CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1996

Meeting Agenda:

Page

1. Status Report on local recovery efforts after Hurricane Fran................................................... 1

2. Public hearing on stormwater impact statements...................................................................... 7

3. Petitions................................................................................................................................ 8

4. Consent Agenda.................................................................................................................. 10

5. Items carried over from August 26th meeting........................................................................ 14

a. Continuation of Solid Waste Discussion ........................................................................ 14

b. 1996-97 Council Meeting Calendar............................................................................... 20

c. Enforcement of special use stipulations........................................................................... 28

d. West Rosemary Street/Sunset Drive Parking Lot ........................................................... 29

e. Approving minutes of May 29, June 5, 10, 12, 17, 24 and July 1, 1996.......................... 32

f. Naming Appearance Commission Awards .................................................................... 33

g. Petition by La Fiesta del Pueblo Organizers.................................................................... 34

6. Process for calling bond referenda........................................................................................ 35

7. Possible changes to development review process ................................................................. 37

8. Unit pricing peer matching voucher program ........................................................................ 48

9. Four Southern Village applications ...................................................................................... 49

10. Northwest small area plan update ........................................................................................ 49

11. Selecting delegates to annual meetings ................................................................................. 52

12. Parking restrictions on private property ............................................................................... 53

13. Joint Funding Agreement for Shaping Orange County’s Future ............................................. 53

Mayor Waldorf called the meeting to order. Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans and Richard Franck. Council Member Lee Pavao was absent excused. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Item 1: Hurricane Fran Report and Related Matters

Mayor Waldorf Good evening. This meeting of the Town Council will come to order one day delayed. We're glad to be here. Glad to be sound in body. We're going to have a fairly extensive report tonight from the Town Manager. There are just a couple of things that I want to say to the Council and to the Staff and to the Public. It has been the worst weekend in our community's history and there may some historians out there who may want to quibble about that but I would ask them not to and to wait until next week. I think a lot of residents did a good job preparing for this storm. They new it was coming. When I left Town Hall on Thursday I think most of our employees understood that they were going to be working under extraordinary circumstances and they were ready. The property destruction that we have had is enormous and it seems to have fallen very heavily on a few people. I know that the people hurt worst by this storm are going to continue to get generous support from their friends and neighbors and the red cross and all of the other resources. There are some reasons, I think, one of the things about being in the information loop is that you find out what went wrong. Why no one died? Why the repair and clean-up has gone so well so far? One is I think people have been extremely cautious. There has been cooperation with the limitations that were imposed during the State of Emergency. It was also essential. It is very good that people went along with us on that. Our Town staff and other staffs are all splendidly professional. They were all cool and I think helped to save lives.

OWASA did a great job. I don't think anybody was under more stress or pressure than OWASA. The power company did a great job. The Public Service Company did a great job. People all over this community have shown their best side. They have been cheerful. They have been energetic. I want to give a very special thank you to WCHL and all the media people who have a tough job of all of this. I thank the kids who have been out of school and have been helping their parents clean up yards. I personally want to thank our Town staff. I can't imagine that how ever long I love and whatever I do, I would ever be associated with a better group of people. So, I guess we will have the facts and figures now from the staff.

Town Manager Horton Members of the Council. I am certainly grateful for the exceptionally good work that Town employees have done under duress. I am especially grateful that they have been able to get so much done safely. We emphasized safety in this entire series of events. We have been very fortunate that only one Town employee has been seriously injured. Firefighter Sykes suffered an injury and is recovering from it. We have been very lucky. I have provided a packet of material for the Council. It is a collection of many different things and it is very informally prepared but I thought it would be useful for the Council to have it. I will go over some key points. After we understood how serious the events were going to be we did initiate our preparations and instituted the command procedures. Unfortunately, we have had opportunities to employ these procedures over the last few years for different storms, but we have never had one on this scale.

The Mayor was asked to declare a State of Emergency and did so with various reasons. It gave us the authority during the storm and the aftermath to control travel in the areas where there was danger for employees working in the area. Danger for people who lived in the areas. That was a big help. Our number one concern quickly became water. We did everything we could to provide support to OWASA. We are grateful that the plant is operational and the tanks are full. Our number two priority related to waste water because of public health. We are very grateful that the waster water treatment plant is operating and that all of the lift stations are operating now. We understand that a few are still on generators. Our third priority was to reestablish emergency access to every part of town. We have not been 100% successful in meeting that objective. There are still 3 major street blockages that involve power lines and large debris. We believe there is still another day of work for those. In those areas we will have to hand-pull firefighting lines in order to get to houses.

There are about a half of a dozen of street blockages that have caused delays. A couple dozen where we would have access hindered. So we are getting a lot of attention to getting these areas opened up. We are getting a lot of help from Duke Power Company. They have been critical and very good. The communications have helped a lot. We understand that 8,000 or 9,000 residents still do not have electric service and that is a high priority for the power company. They have enormous resources poured into this area. There are 6 traffic signals that are still not working. We intend to get those operating as quickly as we can, because all of you know what a hazard it can be with signals. We have completed our residential damage assessment. That is an essential thing to do to meet FEMA requirements, the Federal Emergency Management Authority requirements. We have determined that 4 houses in Chapel Hill were destroyed. Over 50% of their value was lost by damage. 391 houses in Chapel Hill with major damage. 222 homes that have FEMA considers to be minor damage, less than 50% of the value and no structural damage.

There are a number of people who were especially hard hit and our sympathy goes out to them. We suffered relatively little town building damage. An assessment of town buildings will only require a few thousand dollars. We are quite lucky in that regard. We are grateful that our public housing suffered very little damage and power is on in all of those. Town bridges received minor damage, but are safe for use. We did suffer damage on two pedestrian bridges. We now are at a point where transportation services are at a near normal level with only a few detours. We are experiencing some delay. Garbage collection proceeded on its regular schedule. Amazingly enough they were able to collect from about 90% of the houses. The library opened for normal hours today. We have been using library employees to serve as support staff for emergency folks. The same goes for parks and recreation employees. The Community Center will open for normal hours tomorrow. Hargraves Center and Lincoln Center opened for regular business today. The Police and Fire department are still responding to emergency calls and deferring normal business calls.

The Police Department has been emphasizing two things: keeping people out of hazardous areas and protecting workers involved in repair. The Fire Department has been emphasizing identification hazards. We do have special concerns related to debris and landfill. We have hours both weekday and weekend. In an informal telephone poll the Council made a resolution that would confirm the policy of no charge for small loads brought by pick-up trucks. We have a resolution for your consideration at the back of this packet. We have already in place a resolution that allows the Manager to give free dump permits to citizens who are bringing material on their own. We are expanding that policy to allow citizens of Chapel Hill to use larger equipment to get a permit to then have the cost charged to the Town of Chapel Hill. This will considerably aid in the removal of debris. Many citizens are personally willing to bear some expense. We want to facilitate that as best we can.

In the very first meeting of the general command staff after the storm, we requested assistance throughout the State Emergency Management System. Specifically we asked for removal of debris. So far we have received a commitment and they are on site now with 8 personnel and 3 large dump trucks and 3 large loaders on loan from the National Guard. We hope we can get additional resources quickly. We have mapped out the areas of debris concentration. We will be making a systematic assessment of where the debris is by the end of the week. We're not sure how much material is going to be generated throughout Orange County. We estimate between 25,000 and 45,000 tons, six to ten times more than we would ordinarily have in a year. It's not possible to handle this in an ordinary way.

We have already established a temporary storage and processing area on the north side of the existing landfill. On the property formerly known as the Johnson Property. We received permission from Orange County to use that. We've received a burn permit from Orange County and approval from the State as a method of disposal for some of this material. The method will use most heavily is mulching and burning. Mulching will cost us at least $10.25 per ton. With 25-40,000 tons that would be $250,000 to $400,000. It will take considerable resources. It we mulch it all then there will be costs associated with turning the mulch pile and figuring out what to do with it. All the counties around us are going to be generating mulch. I don't think there is going to be a market for the mulch that is going to be generated. I think we're going to have to

burn some.

We have prepared three resolutions for your consideration. These are the only three pieces of business that I would ask you to conduct in regard to the storm. At the back of your packet...the first is a resolution that would waive the fees for small deliveries of yard waste consistent with the informal authorization obtained by telephone poll. Second is a resolution that would authorize the Manager to adjust the price of mulch. It would be in our best interest to get rid of as much mulch as we can. And we would ask that you request similar authorization from the governing bodies of Carrboro and Orange CO adjust the mulch price. Third, a resolution that would formally waive building permit fees for inspections for electrical work required for reconnection of electric service necessitated by Hurricane Fran. Those are the only pieces we would ask you to consider. There may be other things coming at future meetings. We will do the best we can to respond to citizen ideas.

Mayor Waldorf I'm sure people do have questions. I want to suggest that we dispose of these three items and then ask any other questions. Is that all right? First is the waiving of fees at the landfill. Is there a motion for that? Motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor, "I". Opposed, "No". I knew it was going to pass. Second, a resolution authorizing the Manager to set and alter the price of mulch and asking our partners to do the same. Motion is moved and seconded. All those in favor, "I". Opposed, "No". Very good. Third, a resolution waiving building inspection fees for inspections of electrical work for Chapel Hill residents interrupted by the Hurricane. Motion has been moved and seconded. Further discussion? All in favor, "I". Opposed, "no". Thank you all for thinking of these ways to make things easier. Are there other questions or comments?

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 0.1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO SET AND ALTER THE PRICE OF MULCH AT THE LANDFILL AND REQUESTING SIMILAR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GOVERNING BODIES OF CARRBORO AND ORANGE COUNTY (96-9-10/R-0.1)

WHEREAS, the Orange Regional Landfill currently produces a mulch product by grinding yard waste received at the landfill, and

WHEREAS, the Orange Regional Landfill currently charges a flat fee of $15 per scoop (2 ½ cubic yards) or pick-up truck load, as set by the Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Commissioners through adoption of the Landfill Owners Group 1996-97 budget, and

WHEREAS, the Orange Regional Landfill has space constraints that limit the total amount of mulch that can be stockpiled on site, and

WHEREAS, the current supply of mulch for sale exceeds the current demand for the product, due to a continuing trend of increasing diversion of yard waste, and

WHEREAS, the recent storm related debris has exacerbated space constraints and will likely further increase the supply of mulch throughout the region, and

WHEREAS, the Orange Regional Landfill could better market the mulch product throughout the year if the price for mulch was adjustable, based upon supply and demand, and negotiable for large volume customers,

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

1. authorizes the Town Manager to set and alter the price of mulch as deemed necessary to promote efficient sale of the product and avoid excessive stockpiling, and

2. requests that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Orange County Commissioners adopt similar resolutions.

This the 10^th day of September, 1996.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 0.2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION WAIVING CERTAIN FEES COLLECTED AT THE ORANGE REGIONAL LANDFILL FOR CERTAIN TREE AND OTHER DEBRIS CREATED BY HURRICANE FRAN (96-9-10/R-0.2)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes and directs that yard waste (trees, branches, shrubs, etc.) be accepted at the Orange Regional Landfill at no charge provided:

the yard waste is brought to the landfill in a car, pick-up truck or small trailer,

the yard waste is from Orange County including the towns and including the part of Chapel Hill in Durham County, and

the yard waste is not mixed with any other type of garbage or trash.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council may cancel or modify this policy by future Council action.

This the 10^th day of September, 1996.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 0.3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION WAIVING BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR INSPECTION OF ELECTRICAL WORK REQUIRED FOR RECONNECTION OF ELECTRIC SERVICE TO CHAPEL HILL RESIDENTS INTERRUPTED BY HURRICANE FRAN (96-9-10/R-0.3)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes and directs the Town Manager to waive fees for inspection of electrical work required for reconnection of electric service interrupted by damage caused by Hurricane Fran.

This the 10^th day of September, 1996.

Council Member Andresen I have a couple questions involved in debris and electrical service. I'm wondering about how flexible we're going to be on the piles of debris left by curbside. I know that we normally have a policy that things need to be under a certain tree limb size and length and so on. I know that a lot of people have so much that it is going to be hard for them to meet that policy to the letter. I'm wondering if we're going to be flexible on that at all?

