MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF

CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, MONDAY, JULY 9, 1990 AT 7:30 P.M.

Mayor Howes called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.

Mayor Howes noted that the transmission of the program to television viewers would be interrupted due to a cut in a cable line.

Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen (arrived at 7:41 p.m.), Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, Nancy Preston, Alan Rimer, James C. Wallace, Arthur Werner and Roosevelt Wilkerson.

Also in attendance were Assistant to the Mayor Lisa Price, Interim Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Public Safety Director Cal Horton, Development Coordinator Dave Roesler, Long‑Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Planning Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Assistant to the Attorney Richard Sharpless and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Ceremony

Mayor Howes noted that prior to the swearing of the Town's new Manager, William Calvin Horton, it was necessary for the Council to adopt Resolution 16, making the appointment and Ordinance 6, concerning the compensation package for the Town Manager.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 16. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8‑0).

A RESOLUTION APPOINTING W. CALVIN HORTON CHAPEL HILL TOWN MANAGER (90‑7‑9/R‑16)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby appoints w. Calvin Horton Town Manager effective July 30, 1990 with a starting salary of $75,000 per year and a car allowance of $5,000 per year.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8‑0)‑

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCES 90‑6‑11/0‑1 and 90‑6‑11/0‑2 (90‑

7‑9/0‑6)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that Ordinances 90‑6‑11/0‑1 and 90‑6‑11/0‑2 are hereby amended to reflect a salary for the Town Manager in the amount of $75,000 per year.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Mayor Howes noted that Mr. Horton's appointment would be effective Monday, July 30, 1990. Mayor Howes administered the oath of office to W. Calvin Horton. Mayor Howes said all Council Members and the community looked forward to working with Mr. Horton in his new capacity.

Mayor Howes noted that there were no hearings this evening.

Petitions

University of North Carolina Student Body President and former Student Liaison to the Town Council Bill Hildebolt introduced Chuck Brittain, the new Student Liaison to the Council. Mr. Brittain said he would attempt to contact each of the Council members prior to the August 27th Council meeting.

Jim Goodmon, President of Capital Broadcasting Company, noted that the concept of a Triangle Regional Sports Authority had arisen after the 1987 Olympic Sports Festival in Raleigh. Mr. Goodmon noted that a survey of athletic facilities in the Triangle area had been recently completed. He said that the sports authority could be modeled after the Raleigh‑Durham Airport Authority. Mr. Goodmon added that legislation permitting the creation of a sports authority had been passed by the State Legislature. Mr. Goodmon noted that the Triangle J Council of Governments had expressed interest in coordinating the sports authority's examination of athletic facilities in the Triangle.

Mr. Goodmon said it was an opportune time to possibly get a Triple-A franchise in the area, since the National Baseball League was proposing the addition of two major league teams in 1993. Mr. Goodmon added that a professional soccer franchise would begin play in the Triangle in the Fall of 1991 and a professional hockey franchise had recently been awarded to Miles Wolff. Mr. Goodmon stressed the need for the cooperation of several governmental units, since one unit could not undertake the concept of a regional sports facility.

Mr. Goodmon said that public ownership of professional sports franchises had taken place in Columbus, Ohio and Wilkes‑Barre, Pennsylvania. Mr. Goodmon stated his opinion that the RaleighDurham‑Chapel Hill area offered better market characteristics than the Charlotte area. Mr. Goodmon noted that the United States Olympic Committee had recently completed a study on competitiveness. Mr. Goodmon said the study concluded that training methods for United States Olympic athletes be changed. Mr. Goodmon stated that the only limit to attracting amateur and professional sports to the Triangle area was the community's collective imagination.

Mr. Goodmon noted that approximately 570,000 persons live within a fifteen mile radius of the proposed regional sports facility. Mr. Goodmon briefly reviewed a master plan document outlining the regional sports facility proposal. Mr. Goodmon stated that the World Cup would be held in the United States in 1994. He added that the Triangle area was on a list of possible sites for firstround matches.

Mayor Howes noted that there was a lot of vision in the plans that Mr. Goodmon had presented to the Council. Mayor Howes thanked Mr. Goodmon for his efforts to date on the regional sports proposal.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON, TO RECEIVE AND REFER MR. GOODMON'S REPORT, WITH A FOLLOW‑UP REPORT TO OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Lew Miles, 414 Tinkerbell Lane, requested that the process for approving block parties and street closures be simplified.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO REFER MR. MILES REQUEST TO THE TOWN MANAGER FOR FOLLOW‑UP ACTION, THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Council Member Brown stated that she had provided the Council with a letter concerning hazardous waste issues. Council Member Brown said she was in the process of preparing a response letter on behalf of the Council.

Council Member Rimer presented a resolution honoring Mae McLendon for her service on the Planning Board. Council Member Rimer noted that Ms. McLendon had served as the Board's Parliamentarian and had played an instrumental role in putting together the Town's Comprehensive Plan and other important documents.

Council Member Wallace suggested that the resolution be formally presented to Ms. McLendon in the future.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MS. MCLENDON. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

A RESOLUTION HONORING MS. MAE MCLENDON

FOR HER SERVICE ON THE CHAPEL HILL PLANNING BOARD

WHEREAS, Ms. Mae McLendon's service to the Chapel Hill community has included three terms as a member of the Town's Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, Ms. McLendon's work on the Planning Board since 1981 included serving as Vice‑Chair; and

WHEREAS, Ms. McLendon has been the Planning Board's expert on parliamentary procedure;

WHEREAS, during Ms. McLendon's service on the Planning Board, the Board:

* recommended to the Town Council a new Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1989;

* studied and made recommendations to the Council regarding numerous changes in the Town's Development Ordinance and Zoning Atlas, which included adopting the Resource Conservation District, Master Land Use Plan and Tree Protection ordinances, among others; and

* the Board carefully considered many other short‑ and long‑range planning issues including numerous applications for new development; and

WHEREAS, Ms. McLendon brought to the Planning Board's discussions her special abilities and skills in keeping discussions on track, in understanding the practical implications of decisions, and in bringing into focus the key issue or issues before the Board; and

WHEREAS, Ms. McLendon's invaluable years of service on the Planning Board enabled her to explain the background and history of issues to the Board's new members; and

WHEREAS, Ms. McLendon's exceptional skills in communicating with all citizens of Chapel Hill strengthened the effectiveness of the Planning Board in dealing with the many community issues before the Board;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby honors, and expresses its appreciation on behalf of the Chapel Hill community to

MS. MAE MCLENDON

For her service to the citizens of Chapel Hill as a member of the Town's Planning Board.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Minutes of June 18 and 25, 1990

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 18TH AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Council Members Brown and Preston requested changes to the minutes of June 25, 1990.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 AS REVISED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Permanent Zoning Designation for Area 1

Interim Town Manager Loewenthal noted that the Council was being asked to consider zoning for an area which was annexed by the Town effective June 30, 1990. Ms. Loewenthal noted that the area was currently governed by Durham County zoning standards. Ms. Loewenthal noted that if zoning were not adopted within sixty days of the annexation date, the area would be unzoned.

