MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE

CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 AT 7:00 P.M.

 

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Council Members in attendance were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Mayor pro tem Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, and Edith Wiggins.  Council Member Julie McClintock arrived at 7:08 p.m.  Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Engineering Director George Small, Finance Director Jim Baker, Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Interim Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

 

Item 3a - Petition by Jim Protzman on OWASA Sewer Line

 

Mayor Waldorf introduced a written petition by Lakeshore Drive resident Jim Protzman regarding OWASA’s plan to replace a sewer line in the Lake Forest area.  She noted that Mr. Protzman was not yet present, but that several people from OWASA were present.  Mayor Waldorf then invited questions and comments regarding Mr. Protzman’s petition.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that Mr. Protzman’s petition asks the Town Council to look into a sewer line that most of them know nothing about.  He said that Council Members should walk the line with people who know what they’re talking about on both sides of the issue before addressing the petition.  Adding that he had thought the issue was already decided, Mayor pro tem Capowski asked the OWASA representatives if they had met regarding
 this issue.

 

Mayor Waldorf requested that one of the representatives from OWASA speak briefly on the status of the Cedar Fork Creek sewer line.

 

OWASA secretary/treasurer Alan Rimer explained that the sewer has been leaking for several years.  He said that there were a number of overflows last winter and that the state is imposing new regulations on communities with sewers that overflow.  He pointed out that Mr. Protzman came to the OWASA Board of Directors early in the process and alerted them to the possibility of cooperating with the Lake Forest Homeowners’ Association in routing the sewer into an area that is partially in the lake, adding that plan would require draining the lake and then filling over where the sewer was located.  Mr. Rimer explained that the Board decided to evaluate that alternative route, and added that much of the engineers’ report on alternatives had been provided to the Council. 

 

Mr. Rimer stated that Mr. Protzman was concerned about his own property as well as the integrity of the stream, which the sewer line would cross a number of times prior to emptying into the lake.  He said that the design has since been modified so that there would be only two crossings, rather than the four that were originally proposed.  The Board then asked the staff to
take the proposal out for bids.  Mr. Rimer explained that those bids included a number of alternatives for constructing the sewer, such as boring under the creek and under Mr. Protzman’s property. 

 

Mr. Rimer stated that the Board considered these alternatives even though they could entail additional costs, adding that last week the Board voted to accept the Rossi Construction Company’s bid, which did not include plans for boring under the stream in the vicinity of Mr. Protzman’s property.  He noted that Mr. Protzman, in a letter to the Council and to OWASA, has criticized that decision. 

 

Mr. Rimer argued that the Board finally reached a general consensus on what it thought was the most reasonable solution.  He added that a number of Board members have walked the out-fall that is to be constructed.  He explained that he used to live in that neighborhood and he knows many of the neighbors.  He said that Mr. Protzman was the only one who called him personally and expressed concern about the matter.  Mr. Rimer concluded that both the Board and staff at OWASA feel that the modifications made to the routing of the sewer and the proposed construction are in the best interest of the homeowners in the area and the community as a whole.  He added that it probably is the most cost-effective solution that could be achieved given the alternatives that were put before OWASA at the time.  He said that 10 of the 15 homeowners in the area had granted easements to OWASA to do the work. 

 

Mr. Protzman predicted that OWASA would come to the community in a few years with a proposal to upgrade the sewer lines around Cedar Falls Park.  He asked how the Council will respond if OWASA proposes putting a sewer line down the middle of Cedar Falls Creek and Cedar Falls Park.  Mr. Protzman added that OWASA will not suggest doing that, though, because public outcry would be too great.  He said that OWASA will find an alternative, such as a pump station, and expressed his view that the creek around his neighborhood is not considered pristine enough to warrant the same attention that Cedar Falls Park would get.  Mr. Protzman argued that it is wrong to have well-engineered alternatives for the Park but not for Cedar Fork Creek.  He said that the project is moving ahead too quickly.