Town Manager Horton We agree that it would be an unreasonable burden and hardship on residents. We would appreciate it if the new media would emphasize this. If the residents will get it to the curb, we'll find a way to clean it up. If they have the time and capabilities of cutting it into smaller lengths we will be very grateful for that. It will make things faster. If limbs are too large for a person to move, then we'll have to have machines to move it and that will take a lot longer.

Council Member Andresen We're talking about yard waste, not washing machines and other things.

Town Manager Horton Yard waste. Yes, ma'am.

Council Member Andresen My other question deals with electric service. I'm glad we're waiving the fee for permits. I wanted to know the process for someone who has lost electrical service...I had a call tonight just before I came to the meeting from someone who lives in the southern part of Chapel Hill where they have endured a lot of damage...in order to have a electric line ran to their house they will have an electrician do it but before the power can be turned on a Town inspector has to come and visit the site and a permit must be secured. I'm wondering how all of this can be collapsed so that those people aren't sitting for two days with a line run to their house but with no power running through it. I'm wondering what we can do to help facilitate that?

Town Manager Horton I don't have adequate information about that issue. We've been concentrating on other areas. I do know that the inspectors have been working early and working late in order to provide prompt inspections. I'm not aware of any delays. I think people have been getting service the same day or within 24 hours.

Council Member Capowski I want to join others in thanking residents, workers, and others that have not been concerned with their own houses to help others. Personally I look forward to using my own bathroom again. I want to add one thing..I have enjoyed uninterrupted telephone service through this whole thing. That’s a marvelous compliment the technology of the United States phone system and I want to thank you and thank you Bell South.

Council Member Brown I would like a clarification from the staff that one of the reasons that we have had phone service is that the lines are underground.

Town Manager Horton Yes ma’am, many, if not all of the main trunk lines are underground. There are few places where the trunk lines are above ground. In Chapel Hill, the service lines are also underground. That makes a big difference. The phone company generates a lot of good will in these conditions and they pay for it with expensive dollars when they’re putting the stuff in the ground but it pays off for them. They also have been using generators to keep their system powered up. They depend on commercial power in order for all of us to get dial tones so when commercial power goes out in a circuit then their phones go out but they do use generators to get the phones back up as best they can and they’ve been very aggressive about that.

Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor Any other questions or comments?

Town Manager Horton There will be some delays of some business items as a result of this. Originally, on this agenda on this evening we had an item on home occupations. Well, we were going to finish that on Thursday and Friday so it could go out to you Friday afternoon but we’ve been interrupted. We will do our best to set the priorities the council would want to set and get things back on track.

Item 2: Public Hearing on Requiring Stormwater Impact Statements

Mayor Waldorf Item two on the agenda is a public hearing on requiring storm water impact statements. Over the weekend I received requests from some council members and then on Monday from a couple of citizens that we defer this public hearing because a lot of people who might wish to speak on it might have trouble coming out. Is that agreeable to everyone that we do it by consensus and defer it to the next opportunity.

Council Member Andresen Can I suggest perhaps in two weeks. Can we delay it but not too much.

Mayor Waldorf September the 24th or the 25th depending on what we set that meeting date for.

Town Manager Horton Allow us if you will a little flexibility in that because there may be unusual business items as a result of the storm.

Council Member Evans We’ll need to readvertise the rescheduled hearing in the media.

Item 3: Petitions

Mayor Waldorf Right, then let’s move on to petitions. I don’t have anyone signed up to petition on agenda items but I do have three people signed up to petition on items not on the agenda. The first is David Mc Grain. Would you come forward please? We ask you to limit your comments to three minutes.

David Mc Grain My name is David Mc Grain and I live in the Cobble Ridge development off Culbreth Rd. I’m President of the Cobble Ridge Homeowners Association. We have a petition. Late last week a few of us receive notification that the day of the public hearing of the Kent Woodlands development had been changed from October 21st to Monday Sept. 16th. We would greatly appreciate your consideration that the hearing be rescheduled to a later date. While we do not object to the proposed development which would be contiguous to Cobble Ridge, we do have some issues we would like to discuss. With the hearing now scheduled for next Monday and with Hurricane Fran clean-up consuming our time, we cannot properly prepare our commentary. So please consider our petition for a later date on this hearing. Thank you.

Mayor Waldorf Could we have the staff respond to that?

Town Manager Horton I believe we may have another petition on that tonight. I believe we had a gentleman come in to postpone another issue schedule for the same reason. Roger would you please respond to that.

Roger Waldon, Planning Director The hearing calendar is full. One of the things I was just

reading was a draft of the items for next week. The October hearing calendar is full so I don’t believe it can be simply rescheduled without bumping another item to November. It would have a ripple effect. Certainly, it can be done. I would think that the applicant might have an opinion about that as well. There is nothing that would prohibit it from being rescheduled. It would involve placing ads in the newspaper, sending out another round of notices tomorrow because people are expecting it for next Monday.

Council Member Capowski Wasn’t this public hearing originally scheduled for October? Then why was it moved forward to September?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director Because of the way the schedule was looking. As I mentioned, we have more applications than we have hearing nights. Applications are cued up. We have booked you very, very solidly. You have full evenings coming up for September, October and November hearings and we’re kind of pushing the edge of the envelope there in trying to pack those items onto your agenda there because we have some things in the pipeline waiting to get through. One of the items that had been scheduled for Sept. dropped off because of complication with the application so we wanted to fill that slot. So that’s why it was moved.

Council Member Capowski If it is the will of this Council not to have the Kent Woodlands hearing on September 16th what would you propose the best option for us to be?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director I would think what it would mean is sliding something over from Sept to October. We’ve already over-booked you for October and November. I can go back a check and see what that means

Mayor Waldorf So it’s a series of bumps for the applicants.

Council Member Evans On our agenda tonight is our proposed calendar and I noticed that both in October and November we have dates reserved for work sessions. Could we put some of this on those nights or does it put a bind on the staff to get the work ready.

Town Manager Horton I think we’ll need to give you a more considered answer after having figured out what else is going to get pushed around because of the storm. If the council wants to postpone this one I think you should postpone it.

Council Member Andresen I would suggest that the Council has a feeling of responding to the petition which I think that we should be responsive to citizen groups when they come in and this is certainly an extraordinary event that has just come up. I think that we should challenge the staff to come up with some other option.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Aaron Nelson My name is Aaron Nelson. I’m student body president at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I too would like to offer a thank you on behalf of the students of the university to the town, specifically, public works, fire, police and OWASA for their responsiveness to the students. It’s been really important to us the way the town has responded. The main issue I wanted to bring up is that I put in each one of your boxes this week an invitation to come to campus on Wednesday, tomorrow, and I would like to change that date to Friday. I think it’s extremely important that students get a chance to meet their representatives early in the school year as well as a chance for you to get a chance to meet your student constituents. With issues coming up like the hurricane, fire sprinklers etc. it would give you all an opportunity to pass by and interact with you all. We will have table set up and placards. It would be wonderful if we could see all of you on campus. We’ve had several members confirm already. I think it’s important that we work to improve the town and the university relations and I think this is going to be a good step in that direction. It is Friday the 13th from 11:00 to 1:00 in The Pit.

Brett Perry I’m going to be the Chapel Hill Town Council liaison for the University. There is another girl who works with me, Rebecca Jamieson, she could not be here tonight but you will be seeing her in the future. The petition that I have to bring up tonight concerns a part of our campus, South Road, the road that runs by the Student Recreation Center and the Bell Tower. In the past two years two students have been hit crossing that road. What we are petitioning for is that the town look into offering additional signs in that area to make aware to slow down for students. As it is right now it is somewhat chaotic and traffic doesn’t know whether it has to stop for students or whether it can go on through. We’d appreciate it if the town could look into putting more signs or even a stop light.

Mayor Waldorf So my understanding of the matter is that even though that’s campus jurisdiction we’re responsible for the signage. Is that right?

Town Manager Horton We’ll figure it out.

Council Member Capowski I’d just like to add one more crosswalk to that. one more intersection. That’s about 100 yards to the west of the Bell Tower, near the chemistry building. That’s a terrible crosswalk with a mixture of traffic and people. I’m surprised there hasn’t been a fatality there.

Town Manager Horton This might be a good area to look at traffic calming devices as a way of handling some of the issues in that whole strip.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Mayor Waldorf Are there petitions by Council Members?

Council Member Brown I would like to look us to re-look at Davie Circle and what we have done there. Look at the polling that took place on that street and what the actual action the council took and an evaluation and bring that back to the council. I have heard citizen concern about that. On the restricted parking issue.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 4: Consent Agenda

Council Member Franck requested the removal of item a1 from the consent agenda. Council Member Capowski requested the removal of item d from the consent agenda.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA, EXCEPTING ITEMS A1 AND D.

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

(96-9-10/R-2)

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

a. Calling public hearings and forums.

(1) Parking restrictions on private property (R-3).

(2) Consideration of funding and management of public access programming

(R-4).

(3) Regulating telecommunications towers (R-5).

b. Referring proposed ordinance on home occupations to the Planning

Board and other interested boards (R-6).

c. Appointments to 2020 Transportation Planning Committee (R-6.1).

d. Joint Funding Agreement for Shaping Orange County’s Future Project (R-6.2).

e. Establishment of just compensation for acquisition of 119 Johnson Street and 144 Lincoln Lane (R-6.3).

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO THE CABLE TELEVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CALLING A PUBLIC FORUM REGARDING FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAMMING (96-9-10/R-4)

WHEREAS, the Town Council appointed a Cable Television Advisory Committee in January, 1992; and

WHEREAS, the Committee and its three subcommittees regarding access, cable technology and surveying community needs met extensively, developed a detailed knowledge of cable systems and franchising issues and made thoughtful recommendations to the Council during the Town’s process of considering franchise renewal ending in July, 1996; and

WHEREAS, the Committee completed its work with a final meeting and report in July, 1996; and

WHEREAS, the members of the Committee are:

Tim Stephens, Chair

Robert Joesting, Vice Chair

Joel Bulkley

Brian Cheuvront

Marcia Decker

Emma Jean Levi Hines

George Kapel

Alan MacIntyre

Tom Moore

Jeff Surles

Emily Townsend; and

WHEREAS, the Council now desires to proceed with considering franchise-related matters involving public access programming and its funding and management, taking into account the Committee’s recommendations;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill Town Council receives with thanks the final report of the Cable Television Advisory Committee, and expresses its sincere appreciation to the Committee members for their hard work and extensive recommendations to the Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council of Chapel Hill that the Council schedules a public forum to be part of the Council's October 16th, 1996 business meeting regarding public access programming, funding and management.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON REGULATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS (96-9-10/R-5)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Council hereby calls a public hearing at 7 p.m. on February 10, 1997, regarding regulation of telecommunications towers.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

A RESOLUTION SUBMITTING TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE 2020 TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (96-9-10/R-6.1)

WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has adopted guidelines for establishing a Citizen Advisory Committee for the development of the 2020 Transportation Plan; and

WHEREAS, the guidelines include the appointment of neighborhood/citizen representatives; and

WHEREAS, the Town can submit candidates for appointment to the Transportation Advisory Committee; and

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has set a deadline of September 25, 1996 for applications; and

WHEREAS, the Town has advertised for candidates for consideration by the Town Council;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following individuals be nominated by the Town for appointment by the Transportation Advisory Committee to the Citizen Advisory Committee.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION OF 119 JOHNSON STREET AND 144 LINCOLN LANE

(96-9-10/R-6.3)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it has been determined on the basis of an appraisal by Mr. Tom Heffner and a review appraisal by Mr. Terry Tickle that the just compensation of the properties to be acquired for Community Development purposes are as follows:

Interest to be Fair Market

Parcel # Owner Acquired Value

9778-93-8953 Pollie Mae Baldwin House and Lot $ 57,000

Tax Map # 7.91.I.3

(119 Johnson St.)

