All cms in attendance

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

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1996

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

There were no ceremonies or hearings.

Item 3 Petitions

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO REFER A PETITION FROM COUSINS’ PROPERTIES TO TOWN STAFF. THE MOTION TO REFER WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Evans noted that the Manager would come back with an array of recommendations and proposals in their follow-up report.

Transportation Board Chair Ruby Sinreich said it was important for the Town’s Comprehensive Plan to take into account transportation matters, including reducing the use of single occupant vehicles.

Council Member Brown said this could be fit into the work of the Sustainability Committee. Council Member Andresen said although the ideas were interesting and sounded good, they needed to have a little more specificity. Noting that he was working on an item relative to transit overlay zoning, Council Member Franck suggested that the Manager prepare an item for discussion at the Council’s January planning retreat.

Council Member Evans said she would appreciate a report from staff on whether it would be best to look at a portion or all of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Waldorf suggested that staff could make a brief report at the January 18^th planning session. Ms. Sinreich said she would forward applicable materials to the Council and Town staff.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO REFER THE MATTER TO STAFF. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Steve Mumford, representing residents living near the proposed Beechridge development, requested the Council’s assistance regardaing sewering options for the area. Mr. Mumford presented a petition signed by over ninety percent of the area’s residents.

Terry Kitson expressed concern about sewering of the western portion of the proposed Beechridge development. Noting the importance of protecting the Resource Conservation District, Mr. Kitson said if sewer lines were necessary in this area, it might also be advisable to also put the previously proposed connecting road through the Resource Conservation District.

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

Council Member Andresen requested that staff find the least harmful solution to these problems.

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

Roger Barr expressed concern about the potential for creating an enormous visual eyesore at the possible new landfill site. A copy of Mr. Barr’s remarks are on file in the Clerk’s Office.

Council Member Chilton requested that staff distribute copies of the upcoming Landfill Owners Group (LOG) agenda item regarding the mounding of trash to Council Members.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REQUEST THAT TOWN STAFF DISTRIBUTE A COPY OF THE FORTHCOMING LOG AGENDA ITEM REGARDING TRASH MOUNDING TO THE COUNCIL.

Council Member Capowski asked if the matter was being examined as a landfill or development ordinance issue. Stating that the Town was a part owner and had a say so in happenings, Council Member Chilton said this was not a Development Ordinance issue.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Noting that Michael Lanz of Cousins Properties had thought that the meeting began at 7:30 p.m., rather than 7:00 p.m., Mayor Waldorf called upon Mr. Lanz for brief remarks. Mr. Lanz said his firm was a publicly-held real estate investment trust which developed four different types of real estate projects. Mr. Lanz said that the retail component of his firm had an interest in developing a main street type project in the existing Town parking lot number five at the corner of Rosemary and Church Streets. Mr. Lanz also said his firm was requesting that the process be kept as general as possible. Mayor Waldorf noted that the matter had been referred to staff earlier in the meeting.

Noting that the Town was reliant upon Orange County soil conservation staff to handle erosion control related problems, Council Member Andresen requested that staff arrange for applicable Orange County staff to come to a future Council meeting so that Council Members could ask questions regarding erosion controls and related matters.

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO REQUEST THAT TOWN STAFF MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ORANGE COUNTY STAFF TO ATTEND A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS REGARDING EROSION CONTROLS AND RELATED ITEMS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Mayor Waldorf announced that the Orange Water and Sewer Authority was in the process of undertaking a rate study, including sprinkler fees and basic water rates. She extended an invitation to all persons wishing to participate in this process.

Item 4.1 Consent Agenda

Council Member Franck requested the removal of item f for discussion at the end of the meeting. He also noted that Resolution 8e in item I should read $500,000, rather than $5,000,000.

Mayor Waldorf noted that a number of citizens had signed up to speak regarding the Police weapons firing range.

Linda Barnard said that her husband had felt vibrations from the firing range earlier in the day.

Lucinda Thompson, a neighbor of the Barnard’s, said she believed that the Town should assume responsibility for the firing range. Stating that she resided about 1,200 yards from the range, Ms. Thompson said that noise from the range was considerable. Ms. Thompson requested that the Town locate the firing range away from her neighborhood and other neighborhoods.

Pamela St. John said she also supported moving the firing range. Noting that she taught piano at home, Ms. St. John said the gunshots at the practice range sounded as if they were being fired outside of her door. She also stated that teachers at the Waldorf School frequently had to

reassure children that no one was shooting at them. Ms. St. John said that she would be supportive of efforts to relocate the police firing range.

Vic Kokomich said that he and eight or ten of his neighbors operated home businesses. Stating that noise from the firing range was a nuisance to him and his neighbors, Mr. Kokomich said he urged the Council to look into the matter further.

Thanking the neighbors for their cooperative spirit, Mayor Waldorf said the proposed resolution before the Council would authorize the Town Manager to get together with area law enforcement agencies to try find a solution to the firing range problem.

Noting that the Mayor of Sanford had offered the use of that community’s new firing range to the Town, Council Member Evans suggested that Countywide or regional solutions be explored.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO. TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA, EXCEPTING ITEM F.

