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

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1996

Meeting Agenda

1. Public Forums

a. Transportation Priorities (Page 2)

b. Funding and Management of Public Access on Cable TV System (Page 4)

c. UNC Assessment of Finley Golf Course (Page 14)

2. Ceremonies (None)

3. Petitions by Citizens and Council (Page 27)

4. Consent Agenda and Information Reports (Page 31)

5. Items Deferred from September 24th Meeting (Page 38)

6. Adoption of East Franklin Street Corridor Plan (Page 48)

7. Southern Village Development Applications (Page 57)

8. UNC proposed Rizzo Conference Center (Page 59)

9. Expedited review of Pavilion Development Application (Page 72)

10. U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study (Item 4.1a, Page 76)

Mayor Waldorf called the meeting to order. Council Members in attendance were Council Member Andresen, Council Member Brown, Council Member Capowski, Council Member Chilton, Council Member Evans, Council Member Franck and Council Member Pavao. Also in attendance Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentime Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Planning Director and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Mayor Waldorf

Good evening, this regular meeting of the Town of Chapel Hill will come to order. We have no ceremonies this ceremony. We have, however, a very long agenda. We have three public forums. We have several items that the Council did not decide on September 24^th and we have items that were regularly scheduled for this evening so there’s a real need for us all to be as concise as we can with our comments and as focused as we can be in our discussion so I ask everyone to please observe the time limit. I guess the first item tonight is a public forum. We have three public forums. They are on transportation priorities, funding and management of the public access programming on the cable TV system and on the University’s environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact Phase 1 of the Finley Golf Course expansion and relocation of playing fields. The format for each forum will be the same. We will have a very brief introduction by the Town Manager followed by comments from citizens and comments and questions by the members of the council and then presumably a referral to the manager and the staff for their follow up recommendation. So if we could then let’s move on to item #1 which is transportation priorities. Mr. Manager?

Item 1a: Public Forum on Transportation Priorities

Town Manager Horton

Madam Mayor and members of the Council. In the spirit of being brief and concise I would call on David Bonk, Transportation Planner to make a brief report.

David Bonk, Transportation Planner

You have before you a memorandum which summarizes the process which we are currently in to develop a priority list of projects for submission to the transportation advisory committee as they begin the process of developing the FY1998-2004 transportation improvement program. For your information we have included several items including a list of the priority list that you adopted last October which was submitted to the Transportation Advisory Committee and on that list we have made notations referring to the status of various projects that are in that list if they have either been funded partially or fully or there’s an anticipation they would be funded. I would point out that this information is contingent upon the approval of this year’s, 1997 - 2003 TIP, which has been approved by the regional authority and submitted to the state for their review and approval. So some of the notations on the list are contingent upon that approval of the state which we do expect. The Transportation Board and Planning Board in addition to the Greenways Committee have reviewed the list that you adopted last year and your recommendations about changes to that list and you have those Transportation Board and Planning Board as part of your packet and the Greenways Commission list, I believe was distributed to you prior to this meeting. I’d be happy to answer any questions related to the information in the packet.

Council Member Brown

It says for the #2 project, the South Columbia Street project, that mentions a partial project funding is $1.6 million. Could you tell us what the $1.6 million is for and how partial it is?

David Bonk, Transportation Planner

Well, based on the Council’s approval of the description this is included as #2 which includes improving Manning Drive bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. We believe that scope includes pedestrian, bicycle accommodations and intersection improvements where necessary along South Columbia Street. It would not include a widening of the road or more roadway capacity. The $1.6 million allocation, we’ve identified as partial simply because we don’t have a good cost estimate for what those improvements would be.

Mayor Waldorf

Are there any other questions? The list that I have indicates there is no one in the audience who wishes to speak on this item. Is that correct? Did you wish to speak? I’m sorry, it’s not reflected here. Come forward please.

Ed Harrison

I’m Ed Harrison of 58 Newton Drive. I believe we can speak to specific projects. I haven’t seen the current list that you have. I wanted to come back as I have every year for about four years and support the item which is bike lanes on Pope Road which is, effectively an extension of Ephesus Church Road at the eastern edge of the town. I know that one of the Council Members I’m sure who’s ridden that in the last week. Mr. Capowski, I actually saw him out there. I was driving, he was not. I didn’t hit him. I did well not to hit him. Five feet of bike lane which may be more than we’ll ever get is in some cases thirty times what the shoulder is. It is literally down to two inches in some places and this is an area where more and more people have¼ Most of the people who use that road for something besides driving either live in Chapel Hill or are part of the employment base here and I just wanted to keep it on the list. I’m not sure it is but if so put it back on. Thank you for your time.

Mayor Waldorf

Is there any one else who wishes to speak on this item?

Council Member Capowski

May I ask one question of David please? David, it’s a tiny bit off the subject but I think it’s important. On November 5^th there will be a State road bonds on the ballot. If that were to pass, how much money would come to the Town of Chapel Hill?

David Bonk, Transportation Planner

I don’t believe there’s been any calculation of that. I believe that the bond itself is oriented towards the major outer loop projects that were included in the Trust Fund Bill.

Council Member Franck

Joe, I can answer that question. The money for that bond is proposed, as David said, $500 million for outer loops, none of which would go to Chapel Hill, $300 million for widening 2 lane roads to 4 lanes, none of which would go to Chapel Hill and $150 million for paving unpaved roads in rural areas, none of which would go to Chapel Hill.

Council Member Brown

Maybe we should note since Ed asked about it that the Pope Road/Ephesus Road bicycle lane is on this list and it is #9.

Council Member Andresen

On the South Columbia Street improvements, what is being proposed here are bicycle and pedestrian improvements but no road widening. Is that correct?

David Bonk, Transportation Planner

Right, other than some intersection improvements that might be required

Council Member Andresen

I guess we’re talking about $1.6 million. I’m just wondering if those improvements are put in (and that’s pretty high on the list for widening) that that money put is water down the drain, so to speak.

David Bonk, Transportation Planner

Well, it would certainly have to be redone in places. The bike lanes would have to be moved further outside.

Council Member Andresen

I’m not proposing a five-lane section there but I am also aware that that road is heavily traveled and dangerous the way it is.

Council Member Brown

I just was looking on this and realized that the Estes Drive Extension, NC86 to Greensboro and Carrboro, we’ve just had some additional information about cost on that and that might affect that. Haven’t we?

David Bonk, Transportation Planner

That is the section between NC 86 and Estes in the opposite direction.

Mayor Waldorf

Any other questions? Is there a motion to refer this to manager?

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Item 1b: Public Forum on the Funding and Management of Cable TV

Public Access Programming

Town Manager Horton

The Council authorized a franchise agreement with the Time-Warner Cable System earlier this year and as a part of it’s deliberations also instructed us to bring forward a process under which you could consider whether or not the Council should allow the cable company to remain in the public access broadcast business, whether you would wish to have the town begin providing that service directly or whether you would wish to seek proposals from non-profit corporations formed in the community for the purpose of providing that service. Tonight is an opportunity for anyone who is interested to comment on those three possibilities and offer suggestions as to how you might proceed.

There’s funding available as a result of the franchise negotiation. $8,000 as a start-up grant and the possibility of an addition public access fee that would be imposed on each subscriber, collected by the company, paid to the town and then would be available to the town council to use as a grant towards the terms of a performance agreement to help support a public access service. That initial amount could be as much as $0.65 per month if the Council so desired and it could grow to as much as $1.00 per month over a period of years. We believe that although this would provide a reasonable level of start-up funding that there might be a significant benefit to joining forces with the others in our community of Orange County and there have been some informal discussion about that among persons who are interested in this issue as I understand it. By combining resources it might be possible to provide a significantly better service. Those are the primary points that I would make.

Mayor Waldorf

Let’s hear from citizens now.

Eva Metzger

Good evening, I’m Eva Metzger and I’ve been a resident of Chapel Hill for 33 years and I care a lot about this community and feel strongly that the citizens of the community ought to have a voice and I feel that community access television could be that voice. I urge you to vote to seek a non-profit corporation to manage community access television in Chapel Hill.

It is a mode of management most likely to result in a successful program. We have visited facilities in Winston-Salem and Greensboro, both of which are run by non-profits. They are just beginning their operations, Winston-Salem a year ago and Greensboro this fall and their plans and programming are very exciting. If any of you are going to be in those cities in the near future, I hope you will stop by and visit those facilities. I also urge you to vote to fund community access television at the $0.65 level of funding. And most importantly, I ask you to ask Time Warner to start putting aside these sums at once so that they can be accumulating so that whatever organization you choose to run the channel will have as much funds as possible. Thank you.

Catherine Leith

Hello, I’m Catherine Leith of 120 Muir Lane. I work with seniors through the Department on Aging and a year ago we started a seniors video group. The purpose is to film programs that we have at the senior centers so that they’re available to families, groups and can be broadcast on cable access television. With the increase of people who are aging and their families we feel this is increasingly important to get information out on the aging process and what is available to these people. Last year we had about 25 programs broadcast. We currently have a dream to have a regular program on public access television, a weekly program. This would mean 52 programs.

We would like to take advantage of the resources of people in the community, through the universities, for the interviews and other programming and also through the Ship Seniors Health Insurance Program. When we are able to put together a program, it would not only be available locally in Orange County, but also there are other community access channels that are interested in it throughout the state. Our constraints now are that we have seniors with limited access to facilities so we would like to have more access to the cameras and to the editing equipment as well as to studio time and space. We do not require any kind of funding from the seniors. We don’t ask anyone to contribute anything financially and I think this is important so that everyone can participate. Thank you.

Bob Joesting

Good evening, I’m Bob Joesting and it feels like I’ve spent most of the last five years or so looking at cable television with an awful lot of the time looking at public access and I’ve looked at facilities around the country, spent a lot of time on the Internet and I’m here to ask you two things. First is, I’d like you to read the memo which says a lot more than I’m going to say. The second one is I’d like you to have a non-profit handle public access for Chapel Hill and third I’d like you to initiate the pass through $0.65 as soon as practical so that there will be enough start-up money so that we can have Chapel Hill have the best public access facility in the country. Thank you.

Mayor Waldorf

Thank you Bob. Thank you for giving us this in writing.

Dan Coleman

This evening I’m speaking on this issue representing the Orange County Greens. The Greens urge you to begin the funding or the acquisition of funds for public access programming. The Greens, as a political organization, understand that the strength of our democracy depends on the free flow of ideas and that as we enter the 21^st century the public spaces available for that free flow are diminishing. Public access television holds great prospects for alleviating that in our community. Also, it’s a leveler. It’s accessible to people regardless of their educational level, regardless of their income level. We believe that public access television has the potential to be an important part of our democratic process in the years ahead and urge you to support it. Thank you.

Marty Rosenbluth

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’m an independent documentary film maker. My work has appeared on television both nationally and internationally and I also produce videos for the state of North Carolina, UNC and local and international non-profits and I teach video at Piedmont Community College. The reason why I support a community-based

non-profit running cable access is it’s the only group that has as its primary goal producing, teaching, encouraging community cable access programming. I doubt that Time Warner, with all it bloated billion dollar budget has an executive vice president in charge of improving cable access programming. Similarly, I think the town doesn’t really have the urge or the desire to take over this role either. A community based non-profit, however, could call on resources that are available in the community.

We have a very lively and very active film and video community in this town and many people, like myself, if there was a community based non-profit that comes from the community and composed by people from the community would be more than happy to donate our time and our energy to a non-profit organization. They would only really need to call upon it. I also think that it’s important that this community based non-profit be adequately funded. I don’t think that $.65 is a whole lot to insure free speech and democracy in the town. Thank you very much.

Tom Schafer

I’m Tom Schafer of 2325 Honeysuckle Road here in Chapel Hill. I just want to make the comment that there’s a variety of reasons why I think the Town would do the right thing if they were to move the public access programming over to a non-profit organization. Did Greg Feller provide you the charts that I gave him regarding this issue before the meeting? Okay, well let me go over the main points on the charts. Basically, Chapel Hill is very under-served by television. All of the stations, the broadcast stations, serve the larger communities that they’re located in very well, not Chapel Hill. In fact, the majority of coverage of Chapel Hill has to do with UNC sports and that’s about it. The public television, on the other hand, has the charter of serving the entire state, not the community of Chapel Hill. If this issue is not addressed, a number of things are going to go wrong with regard with being able to reach the community through television.

Primarily, with the advent of direct broadcast satellites, if there is no community focus in television more and more people are going to put 18-inch dishes on their houses and we will no longer have the opportunity to reach them through public access if we don’t move out smartly. Also, the younger generation utilizes print media less than video and we have to ¼ The average American watches 25 hours of television a week these days and that compares to less than 2 hours spent reading. So, that’s where the media is and everybody knows it and we have to take advantage of that fact. So it’s important that we be able to communicate with our people.

Also, there are some new economics of video happening that we could take advantage of right now. Every year the cost of producing broadcast quality video drops by a factor of 2. The tools are becoming more and more powerful. Soon everybody who has a current desktop computer can produce, edit and compress video on their desktops. I mean, the Intel MMX processor and the advance graphic ports on the computer as well the new format called DBC make it possible for anybody to affordably produce television.

Also there’s a bandwidth revolution coming where essentially you’re going to have an unlimited number of channels and now the question is how are we going to use them. Anyway, cable operators are resisting this and the reason that they do is that they realize that more public access quality public access limits the audience that they have for their commercial programming. Time Warner, as you know, just bought Turner Broadcasting and it has absolutely no interest in having quality public access on television. Their interest is to have as low quality public access as possible so that you’ll watch CNN and their other networks that they have on rather than watching public access television.

Anyway, you should know also that Time Warner has sued the government to remove the public access requirement and to remove the commercial leased access requirement. Just so you know, there’s a way you can run commercial programs on television for roughly $10.00 per hour. It’s something called commercial-leased access and I’d like to talk to anybody who’s interested. It’s another way for getting voices on television locally. It’s essential that you separate the public educational government access from Time Warner Cable and there are a number of things you could do to encourage public access beyond just paying for it and that involves adding it to the school programs, parks and recreation events and establishing grant programs and also having a Pegasus Award annually where you give awards for the best public access in government programming that’s available.

Mayor Waldorf

Thank you. Someone for the sensitivity for the value of air time. I can tell.

John Jonoviak

I just recently visited Time Warner in Goldsboro, North Carolina to see what they’re doing with their public access. They have a morning program that’s done by one man that runs from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and it beats out ABC’s national morning show as the most popular show in that town. It works. What I’m here tonight to do is to recommend that the Town direct Time Warner to immediately begin billing the customer the maximum supplemental access charge and that a non-profit under contract from the Town should manage and operate the public access program and that requests for proposal go out immediately. So that public access can be a more valuable asset to our community. Thank you.

Lisa Hammel

My name is Lisa Hammel. I have recently become better acquainted with the public access channel by having the opportunity to talk about campaign finance reform on the public access program “Who Cares?” It is a wonderful opportunity to have this avenue available. To get information out to the public which might not otherwise become available through the usual outlets. For this reason, I would like to ask that you keep this a true public access programming resource by transferring public access responsibilities to a non-profit entity, (we’ve heard a lot of good reasons why we should do this tonight), by assisting in providing financial support for this program, by directing Time Warner Cable to begin billing customer $0.65 per month and by appointing an access committee as recommended by the cable television advisory committee. Thank you for an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

Matt Ryan

I’m not sure I agree with a couple of the last speakers. Just because you have 25 hours of viewing per week and people only reading a couple of hours, I don’t think by adding more access would solve the problem of children not reading enough. I think just because you’re making the technology cheaper, doesn’t mean you’re coming out with good programming. I don’t know about that.

What I do know is that several of my students at UNC and in the several groups I belong to including the North Carolina Media Arts Alliance and the North Carolina Independent Film Makers Associations, we have a lot of programming but we have no place to put it so we have very fine young filmmakers and documentary makers who are learning how to make good documentaries, good socially-oriented programming but we have not place to put it. So, our groups are definitely in support of a public oriented system. Thank you

Vamila Ajendren

I’ve lived in this community for over a decade. As a media specialist, a citizen and a parent I believe in the power of television to educate our community. Our public access now is not good enough. Chapel Hill deserves better than this. Please vote tonight to establish a better public access facility for us whereby citizens can address local issues and increase awareness and involvement in community affairs. Please also vote to fund the operation of a community based non-profit organization to do the job, to run an effective public access, because public access definitely deserves better.

Mayor Waldorf

Is there anyone else who wanted to speak on this issue? Yes, please come forward and speak now and then after you speak sign up with the Clerk so that they can have a record of your name.

Scott Barber

My name is Scott Barber and I own New Context Video Productions that I’ve had since 1990 when I came to the startling and life transforming conclusion that the way to promote positive change in society is to communicate. For my couple of minutes here I’d like to speak from my role as producer for videos for non-profit organizations as I believe there is a tremendous opportunity for non-profits to benefit from the availability of public access television here in Chapel Hill. In that time I have produced promotional, organizing and community awareness videos for several organizations including Habitat for Humanity, the Seeds of Hope Farmer’s Market Project, North Carolina Alliance for Democracy, the North Carolina Minority Support Center, Good Work and recently the Inter-faith Council for Social Service.

I’m currently working on a video for Volunteers for Youth. These are all organizations that I believe have important valuable stories to tell. They are stories of hope of hard work of triumph in the midst of adversity. They are stories of creative solutions to problems and innovative collaborations that are bringing people in our community together do deal with the issues that face us all. The point I would like to make briefly here is that I believe our community would be significantly healthier and stronger if these kinds of stories were told more often, more thoroughly and more powerfully than they are currently told in the mainstream profit-based media. Television news typically provides a one or two minute blurb that can only scratch the surface of an organization’s mission and perspective and it is never written or designed by someone who knows the organization well enough to tell the story the way they would really like to tell it. It isn’t a reporter’s job to do that anyway.