9778-93-4912 Chapel Hill Realty House and Lot $ 45,500

Tax Map # 7.100.C.11M

(144 Lincoln Lane)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby certifies that to the best of its knowledge, the work of the appraiser, Mr. Tom Heffner, and the review appraiser, Mr. Terry Tickle, has been performed in a competent manner in accord with the applicable state and federal laws and the policies and requirements of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and authorizes the Manager to loan Community Development funds to the Pines Community Center, Inc. to acquire the properties for an amount not to exceed the fair market value as determined by the appraisals of Mr. Tom Heffner.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Center submit to the Manager a schedule for the sale of houses one, two and four through twelve; and that the Center submit a detailed renovation budget for 119 Johnson Street and 144 Lincoln Lane prior to beginning renovation work.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the Council will not loan the Center additional funds to acquire properties until a completion of a review of the progress of the existing Lease with Purchase Option program to determine if the program meets the homeownership objectives established by the Council.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

Item 5a Discussion of Solid Waste Management

Mayor Waldorf Okay, now we move on to items that were carried over from our August 26th meeting. We have here a couple of items we ran out of time on. The item labeled “A Discussion of Solid Waste Management” reappears on this agenda because although we had a long discussion about that, we didn’t arrive at any conclusions. I would like to see if the council would like to attempt to do that tonight. Okay, Joyce and then Pat.

Council Member Brown I think it’s good for us to note that we have a public hearing on this issue that will be coming up on September 18th. We’ll also be holding an Assembly of Governments meeting to discuss this.. a facilitated meeting. I would hate to go into any of those... either the public hearing or the Assembly of Governments meeting with any sort of fixed position so I would hope that we would not discuss this extensively tonight if we’re going to discuss it but hear from the citizens and also discuss this issue with an open mind and with our other elected officials in Orange County.

Council Member Evans In regard to having an open mind, I endorse that idea and because I wasn’t at the previous meeting in which it was discussed but did watch the tape, I’d like to raise a few issues. One thing I’d like to keep an open is to be able to work and look at the situation Durham is under and maybe we should review the decision to stop working with them and look at maybe cooperation in terms of a refuse, dry fuel facility or some other kind of way in which we can both cooperate. Another aspect in which I had not heard discussion and I don’t know whether it’s possible or not but ... the Landfill Owners Group already owns the Greene Tract.

I don’t know whether it would be possible to create a cell or two cells in the northern part of the Greene Tract. I don’t whether that’s far enough out of the airport zone that it is used. Because it’s already owned by the landfill owners group it seems to me that it would save money. Also, there probably would not be a lawsuit in regard to purchase since we’ve already purchased it. The other question is that it might give us time to review maybe some of the decisions and policies of previous times. Since landfills can no longer be used as parkland because of new regulations I wonder whether it’s wise to locate so many acres of landfill in our urban area. The other question is have we addressed all the ways in which we can work with other areas.

I think Chatham County has a construction and demolition joint project going and whether we’ve looked at that one. Since we are no longer receiving university ash, can that space be used for something else.? Could construction of a transfer station on that area. My understanding is that when it gets wet it becomes fairly solid. In regard to the integrated solid waste plan, in my mind it is very difficult even discuss a system when there is no cost associated with it. I watched the tape and Lee asked for the cost of recycling. I’d like to know the cost as well as the income from those and maybe how it’s changed since we started recycling. It’s my understanding that cardboard, when we started mandatory recycling... I may be wrong .. but it was like $140.00 per ton and it’s down to less that $50.00 now. I’d like to have some numbers on that. When we do look at an integrated solid waste plan, I think it’s important to have some numbers, for instance, how much has it really cost us to implement the cardboard ban, both in regard to fines and in regard to additional personnel. One of the things I’m very concerned about is that when we do decide to establish an integrated plan, it has got to work for more than just our single-family residential areas. We have a large community of multi-family and whatever we do has got to work for not only multi-family residential but also a transient multi-family residential community. I’m sure that many of you can answer this question, it may just be a rumor that in the last legislative session the goal of the state recycling was deleted. Does anybody know?

Town Manager Horton There were some changes to the provision in the law and we’ll be glad to provide an update on that.

Council Member Evans How much is in the reserve balance in the landowners fund... How much is there to work with? When we do decide on a system and we decide on how we’re going to dispose of solid waste maybe what we could do is propose three different plans and ask for staff to come back with “back of the envelope costs” because there is no way I can look at a plan without having any of the costs associated with it.

Mayor Waldorf I agree with your point. It’s hard for me to make decisions about this without knowing the cost and I don’t know if they’re knowable. Are you asking the staff to respond to these question.?

Council Member Evans I thought that there were other questions raised in your previous discussion that I felt that the staff was going to respond to in some way. Maybe it’s up to me to find out the answers.

Town Manager Horton We’ll be glad to respond to questions as council directs. I don’t recall there were specific requests for reports from the last meeting.

Council Member Evans I know that Lee requested the cost of recycling.

Town Manager Horton I think we answered the question he asked at the table.

Council Member Evans Is the answer one million dollars?

Town Manager Horton Yes.

Council Member Andresen I think we have several things going on here. Joyce made the statement that she thinks maybe we should not spend too much time discussing this tonight because it’s coming up to a public hearing and then Pat wasn’t at the previous discussion and she’s come up with a lot of additional points. I think it would be worthwhile to talk about this some. What I see when we have a public hearing on something as broad as this. And I take it that the public hearing would be somewhat broad just as what we’re dealing with now. Would it be the plan and the landfill both all wrapped up in one package?

Town Manager Horton What we have done is to advertise it in terms of questions that are being considered by the Council, not proposals including form of organization, whether or not to site a landfill, integrated solid waste plan issues... it would be very broad.

Council Member Andresen My own feeling is that it really helps the public if you put something on the table rather than having something so wide open that if we could, tonight, just put something on the table even if we don’t all agree with it and then we hear from the public that that’s a little bit helpful because then you come out with something a little more definite. Otherwise, it’s like throwing a lot of darts at a very big wall, you don’t know what you have at the end. So I want to encourage the council to at least... we can’t decide everything because we’re only part of the decision. Our representatives have to go to the log and they have to negotiate with other governments. But I would like to see us move towards some kind of agreement on something tonight. I would like to follow up on a concern that I had and that was to at least... I think it is too late to back up and start at ground zero and let’s work with Durham and even if it might be .... maybe desirable in some ways, I just think that there’s been so much going on, so much work towards some kind of solid waste solution that to start over sounds too

horrendous to me.

At the same time the VEDCO possibility ought to be thoroughly analyzed, may not to the point of a huge study and a lot of money but it seems to me that I would like to direct our landfill representatives to at least get some kind of “back of the envelope” costs on whether it would be practical for us to participate in a program with VEDCO where we would truck our solid waste down there and maybe in combination with some sort recycling program. Something that would be suitable with our values, because it may not be suitable with our values to truck everything to Fayetteville and not recycle as much. I would like to make that request and put that on the table.

Council Member Chilton Thanks Pat for bringing those comments forward because we didn’t cover a number of those topics in our previous discussion. I would certainly be glad to bring forward some of these questions. The ones that are for the landfill owners group staff to answer.. about the Green Tract and the cardboard ban, although, partly I think the town staff would need to respond to that question. I’d also be glad to relay to the Council the information about VEDCO as a disposal facility for our trash only, that is to say a mixed recovery facility at the front end of the system. I believe we have some information on that topic tomorrow night. When we do find out I will be glad to relay onward. Why don’t we move along here. I’ve gotten a lot of good input from the council members tonight and two weeks ago on this topic so we’ve got a lot to discuss with the other members of the landfill owners group at this point. I don’t think it’s possible to come to a lot of closure. You have expressed a lot of interest that we need to relay on to our owners group members.

Council Member Brown I agree with Julie we cannot go back to the beginning. We have done a tremendous amount of work and we are here now as a result of the tremendous amount of work and the decisions that have been made along the way by all the governing bodies. The reason that we are bogged down is because we have not reached agreement on three things. The first thing is the restructuring. It is my understanding that that is part of the public hearing, looking at the restructuring and looking at the problems that had risen because of differences of opinion among the four governing bodies. Looking at the integrated solid waste management plan which is the result of a great deal of work and a great deal of decisions that have come before us and to try and iron out some of the differences which have a risen among the three governing bodies. The last is the landfill. Those are the things we have been working for a number of years, certainly since I’ve been on the council and we’ve come to some sort of decisions, at least some narrowing of focus and I think that those things should be the emphasis because it’s my understanding that that’s what we called the public hearing for to elicit public comment on those three items and particularly on the points of dissension. The other thing is that for the assembly of governments, the Landfill Owners Group has developed an agenda and Richard Franck was on that agenda committee and I think that you might want to say things about that. That was what I was referring to in keeping an open mind that we do have points of difference and I hope that we would all go in trying to hear all points of view.

Council Member Franck The group that was supposed to meet to set that agenda was planning to meet on Friday so we did not meet but we will soon. I think that that meeting is

going to be very critical for helping to reach closure on some of these issues and there’s not a whole lot to be gained by discussing those issues to death tonight because this body alone can’t make those decisions. It has to be a joint effort.

Mayor Waldorf That’s right. I just was interested in testing to see if this body knew what it wanted to do. I think that’s what Julie was saying. We can have some sort of straw vote on one or more of these issues. It’s not set in stone. We have a public hearing coming up. I really hope that we’re going to make some decisions on the 30th. Isn’t that scheduled as a decision making meeting? If our part of that collection would be at a handicap without having established at least what we think we want or if nothing else just how we’re divided. So I would just go with you all as to whether you want to go on or try to establish something tonight. Pat?

Council Member Evans We have questions that would maybe lead us to the same conclusion although not all of us have the same information to get to those conclusions. So maybe that’s why I’m raising some of these questions. I know three of you have the majority of the information but there will be eight or nine of us making the decision so therefor the rest of us need to have the staff’s input. I mean, I have a stack of stuff that’s all landfill related that’s this high.

Mayor Waldorf It still seems to me there’s not a strong sentiment to go ahead... Julie I think that you and I are the only ones that want to take tentative positions tonight.

Council Member Andresen Well, if there’s not a will to do that, there’s not a will. But the disadvantage is seems to me is if our representatives go to the log with no feeling about where we all stand on this. I for one would like to write a memo and maybe some of the members would like to sign it. I would like to get us some sort of agreement on this. Of course the log organization has to be negotiated among the government so that’s more complicated and so what we want to do here is going to here might or might not be useful. I’d like to see some kind of straw poll or something. Do we all feel comfortable with what’s before us that the landfill owners group is going to be considering. If we do nothing then they will be considered....

Council Member Capowski We’ve given them all of our concerns.

Council Member Andresen We’ve given them our concerns but we have not said one thing. I mean the council as a group has not said, “we would like to see incineration investigated.” or we would like to have something other than the two-two-two representation for the LOG organization, we would like to see the solid waste integration plan percentage goal something else than what’s written.

Council Member Brown Joe is exactly right and not only is he exactly but the staff has responded with one of the best memos I think that I’ve seen from the staff on this with not only addressing the issues that the council raised but preparing various options on some of those issues you just raised. The Landfill Owners Group is not going to be discussing this except to get the agenda straight for the Assembly of Governments meeting and these options are what I’m

saying that we need to keep the openness about at least looking at them and taking them to the assembly governments meeting and having this as some sort of basis of discussion on this. I think that there has been real response and I think that this memo is the basis.

Mayor Waldorf My understanding of the decision making process, to make it happen, each of the effected elected boards have to act on its own on certain decisions and all of us have to agree. Is that correct?

Town Attorney Karpinos Yes, that’s correct. I mean, to create a new agency each government would have to agree to sign an agreement creating a new agency and that vote would have to be by each individual board and in order to have a meeting of the minds each board would have to agree to the terms and structure that was identical to the terms and structure by the other boards though.

Town Manager Horton There are alternates. The Orange County government, using its constitutional authority, could act on its own to provide a regional landfill for use by all Orange County citizens. Any one of the governments could contract with a private firm to handle its solid waste. There is no government that is bound by any contract to participate in this process.

Council Member Chilton The points that you articulated, Julie, we don’t necessarily need a resolution on those points. I’ve heard that those are the concerns that a lot of the council has. This is a sort of point of negotiation among the different governments so I hope we’ll stay focused here on what our interests are rather than adopting some rigid positions. My interpretation is that we want to take forward the concern about the 2 2 2 voting arrangement, concern about how and why we selected a fifty percent recycling goal, is that realistic and so forth. On the landfill site selection, the request from the council as VEDCO a trash only disposal option. Those are the key points that I was hearing. We can move on. I want to get a chance to bring that up with the landfill owners group.

Mayor Waldorf And Pat’s questions about costs. Looks like we’re not going to attempt to take any even tentative votes on this tonight but I’d like to have a staff recommendation on these three issues. We have staff analysis, options and so forth but these are, to me, very technical issues and I’d like to have a staff recommendation.