Council Member Brown asked when staff would report back on the firing range matter. Mayor Waldorf said staff would present a report by March, 1997.

THE CONSENT AGENDA, EXCEPTING ITEM F, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

(96-11-26/R-1)

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

a. Scheduling an annual planning session of the Council at 8:30 am on Saturday,
January 18, 1997 (R-2).

b. Requesting funds from Orange County to help pay for sewers in the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm neighborhood (R-3).

c. Release of State funds for economic development to the Triangle J Council of Governments (R-4).

d. Summerwalk Circle parking regulations (O-1).

e. Howell Lane parking regulations (O-2).

f. Awarding contracts for sidewalk construction (R-5, O-2.1).

g. A resolution regarding exchange of Town and School property (R-6).

h. Proposed reallocation of State bikeway funds previously planned for a bike trail on Estes Drive (R-7).

i. Certifying results of five bond referenda (R-8a-e).

j. Police Association’s Firing Range (R-8.1).

This the 26th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION SCHEDULE THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL’S ANNUAL PLANNING SESSION (96-11-26/R-2)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Mayor and Council hereby schedule an annual planning session at 8:30 am on Saturday, January 18, 1997, at the Aqueduct Conference Center on Mount Carmel Church Road.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ASSIST IN FUNDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE MORGAN CREEK/MASON FARM SEWER PROJECT (96-11-26/R-3)

WHEREAS, about 60 properties in the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm area have septic systems, and this area with residential zoning has a need for public sewer lines to serve only residential properties which are in the Town and, for the Meadow Lane/Winter Drive part of Morgan Creek, the Town’s urban service district; and

WHEREAS, owners of about 40 of the 60 properties have petitioned OWASA for construction of sewers; and

WHEREAS, septic systems in the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm area date back to the development of this area in the 1950s and 1960s; and

WHEREAS, the Town is not aware of any existing private wastewater systems in the Mason Farm/Morgan Creek area which have been determined to be in violation of public health standards, but the Council believes that installing public sewers in this area would be prudent to preclude public health problems or emergencies which could occur in coming years due to the age of the septic systems; and

WHEREAS, timely construction of sewers in the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm area may benefit property owners by reducing the potential for higher costs due to inflation in construction prices and by reducing the need for major repairs to aging septic systems; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council has allocated $192,000 from sales taxes as a contribution to the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm sewer project; and

WHEREAS, Chapel Hill’s tax base of about $2.11 billion in Orange County constitutes about 42% of the property tax base in Orange County; and the substantial number of people in the Orange County portion of Chapel Hill (about 40% of the County’s total population) contributes to the County through sales taxes and other State-shared taxes which are allocated to counties and cities based on population data; and

WHEREAS, the taxpayers in the Orange County part of Chapel Hill contribute substantially to the tax revenues of the County as indicated above by the Chapel Hill proportions of the property tax base and population used in allocating various revenues to the County ; and

WHEREAS, the County contributed from the General Fund and bond proceeds about $564,112 or 36.6% of the capital cost of the Efland sewer line, and these funds have been paid from general tax revenues including property and other taxes from citizens including Chapel Hill taxpayers in Orange County;

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

1. Requests that the Orange County Board of Commissioners contribute $527,040 or 36.6% of the preliminary cost estimate of $1.44 million for the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm sewer project, subject to a decision by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority to undertake the project.

2. Requests, if the County further extends the Efland line and if the County’s contribution to the Efland sewer extension is more than 36.6% of project costs, that the Board of Commissioners accordingly increase the contribution to the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm sewers.

3. Requests that the County notify the Town of any additional information which the County may need to consider funding assistance for the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm sewer project.

4. Requests that the County notify the Town Council and neighborhood representatives and/or property owners in the Morgan Creek/Mason Farm area in advance of when the County considers the funding request, so that interested and affected citizens would have the opportunity to comment to the Board of Commissioners on a timely basis.

5. Authorizes the Mayor to submit this resolution to the County by letter to the Chair of the Board of Commissioners.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL REQUESTING RELEASE OF STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO THE TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT (96-11-26/R-4)

WHEREAS, in North Carolina, the Triangle J Council of Governments and other Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the State; and

WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and

WHEREAS, the General Assembly recognized this need through the appropriation of $864,270 to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development and community development; and to support local industrial development activities and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and

WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members' dues or assessments to Lead Regional Organizations or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and

WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a local government for release of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments, the available funds will revert to the State's General Fund; and

WHEREAS, in Region J, funds in the amount of $48,015 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the release of the $2,931.36 Chapel Hill share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 324, (House Bill 229) section 9.4 of the 1995 Session Laws.

This the 26th day of November, 1996.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES

(96-11-26/O-1)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of Chapel Hill:

That section 21-27 “No Parking as to particular streets” is amended by inserting the following therein, in appropriate alphabetical order.

SECTION I

STREET SIDE FROM TO

Summerwalk Inner radius Springberry Lane Springberry Lane

Circle

SECTION II

This ordinance shall become effective January 1, 1997.

