MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1990

Mayor Howes called the hearing to order.

Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, Nancy Preston, Alan Rimer, James C. Wallace, Arthur Werner and Roosevelt Wilkerson, Jr.

Mayor Howes said that this evening's hearings would begin following the presentation of an audio‑slide presentation by the Citizen's Bond Task Force. Mayor Howes introduced several members of the group, representing divergent views on the proposed library bond referendum issue, were in attendance this evening. The slide presentation followed.

Chesley Phase V Subdivision

All parties wishing to testify in the matter were sworn. Town Manager Horton requested that the agenda item and its attachments be entered into the record of the hearing. Mayor Howes concurred.

Mr. Waldon briefly reviewed the applicant's proposal, noting that the proposed subdivision was located on the south side of Weaver Dairy Road. He described the general area and layout of the subdivision, adding that several phases of the Chesley subdivision had been completed and occupied. Mr. Waldon stated that there were four key issues relative to the applicant's submittal. Mr. Waldon said that the applicant proposed one means of access to the thirtyfour lots in the Chesley v subdivision. He noted that the Town's Design Guidelines state that residential developments larger than twenty‑five dwelling units should be served by two means of street access. Mr. Waldon said the staff felt that a second means of access would be important for efficient circulation.

Mr. Waldon said that the applicant was requesting an exemption from the requirement of providing an on‑site active recreation area. He added that the developer was also proposing a passive recreation area contiguous to Weaver Dairy Road, rather than centrally locating the area. Mr. Waldon said the staff concluded that both requests were reasonable. Mr. Waldon noted that the staff was not recommending the inclusion of landscape protection ordinance provisions in the conditions of approval, since the ordinance does not apply to single‑family lots. He also noted that the staff was not recommending the provision of bicycle lanes on Weaver Dairy Road.

Sally Jessee, the subdivision's developer, expressed her concurrence with all conditions of approval, except the provisions of dual means of access. Ms. Jessee stated that the Town's Design Guidelines are offered as a reference, not a requirement for development. Ms. Jessee also expressed concern that the proposed second means of access would be located in the Resource Conservation District. Ms. Jessee expressed concern that the second means of access would result in total additional costs of approximately $250,000, which might ultimately threaten the financial viability of the subdivision.

Bruce Ballentine, the applicant's design engineer, reviewed the tangents and radii of Weaver Dairy Road relative to Chesley, Phase V. Mr. Ballentine noted that the proposed siting of the second means of access was inadvisable, due principally to sight distance considerations. He said that the current proposed single access point would provide a four hundred foot separation from the next intersection on Weaver Dairy Road. Mr. Ballentine also expressed concern that the proposed intersection would be very close to a sharp right‑hand curve on weaver Dairy Road. He said that one point of access for thirty‑four dwelling units was adequate.

Bruce Guild stated that the Planning Board had discussed the application at its August 2nd meeting. He noted that the Board concurred with the staff's recommendation concerning two means of access. Mr. Guild also said that the Board felt that the provision of sidewalks to Cedar Falls Park merited consideration. He added that the Planning Board "recommended the provision of an active recreation area and adequate protection of trees on the site during construction. Mr. Guild stated that the Planning Board, by a vote of 5‑3, recommended approval of Resolution A to the Council. He briefly reviewed the dissenter's concerns.

Glenn Mitchell, 2447 Mayberry Court, said he resided at the southeast corner of the proposed Chesley V site. He noted that area drainage runoff currently ran along an easement on his property. Mr. Mitchell said he was concerned that the drainage channel frequently reached ninety to ninety‑five percent of capacity during rain events. He noted that the developer had voluntarily offered to install detention facilities on the subdivision site. Mr. Mitchell said that there would be major difficulties in the event of failure of these structures. Mr. Mitchell requested that the drainage channel running through his property be redesigned prior to construction of the Chesley V subdivision. He also expressed concern that the addition of asphalt for a second means of access to the subdivision would negatively impact area drainage conditions. Mr. Mitchell said that there were valid environmental and safety concerns relative to the second access point.

Council Member Andresen inquired how drainage concerns would be best addressed upfront. Mr. Mitchell responded that the drainage easement through his property could be widened and stabilized. Mr. Ballentine noted that a natural drainageway ran through the proposed subdivision. He also said that the road system was laid out to protect area trees. Mr. Ballentine stated that improving the downstream channel would only transfer drainage problems to other areas off‑site. He said that the preferable alternative was to detain stormwater on site, in order to maintain the current peak flow.