Council Member Brown I’m not sure that they’re technical, I think that they’re policy issues and I think that’s our responsibility.

Mayor Waldorf Well, I’d like to have a staff recommendation.

Council Member Brown Well, I’d rather discuss this at the Assembly of Governments meeting, looking at all the options before the staff. I think that that would give too much direction at the assembly of governments meeting. That’s what I’m requesting that we stay open to all the options. And I think the staff has done an excellent job and I’d like to commend them

for it. I think it’s up to us then to discuss those with our fellow elected officials.

Mayor Waldorf I’d like a staff recommendation before I go to this discussion. I don’t know if others agree or not. Obviously Joyce disagrees.

Council Member Andresen I think that one reason it’s appealing to ask the staff for a recommendation is because we can’t reach an agreement on where we’re going here. On the other hand the staff has laid out a bunch of options with advantages and disadvantages so we know what the up and down side of each one of these. So maybe we do have enough information from the staff and maybe we’re just stuck from a policy point of view and we’re just going to have to wait for the public hearing and wait for future discussion with our partners that we’re going to need to work this out with.

Mayor Waldorf I didn’t realize I needed a motion and a vote to get a staff recommendation on an issue of this importance. Are you telling me you all object to that?

Council Member Franck Yes, I do object to that. This is still a preliminary point to be getting a recommendation and I guess if the majority of the council isn’t willing to ask the staff to give an official recommendation then you should seek your own unofficial recommendation.

Mayor Waldorf I’ll do it then. Anything else on that point?

Council Member Evans The only thing I’d like to add on that point is that we don’t have any dollar signs associated with any of that. I think that’s the biggest weakness. It’s as if money doesn’t make any difference. I’m sorry, I can’t operate that way. I think that if we did get recommendations from the staff, they would be alert to the cost because they’d know it’s going to be tax dollars or it’s going to be bond money.

Item 5b 1996-1997 Council Meeting Calendar

Mayor Waldorf Let’s move on to item 5B which is a very uncontroversial item, the ‘96-97 calendar of council meetings. Cal did you want to point out anything about this?

Town Manager Horton We’ve tried to take into account, not only the communities school calendar for the Chapel Hill/Carrboro schools but also the university’s calendar. We’ve tried to take into the account the normal holidays that are observed in our community affecting large numbers of people. We have provided a number of options for your consideration and there may be some of those you wish to take. We’ve tried to follow the guidance you’ve given us in the past regarding your calendar but it is your calendar and we would certainly want to make it comfortable for your schedules.

Council Member Capowski I was the one who pulled it off last week’s consent agenda. My concern with it is the second retreat that is scheduled on August 23rd. We recently had a retreat at Aqueduct. It tied up seventeen professionals for eight hours each plus staff set-up time, rent to the Aqueduct Conference Center, and it is a very nice place. I personally don’t think that we got enough out of it to justify that kind of expenditure of effort and money. Consequently, I would like to move an amended version of R7 with the amendment being the deletion of the Saturday, August 23rd planning session.

Council Member Andresen I would like to see the retreat stay on the calendar. If we get close to it and the majority don’t want to have it then we don’t need to have it. I found it useful and I would like to leave it on.

Council Member Evans In a different vein, since I’m now first vice-president of Triangle J, I’m your representative there and that puts me on the executive board, it is difficult for me to be at two places at one time and I would hope you would go along with option D.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO CHANGE THREE MEETING DATES, AS SPECIFIED IN OPTION D OF THE STAFF’S MEMORANDUM.

Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor So the main motion on the floor is Resolution 7 deleting the August planning session and moving those Wednesday meeting to Tuesday.

Council Member Andresen Point of order. I would feel that if there’s significant debate on Joe’s motion then there’s...

Council Member Franck That’s what I was getting ready to do. I would like to amend the motion by reinstating the August planning session.

Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor The motion on the floor is to pass resolution 7 deleting the August 23rd meeting and changing those three Wednesday meeting to Tuesday.

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney I think you’ve got it right. The motion was Resolution 7 would be changed with respect to the August work session. There was a motion to amend that to change the Wednesday meetings to Tuesday. That was accepted as a friendly amendment so what you have before you is Resolution 7 without the August meeting and to change the Wednesday meetings to Tuesday. You just have one motion before you now.

Council Member Franck I would like to move to amend it to reinstate that planning session.

Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor So it’s not friendly so it needs a second. Okay. So all in favor of Richard Franck’s amendment please say aye. That’s four people who want to keep the August meeting (Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Julie Andresen, Richard Franck ) All opposed say No. that’s 3 (myself, Joe Capowski and Mark Chilton,) Can it carry with four votes? Yes. So the main motion is now amended so that the August meeting is now reinstated and the four Wednesday meeting are changed to Tuesdays.

Julie Andresen I’ve got another amendment. Can we have the January retreat later in the month?

Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor Is there consensus to send this back to the staff and try to find a date in January that is amenable to Julie and everybody else and to delete the work session on the day before election day, to change the Wednesday to Tuesdays and to retain the second planning session and to move to something else.

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney It’s necessary to act tonight to change the September 25th meeting date.

Cal Horton, Manager If I could make a suggestion. I recommend you adopt the calendar deleting the January 6th date. We’ll poll the council and find out when you can retreat for your planning session and then that can be added back in.

Mayor Waldorf Is there a friendly amendment to delete that January planning session? Will the mover accept it? Then the motion before us is to adopt the calendar we have with the January retreat date unspecified, the early November work session deleted, the August 23rd planning session left in and 4 Wednesday council meetings shifted Tuesday including September 24th.

RESOLUTION 7, AS AMENDED, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CALENDAR OF COUNCIL MEETINGS THROUGH DECEMBER 1997 (96-9-10/R-7)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the attached calendar of Council meetings.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

Proposed calendar of Town Council meetings, September, 1996 - December, 1997

Remainder of 1996

Month

Day of

week

Date

Type of meeting

Notes

September

Monday

business

Monday

hearing

Wednesday

hearing

landfill/solid waste matters

Tuesday

business

Monday

Orange County Assembly of Governments

October

Monday

available for work session

Wednesday

joint planning hearing

Wednesday; location to be determined

Wednesday

business

Monday

hearing

Monday

business

November

Monday

available for work session, etc.

Monday

business

Veterans' Day (not a Town holiday; federal holiday)

Monday

hearing

Tuesday

business

December

Wednesday

business

1997

Month

Day of

week

Date

Type of Meeting

Notes

January, 1997

Monday

available for work session, etc.

planning session

Date, etc. to be determined

by polling of Town Council

Monday

business

Human Services Advisory Board's annual needs report

Wednesday

hearing

Wednesday

Monday

business

Wednesday

public forum and hearing

budget, capital program, Comprehensive Grant, HOME program, Community Development grant, Downtown Service District; potential legislative requests

February

Monday

available for work session

Monday

business

setting scope of February 24th forum on potential legislative program

Monday

hearing

President's Day (federal holiday; not a Town holiday)

Monday

business

public forum on proposed legislative program

Friday

meeting with legislators

7:30 am; location to be determined; meeting date and time subject to concurrence by legislative delegation

March

Monday

business

submittal of proposed 1997-98 public housing budget (application deadline: 4/1);

consideration of adopting legislative program (deadline for introducing local bills will be set in 1997 as part of General Assembly's rules for the session);

submittal of potential changes to service plan for Downtown District for public hearing on May 15 (any changes in service plan must be adopted by 6/30/97 for 1997-98)

request to County for Library and Parks and Recreation funding and authorization of boards to make presentations to County Commissioners

Monday

hearing

Wednesday

budget work session #1

6 pm

submittal of:

preliminary budget report,

preliminary capital program,

proposed Comprehensive Grant application, proposed HOME program and proposed Community Development grant application.

Monday

business

April

Monday

public forum and hearing

preliminary budget; capital program; Comprehensive Grant, HOME grant program, Community Development grant; and potential changes to the Downtown Service District boundary and service plan

Wednesday

joint planning hearings

Wednesday; location to be determined (date proposed subject to concurrence by other local governing boards)

Monday

business

recommendation by the Human Services Advisory Board on the amount of funds to be allocated for human services performance agreements in 1997-98

Monday

hearing

Monday

business

submittal of:

recommended budget and capital program and

proposed revisions to the 1996-97 Public Housing budget (deadline for filing: 6/30);

authorization to file grant applications:

Comprehensive grant (deadline: 6/1),

HOME program (deadline: 5/15) and

Community Development grant (deadline: 5/15)

Wednesday

budget work session #2

6 pm

May

Monday

budget work session #3

6 pm; with boards and commissions

Monday

business

Wednesday

hearing

budget, capital program, Downtown Service District

Monday

hearing

Wednesday

budget work session #4

6 pm

Wednesday

business

Wednesday

June

Monday

business

consideration of adopting budget and related items

Monday

hearing

Monday

business

consideration of performance agreements:

visitor information and cultural events funded with hotel-motel taxes,

human services (including recommendations by Human Services Advisory Board) and

Downtown Service District;

year-end budget amendment

Monday

available for work session, etc.

July

Monday

business

August

Saturday

planning session

8:30 am Library

Monday

business

September

Monday

business

Monday

hearing

Monday

business

Monday

available for work session, etc.

October

Monday

available for work session

Wednesday

joint planning hearing

Wednesday; location to be determined (date proposed subject to concurrence by boards)

Monday

business

Columbus Day (not a Town holiday)

Wednesday

hearing

Monday

business

November

Monday

available for work session, etc.

Monday

business

Veterans' Day (not a Town holiday; federal holiday)

Monday

hearing

Monday

business

December

Monday

business

Item 5c: Report on Enforcement of Special Use Stipulations

Town Attorney Karpinos This matter was pulled off the information reports at the last meeting and it was in response to a question that was raised by a Council Member back in the spring or early summer regarding how enforcement would occur if a special use permit provision regarding the submission of an annual transportation management plan were not complied with. The report outlines several provisions of the development ordinance and concludes with a statement that “The failure to submit a report required by the terms of the special use permit would constitute a violation of the permit which is enforceable under the normal enforcement provisions of the development ordinance including a notice of violation, opportunity to cure and ultimately and initiation of a proceeding in the courts to seek a court order directing that the requirement be met.

Council Member Franck I’m the one who pulled the item off the information reports because when we reviewed the annual TMP report there was one development that was conspicuous in that it had failed to survey their employees and submit such a survey as required by the special use permit. So I was interested as to what type of actions were possible.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO DIRECT THE MANAGER TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, SECTION 23.3, WITH REGARD TO THE FAILURE OF FGI TO SUBMIT THE SURVEY AS REQUIRED BY THEIR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR 1995.

Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor All right, the motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion?

Council Member Andresen I guess this is related but not exactly on the subject but at some point I’d like to return to the transportation management plan. I think Richard Franck’s concern rose out of a general discussion of how that discussion was working. Specifically, he’s talking about enforcement here and I would like to see whether what we’ve got is working. If it isn’t working, then maybe we should go back to making sure that businesses provide adequate parking when there is development in downtown Chapel Hill.

Mayor Waldorf In voting for this, would we be penalizing someone for failing to file a report?

Council Member Franck I hope that it wouldn’t come to that. The Manager would make the determination that the provision was being violated and deliver the notice to the persons responsible and order them to correct it. So they would be given ample opportunity to correct the violation. Certainly, if they failed to correct it then they could be penalized.

Council Member Evans Have we asked them in a nice way to file this report?

Town Manager Horton I don’t know that we have a report that’s come in. Maybe it’s come in in recent days.

Town Attorney Karpinos I think the enforcement process that the Manager and the Planning Department uses always starts with asking in a nice way.

Town Manager Horton We’ll do everything we can to effectively communicate the need for this. They’re reasonable people.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 5d: West Rosemary/Sunset Parking Lot Proposal

Town Manager Horton Briefly, this is a project that was generated out of discussions from the Midway community and from time to time it’s been discussed by the Town Council of Chapel Hill and by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. The desire is to create a parking lot at the intersection of West Rosemary Street and Sunset Drive that would benefit the business community in that neighborhood without constituting a disturbance to the residential property that ‘s also in that neighborhood. The Town of Carrboro has principal jurisdiction because the main area that is used now as a parking lot is within the Carrboro corporate limits.