SECTION III

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

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES

(96-11-26/O-2)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of Chapel Hill:

SECTION I

That Section 21-27 “No Parking as to particular streets” is amended by inserting the following therein, in appropriate alphabetical order:

STREET	SIDE	FROM	TO

Howell Lane	South	East Franklin Street	Roosevelt Drive
Howell Lane	North	The centerline of East Franklin Street	A point 82 feet east of the centerline of East Franklin Street
Howell Lane	North	The centerline of Ridgewood Lane	A point 60 feet west of the centerline of Ridgewood Lane
Howell Lane	North	The centerline of Ridgewood Lane	A point 60 feet east of the centerline of Ridgewood Lane
Howell Lane	North	The centerline of Roosevelt Drive	A point 62 feet west of the centerline of Roosevelt Drive

SECTION II

That Section 21-27.8 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “No parking anytime except by residential permit” is amended by inserting the following therein, in appropriate alphabetical order:

STREET	SIDE	FROM	TO

Howell Lane	North	A point 82 feet east of the centerline of East Franklin Street	A point 60 feet west of the centerline of Roosevelt Drive
Howell Lane	North	A point 60 feet east of the centerline of Ridgewood Lane	A point 62 feet west of the centerline of Roosevelt Drive

SECTION III

This ordinance shall become effective January 1, 1997.

SECTION IV

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

This is the 26^th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION

(96-11-26/R-6)

WHEREAS, the Town owns 80 acres of property adjacent to the Southern Village; and

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education owns 6.1 acres of property adjacent to the Town property; and

WHEREAS, the current configuration of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education property prohibits the design and construction of an integrated park and school complex; and

WHEREAS, both the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education and the Town would benefit from an exchange of property; and

WHEREAS, the laws of the State of North Carolina allow such an exchange;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the exchange of a 1.342 acre parcel of the Town’s Southern Community Park property for a 1.342 acre parcel owned by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education.

This the 26th day of November 1996.

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT THE BOOKER CREEK GREENWAY PHASE II, RALEIGH ROAD SIDEWALKS, AND CAMERON AVENUE SIDEWALKS PROJECTS BE SUBMITTED TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO URBAN AREA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGION’S PRIORITY PROJECT LIST AS HIGH PRIORITIES OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS (96-11-26/R-7)

WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Chapel Hill to develop a balanced transportation system for the citizens of Chapel Hill, to include roadway, public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has considered its transportation needs and identified projects that would meet the Town’s transportation goals;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following projects be pursued:

· Lower Booker Creek Greenway, Phase II between Tadley Drive and Daley Road and East Franklin Street;

· Raleigh Road sidewalks between Country Club Road and Burning Tree Drive;

· Cameron Avenue sidewalks between Merritt Mill Road and Pittsboro Street;

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 5, 1996 (96-11-26/R-8a)

WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered the Certificate of Canvass of the Orange County Board of Elections canvassing the referendum held for the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina on November 5, 1996 and certifying the result thereof to the Town Council and has canvassed the result of said Election;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said Election was 36,288.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to the question

SHALL the order authorizing $5,000,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of providing additional parks and recreational facilities including the acquisition and installation of equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

was 12,659. The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 6,998.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a statement substantially in the form hereinafter set forth declaring the result of said election shall be prepared, delivered to the Town Clerk for filing and recordation and published in accordance with law.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 5, 1996 (96-11-26/R- 8b)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted ‘YES” in answer to the question

SHALL the order authorizing $3,000,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of the acquisition of land or rights in land for the preservation of open spaces and areas, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

was 12,852. The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 6,659.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 5, 1996 (96-11-26/R-8c)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted ‘YES” in answer to the question

SHALL the order authorizing $2,000,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of providing public safety facilities including a new fire station and fire truck, new police substation, renovation of the police headquarters building, enlargement of police training facilities and the acquisition and installation of machinery and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

was 13,235. The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 6,357.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 5, 1996 (96-11-26/R-8d)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted ‘YES” in answer to the question

SHALL the order authorizing $3,000,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of acquiring, constructing, improving, reconstructing and replacing certain streets and sidewalks, curbs and gutters, bridges, culverts, drains and related facilities, including the acquisition of equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

was 11,920. The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 7,549.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 5, 1996 (96-11-26/R-8e)

WHEREAS, the Council has considered the Certificate of Canvass of the Orange County Board of Elections canvassing the referendum held for the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina on November 5, 1996 and certifying the result thereof to the Town Council and has canvassed the result of said Election;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted ‘YES” in answer to the question

SHALL the order authorizing ~~$5,000,000~~ $500,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of acquiring, constructing, enlarging and renovating public works construction and maintenance facilities including the acquisition of machinery and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

was 10,190. The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 8,974.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO TAKE THE LEAD IN SEEKING COOPERATION FROM OTHER ORANGE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE TOWN’S EFFORTS TO LOCATE LAND FOR, AND FINANCE CONSTRUCTION OF, A NEW FIREARMS RANGE (96-11-26/R-8.1)

WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Police Officers are required by the North Carolina Criminal Justice Training and Standards Division to demonstrate firearms proficiency on an annual basis to maintain their law enforcement certification; and

WHEREAS, The Chapel Hill Police Department trains and certifies its officers in firearms proficiency on a range owned and operated by the Chapel Hill Police Officers Association, an organization independent of any local government agency; and

WHEREAS, recent residential development adjacent to the current range has increased concerns about safety and noise related to activities occurring at the range; and

WHEREAS, other Orange County law enforcement agencies have also indicated a need for new firearms training facilities; and

WHEREAS, the Town has a vital interest in ensuring the continuation of quality firearms training for Chapel Hill Police Officers,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to take the lead in seeking cooperation from other Orange County law enforcement agencies in the Town’s efforts to locate land for, and finance construction of, a new firearms range.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

Item 4.2 Information Reports

Joe Straley, a resident of Davie Circle for fifty years, said the current parking restrictions on Davie Circle were a solution looking for a problem. Mr. Straley requested that the Council reconsider the recently adopted parking restrictions for Davie Circle as soon as possible.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REQUEST THAT STAFF PREPARE A FOLLOW-UP REPORT IN RESPONSE TO MR.

STRALEY’S CONCERNS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 5 Home Occupations Ordinance

Mr. Horton noted that the home occupations ordinance had received five votes on first reading and therefore a second reading was necessary.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE A ON SECOND READING. THE MOTION PASSED AND WAS ADOPTED ON SECOND READING BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS CAPOWSKI, EVANS, FRANCK AND WIGGINS VOTING NO.

AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE REGULATIONS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS

(96-11-11/O-1a)

WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that changes to the Town’s regulations for home occupations are necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Council:

Section I

Amends Section 2.56 of the Development Ordinance to read as follows:

2.56 Home Occupation: An occupation conducted as an accessory use of a dwelling unit,

provided that:

a) ~~no more than one person other than members of the resident family shall be engaged in such occupation;~~

Home occupations shall have a limit of one full-time equivalent employee who is not a member of the family residing in the home with the home occupation; "Full-time equivalent employee" refers to one or more employees who work a total of no more than 40 combined hours on-site per week;

b) The use of the dwelling unit or accessory buildings for the home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to the use of the property for residential purposes, and not more than thirty‑five percent (35%) nor more than 750 square feet of the floor area of the dwelling unit and any accessory buildings combined shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation; provided, that the floor area defined as used in the home occupation is the area dedicated to or primarily used for the home occupation, and does not include areas incidentally used for the home occupation;

c) No external evidence of the conduct of the home occupation , including commercial signs, shall be visible~~, other than a sign as permitted in Article 13~~;

d) Traffic and parking regulations

(1) The home occupation shall not generate traffic volumes or parking area needs greater than would normally be expected in a the residential neighborhood;

(2) In addition, in no event shall there be more than 3 vehicles parked at a given time on- or off- street for non-residential purposes including but not limited to parking by non-resident employees, customers, delivery services, etc.; but excluding drop-offs and pick-ups.

(3) There shall be no regular pick-up and delivery by vehicles other than those of a size normally used for household deliveries .

e) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause noise, vibration odor, glare, or electrical or communication interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot; in the case of detached dwelling units, or outside the dwelling unit, in the case of attached dwelling units;

f) The on‑premises sale and delivery of goods which are not the products of the home occupation are prohibited, except that the sale of goods which are incidental to a service of the home occupation is permitted;

g) A zoning compliance permit is issued for the home occupation(s). The permit shall describe the nature of the business and include the applicant’s certification that the home occupation will be conducted in accord with the Development Ordinance and other applicable laws and ordinances. Once a home occupation permit has been granted, it shall remain in effect until: (1) it is revoked by the Town, (2) the home occupation is terminated by the resident or residents for 180 or more days or (3) the holder of the permit moves from the residence.

Section II

Deletes from Section 14.13 ( which states that “No sign shall be erected or displayed in any Residential or Rural Transition district or in any Planned Development-Housing except as allowed under Section 14.13.4 or as provided below..”) the following Subsection 14.13.7 (b) of the Development Ordinance,.

b) Home occupation signs identifying a home occupation. Provided such signs are not illuminated, are limited to one wall sign per zoning lot and a maximum display surface area of three (3) square feet.

Section III

Amends Subsection 14.13.4 (n), regarding signs exempt from various regulations and permit requirements, to read as follows:

Signs stating that a business other than a home occupation is open, provided that there is no more than one such sign per business establishment, and provided that such sign does not exceed two (2) square feet.

Section IV

This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.

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

This the 11^th day of November, 1996.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9, REQUESTING THAT TOWN STAFF PREPARE A FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE HOME OCCUPATIONS ORDINANCE BY JANUARY, 1998. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO REPORT ON THE TOWN’S EXPERIENCE WITH THE HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE (96-11-26/R -9)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Council directs the Manager to report to the Council by January, 1998, regarding the Town’s experience with the home occupation ordinance, including:

1. the number of home occupations that receive zoning compliance permits.