 

Council Member McClintock stated that she had read all the material presented on both sides and had listened to OWASA board discussions.  She emphasized that the OWASA Board really had listened to the Lake Forest citizens, including Mr. Protzman, and added that she is convinced that OWASA is going to do a careful job.  Council Member McClintock urged that the project go forward because of the health hazards resulting from overflows.   She stated that the Council should monitor this project to make sure that it is done carefully, but pointed out that the main responsibility for monitoring belongs to the OWASA Board of Directors.  She said that those concerned should communicate directly with OWASA.

 

Council Member Brown, noting that the usual procedure with petitions is to receive and refer, asked Mr. Horton if the staff needed to add anything to the information that OWASA has already supplied.  Town Manager Horton replied that OWASA would be the Town’s key source of information on this matter.  He said that the Town staff does not have expertise in this area and would depend on OWASA for information.

 

Council Member Evans expressed the expectation that the environmental impact on Cedar Fork Creek would be overall improvement with better water quality.  She stated that she hopes this is the OWASA Board’s goal and concurred that to receive and refer would only cause delay. 

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council receive and refer the matter to the Town Manager, but not expect a report back.  She noted that the staff would then have the OWASA report and Mr. Protzman’s letter before them when they face regulatory decisions. 

 

Council Member McClintock asked if OWASA must obtain permits from the Town to begin this project.  Mr. Horton answered yes.  Council Member McClintock then suggested that the Council direct the Manager to work with OWASA to have this project done in a most careful and environmentally sensitive manner.

 

Council Member Foy commended the OWASA Board of Directors for already doing much to try to mitigate the environmental consequences of what is a significant disturbance.  He said that OWASA is doing a good job of trying to respond to the community in this case

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER McCLINTOCK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE TOWN MANAGER BUT NOT WITH THE EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING A REPORT.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY  (9-0).

 

Item 3c, 1 - Petition by Mayor pro tem Joe Capowski and Council

Member Julie McClintock Regarding Amending the Development Ordinance

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski summarized his and Council Member McClintock’s written petition requesting the Council to start a process to amend the Town’s Development Ordinance.  The petition asks the Council to add a fifth finding that the Council must make in order to approve a special use permit.  Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that this would require the applicant to specifically mitigate the auto-related impacts of development, both on-site and in the region that the proposed use affects.  If a proposed use will substantially congest an intersection, for example, the applicant should compensate the public with a comparable amount of human space.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that he is concerned not only about the environmental effects of the large amount of asphalt being laid down, but about the human behavior affects as well.  He noted that loss of civility, increased frustration, and loss of social interaction are among the harmful effects of the many cars and the infrastructure that is built for them.

 

Council Member Brown noted that a consultant would be studying transportation-related issues this fall.  Noting that this study should have a wide focus, she asked if the petition would be a part of that endeavor.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski replied that the Comprehensive Plan rewrite process is only for the Comprehensive Plan.  Council Member Brown said that she was not referring to the Comprehensive Plan but to the transportation consultant that Council had discussed hiring.

 

Council Member McClintock added that the Council did agree to hire a traffic consultant to help develop the Town’s capacity to deal with traffic problems, and noted that that could be linked to the Comprehensive Plan as part of a long-term solution.  Council Member McClintock explained that the petition was intended to make a short-term fix on the Development Ordinance because the Town is somewhat limited in how to deal with the many development proposals which are having an effect on traffic.   

 

Council Member Brown explained that she had not been referring to the Comprehensive Plan but to the consultant who should begin soon.  Town Manager Horton verified that the consultant would begin this fall.  Council Member Brown reiterated her question of how this petition would fit into that alternative.

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council refer the petition to the Town Manager and Attorney.  Council Member McClintock, noting that Council Members had not had an advance copy of the petition, asked if Council would think about the petition and provide feedback.  She pointed out that if the Council decided that this is a good idea and chose to proceed with it, then they could take some action rather than leaving it in limbo.  She asked Mayor pro tem Capowski whether it would be better to ask for feedback from the Council or from the staff.