Ms. Berndt noted that the Town Manager recommended the adoption of Ordinance la and Resolution 0.1 to the Council, with the Oaks Villas having R‑2 zoning, with an effective date of August 29th, rather than July 10th. Ms. Berndt added that the staff was also proposing the addition of a new low‑density residential zoning category (R‑2a). Ms. Berndt said the staff felt this approach would offer reasonable protection to area property owners.

Ms. Berndt noted that the staff recommended undertaking small area planning in this area to address issues such as entranceways as part of an overall area plan. Ms. Berndt briefly reviewed staff recommendations for zoning in this area. Ms. Berndt added that the staff recommended waiving fees for conditional‑use zoning applications in this newly‑annexed area.

Council Member Wallace inquired when it would be appropriate to discuss open space along NC 54. Ms. Berndt responded that the staff proposed undertaking a small area planning process to address undeveloped areas of the Town. Council Member Wallace expressed concern that this was a time‑consuming process. Council Member Wallace suggested that open space issues be addressed with the same level of importance as the designation of zoning. Council Member Wallace said he did not want to lose the opportunity to preserve this entranceway to the Town.

Council Member Andresen said she agreed with Council Member Wallace's open space and entranceway concerns. Council Member Andresen added that the discussion of entranceway options had not been included in the advertisement of this matter. Council Member Wallace expressed concern that the matter had not been properly advertised after many years of discussion about Town entranceways.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether there were any practical problems with non‑conforming uses in the area. Ms. Berndt said there were no problems with tenants continuing the current use of their buildings. Council Member Andresen inquired whether facility expansion would trigger new requirements. Ms. Berndt said yes.

Council Member Preston said she concurred with the staff recommendation, with the exception of the commercial area. Council Member Preston said she did not believe that anyone would choose to live next to business establishments. Ms. Berndt noted that the Town's land‑use plan calls for medium density residential zoning along NC 54. Ms. Berndt said the intent of this approach was to have residential uses in the area while protecting open space. Council Member Preston noted that one parcel in the area had been zoned highway commercial since 1956. Council Member Preston said it would be undermining the property owner to change the designation of this property.

Council Member Werner said he concurred with Council Member Preston's sentiments. Council Member Werner commended the staff for suggesting a creative solution to address residential zoning concerns. Council Member Werner requested that the staff provide a similarly creative approach for zoning of commercial properties. Council Member Werner stated that an entranceway corridor would not necessarily conflict with commercial uses. Council Member Werner said he preferred to see the area zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) with a more appropriate zoning category designated in the future.

Council Member Brown expressed her concurrence with Council Member Andresen's and Werner's remarks. Council Member Brown inquired how non‑conforming commercial uses were determined. Ms. Berndt responded that the types of uses and how they did or did not fit together determined zoning conformity. Ms. Berndt noted that some existing uses might not fit into the NC zoning designation.

Council Member Andresen said she remembered when the Council was concerned about identifying additional commercial sites. Council Member Andresen noted that if some parcels were zoned commercial, it would open up the possibility of other unanticipated uses. Council Member Andresen said conditional use zoning appeared to be more appropriate than commercial zoning. Council Member Andresen noted that the Council had received a letter suggesting that portions of the area be zoned O&I‑3. Ms. Berndt noted that this category had few restrictions and had intensive densities.

Mayor Howes noted that a public hearing had been previously held in this matter. Mayor Howes inquired whether the Council wished to hear speakers this evening. The Council expressed a desire to do so.

Jack Simonds said he had forwarded a letter of concern to the Council. Mr. Simonds said he was speaking on behalf of Charlie Stancil and himself, requesting that the Council review the application for conditional use zoning. Council Member Wilkerson inquired about the scope of architectural and engineering fees for conditional use applications. Mr. Simonds said the expenditure of several thousand dollars might be necessary.

Philip Sullivan, a member of the Oaks Villas Board of Directors, said he had spoken against the proposed zoning at the public hearing. Mr. Sullivan said he had subsequently spoken to the Town staff and still opposed the proposed R‑2 zoning in spite of the revised proposal. Mr. Sullivan noted that all lots in the Oaks Villas were 15,000 square feet or more. Mr. Sullivan said he believed that property owners could easily take two adjoining lots and rezone them, reducing the value of adjoining properties. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that one of the Oaks Villas' restrictive covenants reserved the developer's right to replat lots in the future. Mr. Sullivan requested that the Council consider the interests of Oaks Villas owners in their decision‑making process.

Bob Leopold, 103 Helmsdale Drive, a member of the Oaks Villas Board of Directors, expressed concern that the recommended R‑2 zoning designation might create non‑conforming lot problems. Mr. Leopold urged the Council to assign R‑2a zoning to lots of 15,000 square feet or more. Mr. Leopold said he appreciated the attempt to compromise on this matter. Mr. Leopold said he would have major problems if the R‑2a zoning category were not implemented in the future in this area.

Tom Hefner, representing J.P. Goforth Properties, said he supported the Manager's recommendation of R‑2 zoning for Oaks Villas, with R‑2a zoning in the future. Mr. Hefner said his firm had no intention of further subdividing these lots in the future. Mr. Hefner said he had worked with the Town Attorney and staff in reaching the proposed compromise before the Council this evening. Mr. Hefner stated that there were currently thirty‑three unsold lots in the Oaks Villas.

Mayor Howes inquired whether six votes were required for the adoption of the proposed ordinance on first reading. Mr. Karpinos said this was correct.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1B.

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR HOWES, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1A AS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

Council Member Rimer said it appeared to be reasonable for the staff to return in the Fall with alternative recommendations for commercial zoning in the area. Council Member Andresen said she supported waiving fees for conditional‑use zoning with a separate resolution.

Council Member Wilkerson said he was concerned about the fairness of adopting conditional use zoning. Council Member Wilkerson stressed the need to be fair to present property owners. Council Member Werner stated that neighborhood commercial properties would remain unchanged, shifting only from Durham County's to the Town's zoning designation. Council Member Werner said he preferred commercial zoning to conditional use zoning in this case.

THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, ORDINANCE IA, WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR. THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 2‑7, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN AND MAYOR HOWES SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

Interim Town Manager Loewenthal requested that lot 14 also be designated neighborhood commercial if Ordinance 1B were adopted. Council Member Preston, the motioner, and Council Member Wilkerson, the seconder, agreed to this modification.

THE MAIN MOTION, ORDINANCE 1B, AS AMENDED, WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR, THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

AN ORDINANCE ZONING NEWLY ANNEXED LAND ‑ AREA 1 (90‑7‑9/0‑1b)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has adopted an ordinance to annex property described as Annexation Area 1 identified on the attached map; and

WHEREAS, the Council has considered appropriate zoning designations for this property in the context of surrounding land uses and zoning, and in the context of Chapel Hill's Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that zoning be assigned to the above‑mentioned property as designated on the attached map B.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO CREATE A NEW LOW DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT (90‑7‑9/R‑1)

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill calls a Public Hearing for October 15, 1990 to consider amending the Development Ordinance to create a new, low density zoning district which would include a minimum lot size between what is currently established with the Residential‑1 and Residential‑2 zoning districts.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this matter be referred to the staff for preparation of an ordinance amendment or amendments to address this issue.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following preparation of a staff report and recommendation this matter is referred to the Planning Board for its recommendation.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE TOWN'S ZONING ATLAS IN THE AREA OF THE OAKS VILLAS IN DURHAM COUNTY (90‑7‑9/R‑2)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is considering the creation of a new, low density residential zoning district which would establish a minimum lot size between what is currently established with the Residential‑1 and Residential‑2 zoning districts; and

WHEREAS, the area identified as The Oaks Villas, located in the Durham County portion of the Town limits, may be an area appropriate for this new zoning designation;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a Public Hearing for October 15, 1990 to consider an amendment to the Town's Zoning Atlas to change the zoning of the area identified as The Oaks Villas section of The Oaks III Subdivision in Durham County.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this proposal be referred to the Town Manager and the Planning Board for their review and recommendation to the Council.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Carol Woods Special Use Permit Modification

Current Planning Coordinator J.B. Culpepper said that there were three major issues which were discussed at the Council public hearing for the application. Ms. Culpepper said the applicant had made persuasive arguments at the hearing that full improvements to Weaver Dairy Road were not necessary. Ms. Culpepper noted that the Manager's recommendation had been revised in light of comments at the hearing. Ms. Culpepper also noted that the Manager had recommended the installation of a left‑turn lane on Weaver Dairy Road to improve safety in the area. Ms. Culpepper noted that the applicant had stated a willingness to dedicate half of the ninetyfoot frontage along Weaver Dairy Road for this improvement. Ms. Culpepper noted that the Town Manager had recommended the widening of the Carol Woods entrance from two to three lanes in her preliminary recommendation. Ms. Culpepper said that the applicant had stated their objection to this condition of approval. Ms. Culpepper stated that this improvement could be constructed in the future and therefore was not included in the recommended resolution for adoption.

Ms. Culpepper stated that dedication of a one hundred foot greenway corridor/buffer was being recommended by the Town Manager. Ms. Culpepper noted that the Manager's revised recommendation included a provision that no certificates of occupancy be issued until all site improvements were satisfactorily completed.

Council Member Preston inquired why the applicant objected to greenway dedication. Ms. Culpepper said that Carol Woods administrators had expressed concerns about safety. Council Member Preston noted that if the condition were required, a one‑hundred foot buffer along Interstate 40 would be requested. Council Member Preston inquired who would be responsible for maintenance of the area. Ms. Culpepper said the Town would assume responsibility for the maintenance of the greenways trail. Council Member Preston said she thought the inclusion of a trail was a good idea.

Council Member Andresen requested additional information concerning the desirability of widening the entrance driveway at Carol Woods. Ms. Culpepper responded that it was desirable to have three lanes in order that cars did not stack up or try to maneuver by other cars when there was not sufficient room to do so. Ms. Culpepper added that having a left‑turn lane on Weaver Dairy Road would permit drivers to get into the flow of traffic. Council Member Rimer said he favored the Manager's recommendation, with the exception of not requiring greenway dedication. Council Member Rimer said he did not find the safety argument compelling.

John Diffey, Carol Woods' Executive Director, expressed his concurrence with the Manager's recommended conditions of approval.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 3B, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF A ONE HUNDRED FOOT GREENWAY CORRIDOR/BUFFER BY THE APPLICANT.

Council Member Brown said she appreciated the Town Manager's flexibility in changing her recommendation. Mr. Diffey said he favored greenways in general and would be supportive of the Council's wishes once this area was included as part of the Town's Greenways Plan.

RESOLUTION 3B, AS AMENDED, WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE CAROL WOODS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY

(File No. 17‑16) (90‑7‑9/R‑3b)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Carol Woods Retirement Community expansion, proposed by City Planning and Architectural Associates, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 17, Lots 5A, 16, and 16C, if developed according to the Site Development Plan (Sheet 2.1.1), Site Utility Plan (Sheet 2.2.1), Site Improvement and Landscape Protection Plans (Sheets 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, and 2.3.9), and Existing Conditions and Tree Survey (Sheet 2.4.1) all dated February 9, 1990 (Revised April 30, 1990), and the conditions listed below, would:

1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Article 12, 13 and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;

3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property or be a public necessity; and

4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

These findings are conditioned on the following:

1. That construction begin by July 9, 1991 (one year from the date of the Council approval) and be completed by July 9, 2005 (fifteen years from the date of the Council approval).

2. That a left‑turn lane be provided on Weaver Dairy Road at the entrance to the development. The design of the left‑turn lane shall be approved by the Town Manager and the N.C. Department of Transportation prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

3. That a second means of access be provided from Sunrise Road. The developer may "secure" the access with a gate or similar device in order to prohibit regular vehicular traffic. (To be approved by the Town Manager.)

4. That the internal road network shall be constructed to Town standard without curb and gutter.

5. That parking areas and drive aisles shall be constructed to Town standard but, the plans for the parking lot shall not be required to provide wheel stops or other curbing that might be a hazard to the elderly population

6. That one‑half of a 90‑foot right‑of‑way be dedicated along the Weaver Dairy Road frontage prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

7. That no development is authorized with this approval which would require a variance from the Resource Conservation District provisions of the Development Ordinance.

8. That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by OWASA, Duke Power, Carolina Cable, Public Service Company, Southern Bell, and the Town Manager, before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The developer shall be responsible for assuring these utilities, including cable television, are extended to serve the development expansion.

