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

CHAPEL HILL, TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 AT 7:30 P.M

Mayor Broun called the meeting to order. Council members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Joe Herzenberg, Alan Rimer, Arthur Werner and Roosevelt Wilkerson, Jr. Also in attendance were Assistant to the Mayor Lisa Price, Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Engineering Director George Small, Planning Director Roger Waldon and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos (arrived at 8:28 p.m.).

Item 3 Petitions

Howard Watson, a representative of the Pine Knolls neighborhood, expressed concern about parking and the sale of drugs in his neighborhood. He noted that most people purchasing drugs in the area were not neighborhood residents. Mr. Watson presented a petition requesting that parking on neighborhood streets be limited to area residents and their guests. He said the restrictions would be helpful in ridding the neighborhood of drug problems. Mr. Watson said neighborhood residents would work with Town staff to develop flexible parking hours which would work in the neighborhood. He also expressed concern that a number of persons in governmental and business vehicles had been observed purchasing drugs in the neighborhood.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER, WITH A REPORT TO BE MADE AT THE JUNE 8TH MEETING.

Council Member Rimer suggested that area residents record license plate numbers of vehicles participating in drug activity.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Noting that several persons wished to speak on the trapping and relocation of beaver, Council Member Herzenberg suggested that item 12d be removed from the consent agenda.

Council Member Brown noted that she had posed a number of questions concerning landfill siting and drilling. She requested a report on the action of other local governments on landfill siting and drilling. Council Member Rimer said he would raise these matters at the Landfill Owners Group's May 27th meeting.

Council Member Chilton noted that he had been contacted by a constituent who had parked his vehicle in a Town parking lot overnight, choosing to walk home instead of driving under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Chilton said the gentleman had received a $25 ticket for leaving his car in the lot overnight. He expressed concern that the policy appeared to encourage inappropriate behavior. Mr. Horton said a follow-up report would be provided on the matter. Mayor Broun inquired when item 12d should be discussed. Council Member Herzenberg suggested that the item be discussed when the consent agenda was being considered.

Item 4 Board and Commission Nominations and Appointments

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO NOMINATE ALL APPLICANTS TO THE APPEARANCE COMMISSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON, TO NOMINATE ALL APPLICANTS TO THE GREENWAYS COMMISSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO NOMINATE ALL APPLICANTS TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Andresen requested additional information on the occupations of current Board of Adjustment members. She noted the desirability of having balanced boards and commissions. Mayor Broun suggested that appointments to the Board of Adjustment be postponed until June 8th.

GARY BARNES, HAL COOPER, LEWIS ORDE AND NANCY WILLIAMS WERE APPOINTED TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. VOTING TALLIES ARE INDICATED BELOW.

Parks and Recreation Commission

Name Votes

Gary Barnes 9 (Andresen, Broun, Brown, Capowski, Chilton, Herzenberg, Rimer, Werner, Wilkerson)

Nancy Williams 8 (Andresen, Broun, Brown, Capowski, Chilton, Rimer, Werner, Wilkerson)

Hal Cooper 7 (Broun, Brown, Capowski, Chilton, Rimer, Werner, Wilkerson)

Lewis Orde 6 (Brown, Capowski, Chilton, Herzenberg, Rimer, Wilkerson)

George Entenman 4 (Andresen, Broun, Herzenberg, Werner)

Dianne LeMasters 1 (Andresen)

STEPHEN MANTON WAS APPOINTED AND LAURA THOMAS REAPPOINTED, TO THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD.

Name Votes

Stephen Manton 9 (Andresen, Broun, Brown, Capowski, Chilton, Herzenberg, Rimer, Werner, Wilkerson)

Laura Thomas 8 (Broun, Brown, Capowski, Chilton, Herzenberg, Rimer, Werner, Wilkerson)

Miriam Lewis 1 (Andresen)

Original voting ballots are on file in the Town Clerk's Office.

Item 5 Proposed NC 86 Roadway Improvements

Engineering Director George Small briefly reviewed the process used to solicit input from citizens concerning the proposed roadway improvements on NC 86. He stated that Town staff and advisory boards and commissions had examined a number of roadway alternatives, including a variable median. Mr. Small said a number of questions and concerns about items such as landscaping, bike lanes, medians and impacts on other roads were raised at public information meetings concerning proposed roadway improvements.

Mr. Small added that estimated costs had been calculated for bikeways, landscaping, right-of-way acquisition and other items. He also noted that possible funding mechanisms for the project were also being explored since the Town currently did not have any funds specifically earmarked for the project. Mr. Small said the Manager recommended adoption of Resolution A.

Council Member Werner inquired about the term "displacements" in Table One. Mr. Small said these were homes or mobile homes which would have to be relocated as a result of the proposed wider median. Council Member Werner asked whether it was correct that the level of service on NC 86 would be D or F by the year 2010, regardless of which alternative was chosen by the Council. Mr. Small said projections indicated that this would be the situation. He noted that the provision of a park and ride lot in this area might mitigate some traffic congestion in the area. Mr. Small stated that other alternatives could be examined periodically as traffic conditions worsened on NC 86. Council Member Werner noted that the increase in traffic along NC 86 might be even greater if the Council's goal of moving Horace Williams Airport were realized. Council Member Chilton said this was somewhat reliant on the provision of remote parking in this area of the Town. Council Member Werner emphasized the importance of thinking about future development at the Horace Williams site.