Council Member Rimer requested elucidation on the difference in volume of run‑off between current and build‑out conditions during a one‑hundred year storm. Mr. Ballentine said that there would be a maximum difference of approximately twenty percent at peak flow. He noted that the proposed channel would be approximately two to three feet wide and two to three feet in depth.

Council Member Wallace stressed the importance of developing a long‑term strategy for addressing drainage concerns. He said that detention facilities generally have a high failure rate, due to poor maintenance. Council Member Wallace suggested that the developer be required to furnish a performance bond to the Town, to cover possible failure of any detention facilities.

Council Member Werner inquired about the location of the drainage choke point. Mr. Ballentine responded that this point was located across Sedgefield Road. Council Member Werner requested that the staff provide additional information concerning the disposition of drainage runoff in its follow‑up report to the Council.

Council Member Andresen stressed the importance of addressing issues upfront. Council Member Andresen commended the staff for their work with the applicant. She added that the development proposal respected the site topography. Council Member Andresen said there were good reasons to waive the recreation area and two means of access requirements. She also suggested that the developer might pay into a pool for the future development of bicycle lanes.

Town Manager Horton said his preliminary recommendation was the adoption of Resolution A.

Don Stanat emphasized the need for new thinking relative to the provision of bicycle lanes. Mr. Stanat stated that the inclusion of a bicycle lane along this section of Weaver Dairy Road would contribute to lower accident and death rates.

Mayor Howes noted that no other citizens expressed a desire to speak in this matter.

Council Member Preston inquired about the possibility of providing a second means of access from stubouts in other locations. Mr. Ballentine noted that there were no alternatives to the Weaver Dairy Road proposal offered by the staff.

Council Member Brown said she supported the provision of bicycle lanes in the conditions of approval. She also requested that the staff provide an estimate of cost for the maintenance of detention ponds. Council Member Brown also requested follow‑up on the estimated failure rate of detention facilities.

Council Member Rimer expressed concurrence with the need for information requested by Council Member Brown. HE also noted that the design guidelines were reference points rather than requirements. Council Member Rimer suggested that bicycle lanes would best be‑sited along one or both sides of the road, rather than in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Waldon noted that the staff favored ultimately providing bicycle lanes on both sides of Weaver Dairy Road. Mr. Ballentine said that it would be relatively easy to add a bicycle lane near Chesley, by restriping Weaver Dairy Road.

Council Member Werner said he favored the provision of a bicycle lane, to address safety problems in the area. Council Member Wilkerson said it was best to have full bicycle lanes on at least one side of the roadway. He noted his concerns about the proposed location of the second access point.

Council Member Wallace said that most conditions of approval could be argued cogently either way. He said the most important consideration was the proper handling of drainage concerns. Council Member Wallace stressed the need for additional drainage information for better decision making.

Sally Jessee said she concurred with all conditions of approval, with the exception of number six, concerning the number of means of access to the subdivision. Ms. Jessee stated that restriping of Weaver Dairy Road for provision of a bicycle lane made a lot of sense.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO NOVEMBER 12TH AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Woods at Laurel Hill, Section V

Parties wishing to testify in the matter were sworn. Town Manager Horton requested that the agenda item and its attachments be entered into the record of the hearing. Mayor Howes concurred.

Planning Director Roger Waldon said that the existing special use permit was for a townhouse development site between Bayberry Drive and Parker Drive. He added that Phase I of the project had been completed. Mr. Waldon noted that the developer was requesting that the balance of the site be released from the existing special use permit. He briefly explained the connection between the existing special use permit and the proposed Reserve subdivision. The applicant, Sally Jessee, indicated that she did not have a formal presentation for this request.

Planning Board Chairperson Bruce Guild indicated that the Board had considered the matter at its October 2nd meeting. Mr. Guild said the Board unanimously recommended (8‑0) the adoption of Resolution A to the Council.

Town Manager Horton said his preliminary recommendation to the Council was the adoption of Resolution A. Mayor Howes noted that no citizens had expressed a desire to speak on this matter.

Sally Jessee expressed her concurrence with the proposed conditions of approval.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 12TH AND REFER COMMENTS TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

The Reserve Subdivision

Parties wishing to testify in the matter were sworn. Town Manager Horton requested that the agenda item and its attachments be entered into the record of the hearing. Mayor Howes concurred.

