disturbing activity.
18. Silt Control: That the applicant takes appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues
19. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling, and for managing and minimizing construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
20. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final Utility/Lighting Plan be approved by Duke Power Company, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
21. Utility Line Placement: That all new utility lines shall be placed underground. The applicant shall indicate proposed off-site utility line routing and upgrades required to service the site on Final Plans, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
22. OWASA Easements: That easement documents as required by OWASA and the Town Manager be recorded concurrently with the final plat. That the final plat shall be approved by OWASA prior to Town Manager approval.
23. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report, shall be prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, and showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Town Design Manual, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
24. Fire Hydrant Spacing: That maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 feet, subject to approval by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
25. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
26. Open Burning: That the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris association with this development is prohibited unless it is demonstrated to the Town Manager or his designee that no reasonable alternative means are available for removal of the materials from the subject property. The Fire Marshall may establish safety standards, which must be met in order to receive a permit under this Article.
27. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plans (with hydrologic calculations), and landscape plans and landscape maintenance plans be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Design Manual.
28. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until all required public improvements are completed; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.
29. Construction Sign: That the applicant shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative and telephone number, the contractor’s representative and telephone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit, prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. The construction sign may have a maximum of 16 square feet of display area and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.
30. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
31. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Preliminary Plat for the 1723 Homestead Road Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
Item 9 - Report on Automatic Pay Stations and Reconfiguration of Lot 5
Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka explained that Town-owned Lot 5, on the west side of Franklin Street, had 170 spaces, 104 of which were leased. These spaces were physically separated from the public metered spaces and are accessed with a card-activate gate system, she said. Ms. Kuschatka explained that 66 meters were on the Rosemary Street side of the lot. She said that the Town Council had asked her Department to look at reconfiguring Lot 5 to provide public access to the Franklin Street side of the lot. She noted that the Council had also asked the staff to study parking vending systems.
Ms. Kuschatka said that the Town could reconfigure Lot 5 to allow public parking along Franklin Street, Church Street, and Rosemary Street, with the leased spaces being on the interior of the lot. That would be accomplished by removing the barrier, she said, adding that the spaces would be marked as to which are leased and which are available for public parking. Ms. Kuschatka pointed out that there would be two pay stations, one on the island on the west side and the other on the front island on the east side. She explained how automatic pay stations operate, noting that they take coins, bills, and credit/debit cards. And, she noted, the Town can add the ability to give change.
Ms. Kuschatka pointed out that the other options for Lot 5 would be to continue as a metered operation or to convert back to a manned lot with an attendant. She noted that the Town could receive increased revenue from the pay station because those who park there would not be able to use time that previous parkers had paid for. The disadvantages, she said, would be the initial cost of approximately $44,000, the fact that the Town would have to pay a fee to process the credit card charges, and that it would take some education for people to understand how to use the lot.
Ms. Kuschatka said that the disadvantage to metered parking is that you need to have a pocket full of quarters. Also, people cannot park for longer than two hours, she said, pointing out that this requires enforcement. She explained that the disadvantage of the parking attendant would be the cost of the attendant, plus the cost of refurbishing the booth and adding the correct equipment.
Ms. Kuschatka reported that there had been an increased demand for hourly parking and that the Town could meet that demand by reconfiguring Lot 5. Placing public spaces at the front of the lot where they can be seen and used would increase parking revenue and rental parking in Lot 5, she said. Ms. Kuschatka recommended continuing the $80/month leases that the Town has, noting that the number of leased spaces could be changed if the Town needed more rental spaces.
Council Member Bateman asked why the Town was leasing to individuals. Ms. Kuschatka explained that FGI, the local business now leasing spaces, had asked to reduce its number of spaces by 34. The Town advertised those extra spaces, she said, and the University took 29 of them. Five individuals took the others, said Ms. Kuschatka. Mr. Horton commented that the key reason for leasing them, at this point, was that the Town needed the income. He said that they would terminate those five leases if there were sufficient demand so that the Town no longer needs the income.