9. That the detailed building elevations, landscape maintenance plan and landscape plan, including a Type "E" buffer adjacent to Interstate‑40, a Type "D" buffer along the Weaver Dairy Road frontage, a Type "C" buffer along the eastern property line, including Sunrise Road, and a Type "B" buffer along the western property line and adjacent to the parcel of land which fronts on Weaver Dairy Road directly east of the pond, be approved by the Appearance Commission prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.

10. That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

11. That the solid waste collection details be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

12. That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

13. That final plans to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit (detailed site plan, utility plan/lighting plan, grading and stormwater management plan with hydrologic calculations, fire flow report) conform to the approved preliminary plans and demonstrate compliance with the above conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.

14. That no Certificate of Occupancy be issued until all required public improvements are completed; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.

15. That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

16. That the continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

17. That if any of the above conditions is held invalid, approval shall be void.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for the Carol Woods Retirement Community expansion Special Use Permit Modification in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Mr. Diffey expressed his thanks and appreciation to the Council and staff for their assistance in handling the Carol Woods' special use permit modification.

Establishment of Citizen's Bond Task Force

Mayor Howes said the task force's role would be to provide information, rather than to advocate for or against the proposed bonds.

Council Member Brown expressed concern that the task force should only provide very broad information, striking a balance between those opposed and those in favor of the proposed bonds. Council Member Werner stressed the importance of permitting the Council to review the Mayor's appointment recommendations. Council Member Brown said it was important that broadest possible facts on issues be presented to Town residents.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITIZENS BOND TASK FORCE (90‑7‑9/R‑4)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has identified needs for capital projects; and

WHEREAS, the Council has called referenda to consider the issuance of general obligation bonds for three purposes: library, transportation improvements, parks and open space development and acquisition; and

WHEREAS, the Council believes that a public information effort should precede a referendum; and

WHEREAS, the Council believes that the bond issues proposed would serve the public welfare by addressing needs identified by the community,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby establishes a Citizens Bond Task Force to consist of a representative cross‑section of the community to maximize voter awareness and understanding of the three proposed bond issues, their benefits and costs.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized, in consultation with the Council, to appoint members of this body.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Mayor Howes said he would share the names of applicants prior to their appointment to the task force.

Establishment of Design Review Board

Council Member Rimer, speaking on behalf of the Design Task Force, presented a memorandum of recommendation to the Council. Council Member Rimer said the Task Force recommended the establishment of a ten member board composed of four design professionals, two laypersons and four representatives from Town boards and commissions. Council Member Rimer also noted addition of a statement on siting for solar design features, introduced by Council Member Brown.

Council Member Rimer noted that Council Member Andresen had worked with the Design Task Force on procedures for handling major changes to development proposals. Council Member Rimer stated that major changes would be reviewed again by the Design Review Board. Council Member Rimer stated that adoption of Resolution A was recommended by the Design Task Force.

Council Member Preston inquired why there were no Planning Board members on the Design Review Board. Council Member Rimer responded that Planning Board members were de facto members since the Planning Board is one of the final reviewers of development projects. Council Member Preston inquired whether any thought had been given to the special use process. Council Member Rimer responded that the Planning Board played an integral role in reviewing special use permit applications.

Council Member Andresen noted that projects with good design would be rewarded by the proposed process. Council Member Andresen asked when the process would become effective and when the design criteria would be completed. Council Member Rimer stated that the proposed design criteria were outlined in the memorandum before the Council, along with a check list of items. Council Member Rimer said the Town staff would develop specific criteria during the summer. Council Member Rimer stated that the Design Task Force would review the proposed criteria prior to ultimate consideration by the Council.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether it was necessary for the Council to establish effective dates for the process this evening. Town Attorney Karpinos said the dates could be established this evening if the Council wished. Council Member Rimer suggested that the review process take effect when appointments to the Review Board were made. Council Member Andresen inquired whether any specific effective date had been pinpointed. Town Manager Loewenthal said the staff checklist for design criteria would be completed by September 10th, at which time appointments to the Design Task Force could possibly be made. Council Member Preston inquired whether a sunset process was built into the proposed resolution of approval. Mayor Howes said yes. Council Member Brown suggested adding environmental impact statements as part of the design review process.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WALLACE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 5A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0)

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ADJUST THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS TO ACCOMMODATE INPUT FROM A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (90‑ 7‑9/R‑5a)

WHEREAS, the Council has established a Design Review Board to review and comment on development applications;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council directs the Town Manager to revise development review procedures and schedules to allow consideration of applications by the Chapel Hill Design Review Board as indicated on the attached flow chart, labelled "Attachment A".

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Town Manager to prepare a report to the Council approximately one year after the date of this resolution evaluating the effectiveness of the Design Review Board concept and practice.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2. THE MOTION, RECOMMENDING IMPLEMENTATION ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1990, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (90‑7‑9/0‑2)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed amendment to the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to establish a Design Review Board and finds that the amendment is appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance shall be amended as follows:

SECTION I

Section 25.7 Design Review Board

Part A ‑ Purpose and Scope of Review

Section 25.7.1 Statement of Policy: The Council finds that new development has a substantial impact on the character of the area in which it is located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and housing and building codes. Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exacting rules promulgated without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of the structures and open spaces as they contribute to an area as it is being developed. Such matters require the timely exercise of judgment in the public interest by people qualified to evaluate the design of new development.

Section 25.7.2 Purposes: The purpose of the Design Review Board is to serve as an advisory board for development applicants to:

1) assure that new design remain in continuity with the Town's existing design successes;

2) to inspire exciting and creative additions to the Town's blend of distinctive buildings from many eras;

3) to foster the attractiveness of the community by utilizing the following general guidelines for Chapel Hill design:

Livability: Buildings and outdoor spaces should be designed to fit human scale, harmonize with design of streets, and accommodate pedestrian traffic.

Visual Impact: New public and private projects should be visually appealing, and compatible with other development in the surrounding area.

Vegetation: Landscape design concepts should preserve existing trees and incorporate native new trees and shrubbery. The landscape theme should be aesthetically compatible with that of the surrounding neighborhood.

Mobility: Land design concepts should provide a network of roads, bicycle paths and lanes, and sidewalks that give strong consideration to the safety of motorists, cyclists, joggers and walkers.

Activity Centers: Structures and complexes should enhance community life by use of "destination points" such as arcades, lobbies, and ground‑level retail stores, while at the same time providing for safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians.

Views: Streets, buildings, and parking lots should enhance the urban environment by providing pleasant vistas and geographic orientations.