Council Member Andresen inquired why no median was being recommended opposite from the Northwood neighborhood. She said the median would screen noise to some extent. Mr. Small stated that the proximity of the Weaver Dairy Road made it impossible to accommodate the median along with turning and storage lanes. He noted that the Northwood neighborhood was opposed having an entrance to Chapel Hill North directly across from the neighborhood. Council Member Andresen asked whether the Town or State Department of Transportation would entertain a meandering sidewalk in the area.

Mr. Small said there was some flexibility in this regard. He added that it was sometimes difficult to light meandering sidewalks. Council Member Brown inquired about the viability of a noise barrier in the Northwood area. Mr. Small said a vegetative barrier was possible, while a monolithic noise wall would be very expensive. Council Member Brown inquired about the width of existing lanes on NC 86. Mr. Small said this was a little narrower than other roadways. Council Member Brown inquired about the impact of roadway alignments on individual neighborhoods. Mr. Small said the alternatives attempted to minimize the impact on specific trees and corridors. Council Member Brown asked whether additional information could be provided on this matter. Mr. Small said yes.

Council Member Capowski inquired whether median landscaping costs referenced in the staff report included maintenance and installation. Mr. Small said the figures were for installation only. He stated that the estimated cost of maintenance was $12,000 to $15,000 per year per mile. Mr. Small noted that this cost would likely be less on a five-lane section. He also stated that more natural landscaping might reduce this cost further. Council Member Capowski inquired whether the staff had information on whether motorists on NC 86 were traveling into or through the Town. Mr. Small said no. Council Member Capowski inquired about funding availability for bikeways and sidewalks. Mr. Horton said there was more opportunity for these funds than in the past due to federal government efforts and passage of ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) legislation. He added that construction of a median and curb and gutter could possibly be included in the project. Mr. Horton said funding for project amenities would be quite difficult.

Katherine Emerson, 130 Lake Ellen Drive, said a twenty-four foot grassy median would provide additional safety along the proposed roadway. She noted that most residents of her neighborhood had to make left turns from Dixie or Stateside Drive onto NC 86. Ms. Emerson said these were difficult and risky maneuvers. She also noted that the area had experienced accidents or near misses in the area. Ms. Emerson said the inclusion of a grassy median would allow for a storage lane. She also urged the Council not to include a bus lane in the four traffic lanes.

Eloise Neeby said a number of neighborhood residents had had bad experiences along NC 86. She stated that a traffic light with an arrow was needed for entry into the North Forest Hills neighborhood. Ms. Neeby said although safety and erosion were both important concerns, safety should take precedence.

Ray Troutner said he had resided in the Lake Ellen area for eight years. Mr. Troutner stated that a variety of development had taken place in his neighborhood during this time. He urged the Council to widen NC 86 to provide safer conditions and well-being to neighborhood residents.

Tim Ream, a resident of the Northwood neighborhood, urged the Council to include the Whitfield Road area in the proposed roadway improvement project. He also stated the importance of providing a park and ride lot along north NC 86 in the future. Noting that the developers of Chapel Hill North had agreed to donate one hundred feet of right-of-way, Mr. Ream said the proposed roadway improvement should not be symmetrical to the Northwood neighborhood. He also expressed concern that no bus turn-outs were included in the proposed plans.

Joel Harper, President of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said piecemeal development yielded disjointed impacts. He said the Council had foreseen this situation and adopted a master landscape development plan. Mr. Harper encouraged the Council to favorably consider the Manager's recommendation.

Wayne Pein expressed his opposition to the proposed five-lane roadway. He said a three-lane roadway improvement was preferable. Mr. Pein said adding a center turn lane, bus pull-offs and bikeway would save money. He stated that road widening and coordinated traffic signals encouraged single-occupant vehicles. Mr. Pein said that ISTEA regulations might provide local governments with a greater voice in roadway projects. He expressed concern that Department of Transportation projects traditionally considered only the needs of motorists. Mr. Pein urged the Council to reject the five-lane roadway proposal.

Council Member Herzenberg inquired why the proposed improvements did not extend to Interstate 40. Mr. Small said the project limits extended to the entry and exit ramps of Interstate 40. He added that the State Department of Transportation was examining traffic conditions at Whitfield Road separately. Council Member Herzenberg requested additional information concerning the project's symmetry relative to the Chapel Hill North development. Mr. Small said the present plan was for right-of-way to be taken primarily or totally from the Chapel Hill North side of the roadway in this area. Council Member Rimer inquired why it would be necessary to purchase right-of-way since it had been dedicated as a special-use permit condition. Mr. Horton noted that the developer had the option of not pursuing the special use permit.

Council Member Rimer suggested that the NC 86 project have medians similar to Fordham Boulevard. Noting it was unfortunate that the Department of Transportation would not fund a three-lane roadway or other innovative alternative, Council Member Rimer said he was very much in favor of the proposed median. Council Member Brown inquired whether the Department of Transportation could not or would not support the concept of a three-lane roadway. Mr. Small noted that federal highway funding guidelines did not permit underdesigning or underbuilding of roadway projects. Mr. Small said he believed that the State Department of Transportation had a similar philosophy.

Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council support improvements at NC 86 and Whitfield Road. Council Member Andresen said she had problems with a proposal for three lanes, since turning movements could be dangerous. Council Member Andresen said she favored Resolution 1a since it included bicycle lanes, a median and did not rule out meandering sidewalks. She suggested that the staff examine the possibility of a median opposite to the Northwood neighborhood. Council Member Andresen also expressed hope that a signal light could be installed at NC 86 and Eubanks Road in the near future. She requested that staff provide a pedestrian plan for the area in its follow-up report to the Council.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1A.

Council Member Brown inquired what the Town would be obligated to do in the event that no funding was available for a median. Mr. Horton said the staff would report back to the Council on the roadway funding situation in September. Council Member Brown said something needed to be done about NC 86 traffic. Council Member Brown said she hated to widen the roadway, since such a widening might actually welcome additional traffic. She said that roadway widening appeared to be the best current alternative.

Council Member Wilkerson said he would vote in favor of Resolution 1a. He expressed concern about the upkeep of the proposed median. Council Member Wilkerson said median upkeep might be as expensive as the upkeep of the Fordham Boulevard median.

Council Member Capowski said although he favored Resolution 1a, he was concerned that State funding would likely only be available for the roadway rather than bikeways, sidewalks and other facilities. Council Member Capowski asked whether it was correct that no commitment was being made in the event that the Town was unable to procure funds for additional items. Mr. Horton said this was correct. He noted that significant improvements to NC 86 were needed.

Council Member Werner emphasized the importance of including bike lanes and a median. He said that constructing a basic five-lane roadway would be a mistake. Council Member Werner inquired about the status of a park and ride lot close to Interstate 40 at NC 86. Mr. Horton stated that the Town had had an option to build a park and ride lot in relation to Chapel Hill North at one point. He said there were no identified options or funding for such a facility at present.

Thanking Mr. Pein for his remarks, Council Member Chilton said a three-lane roadway option was not possible from the standpoint of funding. Council Member Chilton said it was unfortunate that funding was not available for a three-lane roadway. Council Member Brown requested a review of Resolution 1a's components. Mr. Horton stated that there was nothing in the proposed resolution committing the Council to a five-lane roadway. He said the resolution basically stated that there was a problem with the NC 86 roadway.

Council Member Rimer asked whether the Town was precluded from future negotiations concerning a park and ride lot on NC 86 north. Mr. Horton said no. Council Member Rimer said it would be desirable to provide fiscal impact statements for future projects of this type. Mayor Broun said he had no confidence that the State would fund bikeway and pedestrian facilities. Mayor Broun added that the ISTEA legislation would hopefully provide funding for these types of facilities. Mr. Horton noted that the Town had not yet accepted Fordham Boulevard for maintenance. Council Member Wilkerson noted that these estimated costs did not include staff.

RESOLUTION 1A WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY

(9-0).

A RESOLUTION ENDORSING A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF N.C. 86 BETWEEN HOMESTEAD ROAD AND US INTERSTATE 40 AS A FOUR LANE ROADWAY INCLUDING A RAISED, LANDSCAPED, TWENTY-FOUR FOOT WIDE CENTER MEDIAN, STRIPED BIKE LANES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY AND 5-FOOT WIDE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROJECT (92-5-26/R-1a)

WHEREAS, representatives of the Town, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and citizens have met and discussed the project needs, scope, costs, and impacts; and

WHEREAS, all input has been evaluated in conjunction with preliminary design studies in reaching a decision concerning the recommended design; and

WHEREAS, the proposed design meets the most community-wide needs with the least negative impact of the alternatives studied;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council recognizes that acceptable traffic safety and mobility standards cannot be met on NC 86 without significant improvements, such as construction of a 5-lane roadway as exists south of Homestead Road.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council wishes to do more than the minimum improvement of this important entranceway to our community and directs the Town Manager to investigate sources of funds which could supplement existing State funding and allow enhancements to be included in the project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests the NCDOT to design a four-lane roadway with a twenty-four foot wide raised center median.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council desires that the median be preserved as a landscaped and grassed area for a four-lane divided roadway and that this median not be reserved by NCDOT for future use as additional traffic lanes.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that final design include plans and specifications for landscaping in the median and within the project clearing limits to provide a buffer between the project and adjoining properties and to provide enhancements in accordance with the Town's Master Landscape Plan for Entranceway Corridors.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that final design include extra pavement width to accommodate striped and designated on-street bike lanes at the outer edge of both the northbound and southbound lanes.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that final design include sidewalks along both sides of the improved roadway and transit stops as necessary to accommodate pedestrians and the Town's public transit system.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the NCDOT include the Town in the review process as the final plans are developed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to report back no later than September, 1992 with the results of his investigation and recommendations for proceeding with the improvements of NC 86 between Homestead Road and I-40.

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

Item 6 UNC Hospital Administration Building SUP

Mayor Broun noted that persons testifying in the matter had been previously sworn or sworn earlier in the evening.

Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that the Council had held a public hearing on the application on April 20th. He said issues raised at the hearing were addressed in the staff's follow-up memorandum to the Council. Mr. Waldon noted that the applicant had responded to concerns about bird kills by agreeing to use less reflective glass. He also noted that a detailed stormwater management plan would be included as part of the final plan presentation. Mr. Waldon stated that Resolutions a and b were identical excepting a condition concerning the provision of a bus shelter. He noted that the Transportation Board recommended denial of the project.

Council Member Andresen inquired about long-range construction plans for the area. Mr. Waldon said there was very little land suitable for development north of the Friday Center. Council Member Andresen inquired who enforced stormwater runoff regulations. Mr. Waldon said this was handled by the State. Council Member Andresen asked whether it was possible to strengthen the proposed language related to the inspection of stormwater facilities. Mr. Waldon said staff could investigate this matter. Council Member Rimer inquired about erosion and sedimentation measures enforced by Orange County. Mr. Waldon said that State regulations applied to State construction projects. Council Member Rimer expressed concern about the State's record in inspecting projects of this type. Council Member Rimer said he encouraged the hospital to accept the County's inspection as a delegated authority. Council Member Werner inquired about the difference between State and County regulations. Council Member Rimer noted that the County's standards were more stringent. Council Member Werner said he hoped that the applicant would be willing to accept County inspections.

Council Member Chilton inquired about the difference between low and high-pressure sodium lights. Mr. Waldon briefly reviewed the differences, noting that high-pressure lights were recommended. Council Member Brown inquired whether the "White Line Road" was still included in the University's long-range plans. Mr. Waldon said the University's official roadway plan had originally included a road crossing Morgan Creek. He noted that this roadway had been deleted in future plans. Council Member Brown noted that major roadways and extensions were located in the vicinity of the proposed building. Mr. Waldon presented a brief overview of area roadways. Council Member Brown emphasized the importance of taking into account the area's long-range roadway plan.

Mary Beck, project architect, said most concerns raised at the April 20th hearing were addressed in a May 8th letter to the Mayor and Council. Ms. Beck said the applicant concurred with comments in the Manager's memorandum. She briefly reviewed transportation-related issues including park and ride lot access and the provision of a bus shelter. Ms. Beck also noted that a silt fence would be maintained during construction to handle stormwater runoff. She expressed the applicant's willingness to review Orange County's standards for erosion and sedimentation controls. Ms. Beck said it was not possible to provide absolute safeguards concerning bird kills cause by birds flying into the proposed facility. She noted that efforts had been made to reduce the reflectivity of building glass. Council Member Rimer said the revised proposal represented a significant decrease in reflectivity. He commended the applicant for its efforts to balance between energy efficiency and bird life.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether the applicant was willing to add more specific conditions concerning window reflectivity. Ms. Beck said yes, noting that revised specifications had already been provided to the building designer. Council Member Andresen asked whether the applicant objected to additional language concerning erosion control measures. Ms. Beck suggested that the proposed language be made applicable to the Hospital, rather than the University. Mr. Horton suggested adding the words "the applicant agrees to cooperate with the Manager on inspections relative to a soil control plan" in condition number fifteen.

Council Member Capowski inquired how many employees worked in the hospital administration building at night. Ms. Beck said eight or fewer. Expressing concern about possible impacts on nearby residents, Council Member Capowski asked whether lights would remain on in the parking lot all night. Ms. Beck said the lights could be turned off after all parties had left the building. Council Member Capowski inquired about the annual cost of a parking permit. Ms. Beck said $108. Council Member Capowski inquired whether the purchase of parking permits was required. Ms. Beck said no. Council Member Capowski expressed concern that employees not park in the adjoining park and ride lot free of charge. Ms. Beck said the Council's and Hospital's goals were identical on this point.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2A, AS AMENDED.

Expressing concerning about development in a very sensitive area, Council Member Brown said she still found validity in resolution 2c.

THE MOTION WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NO.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UNC HOSPITALS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING (SUP-p/o 66-12) (92-5-26/R-2a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the UNC Hospitals Administrative Office Building, proposed by UNC Hospitals on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 66, part of Lot 12, if developed according to the site plan dated September 25, 1991 (revised February 19, 1992), 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 Articles 12, 13, and 14, and the applicable specific standards contained in Section 18.7, 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:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begin by May 26, 1994 and be completed by May 26, 1995.

2. Required Improvements:

A. That the street now known as Laurel Hill Parkway be extended from the park-ride lot to the driveway entrance for the proposed office building. The street shall be constructed to a two-lane 37.5-foot minimum cross-section with 28-feet of asphalt, an 18-inch curb and gutter, 3-foot planting strip and 5-foot sidewalk on one side.

B. That the driveway have a 90-degree orientation to the extension of the street.

C. That sidewalk be provided along the driveway from the street to the office building parking lot.

D. That the drop-off loop turning radius and the front drive aisles be designed and constructed to accommodate Chapel Hill Transit buses.

E. That the driveway, drive aisles, and parking spaces be constructed to Town standards.

F. That bike racks be installed near the building entrance.

G. That direct pedestrian access be provided between the adjacent park-ride facility and the new office building.

H. That a bus shelter be provided at the building entrance, or that the lobby of the building be designed to accommodate waiting passengers.