Council Member Ward expressed concern about the location of pay boxes relative to handicapped parking. He also wondered if pay stations might be put in a more prominent position for security reasons. Council Member Ward asked if parking still would be limited to two hours. Ms. Kuschatka pointed out that handicapped parking was free of charge.
Superintendent of Parking Services Brenda Jones explained that the Department had chosen pay station locations that are close to pedestrian accesses. Mr. Horton added that these stations would be in the areas of greatest visibility. Regarding the parking time limit, Ms. Jones stated that she hoped it would eventually be extended to four hours.
Council Member Ward asked if it would be appropriate to have a surcharge for the use of credit cards. Ms. Jones replied that some operations include a transaction fee. Mr. Horton recalled that the Town would not be able to use its negotiated credit card agreement if it attempted to impose an additional fee. And it costs the Town to process cash, he said.
Council Member Ward determined from Ms. Jones that the $44,000 did not include the cost of patrolling for parking violations and machine security.
Council Member Kleinschmidt determined that the leased parking spaces were for 24 hours a day/seven days a week. He asked why that was so, since they are empty on Saturday nights when every metered spot is full. Why not just open them all up, Council Member Kleinschmidt asked. Ms. Jones said that eliminating gate-controlled access would allow the Town to limit the leased spaces from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and open them to the public after that time.
Council Member Strom commented that it would be less expensive if the metered parking were on one side and required only one pay station. Ms. Jones explained that the plan was to have public parking adjacent to both sides of the lot so that customers would have to walk across the lot. Council Member Strom commented that this was not like cross-country trekking. It makes sense, he said, to put all of the parking on Franklin Street and eliminate one machine.
Council Member Strom remarked that the Town was "missing the boat" by not using smart cards, which could be sold in the vending machines and would eliminate the need for credit card transactions. Council Member Strom asked Ms. Jones why she had recommended doing credit cards first and smart cards later, rather than the other way around. Ms. Jones replied that she had understood that the main concern was with reconfiguring Lot 5. She added that all of the machines she was reporting on were capable of accepting smart cards. Ms. Jones explained that the staff had not ignored the smart card idea but were trying to get the pay stations in place first before deciding on vendors and configurations. Council Member Strom asked if the machines were capable of handling smart cards. Ms. Jones replied that some were, but that her top recommendation was not. She explained that the plan was to sell smart cards out of the Parking Office. Council Member Strom argued that buying a smart card from a vending machine seemed more convenient and would give the Town the most benefit.
Council Member Strom asked if the Department planned to eliminate the meters on Franklin Street, or if pay and display would operate simultaneously with meters. He stated that there would be a tremendous benefit to leaving the meters and also putting a smart card machine there. This would allow people to pay and display with a smart card up and down Franklin Street, he said. Mr. Horton stated that the staff had not had the opportunity to think that through and that it was not part of the subject matter that Ms. Jones had been asked to work on.
Mayor Foy noted that since the vendor had not yet been chosen, the staff could take some of these possibilities into consideration before choosing one.
Council Member Wiggins determined that a smart card was like a debit card and that they would be purchased like metro cards in New York City.
Council Member Bateman agreed that smart cards were worth considering.
Council Member Ward clarified that a smart card would not require internet connections. He said that it seemed convenient to him and that it would simplify the system in the long run. Council Member Ward encouraged Ms. Jones to look into this regardless of whether they would be sold by merchants, the Town, or from vending machines. All of those sources would be acceptable, he said.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6 WITH TWO ADDITIONAL BULLETS: THAT THE PAY STATIONS BOTH BE SMART CARD ACTIVATED AND THAT SMART CARDS BE AVAILABLE ON SITE; AND THAT THE STAFF COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A REPORT BEFORE IT GOES INTO SUMMER RECESS, ABOUT MIXED METERS AND PAY AND DISPLAY ON FRANKLIN STREET.
Mr. Horton stated that the staff was unlikely to meet that deadline given the resources that they must devote to budget issues. Council Member Strom asked what would be reasonable, and Mr. Horton replied that it could be done by the first meeting in August.