A couple of quick anecdotes. I wrote a grant proposal a year or so ago for the video I did on the Inter-faith council and the grant was declined. When I inquired I found out that they had declined it because they said they were concerned that the video would sit on the shelf. I have heard from several sources that a lot of organizations have videos that never end up being used because of the hassle of dealing with VCR’s and monitors and so on. The Interfaith Council has a distinct advantage though on this count because of its intense network of organizations that can be utilized relatively easily as a distribution system. Once we admitted the proposal taking this concern into account and after an interview with the Mayor in her role at the Triangle Community Foundation, the IFC and I were awarded the grant to produce this video. I also spoke with someone at a conference recently for the North Carolina Center for Non- Profits who is the executive director for a foundation who has traditionally not funded video and he was really interested in the video that I was showing on my monitor at the booth there and he asked if it could be shown on public access and I said “Yes, they could and have been.” He looked like he was considering the possibility of changing the policy of his foundation to support the kind of videos that would really be beneficial to the non-profits that they support around North Carolina. I really encourage you to go ahead and start collecting this fee. It could be an extremely valuable asset to the non-profit organizations of this community and it’s vital for everybody who has something to say in this town to be able to say it on television. Thank you.

Greg Swanson

My name is Greg Swanson. I’ve been in Chapel Hill for twenty-two years. It seems to me that many of these comments are about whether or not we should have public access TV and really you guys don’t have to decide that. What you have to decide is who is going to manage it for the Town of Chapel Hill and it seems clear to me that you have three choices ahead of you and here’s how they fall out in the community that I live in. The town could have its own employees run this and whatever services the town supplies, if your own employees do this, you will have various questions about content and other things that whatever system you use, you’ll have to respond to the community standards, the rest will apply, which ever one of these systems you choose.. But if the town manages this some of the energetic people that you’ve heard here tonight will be here on a regular basis asking you for different levels of service or a different relationship to that service. So one of your choices is you can have the energy of the people that have spoken tonight be a lobby group to a town employee or you can have them be a lobby group to a Time Warner employee or you can let them do it.

After a number of years in town, on of my favorite jokes about Chapel Hill is that it’s ungovernable but what they really mean is that there are many different interests. I’ve spoken to people who are interested in public access TV for the purposes of filming high school football games, rock and roll videos, issues of various non-profit groups. For all of these things, those various constituent groups have interests, volunteers, resources, energy. All of them can participate in a non-profit group in a way that they can’t participate in with town employees or employees of the cable company. I know that you have heard expressed over the last couple of years a lot of dissatisfaction with the way that Time Warner funded their public access group.

I think that if the Town had an employee or a set of employees, particularly in times of tight budget cuts, you would find similar complaints about them. I think the simplest thing would be to turn it over to the people with the energy and the enthusiasm to do the job.

Mayor Waldorf

Anyone else? Any comments and questions from Council Members before we refer this?

Council Member Franck

It seems to me that we have three things that we could possibly do tonight. First would be, as the manager suggests, to decide that we’re going to go with the option of letting a non-profit run our public access cable which I support and if we do that we would authorize the Manger to seek proposals from a non-profit organization. The second question would be whether or not to begin collecting funds immediately through the $0.65 pass through and I would suggest that we merely authorize the Manager to prepare a resolution or whatever would be necessary to do that and bring it back to us in a timely fashion. Finally, a process for evaluating the proposal that we receive from a non-profit along the line that the cable committee has suggested where we appoint an advisory committee to help us with that. I think to various degrees we can move forward with all three of those tonight if we all agree on the first question.

Council Member Capowski

Please don’t interpret what I’m about to say as not supporting this. We’ve just had a public hearing and as we do with all public hearings that are not emergencies I think we should refer this to the staff for the proper return to us at our next meeting.

Council Member Andresen

Just a thought that occurred to me. If we do decide to ask a private group to be in charge of this public access channel, we might think about how we could make sure that there would be some review authority by the town since the town’s going to be collecting the revenues, it seems to me we have a responsibility to the taxpayers. Those that have cable television are paying this tax involuntarily, but I support very much the cause and I just think we should build in something that would encourage responsible use of the money.

Council Member Evans

It seemed to me that many of the issues that were raised were not only local but regional in nature. The issues of videos for non-profit, Habitat, Volunteer for Youth, the filmmakers and the documentaries and certainly the issues of campaign finance reform is a regional issue. I was wondering whether, as our community becomes more and more of a Triangle community whether this wouldn’t be much more cost effective to operated on a regional level. I wonder if it is something that could be pursued through a regional organization. It seems to me that the money could go further, we’d have to tax our users less and maybe the issues would become viewed more widely and excellent programming could be viewed more widely also.

Council Member Capowski

Pat, one of the advantages of using the non-profit mode for running local access is the ease of combining regionally for both economics of scale and the more substantive issues that you brought up which was in our mind the whole time.

Mayor Waldorf

And that ease exists and obtains if what¼ If the council retains some sort of control? How is that made easy?

Council Member Capowski

We will contract with a non-profit organization that will run citizen’s television. Other governments can contract with that same organization, contributing funds to it and having their citizens make programming which is available for their TV franchise as well as ours.

Mayor Waldorf

So what you’re talking about is, for example, something that encompasses all of Orange County, Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Orange County cable subscribers?

Council Member Capowski

Yes.

Mayor Waldorf

Pat, are you talking about something broader?

Council Member Evans

I was thinking broader because I know there have been discussions to do it on more of an even larger regional basis because Time Warner operates in Raleigh and Durham and there’s public access and good programming in all of those communities.

Council Member Capowski

That may well be possible and it might work. We’ll get into the standard turf issues and the standard economic balance issues among the major cities in the Research Triangle. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be great collaboration between the Durham and the Raleigh citizen’s television groups and the Chapel Hill/ Orange County/Carrboro groups. But certainly the most flexible mode to achieve any level of regionalism would be to allow a non-profit organization to run this.

Mayor Waldorf

Is there agreement by the Council that we’re pretty much ready to ask the Manager, as Richard suggested, to draft a resolution to direct the cable company to begin billing the $0.65 per month.

Council Member Evans

I’d just as soon refer all of this to the Manager.

Mayor Waldorf

Okay.

Council Member Brown

I think the point that the public has made that this needs to be done as quickly as possible and the funds need to be put aside as quickly as possible certainly means that we need to have this back to us as quickly as possible with some suggestions because I think that was a good suggestion. If there is agreement to go forward with it when it comes back, I think we need to do it as quickly as possible to begin to build up those funds. I think that we should send it to the Manager with all these comments.

Mayor Waldorf

I just had a couple more points that I wanted to make. I think it’s fine to move quickly to start building up the funds. I think we do need to get some advice on what the terms might be for an RFP. I think that we need to solicit proposals from anyone who might want to put together a public access non-profit corporation. I’d like for the staff to suggest some guidelines for us and have us take a look at those. I support what you’re talking about in terms of opportunities for regionalism in terms of County and possibly larger. I don’t know how that would work. The other question I have is, I’m just real interested in the First Amendment implications of all this because we are talking about members of the public doing programming that, as far as I understand, it goes through no particular content filters that will go out on the public airways on public access channels and I ‘m just looking down the road and wondering about various sorts of programming that various people in the community are eventually going to find objectionable. I’m wondering who they’re going to come to. I have a feeling it’s going to be us when that happens. The First Amendment, it’s my favorite amendment to the whole Constitution. It covers freedom of speech, freedom of expression and liable, slander, privacy, pornography, all of those things. I would like for us to give some thought to how this might play out, how we’re going to deal with that. I would like to have the Attorney address those questions. Other points?

Council Member Franck

I would just like to say I have my opinions on how that should work. I think the agreement that we reach with a non-profit entity should spell out in very clear terms under what conditions they are allowed to choose to not broadcast something that’s submitted to them, under what conditions they would be allowed to censor. I would certainly draw those conditions very narrowly and I would think the only time that it would come to the council for a thing would be when our agreement with that non-profit was about to expire and someone might wish that we choose another non-profit on those grounds. Until that time we would have no say in the matter.

Mayor Waldorf

That sounds reasonable, I just don’t know what those guidelines are yet. Joyce?

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO RECEIVE AND REFER ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS AS WELL AS COUNCIL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER, INSTRUCTING THE MANAGER TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PROPOSED $0.65 PER MONTH CHARGE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

Council Member Evans

I’m not sure that at least the public comments that I’ve heard, and this is a public forum not a public hearing, the phone calls that I’ve received have been opposed or neutral to the $0.65 so I can’t support¼ I mean I can support referring all of this to the manager but to stipulate that we’re going to start raising the $0.65, I can’t support that right now.

Council Member Brown

That is just for a resolution and each council member can choose to deal with that when it comes back.

Mayor Waldorf

I think your motion was to refer all these considerations to the manager for a report back and then we can vote on them separately?

Council Member Brown

Except that I asked that the $0.65 proposed charge be brought back as quickly as possible so we could begin to deal with that. I think that the other matters will take longer.

Mayor Waldorf

So the motion with regard to the $0.65 differentiates it from the other two points only in terms of timing. Get it back earlier.

Council Member Evans

I have voiced my reservations

Council Member Capowski

Cal, may I ask how long will it take you to come back with appropriate resolutions that we could address one way or another?

Town Manager Horton

We can come back quickly, I believe, in regard to the subscriber fee. In regard to setting guidelines for the request for proposal, that will be more complex, I think will take more time. We can certainly consider issues raised as to whether or not there should be an advisory committee and offer some suggestions on that. We could do that quickly. So I think that the most complex part of it, constructing possibilities for an RFP or suggesting a process for how that might be done would take a little bit longer. If you want us to bring you process options on how to get requests for proposal prepared, we can do that quickly but if you want the actual request for proposal, that will be more difficult.

Council Member Capowski

Personally, I would like to address the issue of the customer charge as soon as possible so that whatever we do, if we do it, the money will build into a pot as soon as possible. If that means you have to split it into two separate reports, as far as I’m concerned, that would be okay.

Town Manager Horton

What I think we could do if it would be agreeable with the Council is bring you as much as quickly as we can and offer an assessment of some of these issues and get your guidance on further actions on the ones that we are not able to fulfill immediately.

Mayor Waldorf

I think the motion was to ask to refer this to the staff asking them to address the three main points in the memo that we have; the requests for proposal, the questions raised by the council and the $0.65 per month customer charge. And it was seconded.

THE MOTION TO REFER WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 1c: Public Hearing on UNC Ballfield/Golf Course Expansion Proposal

Mayor Waldorf

This is a fairly unusual public forum. I’d like to ask the Manager to introduce and in his introduction, if you would, please explain the process that we are involved in here.

Town Manager Horton

The Council established, in 1991, a policy that requires the manager to give notice to all council members of materials received from any environmental assessment on a project involving a state agency in Chapel Hill. We receive those notices through the North Carolina Clearinghouse process for environmental reviews, as it’s established under North Carolina law. Projects that receive State funding or use State land or which involve State action such as consideration for permit are required to go through the Clearinghouse review process under the State Environmental Policy Act. A State agency proposing a project that fits into one of those categories is responsible for preparing either an environmental assessment or a more detailed environmental impact statement. Typically, what we receive would be notice that an environmental assessment has been done. An environmental assessment may or may not involve a finding of no significant effect, a bureaucratic term sometimes referred to as "Fonsi".

We did receive information from the Clearinghouse on the proposed expansion of Finley Golf Course and provided that to the Council. The material from the Clearinghouse was distributed not only to us but to a variety of other agencies, State agencies and perhaps some federal agencies, in this case that had an interest in it as a normal part of the process that is done. The copies in this case are distributed through the Triangle J Council of Governments because it is the relevant lead regional planning agency and they distribute material to all of the local governments in the Triangle J effected area. In addition, the Clearinghouse publishes a notice of assessment in the North Carolina Environmental Bulletin to give wider notice to anyone who might have an interest.

There is a period of thirty work days from the publication of the notice in the bulletin during which comments may be offered by those who are interested. The deadline for comment can be extended but only with the agreement of the initiating state agency, in this case it would be the University. Under this process comments can be collected here by the Town Council, certainly by other agencies, reviewing agencies may have comments as well. All of those comments are relayed to the agency which originally submitted the environmental review document, in this case all the comments would go to the University.

The Clearinghouse may recommend that the agency take into account the comments and take action. They could find that no further action was needed, no further information was needed, no further study was needed. Or they can advise that in their opinion that additional information or even an environmental impact would be desirable. The Clearinghouse cannot force this and has no authority to do that but as a matter of general practice, State agencies usually follow the guidance of the Clearinghouse. If there are additional documents provided in response to the Clearinghouse comments, those documents again are distributed to the parties that might have an interest in it. Citizens, as individuals and as other parties, including local governments, I believe would have the right under law to appeal to the courts that an environmental impact statement be prepared. The process for that, the Town Attorney could comment on better than I. Those are the key things that I would bring to the Council’s attention. This essentially is a process tonight in which the Council would be able to collect comments and questions and suggestions from citizens to offer their own comments, questions and suggestions and then submit those to the University and to the Clearinghouse in accordance with the process that is outlined in the State law.

Mayor Waldorf

I think you did a very good job of explaining the procedure which is new to me. The only thing that I might add and underscore is that there may be Council members and citizens who have questions tonight that can’t be answered tonight but I think, as the Manager has intimated, it’s certainly fine to ask those questions and pass on those questions to the Clearinghouse. We have a number of citizens who have signed up to speak tonight and at the request of the town, Bruce Runberg of the University has agreed to come and make just a brief comment about this proposed projects. I’d like to call on Bruce first and then call on the list of citizens.

Bruce Runberg

Thank you. Good evening. I’m Bruce Runberg, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities at UNC-Chapel Hill. I’m here at your request to provide information about the Golf Course project at Mason Farm. Our project architect, Reba, Wrenn and Wagner is also here with me. I’ll take a few minutes to describe the project and describe the process we must follow with the project and finally describe the project’s status. We have a $5.1 million dollar phase project to renovate the existing 18 hole golf course and add 9 additional holes. The first phase of several is to relocate five existing athletic ball fields from nearby and adding two new ball fields for a total of seven new fields. I have copies of these drawing as well as several others that I will leave outside when we’re done. Unfortunately, that ‘s not particularly clear but I do want to point out several things. Morgan Creek, the Friday Center is about 4 blocks north of here, to orientated you. Basically, we’re taking about five ball fields that I’ve described previously from west of here and relocating them to this location and although they are not coming up too clear, there are two softball fields and five soccer fields. Basically, the access is from the north, from the Friday Center entry and there will be a gate here to preclude access. That was a request that we had from a number of community members. I won’t go into any more detail than that.

It is a somewhat straightforward project. All of our actions to date have been in consultation with the JJ&R Plan that we have worked so hard together on for the last two years. The siting of these seven fields was shown on our maps, was discussed often and received little, if any, opposition. The golf course use is clearly a compatible use and was widely supported. The Town of Chapel Hill has no jurisdiction over the ball field project because it is not a building and therefore not subject to local zoning requirements. However, as Cal pointed out, the 1973 Environmental Policy Act requires all state agencies to submit an environmental assessment on a project like this to the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse then sends the document to many designated state agencies and the public, including the Town of Chapel Hill for review. Your public forum tonight is an appropriate opportunity to receive comments, concerns and send them to UNC via the State Clearinghouse, all in accord with established process. Our environmental assessment and its accompanying finding of no significant environmental impact were submitted August 14, 1996 to the Clearinghouse. We are just starting to receive comments as of yesterday. We will address those comments in the coming weeks as part of the normal process. I am not here this evening to respond to those comments or concerns, nor others tonight, but simply to listen openly. Lastly, I might add that I met with two respected members of the University today, Dr. Peter White, Director of the Botanical Gardens, and Dr. Haven Wiley, professor of Biology, who are supportive of the concept of the golf course project including the ball field phase. I do notice that Dr. Wiley is with us. I’m not sure if he will speaking tonight or not. That is the presentation of the project. As I said, I do have detailed maps of the project also of the 27 hole golf course as well as some of the complete packages that were submitted in August. I will put those outside available to people afterwards.

Mayor Waldorf

We have several folks who have signed up to speak on this. I’d like to call on Bill Bracey first.

Bill Bracey

This is good, I at least know that I don’t have to change my remarks because somebody already said that. In case you can’t read this, it says “Save McDade”, so I’m not totally a negative person. This is a positive thing here. I’d like the Council to please send as strong a signal as you can to the University that the entire community treasures the Mason Farm Biological Reserve. The idiocy of the Chapel Hill Herald notwithstanding, anyone familiar with the Reserve knows that the proposed athletic fields will have a very serious impact and effect on the reserve. It’s an awful proposal and it does require decisive action. Predator species in particular, large species and some not so large that are already rare in the Triangle will be especially hard hit by this hacking away at the buffer of the reserve. The State Parks and Recreation and North Carolina Wildlife Commission have said that this is a misguided plan. I hope that that criticism is heeded but just in case please add this voice to the Council and ask the University to take a mulligan and come up with something just a little bit better than this and hopefully with the fields well away from Morgan Creek. They appear to be as close to the creek as they could possibly be put. That will certainly have an impact on the wildlife.

Ed Harrison

Thank you for having this forum. I am aware this is a project over which the Council does not have jurisdiction. I’ve been dealing with SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) for twenty-one years as of this month and I’ve never spoken to the Council about a project that involved SEPA and this is one that is worth addressing for the dual opportunities if gives to raise your awareness or refresh your awareness of the importance of the Mason Farm Biological Reserve. To the Town and the State of North Carolina, I think Council Member Brown’s statement of the sentimental value of the Mason Farm Biological Reserve do not reflect what she said or meant. Mason Farm and the Biological Reserve are classified of state significance as natural areas by the State of North Carolina National Heritage Program. There are three sites in Orange County that are either registered or proposed to registry with the program. One is the Eno River State Park and the other two are Biological Reserve property or Botanical Garden properties which the University has not registered. That’s a pretty short list. I’ll say to be fair, something like the Finley Golf Course is also of State significance since it is the University’s Golf course. Although I’m a lot more likely to play in the Mason Farm Biological Reserve than to play in the golf course. I’d say for someone who’s also been going over there for twenty years, starting from downtown Durham, I didn’t come over because it was sentimentally valuable to me. I came over to wander seriously. It’s a very important place in North Carolina.