Stipulations Related to State and Federal Government Approvals

3. State or Federal approvals: That any required State or Federal permits (such as erosion and sedimentation control permits) or encroachment agreements be approved, and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

4. NCDOT approval: That plans for improvements to state-maintained roads be approved by NCDOT, if necessary, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

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

6. Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed landscape plan and landscape maintenance plan be approved by the Appearance Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulation Related to Building Elevations

7. Building Elevation Approval for Special Use Permit application: That detailed building elevations be approved by the Appearance Commission prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.

8. Building Design: That care be taken with the design of the building in an effort to mitigate hazards to birds and that

windows be used in the building that a reflectivity factor

of 0.21 or more.

Stipulations Related to Water, Sewer, and Other Utilities

9. Fire Flow: Assurance of adequate fire protection shall be demonstrated in one of the following ways:

A.A fire flow report, prepared by a registered professional engineer, and showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit; or

B.The proof of adherence to the following standards is provided to the Town Manager:

1) Fire flows with minimum flow rate of 2250 gallons per minute at a minimum pressure of 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure (proof shall be in the form of a flow test at the new hydrants on the site);

2) Complete sprinklering of the building;

3) Installation of a water line connecting the Tennis Facility to the office building; and

4) Agreement that any future development on the surrounding UNC property shall first have its water supply for fire protection upgraded and approved by the Town of Chapel Hill to meet Town Design Manual guidelines.

In addition, detailed construction plans for the building must be submitted to the Town Manager for approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

10. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, and the Town Manager, before issuance of Zoning Compliance Permit. The property owner shall be responsible for assuring that these utilities are extended to serve the development.

The lighting plan shall also be reviewed for approval by the Appearance Commission.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

11. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and plan for management of construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

12. Refuse Collection Responsibility: That refuse collection service will be provided by UNC Hospitals.

13. Transportation Management Plan: That a revised Transportation Management Plan be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Management Plan shall include:

a.Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

b.Provisions for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual report to the Town Manager;

c.Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

d.Ridesharing incentives; and

e.Public transit incentives.

14. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydrologic calculations), landscape plan and landscape maintenance plan be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.

15. Erosion Control: That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the State Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources - the Division of Environmental Management before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The applicant agrees to cooperate with

the Manager in arranging regular inspections during the course

of construction, to ensure compliance with the soil erosion and sedimentation control plan.

16. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan: That a work zone traffic control plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

17. Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

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

19. Non-severability: If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for Special Use Permit for the UNC Hospitals Administrative Office Building in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

Item 7 Orange County Impact Fee System

Mr. Horton noted that Mayor Broun had drafted a letter to the Orange County Board of Commissioners concerning proposed impact fees, noting that the fee might have a negative impact on housing affordability. Mr. Horton said the letter also emphasized the need for input by local governments on the proposed system. He stated that the proposed resolution requested the development of alternatives to the current proposal.

Council Member Capowski asked why the proposed fee was tied to the number of bedrooms, rather than the selling price, of a home. Mr. Horton said using the selling price would be moving into the realm of a tax, rather than a fee. Council Member Andresen expressed concern that the proposed resolution was not strong enough. She suggested that the Orange County Board of Commissioners not adopt the impact fee until local governments had adequate discussions on the proposal. Council Member Werner said he had been told by the Chairperson of the Orange County School Board that the County had modified its proposal to include input by local governments. Mr. Horton said he understood this was correct. Council Member Wilkerson suggested tabling the matter and bringing it back for consideration on June 8th. Council Member Werner said it was important to send a formal message on the proposal. Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council express its opposition until adequate discussion of the proposal with the County could take place.

Council Member Chilton expressed hope that the County Commissioners would slow down its decision-making process on impact fees. Council Member Werner suggested that Orange County examine alternatives to an impact fee. Mayor Broun suggested that the Council considered revising language in the proposed resolution. Council Member Chilton suggested that the resolution only include the first proposed item. Mayor Broun suggested that the Council state it was opposed to an impact fee, as outlined in his May 4th letter to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Council Member Herzenberg said very few people appeared to favor the proposed impact fee.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 3, AS AMENDED.

Council Member Werner said he favored outlining reasons for the Council's opposition. Council Member Wilkerson noted that the reasons were outlined in the Mayor's May 4th letter. Council Member Andresen said she wanted the Council to part of the solution on this matter. She emphasized the need for intergovernmental consultation on matters of this type.

THE MOTION WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY IMPACT FEE SYSTEM (92-5-26/R-3)

WHEREAS, Orange County officials have proposed initiating a system of impact fees to help pay for new school construction; and

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has concerns and questions about the proposal, as expressed in the attached May 4, 1992 letter from Mayor Kenneth Broun to Chairman Moses Carey;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that for the reasons set forth in the Mayor's letter of May 4, the Council opposes adoption of an impact fee system by Orange County.