Council Member Ward expressed support for Council Member Strom's suggestion to consolidate parking spaces into one area on the Franklin Street side of the lot, to be served by one pay box rather than two. He proposed that as a friendly amendment.
Mayor Foy, commenting that the entire lot might get changed, verified that the pay stations could be moved elsewhere later on.
Council Member Ward asked if it would cost $22,000 rather than $44,000 to have only one pay station. Mr. Horton replied that it would mean $22,000 and "a lot of customer complaints," which would be "the real cost." To make this work, Mr. Horton said, the Town needed to make it convenient, appealing, and easy.
With regard to Council Member Ward's proposed amendment, Council Member Strom replied that he was willing to accept the staff's opinion regarding the need for two pays stations. Council Member Strom then amended and restated his motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6 WITH TWO ADDITIONAL BULLETS: THAT THE PAY STATIONS BOTH BE SMART CARD ACTIVATED AND THAT SMART CARDS BE AVAILABLE ON SITE; AND THAT THE STAFF COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A REPORT BY AUGUST 25, 2003, REGARDING MIXED METERS AND PAY AND DISPLAY ON FRANKLIN STREET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECONFIGURATION OF LOT 5 IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE FRANKLIN STREET PORTION OF THE LOT (2003-05-12/R-6)
WHEREAS, Town Parking Lot 5, located at the corner of West Rosemary and Church streets, was purchased in 1990 to provide additional parking in the Downtown area during the pending construction of a new parking deck on Lot 1; and
WHEREAS, Lot 5 has 170 parking spaces, and of these, there are 104 separate spaces on the Franklin Street side of the Lot, which are gate controlled; and
WHEREAS, the Council asked the staff to consider a reconfiguration of Lot 5 in order to provide public access to the Franklin Street portion of the lot and possibly to increase the usage of the lot;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby authorizes the reconfiguration of Lot 5 to accommodate the following changes:
· Locating public parking spaces on both Franklin Street and Rosemary Street.
· Locating public parking along the perimeter of the lot (67 spaces).
· Locating leased spaces generally in the interior of the lot (104 spaces).
· Removal of the entry gate and interior gate barrier.
· Locating one pay station on the Rosemary Street side, in the center island under the existing tree.
· Locating one pay station on the Franklin Street side, in the east end of the center island.
· The pay stations be smart card activated and smart cards be available on site.
· Staff report back to Council with information on mixed meters and pay stations in on August 25, 2003 Council meeting.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
Item 10 - Revision of Town’s 2000 Comprehensive Plan Action Plan
Senior Long Range Planner Chris Berndt explained that the Council's packet contained reports from advisory boards with a staff comment on each report. She noted that tonight the Council had also received the first quarterly report on the Council's 2003 goals. Ms. Berndt said that the staff was recommending that the Council make three adjustments in the Comprehensive Plan's Action Plan to reflect the advisory boards' comments:
1. Community Character Section: Add language to undertake additional Small Area Planning Process as a Short-Term Action to reflect the schedule in the Council's adopted goals. Reassign "Evaluate residential area planning process…" to Mid-Term Actions.
2. Environment Section: Reassign "Develop a local action plan to reduce greenhouse emissions" to Short-Term Action to reflect work anticipated to begin at the Metropolitan Planning Organization level.
3. Transportation Section: Reassign "Evaluate the feasibility of a downtown transit center" to Short-Term Action to reflect the schedule in the Council's adopted goals.