Planning Director Roger Waldon stated that the applicant was requesting that the Reserve subdivision site be combined with the previously approved Woods at Laurel Hill V site. Mr. Waldon showed slides of the proposed subdivision, noting that an existing roadway had been cut through the site. Mr. Waldon stressed the need for two means of paved access to the subdivision. He noted that improvements to Parker Road from Hunters Ridge Road to Rhododendron Drive would be needed to provide access from Mount Carmel Church Road.

Sally Jessee said she concurred with the proposed conditions of approval in Resolution A. Ms. Jessee noted that approximately ninety percent of the subdivision's trails and pathways would be located in existing easements. She inquired about the need for providing gravel pathways, since these trails would be located in grassy areas. Ms. Jessee also questioned the need for the provision of sidewalks on Class B and C roadways.

Planning Board Chairperson Bruce Guild said the Board had considered the proposal at its October 2nd meeting, Mr. Guild said the Board concluded that the inclusion of sidewalks on larger roadways was a good idea. He noted that the Board recommended (5‑3) the provision of pedestrian easements in two locations without improved pathways. Mr. Guild said the Board unanimously recommended the adoption of Resolution A, with additional conditions, to the Council unanimously (8‑0).

Mr. Horton said his preliminary recommendation to the Council was the adoption of Resolution A. Mayor Howes noted that no citizens had requested the opportunity to address this matter.

Council Member Wallace inquired whether the staff had received comments from the North Carolina Botanical Garden or any other neighbors concerning this development proposal. Mr. Waldon said no comments had been received to date.

Council Member Rimer noted that most roads on the south side of Morgan Creek do not have curb and guttering. He suggested that it might be appropriate to require guttering along Parker Road. He also inquired why the staff was recommending that Parker Road ultimately be one hundred and ten feet wide. Mr. Waldon noted that Parker Road was currently very narrow. He added that the staff recommendation was to provide a maximum amount of flexibility to incorporate roadways such as the alternative to the proposed Laurel Hill Parkway.

Council Member Andresen commended the planning staff for working out flexibility in the construction of cul‑de‑sacs.

Council Member Werner noted that it would not be necessary to provide sidewalks, except on major roadways in the subdivision.

Sally Jessee said she concurred with the Manager's recommendation, adding that further discussions could be held concerning proposed conditions five and thirteen.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 12TH AND TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Airport Road/NC 86 Housing

Town Manager Horton briefly discussed the project's timeline to date. He noted that Planning Director would serve as the regulator, while Housing and Community Development Director Tina Vaughn would be the applicant.

Planning Director Roger Waldon reviewed the application, noting that twenty‑four units were proposed for siting on approximately seven acres. He noted that the duplex units would be dispersed around a cul‑de‑sac on the site. Mr. waldon stated that additional left and right‑turn lanes were proposed on NC 86 to accommodate turning movements.

Housing and Community Development Director Tina Vaughn said the initial application for public housing units was made to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in April, 1988. Ms. Vaughn noted that H.U.D. officials required that construction on the site begin by March, 1991.

Dan Williams, project architect, noted that one‑half of the one hundred and thirty foot right‑of‑way along the front of the property was being dedicated. He added that two recreation areas would be dedicated on the site, Mr. Williams noted that the buildings would be aligned to the north to provide solar access. Mr. Williams said that the plans had been reviewed by the Alternative Energy Corporation. He also noted that each of the 925 square foot units would have three bedrooms.

Planning Board Chairperson Bruce Guild noted that the Board unanimously (10‑0) recommended approval of the application with conditions. He said the Board recommended that a right‑turn lane be added to Airport Road near the development entrance. Mr. Guild also noted that the Board recommended that a bus pull‑off be added along Airport Road.

Town Manager Horton said his preliminary recommendation was adoption of Resolution A.

Gordon Mitchell read a prepared statement, the text of which follows:

"I own two buildings with a total of 6 affordable rental units contiguous to this project on the north side.