2. the number of incidents or concerns reported by citizens regarding home occupations and the home occupation ordinance.

3. whether any clarifications of the ordinance are needed.

4. options for changes to the ordinance.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

Item 6 Transportation Management Plan Guidelines

Council Member Franck presented an overview of his proposal regarding transportation management plan guidelines. He noted the importance of employers responding to the Town’s survey and request for information regarding the travel behavior of their employees. Council Member Franck suggested that the proposed guidelines be referred to the Manager and Attorney.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE GUIDELINES TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.

Council Member Andresen thanked Council Member Franck for introducing some good ideas which she would like to see adopted by the Council. Council Member Franck said that the results of transportation management plans to date had been mixed. Council Member Evans said she did not believe that the Council had adopted elements regarding single-occupant vehicles or traffic reductions goals. Council Member Franck said this was correct.

Stating that fewer University employees and other employees in the community could afford to live in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area, Council Member Evans said it was important to ask business and citizen’s groups about the viability and effectiveness of transportation management plans. Mayor Waldorf said this was a good idea, as was the possibility of providing additional incentives to encourage use of alternative transit.

Council Member Capowski requested that the staff’s follow-up report contain options for reducing the payment-in-lieu fee for parking spaces.

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

Council Member Franck suggested that the Council think about the possibility of requesting enabling legislation to require all employers to participate in the Transportation Management Plan program. Council Member Evans said it was important to keep the public notified about possible changes in this program. Expressing his concurrence with this point, Council Member Franck noted that the ~~time for obtaining possible new legislation was about two years away~~ new legislation must be requested in 1997 or the next opportunity would not occur for two years.

Item 7 Robertson Lane Speed Bumps

Town Engineer George Small noted that several methods could be used to control traffic along Robertson Lane, including speed humps, pavement strips or markers and rumble strips. Mr. Small stated that since there was a very low volume of traffic and no chronic speeding had been observed on this street, the Manager was not recommending any changes to the existing situation.

Noting that several other traffic calming projects were in process in other parts of the Town, Council Member Brown said she would like to see the results of these other projects and possibly revisit traffic calming techniques for Robertson Lane in the future.

Item 8 Appointments to Dry Creek Trail Advisory Committee

The Council made the following appointments to the Committee:

Neighborhood Representatives: Peg Bergner, Andrew Bush, Gwyn Cutsforth,

Boe Gallagher, Susan Pierce

East Chapel Hill High School: Gail Boyarsky

New Hope Corridor Advisory: Stella Maunsell

At-large: William R. Hutchins, Fred Meier

Greenways Commission: Audrey Booth, Carol Pekar

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

Item 9 Energy Matters

Council Member Brown presented an overview of her report on energy-related matters.

Council Member Evans suggested that it was important to outline realistic lighting levels for older persons.

Council Member Capowski thanked Council Member Brown and the members of the Citizen’s Energy Task Force for their work in preparing a practical report with good recommendations.

Council Member Capowski questioned the financial practicality of some of the report’s intent section. Council Member Andresen said it was sometimes necessary to pay upfront for financially practical items.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THAT THE TOWN'S NEW AND SUBSTANTIALLY RENOVATED BUILDINGS BE DESIGNED AND OPERATED TO CONSERVE ENERGY (96-11-26/R-11)

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

* receives with appreciation the proposed ordinance submitted by the Citizens' Energy Task Force.

* refers the proposed ordinance to the Planning Board and other interested boards and commissions and to the Town Manager for comments.

* calls a public hearing at 7 pm on June 16, 1997, in the Council Chamber at Town Hall, 306 North Columbia Street, Chapel Hill to receive comments from citizens and Town boards and commissions regarding the proposed ordinance.

This the 26th day of November, 1996.

Item 10 The Estates Subdivision

Persons wishing to testify in the matter were sworn or affirmed.

Development Coordinator Jennie Bob Culpepper said that a total of 240 units and twenty-two single family lots were being proposed on a thirty-four acre tract. She also noted that last week the North Carolina Department of Transportation had announced plans for a median cut andtraffic signal at NC 86 and Westminster Drive. Ms. Culpepper stated that the Town continued to receive letters from citizens with concerns about traffic and property values.

Lea Ann Nease, the applicant’s attorney, said that the applicant’s proposed planned development for the Timberlyne area would be a realization of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan relative to the use of this parcel of land. Noting that the Council had several different roles, depending upon the type of process involved, Ms. Nease said that this evening the Council was acting in the role of

judges in a quasi-judicial matter. Ms. Nease stated that all but one advisory board, the Transportation Board, had recommended approval of the proposed Estates development. She said that the Transportation Board’s reservation had been about the need for a traffic signal and median cut at Westminster Drive and NC 86. Ms. Nease noted that the Department of Transportation had recently announced its intention to provide the signal and median cut. Ms. Nease said she believed that the Council should adopt Resolution A this evening.