Ms. Berndt explained that Attachment 3 of the report, with the above three changes, would amend the Action Plan to reflect the Council's goals.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION amendING the Town’s COMPREHENSIVE PLAN to REVISE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACTION PLAN (2003-05-12/R-7)
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2000, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, including an Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2003, the Town Council reviewed the Action Plan of the Town’s 2000 Comprehensive Plan as part of its annual goal-setting process; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2003, the Town Council adopted the 2003 Council Goals and Implementation Plan, and referred a draft revised Comprehensive Plan Action Plan to the Town’s advisory boards for comments and recommendations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends the Town’s 2000 Comprehensive Plan to revise the Action Plan, according to the Action Plan contained in Attachment 3 of the Manager’s memorandum to Council, dated May 12, 2003.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
Item 11 - Appointments
Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. Mayor Foy announced that the Council had re-appointed Milton Heath.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Orange Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors |
Foy |
Bateman |
Evans |
Harrison |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Kevin Beasley, Sr. |
|
|
A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael Clarke |
|
|
B |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Milton Heath |
X |
X |
S |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Leslie Johns |
|
|
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
John McGee |
|
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gholam Mainuddin |
|
|
T |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donald Shaw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
Item 12 - Petitions
a. By the Mayor and Council Members.
1. Council Member Bateman: Consideration of Daycare at Town Operations Center.
Council Member Bateman expressed concern about the lack available childcare in the community. She said that a report, "Shaping Orange County's Future," had shown that Orange County will be 400% behind in childcare by 2020. The Orange County Partnership for Young Children had space for only 47% of low-income families with children, she said. Council Member Bateman acknowledged that the Town should not get into the "childcare business", but noted the opportunity existed to provide space at the Town Operations Center to a non-profit childcare agency that would be eligible for Smart Start subsidies. She wondered if the Town might do a cursory assessment to see if there is a market for this.
Council Member Bateman pointed out that childcare would be a great subsidy for Town employees. The Town Operations Center would be at an ideal location, she said, because of its proximity to the park and ride lot. She asked to refer the petition to the Town Operations Center Design Advisory Committee. Mr. Horton remarked that the timing was good.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE TOWN OPERATIONS CENTER DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
2. Council Members Strom, Ward, and Verkerk: Sustainable Community Development Project Grant Application
Council Member Verkerk proposed Fire Station #1 as a candidate for an energy efficiency renewable project. She said that she and Council Members Strom and Ward had concluded that the Sustainable Community Development Project Grant would be an opportunity to leverage some of the Town's local money.
Council Member Strom added that the Committee was pursuing two separate grants, one in concert with the Town's neighbors and one on behalf of Chapel Hill.
Mayor Foy noted that the Town would commit to a financial or in-kind contribution if it receives the grant.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE TOWN’S APPLICATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANT (2003-05-12/R-8a)
WHEREAS, the N.C. Energy Office has issued a Sustainable Community Development Project Request for Proposals for funding energy efficiency, renewable energy and similar projects across the State; and
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council on April 22, 2002, established the Sustainability, Energy and Environment Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan recommends policies that “encourage site planning, landscaping, and structure design which maximize the potential for energy conservation by reducing the demand for artificial heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting, and maximize the use of solar and other renewable energy resources;” and,
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Million Solar Roofs Action Plan adopted by the Council recommends pursuing outside funding sources for solar projects, continuing funding energy efficiency projects in the Town Budget, hiring an energy auditor/educator and install solar technologies at a “highly visible public building;”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby endorses the Town’s grant application to fund an Energy Bank study and energy efficiency and renewable energy projects at Fire Station Number 1, with a commitment of up to $43,750 in Town funds for the required local match.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8b. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING DURHAM COUNTY’S INCLUSION OF A HALF-TIME ENERGY COORDINATOR FOR ORANGE COUNTY IN ITS APPLICATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANT (2003-05-12/R-8b)
WHEREAS, the N.C. Energy Office has issued a Sustainable Community Development Project Request for Proposals for funding energy efficiency, renewable energy and similar projects across the State;
WHEREAS, Durham County’s Community Development Project proposal would provide a half-time energy coordinator position for Orange County, including a portion of time for Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Town would benefit from the services of an energy coordinator;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to write a letter of endorsement supporting Durham County’s Sustainable Community Development Project’s proposal to provide Chapel Hill the services of an energy coordinator who would work half-time in Orange County.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
Item 13 - Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items Pulled
With regard to item Agenda Item 4c, Update on Automated Red Light Enforcement System, Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed concerns about Resolution R-3. He asked how the Town would extricate itself from the Automated Red Light Enforcement System if it were no longer needed. Town Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli replied that there were no limits on how long the cameras must be in place. There was nothing in the contract that would stop the Town from uninstalling them without notice, he said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if there were Town objectives for the system and whether there was a point of reconsideration once those objectives had been met. Mr. Neppalli replied that once people comply and the system is no longer necessary then the Town could remove the camera or relocate it. Mr. Neppalli added that this would be studied and monitored because the Town did not want to put cameras in and leave them with no goals and objectives.