To move onto something else that you need to have some awareness of as a town with jurisdiction below the 250 contour. It is below the 250 contour in Chapel Hill, it is what is called the overflow easement for US Army Corps of Engineer lands. That’s U.S. Army. That’s going back to the Dept. of Defense. That’s Pentagon. These are lands that the Pentagon has the most to say about. These are not lands of which they have a regulatory authority only, they own it. Chapel Hill is unique in the communities that are effected by the mitigation lands for the reservoir such as Jordan Falls in not having Corps property and totally Corps managed property coming well into the Town limits. For fifteen years, the City of Durham Parks Department has been trying to put soccer fields on the Corps lands along Hugo Creek. They’re never going to put them there because the Corps owns it.

My first evaluation of the Corps I heard was from someone at the State Parks Department who said ” You know I rent a house from the Corps” and the guy thinks the Corps is God and you can’t persuade him otherwise. I do strongly encourage the Town, on its part, to get the entities here in Town, the Botanical Gardens and the University to work together on getting a solution to this and I think that’s started today and I strongly advise the University to not assume that it has a permit from the Corps of Engineers on land that the Corps owns when it doesn’t have it. For some reason, documentation says that and I believe if you have a permit from the Corps for anything, you know it and if you don’t, you find out. That includes the Town. If the Town ever needs a permit from the Corps, you need to know that as well. This is the US Army Corps of Engineers. This goes back to the Pentagon. We’re all very small compared to them. Thank you for your time.

Mayor Waldorf

Also they’re cleaning our streets these days so¼.

John Kent

I want to pass this book to the Council. This is a book called “Mason Farm to Siler’s Bog; The Walking Adventures of the Naturalist”. It’s got a little picture map in it and it shows the Mason Farm and the old field at the top is the land in question. It’s what brings us here tonight. I want it back. It’s a library book and I’ll get a fine. The book was written by John Teres, he’s a former editor of the National Audubon Magazine. The author of numerous books on wildlife including the Encyclopedia on North American Birds. This particular book I recommend to you because it’s about a special place that’s so near yet so wild. I think what we’re talking about here tonight deserves a bit of explaining.

It would be helpful to say that this is not so much about expanding the Finley Golf Course from the existing 18 hole course to a 27 hole course. It is not a golf course that’s proposed to be placed in the old field that you see in the book. It’s athletic fields. Even that’s going to bring a consequence about something that could actually be on the south side of Morgan Creek. I think a good and fair way to look at what we’re talking about here tonight is golf course expansion to be out for bids in Spring 1997 that begets a big push in Summer 1996 for athletic fields relocation from the current location across Mason Farm Road, OWAS A sewage plant to the old field on the pages of the book. And that, by the way, begets Jordan Lake Flood Storage loss on land that the Corps of Engineers owns a flowage easement. That means they don’t own the land in fee simple as they do around Jordan Lake. They own an easement. That’s a legal interest in the land that allows them, in this case, because it is a flowage easement that allows them to back up the dam and flood the land.

By the way, as of this morning¼.. They have that interest in the land and they will not issue a permit for any fill for athletic fields until flood storage loss mitigation is ¼. There’s a plan for doing that. They’re going to have to excavate every one of the 28,000 cubic yards of fill they propose to put into the athletic fields somewhere and that could be on that south side of the creek. So the way this thing ought to line up is they’ve got to have flood storage mitigation excavation followed by athletic field project, followed by golf course. That’s the way it actually stands up. There’s all this clamor in the Durham paper about¼ It’s all about golf.. It isn’t really about golf. Nobody¼ It’s so close to the reserve. I think the Council should make comments and they should require an adequate environmental assessment. We just don’t have it. It’s to deal with a constraint to do something else. It’s an afterthought and hence we have a very, very poor, inadequate, not serious environmental assessment project that has been submitted to the state clearing house and I think it’s because somebody’s boss doesn’t have it on what the priorities really are.

Livy Ludington

I’m glad that John brought that book and I hope that some of you will read that. It does convey what a special place Mason Farm is. I think many people probably don’t appreciate it, don’t even know that it’s there. And once again, it is threatened. I would hope you would also refer to this letter that came from the Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources and it’s a memo to Melvin McGee from Steve Hall. Steve was partially responsible for the inventory of natural areas that we did at the Triangle Land Conservancy many years ago. That document is probably the most definitive description of animals and plants that are in Orange County that need to be protected. There’s a copy of it here at the Town Hall and I hope you would refer to that to see how special and how important Mason Farm is. This document, the letter from Steve leads us through some different alternatives and I think that’s what we’re looking at here.

We don’t want to be pushing the Athletic Department against Mason Farm. They’re all part of the University and we want these groups to be communicating together. It seems as though the most important thing is that Morgan Creek is threatened and the animals that are dependent on that creek are threatened by the proximity of these fields to the creek. They can be relocated further away from the creek and it sounds as though the communication has begun to try to work that out. The beauty of Mason Farm is that it is such a large place so that we do have animals such as bobcats, mink, river otter that we don’t see in other places. And we are just about to lose those in this county if we don’t protect them. It’s very much threatened by something such as¼ The Triangle Land Conservancy is now sponsoring a wildlife corridor study for the entire Orange County. At that point, you will see once again how critical Mason Farm is to the preservation of these animals. So I second this idea that the environmental assessment that was done so far woefully inadequate and it needs to be examined much more thoroughly. I think you’ll find that Steve Hall has some very good answers to what could be done so that we get both of these. We get the athletic field, golf course and we also protect the environment.

Dan Coleman

Dan Coleman speaking for myself. Apparently last week when Mark Schultz was out of town and Sunday morning the Herald Sun editors ran amuck. You would have thought that you shouldn’t even be holding this forum when you read that editorial. So the first thing I want to do is thank you for having this forum. I think it’s very important and I think you can judge that by the statements that have already been made tonight. Because of the publicity generated by that I was able to obtain the materials that I wasn’t aware existed that were the state’s criticism of the Fonsi finding of UNC.

One thing that struck me reading these materials and descriptions of the flora and fauna in Mason Farm is the value of these environmental treasures. It really places in question the lines that we tend to draw between a golf course and a biological preserve or between a Town and a University. Because really when it comes to the natural world we’re all citizens of a common place. There are too many important statements in the reports from the Army Corps, from the Wildlife Commission, from DEHNR, for me to pick any of those to emphasize this to you this evening. So really what I want to do is urge the council and particularly the University to take those comments and recommendations seriously as well as the statements of citizens here tonight and to act on them in amending the findings that they’re working on at this time. Thank you.

Philip Manning

I’m Philip Manning and I’m President of the New Hope Audubon Society. We are a chapter of the National Audubon Society and we have 1,100 members in Orange, Chatham and Durham Counties. I’m going to be brief and I’m going to be concise but I want to try to put what I think is going on in Mason Farm into somewhat larger context. Throughout the South, we are gradually eating up and degrading our natural areas. We started, for example, with 60 million acres of Long Leaf Pine forest and we chipped away at those. Today, the largest virgin stand left is 200 acres in South Georgia. Consequently, the Red Cicaded Woodpecker, which depends on those forests is a federally endangered species.

Inch by inch we carve logging roads through our national forests. This creates isolated parcels of land. Consequently, many migratory species of songbirds, primarily, which depend on unbroken stands of forest are declining, some precipitously. Here in North Carolina in the Black Mountains, acid rain drips daily on the summit of Mount Mitchell. The rain kills the spruce and stresses the Frasier Fir. Those are the dark trees that give the Black Mountains their name. Consequently, today a more appropriate name is probably the Gray Mountains. How did we lose our natural areas? There are a lot of ways. But the most common one, and the one we are looking at today is to chip away at them. Relocating the playing fields, seven of them, to Morgan Creek would surely degrade the Mason Farm Biological Reserve. Traffic, the lights, the crowds would hurt the wildlife as certainly as the roads in our national forests are hurting the song birds there. We have only a few natural areas left in the Triangle. Please let’s not harm one of those that we do have left. I hope that we can try to persuade the University to relocate the playing fields that everybody’s talking about elsewhere. Thank you.

Pearson Stewart

I am Pearson Stewart. I am a member of the Town’s University Planning Panel. I appreciate Bruce’s comments. My comments still hold very definitely. The playing field’s relocation site as proposed would be a neighbor to the Biological Reserve, an immediate neighbor across Morgan Creek. It is very apparent that no consideration whatsoever has been given to the Reserve in the planning of the playing fields relocation. The planning really is comparable to purposely locating the picture windows of a residence immediately adjacent to the bedroom window of an adjoining house. The Reserve, among other attributes, is designed to be a center of serenity, serenity for people as well as for plant, birds and animals. The road to and the parking areas for the fields would be directly across Morgan Creek from the Reserve. Who says that students use roads and parking areas quietly? The fields will be lit in due course. Unless the students change their nighttime habits, I cannot assume otherwise, the nocturnal habits of the Reserve’s birds and animals are completely ignored. The fields and the associated vehicle areas, even if not paved, would add to the severity of water quality problems of Morgan Creek.

How would these additions be prevented? The fields are the site of a waste disposal area which has a high probability of needing ground water remediation. How would that remediation be provided? The University’s planning consultants charged with making the recommendation concerning the University’s outlying tracts have noted that the field location is the site of historic features, valuable habitats, wetlands and floodplanes. These statements are in a early framework plan. Subsequent plans have only the general undefined term “Proposed Recreation Fields.” I acknowledge that the change was not noted by the Planning Panel. Probably since the alternate plans presented used only those words, unemphasized, omitting all the detail and color used in other portions of the plans. The relocation plan includes access directly along Morgan Creek, contrary to the panel’s recommendation. Bruce has commented on that and changed that tonight.

The plan is peculiar, since a better use of the flood plain area would alleviate, though not eliminate many of the problems discussed. The fields could be moved to the north and provide some much needed buffer. I note that the Wildlife Resources Commissions suggest the need for a minimum of 650 feet of buffer, of forested corridor of native shrubs and plants on Morgan Creek. I urge the Town to push for a better environmental assessment. That ends my prepared remarks. I do have one other question, as a citizen who supports the University very strongly and is a well-wisher of the athletic department. I realize this is a rhetorical question. I wish it could be answered. Why is it that the Athletic Department makes no effort to discuss its plans with its neighbors?

Peter Todd

My name is Peter Todd. I live in the White Cross area and tonight I’m here to read a statement from the Orange/Chatham Sierra Club Group. First, I just want to comment on the speakers who spoke before me and every time I’ve come up here and spoken about Mason Farm which has been a few times since the late 1980’s, I’m always amazed at the defense and the loyal people who come here and speak about what a wonderful area this is. It appalls me that the Council could even consider that they don’t need to make a comment on the University’s plans here. This is such a treasure to so many people in this community. The Sierra Club Group believes that the development to move that athletic fields directly across from Mason Farm Reserve is most certainly going to degrade the Reserve. Anyone who reads the memo from NC DEHNR and NC Wildlife Commission would have doubts about the accuracy of the University’s environmental asset and impact statement.

While the Council may have no legal recourse to interfere with UNC’s plan, there’s no doubt and I think it’s been reiterated by the speakers tonight that the Reserve is a community asset. No new parks and increased open spaces is every going to replace or come close to replacing the extraordinary natural area that Mason Farm is. The Sierra Club believes that the council and we hope that the council feels a moral imperative to speak out against the University’s plan. The Sierra Club respectfully petitions the council to pass a resolution asking that UNC address the concerns listed in the memo from the NC DEHNR and the North Carolina Wildlife Commission. If not a resolution, we ask that the council forward its comments along with the citizens comments to UNC and the state clearing house. And, of course, the Sierra Club’s primary position is a no-build alternative or, in this case, find another place for the playing fields. Thank you.

Monica Neese

My name is Monica Neese and I’m an environmental scientist. I’m here this evening to register my concern about the incomplete environmental assessment done by the University in connection with relocating their athletic fields and expanding the golf course on the Mason Farm property. I’ve also been birdwatching on the Mason Farm Biological Reserve part of the property for more than twenty years and we’ve passed our book “From Laurel’s Hill to Siler’s Bog” around that’s written by John Teres. You can get a good feeling on the significance of Mason Farm to the State of North Carolina to the biological treasures we have here by reading that book. It’s very well written. He received the John Burrows Medal which is the highest medal for nature writing for that book. Last Saturday, the Chapel Hill Bird Club made one of its many trips to the Reserve. As we approached the ford going over the creek, we saw a Great Blue Heron fishing in Morgan Creek. Thinking about the University’s proposed project, I wondered, “Will that creek continue to be safe for that heron and for all of us?”

The proposed new playing fields will be elevated well above the flood stage and will also be immediately adjacent to the creek. As a chemist, I’m concerned possible contamination of the creek by run-off from pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides used routinely in maintenance of playing fields. Will these toxic chemicals run-off into Morgan Creek and then into Jordan Lake? What’s the University going to do to prevent this? Now as is usual on our bird watch, we had several newcomers to our group. They remarked again and again about the beauty of the area and how quiet and peaceful it was. Near the end of our walk, right next to the creek , that peace was shattered by raucous screams of a big Cooper’s Hawk and about 7 or 8 Blue Jays mobbing her. That went on for several minutes until the birds got tired of the chase. We didn’t though. Now if that nearby gravel road on the other side of the creek had been filled with cars of happy raucous sports fans, we wouldn’t have been able to enjoy our bird show as much. But this doesn’t have to be an either/ or situation. There’s room for both. Here’s how. Move the playing fields back from the creek, giving a buffer between the fields and the creek. Don’t use the existing road for access. Drop a road down from the Friday Center. That wonderful parking lot area is large and well-lit and it just a few blocks away from the fields. Then use shuttle vans to take these fans and spectators to and from the fields thus minimizing the parking places needed down there. What we’ve done here is just examine the alternatives. This is the essence of good planning under any condition.

The needs of everyone and everything must be considered. The users of the Biological Reserve, plant, animal and human must also be included in the plan because they too are members of the Mason Farm Community. Thank you very much and I urge you to request a complete environmental assessment before you make a decision for your recommendations for this project.

Leonard Pardue

I’m Leonard Pardue and I’m an interloper from Durham. You may wonder why I came all the way over here from there. I’d rather be watching the Braves and the Cardinals. But Mason Farm is important to me and I’m sure you are learning from all these comments and from other experience you’ve had with the farm what a special place it is. Coming over here gave me a chance to stop by there at sunset, anytime to get a chance to stop by Mason Farm at sunset on a night like this or almost any night, you should take advantage. I got out of my car on the site where these fields would go and most of us would say, “I heard nothing” that is I heard birds and frogs and crickets but not cars. There are not many places in Chapel Hill where you can do that. There are not many places in the Triangle. I hope you’ll urge UNC to withdraw this statement and re-think the project. Pearson said that this about like putting a picture window of one house next to the picture window of another. It strikes me that it’s really about like putting a motorcycle tract next to a daycare center. It’s just an inappropriate mix. The environmental assessment strikes me as superficial and simplistic. The University of North Carolina ought to strive for a standard of excellence in everything it does and this statement falls woefully short of that standard. Finally, about Mason Farm Biological Reserve itself, it’s meant to be a refuge, a sanctuary for plants and animals, a place for important scientific research. Having a 135 car parking lot with noise and activity very near, your across the creek neighbor, just won’t work. That’s more parking spaces than adjacent to Finley Golf Course Clubhouse now. I counted them this evening as I came by there. Please join these many folks who are urging you to encourage the University to re-think this project. Thank you.

Patrick Hobson

Madam Mayor and Council Members, I’m Pat Hobson and I live on Winningham Rd. in Chapel Hill and except for periods when I was called away by the Army or my employer, I’ve lived here since 1941. I thank the Council for this opportunity to speak to you about this proposal of the University to move certain athletic fields adjacent to the Mason Farm Biological Reserve. Twice before you have patiently listened to my urging protection of the this valuable community resource. I have several concerns about the effect on the Reserve of the enactment of this proposal. I will briefly describe two of them. The effect on wildlife and the possible physical alteration of a portion of the reserve. The presence of playing fields on the north side of Morgan Creek will inevitably have adverse effects on the wildlife of the Reserve. Already the construction of a hospital administration building and other nearby residential constructions has caused the Great Horned Owl to abandon Mason Farm as a nesting area. Another large predator, the Red Shouldered Hawk, nests right along Morgan Creek, near where the proposed playing fields would be. This bird would be disturbed by first, the construction, later on by traffic and near the fields would probably, like the owl leave off nesting in the reserve. These are just two of the large readily tracked species. Most certainly many others would be adversely effected. Most forest birds and mammals will not tolerate that much noise and human activity nearby.

The second concern is the possible impact on the Biological Reserve of placing 28,000 cubic yards of fill material on the land to make the playing fields level and properly drained. The Corps of Engineers who have an easement on the property as part of flood control over Jordan Lake, has notified the University that before fill can be put on the site, an equal amount of water storage must be provided elsewhere. Each cubic foot of fill will require a cubic foot of excavation. For 28,000 cubic feet that means, for example, a hole 2 feet deep, the size of 7 football fields. The plans I have seen do not indicate where this evacuation will occur. But the combination of fill for playing fields, particularly in locations immediately adjacent to Morgan Creek and excavations adjoining the creek will surely alter the probability of flooding in the Reserve. Should the plans call for digging such a hole across the creek the negative impact on the Reserve would be large indeed. I thank you.