Siting: Structures and complexes should be sited to take maximum advantage of solar design features.

Section 25.7.3 Aspects of Review: The Design Review Board, in examining development applications, is to consider the various aspects of design, with special emphasis on how the proposed development provides consistency with the Town's Design Guidelines and the Goals and Objectives of Chapel Hill's Comprehensive Plan.

Section 25.7.4 Compliance with Other Regulations: To coordinate compliance with other municipal ordinances that effect design, such as the Development Ordinance sign control provisions, provisions for underground utilities, and other municipal code sections.

Part B - Creation and Organization of the Design Review Board

Section 25.7.5 Design Review Board: The Council hereby

establishes a Design Review Board.

Section 25.7.6 Composition of the Board: Insofar as practicable, all members of the Board shall be competent in matters of design.

The majority shall be architects, urban designers, landscape architects, civil engineers or planners.

Section 25.7.7 Appointment of Members

A. Council Appointments:

(i) The Council shall appoint four (4) professional members (architect, landscape architect, civil engineer and planner/site planner).

(ii) The Council shall appoint two (2) additional lay persons with an interest in design issues.

B. Board Representatives

(i) The Parks and Recreation Commission, Transportation Board, Greenways Commission and Appearance Commission shall each designate one representative from their respective boards to be members of the Design Review Board.

(ii) The Historic District Commission shall also designate one representative to be a member of the Design Review Board who shall serve when a project under review is wholly or partially within a designated Historic District.

C. Members of the Design Review Board shall serve for terms of three (3) years and until their successors have been appointed and qualified. The terms of the original members may be staggered so that all terms do not expire simultaneously. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term only.

Section 25.7.8 Selection of Chairman: A chairman and vicechairman of the Board shall be elected from the members of the Board by a majority of the members for a term of one (1) year. No Board member shall succeed himself as chairman and/or vice- chairman more than two (2) consecutive terms.

Part C ‑ Authority of Design Review Board

Section 25.7.9 The new Board would have no authority to approve or deny applications. The Design Guidelines are meant to set forth expectations, and the new Design Review Board will comment and advise regarding its conclusion about how successful an application is in addressing the guidelines. The results of success should be (1) a well‑designed project, and (2) procedural streamlining.

SECTION II

THAT all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Comments on Water Supply Watersheds

Council Member Andresen said the most important point in commenting on the proposed water supply watershed standards was recognizing the need for variations in some watersheds, with more sensitive watersheds requiring higher protection standards. Council Member Andresen stressed the importance of the Council making its comments about watershed protection known to the entire Triangle J region and State officials. Council Member Andresen noted that the proposed Council comments differed from the Triangle J recommendation, since Triangle J recommended water and sewer availability in watersheds.

Council Member Brown suggested that the Council write a letter of response regarding the concept of sewering in watersheds. Council Member Rimer noted that the Triangle J recommendation contained at least five additional points which would degrade watersheds.

Council Member Wallace inquired how Orange County's present watershed ordinance related to the proposed standards and regulations. Council Member Andresen said she could not remember the County's exact watershed standards. Council Member Andresen noted that the Orange County commissioners would be represented at the August 15th watershed hearing. Council Member Andresen noted that a WS‑1 (pristine designation) was currently in force for the University Lake watershed. Council Member Andresen stated that a WS‑2 designation was recommended by Triangle J. Council Member Wallace noted that a WS‑1 designation meant that no degradation of a watershed was foreseen, while WS‑2 designation means that 10% degradation of a watershed is foreseen. Council Member Andresen said that State watershed standards were above and beyond what had been agreed to by the working group. Council Member Andresen stressed the importance of testifying in Raleigh to protect the best interests of Town residents.

Council Member Wallace expressed concern that not enough had be done to date to protect area watersheds. Council Member Wallace said he was delighted that the recommendation included no sewerage systems in critical watershed regions. Council Member Wallace said there was no margin for error in making policies for the protection of water supply watersheds. Council Member Andresen noted that a number of Council Members were planning to attend the hearing in Raleigh on August 15th. Council Member Wallace said he feared getting into an irretrievable situation. Council Member Wallace stressed the importance of having Orange County Commissioners work in concert with the Town Council in recommending the highest possible standards for water supply watershed protection.

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6, FORWARDING COUNCIL WATERSHED COMMENTS TO THE TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

A RESOLUTION COMMENTING ON PROPOSED STATE‑WIDE REGULATIONS FOR PROTECTING WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS (90‑7‑9/R‑6)

WHEREAS, many watersheds are the source of public drinking water for citizens outside as well as within the local jurisdiction responsible for regulating watershed development;

WHEREAS, the policy objectives of a local jurisdiction with planning and development responsibilities for a watershed may differ from the interests of citizens concerned primarily with protecting water quality; and

WHEREAS, in addition, watershed areas may be within multiple jurisdictions,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council:

* Strongly supports the State government role set forth in House Bill 156.

* Recognizes the need in some individual watersheds for variation from the broad classifications and standards set forth in the proposed rules. Some watersheds, such as University Lake, are especially vulnerable to pollution because of shallow depth of the reservoir, small size of the watershed, stormwater travel times or other factors.

* Supports adding to the proposed rules provisions that:

(1) Where a specific water supply watershed or portion of a watershed needs special water quality protections due to the nature of the watershed area, the reservoir or other factors demonstrated in a publicly funded engineering study, the Commission may on a case‑by‑case basis require and approve specific standards based on such an engineering study by a qualified agency or firm.

(2) Any local government(s) whose constituents have a material interest in the use and development of the watershed or the quality of water therefrom shall have standing to apply to the Commission for consideration of special standards for a specific watershed or portion thereof. Preparation and consideration of such standards shall include public meetings or hearing(s) with prior notice to interested parties including property owners as listed in property tax records, and to the general public in the area served by the water supply.

* Strongly supports restrictions on extending public sewer service in water supply watersheds, except to correct public health emergencies.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes submittal of this resolution to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission at the Commission's public hearing on August 15, 1990.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Council Member Werner suggested that the Council might want to explore the concurrence of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen in this matter. Council Member Preston thanked Council Members Andresen, Brown and Rimer for their work on the watershed issue. Council Member Rimer said he would speak to Carrboro Mayor Eleanor Kinnaird about watershed protection standards. Council Member Wallace noted that a water quality standard of WS‑4 had been recommended for the Jordan Lake reservoir.