Council Member Strom determined that the staff was making a recommendation on how funding would be used. Mr. Horton explained that the staff was not setting the policy on how funding is used, and that the Council would have an opportunity to discuss that. Mr. Horton noted that if the system works as intended then there might be some revenue to the Town, and the Council would decide how that revenue is used.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (5-3) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS VERKERK, WARD, HARRISON, BATEMAN AND FOY VOTING AYE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, KLEINSCHMIDT, AND WIGGINS VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE FOR USE OF THE SAFELIGHT LOGO IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AUTOMATED RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM IN CHAPEL HILL (2003-05-12/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Council requested and received State enabling legislation to implement a local program for automated enforcement of red light violations in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Council and advisory boards received information about automated enforcement technology and procedures and subsequently authorized the Manager to contract for such services in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Town entered into a contract with Affiliated Computer Services, Incorporated to provide Automated Red Light Enforcement in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, similar automated enforcement programs in other North Carolina communities use the “SafeLight” logo to identify program equipment and information materials; and
WHEREAS, the “SafeLight” logo is copyrighted by the City of Charlotte;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to enter into an agreement substantially in the form attached to the Manager’s report of May 12, 2003, with the City of Charlotte for use the “SafeLight” logo in conjunction with the automated red light enforcement system in Chapel Hill.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
With regard to Agenda Item 4f, Further Response to Petition from Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board regarding Proposed Development on Eubanks Road, Council Member Bateman asked if it would be possible to ask a member of the Town’s legislative delegation to attach something to the bill being introduced in the General Assembly that would give the Town authority to do what the School Board is asking. Mr. Horton replied that the Town could make an inquiry and would get accurate advice about whether or not it was feasible. Council members agreed by consensus to do so.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO WRITE TO THE NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES TO REQUEST THAT THE LEAGUE SEEK NEW LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING DELAY OF DEVELOPMENT ON SITES IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL SCHOOL LOCATIONS AND TO THE CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOL BOARD PROPOSING THE BOARD ALSO PURSUE SUCH LEGISLATION (2003-05-12/R-4)
WHEREAS, the location of public schools in urbanizing areas in southern Orange County and in and near other municipalities throughout the State is becoming a greater challenge as potential sites for future public schools are acquired for private development; and
WHEREAS, municipalities and counties in North Carolina are currently authorized to enact regulations that can delay proposed subdivision development on sites identified as potential school sites; and;
WHEREAS, new development proposed for such sites not involving the subdivision of land, such as special use permit or site plan development, is not subject to the same provisions of such law; and
WHEREAS, such development of sites identified as potential school locations may result in the loss of opportunity for local public school systems to take the steps necessary to continue to provide the facilities necessary to meet their responsibilities to provide public educational facilities for the citizens of North Carolina;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Mayor is authorized to write to the North Carolina League of Municipalities to initiate efforts to modify the existing State Law to allow municipalities and counties to delay non-subdivision development proposals in a manner currently authorized for subdivisions in order to afford local school systems the opportunity to consider acquisition of such sites proposed for development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to write to the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and propose that the School Board undertake a similar initiative with its State-wide organization.
This the 12th day of May, 2003.
Council Member Kleinschmidt announced that the NC Senate had endorsed a moratorium on executions. He reminded Council members that Chapel Hill had been the second town to endorse a moratorium and it was now reaping the rewards of that early action. Council Member Kleinschmidt pointed out that Council actions on issues that are "beyond its jurisdiction" could have an enormous effect on the State. He expressed hope that the NC House of Representatives would support the moratorium as well.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.