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

Item 8 Clark Road Rezoning

Mr. Waldon noted that a public hearing had been held on this proposal on March 16th. He briefly reviewed the proposal, noting that a valid protest petition had been received, necessitating seven affirmative votes for the rezoning to occur. Mr. Waldon said the property was currently zoned R-4. He said the Manager's preliminary recommendation was R-2, while the Manager's revised recommendation was for R-3 zoning. Mr. Waldon said R-3 zoning was the closest match to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He said all three zoning options (R-2, R-3 and R-4) were reasonable. Mr. Waldon said there were a number of clear arguments for rezoning. He stated that the adoption of Ordinance 1b was recommended.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether up to seven units per acre would be permitted under the terms of the proposed rezoning to R-3. Mr. Waldon said although this was possible, excellent site design would be necessary. Council Member Andresen asked whether the staff had the discretion to say that a particular design could not be accommodated on the site's topography. Mr. Waldon said this was ultimately determined by the Council. Council Member Brown inquired about the impact of the proposed rezoning on the Northside Conservation District. Mr. Waldon noted that a suggestion had been made at the March hearing that the Northside Conservation District be extended. He stated that extra care would have to be taken in the design and approval of any project on the site. Council Member Capowski inquired what could be done without a special use permit. Mr. Waldon said with the current R-4 zoning, it would be possible to develop a seven unit multi-family development, a church, a group home or small rooming house. Mr. Waldon added that development of a subdivision was also possible.

Noting that the proposed zoning appeared appropriate, Mayor Broun inquired about the possible scope of a development with R-3 zoning. Mr. Waldon said it was possible to develop up to eighty units on fourteen acres with R-3 zoning. He added that this type of development would not meet floor to area ratio requirements. Council Member Werner noted that most development limitations were due to non-buildable areas, steep slopes and floor-to-area ratios, rather than zoning designations. Council Member Andresen said she agreed with the Mayor's point that proposed zoning for the property was appropriate.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1B.

Mayor Broun said it was important to be as realistic as possible in regard to zoning and development. Council Member Capowski said he liked Ordinance b best, since it fit into medium density, supported by the Town's Comprehensive Plan.

THE MOTION WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON VOTING NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS (92-5-26/O-1b)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-4 to Residential-3, and finds that the amendment achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Council finds that potential density range of 1-7 residential units per acre under the Residential-3 zoning district would be suitable for the property proposed for rezoning;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:

SECTION I

That the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 83, Block A, Lot 1A, and Tax Map 30, Lot 8C, located on the north side of Clark Road, west of Airport Road, plus one-half the adjoining right-of-way of Clark Road, be rezoned from Residential-4 to Residential-2 zoning. The portions of the lots which are currently in the Resource Conservation District (RCD) zoning district would remain in the RCD overlay. The entire property is shown on the attached copies of portions of Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 30 and 83, and on a survey titled "Property of Chapel Hill Electric Company".

SECTION II

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

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

Item 9 Horace Williams Airport Operations Relocation

Mr. Horton said he had participated with Carrboro Town Manager Bob Morgan, Orange County Manager John Link and University of North Carolina Vice Chancellor Ben Tuchi to identify a process for possible relocation of operations from Horace Williams Airport. Mr. Horton also noted that Judith Wegner and David Godschalk had recommended a negotiated process coordinated by the Institute for Environmental Negotiation. He said the institute's role was to work with parties in the preliminary development of solutions. Mr. Horton said resolution 4.1 authorized the Manager to proceed with the negotiation process.

Council Member Werner said there was a long history associated with the desirability of moving the airport facility from its present location. He noted that the University realized that the airport was not beneficial to the Town or University at its current location. Citing the difficulty of identifying a landfill site, Council Member Werner said the County was not anxious about also identifying alternate airport sites. Council Member Werner said the proposed plan of action was a good one. He emphasized that although the process would be painstakingly slow, it would be a mistake to move ahead too quickly.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 4.1.

Council Member Andresen thanked Mr. Horton for his leadership and setting out a process on this matter. Council Member Andresen said she liked the idea of a negotiation process. Noting that the process would not be easy, she expressed hope that some areas of agreement would arise. Council Member Brown said she supported the concept of people getting together to talk. Stating that people could come together locally, Council Member Brown expressed concern about using a consultant. Council Member Brown said she appreciated the proposed process.

Council Member Capowski said the process might work with the University's backing. Council Member Capowski requested that the south or southwestern portion of Town be considered for an alternate airport site. He suggested that a representative from Chatham County be included in the negotiation process. Mayor Broun noted that a letter on this matter had been forwarded to Chatham County. Council Member Capowski thanked Mr. Horton for an excellent report. Mayor Broun noted that Council Members Andresen and Capowski had agreed to serve on the committee. Council Member Andresen said it was important to emphasize that the discussions were preliminary in nature. Mr. Horton said the process would consider solutions not involving construction of a new airport, such as relocation of operations to Raleigh-Durham International Airport. He noted that inviting Chatham County to participate in the process would be premature since it presupposed that a new airport facility would be constructed.