There is an adjoining property that the Town of Carrboro and at least some members of the community would like to see included in a parking lot development. There are a few options for consideration by the council. One is to decline to participate in the project. Another is to initiate a rezoning of the parcel which is in Chapel Hill because right now it is zoned in a manner residential. They would not permit the development of a parking lot. Another possibility is a de-annexation process. The attorney could comment on what we would have to do there. I believe we would have to go to the legislature. That obviously would delay things. Rezoning would involve a public process, a public hearing. We’ve been unable to figure out any other way to do this.

Bill Fairbanks Good evening, my name is Bill Fairbanks. Although, I’m a resident of Chapel Hill, my wife and I moved here to Southbridge in 1992, we’ve actively been performing construction on a building on Rosemary St. in Carrboro. It’s going to be a Mexican restaurant called “Carrburritos”. We hope that will available soon for your patronage. While working with the Town staff of Carrboro, one of the stipulations for opening a restaurant in that neighborhood was the obvious need for parking and that they would like to know that that is being satisfied by people who want to open businesses in that area. So the lot at Sunset and Rosemary has been a point of focus and attention since we started our intent to open a business there with the hopes that it was going to be developed as a parking lot.

I have information from the Town of Carrboro that they are eager to get this started and I acknowledge your difficulties with what you need to do to surrender the rest of it. But I would like to urge you to make this... It is being used as a parking lot currently and not very efficiently. The lot in the Chapel Hill area is zoned residential although there’s no residence on it. In the absence of somebody wanting to build something there I think a good use would be to pave it and make it, at least, a valid parking lot.

Stepney Edwards Hello, my name is Stepney Edwards and I’m the owner of the Midway building and we’ve been there for about forty-five years. The lot has been used for parking that whole time. I have walked around the community and discussed with everyone concerned, even on Graham Street and adjacent properties. They would like to see it stay parking. They don’t want to see a building put there. Everyone uses the parking lot.. All those businesses there, all the churches. It would just be a great addition to the Midway community if we could just get it fixed up and made it a permanent parking area for everyone in the community. Just my building alone has over a couple thousand people coming through it every week and we use the lot.

It would just be great to see Chapel Hill and Carrboro work together and make this happen for our community. All my customers come from Chapel Hill, Pittsboro, Durham. I’m the one that got the petition up that you see in your folder. I have a lot more names. I’ve got probably 2 or 3 hundred more names with just Chapel Hill people. who come to that community and shop and just hang out. It would make it a lot safer if the lot were made into a more of a permanent type lot with lighting and landscaping. I would just really like to see you guys come aboard and help us out.

Mayor Waldorf I don’t think anyone’s opposed to it. We’re just sorry it takes so long to get it done.

Joyce Brown I’d like to ask what’s the process for developing this as a parking lot and to go forward.

Town Manager Horton It would be the town’s normal process for rezoning. If the Council decided to rezone, it would be the normal process from that standpoint and then Carrboro would go through theirs. There would need to be a joint arrangement of some kind. We would probably recommend and I believe the staff of Carrboro would be willing to recommend that they be the lead agency on the project. I think it would be possible that community development funding available to us could be used to contribute towards the project. Of course, if the council is

contributing money then it has a greater say so than ordinary over what would happen.

Council Member Evans Could we do this in a better way by expediting?

Town Manager Horton You can direct.

Council Member Evans This is non-controversial. It would take a long time if we go through the usual way. I don’t think it’s going to be anything that would bump anything from public hearing. I move that we ask the staff to expedite it.

Mayor Waldorf That’s a motion? But we have to do the resolution first and... Julie?

Council Member Andresen Is it altogether gravel or what is it?

Town Manager Horton No. There’s a portion of it that is essentially not used which is trees and grass. That portion of it tends to be the Chapel Hill lot and the rear portion of the Carrboro lot. There is an ineffective buffer created by natural area although you can completely see through it because a number of years ago it was cleared out. There were undesirable activities occurring on the lot and it been cleared out and kept cleared out so that it’s not dangerous.

Council Member Andresen So there are trees there now. So if we went through the zoning process we would make sure that the neighbors knew. There are neighbors in support of this but there may be neighbors who have a concern with it going to a parking lot. I was noting the third option that you listed here and that was giving the lot to Carrboro and just letting them do the whole thing. That seems like a reasonable option to me.

Council Member Capowski In the long run which is the easier route for the town to go A or B?

Town Manager Horton I believe that it would be more desirable for one government to be in charge of it rather than two. That could be accomplished in a number of ways. De-annexation is one and letting Carrboro manage it by contract is another.

Council Member Capowski Which of those two would be easier?

Town Manager Horton I’m not eager to manage anything else, especially this week.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION B.

Mayor Waldorf How long will this take?

Town Manager Horton It would have to go to the legislature and whether or not they would act on it is always a question and when they would act on it would be a question. It could be done next spring or summer.

Mayor Waldorf So, if we go that way we run the risk of it not happening because they might not act on it.

Council Member Brown I think we would like to act on this much sooner than that. I would hate to vote against this but then I would like to... if it fails, I would like to move resolution A because that would be my preference. So I’d like to substitute it...

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION A, WITH THE ADDED CLAUSE THAT “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THIS REZONING PROJECT WILL BE GIVEN EXPEDITED REVIEW”.

Council Member Andresen What about adding the idea of contracting with Carrboro for the administration because doesn’t resolution A as it stands mean that we would be splitting ownership of this?

Council Member Franck This doesn’t have anything to do with ownership or administration. The lot is already owned by private individuals. This is just changing the zoning on it. So someone would have to come in and propose to develop a parking lot and probably it will be the Town of Carrboro.

Mayor Waldorf noted that there was a motion on the floor to substitute Resolution A for Resolution B.

THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION A WAS PASSED BY A VOTE OF 7-0.

RESOLUTION A, AS AMENDED, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION INITIATING A REZONING PROCESS AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING (96-9-10/R-7.1a)

WHEREAS, the Town of Carrboro has requested Chapel Hill's participation in a joint effort to construct a parking lot on West Rosemary Street; and

WHEREAS, the project has the potential of assisting in the economic revitalization of the West Rosemary Street business area, and contributing to the Comprehensive Plan goal of enhancing the commercial vitality of the Town Center;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Town's Zoning Map for Tax Map 93.L.18 on Monday, October 21, 1996 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 306 North Columbia Street, to change the zoning of this parcel from Residential-3 to a Town Center zoning district category;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to indicate its interest to the Town of Carrboro in participating in a project to provide public parking as generally described in this memorandum, and to develop with Carrboro staff a firm estimate of costs, and the proposed method of sharing costs, for future consideration by the Town Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this rezoning project shall receive expedited review.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

Item 5e: Approving Minutes of May 29^th, June 5, 10, 17, 24 and July 1, 1996

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 29^TH, JUNE 5^TH, 10^TH, 12^TH, 17^TH, 24^TH AND JULY 1^ST AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mayor Waldorf That’s the approval of lots of minutes. Okay, item 5.1 was moved up and is in your packet as 11b. I’d like to invite Dianne Bachman to come forward and speak.

Item 5f: Authorizing Naming of Appearance Commission Awards

Dianne Bachman The Appearance Commission is currently in process for its 1996 Appearance Commission awards. Annually, the Commission gives six awards in building excellence as well as for other quality improvement projects in the community. During our August meeting the commission voted to name two of our awards in honor of Jean and Pearson Stewart and Robert Stipe because the Commission felt strongly about the contribution of these individuals over the years to the spirit, progress and quality that they had given to our community. So the Commission coming before the Council to ask you to authorize the Commission to name two of our awards in honor of Jean and Pearson Stewart and the other in honor of Robert Stipe.

Council Member Chilton The other day someone told me you have to be at least 100 miles from home to be an expert, hopefully that’s not true in Chapel Hill .

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPEARANCE COMMISSION TO NAME TWO OF ITS ANNUAL COMMUNITY APPEARANCE AWARDS IN HONOR OF JEAN AND PEARSON STEWART, AND ROBERT E. STIPE (96-9-10/R-14)

WHEREAS, Jean and Pearson Stewart and Robert E. Stipe have for many years served the Chapel Hill community and they have contributed in many ways to the quality of life and the appearance of our community; and

WHEREAS, the service of these long-time citizens of Chapel Hill has included Pearson Stewart’s work in founding the Triangle Land Conservancy and promoting projects such as the Orange

County inventory of significant natural areas and acquisition of land in the Chapel Hill area as permanent open space; Jean Stewart’s service on the Appearance Commission from 1968 to

1980; and Bob Stipe’s service as a charter member of the Appearance Commission , Historic District Commission and Design Review Board; and as the drafter of the North Carolina legislation regarding Historic Districts; and

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Appearance Commission’s annual community appearance awards provide an opportunity to recognize the Stewarts and Mr. Stipe;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Council authorizes the Appearance Commission to name two of its annual community appearance awards in honor of

Jean and Pearson Stewart, and

Robert E. Stipe.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

Mayor Waldorf Okay, and I hope that when these awards are given we can do something that is a little more ceremonial for Jean and Pearson and Bob and I’d like to help with that. I’d like to ask the council’s consent to hear a petition from Mr. John Herrera who came in late and asked to address us about Fiesta del Pueblo. Is it agreeable to allow three minutes on this?

Item 5g: Petition by La Fiesta del Pueblo Organizers

John Herrera There is nothing we can do when mother nature hit us this hard. The Fiesta del Pueblo, which we all worked so hard to make it happen, it’s hard to see this two day event, the largest Latin-American festival being wiped out in one night. We did everything in our power to salvage it and to make everything right but due to the state of emergency and the reality of the town it was impossible to have a safe festival. I realized on Friday night the fiesta was gone, Fran took it. Whatever was going to happen after that wasn’t going to be fiesta but we wanted to rescue the efforts of hundreds of people who have worked very hard on this. At this point, I want to ask you for your support and your help. We met with the town manager who in the midst of the whole crisis offered to help us and that’s why I’m here.

Tomorrow night we’re going to have a meeting to decide what can we do. I would like to take with me tonight to them some sort of commitment from the Town of Chapel Hill on what can we do. We took a financial hit. We had 120 vendors who were going to come. We have thousands of dollars in losses. I have about $10,000.00 in contracts I have to honor. We didn’t sell anything.

It’s a non-alcoholic festival so we only sell Pepsi and T-shirts and none of that has happened yet. I know we’re going to do something, I don’t know what. I would like to get a sense of your commitment to help us make this happen. This was born here and I would like to continue it here and I’ll need your help to do that. Thank you.

Mayor Waldorf I’m sure that the staff will work with to try to help you work out with the logistical arrangements with rescheduling and re-siting. Is that a reasonable enough?

John Herrara We got a $5,000.00 grant from the Town of Chapel Hill and just the expenses of transportation and security and clean-up and right now we don’t have the money to do that. If the Town can help us with that, I think we can fund-raise the other part for the entertainment and to honor the other contracts.

Mayor Waldorf So your petition is for financial aid for $5,000.00?

Town Manager Horton The Council, at our recommendation, had made a hotel/motel grant to assist the festival. It has become a popular community event. It’s well attended and well run. If the Council wished to co-sponsor this event in some ways that would not be terribly expensive that might make a difference to them. We could look into that and try to find additional ways we could be of assistance if you would desire it and bring a report back to you at your next meeting.

COUNCI L MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, FOR STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TOWN COSPONSORING , AND PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO, THE FIESTA DEL PUEBLO. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 6: Continuation of Process for Calling of Bond Referendum

Mayor Waldorf We’re now on item six, which is a process for calling a bond referendum. Mr. Manager would you like to make a brief introduction?

Town Manager Horton First I would like to note that the Council has modified its calendar so that when September 25th is mentioned as a hearing it should be changed to September 24th and similarly in the resolution. I would also note that the town’s bond attorneys, having finally considered all of the issues, determined that the proposed improvements be grouped into five categories: Park and Recreation facilities now proposed by the council at $5 million, purchase of land for open space and greenways at $3 million, Fire and Police (public safety) $2 million, street and sidewalk improvements at $3 million and public building improvements at $0.5 million, totaling $13.5 million. The actions that you could take tonight to move forward would be to introduce the bond orders that the Town Attorney has provided and to call a public hearing.

Mayor Waldorf Can we call on Council Members to introduce the bond orders. Julie?