Mayor Waldorf

I don’t have anyone else to speak on this issue. Is there anyone else who wishes to make a comment on this issue. All right. I’ll turn this over to questions and comments by Council Members. As I said earlier, I’m not sure we can expect to get any answers tonight but it’s a time when we can certainly collect all the comments that have been put forward here and send them on and put them with any comments, questions or actions that we might want to take.

Council Member Andresen

Could I just be clear on the process then. Since this is a forum, we receive public comment tonight. We aren’t in the position of being able to deny this request for a playing field. However, I take it the Council could take some action tonight such as a resolution or something of the sort. Would it be appropriate to take that tonight or at another meeting?

Mayor Waldorf

The deadline for receiving comments, as I understand it is October 25^th.

Council Member Andresen

So it needs to be tonight then.

Mayor Waldorf

I think tonight would be as good a night as any.

Council Member Andresen

Then I would just like to make a comment that I have read the material from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as well as listening to the comments tonight. While we aren’t in the position to be able to deny the location of these fields, I think we ought to make the strongest possible statement that we can make to the University not to locate these fields next to Morgan Creek and the Biological Reserve. Playing fields have their place and are important for the youth of the University and the public, however, what we have here is so precious and unique we will destroy it chipping away at the fringes. I think we ought to make a resolution that would state our request of the University that they preserve this special area, that we object to the high intensity use situated next to the Creek and the Biological Reserve and we ask UNC to submit a plan that protects this sensitive area. In reading this memo from the state, I was really struck by the strongly worded letter from the state of North Carolina. It’s very rare to read something from a state official or bureaucrat that was as strongly worded as this statement. It’s very clear that from any kind of point of view that this is not something that’s going to be at all desirable. I’ll make a motion.

Mayor Waldorf

Would you restate it?

Council Member Andresen

I don’t have the wording yet but I would like to put on the table that we develop a resolution that contains our desire to ask the University to preserve this special area. That we object to the location of the playing fields which is a high intensity use next to Morgan Creek and the Biological Reserve, and we request the University to re-submit a plan that protects this sensitive area.

Mayor Waldorf

If I could just make an addition to that. I was making notes as people were speaking tonight and I think what a lot of people were asking for which seems to me to be appropriate is that there be a careful environmental assessment of effect on the Biological Reserve, Morgan Creek, The Old Field and overflow easement that is of interest to the Corps of Engineers. Those were specific things that came forward.

Town Manager Horton

Madam Mayor, if I may, the Council would have an option should you care to use it to have a resolution prepared for your consideration at your meeting on October 21^st. That meeting is scheduled as a hearing but I think you could certainly take a few minutes at the beginning of that meeting and we could draft a resolution or if you prefer a Council Committee could draft a resolution for your consideration on that evening.

Mayor Waldorf

Okay, that’s a good suggestion.

Council Member Brown

I think that that’s a good idea because I think that the staff has gotten an idea from Julie has said and what the citizens have said and what the state agencies that have commented have said that there is very strong feeling about this and strong enough feeling to ask the University to do another environmental assessment. I think that we were asked also to withdraw these particular plans and re-think this project and I think to have as strong a resolution as possible since we will be making a request. I also think that it would be important to know what the process is from here as far as the University is concerned. I’m still unclear about who will be involved in the permitting. I know that we’ve heard about the Army Corps of Engineers and we have a copy of a letter from them so we have some idea but I think that we need to know something more. I would like to know also how the University plans to respond to all of the comments so far and if we could also have their response. If that would be possible to make that request, just a request that they make a response to these comments that have been made both verbally here tonight and the written comments.

Town Manager Horton

I believe that as a normal part of the clearing house process, any comments that are made to the clearing house would become a part of the record and any response by the University would become a part of the record and be distributed to all the persons who’d received the original material including the town.

Council Member Brown

Could you put that in the framework of the time limit which is October 25^th of the comment period and any possible action. If we could have the answer to that when this is brought back because the comment period will be ending very shortly after we discuss this on the 21^st.

Town Manager Horton

In terms of whether or not that is in fact the process? I’m fairly certain that that is the process but we can check that for you.

Mayor Waldorf

There’s been a motion that’s been made and seconded. The motion is to refer this to the manager to draft a resolution incorporating the comments and bring it back on the 21^st. Would you like to restate your motion Julie?

Council Member Andresen

I would like to move that we refer to the manager a request to draft a resolution to be brought back to the meeting on the 21^st for our consideration which embodies a strongly worded statement about our wish to see this special area preserved and protected.

Mayor Waldorf

Is there a second to that. Moved and seconded. All in favor please say I "I". All opposed no. Passes unanimously. Just one other thing I would like to say is that I would like to encourage all the people who spoke here tonight to send their comments in writing to the appropriate.. the Clearinghouse and to the University because the Town Council can be a conduit and can be a voice but we don’t have any authority on this matter.

Council Member Andresen

Do we have an address for the Clearinghouse?

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney

Chris Baggett, Director of the State Clearinghouse, North Carolina, Department of Administration, 116 West Jones St., Raleigh NC, 27603-8003.

Item 3: Petitions

Mayor Waldorf

Thank you Ralph. All right, let’s move onto item 3 which is petitions. First petition is by Terri Swanson who represents the task force that’s been working on the McDade House.

Terri Swanson

Good evening, my name is Terri Swanson and I’m a member of the Historic District Commission. Petition 3a concerns the McDade House which is owned by and is located on the property of the University Baptist Church at the corner of Columbia and Franklin Streets. The church intends to construct an educational building on the site of the McDade House and they requested of the Historic District Commission a certificate of demolition for the McDade House. A certificate was granted by the Commission in July but we invoked a one-year delay in order to find some kind of solutions for the relocation of the house. We were operating under State law in doing this. The task force, consisting of myself, two members of the church’s building committee and the acting President of the Chapel Hill Preservation Society met and the petition in your packet tonight outlines the compromise which was reached. The church building members stated emphatically at the beginning of the negotiations that they would not consider keeping the house on their property not selling the lot that the house stands on nor having the house moved to another part of the property even if someone else offered to pay to move it. So the petition before you outlines the next best option. The Downtown Commission would like to continue to operate out of the house even in its new location. I’ve also given to the Town staff tonight a petition which has been at the Downtown Commission’s office in the McDade House for the last few days. It contains the names of 173 townspeople who support this option as a means of saving this house from demolition which will happen in the next eight months unless a solution is found.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON TO REFER THE MATTER TO STAFF.

Council Member Capowski

I would like to add a comment to add to our...Cal, as I understand it the reason that the Baptist Church does not want to keep the McDade House in its current location is because it will interfere with their use on larger scale of that piece of property. When this returns to us could you assure us, if it is to be assured, that we won’t simply be transferring one problem to across Franklin Street. In other words, sometime that tract of land is going to be developed. Will having the McDade House there hinder that development or help it? Finally, there seems to be some question about the ability of this old house to withstand the move. What happens if the move fails? Who is liable for this?

Council Member Andresen

I would like to look at the glass of water half-full rather than half-empty. I would like to applaud the work of this group that has made a conceted effort to save an important old building. You think of all the towns in North Carolina that try to entice tourists to come to them, to point out the special characteristics. It is very hard to manufacture history. This is a historical house. It has great character. I’m sad that something couldn’t be worked out on the present site. That would have been ideal. If it cannot be worked out as it appears it cannot be, I would very much like to support the removal of it across the street. I point that out because I think it’s helpful to the Manager to have some sense of where the Council is leaning or our degree of enthusiasm because he is now charged with coming back to us with some sort of advice.

Council Member Brown

I would also like to see how it can enhance our downtown and help with the preservation. I would like to look at the positive because I feel very positively towards this suggestion.

Council Member Evans

I’m sure that many of you remember the sunsetted Downtown Plan Committee which came forth with recommendations which I don’t know whether were adopted or not. But it would be interesting if you wanted to refer to what the plan recommended to the Council for the use of that land because there are other parcels. Now, they may not be the valuable locations of Franklin Street but as someone pointed out to me, the town owns a small parcel of land next to the previous Courthouse now used as our shelter which might be more appropriate for a residential building because there are other small residential buildings located along Rosemary Street. I’m sure everyone would like to be located on Franklin Street but it is very, very valuable property and a big asset to the town.

Mayor Waldorf

Well, we always when we refer something to the staff want them to look at as many options they can think of. Not just one. I assume that they’ll do that. Any additional discussion?

THE MOTION TO REFER WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Margaret Howe and Andrew Pearson

Good evening, my name is Margaret Howe and I’m here representing the Burma Action Group. I’m Andrew Pearson and I’m a student at UNC and I’m here representing the Student Environmental Action Coalition. We come tonight to request that Chapel Hill join with other cities around the country in passing a selective purchasing ordinance regarding the southeast Asian country of Burma. The Burmese people are looking to the international community to assist them in their quest for freedom and democracy. They are being systematically abused by their government through forced labor, village relocations, extrajudicial arrests, rapes and killings and the repression of their democracy movement. Nobel Peace Prize winner Ongsong Sutchee, the leader of the democracy movement, has called on the international community to impose full economic sanctions on the illegal Burmese regime. The United States Congress has recently passed a bi-partisan law which gives President Clinton the authority to impose economic sanctions if there is further repression. President Clinton has yet to take this step although the recent weeks have seen over 800 people arrested and Ongsong Sutchee’s phone lines cut and street blockaded.

We know from the experience of South Africa that withdrawing economic support from a government works. The apartheid movement ended after the international community withdrew its support from that government. Even Archbishop Tutu is calling for an economic boycott of Burma. Each town, city and state that takes action on this issue will increase pressure on the companies who are still in Burma and each company who withdraws itself from Burma will put pressure on the illegal government to step aside. Chapel Hill can join the 7 other cities around the nation including Carrboro who have passed this ordinance and be one of the leaders in this movement. As it did during the dark day of apartheid. You can people before business as usual. We know that these ordinances are working. Apple Computer pulled out of Burma last week due to the state of Massachusetts boycott. Also your action in favor of this ordinance will let the University know that it has local support for passing similar resolutions. So we ask that you study and take action on passing a selective purchasing ordinance concerning Burma. We have a packet for you with more specific information on Burma and the boycott movement. Thank you for your consideration on this.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Flicka Bateman

I live in North Forest Hills and I’m speaking here on behalf of a few of my neighbors who live directly across from the Town park there. They weren’t able to be here tonight. There have been concerns for quite a while about suspicious and what a lot of folks think is criminal activities occurring at the park after dark. Neighbors have been in contact with the Parks and Recreation department and staff and have been working with Officer Burgess of the Police Department who last week made an arrest for drug activity there. You may have seen that in the paper. Our request is very simple. We would like to see a light placed near the shelter in the parking lot.

I understand from the Parks and Recreation staff that that cannot be done without action from you because of the special use permit’s conditions. We would also like to have a cable put up so that cars, after dusk, can not go into the parking lot. The feeling is that if cars park on the street rather driving in there that it would be less attractive for folks to be there. You have such a hefty agenda that I won’t cite all the things that have happened to some of the neighbors property that live there. But it needs some consideration and I would appreciate you’re looking into it.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO RECEIVE AND REFER MS. BATEMAN’S PETITION TO TOWN STAFF. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Andresen

In terms of the agenda is this a good time? Joyce and I had prepared an agenda item for you which is really a list of issues to discuss with our OWASA Board delegates and the whole OWASA board at a meeting that is coming up on October 28th. For one reason or another we didn’t get this to you but we have completed this and will get it to you very soon. However, we also discovered that our meeting with OWASA conflicts with the Appearance Committee Awards and the reception that had been planned. So I guess I’d like to propose that we reschedule the meeting with the OWASA Board to sometime in November. I’m reluctant to do that but if the Council doesn’t feel that it can find time to do that in November I would feel all right about going ahead with the original time. But it will mean that that conflict will exist. I just want to know how you all feel about it.

Mayor Waldorf

I’m easy either way but the staff checked today and the 5:30 p.m. time here is incorrect. The time agreed on with OWASA originally was 5:00 p.m. which would have given us until 6:45 p.m. That was the original thinking and then the Appearance Commission Awards may or may not wish to reschedule because of that. So we can do it on the 28th or before the first Monday council meeting in November if the OWASA Board is available at 5:00 p.m.

Town Manager Horton

Monday November 11^th is not a town holiday but it is a federal holiday. I do not know whether it is a holiday for OWASA staff.

Mayor Waldorf

I doubt it. As Council Member Evans said water has to flow and sewage has to flush. So November the 11th at 5:00 p.m.

Council Member Brown

Could we schedule for here. I believe that the meeting on the 28th was scheduled for the library. If it was here we could just come right to our meeting here.

Council Member Andresen

Is it understood that this is before a regularly scheduled meeting?

Mayor Waldorf

It’s a suggestion that I’m making. Council can accept it or reject it. Joe?

Council Member Capowski

Julie, is one of the issues on your and Joyce’s list, the decision which I think will be a very large one, about OWASA’s sewer assessment rates to the Morgan Creek/ Mason Farm neighborhoods?

Council Member Andresen

We’ve raised the general question about subsidies. But we’ve taken no position in the memo. It’s just a list of questions as you’ll see.

Mayor Waldorf

And if we schedule this for November 11th it gives us time to refine that list.

Council Member Capowski

What I’m leading up to is what are we going to do on November 11th? Meet with the OWASA Board? What you’re suggesting is that we have a meeting before meeting with OWASA where we can get our ducks in a row?

Mayor Waldorf

Is there consensus then to ask OWASA if they wouldn’t mind rescheduling this meeting from October 28 to November 11th. We have to understand that if that night doesn’t work , we’ll have to look for another night. So I don’t think we need a vote on that. Will the staff help us get that worked out. Any other petitions from the Manager or the Attorney?

Town Manager Horton

I do have a couple of corrections that I would ask the Council to approve. One is on 4.1D an item regarding the installation of speed bumps on Robertson Lane. It was our intention that that be on the information agenda rather than on the action agenda and we recommend no action so I would ask the Council to consider moving it to the Information Reports section. Then I note that on item 5C, it refers to resolutions 8A-D. Originally that was to be 8A-B and it ended up being 8.1 and 8.2 so if you would make that correction I would appreciate it.

Mayor Waldorf

Would you repeat the correction?

Town Manager Horton

The correction be that the resolutions are numbered 8.1 and 8.2 rather than 8A-D.

Mayor Waldorf

All right. Any other petitions? Joyce?

Council Member Brown

I didn’t have a petition but I’d like to respond to the Manager’s recommendation changing the speed bumps on Robertson Lane. I would like to have some more information on other possibilities. There are other traffic calming techniques other than speed bumps and I understand the storm water problem here but there are other things and I would like to have some other information about this and I don’t know if the rest of the Council would too.

Mayor Waldorf

Okay, let’s deal with this very quickly. Is the rest of the Council interested in seeing if there are other options besides speed bumps there or not? Just ask the staff to think about it again and bring it back as an information item again.

Town Manager Horton

We can do that.

Item 4: Consent Agenda and Information Reports

Mayor Waldorf

Okay let’s move on to the consent agenda. Anybody want anything removed?

Council Member Brown

Item A.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS (96-10-16/R-1)

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

a. U.S. 15-501 major investment study (R-2).

b. Authorizing manager to apply for federal reimbursement of eligible costs for recovery from Hurricane Fran (R-3)).

c. License agreement with Orange Water and Sewer Authority for installing a sidewalk in sewer easement (R-4).

d. Installation of speed bumps on Robertson Lane (R-5).

e. Revisions to Request from Habitat for Humanity (R-5.1).

This the 16th day of October, 1996.

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT’S AGENT (96-10-16/R-3)

RESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED BY Mayor and the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill

THAT W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager,

is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of the Town of Chapel Hill, a public entity established under the laws of the State of North Carolina, this application and to file it in the appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93^rd Congress) or otherwise available from the President’s Disaster Relief Fund.

THAT the Town of Chapel Hill, a public entity established under the laws of the State of North Carolina, hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance the assurances and agreements printed on the reverse side hereof.

Passed and approved this 16^th day of October, 1996.

Rosemary I. Waldorf, Mayor Pat Evans, Council Member

Julie Andresen, Council Member Richard Franck, Council Member

Joyce Brown, Mayor Pro-Tem Lee Pavão, Council Member

Joe Capowski, Council Member Edith Wiggins, Council Member

Mark Chilton, Council Member

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN TO EXECUTE A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH O.W.A.S.A. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ON A SEWER EASEMENT BETWEEN WEAVER DAIRY ROAD AND SEDGEFIELD DRIVE (96-10-16/R-4)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill desires to have a sidewalk constructed to serve pedestrian traffic between the Booker Creek neighborhood and the Chapel Hill East High School; and,

WHEREAS, said sidewalk can best be constructed on our O.W.A.S.A. sanitary sewer easement between Weaver Dairy Road and Sedgefield Drive; and

WHEREAS, O.W.A.S.A. has agreed to allow said sidewalk on the sewer easement by license agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to execute such license agreement as necessary for construction of a sidewalk on the sewer easement.

This the 16th day of October, 1996.

A RESOLUTION REVISING A REQUEST FROM HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, ORANGE COUNTY (96-10-16/R-5.1)

WHEREAS, the Town council has made commitments to the promotion of low- and moderate-income housing opportunities, in the form of statements in its Comprehensive Plan, and its allocation of General Fund revenues to low-income housing initiatives; and

WHEREAS, on October 24, 1994 the Town Council committed $22,000 from the Housing Loan Trust Fund to be used for second mortgages and site improvements for two lots in the Culbreth Park Subdivision (Resolution 94-10-10/R-8); and

WHEREAS on November 27, 1995, the Town Council changed the 1994 authorization to use of $15,000 from the Housing Loan Trust Fund to construct a house on Creel Street in Chapel Hill (Resolution 95-11-27/R-7); and

WHEREAS, the construction loan was to be converted into a second mortgage loan if financially necessary for the low income buyer at zero percent interest with a twenty-five year term and with the second mortgage due upon sale of the house or conveyance to heirs by the original buyer; and that the loan be forgiven at the end of twenty-five years if no sale or conveyance to heirs had occurred during that time; and

WHEREAS, on July 30, 1996, Habitat for Humanity asked to make revisions to their original request;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the $15,000 construction loan be converted into a zero-percent interest third mortgage for the low-income buyer of the Creel Street house. Payments on the third mortgage will be collected by Habitat for Humanity and will be repaid to the Town of Chapel Hill annually on or before June 30 of each year.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill authorizes the Manager to execute a Performance Agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and Habitat for Humanity, Orange County incorporating these terms.