Jack Smyre, the applicant’s engineer, said that future degradation of traffic service levels on Weaver Dairy Road would occur whether or not the Estates development was approved by the Council. Mr. Smyre stated that the applicant had voluntarily restricted driveway access on Kingston Drive to an entrance only arrangement. Mr. Smyre also said he believed that his client had addressed the concerns of Timberlyne residents regarding traffic and access on to Airport Road (NC 86). Mr. Smyre stated that the applicant had offered to do a number of things to improve general traffic movement in the area, including building a new roadway and agreeing with staff on the proposed location of a future bus stop. He also said that the applicant had proposed a number of pedestrian access amenities, including a network of sidewalks and a greenway connector at the end of the single-family portion of the proposed development.

Mr. Smyre also stated that the Town’s Urban Forester had walked the site with members of the applicant’s staff and had found ways to preserve a 34-inch specimen tree and a significant stand of hardwood trees on the site. Mr. Smyre said that the buffer proposed by his client was six times the required buffer width. He also stated that the closest apartment building would be located one hundred and forty feet from the common property line. Mr. Smyre urged the Council to adopt Resolution A.

Tom Heffner, a local real estate appraiser, said that he had reviewed information regarding local property values provided by a resident of the Timberlyne neighborhood and found that the impact of the proposed Estates development on existing properties would be relatively minor. Mr. Heffner added that the density proposed by the applicant was considerably less than density permitted by existing R-3 and R-5 zoning.

Dave Handfinger, a resident of the Timberlyne neighborhood since 1980, said he had biked, walked and driven on Kingston Drive for many years. Mr. Handfinger said that Kingston Drive was never intended to be a feeder road. He suggested that the Estates development only be allowed to have an emergency access drive to and from Kingston Drive, with removable bollards.

Mr. Handfinger also said it was important for there to be reasonable give and take by the neighborhood and the applicant.

Melissa Bowler presented a petition from a number of area residents requesting that the Council not vote on the applicant’s development proposal until traffic and safety issues, including Banks and Westminster Drives, were adequately addressed.

Bill Andrews, 108 Cottonwood Court, said he was especially concerned about the safety of children catching buses in the area, especially along Kingston Drive. Noting that he rode his bicycle a total of nine miles per day to the University campus, Mr. Andrews said it was important to pay close attention to the question of where traffic would go if the Estates development were approved.

Susan Sweezy, a local real estate appraiser and resident of the Timberlyne neighborhood, said she was concerned that the applicant had not provided comparative market data relative to future property values. Ms. Sweezy said she had given competent testimony at the public hearing on October 21^st regarding the negative effect of adjoining apartments on property values.

Don Sweezy said the Town’s Development Ordinance required that proposed developments maintain or enhance the safety of contiguous properties. Mr. Sweezy said Ms. Nease, the applicant’s attorney, had never discussed safety issues in her recent letter to the Council. He also stated that the applicant had not proven that they would maintain or improve safety of contiguous properties. Mr. Sweezy urged the Council to weigh the proposal in the context of existing regulations.

Burwell Ware said that the traffic study for the proposed Estates development was inadequate.

Mr. Ware stated that a twenty-four hour traffic study for the area, including Banks Drive, was needed. He also urged the Council to protect area residents from any proposed developments which would place an undue strain on existing infrastructure.

Denny Dobbin, 105 Stateside Drive, said he lived on the other side of the Windsor Park development. He noted that the developer of Windsor Park had been required to provide a detention pond to hold runoff. Mr. Dobbin said he was concerned that water coming downstream from this proposed development might also impact his property and those of his neighbors.

Jim Manning, an emergency physician and resident of the Timberlyne neighborhood for the last seven and a half years, said he had a number of safety-related concerns about the proposed development in his neighborhood. Mr. Manning expressed concern that if traffic delays occurred at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and NC 86 in the future, some drivers might elect to

go down Kingston Drive and Piney Mountain Road to access Airport Road. He strongly urged the Council to protect the health and safety of all area residents, especially children.

Pat Carpenter stated that the proposed apartments element of the Estates development would be contiguous to existing single-family homes, rather than duplexes. Ms. Carpenter said that even if prior projects constructed by the applicant had been beneficial to other communities, this project would not necessarily enhance the area’s or Town’s quality of life.

Reginald Morgan, 160 Kingston Drive, a real estate developer and appraiser, said he was sure that the proposed development would not enhance or promote the safety and value of contiguous properties. Expressing concern about future traffic impacts on Kingston and Westminster Drives, Mr. Morgan said he believed that the primary intent of the developer was greed and profit.

Jesse Ebersol expressed concern about traffic impacts and the proposed density of the Estates project. He also expressed appreciation for the proposed additional buffering between the development and existing properties.

Karen Raleigh said she supported the Estates’ proposal for upscale multi-family housing. She stated that the applicant had worked diligently with Town staff for two years to make sure that the Town’s development standards were met or exceeded. Ms. Raleigh also said she believed that the proposed project deserved the Council’s support.

Stating that the applicant had been trying to work out matters for about two years, Stick Williams said that this was a good example of why the existing development review process needed to be changed. Noting that the developer was proposing a considerably lower number of total units than permitted by existing zoning, Mr. Williams said he hoped that something good would come out of the overall process.