 

Mr. Horton explained that the staff, taking into account the advice of the Town Attorney, could have a preliminary report back within at couple of meetings.  Council Member McClintock clarified that the petition would then come back to the Council as an agenda item for general discussion.  She stated that she was in favor of that. 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE TOWN MANAGER FOR A REPORT.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 3c, 2 - Petition by Mayor pro tem Joe Capowski Regarding Asphalt in Parking Lots

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski expressed concern about the amount of asphalt being laid down around Town and not being used.  Giving the Lowe’s parking lot as an example, he pointed out that only 500 of its 700 spaces are used at most.  He emphasized that there could have been three acres of greenery rather than idle asphalt.  Stating that he understands that applicants request extra parking space in order to get bank loans and/or to attract an anchor tenant, he stressed that unused parking space has detrimental value and no positive benefits.  Mayor pro tem Capowski proposed adding a requirement to the Town’s Development Ordinance that would allow an applicant to have the space it says it requires but not allow it to pave the entire space until it is actually physically needed.

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested receiving and referring the petition for a quick report back from staff which would then enable the Council to give further direction.

 

Council Member Evans pointed out that the additional parking at Lowe’s was put in for the additional building as well. 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE TOWN MANAGER FOR A REPORT.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 4 - Consent Agenda

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski requested removing #c for discussion.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1, WITH ITEM #C REMOVED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

(98-9-9/R-1)

 

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

 

 

a.

Minutes of July 8, 1998 and Closed Session General Accounts of January 5, 20 and 26, February 9 and 16, March 2, and July 2, 1998.

b.

Annual budget amendment to reappropriate funds for prior year encumbrances and obligations.  (O-1).

d.

Use of Town Hall meeting rooms for governmental training programs conducted by the Institute of Government.  (R-3).

 

This the 9th day of September, 1998.

 

 

 

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND "THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1998” (98-9-9/O-1)

 

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1998" as duly adopted on June 8, 1998 be and the same is hereby amended as follows:

ARTICLE I

 

                                                            Current                                                 Revised

APPROPRIATIONS                           Budget             Increase           Decrease          Budget

 

GENERAL FUND

 

     Mayor/Council                                170,773                      0                                   170,773

     Town Manager                               834,486             15,984                                   850,470

     Personnel                                        476,729             32,030                                   508,759

     Finance                                           902,840             71,037                                   973,877

     Legal                                                                      153,766                      0                                    153,766

     Planning                                          972,623               1,168                                   973,791

     Inspections                                      430,864             19,404                                   450,268

     Engineering                                     744,469             22,042                                   766,511

     Public Works                                                       8,210,747           479,512                                    8,690,259

     Police                                                                  6,951,142           176,395                                    7,127,537

     Fire                                              3,070,598             14,130                                3,084,728

     Parks & Rec.                                                       1,674,076             38,101                                    1,712,177

     Library                                         1,572,299               8,309                                1,580,608

     Non-Dept.                                   3,533,990             97,263                                3,631,253

 

       TOTALS                                 29,699,402           975,375                              30,674,777

 

PUBLIC HOUSING FUND            1,395,563               9,318                                1,404,881

 

LANDFILL FUND                          5,172,610           433,370                                5,605,980

 

ON STREET PARKING

 FUND                                                                       490,000               2,037                                    492,037

 

OFF-STREET

   PARKING FUND                            935,760              6,976                                    942,736

 

TRANSPORTATION FUND         6,121,472             12,625                                6,134,097

 

CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENTS FUND              1,531,459           265,811                                1,797,270                                                           

 

HOUSING LOAN

 TRUST FUND                                  100,177             16,656                                   116,833

 

LIBRARY GIFT FUND                                                 9,226

ARTICLE II

 

                                                             Current                                                            Revised

REVENUES                                        Budget             Increase           Decrease          Budget

 

GENERAL FUND

  Fund Balance                         965,000 975,375                              1,940,375

 

PUBLIC HOUSING FUND

  Fund Balance                         140,768  9,318                                   150,086

 

LANDFILL FUND

  Fund Balance                         829,940 433,370                              1,263,310

 

ON STREET PARKING FUND

  Fund Balance                         0             2,037                                       2,037

 

OFF-STREET PARKING FUND

  Fund Balance                         0             6,976                                       6,976

 

TRANSPORTATION FUND

  Fund Balance                         295,566 12,625                                   308,191

 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

FUND

  Fund Balance                         476,759 160,811                                 637,570

  Grants                                               360,000                                     75,000           285,000                                               

  Lease Purchase Proceeds                             0           180,000                                   180,000

 

HOUSING LOAN TRUST FUND

  Fund Balance                         58,177  16,656                                     74,833

 

LIBRARY GIFT FUND                                0               9,226                                       9,226

 

This the 9th day of September, 1998.