Municipal Signal Agreement with NCDOT

Town Engineer George Small noted that a State grant of $1.2 million had been requested for funding of an automated Town traffic signal system. Mr. Small noted that the system hardware would be centralized in the Town Hall. Mr. Small added that the system would be able to address changing traffic conditions around the area. Mr. Small added that possible traffic problems could be identified and monitored from a central location. Mr. Small said the traffic signal system would improve efficiency, fully utilizing current roadway resources. Mr. Small added that smoother traffic flows would have positive environmental impacts in terms of air quality.

Mr. Small briefly reviewed the proposed agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Mr. Small noted that the cost for system acquisition would be 10.17% of the total cost. Mr. Small noted that the State of North Carolina would be the lead agency in this project, but that the Town would have a vital role in all decision‑making processes. Mr. Small noted that the Town was responsible for any utility adjustments necessitated by installation of the traffic signal system. Mr. Small noted that an interlocal agreement was proposed, including Town of Carrboro traffic signals. Mr. Small noted that $175,000 of funding was included in the Town's 1991 Capital Improvements Program for this project.

Council Member Rimer inquired whether the Town of Carrboro would make any monetary contribution for inclusion of their signals in the system. Mr. Small noted that all of Carrboro's traffic signals are maintained by the State of North Carolina. Mr. Small said it might be possible to negotiate the Town's cost share downward somewhat by including Carrboro's ten traffic signals in the system.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF A COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL SYSTEM (90‑7‑ 9‑R‑7)

WHEREAS, The Town has requested State funding for installation of a community‑wide computerized traffic signal control system; and

WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $1,200,000 have been authorized by the State for this traffic signal system; and

WHEREAS, the Town's share of project costs would be approximately 10%; and

WHEREAS, funds are available in the Town Capital Improvements Program for estimated Town‑share costs during the first year of the project development;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorized the Town Manager to negotiate and execute a municipal agreement between the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Town of Chapel Hill for implementation and operation of a computerized traffic signal control system.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Improvements to Estes Drive/Franklin Street Intersection

Town Engineer George Small said planning for the project had been underway for the past two or three years. Mr. Small stated that the intersection had been identified as an air pollution problem area. Mr. Small added that possible safety improvements had also been examined for the intersection. Mr. Small noted that the study area had been expanded along Estes Drive to Burlage Circle. Mr. Small said the Town staff had three alternatives for the Council's consideration this evening. Mr. Small briefly reviewed the three alternatives, noting the importance of pedestrian and vehicular safety considerations at the intersection of Franklin Street and Estes Drive.

Mr. Small noted that drivers and pedestrians in the area become more frustrated as the intersection becomes increasingly congested. Mr. Small added that this frustration resulted in some drivers attempting inadvisable maneuvers. Mr. Small noted that some of the proposed traffic improvements necessitated tradeoffs with pedestrian safety. Mr. Small said the high accident rate at the intersection indicated the need for safety improvements in the near future.

Mr. Small noted that the proposed library facility would not have a major traffic impact by itself. Mr. Small stated that the current level of service at the intersection of Estes Drive and Franklin Street could be improved by the implementation of any of the alternatives or other possible solutions offered by the Council.

Mr. Small noted that long vehicle idling times were currently occurring at the intersection. Mr. Small stated that proposed alternatives A and B would assist in mitigating some of the air quality problems arising from this situation. Mr. Small briefly reviewed the costs of implementing the proposed alternatives. Mr. Small added that State assistance in funding roadway and intersection improvements was not anticipated for this project. Mr. Small noted that this would not preclude the Town from seeking future State financial assistance for the project. Mr. Small said that the implementation of a six‑lane roadway alternative would necessitate the removal of a tree on the Collier‑Cobb property. Mr. Small briefly reviewed the possible impacts of implementing alternative A or B.

Mr. Small noted that some right‑of‑way acquisition would be necessary to implement alternative A or B. Mr. Small noted that the adoption of Alternative A was recommended to the Council. Council Member Andresen inquired how much roadway would be added at the corner across from Collier‑Cobb. Mr. Small responded that a strip approximately ten feet wide would be added along Estes Drive, tapering down at the Pizza Hut driveway. Council Member Andresen noted that this addition would make it easier for drivers to proceed around the corner at higher speeds. Council Member Werner observed that some drivers currently encounter difficulties making right turns at the intersection of Estes Drive and Franklin Street.

Council Member Andresen noted that traffic tie‑ups often occurred on Estes Drive due to cars attempting to reach University Mall. Council Member Andresen inquired whether any traffic counts had been conducted to determine turning movements at the intersection. Mr. Small yes, noting that these figures had been instrumental in determining the need for more turn storage in this area. council Member Andresen inquired whether it would be possible to have two left‑turn lanes for stacking of vehicles. Mr. Small responded that Alternative B proposed this approach. Council Member Andresen inquired how the safety needs of pedestrians were being addressed. Mr. Small noted that traffic signals would be timed to allow safe pedestrian and vehicular movements through the intersection.

Council Member Wallace inquired how much of the Collier‑Cobb property would be involved in implementing alternative A or B. Mr. Small said that twenty‑five feet would be required for alternative A and fifteen feet would be needed for alternative B. Council Member Wallace said the Collier Cobb building had been constructed very well, with adequate setbacks along Franklin Street and Estes Drive. Council Member Wallace noted that the Texaco service station across Estes Drive had been constructed eight to ten feet closer to the roadway than prescribed standards. Council Member Wallace stated that a very difficult situation could be made worse by constructing the proposed roadway improvements at the expense of the Collier Cobb property. Council Member Brown expressed concern that the proposed roadway improvements might not improve the traffic situation at the intersection. Mr. Small noted that there was no flexibility with the signals for this intersection. Mr. Small said that the chief problem at the intersection was that there were too many cars and not enough lanes for necessary movements.

Council Member Brown suggested that park and ride lots be pursued as an alternative to additional roadway construction. Council Member Brown requested cost comparison information for pursuing this alternative. Council Member Brown inquired whether funds from the 1986 bond issue would be used for proposed Estes/Franklin intersection improvements. Ms. Loewenthal responded that these funds could be used for initial land acquisition, with the balance of funding occurring at the Council's discretion.

Geoffrey Gledhill expressed concern that the information provided to the Council contained no specifics about movements through the Estes/Franklin intersection. Mr. Gledhill said the majority of accidents at the intersection occurred at the driveways to the Texaco station. Mr. Gledhill suggested that the Council consider expanding Estes Drive to four lanes.