Pat Cabarga, 107 Stateside Drive, said she had concerns about stormwater runoff which might come about if the Estates development was approved. She requested that the Council keep such concerns in mind when considering the applicant’s proposal.

Mindy Gellin thanked the Council for having an opportunity for area residents to express their concerns about the proposed Estates development.

Noting that two or three students would likely reside in each of the proposed apartments, Marsha Kann expressed concern about car and traffic impacts generated by the proposed Estates development.

Noting that this evening’s hearing was the continuation of a previous hearing, Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council ask any questions they might have about the proposed development this evening. Mr. Karpinos said it was important for the Council to defer making any conclusive statements about the matter this evening.

Council Member Evans said it was important that the applicant provide adequate recreation opportunities to future residents. She requested that staff address the matter of payment in lieu for recreational facilities. She also requested that staff provide information about how mail delivery would be handled for the site.

Council Member Andresen requested that the staff’s follow-up report contain a thorough review

about traffic and safety issues, including the possibility of a 24-hour traffic study, raised this evening. She also requested that staff provide information about whether or not stormwater impacts could be addressed adequately using existing information. Council Member Andresen also asked that staff provided detailed information about the proposed median cut at NC 86 and Westminster Drive.

Council Member Brown noted that traffic studies should be conducted during times when students and others were in the Town and not during December or the summertime or times of other holidays at the University.

Council Member Capowski inquired whether or not there were any mechanisms available to make it more difficult for traffic to turn into the proposed north entrance only on Kingston Drive. Stating that not much traffic would be making this turn, Jack Smyre said that one possibility would be to flare the traffic island to make it more difficult to turn into the entrance from Kingston Drive.

Council Member Capowski inquired whether or not this evening was truly the first opportunity for the public to speak on this matter, other than the previous Council public hearing. Jennie Bob Culpepper said the Planning Board had received public comment on the proposal at a recent meeting.

Council Member Chilton requested that the staff’s follow-up report contain information and comment about the impact of area theater traffic. He also asked the staff to comment in its report on whether or not this type of housing was needed in the Town.

Council Member Wiggins requested that the staff’s follow-up report contain information about options for discouraging traffic on Kingston Drive.

Council Member Brown requested that the staff’s follow-up report contain more information about the removal of swales, referenced on page nine of this evening’s report and about landscape buffers versus setbacks, referenced on page four of the staff report. Council Member Brown also requested more information about the applicant’s stormwater plans, relative to the volume of runoff.

Council Member Franck requested that staff provide guidance about how broadly safety should be construed relative to promoting the public’s health and safety. He also requested that staff provide detailed comments regarding the applicant’s compliance with standards relative to design standards for internal and external circulation for pedestrians and cyclists. Council Member Franck also asked staff to provide detailed information about development projects maintaining or enhancing property values and the ~~fit~~ conformance of the proposed development ~~into the land use element of~~ the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, including areas other than the land use report.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO JANUARY 13, 1997. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Traffic Calming on North Lakeshore Drive

Town Engineer George Small said that the Transportation Board had recommended exploring traffic calming options on North Lakeshore Drive. Noting that staff had taken traffic counts on various sections of North Lakeshore Drive, Mr. Small said that the installation of speed humps was recommended. Mr. Small added that the Transportation Board also recommended traffic calming on Pinehurst Drive in the Oaks, possibly involving the use of chokers or traffic circles. He noted that Oaks residents would likely be polled about traffic calming options in the future.

Stating that the proposal was a really good initiative, Council Member Andresen said she hoped that staff would be attentive to the need of adequate signage relative to the proposed speed humps.

Expressing his general support for the staff’s proposal, John Moore noted that he lived adjacent to one of the proposed speed humps. Mr. Moore also said it was not clear to him why staff had discarded the possibility of installing stop signs like the ones along Elliott Road. Stating that speed bumps could possibly cause problems for emergency vehicles and buses, Mr. Moore requested that staff reconsider installing stop signs as an option.

Thanking Council Members for their service to the community, Jack Chambers said that he had resided at the corner of Arlington Street and North Lakeshore Drive for twenty-three years. Mr. Chambers said he wished that the proposed speed humps could have been installed about fifteen years ago. Mr. Chambers said if speed humps were installed, it would be desirable to locate one at Arlington Street.

Council Member Franck said he hoped that Engineering staff would consider moving the traffic humps as suggested by Mr. Chambers. Council Member Franck also said he thought that the traffic calming project should be funded using Council contingency funds.

Council Member Brown inquired about the staff’s opinion about having another speed hump, perhaps at the location proposed by Mr. Chambers. Mr.Small said that the impediment to this proposal was that there was a curve in the road which would impede driver’s sight distance relative to such a speed hump.

Council Member Brown requested that staff respond to Mr. Moore’s inquiry about stop signs. Mr. Horton said that the Council had a general policy for installing of stop signs. He added that overinstalling stop signs led to disregard of them by drivers.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 12.1.

Council Member Andresen commended the staff for being bold in bringing forward this experimental project.