Before I go into details, I want you to know that I have attempted to keep myself involved and informed since before the Maddry Property was put up for sale. After the Town purchased the Maddry Property, I spoke with staff in early winter and again in May or June. After reading about the project, I met with Town staff in June and discovered that the site plan did not show my property. I was not on the mailing list. I asked to be placed on the mailing list. In September, I went back to staff to inquire about this project. I was told that the planning board had met the night before, and that the transportation board had already met. The site plan was still incorrect, and I had not been notified of these meetings. Indeed page 2 of The State of Justification, Finding three, still denies my existence. I am the only adjacent property owner with buildings next to this property, and THE ONLY OWNER NOT NOTIFIED. Until last week the site plan was still incorrect, despite the fact that the plat prepared by Tom Bick in Engineering did show my property. I also do not understand why it is important to show buildings across the road and south of the project, and not show those buildings closest to the project and most affected by the project.

The Planning Staff Report dated October 15 says on page 4 that the proposed development is "bound on the north by Town‑owned land". THIS IS NOT CORRECT. The property is bound on the north by Gordon Mitchell's Presswood Apartments, and OPC Halfway Houses. The tract in 48 acres not 44 acres as stated on page 4.

The Statement of Justification prepared by the Applicant is incorrect on page 2. Presswood Apartments are totally left out. The First Church of Christ Scientist is not across the street, but is south of Dixie Lane. Private residences are across the street.

I want to approach this particular project in several ways:

I. From the view point of Small Area Plans.

II. The placement of the project if adopted.

III. Specific problems in the site plan and recommended changes.

IV. Potential damage to my property.

V. The 16 foot error in the survey along my property line.

I. SMALL AREA PLANS

This area is one of those targeted for small areas planning. The concept of Small Areas Plans is to examine the characteristics of undeveloped areas and develop detail plans for the best use of the properties, taking into consideration, traffic and roads, utilities, open space, etc. THE TOWN HERE HAS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A SMALL AREAS PLAN. The Town owns the 48 acres, and therefore has an OBLIGATION to adhere to the adopted concept of SMALL AREA PLANNING. NONE OF THAT IS BEING DONE HERE. Piecemeal development of the Town owned property would be a strong denial of the concept of small area plans developed and adopted by the Council.

I am particularly upset that this Town owned tract is being developed in such a haphazard fashion. How can you expect the property owners to swallow the intensive planning of their property by the Town, when the Town will not plan the Town's own property? Will this later turn out to be "arbitrary and capricious" planning? If the Council believes in Small Areas planning, the Council should practice what they preach.

There is a plan that shows a road extended across Airport Road from Dixie Lane and curving north to Eubanks Road. This would be better than two intersections.

With respect to traffic problems, Airport Road must be 4 or 5 laned soon. The plans for that have not yet been developed. Different boards are now approving fragments of fragmented plans. This area already has problems which will be compounded by fragmented planning. There are intersections planned at Stateside Drive and Dixie Lane which would both be hill and curve intersections. Now cars periodically run off the road in front off my apartments and OPC Halfway House. Last month there were remnants of a scattered load of concrete blocks. I had to move my apartment mail boxes off of Airport road, or rather I should say that all six mailboxes were removed by accident.

Any additional intersections in this area will be detrimental; and yet THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HAS APPROVED THE CONCEPT OF NEW CROSS STREETS AT STATESIDE DRIVE AND DIXIE LANE.

AIRPORT ROAD DOES NOT NEED ANY ADDITIONAL INTERSECTIONS. It will be widened soon, making it even more difficult to cross. Please keep in mind the difficulties created at the intersection of 54‑bypass and Mason Farm Road (i.e. Highland Woods neighborhood), where the Council has been unsuccessful in getting a traffic light installed. If there must be an intersection added, the plan should be developed and approved so that there will be ONLY ONE NEW STREET, not separate streets serving both park and housing. That street should be at Dixie Drive opposite the new church, where presumably there will eventually have to be a traffic light there , One traffic light would be better than two.

One plan shows that intersection at Dixie Lane staggered because the Town doesn't own the land directly opposite Dixie Lane. This would be undesirable. The intersection should go straight across. I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE LOCAL HEAD OF DUKE POWER AND HE IS DEFINITELY WILLING TO DISCUSS SELLING the portion of land north of Booker Creek (Presswood Creek) required to correctly line up Dixie Lane. I would be glad to voluntarily follow up on this for the Town.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. There should be only one new access to the Maddry property. Ideally that would follow the proposed road to Eubanks Road as shown on Attachment C of the May 1990 Transportation Impact Statement for Maddry Property Master Plan, BUT CONTINUE THE ROAD SOUTH TO HOMESTEAD ROAD.

2. If the access has to be to Airport Road, PLEASE plan it so that there will ONLY BE ONE TRAFFIC JAMMING INTERSECTION, not two.