Mr. Gledhill said that Collier Cobb had been a corporate citizen of the Town for many years. Mr. Gledhill noted that Collier Cobb had donated all the right‑of‑way for the most recent widening of Estes Drive. Mr. Gledhill stated that Collier Cobb would be most greatly impacted by proposed roadway improvements at the intersection. Mr. Gledhill said alternative A would require the acquisition of twenty feet of Collier Cobb right‑of‑way, while alternative B would entail seventeen feet of right‑of‑way. Mr. Gledhill said that the Collier Cobb building was very desirable and attractive, whose symmetry would be lost if Estes Drive was widened further. Mr. Gledhill suggested that a four‑lane expansion of Estes Drive be implemented instead of widening the roadway further.

Mr. Gledhill stated that Collier Cobb would be willing to permit the Town to acquire right‑of‑way for a four‑lane roadway at nominal cost.

Earl Walker, owner of Walker's Gulf, said he opposed the construction of a traffic island on Franklin Street, since it would affect approximately one‑third of the cars entering his establishment. Mr. Walker noted that the right‑turn in and out approach employed at Applebee's Restaurant on Franklin street seemed to work well. Mr. Walker said he did not understand why more turning radius was need at Burlage Circle and Estes Drive, since there were few houses and little traffic using Burlage Circle.

Council Member Werner inquired about Mr. Walker's receptivity to the partial blocking of left turns on Estes Drive into his station. Mr. Walker said he did not think this approach would work, since increased left‑turn traffic at the intersection would be further inconvenienced.

Council Member Rimer suggested that the Town staff provide the Council with additional alternatives to those presented this evening. Council Member Rimer said the possibility of purchasing some of the Texaco property at Estes and Franklin might merit further consideration. Council Member Rimer also suggested that the staff further explore Mr. Bledhill's proposal concerning improvements to Estes Drive. Council Member Rimer requested the new alternatives be brought back to the council in September.

Council Member Werner expressed his agreement with Council Member Rimer's remarks. Council Member Werner said that alternatives A and B were not good courses of action. Council Member Werner stated that the Council could make a policy decision to leave the intersection unchanged. Mayor Howes noted that future traffic travelling through the intersection would not necessarily be generated by the new library facility. Mayor Howes said that if minimal or no improvements were made the intersection of Estes Drive and Franklin Street, the traffic difficulties would be inherited by future Councils. Mayor Howes expressed his preference for returning the item to the staff for further study. Council Member Wallace requested that the staff further investigate the viability of the Collier‑Cobb proposal.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE STAFF FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES BASED ON THIS EVENING'S COUNCIL DISCUSSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Scheduling of Thoroughfare Plan Work Session

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9, SCHEDULING THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A WORK SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 (90‑7‑9‑/R‑9)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby schedules a work session at 7:30 pm on September 4, 1990 to discuss the proposed thoroughfare plan.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Board and Commission Appointments

The Council made the following appointments. Copies of individual ballots are on file in the Town Clerk's Office.

Board of Adjustment James Ellis

Gordon Mitchell (Alternate)

Human Services Advisory

Board Tom Cook

Planning Board Bruce Guild

Andrew Peterson

Transportation Board Raymond DeMers

Rachel Willis

Arts Center Funding

Interim Town Manager Loewenthal noted that Arts Center officials were working to put together a debt forgiveness program for the Center. Ms. Loewenthal said that $15,000 of the $50,000 total hotel‑motel tax allocation had been initially recommended for Arts Center funding. Ms. Loewenthal stated that she recommended that the Council allocate $2,083 per month for July, August and September to Main Street Partners for partial rental payment for these three months. Ms. Loewenthal further stated that she did not recommend additional funding for the Arts Center until the continued viability of the Center had been satisfactorily proven.

Mr. Good, President of the Arts Center Board of Directors, said that funding for the Arts Center audit had been recently secured. Mr. Good added that the audit would be initiated in the near future.

Council Member Preston said she was pleased with the Manager's recommendation in this matter. Council Member Preston noted that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen had voted to provide funding for rental payments to the Center.

Council Member Andresen said she was not prepared for the Town to bail out the Arts Center. Council Member Andresen added her hope that the Center would have new leadership and energy. Council Member Andresen said the Manager's proposal appeared to be reasonable and workable.

Council Member Wilkerson said he had several reservations about the proposed resolution and therefore could not support it. Council Member Wilkerson expressed concern that no new information had been brought to the Council concerning the future viability of the Center.

Council Member Brown said the Arts Center had engaged in some poor business practices in the past. Council Member Brown stated that approving the resolution for Arts Center rental payments would be a poor use of tax dollars.

Council Member Preston noted that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen had proposed holding a public hearing prior to additional funding beyond the next three rental payments. Council Member Preston said this was a good suggestion. Council Member Preston said a hearing could serve as a forum for elected officials to hear all interested parties on this matter.

Council Member Wallace said he did not consider this allocation to be a bail out of the Arts Center. Council Member Wallace encouraged other members of the Council to see a broader picture of the Arts Center's future.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WALLACE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7‑2, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN AND WILKERSON VOTING NO.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO MAIN STREET PARTNERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ARTSCENTER (90‑7‑9/R‑10)

WHEREAS, the ArtsCenter is a significant part of the cultural life of our community, and

WHEREAS, the ArtsCenter represents an enormous investment by public bodies, private business and individuals, and

WHEREAS, it appears that the ArtsCenter may fail immediately without additional funding, and with this funding may be able to return to financial viability;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill authorizes the Manager to make three payments of $2,083 each, in July, August and September, directly to Main Street Partners, or its successor as landlord, for the ArtsCenter at its current location, to pay the ArtsCenter's monthly rent, provided that payments in August and September shall be dependent on the ArtsCenter continuing to rent and operate at its present location.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council will review the 1989‑90 audit and a plan demonstrating future financial viability in September, 1990.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

Consent Agenda

Council Member Brown noted that vehicles turning left at North Columbia Street and Cameron Avenue made crossing difficult for pedestrians. Council Member Andresen said she thought there were several options for improving this situation.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE (90‑7‑9/0‑3)

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, the following grant project ordinance is hereby amended:

SECTION I

The projects authorized are the Community Development projects as approved by Council on May 14, 1990 (90‑5‑14/R‑6): funds are as contained in the Funding Approval and Grant Agreement between the Town and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The projects are known more familiarly as the 1990 Entitlement Community Development Grant. The grant activities include rehabilitation of public housing, construction costs for the proposed new public housing units and capital improvements.

SECTION II

The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the grant project within the terms of the grant document(s), the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the budget contained herein.