RESOLUTION 12.1 WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS WITH ASSOCIATED SIGNS AND MARKINGS ON NORTH LAKESHORE DRIVE BETWEEN ARLINGTON STREET AND ROCK CREEK ROAD. (96-11-26/R-12.1)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is aware of traffic speeding problems on North Lakeshore Drive; and

WHEREAS, the Council has received a report and other information concerning traffic calming measures which can reduce vehicle speeds in some cases; and

WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the installation of speed humps on North Lakeshore Drive could be an effective traffic calming measure for speed control.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the installation of speed humps on North Lakeshore Drive between Arlington Street and Rock Creek Road.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is directed to report back to the Council approximately one year after the speed hump installation with a follow-up report outlining their effectiveness in the North Lakeshore Drive application.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is directed to ~~include funding in the 1997-98 Capital Improvements Program, for consideration by the Council~~, prepare a future budget ordinance amendment which would be designated for construction of traffic calming measures on North Lakeshore Drive and at other locations to be specified by the Council in the future.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

Annexation Related Matters

Long-range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt said that no Town-initiated annexations were being proposed this fiscal year. She also said that staff recommended calling a public hearing on January 21, 1997 regarding the possible annexation of a parcel of land owned by OWASA off Estes Drive.

Referencing areas to the south of the Town which might be annexed in the future, Council Member Capowski asked whether someone would have to install major water and sewer trunk lines when these areas were annexed. Ms. Berndt said it would be necessary to install such lines within two years of annexation. Council Member Capowski asked whether the Council should be concerned about the cost of water and sewer lines in this area. Mr. Horton said yes, noting that there would be potentially significant costs involved. He noted that OWASA was doing some work on this matter. Council Member Andresen inquired when this information would come back to the Council. Mr. Horton said within a few months. Mayor Waldorf said the Council could possibly ask the OWASA rate study group to look at this matter.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 13. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE AREAS DESCRIBED WITHIN AS BEING UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ANNEXATION (96-11-26/R-13)

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

SECTION 1

That pursuant to G.S. 160A-49 (i), the following described areas are identified as being under consideration for annexation by the Town of Chapel Hill, under provisions of Part 3, Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes of North Carolina:

Generally, the unincorporated area between Chapel Hill's existing corporate limits and the Town's Urban Services Boundary as identified on the 1986 Land Use Plan that was adopted by the Council on July 14, 1986.

The above-referenced areas are specifically shaded on the attached map (“Areas Under Consideration for Future Annexation - November 26, 1996”), which shall be incorporated into this resolution by reference, in accordance with N.C. General Statute 160-49(i).

SECTION 2

That a copy of this resolution shall be filed with the Town Clerk.

This the 26th day of November, 1996.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNEXING A PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY (96-11-26/R-14)

WHEREAS, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority owns a parcel of land that is south of the Ironwoods subdivision and north of Estes Drive Extension and the Southern Rail Line; and

WHEREAS, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Town of Chapel Hill to annex this parcel of land that is south of the Ironwoods subdivision and north of Estes Drive Extension and the Southern Rail Line; and

WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has received the petition and certified to the Council the sufficiency of said petition pursuant to North Carolina General Statute Section 160A-31;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby calls a public hearing for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, in the Town Hall Council Chambers, 306 North Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC, 27516, on this annexation petition for an parcel of land owned by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager shall cause notice of the public hearing to be published, in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality, at least 10 days before the date of the public hearing.

This the 26^th day of November, 1996.

Resolution of Appreciation: 1996 Citizen’s Bond Committee

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 15. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR CITIZENS TO PROMOTE THE 1996 BONDS

(96-11-26/R-15)

WHEREAS, the voters of Chapel Hill decided on November 5, 1996, to approve the sale of up to $13.5 million of bonds for five purposes; and

WHEREAS, the Town government must provide factual, balanced and neutral information about a bond referendum but cannot use public resources to promote bond issues; and

WHEREAS, the Citizens to Promote the 1996 Bonds did an excellent job of both informing citizens about the bond referenda and promoting the need for facilities and land which will be financed with bonds; and

WHEREAS, the talent, creativity and hard work of the Citizens to Promote the 1996 Bonds were essential to full consideration of and community discussion regarding the proposed bond issues; and

WHEREAS, the Citizens to Promote the 1996 Bonds were:

APPROPIATIONS	Current Budget	Increase	Decrease	Revised Budget

Capital Improvements Fund	$1,548,838	$120,000		$1,668,838

	BIDDER		PROJECT		BID AMOUNT

Holmes Contracting Incorporated		#1 Piney Mountain Road		$ 74,985.00
		#2 Pittsboro/McCauley Street		187,496.00
		# 3 Merritt Mill Road South		89,759.00
		# 4 Merritt Mill Road North		39,218.00

		TOTAL		$391,458.00

	BIDDER		PROJECT		BID AMOUNT

C.C.S. General Contractors		#1 Piney Mountain Road		$ 68,467.70
		#2 Pittsboro/McCauley Street		148,894.75
		#3 Merritt Mill Road South		60,605.75
		#4 Merritt Mill Road North		47,315.50

		TOTAL		$325,283.70