II. PLACEMENT OF THE PROJECT

As planned my buildings will be about 50 feet from the new street and the new corner of Stateside. Currently my apartments are well sheltered by large mature pines on my lot and on the adjacent land. Pine trees are a mutually supporting type of tree. Cutting those trees along my southern property line, may result in increased susceptibility of my trees to wind and ice damage.

Since the Transportation committee has already approved an intersection at Dixie Lane. The project could be flipped over so that the same plan, can more or less be used at the Dixie Lane intersection. This would have no negative impact on any adjacent buildings. Airport Road traffic is already a negative impact on my property, compared to when it was built 30 years ago, or even when it was purchased 14 years ago.

Benefits would be LOWER COSTS due to the construction of only one main access street, and closer proximity to sewer lines.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the project be moved south to Dixie Lane so that Presswood Creek Apartments will not be on an intersection corner, and so that SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS MAY OCCUR from closer proximity to sewer, and utilization of only one Maddry Street instead of two streets.

II. SPECIFIC PROBLEMS IN THE SITE PLAN AND RECOMMENDED CHANGES

If the project is left at this location, there are several potential problems.

BUFFERS: There are generous buffers around the property, except along my property line. Page 6 of the October 15th staff report states "minimum required buffer widths ... 30 feet along Airport Road, and 20 feet along the other boundaries." In fact, the project has buffers of 100 feet along Airport Road, and 50 feet along the northern line that abuts vacant land. YET THERE IS NO BUFFER along the property line where the only adjacent occupied buildings exist. The staff states that a buffer is required, but there is none shown. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation and received no satisfactory answer. I was told that no buffer was required because the street was to be public. The street is an integral part of the project and should not be exempted from the buffer requirements. Airport Road is also a public street and they have placed a 100 foot buffer on that side.

In the event, that legal justification can be found, FAIR TREATMENT would dictate that the buffer between the development and occupied residential property should be at least as great or greater than that between the project and Town owned woodland.

In another example of poor planning, there is a parcel on the north side of the project which is 200' wide from north to south and 454 long. This is a result of fragmentary planning. THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT SHOW THIS WASTED SPACE. This equals 2.1 acres. What can or will be done with this? You don't need it all even if you extend the street, I don't know what the Town paid, but at $20,000/acre, you may be THROWING AWAY $40,000 by creating a tract that will be difficult to use.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Eliminate the 2 acres of DEAD SPACE between the project and OPC Halfway Houses.

2. Place the required 20 foot buffer before between Gordon Mitchell's Presswood Apartments, and the project.

IV. ADVERSE IMPACTS

The site plan dedicates an additional 30 feet right‑of‑way along Airport Road. This is another example of piecemeal planning. If they widen the road by 30 feet on that side, and take 30 feet from Presswood Apartments, then they will be taking my soil percolation fields and possibly my septic tank.

Sooner or later I and the OPC House may have to hook on to sewer. The site plan shows no evidence of any planning in order to provide for sewer for the only adjacent properties. Such planning at this time might prevent digging up of Airport Road later. One of the ideas in the SMALL AREAS PLANS CONCEPT was to plan for utilities. No such planning has been done here. Utility planning should be an integral part of a small areas plan for the Maddry Property.

The surveyor's are inside the fence that surrounds my property. If they bring heavy equipment inside that fence they may well destroy my percolation fields.

There will be extensive noise in a project like this which will have a temporary adverse impact. The construction staging area is placed next to my buildings. Could not that be moved further south and reduce the noise impact somewhat?

Presswood Apartments are my own affordable housing project. A four room apartment there rents for $315, a modest price by Chapel Hill standards. Please don't let the impact of your affordable housing harm my affordable housing.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. If the project is left at the proposed location, move the construction staging area as far south as possible in order to minimize the disruption of those people living at Presswood Apartments.

2. At this time, do not dedicate the additional 30 feet rightof‑way. Wait until some real planning has been done.

3. Provide a sewer easements for Presswood Apartments and the OPC Halfway Houses. Recommended location would be along the western line of Mitchell up to OPC.