 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO ALLOW LIMITED USE OF TOWN MEETING ROOMS BY THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT DURING THEIR BUILDING EXPANSION AND RENOVATION (98-9-9/R-3)

 

WHEREAS, the Institute of Government provides valuable training and education services to State and local elected officials and employees; and,

 

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill directly benefits from the training provided by the Institute, particularly through the School for Newly Elected Officials, the Municipal Administration Program, various certification-retention courses, and professional development programs for Town employees;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to allow limited use of Town meeting rooms by the Institute of Government, consistent with the Manager’s recommendation of September 9, 1998.

 

This the 9th day of September, 1998.

 

Item 5 - Information Reports

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski requested removing both a & b for discussion.

 

Item 6 - Nomination and Appointments

 

Item 6a Nominations:    None.

 

Item 6b Appointments:

 

Comprehensive Plan Work Group:

 

Council Member Bateman thanked the many applicants and noted that choosing from among them was difficult.  She said that she, Mayor Waldorf, and Council Member Foy had searched for applicants who would represent a fresh point of view, as well as those who have had experience working with Town groups.   She said they hope they have selected a combination of freshness, experience, enthusiasm and talent among the slate of recommended nominees.

 

Council Member Bateman then read the names:  Gary Barnes, Kimberly Brewer, Rick Edens, Susan Franklin Fulton, Josh Gurlitz, Patricia Hughes, Kit McGinnis, Alan Rimer, Ellen Ruina, and Art Werner.  She noted two additional slots reserved for minority candidates and said that despite efforts to do so they had not recruited minorities to the Comprehensive Plan Work Group. 

 

Mayor Waldorf pointed out that David Rankin had just submitted his application and that this fills in one of the minority slots on the slate.  Mayor Waldorf said that she and Council Members Bateman and Foy had hoped that Mr. Rankin would apply.

 

After votes were counted, the slate of names read by Council Member Bateman, with the addition of David Rankin, were appointed to the Comprehensive Plan Work Group.  One vacancy remains, earmarked for a minority applicant.

 

Personnel Appeals Committee:

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO REAPPOINT THOMAS ROSE TO THE APPEALS COMMITTEE BY ACCLAMATION.  THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Firemens’ Relief Fund Board of Trustees:

 

Mayor Waldorf pointed out that the Council had failed during its organizational meeting in December to replace Mark Chilton on the Fireman’s Relief Fund Board of Trustees.  Mayor Waldorf then volunteered to replace Mr. Chilton on that Board. 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, THAT MAYOR WALDORF SERVE ON THE FIREMAN’S RELIEF FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES.  THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). 

 

Item 6c - Selection of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the NC League

of Municipalities Annual Meeting in October and the

National League of Cities Congress of Cities in December

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if anyone from the Council planned to attend the League of Municipalities’ meeting in Charlotte in October.  Council Member Brown said that she was going but would not be there for the meeting in question.  Council Member Brown pointed out that Mr. Horton would be there as well.  Mayor Waldorf added that Council Member Pavăo would attend and noted that she may go as well.  The Council then agreed to appoint Council Member Pavăo as the delegate with Council Member Brown as the alternate to the October League of Municipalities meeting.

 

Council Member Evans suggested that Mayor Waldorf serve as delegate to the National League of Cities Congress of Cities meeting in December.  Mayor Waldorf agreed, with Council Member Brown as the alternate.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-4, APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBERS PAVĂO AND BROWN, AS DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE RESPECTIVELY, TO THE NC LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES ANNUAL MEETING IN OCTOBER AND TO APPOINT MAYOR WALDORF AND COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, AS DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE RESPECTIVELY, TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONGRESS OF CITIES IN DECEMBER.  THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

A RESOLUTION REGARDING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE DELEGATES TO THE NC LEAGUE OF MUNICPALITIES’ AND NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES’ ANNUAL MEETINGS (98-9-9/R-4)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby designates Council Member Pavăo to serve as the Council’s voting delegate to the NC League of Municipalities’ annual meeting October 19th - 21st, 1998, and Council Member Brown to serve as the alternate delegate.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby designates Mayor Waldorf to serve as the Council’s voting delegate to the National League of Cities’ annual meeting December 1st - 6th, 1998, and Council Member Brown to serve as the alternate delegate.