This the 16^th day of October, 1996

Mayor Waldorf

Item 4.2 which is an information report. Item 4.2A which is a follow up report on a petition regarding the Bayberry Drive Connector. I have six people signed up to speak on this information item. What is your pleasure? It’s 9:05p.m. We customarily try to adjourn shortly after 10:30 p.m. and we haven’t reached the meat of the agenda tonight.

Council Member Andresen

I think we ought to hear from the citizens now but limit the input.

Mayor Waldorf

I think that’ a good suggestion. Is it possible that we could have one speaker on this item from the citizens. They may be on opposing sides. Is the Council willing to go ahead and hear the public comment on this now? Here’s what I would like to request. I will call on the individuals who signed up on this item. If you’re called on and people who have spoken before have said what you meant to say then please just say, “What I wanted to say has been said” so that we can get the issue aired and covered but as Julie said limit the comment.

Mary Ducker

My name is Mary Ducker and I’m a resident of 719 Bayberry Drive in the Woods subdivision. I’m here tonight to speak in favor of keeping Bayberry Dr. open east of Arboretum. There are several reasons why I believe Bayberry should remain open. First, to close Bayberry Drive would violate the terms of the subdivision approval which was granted in 1982. At that time the Town Council resolved that Bayberry Drive would be closed only when there were two means of access to the subdivision. Currently there is only one means of access to the Wood subdivision other than Bayberry Drive and there are no plans to provide a second point of access. Above and beyond the legal reasons that the Council should not approve closing Bayberry and leaving the Woods with only one point of access are very practical concerns. Just since the beginning of 1996, there have been three different occasions when one access was unusable. As a result of hurricane Fran there were about eight or ten trees blocking Bayberry on the easement roadway. Last summer a large tree fell across Rhododendron but Mount Carmel Road was accessible by way of Arboretum and Bayberry. In last January’s snow and ice storm, the only way out of both the Woods and part of the Reserve was by way of Bayberry. Rhododendron Drive was too steep for cars in the snow. When school started back after the snow Rhododendron Drive was one of a handful of streets that the school system would not allow buses to traverse. Had there been only one point of access to the Woods on any of those occasions, there would not have been a way for an emergency vehicle to come into The Woods. I believe that the residents of the Woods have every right to expect that in the event of an emergency a vehicle would have access to our neighborhood.

As I pointed out by way of my examples that would not necessarily be the case if Bayberry Drive were closed. Another reason to leave Bayberry open is the danger that would exist by pouring even more traffic onto the dangerous intersection of Parker Road and Mount Carmel Church Road. Particularly turning left onto Parker from Mount Carmel Church or turning left onto Mount Carmel Church from Parker is even now an act of faith because of the poor visibility of the oncoming traffic which moves at a brisk speed. That intersection should be completely reengineered before any more traffic is required to use it. Finally, I sympathize with the residents of Azalea Dr. who are seeking relief from speeding traffic. However, I don’t believe the entire problem comes from the fourteen homes in the Woods whom they want to single out and send into exile. In fact, I imagine that even some of those who signed their petition have been guilty on occasion of exceeding the 25mph speed limit. I do believe though that some traffic calming techniques should be used to slow traffic on Azalea. A stop sign could be erected at the east intersection of Azalea and Bayberry and perhaps another stop sign could be erected on Azalea Dr. at Azalea Place. These signs would work somewhat like the ones on Elliot Road. It’s not a perfect solution but it would be an improvement.

I’m sure that the planning staff has other ideas about techniques that could slow down traffic on Azalea. Again, I want to reiterate that the Council should continue to uphold the decision they made in 1982 and keep Bayberry Drive open. It was a well-reasoned decision and nothing has happened since that would warrant changing that decision. Thank you.

Tom Traut

Good evening, my name is Tom Traut. I live at 400 Bayberry and since 1980 I have joined with my neighbors in the efforts to keep Bayberry and Azalea from being high-speed collectors for developments beyond our neighborhood. In the early stages we worked with the Town Council in the hopes that some positive plan could be facilitated and I want to point out to you that there are two separate issues in terms of what we’re talking about. There is one, the administrative issue which is in the document that you received from the Town Manager, focuses on approaches for accomplishing the change or avoiding doing this. There’s also a moral and legal issue inherent in the Council’s past treatment of our neighbors. Specifically, you keep changing how things are interpreted when we talk with you. For instance, in 1982 there was never any mention about a problem with a right of way which is currently in your package, a major reason for not doing anything. I don’t know if the laws have changed but you have all the same appendices that I got a hold of. This language does not exist in the old document. An important point that the previous speaker just mentioned was the decision in 1982 when a two access stipulation was imposed. My neighbors and I were very much involved in this issue in 1980 and 1981.

We were at every single meeting and a 1 access¼.. In 1981 the Council voted that this extension would cease after one means of access. This is an attachment in your packet right now. All of us were there. We were not happy with it but we thought we could live with it. In 1982 at a meeting that nobody in our neighborhood knew about the Council changed the language to a two access stipulation before Bayberry could be closed. I have called all my neighbors because I only found out about this on Monday when I got the packet that you have and nobody in our neighborhood knows about this. We can only assume that the Council had a meeting which had deleterious effects on us without even letting us know about it. You can make a change. You can make a positive step to see how you can solve the problem which makes our neighborhood which makes our neighborhood a very difficult place. Thank you.

Jeff Barry

Thank you and I will be brief. I’m President of the Woods/ Laurel Hills subdivision and as president of that homeowners association I would just like to make a request that if this issue should continue in this venue that all of the fourteen or fifteen homeowners in this subdivision get notice of any agenda items that are coming up regarding this issue mailed to them. The second is as a homeowner, not as president of the Homeowners Association. If this issue continues, I would hope that it be part of a larger and much more comprehensive approach to the roads in that part of our geographical area. I think the piecemeal approach on roads may work now and then but a comprehensive review of¼ We’ve heard a lot of roads mentioned tonight, would be very appropriate if this issue continues in this venue beyond tonight. I say that because I’m hopeful that the legalities of this will be followed by the Council and whatever course of action that is taken provides some of the reliability that other speakers have mentioned. I think that as a homeowner also and I hope this is not a reiteration, the availability and the timeliness of fire, police and other emergency vehicles is extremely important for our area. With two new subdivisions opening up it’s going to become even more important with the number of homes. Thank you.

Stanley Black

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I’m also the supporting the position of Jeff Barry and the other residents of the Woods. I’ve been living in the Woods for nine years with my wife and I’ve submitted a letter to the Council which you may or may not have but I’ll try to summarize very briefly. It’s easy to understand why the people on Azalea and Bayberry are concerned about the traffic problems but I think it’s very difficult to attribute the increased traffic problems to our particular area. We have about fifteen homes in our area. More than fifteen homes have been constructed along Bayberry and Azalea in the last 10 years and there’s a new development, Beechridge, going in in their area and I understand that this creates some traffic and that they’re concerned about it but the solution to it is not found in cutting us off from access which we need and have been assured and I believe also that the town doesn’t, according to the manager have a good way to do.

Council Member Brown

That is the last speaker. What is the pleasure of the council?

Council Member Andresen

I’m not sure where I am on this. I must say I was sympathetic to the neighbors who saw the Town Council make one determination then a year or two later saw that situation be reversed and I was acquainted with the Town at that time, following neighborhood issues and I can easily see that that has happened and I’m sorry for that. I don’t know where we go from here. We’ve got our staff recommendation which says that there are several arguments made. One is legal and I have an interest in that one, because the right of way hasn’t been brought up before. The other one, just that the traffic patterns would be difficult to work with if that road closed. So I’m not sure where we go from here. I’m sort of reluctant to have it just dropped at this point.

Council Member Brown

Do you have a motion at this point?

Council Member Andresen

No, I don’t. I’d like to hear some council discussion.

Council Member Evans

I support the staff’s recommendation.

Council Member Franck

I think, Julie, we maybe just need to go back to the drawing board and put our heads together privately and see if we can come up with something that we can bring back to the Council. I agree with that we ought to be able to do something but I think tonight our options are pretty much nil.

Council Member Evans

May I continue and say that I do think it’s important for us to look at the road network in that whole area. I would support that the Transportation Board, the Planning Board or whatever entity needs to look at this, look at it because we do keep doing piecemeal development out there and we don’t have a plan.

Council Member Brown

I would just like to ask if there’s any interest in at least looking at some ways of calming traffic because I think one of the serious problems that we’ve heard is the speed with which cars travel and I think that we discussed this slightly before and haven’t come to any conclusions but I would like to have us look carefully at what possibilities there are or who we might work with. What other governing agency we might work with and see if some sort of traffic calming techniques couldn’t be applied.

Town Manager Horton

I think the Mayor pro-tem’s point is well made because it is any area that is not under our present Town limits and therefore not under our jurisdiction in the normal ways that you would want if you wanted to do traffic calming. I think we would have to work with the state in that regard.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO REFER THE MATTER TO STAFF.

Council Member Evans

Would it be appropriate for the citizens to address the County?

Council Member Franck

The county has no function in that.

Council Member Evans

Okay.

THE MOTION TO REFER MATTER TO STAFF WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Mayor Waldorf

Okay, any other items on the information reports that the council wishes to remove for discussion?

Council Member Capowski

I have a question. Did you all get a copy of the response to the Hughes petition? Or was I the only one who did not get that?

Mayor Waldorf

I got it. Okay, so we’ll move on past this to items 5 A, B and C which are items that were on the September 24^th agenda but weren’t decided that night. Item 5A is the Estes Drive bicycle lane. Mr. Manager?

Item 5a: Estes Drive Bicycle Lane

Town Manager Horton

To sum this up quickly, it costs a lot more money that it was ever thought that it would. $1.8 million. We don’t see any way that we can identify that much money and in good conscious recommend it to you. Therefor we recommend that you refer this to the Transportation Board and perhaps to the Greenways Commission and ask them to provide advice to you on an alternative project.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6.

Mayor Waldorf

Any further discussion?

Council Member Andresen

Yes. The alternatives mean that we not do it. Right? Is that what you’re indicating Mr. Manager?

Town Manager Horton

We don’t have any funding that would approach the dollar limit that would be required and the state would not agree to commit those funds. The most they would commit is about ¼ of a million.

Council Member Capowski

I’m sorry but I’m going to stay one minute on this because I love bicycling but I can’t see $1.8 million for this mile of bicycle path. I want to know why the North Carolina Department of Transportation cannot ever think simple and think small. We asked, on South Columbia Street for bus pull-offs, sidewalks, bikes. They said, “We’ll build you five lanes of asphalt.” We asked for a four-foot wide platform over a sewer pipe and we got a $250,000 trestle. I’ve been on this Council for five years and this is probably not the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen but it’s in the top five. Cal, there’s got to be some way that we can build a bike path along Estes Drive that doesn’t cost a fortune that will accomplish the needs of bicyclists which frankly are quite more flexible than that of motorists. So I’ll strongly support Resolution 6 but we need to keep hitting on the DOT to think simple and think small and think specific rather than changing everything into a mega-project.

Mayor Waldorf

Any other comments?

THE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6 WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE REMOVING OF THE ESTES DRIVE BICYCLE PROJECT (E-2942) ((96-10-16/R-6)

WHEREAS, it is the Town’s desire to improve the safety and mobility of bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the Town; and

WHEREAS, the dramatic increase in construction cost for the Estes Drive Bicycle Project (E-2942) has made the project unfeasible; and

WHEREAS, the Estes Drive Bicycle Project (E-2942) has been funded with $260,000 from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and $250,000 from Surface Transportation Program-Direct Allocation funding; and

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has allocated $50,000 in Capital Improvement Program funds towards the Estes Drive Bicycle Project to provide for the local match share;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs that the Town Manager contact the North Carolina Department of Transportation Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization and request the funds for Estes Drive Bicycle Project (E-2942) be removed and that funds be reprogrammed to another bicycle project in Chapel Hill.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests alternative projects recommendations from the Transportation Board and Greenways Commission.

This the 16^th day of October, 1996.

Item 5b: Reallocation of Community Development Funds

Town Manager Horton

The Council has had before it a variety of proposals and requests in regard to the allocation of some funds that, in essence, have returned to the Community Development Program. They were funds that were loaned out and have been repaid. We have recommended for your consideration that you allocate additional funds to the Empowerment Project. That would allow them to proceed with purchasing the Merrit Mill Square property and ultimately to turn that into a facility that would provide single room occupancy units consistent with the Council’s concern about providing low-income housing. Originally, the council had recommended or rather had authorized $20,000. They need an additional $50,000. They sought to obtain that from the HOME Program and we were not able to find a way to do that and could not recommend it. Originally, the Council was hard pressed on this issue because of a time matter. I think that the time schedule now has slowed greatly and there would be no reason why, if the council would wish to proceed with this allocation, that we could not bring back to you a performance agreement for your approval at such time as the Empowerment folks have met all the conditions that you had originally established and after we have given thorough review of their proposal. There seems to be more time for that now. We also would recommend an allocation of $10,000 to participate with Carrboro in constructing the parking lot on Rosemary Street at Sunset. Drive. A project which Council has supported recently and we recommend and additional $28,770 to site improvements for the Scarlett Drive project. The present allocation for that project is $50,000. The estimated cost of the improvements that the Council would be asked to support would be about $78,000. It would be primarily infrastructure. We thought that those funds would be well justified.

Mayor Waldorf

Before we go to Council questions we have one citizen who signed up to speak on this.

Myles Pressler

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak tonight and I will keep this very brief. I just wanted to pass along that the McCauley Institute has agreed to provide a loan of $115,000 on this project and will issue a letter of commitment . And that BB&T has reaffirmed their interest in the project and has expressed a willingness to lend up to $48,000 along with the consortium of local banks. The Manager is correct that because we now have to secure a special use permit, the project has been slowed down. We’re available answer any questions that you may have. But I’ll just voice my support, of course, for your recommendation.

Mayor Waldorf

Myles, who was that first contributor and the amount was ?

Miles Pressler

The McCauley Institute and it was $115,000.

Mayor Waldorf

Any questions or comments from council members?

Council Member Chilton

I started to read through this and feel tempted to tinker with it but I think it’s better to leave well enough alone. I’ll just move R7.

Mayor Waldorf

Would you consider an amendment to R7 that would tie a performance agreement to that first $70,000 allocation? I feel very uncomfortable not including that.

Council Member Chilton

I was thinking that that was in there. Let’s add in the language to require a performance agreement.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7, AS AMENDED.

Council Member Franck

I read this too Mark and I couldn’t in good conscience leave well enough alone. I looked at the allocation of $10,000 for a parking lot which I think is very important. It’s a sensitive area of the community that could use a little investment and could use some parking but when I look at the work that the Inter-faith Council does on the Employment Project, we’re really talking about a very human need there. They’re taking people with serious substance abuse problems and giving them the skills they need to hold employment and get their lives back on the ground. So I would much rather see that $10,000 go the Employment Project. I think it might be possible that we could find $10,000 in the 1997-98 CIP to fund that parking lot. I’m sure we could hold Carrboro off until the 1997 budget year and be able to do that.

Council Member Chilton

If you’re going to start raising this stuff. The other concern that I had was also about parking lots. It’s about a parking lot that’s not funded. It has to do with the Community School for People Under Six’s request. The County just stepped up to the plate with $15,000 towards that project. I think, last night. But that still leaves them short by $5,000. That’s also clearly a very worthy cause and I don’t know whether there’s a way that the staff can attempt to work the Community School and it’s $15,000 to try and meet the requirements as best we can in the development ordinance and make this possible without any further allocation from either us or the county. I mean it seems like we’re real close here.

Mayor Waldorf

That’s a good point. But people are making points but they’re not proposing amendments to the motion.

Council Member Brown

I would like to know about the waiving of requirements for coordination of a paved parking lot and dumpster pad and how that might help.

Town Manager Horton

I would want to call on Roger for details but generally what we have done is tried to be consistent with the ordinance and the council’s requirements. I don’t believe I could, in good conscience recommend much variance from what has been proposed. Roger, could you comment on that further please?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

The site is not in good shape right now and the ordinance regulations and standard that we would normally apply, whenever property is being developed or expanded, the rules should be applied here. My recommendation to that Manager has been that if the use is going to be intensified at the site, certainly we should be calling for our normal kinds of improvements to make the situation tolerable. As we pointed out in the memorandum there are several features of the site right that we just think are not as they should be.

Council Member Chilton

Let me propose that we modify the proposal this way.

Mayor Waldorf

You’re amending your own motion here?

Council Member Chilton

Well, I guess technically I can’t do that.

Mayor Waldorf

Yeah, go ahead.

Council Member Chilton

That we’re going to put $5,000 towards the Rosemary Street parking lot, with the intention that we’re going to find $5,000 more in our CIP for next year.

Mayor Waldorf

Or in our CD pot next year.

Council Member Chilton

Wherever. That we’ll seek alternative sources of funding for that project. That we put $5,000 towards the Community School for People Under Six’s project and that we reduce the Scarlett Dr. by $5,000 and we put $5,000 towards the IFC program. Everybody follow that?

Mayor Waldorf

You’re reducing from $10,000 to $5,000 the parking lot that straddles the Chapel Hill/Carrboro line and reducing from $28 thousand and something to $23 thousand and something the Scarlett Dr. improvements and assigning that $5,000 to the entitlement program. And another $5,000 goes to the Community School for People Under Six. Let me just see if Lee accepts that. You’re the seconder of the motion.