Council Member Andresen I hereby introduce the bond order authorizing the issuance of

$5million recreation facilities bonds of the Town of Chapel Hill, NC.

Council Member Chilton I hereby introduce the bond order authorizing the issuance of $3 million for the sidewalk and streets.

Council Member Evans I hereby introduce the bond order authorizing the issuance of $2 million public safety bonds of the Town of Chapel Hill, NC.

Council Member Brown I hereby introduce the bond order authorizing the issuance of $3 million open spaces and areas bonds of the Town of Chapel Hill, NC.

Council Member Capowski I hereby introduce the bond order authorizing the issuance of $500,000.00 public building bonds of the town of Chapel Hill, NC.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

A RESOLUTION CALLING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON BOND ORDERS DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FILING OF A DEBT STATEMENT (96-9-10/R-8)

WHEREAS, the bond orders entitled:

“BOND ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $5,000,000 RECREATION FACILITIES BONDS OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA”;

“BOND ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $3,000,000 OPEN SPACES AND AREAS BONDS OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA”;

“BOND ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $2,000,000 PUBLIC SAFETY BONDS OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA”;

“BOND ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $3,000,000 STREET AND SIDEWALK BONDS OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA”;

“BOND ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE $500,000 PUBLIC BUILDING BONDS OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA”;

have been introduced at the meeting of the Town Council held on September 10, 1996 and the Town Council desires to provide for the holding of a public hearing thereon and the submission of a statement of debt in connection therewith as required by the Local Government Bond Act;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, as follows:

1. The public hearings upon said bond orders shall be held on the 24th day of September, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Town Hall in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

2. The Town Clerk is hereby directed to cause a copy of each bond order to be published with a notice of such hearing in the form prescribed by law in a qualified newspaper no fewer than six days prior to such public hearing.

3. The Finance Director of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to file with the Town Clerk prior to publication of the bond orders with the notices of such public hearings, a statement setting forth the debt incurred or to be incurred, the appraised value of property subject to taxation by the Town and the net debt of the Town.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

Mayor Waldorf There is some other information here that the staff has provided listed under Item 6C. Are there any questions about that or would you like to move onto the next item?

Town Manager Horton We would ask you to adopt a resolution so that we would have the Council’s official blessing to use this as the basic information.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION TO CITIZENS REGARDING 1996 BOND REFERENDA (96-9-10/R-9)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Council authorizes the Manager to distribute the attached information to citizens.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

Item 7: Possible Changes to Development Review Process

Mayor Waldorf Did you all want to comment on any of these? Then let’s move onto item 7 which is follow up discussion of the possible changes in the development/review process. Staff report?

Town Manager Horton The Council has been discussing possible changes in the development review process for some time and asked that when this item came back that we summarize the

Council’s discussion of options. We did that and circulated it to the Council as you’d requested and then put it into a final form and offered for your considerations as a summary of options tonight. You ask that we not offer any further proposals but simply to summarize.

Mayor Waldorf Any questions or comments?

Council Member Andresen One of the functions of the Appearance Commission has been to review sign applications and I know that there has been some concur on the part of some appearance committee members that really hasn’t been much staff time devoted to enforcing the regulations that we have. My concern here is that if we move this function to the staff, will there be even less attention paid to this. There were folks on the appearance who spent a lot of time on this. I think sometimes it can be seen sometimes as not such an important item but we go to other communities and we see that it does make a difference what kind of signage guidelines or whatever you have. I would like to hear from the manager on what has been our practice here on following up on this function which we are assigning here.. the approval of signs and the enforcement of those.

Roger Waldon, Planning Director Thanks, we do follow up and enforce our sign regulations. We worked with the Commission a couple of years ago with what they identified as the top ten most serious violations and worked for a period of about twelve to eighteen months. We took care of those, added some more and then decided that that effort had worked pretty well and that was the end of that system. So that special intensive effort that was put into sign enforcement and then we stopped doing that intensive.... We still do enforce. Our approach to zoning compliance in general is to respond to complaints. We do not drive the streets looking for violations. When we do get a concern raised we go out to the site, look into the situation and if we find that a property is not in compliance with our regulations then we set about the process of enforcement, contacting the property owner, seeking voluntary compliance and if we don’t get that then we go to our next level of letters that are firmer and levying fines and so on. So enforcement is on going.

Council Member Andresen Thank you. Dealing with the options. I understand that what our goal is to come up with one option before us to put before the public hearing. Option C seems most appealing to me. What that does is to keep the present review process in place but it combines the appearance and design review board function which has been requested by both boards. What B would do would be to eliminate joint meetings of the appearance and design board. But it would make review mandatory. All major projects would go before the Design/Review board. I have concerns with that. And then the 1st option would create the most change. That would create a new Development Review Commission and that strikes me as having some implications that really aren’t stated here. That is that if there was such a board that would take on those functions that the planning board functions would change as a result of that. I have problems with that because that concentrates too many decisions in the hands of one board which by law needs to be made up of a lot of design professionals who all do work for the development community. I just think its difficult when you have working relationships to be completely free to make impartial decisions.

Appearance Commission Chair Dianne Bachman In our combined meeting in August of the Appearance Commission and the Design Review board we reviewed the options and took a vote and our consensus was for option A. One area that we weren’t quite sure logistically how it would work is the joint board hearing of formal application by all other advisory boards. If we pull all of these boards together for this one major review, logistically we weren’t quite sure how

that would work. We just felt it need to be examined more thoroughly. A concern of the boards that has been a continuum through all this discussion is to be able to review these projects at the conceptual stage. Often what happens is that they come before these two boards with plans and much work already dedicated and for the boards to go back and ask for these revisions is very hard to do. Sometimes it can create hardships. So in all fairness to all of these applications that we’re reviewing the earlier that whatever board you decide on, the earlier that you allow conceptual review to be done, the more benefit we can provide to the applicants. I think that’s a very good benefit for the community to see as well as the applicants investing in the projects.

Council Member Evans How has it worked to have the Design Review board and the Appearance Commission to meet together?

Dianne Bachman They do two totally different things. We have been meeting now jointly since February and we have come a long way in learning the strengths of each other and working together. Through attrition we’re down to ten people. Sometimes we have problems getting quorum. We work together well. The basic problem is that the design/Review board is trying to look at conceptual analysis and they are trying to look at different things than the Appearance Commission by legislation has been required to do. The Design Review Board want to look up front at drainage, contours and parking details. And the Appearance Commission, those are not specific elements that we are regulated to do. So sometimes it gets a bit difficult to work together. I do have to commend everybody on those two groups.

Mark Chilton Part of your recommendation is the mandatory concept review proposal. I have a concern and I wonder whether you have discussed this issue... It seems to me that this mandatory concept plan would invest in the DRB what almost amounts to a kind of policy influence over certain aspects of development that goes on in Chapel Hill. I just wonder how will DRB members be guided in certain issues. Is this going to become a board that’s filled with extremely political appointments, in the sense that some issues about let’s say where parking ought to be arranged on a site is an issue that although the general public it seems like kind of a trivial issue it is a substantive policy type decision.

Dianne Bachman Actually, when these type of issues are discussed, it’s the comprehensive plans and our design guidelines that rule this kind of input. Member of the DRB, when we’re taking to clients and the clients have brought in something that ‘s totally opposite of what we have in writing to go by from the town council and our town regulations, we put this on the table with the client. That’s not to say the design and quality-wise there’s not the exception to the rule and we bring that forward to the council. But generally, the members of the group, that’s the base

that we start from. That’s very evident in the comments that we give back and in the minutes. We’re fairly strict We have to be. There has to be a base line from which we start working with these groups and be able to tell them these are the regulations.

Council Member Andresen One of the reasons I supported the two boards together was that I got the distinct impression early on that both boards desired that. Now I’m hearing from you that there are distinct functions to be served by each group and you see some value in that therefor

maybe it’s not such a great idea to combine the two. Is that what you’re saying?

Dianne Bachman It was a matter of taking these two distinct entities and putting them together rather than starting from a base with a group and saying “These are the elements that you need to address”. So, the Appearance Commission felt that by our legislation that we need to look at this, this and this and the DRB, from however they originated they were looking at these other elements. That’s not to say that a combined group could not do both positions but it needs to be stated that way. Because just putting two separate entities together did not make a coherent whole. We had to work that out. So I don’t mean to give the feeling that it can not work well as a group but I think you need to state that and give that kind of baseline to a new commission if you choose to go that way.

Mayor Waldorf I think you’re being very diplomatic in the way you speak. When I’ve heard other folks who serve with you talking in the hallway I think you’ve found it very difficult and frustrating.

Dianne Bachman I think there was a lot of animosity when we started this. But we’ve been at this quite a while. We’re still regulated to look at totally different items and I think there’s still that basic frustration. And we’ve lost a lot of people so we’re not functioning as a good whole group because we struggle to get quorums within each group for every meeting.

Council Member Capowski I recognize that you don’t formally represent the Design Review Board.

Dianne Bachman I’m a representative on it but Bruce Ballentine is the chair of that group.

Council Member Capowski Yes. I share the concerns of Julie and Mark in that I really don’t think I’m interested in manufacturing a board with a lot of authority to a few people. My only personal choice is between option C and D. I don’t really have a strong feeling one way or the other but since the primary difference between those two options is how the DRB and the Appearance boards are structured, I would like to ask you what is your boards positions on C versus D.

Dianne Bachman I would have to say that their position is Option C. Because when we considered the four of them, the preferred option was A.

Mayor Waldorf Thanks. We’ve got some questions of the staff.

Council Member Brown I would appreciate if you could refresh my memory as to how this configuration of these options came about. Is this configuration that was developed after that work session?

Mr. Waldon The Council conducted a work session and there were staff reports, recommendations and you had all that material and at the conclusion of your discussion you

outlined several options and asked the staff to write those up. So we reviewed the tapes and minutes of your meeting and put together the options that you identified.

Council Member Brown It seemed to me that there was some support for joint hearing by other boards and I wondered why it was only put on option A.

Mr. Waldon This was the set of four options that the council members identified and directed the staff to write up.

Council Member Franck Let me see if I can refresh your memory on this. Option A was the full-blown do. Option B was light which was basically only do the mandatory review. And then we realized that that wasn’t quite complete because we had the option of doing nothing which was D. Then at the last minute we threw in do nothing except we’ll combine the two boards which is C. It is certainly possible to add the joint hearing of other boards without doing great damage.

Council Member Capowski One of the concerns way back on this, is the number of presentations that an applicant has to make before all these boards. Which of these option minimizes that number?

Mr. Waldon Option D.

Mayor Waldorf Option D is the way it used to be before any of these changes were contemplated.

Council Member Capowski To make something faster you either have to trim the task or do more things in parallel. We don’t want to cut down on citizens input. Joyce hit the nail on the head when she talked about joint hearings by other boards. So I think it might be a good idea to move that joint hearings by other boards into options C or D. Can that be done without throwing a money wrench into the structure?

Mr. Waldon Certainly. I don’t know to what extent you want us to.... describing the kinds of things we’ve talked about before with these various things. I’d be happy to talk about the pros and cons of any of these different elements if you’d like some staff comment.

Mayor Waldorf What do we mean by major applications?

Mr. Waldon Any special use permit and ... any subdivision that would create 25 or more lots.

Mayor Waldorf What this chart doesn’t address is an old possibility is that if a project went before the DRB and got a favorable read it got an expedited review.

Mr. Waldon We have that feature currently.

Mayor Waldorf So there’s an assumption that if there were a DRB or a combined commission and a project went through that.... See, when we make it mandatory we lose the possibility for it to be expedited.

Mr. Waldon That’s how the situation was left when last we talked about it.

Council Member Chilton The deal is now that if you get expedited review though, for example, the transportation board representative can decide that this is a project of special transportation’s interest and have it never the less come before the transportation board.

Mr. Waldon That’s correct. That happens with some frequency.

Council Member Evans But expedited also gives it an earlier date for public hearing and that could still be done. So there’s some aspects of expedited review that could be implemented even though we have mandatory review of major projects by the new board.

Mr. Waldon That’s correct. For example, we were talking about shuffling items that are on your upcoming public hearing. When we rearrange that calendar one of the deciding factors as to which projects get bumped will be expedited processing status. Some of them have that status and some don’t. So it doesn’t necessarily mean an earlier public but it can mean an earlier public hearing and this fall it would probably make a difference.