 

This the 9th day of September, 1998.

 

Item 7 - Interim Report from Chancellor’s Airport Advisory Board

 

Mayor Waldorf pointed out that many people had signed up to speak on this item, and suggested hearing from Council Member Wiggins first, then from the public, and then moving to the Council’s discussion.

 

Council Member Wiggins explained that she and Fred Black were the Council’s appointees to the Airport Advisor Board, adding that the Advisory Board had held a total of five monthly meetings since April 7, 1998.  She stated that UNC Chancellor Hooker had addressed the Board on May 6th and that Associate Vice Chancellor Carolyn Elfland had distributed and reviewed a 12-month Horace Williams Airport financial statement, dated April 22, 1998, as well as the 1997 take off count and the 1997-98 fuel sales report.  Council Member Wiggins noted that these reports were attached to her written memo to Council Members.

 

Council Member Wiggins reported that Dr. Elson Floyd addressed the Board at its June 3rd meeting and outlined the Board’s charge.  She summarized the three main points in Dr. Floyd’s remarks to the Board:  The Board is responsible for advising the University on the operation of the facility, taking into account the needs of the University, the users of the airport, and the community; the University will seek advice from the Board on airport policies and will report to the Board on airport activities; and the safety of the airport’s neighbors and users shall be paramount in the operation of the facility.

 

Council Member Wiggins explained that at its July 8th meeting the Board agreed on a list of agenda items which were taken directly from the Town’s Horace Williams Airport Committee Report.  She said that the Board decided that its first task would be to do a page-by-page review of the operations policy manual so that it could advise the University on these policies.  She explained that the Board postponed its scheduled review of the operations policy manual at the September meeting because of the recent plane crash on the Phillips Middle School grounds.

 

Council Member Wiggins stated that Dr. James Ramsey, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, explained at the September 2nd meeting that the University had started discussions about limiting airport use but was concerned that these limitations might compromise certain safety precautions.  Council Member Wiggins said that Dr. Ramsey asked for advice from the Board on this issue.  She also reported that Vice Chancellor Elfland revealed that the University plans to comply with FAA regulations by removing trees from runway approaches.  Council Member Wiggins added that Dr. Ramsey is scheduled to report again at the October 7th meeting on the ramifications of giving the airport a private/private designation, which means that it would be privately owned and used only by private members.

 

Council Member Wiggins stated that she remains optimistic about the Board’s potential effectiveness, because there was unanimous agreement among Board members that safety is the number one priority.  Council Member Wiggins added, though, that her optimism is tempered by the Board’s inability to get an official charge which includes the wording of the Mayor and the wording agreed to by the Chancellor in his early correspondence with the Mayor concerning the Board.

 

Council Member Wiggins also expressed concern about the delay with which the Board receives information regarding operational issues.  She gave the tree cutting situation as an example, noting that the Board was not informed about this until after the story broke in the August newspapers even though the University had noticed the problem as early as May.

 

Council Member Wiggins said that she will bring the Council’s sentiments to the next Board meeting during which the Board will decide on what to advise the Chancellor.  Council Member Wiggins suggested that the Council discuss whether to limit the airport’s use to AHEC alone, to AHEC and other university business, or to AHEC, University business and planes/pilots based at Horace Williams Airport.

 

Mr. Nick Didow, Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board, read part of a written statement outlining the School Board’s long-standing position on Horace Williams Airport.  He noted that the Board has wanted the airport closed for nearly three decades.  Mr. Didow pointed out that the airport had been merely a short dirt strip with a only few flights each day when Estes Hills Elementary School, Phillips Middle School, Seawell Elementary School and Chapel Hill High School were built in the late 50’s and early 60’s.  He said that these schools were built with the understanding that the airport would eventually be moved.