Council Member Pavao

My question is can the Scarlett Dr. project go forward with the reduction from $28,000 to $23,000?

Council Member Chilton

I spoke with Orange Community Housing Corporation some weeks ago when this matter was before us before and they indicated that a slight reduction in that amount was something that they could live with although they weren’t excited about it.

Town Manager Horton

I did not have that information. The last information I had was that they needed $78,000. But if Ms. Dyer believes she can make it work with $73,000, I’m happy for her only to have $73,000.

Council Member Andresen

My question was of the staff too. To give them an opportunity since they’ve come to us with a recommendation to respond to what’s on the table now.

Town Manager Horton

I think all the choices that you’re considering are worthy of your consideration. And it’s a difficult one to make. What we tried to do in forming our recommendation was to support the council’s housing policy on empowerment, to support the council’s recent decision to assist the Midway community on the parking lot and to support the council’s proposed program on Scarlett Dr. The IFC program has been successful. We don’t have many details about how they would use additional money but we can negotiate that in a performance agreement. The Community School for People Under Six has a proven track record, meets a real strong need in the community and it certainly would be beneficial to them and they serve the community well. So I think all the things that you have under consideration are worthy.

Council Member Brown

If you could comment on what the reduction in the $10,000 to the parking lot on Rosemary St. would do to that project. Would it still be able to go forward with the assurance that we would find the $5,000 in the upcoming budget year? Would it be able to go forward now?

Town Manager Horton

I believe that that project is going to be slow moving anyway because you’re going to be talking about zoning and approval of plans, neighborhood meetings and just in the normal process. I think if we get to a point where we can’t find $5,000 for something the council really want to do we’ll be in pretty sad shape. We’re not at that point.

Mayor Waldorf

We need to know whether the seconder is going to accept?

Council Member Pavao

I will accept these amendments.

Council Member Evans

In my previous life on the Planning Board, I do remember when, at it may be a different situation Roger, when we did not require a church out on the old Durham/Chapel Hill Road, I can’t remember the name, they had a little bit of frontage there¼ We did not require them to put in a paved parking lot right away. They put in gravel. Remember that?

Town Manager Horton

I think what you may be remembering is we did approve a phasing plan for a church that allowed certain areas not to be paved right away but we do expect them to ultimately the entire parking lot.

Council Member Evans

I just wondered, with the Community School for People Under Six, whether there could be some kind of flexibility there.

Town Manager Horton

I think this is such a small project. There’s not enough room for sufficient flexibility to do them any real good. They need the money.

Mayor Waldorf

So the motion on the floor is $70,000 for Empowerment, $5,000 for the parking lot, $5,000 for the daycare, $23,700 for Scarlett Dr. and $5,000 for the IFC Employment Project.

Council Member Franck

Since I got us started on this I would just like to say that I think these allocations do a better job of balancing buildings and people.

THE PROPOSED MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1, AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1996 - 97 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (96-10-16/R-7)

WHEREAS, the Town has an ongoing interest in community development activities in Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, the Town has approximately $108,770 of Community Development program income and previously budgeted funds to be considered for reallocation;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill approves an amendment to the 1996 - 97 Community Development Program to use approximately $108,770 of Community Development program income and previously budgeted funds for the following activities:

· Budget $70,000 to EmPOWERment Incorporated to purchase the Merritt Mill Square property with release of funds for this purpose conditional on staff review of responses to the nine issues raised by the HOME Consortium;

· Budget $ 5,000 to construct a parking lot on Rosemary Street and Sunset Drive;

· Budget $23,770 for site improvements for the Scarlett Drive project;

· Budget $5,000 to the Community School for People Under Six program;

· Budget $5,000 to the Interfaith Council for the Employment Project

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to submit an amended Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to reflect this amendment.

This the 16^th day of October, 1996.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE (96-10-16/O-1)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows:

SECTION I

The projects authorized are the Community Development projects as approved by the Council on May 29, 1996: funds are as contained in the Funding Approval and Grant Agreement between the Town and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The projects are known more familiarly as the 1996 Entitlement Community Development Block Grant. The grant activities include neighborhood revitalization, rehabilitation of public housing, and support of organizations that provide community services to low-income residents.

SECTION II

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

SECTION III

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

Current Budget Revised Budget

Community Development Grant 459,000 459,000

Program Income 0 108,770

TOTAL 459,000 567,770

SECTION IV

Appropriations for the project are amended to include the following for the 1996 - 97 grant year:

Current Budget Revised Budget

Rehabilitation of Public Housing 341,000 341,000

Property Acquisition (EmPOWERment) 0 70,000

Neighborhood Revitalization (Pine Knolls) 45,000 45,000

Site Improvements (OCHC) 0 23,770

Community Services (IFC, YMCA, 20,000 30,000

Community School for People Under 6)

Capital Improvements (Parking Lot) 0 5,000

Administration 53,000 53,000

TOTAL 459,000 567,770

SECTION V

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

This the 16^th day of October, 1996.

Item 5c: Morgan Creek/Mason Farm Neighborhood Sewers

Town Manager Horton

There are two key points that I would ask the council to consider for summarizing resolutions. We believe that it would be worth your consideration to take up the possibility of identifying options and potential funding sources as part of the 1997 budget process for a new policy on contributing funds for future sewer projects including the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm neighborhood. Other areas in the town that might be similarly situated and also for future annexation areas. We believe that the budget process is the most appropriate context to consider those kinds of issues because that’s when the dollars are being looked at in a comprehensive way. We also would recommend that you ask us to prepare a specific resolution requesting that Orange County Board of Commissioners to contribute to the cost of the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm sewers. Now the County recently decided to make a contribution to the extension of a sewer in the northern part of the county and I think they had a strong case for them to consider that and I believe that we can make a strong case if the council wishes to do that, to request contribution of this sewer project.

Mayor Waldorf

We have one citizen signed up to speak, Flicka Bateman, who has taken a break from her labors promoting the bond issue.

Flicka Bateman

Oh no I’m not. I’ve been giving them out every chance I get. I’m speaking for citizens for sewers and saying that we support the two resolutions that the Manager is bringing before you tonight. We think it makes sense to examine the policy and potential funding sources in the spring, not only because that’s when the budget process will occur but because we think it gives you time to hear from and work with OWASA. As you probably know, OWASA has formulated a committee comprised of several of its board members, representatives from the elected government, a citizens representative which is guess who to examine its assessment policies and it rates. I think that the goal of that committee is to be through its budget at this time. I think that the issue of sewer is complex and the more information you have, the easier your hard job will be. So I encourage you to vote for this resolution.

Mayor Waldorf

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your comment. I think the Manager’s recommendation is good and I would imagine that, even though this neighborhood is already petitioned it’s going to be quite some time before the work might actually happen.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8.1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO IDENTIFY OPTIONS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR A NEW POLICY ON CONTRIBUTING FUNDS FOR SEWER PROJECTS (96-10-16/R-14.1)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Council directs the Manager to identify options and potential funding sources, as part of the 1997 budget process, for a new policy on contributing funds for future sewer projects including the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm neighborhood, other areas in the Town limits and future annexation areas.

This the 16^h day of October, 1996.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8.2.

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST OF THE MORGAN CREEK/MASON FARM SEWERS (96-10-16/R-18.2)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Council directs the Manager to prepare for future consideration a resolution requesting that the Orange County Board of Commissioners contribute to the cost of the Morgan Creek/Mason farm sewers on a basis similar to the County’s funding for the Efland/Cheeks sewer line.

This the 16^th day of October, 1996.

Item 6: East Franklin Street Corridor Plan

Town Manager Horton

I wish that I could be equally as brief on this one but I think it’s important that you hear from Roger on this. He will concentrate on the key issues that arose at the hearing and answer some of the questions that arose as well.

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

We enjoyed hearing the comments at the hearing that you had in September. The Planning Board worked hard on this study and then brought these ideas forward. We suggest in the memorandum that the concerns have clumped themselves into a couple of categories. The key one is very clearly whether or not there should be any retail land use on the north side of Franklin Street corridor. There is discussion about scale and intensity of land uses, about traffic impacts and then there have been quite a few comments calling for more specific language, more specific terms in this study before we stop it. I’ll just offer a couple of comments on those issues. With regard to retail on the north side of the street, that’s clearly a policy issue the council has available to it to make.

The corridor study that’s been brought to you by the Planning Board recommends that retail be allowed on the north side of the street but that it be small, limited in scale and there are some suggestions about language to describe what that means, supporting retail use as a small coffee shop, a boutique, that sort of thing is what the Planning Board included as their language to indicate a small scale of retail uses. That leads right into the question of specificity of language. This is being brought to you as a recommendation for adoption as a component of the comprehensive plan. A document like this will never have the kind of specificity that an ordinance will have. It will not have things like floor area ratios or building heights or set backs or number of trees in a buffer, that sort of thing. It is intended to be a guide to decision making and in that context the language is necessarily more general than we might hope for. It’s our planning board’s recommendation to you that the general tone of language in here, the level of specificity is appropriate for a component for the comprehensive plan and that it does communicate ideas and policies that could be very helpful in guiding future decision making on things like rezoning requests, applications for special use permits and so on. We have responded to the comments made at the public hearing with a few recommended changes to the Planning Board’s draft. They are very modest, a couple of words here and there. One that caught my attention where the Planning Board was asking for some suggestions for some traffic calming techniques on state roads controlled by the Department of Transportation that probably aren’t feasible so we’ve suggested that things like that be struck But in general, we continue to believe that the Planning Board’s recommended study to you would be a good addition to the comprehensive plan and the modest changes that we had suggested in resolution A, we recommend that you adopt it as a component of the plan.

Council Member Andresen

Roger, could I ask you a clarifying question? On getting to the objective of allowing a coffee shop or whatever, i.e., very limited retail use. How can we word that in a way that we will get what we want? Would it be possible to get that without commercial zoning? That is, residential actually does permit commercial to a certain intensity. So couldn’t we get that without commercial zoning?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

Well, you can. For example, the property right now is zoned residential. There’s one big piece of property over there that’s zoned residential 5 and you’re quite right that there can be commercial uses to put in there and not necessarily small scale commercial uses. Although, the amount of floor area that you can put on a site like that limits it somewhat. What this is intended to be as a comprehensive plan is just a statement of what the council envisions for this area. The choices are to say, “Yes, some small retail.” Or “ No retail” and then when an application comes in, for example, for a special use permit on that parcel or some other, if it’s proposing some small retail and you have included language in the document that says, “No retail on there.” Then that would be grounds for denial.

Mayor Waldorf

Could I follow up on that? Say that R-5 tract which is a fairly good sized tract, so R5 is a use by right there and some commercial can be incorporated as a use by right?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

As a special use permit..

Mayor Waldorf

By special use only. All right. So then the council would have control over the intensity and location and so on of a commercial and access and all that.

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

Yes. As an application for a special use permit were coming through the process, one of the findings the council would have to make is, “Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan?” of which this or some variation of this would be a part.

Council Member Andresen

As a follow up to that Rosemary, if we did that, would we be in the same position as Meadowmont, where we said we want some commercial but there weren’t any commercial zones handy in the special use except for the neighborhood commercial which allows a huge amount of square footage. My question to you is, can we do it without having to go that route? I just want to be sure that by providing some limited retail that we’re not putting the town or council in the position of having to choose between neighborhood commercial and nothing. Right?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

That’s correct.

Council Member Andresen

So we would have to go with neighborhood commercial then?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

No, you’re correct. That particular piece of property with it’s residential 5 zoning. If a property is at least 5 acres in size, it is eligible for somebody to come in with a special use permit request for a wide array of uses but carrying that residential zoning the floor area would have to be limited. So with the current zoning that’s on that property commercial proposals or a proposal that includes some retail uses could be brought to you right now under the existing zoning.

Council Member Andresen

Would they be entitled to the full amount that this underlying zone gives them, the full amount of commercial? Or could the council, in fact, say, “Well, we only want one coffee shop.”

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

Well, with a special use permit, there is not entitlement. So the council needs to find that it’s consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the regulations, findings of health safety, general welfare and so on.

Council Member Capowski

Roger, if we were to adopt the Manager’s recommendation , what would that specifically mean for requests to construct a supermarket on the north side of East Franklin?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

I would suggest to you that if you adopted language that’s in here and a proposal came in for a large supermarket on the north side of Franklin Street, I would think that this language would very clearly argue against that kind of a proposal. And the argument could very easily be made that that kind of a proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Council Member Capowski

There is no proposal right now for a supermarket, is there?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

That’s correct.

Council Member Capowski

So, no one has a vested interest they could argue, we’re too late? Correct?

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney

Clearly not.

Council Member Capowski

If we adopt the Manager’s recommended proposal should we begin some rezoning here? Are the zones sufficiently different from the Comprehensive Plan that you think we should start to change some of these zonings?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

I would not recommend to you that you immediately initiate any rezoning. One of the approaches to the former East Franklin Street study was that with there being pressures for development and redevelopment, that the Council would put in place some policy guidelines and some policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan and then be able to use that as requests come in for either special use permits or rezoning. So I would think that that approach might work very well here as well. That if you were to adopt this or some version of this that then that can be used as a guide. If somebody wants to develop property in pursuit of this and wants to change the zoning would bring a zoning request to you and then you would hold it up against this to see if it matches what we want to do here.

Council Member Brown

I missed that last part of what you said so you might have answered this. If we take out that bullet that says, “allow mix of uses of offices and residential with some limited retail.” When some proposal comes in will we still have the flexibility, and it might include just something inside a building where somebody could sit down and have a cup of coffee, would that preclude that kind of thing then. Would we have the flexibility if we removed that?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

I have suggested before and would suggest again that the comprehensive plan does not necessarily preclude something. What it does it add, and there’s the weight of evidence, the council has to make a finding. So I would think that if you put some statements in here saying, “No retail.” And then a proposal came in that had a coffee shop or a boutique, a strong argument could be made that that’s not consistent with this language in the comprehensive plan. It doesn’t preclude you from approving it but it would be further weight that would lean against it.

Council Member Brown

I’m not suggesting that we have language that says, “No retail” I’m asking about removing this whatsoever and so removing the suggestion. Would that still leave us flexibility when some proposal comes in?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

Am I understanding that that suggestion is to remain silent on the question of retail? Then certainly there would be flexibility.

Mayor Waldorf

If it doesn’t address it at all, what is an applicant supposed to think about what might be approved or not be approved. If I were the applicant, I would say it doesn’t mention it and specifically allow then¼ I’m not arguing one way or the other I’m just saying we ought to think about¼

Council Member Evans

If we delete it totally, if someone comes in with a total retail project, what is our basis for saying it doesn’t conform with our recommendation of the extension of the corridor study because we’ve eliminated that. What if it’s a totally large residential project? I think it’s important to kind of give a goal as to what we’re looking at. It certainly makes it easier on an applicant.

Council Member Andresen

I would suggest to the council that maybe a way to do this would be to specify what our vision of a primary use should be rather than saying, “It’s possible that a limited this or a limited that” because it’s very hard to quantify these things. When you say limited retail to support pedestrians primarily provide on site service for employees. That’s kind of expandable, it’s hard to quantify that. But if we specify the primary use then that talks about what’s really important to us. The way this is written, it provides for a mix of residential and retail and that’s beginning to sound more like mixed-use to me.

Mayor Waldorf

Well, that is mixed-use. It’s office, residential and limited supporting retail.

Council Member Andresen

I’m not sure that’s what we want.

Mayor Waldorf

Any other comments?

Council Member Franck

We’re at an open point and I’ll move R9A. I think that the Planning Board did an excellent job with this study taking into account a lot of very different varied interests. And I think the staff’s refinements of it are¼ did a very good job of taking the concerns of the neighborhood citizens into account. I have a hunch that the citizens aren’t going to be satisfied with the Manager’s recommendation that I just moved but I think that it really does accomplish goals that the council wants to achieve and what the neighbors want to achieve which is being precise enough that we can guarantee that any retail uses in that area are indeed limited. And I think this language is very precise and it gives this council or a future council a leg to stand on in enforcing those ideas. If I’m on the council when that decision ultimately comes I will certainly stand by that recommendation.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9A.

Council Member Pavao

I was going to say that I agree with what Richard said. I think both the Planning Board and the staff have done a very good job of interpreting what’s been said and what the council intent is and I was going to second his motion but Pat beat me to it.

Council Member Andresen

I can’t support this as it’s written. That doesn’t say that the town staff hasn’t done a great job. And I think the citizens and the Planning Board have done a really good job on this. But I think these are very, very key areas here and how this is written will have, we have seen, specifically in the case of Meadowmont, some unexpected consequences as a result of how we write things in the Comprehensive Plan. So I would like to suggest that we alter the wording in some way where I could feel comfortable voting for this.

Mayor Waldorf

Do you have a proposal?

Council Member Andresen

Yes, on page 3 of resolution A. I don’t have specific wording but something that would specify what the primary uses would be so that the retail couldn’t, for example, blossom to 75% of the project. Did the neighbors endorse an office kind of use? (Yes) So we could say that the majority of the project would be devoted to office and residential use.

Council Member Franck

That’s what it says.

Mayor Waldorf

How about, Julie, the primary use shall be a mix of office and residential uses on the north side of Franklin St.

Council Member Pavao

Isn’t that what the land use intensity strategy is saying in the resolution?

Council Member Andresen

No, it says the opposite. It tries to get to it but I guess I feel it’s rather open ended. By putting the emphasis on what we want or what’s important to us, I think is a more desirable¼

Council Member Franck

Could we just change that first phrase to, “Encourage primarily office and residential uses on the north side of Franklin Street”

Mayor Waldorf

Allow primarily offices and residential uses of the north side of Franklin Street.

Council Member Capowski

Julie, is your idea not to have “mix” in there?

Council Member Franck

I think the idea is to make it a primarily office and residential.