Council Member Evans If boards met jointly for the presentation that would also be an element of expedited review. It would expedite the process, rather than going to each one of those boards individually.

Mr. Waldon Possibly. We’ve done some experimenting with joint meetings of boards. There are advantages and disadvantages.

Council Member Evans I know it’s difficult for the staff and the applicant because they split off and then the major presenter can’t be in two places at one time.

Mr. Waldon There are often logistical problems with multiple boards’ hearing presentations

and then having different things on their agenda and coming apart and coming back together is awkward.

Council Member Evans I think during my time on the Planning Board, one of the weaknesses that we felt was that there needed to be a board that followed a project through. So that when a suggestion was made, when there was a concern, by the time it got to the final review that those concerns had been addressed. I see it in A. I might see it in B if the mandatory plan was reviewed a second time by the DRB rather than twice by the Appearance Commission. Because the Appearance Commission looks at different things it seems to me that some of the issues that the DRB looks at which are usually grading and storm water management and those kinds of things

are the ones they want to be sure there’s a follow through on .. that the construction is done in a sensitive way. Whereas the Appearance Commission look at landscaping and that kind of thing. I think most of the board knows that I’ve worked on this for maybe six years.

I think that there have been many people in the community who have felt that changes need to be made. It’s not that what we get now is so terrible. But we could do better. When we see something being built we often say to ourselves “Why didn’t we follow through on that idea?” I think we could do a combination of things maybe changing in option B that it would be mandatory for major and that the Design Review Board would see it twice. And then there would be the element of follow through.

Council Member Brown I remember very well how the public reacted to this. There was concern expressed that we not make drastic changes. I can remember that all the times we discussed this and it was known in the community this auditorium was filled. We even had one special session facilitated by the then Mayor. I think there is real concern in the Town that we don’t make drastic changes. So I’m not sure I would go for even a combination of these things. My concern is that the problem is not the review process, it’s in the Development Ordinance which we actually have not addressed as much as we need to. In looking at how we can change our ordinances in order to give us better projects. But I certainly wouldn’t be in favor of option A or even changing drastically....

Mayor Waldorf May I ask the staff a question? What is the trigger that creates the need for another staff person? I notice that A creates the need for another person, option B does, option does not and D does not.

Mr. Waldon The main difference is the mandatory concept review. We are talking about for all major projects adding another step in the process.

Mayor Waldorf Which makes the process longer for the applicant, possibly more costly for the applicant and more costly for the town.

Mr. Waldon Certainly more staff time is involved.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 10, INCLUDING THE INSERTION OF OPTION C.

Council Member Evans Have you’ve added the joint boards?

Council Member Capowski No I did not. I think Roger’s explanation of the problem with logistics is quite good.

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Council Member Chilton Can I raise a question with the staff or with the town attorney? I’m real interested in the possibility of the mandatory concept review but I have concerns about how this may play out. Could there be some way to adopt some new system for a certain period of time on an experimental basis. To change our system for a six month period.

Council Member Franck I would just say that all solutions are temporary.

Council Member Chilton Well, once you declare that this is the change that we’re going to make I know that it ‘s really going to be difficult to convince anybody to raise again this six year old topic.

Mayor Waldorf Well, this business that we had of having the Design Review Board and the Appearance Commission meeting was a provisional thing and it hasn’t worked out very well.

Town Attorney Karpinos If you want to do an ordinance with a sunset date on it then when that date comes it would go back to what it was before then. But then if you wanted to extend it at that point you would have to go through the same process you’re going through now so either way if you decide you like it you’re going to have to adopt another ordinance extending the time period and I would think that that the process for making that amendment would be the same as the process for changing that initially. So you can either do it at that point or do it now as a permanent one and change it later on but I think you’re going to have to go through a second process potentially.

Council Member Chilton My point is that if we say from the get go we’re doing this on a kind of experimental basis, six months or what ever period of time. Then that will guarantee that that issue does come back up and then it will be abandoned or the public will have an opportunity to give us some reaction and tell us yes or no. So what if we pick or modify one of these options and say we want this to apply for 1997 and we will come back to this to determine whether this has really been such a great idea.

Mayor Waldorf I see a problem with that. First of all, we’re just calling a public hearing here,

we’re not making any decisions.. But if we make a decision about which boards we want to have and the composition of those boards, it’s hard to recruit people and get them to serve enthusiastically and train if they think it’s going to be disbanded in a year.

Council Member Chilton My point was more with respect to the mandatory concept review part of it. Yeah, it would be a problem to temporarily do away with the Appearance Commission.

Mayor Waldorf There’s a motion on the floor which was seconded. Julie seconded it.

Council Member Evans The motion on the floor is C. As you’re all aware we have not made any appointments to either the Appearance Commission or the Design Review Board so this option combines those two but then creates a new Appearance Commission. So, in essence, what

it does is it takes the existing members of the Appearance Commission and puts them on the merged board and then creates a new Appearance Commission.

Mayor Waldorf That’s not my understanding of it.

Pat Evans Okay, I read it incorrectly.

Mayor Waldorf But Diane’s point has been consistently that whatever board is created its role needs to be clarified.

Council Member Franck I’d like to speak up for option B. Joe’s motion says that basically we went through this whole process and we decided not to do very much at all. That’s all right but I think the one thing that’s had fairly wide spread agreement from the whole start of this is the utility of the mandatory concept review, of having an up front review at the concept stage and getting some early feedback on it so that we’re not seeing projects that are just completely wrong. Or even more, that we’ve missed that chance to make the corrections that make the difference between a good project and an outstanding project. In some ways I agree with Pat that it would be useful to have the combined board that follows projects and sees them at many different steps of the way but I have to come down on the points that Joyce made. Those options were not popular because of a couple of reasons.

First of all, the board that we would have to empower to do this would have to made up of a majority of design professionals, under state law. Empowering a board of that composition with that much review authority was very unpalatable to the citizens of Chapel Hill. For that reason, I like option B. It gives us the mandatory concept plan. It doesn’t give us the continuity. It would give us three different groups that would see things. But I think that that’s still a significant gain because it gives us a chance to make the difference and make those good projects outstanding by seeing them at an early phase. The only thing that I would add to option B would be to include some joint hearings of other boards, not all of the boards together in one room but some joint hearings that would make sense. So I think I would like to move the substitute resolution which would be option B with the adjustment of some joint hearings by other boards.

Mayor Waldorf Now the motion is to substitute option B with an addition of joint hearings by other boards when it can be worked out.

Council Member Chilton So you’re going to keep the Appearance Commission?

Council Member Evans This is just going to be discussed at the public hearing...

Council Member Franck There’s also going to be language drafted through this.

Council Member Chilton Yeah, I don’t think that we should take this too lightly in that regard because it does involve staff time to write up these things.

Council Member Andresen I’d like to add something and the idea is Mark’s which was the idea of a concept review. Is this dramatic enough to have us come back in a year and commit to that. I would like to see us do that.

Council Member Franck I think we’ll come back and review it whether we like it or not and I would hesitate to encode that in the ordinance.

Council Member Andresen No, I wouldn’t say in the ordinance would be appropriate but we would commit to it.

Mayor Waldorf You could pass a companion resolution that would trigger the staff to make us look at it again. Can we decide whether to vote on whether to substitute this motion.

Council Member Capowski One disadvantage of B with respect to C is that B requires more staff work and more time for the applicant. The Planning Board has some final authority on certain projects. How is that authority affected by either option B or C?

Mr. Waldon The kind of projects that the Planning Board has final authority over are those which would not fall under this major category that I’ve described as the larger subdivisions or special use permits. So for those project where the Planning Board has final authority, none of these options would affect that.

Council Member Capowski And your answer also include the main campus of the University?

Mr. Waldon Except where there is something proposed on the main campus that requires a special use permit. There are some facilities that need a special use permit automatically like the student activities center but for the additional buildings that we routinely see coming through either by the administrative approval or by the planning board, those would not be affected by this process.

Council Member Capowski That authority would remain with the Planning Board with either option B or C?

Mr. Waldon Either the Planning Board or, depending on the nature of the addition, administrative approval. If I could clarify one answer. You asked would mandatory review result in a longer process for the applicant. I responded yes, I should qualify that. As we talked about that in public hearings we talked about the possibility that with a mandatory concept review that projects would be better designed when they go through the formal process, that glitches, problems might be caught early and that there might be fewer revisions. But it clearly would an another step in the process.

Council Member Franck I just wanted to point out that although this does require an additional staff member I think that additional staff member is going to come regardless.

Mayor Waldorf So this motion has been made and seconded. So let’s vote on whether to substitute option B for option C.

THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE OPTION B FOR OPTION C WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 6-1 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI VOTING NO.

Mayor Waldorf noted that the main motion on the floor was option B, with joint hearings by other boards as possible to arrange.

Council Member Evans The one weakness that I see in option B is that concept plan is reviewed by the Design Review Board but then when the formal plan is submitted it is reviewed by the Appearance Commission. And so the Appearance Commission will only have a report from the Design Review Board. It seems to me that we might have better follow through on issues that either citizens raised or the Design Review Board has raised at the concept plan when they say, “We want you to preserve this grove of trees” whatever... There would be an element of checking to see that the applicant has done that. I doesn’t seem to me that it’s a whole lot more to have the Design Review Board to do that second chance and then have the Appearance Commission do the one review on site plan and landscaping. I think there’s a weakness. It’s really important that what they saw as the weakness in the concept plan is what they see at the formal application.

Council Member Franck I think that is somewhat corrected by the fact that members of other boards are on the Design Review Board and see it and I think the way of correcting it is too much and I think it creates problems in that the Design Review Board and Appearance Commission have different jobs.

Dianne Bachman Relative to what your commenting on, when the Appearance Commission does not have an opportunity to review projects until the formal application, we have had a number of applicants which we have turned back more than once because they come to us with almost final building elevations and materials for us to review and they are just not acceptable. So we are costing that applicant time and money but they are simply not acceptable to town standards that we have in our guidelines. When an applicant takes it basically upon themselves to come in for courtesy review we work with them up front, we do many meetings with these clients, aside from our monthly meetings to work with them. And in the end I think we end up with a better product amongst the groups and we save the client time. But it’s not a part of Appearance Commission delegated process to be able to review these projects on this concept level. Since we’re talking about this I thought I’d bring it up.

Council Member Evans This does not address that situation either. The only way it’s addressed is that you have a member on the Design Review Board too.

Dianne Bachman But at this point the review opportunity has only been voluntary on the applicant’s part. If it’s mandatory that would help to have that one representative. But the Appearance Commission has experienced people who feel very strongly about following our format so still clients are having to come back to us more than once. To continue the status quo

is going to continue to be a problem where we’re not serving these applicants as we should be.

Council Member Andresen I understand what Pat is getting at but I think this is kind of a balance of concerns and a mixture of things here in this package of option B. I think if we went to more review by one board then that starts getting into the area of dominance by one board rather than having a lot of citizen boards participate. I’m more concerned about not having one board be preeminent. B is already a compromise. I feel more comfortable with C. I’m trying to embrace this new concept of a concept early on with the idea that it won’t add another layer of bureaucracy. That it will actually end up making it easier for developers. If it doesn’t, in a year, I think we ought to abandon it.

Council Member Brown I just want to make sure that we’re all in agreement regarding a resolution when this comes back to us and that when this comes back to us that there at least be a resolution that this comes back for review in a year.

THE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10, INCLUDING OPTION B, WAS ADOPTED.

A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ON CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND REFER THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS (96-9-10/R-10)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is considering changes to development review process; and

WHEREAS, the Council has selected an option for change to the development review process; and

WHEREAS, the option selected by the Council is Option b described in the Council Memorandum of this same date;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council that the option described above is hereby referred to the Development Ordinance Text Amendment process and referred to the following advisory board for review and recommendation:

Ø Appearance Commission

Ø Design Review Board

Ø Planning Board

Ø Transportation Board

Ø Parks and Recreation Commission

Ø Greenways Commission

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that a Public Hearing to consider this Development Ordinance Text Amendment is hereby scheduled for Monday, November 18, 1996.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

Item 8: Unit Pricing Peer Matching Voucher Program

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

A RESOLUTION STATING THE COUNCIL’S GENUINE INTENT TO CONSIDER A UNIT BASED PRICING SYSTEM FOR THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (96-9-10/R-11)

WHEREAS, a unit based pricing program was considered as a solid waste prevention strategy in the recently completed integrated solid waste management study; and

WHEREAS, the Council has expressed interest in obtaining additional information on unit based pricing programs prior to implementing one within the Town of Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, the expert knowledge and experience of similar communities that have implemented unit based pricing could be an invaluable resource in designing a unit based system for Chapel Hill;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it has a genuine intent to further consider implementation a solid waste unit based pricing program and that it directs the Town Manager to submit an application for the “Unit Pricing Peer Matching Voucher Program.”