 

Mr. Didow noted that his written statement to the Council includes a number of human factors which do not appear in the NTSB preliminary accident report on the crash at Phillips Middle School on August 29, 1998.  He said that these factors make the near tragedy at Phillips more apparent.  He added that the School Board has waited more than 30 years for promises to be kept, and asked for courageous leadership and action to be taken now.  Mr. Didow noted Harvey Goldstein, Vice Chair of the School Board, also was in the audience.

 

Elliot M. Cramer, a retired statistician and quantitative psychologist from UNC, explained that he has expertise in the evaluation and perception of risk.  He pointed out that planes do not fall out of the sky and kill people on the ground except for the occasional air show tragedy.   Mr. Cramer suggested that the fear of airplanes being expressed by the public is irrational and that the Council should focus on the real problems facing children, such as drug addiction and smoking.

 

Debbie LaMay, President of the PTSA at Phillips Middle School and a Phillips parent, outlined the fears that parents have over planes crashing at school and suggested that their fears were legitimate, since that has now happened less than 180 feet from the eighth grade classroom.  Ms. LaMay implored the Council to do the right thing regarding Horace Williams airport. 

 

David Jelly, a Carrboro resident, noted that he is concerned about the safety of his child but realizes that the risk of her being hit by an aircraft is much less than the risk of her being injured on her bicycle.  He said that the risk of a person on the ground being injured by a plane is about one in 30 million.  Mr. Jelly argued against emotionalism and in favor of accurate factual information when preparing children to go out into the world and when deciding on the fate of the airport.

 

Robert Baily, a Chapel Hill resident with two children at Estes Hills Elementary School, stated that he lives under a flight path to the airport.  He argued that health and safety would be better served by addressing the real issues, such as teen pregnancy, firearms and other weapons in the schools, rather than a hypothetical fears with such a low statistical risk.

 

Barbara Bibb, a parent with children in both Phillips and Estes Hills schools, said she is a nearby landowner who is not worried about having the airport in the area.  She argued that pilots are well trained and pointed out that the pilot did not miss hitting the children by accident.  Ms. Bibb said that she is more worried about her children crossing Estes Hills Drive than about a plane hitting them at school.

 

Henry Bibb noted he is the person that the pilot was coming to visit.  He stated that he too is more worried about children walking along busy streets than about an airplane falling on them.  Mr. Bibb stated that he uses the airport for family trips, adding that he likes having it there and would like to see it stay open to Town residents to use as they see fit.

 

Walter Niedermann, who has a child at Phillips Middle School and lives in the flight path, wrote his doctoral thesis on transportation policy.   He sated that the airport is as safe as any other airport in the nation, and added that he is concerned about outspoken critics who make the airport seem to be a danger to children when it is not.  Mr. Niedermann asserted that no person on the ground has ever been killed in an aviation accident in the history of flying in North Carolina.  He pointed out that this cannot be said of innocent victims in automobile accidents.

 

Mr. Niedermann asked the Council to improve the infrastructure to handle the increased flow of traffic, especially around the schools.   He suggested opening up the connector from Estes Drive to Lakeshore Drive by way of Huntington Drive, as was originally planned.  Mr. Niedermann stated that this would immediately benefit the safety of our children.  He asked the Council to think of the airport as an important community feature and a link in the Council’s infrastructure
planning.  He noted that pilots do not clog up the overloaded roads, and suggested that airport noise, not safety, is driving this issue.  Mr. Niedermann asked the Council to concentrate on the common good rather than the benefits of the few who scream the loudest.

 

John Russell, who lives on Huntington Drive, noted that his perspective is different from other speakers because it was his house that the pilot almost hit when crashing his plane. Pointing out that his neighbor was almost hit by that plane as he walked his dog near the football field, Mr. Russell said that this is as close to a wake-up call that anyone could have.