Council Member Andresen

Yes, that’s really what I’m after. I guess what this says is, “a mix of office and residential use with some supporting retail use.” I don’t have a problem with that if we put in the next point that it’s primarily office and residential.

Council Member Evans

You’re on page 3. To me that says, “allow a mix of residential and offices uses on the north side with some limited supporting retail uses such as small cafés, coffee shops or specialty shops. To me, that says the primary use is going to be office and residential and it’s stated again in the corridor street study on page 7 which becomes a part of this.

Council Member Andresen

But that’s not the language that I’m suggesting changing Pat.

Council Member Brown

I’ll comment while you all are thinking about some additional language changes because I have some problems with this too. With all due respect to anybody who might be on the council in the future. Future councils do interpret things differently from the present council and certainly future councils probably will go back and look over the minutes and read and see what was said and what was recommended. I can see this changing drastically from what this is because different council’s interpret things differently. I think, unless we have some language in there that does give this neighborhood mostly residential and office use, saying that with some primary, giving some emphasis to that then future councils could do a lot of things with this.

Council Member Andresen

Okay, maybe the first one there on page 7, land use and intensity strategy #4, “Allow primarily a mix of office and residential uses on the north side of Franklin St. with some limited supporting retail uses.” Does that work?

Mayor Waldorf

I like that a little better. Do the mover and the seconder allow it?

Council Member Andresen

All I’m doing is adding the word “primarily”.

Mayor Waldorf

Which is what it means anyway but I think if you add the word “primarily” you’re clearer.

Council Member Brown

On page 7 in the proposal it says, “boutiques” on the resolution it says, “specialty shop” either one could spell some problems for that area.

Council Member Franck

Just to clear up Joyce, that language on page 3, that first paragraph there that Julie just amended is meant to replace that bullet on page 7.

Council Member Brown

Yes, but it hasn’t so we need to be careful with that. Even specialty shop, that could mean lots of things.

Council Member Franck

It does, but I’m not sure you can do any better.

THE MOTIONER AND SECONDER ACCEPTED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. RESOLUTION 9A, AS AMENDED, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1996 EAST FRANKLIN STREET CORRIDOR STUDY AS A COMPONENT OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

(96-10-16/R-9a)

WHEREAS, East Franklin Street is one of the Town's most significant gateways; and

WHEREAS, in 1991, the Town conducted a study of the East Franklin Street Corridor from Estes Drive to Elliott Drive and adopted the "1991 East Franklin Street Corridor Study" as a component of the Town's Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, proposed developments on East Franklin Street between Estes Drive and Elliott Road have been evaluated for their conformance with the 1991 East Franklin Street Corridor Study; and

WHEREAS, new development and redevelopment is expected to occur between Elliott Road and WCHL on Franklin Street; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has conducted a study of the East Franklin Street Corridor from Elliott Road to WCHL;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the 1996 East Franklin Street Corridor Study as a component of the Town of Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan, with the following changes (new text is noted in italics, while deleted text is noted with strikethrough):

Page 7, Land Use and Intensity Strategy #4:

Allowing primarily a mix of office and residential uses on the north side of Franklin Street, with some limited supporting retail uses (such as a small cafés, coffee shops or specialty shop and boutiques).

Page 7, Land Use and Intensity Strategy #6

Limited supporting retail land uses on the north side of Franklin street would have a pedestrian orientation and would be designed as an integral part of a development to primarily provide on-site services for employees and/or residents who live or work for use by people living or working in the area.

Page 7, Land Use and Intensity Strategy #8

Avoid uses that are generators of high levels of automobile trips. such as Fast-food restaurants, convenience stores and or gas stations are general examples of more intensive retail uses that are not appropriate for the north side of Franklin Street between Elliott Road and WCHL.

Page 9, Facade Treatment Strategies #2

Give attention to the design compatibility of new structures with other existing structures on the same respective side of Franklin Street in the study area. In particular, review the size (footprint), height, proportion and scale, roof shapes, arrangement of windows, setbacks, rhythm, materials, color and texture of structures.

Page 3, “Gateway to the Town” Strategy #10

Utilize traffic calming mechanisms and visual techniques as appropriate to slow down traffic as it enters the East Franklin Street Corridor from U.S. 15-501.

Page 5, Access, Circulation and Parking Strategy #11

Extend the existing Fordham Boulevard median closer to the Eastgate light. The median should be extended in such a way that it does not conflict with the left turn lane from East Franklin Street into the Eastgate Shopping Center. This mediam should be designed to visually promote traffic-calming.

Page 15, Development Requests Section, Paragraph #1

Once adopted as a component of the Comprehensive Plan, these guidelines would become the basis and justification for requests for Conditional Use Zoning and Special Use Permits for properties in this corridor. Development is intended to be designed in a manner that is consistent with these guidelines.

Add map of the conceptual Booker Creek Greenway as page A-5 in the Appendix

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the 1996 East Franklin Street Corridor Study shall be used to provide community guidance for future development and redevelopment for the portion of East Franklin Street between Elliott Road and WCHL.

This the 16^th day of October, 1996.

Item 7: Southern Village

Mayor Waldorf

The Manager and the Mayor Pro-tem and I have been passing notes and we have a suggestion to make which is that since it is 5 minutes after 10:00 that we want to propose that we not try to deal with Southern Village tonight but that we take items 8 and 9 and that we reschedule the Southern Village for next Tuesday. Is there any reaction from the Council to that?

Council Member Andresen

Could we get a reading on when it would be so that the folks that have come out and sat all evening know when this might occur?

Mayor Waldorf

I was suggesting next Tuesday but if the folks who are here want to speak and not come back another night then we could hear them and take it up another night. Next Tuesday is the suggestion that I have. There is no Council meeting that night.

Council Member Brown

Is there any idea of how long or how many speakers there are?

Mayor Waldorf

Yes, six speakers have signed up. So if they all speak for three minutes that’s eighteen minutes. I guess the staff presentations on this even though they’re going to try to be brief are going to be of some length because it’s complicated. Now, it’s up to the Council. If you all want to take it up tonight we can. Oh, I’m sorry. I take that back. We have 11 speakers which is thirty-three minutes.

Council Member Franck

I’d be willing to go along with that. We could just skip this item for now and then recess our meeting until the 22 nd.

Council Member Andresen

I wonder if people were aware that tonight was the night we were actually going to make a decision. Weren’t we going to make a decision tonight?

Mayor Waldorf

We were scheduled to try to make a decision on the first three requests for modifications.

Council Member Andresen

So if we heard from folks then we would need to deliberate and that would take us way into the night.

Mayor Waldorf

Yes? (a citizen in audience is talking, can’t hear him) Thank you for that suggestion. I think we better go ahead and deal with reports 1 - 3 on the 22^nd if that’s agreeable to the Council. I’m very sorry that you all came and waited. We’ve been here all night too. Is that agreeable to everyone? The 22^nd we will meet?

Council Member Andresen

Is there a good reason for not dealing with them all at once? Everybody that’s here tonight is going to need to come two nights. They’ve already come tonight and then they haven’t spoken yet. So there is an argument for doing them all at once.

Mayor Waldorf

All right, let’s have the staff comment on that. Maybe we should wait and do them all on the 28^th.

Town Manager Horton

I think it would take you five or six hours to do that based on our past experience.

Council Member Brown

Would this be the only thing on the agenda on the 22^nd?

Town Manager Horton

Yes ma’am.

Mayor Waldorf

Unless we talk about this for so long that we don’t get to these other items on the agenda. I just think it’s going to be very difficult for us to take it up at this hour. I’m sorry we have long agendas and I’m sorry they’re heavy and I’m sorry they take a long time but that seems to be the way it is.

Council Member Evans

We have a Council meeting on the 21^st. We have a public hearing..

Mayor Waldorf

We have a public hearing on the 21^st. We’re having to schedule an extra meeting on the 22^nd and then another meeting on the 28^th.

Council Member Brown

Can we just ask if most of the people here will be back that evening. Because I think that we want to make sure that we have as much public comment as possible.

Council Member Evans

And if they can’t come, if they could write us a letter and get it to the Mayor and Manager and then it gets to be part of our record.

Council Member Pavao

Why don’t we take the three items on the 22^nd and if we can do more, we will but we’ll at least handle the three items.

Town Manager Horton

We would not be able to proceed on the other items. They’ve been advertised for hearing on the 28^th.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, RECESS THEM TO OCTOBER 22^ND AND CALL A SPECIAL MEETING FOR THAT EVENING (OCTOBER 22^ND) TO CONSIDER REPORTS 1 THROUGH 3.

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney

Do I understand the motion to include opening these public hearings and agreeing to recess them to that night and then calling the special meeting?

Council Member Pavao

That’s exactly what I said. Yes sir.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 8: Rizzo Conference Center Rezoning and Special Use Permit Request

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

You have two items coming back for a public hearing tonight. I’ll combine my remarks together. The first item is a request for rezoning of a 28 acre parcel on the east side of town right now know as the DuBose Estate. The request is for rezoning from residential 1 to Residential 5C, conditional use rezoning. The item was heard a public hearing in Sept. and recommend then and continue to recommend now that you adopt the attached ordinance approving that rezoning. The second and related application is for a special use permit for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont. The application requests approval of a special use permit that would authorize development of this conference center and again these two applications come as a pair to you tonight. Another example of use of conditional use zoning. The main issue is one that came up at the hearing is the issue of access. There are other issues that came up that we’ve addressed. I’m just offering one more word about access. We continue to recommend that the access to this property be from a 2 land road at least that would be in the alignment of what is shown on the Meadowmont master plan as Meadowmont Lane. We have included language to that effect in Resolution A. So our recommendations to you are that you adopt the ordinance that would rezone this property and that then you adopt resolution A which would approve the special use permit for the conference center.

Mayor Waldorf

There are some citizens who signed up to speak. Do you all wish to speak?

David Steos

I just have a quick statement. We understand Resolution A and what Roger recommended. Last meeting we did talk about some objections we had and I just had a brief statement. To us resolution B which the Planning Committee endorsed is still preferable since it doesn’t require construction of improvements on the grounds that are not owned or under control of the University and that was the position we were trying to make last time. We understand A and we’ll let the rest of the debate go with the council.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2.

Council Member Andresen

I have a request involving my concern with use of the airport. I know that there was something put in¼. are we on the right agenda item for that?

Mayor Waldorf

Hold that for the special use permit.

Council Member Andresen

I just have a question on the rezoning then and I’ll hold it.

ORDINANCE 2 WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS (96-10-16/O-2)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of the University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-1 to Residential-5-Conditional zoning, and finds that conditions have changed and that the amendment achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, including the East Entranceway Corridor Study; and

WHEREAS, the Council finds that any approved special use under the Residential-5-Conditional Use Zoning would be suitable for the property proposed for rezoning under the conditions attached to the approved Special Use Permit;

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

SECTION I

That the property identified as Durham County Tax Map 479, Lot 1, located on the 28-acre DuBose Estate at Meadowmont, be rezoned from Residential-1 to Residential-5-Conditional zoning.

SECTION II

That the rezoning shall be contingent upon and shall not be effective unless and until it is consented to by the North Carolina Council of State.

SECTION III

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

This the 16^th day of October, 1996.

All right move onto 8C. This is the application for the special use permit. I think your earlier comment was covering this as well.

Council Member Capowski

I would like to ask a question or two of the applicant. Davis, we’ve been serving on committees dealing with outlying UNC properties. One of our tenets has been that the development of these properties should be, at least, fiscally mutual to the town of Chapel Hill. This is an outlying property owned by the University just like Horace Williams and Mason Farm tracts are. Would you be willing to pledge some money in some form to cover the cost of the town services that we will be providing to this University function, perhaps in the form of hotel/motel passes or in some other form to offset the loss of property tax revenue?

Davis

I don’t know how to address that. I really don’t feel in a position to make a statement like that for the chancellor or the dean of the business school to be honest with you. We started some conversations this morning with the visitors bureau but I would say those were very preliminary and I’m not in a position to make that statement tonight.

Council Member Capowski

We have no authority to require this as a special use permit condition, is that right?

Town Manager Horton

That’s right.

Council Member Capowski

You did tell us that the council may ask for a payment but may not require one. I for one would very much like to ask.

Mayor Waldorf

Why don’t we make that a subsequent resolution? Since we can’t make it part of the special use permit. Are there other points that need to be made before we close the public hearing?

Council Member Evans

I have a question of Roger and it has to do with the construction sign requirements. Does the construction sign requirement have to conform to our sign ordinance? That’s on page 9 #23.

Town Manager Horton

This requirement that’s in here is in direct response to a council policy. So I think it’s complying with the council’s policy. Is your question as to the size of it and color?

Council Member Evans

Yes, because this is an entryway.

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

There are certain signs that are exempt from regulations. My reflection is¼ I’ll have to go look it up.

Council Member Andresen

I have three points here. On Joe’s comment on some sort of contribution. I think that the town has the right to levy an impact fee. Is that not correct?

Town Manager Horton

We’ve got authority. Ralph, you’re needed at the helm on this one. There’s a question about our legal authority to levy an impact fee.

Council Member Andresen

My question is why can’t we require a developer to pay an impact fee.

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney

Well, we can always ask for these things but what we can require is only what the law allows us to require.

Council Member Andresen

I understand. I’m not trying to be difficult here. I understood that we had an enabling legislation to require an impact fee.

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney

We have that authority. We have not enacted that authority.

Council Member Andresen

Aha! That’s the answer then. We have the authority but we have not enacted it and so I think that this is something that we ought to be considering because in the last 3 or 4 years development in Chapel Hill has changed. We are dealing with mega-developments. This isn’t nearly as big as the Meadowmont that’s coming later, this is something that we ought to consider. It’s a policy matter that can be taken up at another time.

Council Member Evans

May I follow up with a question? Do we have the authority to levy an impact fee on the state?

Mayor Waldorf

We have the authority to levy it but they don’t have to pay it.

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney

You haven’t asked whether we could impose it on the state or not¼

Council Member Evans

But the applicant here is the state. So can you answer that?

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney

Well, we can provide a lot of information about impact fees in the report but one of the point is that the impact fee is an alternative to requiring the kinds of off-site improvements and public amenities that developers traditionally provide so it’s one form or another. You cannot use that to simply get more from a developer that the law otherwise would allow you to get. It’s just the form in which you can require these kinds of contributions to be made.

Council Member Andresen

I understand and I think the issue here is that there are going to be costs with any development. It will also be true that this development will also have a traffic impact and that isn’t really being addressed right not. Eventually 54 will be widened.

Mayor Waldorf

You had other points Julie?

Council Member Andresen

The intersection with 54 using Meadowmont Dr., that was something I’ve been concerned about before. The way it’s worded now the town would receive the go ahead from DOT before the ZZP would be issued?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

One of the conditions that we have recommended that you include is one of our standard conditions that before a zoning compliance is issued which authorizes the commencement of construction that the final plans be approved by a wide array of regulatory agencies, the town manager, OWASA, the state DOT, Duke Power, Public Service Gas, cable company and so on. What our standard condition is is that before the zoning compliance permit is issued all those agencies sign off and approve the final plans.

Council Member Andresen

Good, I’m satisfied with that then. The third point deals with the airport use. In this agenda item the applicant stated that they had no intent to encourage usage of the airport. So that if, for example, ¼ I have no idea how the business school intends to use this facility but it’s possible that there would be executive programs and often executives have airplanes. It’s certainly true of University trustees and I would think it would be appropriate for the council to ask the chancellor or the vice-chancellor to simply put in a letter what they’ve said here in the application here already, that they have no intent to encourage use of the airport or to advertise it. And that would make me feel better. That is a separate request from the special use. I’m not suggesting we make it a provision of the special use but I suggest that we make a request.

Mayor Waldorf

Can that be a subsequent resolution? Any other points before we close the public hearing?

Council Member Capowski

I guess I’m a little slow. You’re resolution says that after construction, before Meadowmont is under construction the entrance to the Rizzo Center will be through Meadowmont Lane, half of Meadowmont Lane, 2 lanes of the eventual 4 lane highway.

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

What we’ve tried to do here is to not make any judgments or predications about what’s going to happen in terms of time. What’s going to happen first or next. What we have said is that this site needs to be served by a road coming off of NC 54 that is at least 2 lanes providing adequate access. There are several ways that that could happen. If the Meadowmont application that will be coming before the council later in this season were to be approved and Meadowmont Lane were to be built by Meadowmont and then subsequently this conference center followed through with its construction it could just build a driveway out to Meadowmont Lane which would already be there. If this conference center goes forward first then something at least two lanes of road in that Meadowmont Lane alignment would have to be built so that there’s adequate access from NC 54 to this 28 acre site.

Council Member Capowski

But also you say that the applicant has objected to this.

Mayor Waldorf

Now they’ve agreed to it.

Council Member Capowski

Then I withdraw my question.

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

I have the response to Council Member Evans question. The site identification signs are exempt from regulation. We have ordinance specifications about the size of it and what information can go on it. As long as it meets those standard, the signs are exempt from regulation.

Council Member Evans

But we do have a size requirement. What is it?

Roger Waldon, Planning Director

For a non-residential construction it would be 32 square feet.

Council Member Pavao

Move to adjourn the hearing. (Second)

Mayor Waldorf

All in favor please say Aye “Aye". All opposed no. Passes unanimously. I guess we were supposed to adjourn the hearing before we did the rezoning. Is that legal enough Mr. Attorney or should we vote on it again.

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney

That’s fine.

Mayor Waldorf

Is there a motion on the special use application?

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PAUL J. RIZZO CONFERENCE CENTER AT MEADOWMONT (File Number 479-1) (96-10-16/R-14a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit - Planned Development - Office/Institutional application, proposed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on property identified as Durham County Tax Map 479, Lot 1, if developed according to the site plan dated April 11, 1996 and revised July 16, 1996, and the conditions listed below:

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

2. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 18, and with all other applicable regulations;

3. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont in accordance with the plans listed above and with conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begin by October 16, 1998 and be completed by October 16, 1999.