THE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 4.1 WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A PROPOSED PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF RELOCATING HORACE WILLIAMS AIRPORT OPERATIONS (92-5-26/R-4.1)

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

1. The Council hereby supports and authorizes participation by Town representatives in the proposed environmental negotiation process including various interested parties and assistance of the University of Virginia's Institute for Environmental Negotiation as described in a report by the Managers' Committee dated May, 1992, a copy of which shall be retained with the records of this meeting. The Council's authorization herewith is contingent upon similar action by the Town of Carrboro and Orange County governing boards and by the University and UNC Hospitals.

2. The Council hereby authorizes the Manager to discuss with other parties the sharing of costs for retaining the Institute to assist with a preliminary dialogue process as described in the report noted above; with the Town's potential share of such cost to be up to $3,750 for the preliminary dialogue phase.

3. The Council hereby appoints Council Member Julie Andresen and Council Member Joe Capowski to represent the Council in the preliminary dialogue phase of discussions.

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

Item 10 Report on Human Services Performance Agreements

Dr. Vincent Kopp, Chairperson of the Human Services Advisory Board, said a total of nineteen agency proposals had been reviewed. Dr. Kopp stated that a county-wide review process had been a useful timesaver. He also noted that joint hearings had been held with the Town of Carrboro Human Services Advisory Board. Dr. Kopp said the board had attempted to give special emphasis to needs identified by the Task Force on Reducing Violent Crime and Illegal Drug Abuse. Dr. Kopp said the board preferred to think of its role as purchasing human services, rather than being an annual contributor to area human service agencies.

Council Member Andresen requested additional information on funding of the Meals on Wheels program. Dr. Kopp stated that there had been a decrease in costs and demand for Meals on Wheels services. He said both Meals on Wheels and the Human Services Advisory Board were comfortable with the decision to not provide funding for fiscal year 1992-93. Noting the innovativeness of some human services programs, Council Member Andresen stated that four public housing residents were currently attending computer training classes offered by the Rural Opportunities Corporation. She commended the board for its very thoughtful approach in considering funding requests. Dr. Kopp said the board's revised agency review process to identify areas of recurring need was working quite well. Council Member Werner thanked Dr. Kopp and the Human Services Advisory Board for their well thought-out recommendations. Noting that his tenure on the board was coming to an end, Dr. Kopp thanked the Council for their support and encouragement over the past three years. Council Member Andresen also thanked Dr. Kopp and the Board for their work. Mayor Broun noted that the Council would like to do more for all the agencies. He added that the revised review process appeared to be working well. Dr. Kopp commended Human Services Coordinator Julia Mack for preparing a fine report.

Item 11 OWASA Water and Sewer Policy Statements

Council Member Andresen said she urged the Council to adopt resolution 5. She noted that the Mayor's Committee could pass on recommendations to the Town's OWASA Board representatives. She suggested that other governments might wish to embrace similar policy statements.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 5.

Council Member Werner thanked the Mayor's Committee for developing a very good, true synthesis of items discussed over a number of years.

RESOLUTION 5 WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY

(9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING WATER AND SEWER POLICY STATEMENTS AS GUIDANCE TO THE CHAPEL HILL APPOINTEES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY (92-5-26/R-5)

WHEREAS, the Town Council of Chapel Hill is one of three elected boards which appoint members of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors; and

WHEREAS, the Council desires to give policy guidance to the Chapel Hill appointees on the OWASA Board with information intended to clarify the Council's perspective and basic objectives regarding water and sewer matters; and

WHEREAS, the Council also desires to set forth its water and sewer policy objectives as a basis for future discussions with the elected boards of the Town of Carrboro and Orange County and the OWASA Board of Directors;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the attached memoranda from the Mayor's Committee on OWASA matters dated May 26, 1992 and incorporating revisions based on the Mayor and Council's discussion in a work session on May 14, 1992.

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

Item 12 Consent Agenda

Mayor Broun noted that item 12d had been removed from the consent agenda.

Mr. Horton said the proposed resolution before the Council would recommend the live trapping and relocation of beavers. Mr. Horton said he was not sure that the resolution would have the intended result of the petitioner. Mr. Horton said he did not think that legislation on this matter would be introduced in the short session. Council Member Andresen inquired about the possibility of a legislative act. Mr. Horton said it was doubtful that this would come to pass in the short session. Mayor Broun noted that a legislative act would be needed to overturn current policy.

Dr. Edgar Parsons said he had built his home on the shore of Eastwood Lake in 1960. Dr. Parsons stated that the commercial market for beavers disappeared during the 1970's. He added that beavers had initially appeared at Eastwood Lake in 1980 and had been trapped up until 1988. Dr. Parsons said beavers and residents had coexisted without trapping for the past four years. He stated that this experience had been disastrous. Dr. Parsons said a 1989 recommendation by the Animal Protection Society to provide tubal ligations for beavers had been rejected by the State Wildlife Resources Commission. He noted that beavers were not considered an endangered species. Dr. Parsons also noted that the Wildlife Resources Commission opposed the live trapping of beavers. He stated that devices used for live trapping of beavers were dangerous to children and small animals. Dr. Parsons also stated that area residents had recently voted, by a margin of approximately ten to one, to eradicate beavers in the area. Dr. Parsons said he recommended very strongly that the Council vote against the live trapping of beavers.

Anne Wall said she concurred with Dr. Parsons' remarks. Ms. Wall said live trapping was hazardous to children. She said kill trapping of beavers was preferable.