SECTION III

The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project:

Community Development Grant ‑ 1990 $282,000

Program Income $ 6,000

Total $288,000

SECTION IV

The following amounts are appropriated for the project:

Rehabilitation of Public Housing $100,000

Housing Program $103,000

Capital Projects ‑ Tanyard Branch Piping $ 30,000

General Administration $ 55,000

Total $288,000

SECTION V

The Finance Director is hereby directed to maintain within the Grant Project Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to HUD as required by the grant agreement(s) and federal and State regulations.

SECTION VI

Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments as due. Reimbursement requests should be made to HUD in an orderly and timely manner.

SECTION VII

The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of each project in Section IV and on the total grant revenues received.

SECTION VIII

Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be entered into the minutes of Council and copies filed within five days of adoption with the Manager, Finance Director and Clerk.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

AN ORDINANCE TO REROUTE TRAFFIC ON BATTLE LANE, SENLAC ROAD AND HOOPER LANE ON AUGUST 25 AND 26, 1990 (90‑7‑9/0‑4)

WHEREAS, traffic will be extremely congested in the Battle Park neighborhood while students are moving into dormitories on the UNC campus; and

WHEREAS, routing traffic in one direction on Battle Lane, Hooper Lane and Senlac Road will ease congestion and allow traffic to flow more smoothly; and

WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina has requested traffic changes as described in a letter dated June 15, 1990 to the Chief of Police; and

WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina will notify residents of Battle Lane, Hooper Lane and Senlac Road of the proposed traffic direction and will issue passes to residents which will allow them to travel in either direction on Hooper Lane and Senlac Road; and

WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina will provide personnel to direct and monitor traffic;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that on Saturday, August 25, 1990 and Sunday, August 26, 1990 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on both days, vehicular traffic on Battle Lane shall travel only south to north, that vehicular traffic on Hooper Lane will travel only west to east, and that vehicular traffic on Senlac Road will travel only west to east; provided that residents of Hooper Lane and Senlac Road may travel in the opposite direction.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO UNDERTAKE THE PAVING OF A PORTION OF DIXIE DRIVE (90‑7‑9/R‑12)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council intends to undertake a project for the paving and other improvements to a portion of Dixie Drive during fiscal year 1990‑ 91.

1. The Town has received a petition for paving of a portion of Dixie Drive, without curb and gutter, and the petition has been determined to be valid under G.S. 160A‑217 (a); and

2. This portion of Dixie Drive comprises approximately 850 linear feet of gravel road extending west from Collums Road; and

3. The Town would pave this portion of Dixie Drive, without curb and gutter, and assess owners of property abutting the proposed improvements on a pro‑rata front footage basis; and

4. The assessment amount will be 50% of the actual, total project cost upon completion (not including the cost of improvements made at street intersections), which costs could include design and construction, legal services, any interest charges, right‑of‑way acquisition, and publication expenses; and

5. Owners of assessed property shall have the option of paying the assessment in one cash payment within 30 days after publication of confirmation of the final assessment roll, or in not more than 10 annual installments, the first of which will be due and payable concurrently with property taxes, at an annual interest rate of 8%; and

6. The Council herewith calls a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on September 17, 1990 in the Town Hall, 306 N. Columbia Street, to consider adoption of a resolution to undertake the abovedescribed project.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING DELETION FROM STATE‑MAINTAINED SYSTEM OF CERTAIN ROADS AND STREETS LYING WITHIN THE AREA ANNEXED BY THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA AND FORMERLY MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS (90‑7‑9/R‑13)

WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, has maintained certain roads and streets lying within the area annexed effective 11:59 p.m., June 30, 1990, by the Town of Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill will now assume maintenance responsibility for the publicly‑maintained roads and streets lying within the annexed area, with the exception of those roads and streets designated as System Roads or Streets; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill and the Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, have discussed the matter and designated the roads and streets to be deleted from the System, the total mileage being .317 miles Rural System as shown on the attached tabulation, being a part of this Resolution;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town hereby agrees to provide all necessary maintenance on the .317 miles of roads in question, as set forth on the tabulation below; and the Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, effective July 1, 1990, will discontinue all maintenance on said roads and streets as of this date.

Listing of streets annexed to be accepted for maintenance purposes by the Town of Chapel Hill effective July 1, 1990:

DURHAM COUNTY

Name Length (in miles)

Little John Road .197

Essex Lane .038

Nottingham Lane .038

Friar Lane .044

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES (90‑7‑ 9/0‑5)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill:

SECTION I

That Section 21‑11 (B) (2) of the Town Code of Ordinances, "Twentyfive (25) miles per hour on the following streets:" is amended by inserting the following therein in appropriate alphabetical order:

Adelaide Walters Road

Baskerville Circle

Breckinridge Place

Deming Road

Dundalk Drive

Galway Drive

Hanft Knoll

Hebrides Drive

Helmsdale Drive

Hotelling Court

Kilkenny Drive

Laura May Lane

Locust Court

Mullin Court

New Castle Place

Nottingham Drive

Rain Tree Lane

Songbird Lane

Tweed Place

Whistling Tree Place

Wicklow Place

Wild Iris Lane

SECTION II

That Section 21‑13 of the Town Code of Ordinances, "right‑of‑way and stop regulations" is amended by inserting the following therein in appropriate alphabetical order:

Through Streets Stop Streets

Adelaide Walters Road Elderberry Drive

Breckinridge Place Hanft Knoll Court

Deming Road Hotelling Court

Deming Road Wild Iris Lane

Donegal Drive Galway Drive

Donegal Drive New Castle Drive

Elderberry Drive Laura May Lane

Fountain Ridge Road Baskerville Circle

Franklin Street Deming Road

Galway Drive New Castle Drive

Galway Drive New Castle Place

Through Streets Stop Streets

Galway Drive Wicklow Place

Helmsdale Drive Dundalk Drive

Helmsdale Drive Hebrides Drive

Lancaster Drive Helmsdale Drive

Lancaster Drive New Castle Drive

Lancaster Drive Tweed Place

Locust Court Rain Tree Lane

Martin Luther King, Jr. Street Adelaide Walters Road

Merritt Mill Road Locust Court

Nottingham Drive Donegal Drive

Nottingham Drive Kilkenny Drive

Wild Iris Lane Breckinridge Place

SECTION III

This ordinance shall be effective on Tuesday, July 10, 1990.

SECTION IV

All ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herein are hereby repealed.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF FIREFIGHTERS (90‑7‑9/R‑14)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Mayor is hereby authorized to certify to the North Carolina Firefighters' Pension Fund the attached roster of Firefighters and Public Safety Officers employed by the Town of Chapel Hill on June 30, 1989.

This the 9th day of July, 1990.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADJOURN THE COUNCIL MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

The meeting stood adjourned at 11:38 p.m.