V. SURVEY ERROR

I have two survey's that show my southern lines as being 292 feet from the road right‑of‑way. One in 1959 which is a record plat of Nellie Maddry Jenkins Property and the second was in 1962. The surveyors for the Town, shorted that line by 16 feet. I talked to a Scott Wilson at Bass, Nixon, and Kennedy in Raleigh. He told me that Highway 86 had moved. I talked to DOT in Greensboro and they told me Highway 86 had not moved. I have yet to get a satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy. There is an old fence surrounding my property, which conforms to my opinion of the property line. Their survey comes inside that fence at the rear by about 16 feet.

I have not spent any money yet protesting this, because it may not be a major problem, depending on how the adjacent property is developed.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Redraw the plat of the Town property to conform to the 1959 Plat of the Nellie Maddry Jenkins property as accepted and recorded in 1959 by the MADDRY family.

CONCLUSION:

Please return to the concept of the SMALL AREAS PLANS and do not fragment this 48 acre Town owned tract, and compound the road and utility problems with fragmentary planning.

This is a rare opportunity for the Town to show what a responsible developer can do."

Council Member Andresen requested that the staff respond to Mr. Mitchell's concerns in its follow‑up report to the Council.

Council Member Rimer inquired about the status of moving the park and ride lot under high‑tension power lines. Mr. Horton stated that the Town staff was examining this possibility. Council Member Rimer emphasized the importance of applying development standards, especially roadway improvements, uniformly. Council Member Rimer noted that there was no compelling argument to the contrary. Mr. Horton noted that this proposal would not generate the same amount of traffic as larger projects such as chapel Hill North. Council Member Rimer noted the importance of equitably treating all developments.

Council Member Brown, concurring with Council Member Andresen, requested that the staff respond to Mr. Mitchell's concerns in its' follow‑up report. Council Member Brown said she was glad that the Town was exploring the solar orientation of the project. Council Member Brown inquired whether retrofitting of buildings would be possible. Mr. Williams said this was not specifically planned, but could be explored in greater detail.

Council Member Wallace expressed grave concern about the number of apparent discrepancies outlined by Mr. Mitchell in his remarks. He also noted that the proposed Airport Road housing project was not in a vacuum distinguishing itself from projects such as Chapel Hill North.

Council Member Andresen noted that the materials distributed to the Council did not contain any site elevations. Mr. Williams displayed an exhibit depicting the site elevation of one of the units. Council Member Andresen inquired why the Design Review Board had not reviewed the proposal. Mr. Waldon responded that the Design Review Board was scheduled to hold its first (organizational) meeting on Thursday, October 18th. Council Member Andresen asked whether it would be possible to receive comments from the design review board. Mr. Waldon said yes, noting that the Design Review Board could possibly review the proposal at its November meeting. Town Manager Horton noted that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development timeline for the project was very tight, with construction required to begin no later than March, 1991.

Council Member Rimer inquired when the item would be bought back to the Council for further consideration. Mr. Horton said the item was scheduled to return on November 12th. Mr. Waldon noted that building elevations had been reviewed and approved by the Appearance Commission.

Council Member Wallace inquired about the North Carolina Department of Transportation's recent communication about area roadway improvements. Mr. Small responded that DOT staff was keeping in close contact with Town engineering and design staff. Council Member Wallace inquired whether any of Chapel Hill North's roadway improvements were under construction. Mr. Small said no.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH AND REFER COMMENTS TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

Assessment Rolls

Mayor Howes inquired whether there were any citizens to speak on any of the six listed roadways proposed for assessments. No citizens expressed a desire to speak this evening.

Mr. Small noted that six separate public hearings had been called. He added that this evening's hearing was a step in phase two of a mat and seal program. He noted that the phase one mat and seal project went very well.

Mayor Howes, noting that there were no citizens wishing to speak at any of the six hearings, noted that the Council had received a letter from Helene Ivey, 1500 Mason Farm Road, expressing concern about drainage and cost matters.

Council Member Herzenberg noted that the staff had said it was too late to change the assessment roll for Markham Drive. Council Member Herzenberg asked how the staff had reached this conclusion. Mr. Small noted that Ms. Gurley, a resident of Markham Drive, had previously owned two of five lots had combined her two lots into one since the assessment roll was compiled. Mr. Small said it would be possible to change the roll if the remaining parties were willing to change their assessment share from one‑fifth to onefourth. Mr. Small noted that Ms. Gurley had indicated that she would consider talking to her neighbors about this situation. Council Member Herzenberg noted that Ms. Gurley had considerably less footage than her‑neighbors.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WALLACE, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

The hearing adjourned at 10:22 p.m.