2. That the developer be required to provide with final plans an impervious surface calculation sheet and an impervious surface monitoring plan to ensure that the development stays under the 24% threshold of the Watershed Protection District.

3. That all necessary access and utility easements from adjacent property owner(s) be obtained and recorded in the Orange and/or Durham County Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

4. That construction traffic may use the existing asphalt drive which extends from the highway, across the Meadowmont site, to the subject site. However, no widening of this existing drive may occur for the first 250 feet back from NC Highway 54, and tree protection fencing shall be installed in this protected area prior to commencement of construction activity for the Rizzo Center. Once the new Rizzo Conference Center buildings are occupied, the new Meadowmont Lane will provide access to this site.

Required Improvements

5. That if the conference center opens prior to the development of Meadowmont, the access drive (Meadowmont Lane) must be constructed with this development along with dedication of right-of-way. The cross-section may be reduced to two lanes with curb and gutter and sidewalk until such time as Meadowmont is developed.

If Meadowmont precedes or is concurrent with the development of the conference center site, the access drive (Meadowmont Lane) shall be constructed by this developer or others to the approved four lane median divided cross-section.

6. NCDOT Approval for Driveway: That the applicant obtain a driveway permit from NCDOT for the new Meadowmont Lane entrance on NC Highway 54 prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

7. Approval of Encroachment Agreements: That any required State permits or encroachment agreements be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

8. NCDOT Sight Triangle Easement: That the owner dedicate sight triangle easements to the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The sight triangle easements would be at the new Meadowmont Drive at the highway intersection and the conference center driveway intersection.

9. Drive Aisles and Parking Lots: That all drive aisles and parking lots be constructed to Town standards for pavement design and dimensions.

10. Sidewalks and Walkways: That sidewalk or walkway be provided in the following locations:

Ø Connecting the existing manor house to the Phase I parking lot, the new conference center, the new residence hall, and the recreation facilities;

Ø Connecting the new buildings to each other and to the new parking lots;

Ø From the Phase I (lower) parking lot to Meadowmont Lane, with the sidewalk be constructed to meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

11. Non-auto parking: That motorcycle and bicycle parking be provided on the site.

Stipulations Related to State and Federal Governments Approvals

12. That any required State or Federal permits or encroachment agreements, including approval from the State Historic Preservation Office, be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

13. Landscape Protection Plan: That a revised Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The revisions shall clearly indicate the impact of construction activity associated with the on- and off-site sewer line, water line, and sidewalk improvements. The revisions shall also include additional tree protection fencing in certain areas between proposed construction and landscape areas to remain. Areas for construction staging, material storage, and construction parking shall also be indicated on the plans.

That if the existing one-lane drive is to be used as a construction entrance to the site, additional tree protection fencing shall be required between the driveway and nearby large trees in locations to be determined by the Town's Urban Forester prior to construction.

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

The following landscape buffers shall be provided:

Ø along the northern, eastern, and western property lines, a Type C (30 foot minimum width) landscape buffer; and

Ø along the southern property line, which abuts the future transit corridor, a Type D (50 foot minimum width) landscape buffer.

Existing vegetation may be used to partially or wholly fulfill the landscape buffer requirements. The extent to which existing vegetation can be used shall be determined by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

That a note be added to the final plans, indicating that some of the trees on the perimeter of the construction areas shall be removed by the developer prior to building occupancy if the Town's Urban Forester determines the trees are not likely to survive and may constitute a hazard.

Stipulations Related to Building Elevations

15. Building Elevations Approval: That detailed building elevations be approved by the Appearance Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Utilities

16. Stormwater Management: We recommend that the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Report prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The stormwater calculations shall be based on the Town's HYDROS Model.

All stormwater shall be consolidated in a storm drain piping system which releases directly into a defined natural channel or into a public storm drainage system.

The stormwater and erosion control plans shall indicate all necessary grading, and the Landscape Protection Plan shall be revised as necessary.

17. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

The developer shall provide a fire hydrant and siamese connection on the front side of the proposed residence hall. Emergency access acceptable to the Town Manager shall be indicated on the final plans to provide for fire vehicles to the two-story pool house.

18. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility and lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power, Public Service Company, BellSouth, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Utility lines (including the off-site sewer line and pump station) and their associated easements, shall be located outside the required vegetated buffers for this site and for the boundaries of the adjacent Meadowmont development, except where perpendicular crossing is necessary.

19. OWASA Easements: That easement documents as required by OWASA and the Town Manager be recorded before issuance of a Building Permit.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

20. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and plan for management of construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan shall demonstrate ways in which the applicant will make efforts to reduce waste.

The final plans shall include a detail of the proposed service areas and their respective access drives. This plan shall include the location and proposed use of containers for refuse and recyclables.

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

a. Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

b. Provision for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;

c. Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

d. Ridesharing incentives;

e. Public Transit incentives.

The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for this development shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. In addition, annual reports shall be made to the Town Manager by January 1st of each year.

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

23. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner's representative, with a telephone number, the contractor's representative, with a phone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

24. Erosion Control: That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and be submitted to the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

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

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

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the 16th day of October, 1996.

Council Member Capowski

Ralph, I may need your help. There’s no legal authority here. If it’s the will of the council, what we simply want to do is to ask the University to make some sort of financial contribution in lieu of property taxes to cover the cost of the town’s services that we will have to provide. Is there a particular way we should address this.

Ralph Karpinos, Attorney

Well, I think you make your points and if the council concurs, the staff could prepare a letter and if you would authorize that Mayor to send that letter or bring it up at an appropriate meeting.

Mayor Waldorf

Why don’t I draft a letter that covers both these points. I’d be glad to circulate it amongst the council. The thing that we can reference is the letter that the chancellor gave us a month ago pledging the University to the principle of fiscal equity. We can come up with a good letter.

Council Member Franck

I think it’s a bad idea. To do that completely scoffs at the economic contributions that the University makes to this community and I just think it’s an affront and I wouldn’t be in favor of it.

Council Member Capowski

I don’t scoff at all at the University’s financial contributions to this University. I’ve supported them many times. My subject for bringing this up is this has been one of our premises on the development of all the UNC outlying properties which we’ve stated in many documents and this is just simply the first actual implementation of that premise.

Council Member Andresen

Could I be a little more specific with what I was after here. The letter here that I’m referring to is from Facilities Planning and Design at UNC and it says, “Conference center staff will promote the use of RDU as the primary terminal for air travel. The use of Horace Williams will be discouraged. There will be no positive promotion of the airport for conference center users.”

Mayor Waldorf

I’ll make reference to that. We don’t need a motion on that do we?

Council Member Andresen

I think it would be good to have a motion.

Council Member Franck

How about if we do that when there’s a letter that’s being prepared to send.

Item 9: Request for Expedited Review of Proposed Pavilion Development

Town Manager Horton

This item comes to you in response to a request from Mr. Antoine Puech who is present this evening should you care to hear from him. We believe that the keypoint is that he is requesting that the Council consider a special use permit under an expedited treatment so that he would be able to present his proposal to the Council, receive the Council’s review. To do that on the basis that would allow him to timely meet the needs of a tenant that he is negotiating with. If the Council wished to do that, we believe that because this project has already been through an extensive review process that it would be possible to bring it forward for public hearing on December 4^th. You may remember that this project as it came to the Planning Board was the subject of some controversy because there were two buildings proposed, both of which were 1 square foot short of the special use permit threshold and the Council expressed some frustration at that time about not being able to review the issue. Mr. Puech is willing to bring the project forward for consideration under the special use permit provisions. I would point out that he would not be giving up that approval that he already has for site plans for two buildings. If the Council does not wish to do this, you certainly do not have to take any action.

Mayor Waldorf

Mr. Puech has asked to speak.

Antoine Puech

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify and reiterate what Cal has said. We do have a major national tenant who wants to come to downtown Chapel Hill. It’s very difficult to bring major national tenant to downtown now, especially to West Franklin Street. Over the last nine years I’ve talked to over forty different tenants and it’s been very, very difficult to get them to come to downtown. They want to go to the malls where there’s free parking and lots of people shopping where they don’t have to compete for parking spaces and things like that. This tenant has 460 stores around the country, doing $900 million worth of business. Our lease is waiting to be signed depending on the decision you all make tonight. So if you all decide to give us the expedited review, they have assured me that the lease would be signed and back in our hands by early next week. Our project is a $5.25 million project. I think it will create a lot of new jobs and result in substantial benefit to the Town and to the University. The tenant gives grants and scholarships to benefit the community where it operates. We will have a demand for additional parking spaces and we will be working with the Town staff to try and accommodate the demand for the additional spaces. We are projecting about 105 additional parking spaces will be required by the project. About fifty or so will accommodate the transportation management plan and the balance of which we think will be accommodated through surplus capacity in the adjacent town parking lot #5 and in various private parking lots around Town of which there are 1400 parking spaces available. So I do think that the parking is an issue and we need to address it but it can be dealt with through some of the capacity that’s already available. Again, I think you have a chance tonight to make a decision which will certainly be very helpful to us as a partnership and certainly good for downtown. We would like to have the opportunity to present our project to you for special use permit. Thank you.

Council Member Capowski

Antoine, I guess I’m very confused. You already have approval in one form and you have a second one lined up. Why are you coming back for a second type of approval which puts you in a calendar bind?

Antoine Puech

One of the reasons for this is that the tenant wants to take a whole floor. In our building, as approved, we have to put a wall between the two buildings. So he wants to take a whole floor. In the old building code, when this project was approved in 1995, we could have put up those two buildings without having a wall between them. It was part of the approved code. This year, 1996, the building code was changed unbeknownst to us. They now require adjacent buildings to have a fire wall between them. So to a certain extent these two buildings, while they could be built they would have to have a wall between them and therefor it wouldn’t meet the tenants needs. And so when we go through the review process we are going to ask for the buildings to be combined as one building. That will be the only change.

There are no change in the footprints, in the square footage, in the elevations, in the streetscape or any of the other exhaustive requirements of the site plan approval which include all the other such as solid waste plans, fire etc. has been looked at by staff and pretty much made condition specific to the site plan approval. So we’re kind of tweaking a bit and I’m sorry we have to go through this. The building code got changed. I’d like to go back a bit to what Cal said earlier about why we did this in the first place. In 1995 we had a tenant named Tower Records, a big national tenant, who wanted to come to downtown. They told us that they needed to be in Chapel Hill opened by Christmas of 1995. So we had a deadline to get a project approved for Tower Records to get in here by Christmas season. At that time there was an eighteen month backlog in the Town before we could get a special use permit and get a project approved. So the advice we got was to go to a site plan approval of two buildings that could be built side by side and the site plan approval process would not require 18 months. So that’s when that was done. It was to accommodate the needs of the tenant at the time. When we got the site plan approval New Hope Commons opened up and when they opened up these guys got scared and said, “Well we’re not going to come to downtown because there’s too much competition from all the people selling CD’s and things in New Hope Commons.

Council Member Brown

You want us to review the building now because you don’t want to build the firewall. The tenant will not take the space unless he has a whole floor. But that’s what you’re actually aiming at now for us to give you permission to build it without the firewall.

Antoine Puech

What you’ll be doing is approving the special use permit for the same amount of square footage for that space is what you’ll be doing.

Town Manager Horton

The essence of it is previously it did not have to come to Council because it did not go above the 20,000 square foot threshold. The same facades, the same elevations and the same street treatments that had been considered and rigorously imposed by the planning commission would I think still accommodate the building without the firewall. You just change the design of it so you could have the size of first floor and second floor that Mr. Puech requests. The question before the Council is do you wish to do that?

Mayor Waldorf

In other words, do we wish to give expedited review. If we don’t give you expedited review you lose your prospective tenant. So really the question before us is do we want something to happen or do we want nothing to happen.

Council Member Andresen

My question is what gets bumped Mr. Manager?

Town Manager Horton

Because this whole program has been thoroughly reviewed and stipulations have been written, nothing would get bumped. It would require very little additional effort.

Council Member Andresen

That’s good news and I do think that business downtown is important. But I think I want to differ a little bit with the way this has been cast. In my view this is going to be a special use permit when it comes back. Well, special use is a lot more rigorous than site plan review and in fact, there’s very little flexibility on site plan review. My understanding is that whatever comes in, if it meets, check the boxes and so on, that’s it and so I don’t know that we really were able when this project first came in (because it magically was underneath the limit) that we actually looked at site design, and the very important facade that a building presents on Franklin St. which is our most important street. So I would like to say that if this comes in back as a special use (and I certainly support it and I support a major tenant downtown,) I think we ought to look at that carefully and not just assume that it’s all been done. The site plan review process is not arduous and the hurdles aren’t real high.

Town Manager Horton

My comment was only in terms of what the staff would need to do. There would not be much else for us to do. I certainly agree with your comments about what the Council would need to do.

Council Member Franck

Tonight we finally heard the missing piece to Joe’s question. It didn’t make sense until you explained it and now it does. The Council is being manipulated to meet Mr. Puech’s goals but I support those goals of having business in the downtown. I think it’s terribly important and I agree with you Julie, I support it on those grounds alone although I would caution you against trying that too many times in the future. Julie also makes another excellent point which is that a special use permit is a different animal and it does give the Council a little bit of latitude so I think you should be prepared for the council to maybe ask some extra stipulations and you might have to spend your Christmas holiday reworking some plans in order to meet that and I hope you’re willing to do that. I’m willing to grant the expedited processing in the hopes that a major building downtown can be a success where it otherwise may not be.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 15A.

Council Member Brown

I hope that we are not going down a path where Chapel Hill loses its uniqueness. I think that one of the attractivenesses of Chapel Hill is that we are not like 400 or 500 other cities and if we begin to welcome all of these businesses which are in every other town and city in the United States we are going to begin to look like every other town and community in the United States. I’m not sure that that’s what we want. I think that the small businesses have stood us in good stead. I think the more we bring in franchises and corporate America where headquarters and in New York or Atlanta we are going to lose control over our town and I’m not sure that this is really and truly ¼ I wonder if this is where we really want to go. We haven’t actually done any kind goal search for this area so it worries me somewhat.

Council Member Capowski

Antoine, who is your tenant please?

Antoine Puech

I can give it to you in writing but I can’t reveal it to you in a public forum. Because we have a secrecy agreement with them until the lease is signed. But I will be very happy to give it to you in writing. Towards the end of the week I can probably tell you who it is.

Mayor Waldorf

Didn’t you say generically what kind of a store it is.

Antoine Puech

It’s a privately owned company. It’s been in business for over 75 years. They are into library resources, software, textbooks, apparel and student supplies type of business.

Mayor Waldorf

Sounds like Student Stores that has to pay sales tax.

Council Member Capowski

The reason I ask this question is that quite frankly, Antoine. I’m a little irritated at this whole process. I followed it from day one with two buildings attached with identical architecture, identical construction, the whole works at 19,999 square feet each. Now nobody builds a 19,999 square foot building unless there’s an administrative reason. Now you come and you say, “We’re facing a commercial deadline to open a building for next academic year.” You’re asking us to make a decision to bump other projects, we’re very concerned with the downtown. We are also, as you stated, very concerned as Tower Records was, with what is happening to our downtown and what is happening to our existing businesses that have been around for a long time on Franklin Street are being hurt by competition within the town limits and outside of the town limits. Now you’re asking us, without telling us whom. You’re saying that a major national tenant is going to come to Franklin Street yet I’m having trouble knowing what effect it might have on let’s say, for example, on the Intimate Bookstore.

Antoine Puech

None at all. It would compete with the UNC Bookstore.

Council Member Franck

Joe, I might say that in the sense that even if it does have some of the same business as the Intimate, having a vibrant downtown with lots of businesses is actually going to be a net increase for all the businesses rather than one taking away from the other if you look at the way the economics of shopping areas work.

Mayor Waldorf

The motion passes 8 to 1, with Council Member Brown voting no.

A RESOLUTION GRANTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING FOR THE PAVILION DEVELOPMENT AND SETTING A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING (96-10-16/R-15a)

WHEREAS, a request has been received from West Franklin Preservation Limited Partners regarding Phases IIA and IIB of the Pavilion project, seeking expedited processing status for a Special Use Permit request and a December 4 Public Hearing date for consideration of this application; and

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council finds that there would be public benefit that would result from expedited consideration of this application;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council that the Town Manager is directed to expedite processing of a Special Use Permit application for Phases IIA and IIB of the Pavilion project in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is directed to adjust the fall schedule of development related items such that this application can be considered for Public Hearing on December 4, and that the Council schedules a Public Hearing for December 4, 1996, to consider this application.

This the 16^th day of October, 1996.

Item 4.1a: U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study

Council Member Brown

I have a question about why we are limiting ourselves to one mass transportation method in this major investment study. I should think that we would want to look at various mass transportation methods rather than a fixed guideway connection.

Council Member Franck

I think other existing mass transit uses like existing bus services would already be figured in as a baseline and this is just something special about the fixed guideway line that we’re saying we want them to consider.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE U.S. 15-501 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY INCORPORATE A FIXED GUIDEWAY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY AND THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA MAIN CAMPUS IN THE ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN CHAPEL HILL AND DURHAM (96-10-16/R-2)

WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina has prepared a proposed land use plan for the Horace Williams property; and

WHEREAS, the proposed land use plan incorporates a fixed guideway connection between the Horace Williams property and the University main campus; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study will evaluate the transportation impacts of several fixed guideway alternatives between Duke University and the UNC main campus; and

WHEREAS, the inclusion of a fixed guideway connection between the Horace Williams property and the main campus might have a significant impact on the development of a fixed guideway corridor between UNC and Duke.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests that the U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Policy Committee directs that the fixed guideway connection between Horace Williams and the UNC main campus be incorporated into all future year analysis of transportation alternatives.

This the 16^th day of October, 1996.

The meeting concluded at 10:50 p.m.