 

Mr. Russell said that looking at frequency of accidents is only half of what you look at when determining the seriousness of taking a risk.  He explained that the other half is the consequence if a very rare thing were to happen.  He noted that the risk of a catastrophic consequence is the problem one faces when siting schools near an airport.  Mr. Russell stated that he has lived there for 10 years without being a proponent of closing the airport but he now thinks that three crashes in 18 months is too many to let this pass.  He urged the Council to advise the University to immediately start on a plan of siting the airport somewhere else, and to immediately close it to non-university activities.

 

Kim Henry, who has lived two blocks from the airport for seven years, noted that 23,000 children, including her own, have attended school in the flight path without ever getting hit by an airplane.  She said that she has been unable to find a single incident of a person on the ground being injured by an aircraft in this State in the last 40 years.  Ms. Henry suggested that fear has been fanned by the media, which has published inflammatory stories with statistics ranging from misleading to wrong.  She advised educating children to the truth about risk rather than making them feel afraid.  Ms. Henry recommended teaching children that knowledge is power, not irrational fear based on ignorance.  She told the Council that many of their constituents view Horace Williams Airport as an unjustly maligned, valuable, local resource.

 

Lee Leewood outlined the history of the airport, including its contribution to the war effort in the 1940’s, and praised its reputation and its proud slogan, “First in Flight.”   Mr. Leewood, quoting FDR, said  “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

 

Renae Liles Avery, who shares duty with her husband as McDougal Middle School PTA representative to the Chapel Hill/Carrboro PTA council, read a letter from Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools PTA Council President Ruta Stankus to UNC President Molly Broad.  The letter voices the PTA Council’s concern about the Horace Williams Airport in general and especially in response to the August 29th accident.  In the letter, Ms. Stankus expressed the fear that another pilot might not be as competent as the last one and that a tragedy may someday occur.  Ms. Stankus asked the Council to take precautions now to avoid such a tragedy. 

 

Pat Greenwell, a private pilot based at Horace Williams Airport, outlined the benefits of having small general aviation in one’s community.  She described the airport as a lovely 200-acre tract of green open space which is the best place in Town to watch the sunset.  Ms. Greenwell reviewed how the airport, established in the 1930’s, once had the longest grass runway in the eastern US.  Ms. Greenwell mentioned that former president George Bush did his pre-flight training at Horace Williams Airport during World War II.  She pointed out that a book had been written about the airport.

 

Ms. Greenwell warned that if the airport is closed the land will be developed by the University.  She cautioned that this would negatively impact the neighborhood due to increased auto traffic.  Ms. Greenwell stressed that the airport is a vital link to the State and beyond, noting that the AHEC program provides a valuable service to the citizens of North Carolina.  She listed the speed of organ transplant delivery as an example of the airport’s usefulness, and argued that area businesses depend on it for easy access.  Ms. Greenwell reported that small airports around the country are closing at a rate of about one per week, and said that communities that hold on to theirs probably will reap a great benefit, economically, for having done so.

 

Dallas Myatt, a firefighter and emergency medical technician who also works in a 911 center, argued that it would be a tragedy for the children of the community to take the airport away from them.  He noted that the airport is used for AHEC operations, as well as an overflow site for helicopter activities.   Mr. Myatt listed the many risks to children which he sees everyday on his job, such as drug abuse, physical abuse and weapons, and stated that the biggest tragedy regarding the airport would be to take it away.

 

Richard Tate stated that he understands both sides of the argument because he has a son at McDougal Elementary School and has been a pilot for 28 years.  He suggested removing emotions from the decision-making process as much as possible and attempting to separate facts from appearances.  He stated that closing the airport would be a high profile move, but would have little impact on safety.

 

Mr. Tate pointed out that there were 13,000 children injured in school bus accidents in the U.S. in 1996.  He noted that the School Board wants to close the airport but is also considering a site on Homestead road for a new school very close to the airport.  Mr. Tate stressed his view that Horace Williams Airport is an asset to Chapel Hill, not a liability.  He said that limiting its operation to the University only, or to AHEC only, would compromise safety because they would lose the instrument approach as well as the remote communications to air traffic control. 