Robin Cutson said the resolution before the Council simply provided an alternative to trapping to kill beavers. She noted that the resolution would not prevent individual property owners from using traps to kill beavers. Ms. Cutson stated that live trapping was a viable alternative being used in other states. She added that one landowner had requested six pair of beaver. Ms. Cutson emphasized the importance of beaver as a resource management tool, critical to the quality of the watershed system. Noting that there was not a beaver overpopulation problem in the area, Ms. Cutson said live trapping of beaver was the first step in developing a wildlife plan.

Mayor Broun inquired about Ms. Cutson's response to Dr. Parsons concerns about the possible danger of traps to children and animals. Ms. Cutson said caster-scent lures could be used to trap beavers in ten to fifteen minutes. She added that any type of trap left unattended for a long period of time could be dangerous. Ms. Cutson said live trapping of beavers was occurring in other states. Council Member Andresen asked whether it was correct that passage of the resolution did not carry power the action of private property owners. Town Attorney Karpinos said this was correct. Council Member Andresen inquired whether there was any potential liability for the Town. Mr. Karpinos said he did not think so. Council Member Andresen said although she favored the cohabitation with beaver, it clearly had not worked too well. Council Member Andresen said she favored holding a hearing on the matter. Council Member Werner said the Council had received a lot of contradictory information on the matter. Council Member Werner said he had no objection to not killing beaver. Mayor Broun suggested that the Council preserve as many options as possible.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9.

Council Member Chilton said it was important to note that the Council was not endorsing the live trapping of beavers. He stated that the proposed resolution opened the door for alternatives. Noting that the resolution would be used for those with a specific point of view, Council Member Andresen said she had trouble supporting the resolution. Council Member Chilton said he understood this concern. He added that the resolution was not an endorsement of live trapping. In the event that the Council adopted the resolution, Council Member Rimer inquired whether it could be used in court to block other forms of trapping. Mr. Karpinos said he did not see the resolution as having legal standing for injunctive relief.

Council Member Rimer said the proposed resolution appeared to be a good alternative. Mr. Karpinos noted that the resolution had no effect on State regulations. Council Member Capowski suggested adding the words "and safe" to the proposed resolution. Council Member Rimer said the resolution provided another option. He noted that the option did not have to be used. Council Member Rimer said he did not want to impede area residents in their actions. Council Member Andresen inquired whether the Council needed to make it apparent that the Council was not telling private property owners how to proceed. Mayor Broun said this was not necessary.

RESOLUTION 9 WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY

(9-0).

A RESOLUTION REGARDING LIVE TRAPPING AND RELOCATION OF BEAVERS (92-5-26/R-9)

WHEREAS, the North Carolina Wildlife Commission has not allowed live trapping and relocation of beavers; and

WHEREAS, the Council has received a request regarding this matter on behalf of citizens who favor live and safe trapping and relocation of beavers;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby affirms that it has no objection to live and safe trapping of beavers in a humane manner, and the relocation of beavers.

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

Council Member Herzenberg requested the removal of item g.

THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ORDINANCE AND VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS (92-5-26/R-6)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the resolutions and ordinance as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:

a.Minutes of April 27 and May 4, 1992.

b.Audit contract. Mayor Broun. (R-7).

c.Public housing management certification program (R-8).

d.Live trapping and relocation of beavers (R-9).

e.Calling public hearing on steep slopes Development Ordinance Text Amendment (R-10).

f.Calling public hearing on zoning of Oaks III subdivision, Phase 5a (R-11).

g.CATV franchise agreement (O-2).

h.Composition of Design Review Board (R-12).

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN ANNUAL AUDIT CONTRACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 (92-5-26/R-7)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign a contract with the CPA firm of Deloitte & Touche in the amount of $31,500 for conducting the annual audit for fiscal year 1991-92.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby expresses its informal commitment to retain the CPA firm of Deloitte & Touche to conduct the annual audit for fiscal years 1993 and 1994, contingent upon Deloitte & Touche's satisfactory performance of the audit on a year by year basis, and contingent upon the Council's authorization of a written contract for each of these years.

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUBLIC HOUSING MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (PHMAP) CERTIFICATION (92-5-26/R-8)

WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the submission of a Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP) Certification; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill approve a Certification for fiscal year ending June 30, 1991;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the attached Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP) Certification.

This the 26th day of May, 1992.

RECORDING OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION

I, Peter Richardson, the duly appointed, qualified, and acting Secretary of the Town of Chapel Hill do hereby certify that the above Resolution No._____ was properly adopted at a regular or special meeting properly held on May 26, 1992.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the Town of Chapel Hill, this 26th day of May, 1992.

(SEAL)

_________________________________

(Signature)

A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON STEEP SLOPES (92-5-26/R-10)

WHEREAS, a request has been made by a Council Member to consider a change to the Development Ordinance pertaining to steep slopes; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board requested postponement of the previously scheduled March 16, 1992 Public Hearing to allow further study;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a Public Hearing to be held on Monday, September 21, 1992 to discuss possible changes to the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance with respect to development on steep slopes.

This the 26th day of May, 1992.