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

Item 9: Rescheduling of Public Hearings for Southern Village Developments

Mayor Waldorf This is essentially just rescheduling public hearings on Southern Village because all the information is not in.

Council Member Andresen I would just like to make sure that at the relevant time that we make sure that we have good maps of where the wetlands are located in the Southern Village area.

Council Member Franck I would like to move that the public hearings on the Southern Village special use permit, master land use modifications planning and rezoning be recessed until

October 16,1996 for reports 1 - 4 and October 28 for reports 5 - 8.

Town Attorney Karpinos I’m sorry I think the only motion that’s in order are 1 - 4 because 5 -8 are not ....

Council Member Franck Okay, we’re not in hearing for those. I move that we recess the public hearing for reports 1 - 4 to October 16^th, 1996. Council Member Chilton seconded the motion.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 10: Update on Northwest Small Area Plan

Mr. Waldon The process is stalled and we ask that the council consider unstalling it. The chronology about the Town’s northwest plan is in your packet. The last formal action that was taken on it was last fall at a work session of the assembly of governments. The decision was made to defer any action on the Northwest small area plan until a decision was made on the green tract that we jointly own. Then the decision about what to do with the green tract was put off pending all of these other decisions we’ve been having about landfill and alternatives to landfill. We believe that we need this plan or we need some policy guidance for this northwest area of town. We’re asking that the council take some steps to move this along. And our suggestion to you is that you ask for some policy statement to be made about the green tract so that we can move along of the consideration of the northwest area plan.

Mayor Waldorf I’m very much in favor of this and want us to do this except I don’t understand why we would wait until January 1 to get our recommendation back from the Landfill Owners Group.

Council Member Chilton I see the opposite point of view in that I don’t see any prospect of us having any profound answer even by January1. It doesn’t seem likely tome. I actually think that this might not be the best of options that the staff identified here. I think appointing an inter-government work group might be more helpful. I’m not trying to delay this but I don’t know whether the landfill owners group is the right group of people to be making this recommendation. I don’t see much prospect for the landfill owners group having a lot of uses for the green tract in the future. Maybe the other members of the group feel differently. Except that Pat has opened this question up tonight about whether a cell or two could be opened on the green tract but I think that we’ve pledged, in a non-binding way not to do that. I think we can move forward with this northwest area planning process without knowing all these answers to all these questions. It’s not really up to the landfill owners group what to do with the Green tract.

Council Member Brown I know that we did hear from the state one time during the landfill search process, saying that the Green tract was not useable as a landfill because of the airport. I don’t know if they would say the same thing again. We were requested by the governing bodies

that own this for the landfill owners group to discuss it. We had planned to have the next assembly of governments discuss this but since that’s not going to be happening we could at least open some preliminary discussion about what are the prospects for this. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be landfill related. We could just discuss the various options to bring forth at the next assembly of governments meeting where I hope we would discuss this. This would at least get it moving.

Council Member Chilton Another possibility is that if you want just a cursory reaction from the Landfill Owners Group, I guess you can get that before January 1, 1997. We can just put it on a Landfill Owners Group agenda. My impression is that I don’t know of any Landfill Owners Group member who has any great designs or plans of what we’re going to do with the Green tract.

Mayor Waldorf As I recall the county asked us to shelve the northwest area plan until the landfill site was picked.

Council Member Chilton And my comment at the time was that was a bad idea because I didn’t know when that was going to happen. I’m still not sure that’s really relevant.

Mayor Waldorf I think we ought to find a way to move ahead with the northwest area plan or we will have lost all that work and people are going to come with development applications under antiquated.

Council Member Evans Under existing zoning which is what we’ve already seen and we’ve lost some of the opportunity already and there’s going to be more.

Council Member Capowski We, the three governments, bought the Green tract as a voluntary purchase, it was not a condemnation, right? And so we have the right to use it anyway we want. It doesn’t have to be used for landfill related stuff.

Town Attorney Karpinos It’s in joint ownership. The owners are going to have work out how it’s going to be used or the interest will have to be otherwise distributed.

Council Member Capowski But there’s no legal reason that says this piece of property has to used for something to do with the landfill.

Town Attorney Karpinos I don’t believe there was anything in the deed that restricted its use. In the northwest area plan right now is in proposal and so as development is occurring it is occurring in the old zoning. How much development is occurring? How many proposals have been occurring and how many do you see in the next year?

Mr. Waldon There is considerable pressure, in my opinion, for policy guidance here. We have a number of property owners, particularly along Eubanks Road, who have been sitting on the fence waiting to know what is going happen out there. We have had recently a couple of pieces of property come in... The Windsor Park subdivision was just outside the area plan but it’s relevant. We’ve had considerable interest in Chapel Hill North and what’s happening there. Had a subdivision on the west side of the road in the vicinity... We routinely receive inquiries about what’s going on there. I can say that there is definitely interest.

Council Member Capowski So you’re message is if we believe in the northwest area plan we better adopt it soon or it’ll be too late to adopt it. It won’t have much affect when we adopt it.

Mr. Waldon That’s our recommendation to you. Yes.

Council Member Brown There isn’t any need for the Landfill Owners Group to discuss this necessarily as the landfill but to discuss it because we have the three governing bodies who own this represented on there. We have three representatives who could at least discuss this bring it forward and we don’t necessarily have to have this by the date but this would be a discussion point, a beginning point to refer it to the landfill owners group and ask for some recommendation and that could include some sort of process for getting at it. We don’t have to have the Jan. 1 date. We can have it before that.

Council Member Chilton When would you like to have a recommendation? I’ve changed my mind. I think we can have it to you very fast.

Mayor Waldorf I don’t see a reason to hold up the northwest area plan because the Green tract hasn’t been decided.

Council Member Chilton Realistically from our time frame on the landfill owners group we could bring it up tomorrow to put it onto our next agenda. Shall we say Nov. 1, 1996.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 12, WITH A FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE GREENE TRACT BEING MADE TO THE COUNCIL BY NOVEMBER 1^ST.

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE LANDFILL OWNERS GROUP MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE FUTURE USE OF THE GREENE TRACT BY JANUARY 1, 1997 (96-9-10/R-12)

WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's role to comprehensively plan for the Town and its future growth areas; and

WHEREAS, in 1989, the Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Chapel Hill and selected three smaller areas for further study; and

WHEREAS, on January 25, 1993, the Council established the Northwest Small Area Plan Work Group and charged it with the role of developing a Small Area Plan for the Council's

consideration; and

WHEREAS, on December 20, 1994, the Northwest Small Area Plan Work Group recommended a Northwest Small Area Plan for the Council's consideration; and

WHEREAS, on March 1, 1995, the Council held a public hearing on the Recommended Plan; and

WHEREAS, on August 30, 1995, the Council held a work session on the recommended North-west Small Area Plan with representatives from Carrboro and Orange County; and

WHEREAS, on October 11, 1995, the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a joint planning area work session and concluded that the Northwest Small Area Plan should be put on hold for six months until the Landfill Owners Group has recommended a new landfill site and then made recommendations on the future use of the Greene tract; and

WHEREAS, the Landfill Owners Group has recommended a new landfill site and the Northwest Small Area Plan has been on hold for eleven months; and

WHEREAS, the Greene Tract is jointly owned by the Town of Chapel Hill, Orange County and the Town of Carrboro;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests that the Landfill Owners Group make a recommendation regarding the future use of the Greene tract by November 1, 1996, permitting the Council to request that the Northwest Small Area Plan be considered at an April, 1997 Joint Planning Area Public Hearing.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

Item 11: Designation of Council Delegates for NLC and NCLM Conferences

Mayor Waldorf The next item is selecting delegates to the National League of Cities and the North Carolina League of Municipalities annual conferences. Who’s going to the League of Municipalities Meeting? Joyce and Pat? Let’s move this by acclamation. Who’s going to the League of Cities? I’ll go.

Council Member Franck I move Resolution 13, filling in the blanks as follows ; Joyce as the voting delegate to the NC League of Municipalities, Pat as the alternate and Rosemary as the voting delegate to the National League of Cities and Council Member Pavao as the alternate. Council Member Chilton seconded the motion. The motion was adopted unanimously.

Council Member Andresen I forgot about that resolution and I was wondering in the interest of time if we could ask the manager to come back with an item on the consent agenda on the resolution to agree to review the design review process in a year and have it come back on a

consent agenda. How would the council feel about that?

Mayor Waldorf Tonight we called a public hearing. We haven’t even agreed to a change yet. Okay, we had items on the consent agenda that were moved. Item A1 Parking restrictions on private property, I think Council Member Franck and Council Member Brown wanted this pulled for discussion.

Item 12: Parking Restrictions on Private Property

Council Member Brown My concern is that this is coming to us in February, that’s six months and then we will have to have a public hearing and that won’t get back to us.. and so that will be a long time before any sort of action will be taken. I would like to request if the council is in agreement to have the staff bring this back sooner than February 12th. This is a growing area of concern in the neighborhoods that are close to the university.

Town Manager Horton I’d like an opportunity, in light of recent events, to review our work load before we can commit to coming back earlier. With the changes that the council made tonight tentatively on the hearing schedule I’m a little confused as to where we stand. I’d like to bring a report to you at the next meeting.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO TABLE THE MATTER TO SEPTEMBER 24^TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Item 13: Joint Funding Agreement for Shaping Orange County’s Future

Council Member Capowski I’m very much in support of this effort. One of my themes for the next three years is going to be the double taxation of Chapel Hill citizens to pay for projects that are partially Chapel Hill and partially Orange County. The formula that we’re given on the bottom of page one says that Orange County will fund 57% of the project, Chapel Hill 32% and Carrboro 10.5%. But that ‘s not really the reality because we in Chapel Hill pay 45% of the County taxes and if I did my mathematics right and Chapel Hill citizens pay all of the 32% plus 45% of the 57% then we in Chapel Hill are paying for 58% of this project. Now that’s double taxation and that’s not fair and I’m going to go down to the Chapel Hill Harbor on Morgan Creek and throw out a Earl Gray Tea bag.

I would like to move an amended resolution R6.2 and my amendment is that Chapel Hill citizens will pay no more than 45% of the cost of this study including both the Chapel Hill portion plus their share of the Orange County portion.

Council Member Brown Is there a second to that motion?

Council Member Andresen I share Joe’s point and I agree with it but I don’t think that that action will help us in the long run.

Council Member Evans I think we may get our money’s worth because there’s information from this that we can be using when we update our comprehensive plan. We are going to need the facts and figures and the demographic studies that they’re going to do.

Council Member Capowski I no way am I against the study. I think we’re paying too much.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6.2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ATTACHED JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY’S FUTURE PROJECT (96-10-10/R-6.2)

WHEREAS, the purpose of the Shaping Orange County’s Future Initiative is to develop a coordinated, long-term plan for the entire County; and

WHEREAS, elected representatives of local governments in Orange county have directed the Managers of the Towns and County to make a proposal for staffing and cost sharing for the project; and

WHEREAS, the Orange County Attorney has prepared a draft joint funding agreement for the Shaping Orange County's Future project which specifies the conditions of the funding arrangement and the expected project costs; and

WHEREAS, the County Board of Commissioners reviewed the draft agreement on June 26, 1996 and referred it to the Chapel Hill Town Council and Carrboro Board of Aldermen for their consideration; and

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Manager and Attorney have reviewed the draft joint funding agreement and believe that it si sufficient for use with the Shaping Orange County’s Future project;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the manager to execute the attached Joint Funding Agreement, among the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County, for the Shaping Orange County’s Future initiative; and to act as the authorized representative of the Town to make minor modifications to ensure conformance of the contract among the three jurisdictions.

This the 10th day of September, 1996.

The meeting concluded at 10:07 P.M.