 

Sandra Cummings, who is Co-chair of the School Governance Committee at Phillips Middle School and a parent with children at Phillips Middle School and Estes Hill Elementary, stated that hers is not an unfounded irrational concern.  She emphasized that the plane landed 180 feet from school classrooms and 10 feet from tennis courts.  Ms. Cummings noted that no one was hurt, but pointed out that if the crash had occurred at a different time of day or on a different day of the week, the children may not have been so lucky.

 

Ms. Cummings said that she is not cowering in fear, but does worry because the schools are in the final approach of the airport and because many of the planes have single engines.  Ms. Cummings advocated looking at alternatives -- such as limiting traffic, limiting transient pilots, and limiting single-engine planes.  She urged leaders to take action now, and to assist the University on finding a suitable alternative location.

 

Vincent Maginn, who is the parent representative of Phillips School Governance Committee and the parent of two members of the football team that were practicing the day the plane crashed. proposed that the airport be relocated for the safety of the children.  He said that he will make a formal recommendation to relocate the airport as part of a school safety plan and hoped that the Council would do so as well.

 

Lisa Brock stated that she supports limiting or relocating the airport.  She pointed out that one cannot quantify near misses.  Ms. Brock explained that she lives in the flight path, and had witnessed a near miss one Sunday afternoon near her house directly over Estes Elementary School.  Ms. Brock asked the Council to work with the University to the School Board’s specifications. 

 

Michael Owen, who lives in flight path, explained that he grew up next to a big airport and therefore had thought for many years that the arguments against Horace Williams were silly.  He noted, though, that there is something concrete about the risk when you see the plane hanging in the trees very close to the school and the children.  Mr. Owen argued that the benefits of the airport to the community do not seem in any way to override the risk factors.  He stressed that this is one risk to children that the Council can do something about.   Mr. Owen advocated having the Council work with the University on the long-range goal of relocating the airport and restricting the traffic in the short run to University business.

 

Mayor Waldorf thanked the speakers and directed the Council to give Council Member Wiggins the guidance she requested.  Mayor Waldorf also suggested that the Council might reconsider its position, which has been acquiescence to the presence of the airport with the understanding that there will be no increase in types and level of use.  Mayor Waldorf stated that she no longer agrees with that position and would like to know what Council Members think.

 

Council Member Foy asked Council Member Wiggins to clarify the part of her report in which she said that Dr. Ramsey believes that limitations would compromise certain safety precautions.   He noted that one of the speakers had said that involved certain instruments and air traffic controllers, Council Member Foy asked Council Member Wiggins to elaborate on that.

 

Council Member Wiggins replied that Dr. Ramsey will bring current and accurate information about that issue to the next Advisory Board meeting.  She noted that Dr. Ramsey said that the University had begun discussing the possibility of limiting operations.  Council Member Wiggins adding that Dr. Ramsey had noted that University officials realize that by limiting operations the airport would lose support for instrument landing, updates on weather reports, and other resources that enhance safety at the airport.

 

Council Member Wiggins pointed out, however, that the Advisory Board has some letters which seem to contradict that argument.  She said that the fact that this question remained unanswered may explain why the Board did not get into serious discussions about limitations.  She speculated that no one wanted to advocate for change if change would compromise safety.  Council Member Wiggins explained that the FAA might withdraw some support if the University does not
reimburse them for services.  She added that a private designation might mean that some service which are now free would still be available if the University paid the FAA for them.   Council Member Wiggins said that the Advisory Board is waiting for accurate and updated information.

 

Council Member Brown clarified that Council Member Wiggins was talking about uses and not numbers.  Council Member Wiggins said that was correct, and added that she had listed three options in her report, rather than just one.  She noted that she had been on the Council’s Airport Committee several months ago and was now on the Advisory Board, and that she has learned a lot about airport operations and has met many of the pilots based at Horace Williams Airport.  Pointing out that those pilots are Chapel Hill citizens, some of whom have children at Phillips, Estes and Chapel Hill High, she said that they are outraged over some of the compromises that outside pilots make in safety precautions around Horace Williams Airport.

 

Council Member Wiggins noted that Diane Bloom had called her with some third-hand information which, if substantiated, would support a more restricted use of the airport to the AHEC pilots only.  Council Member Wiggins said that she intends to ask Dr. Ramsey to verify that information at the next Board meeting.

 

Council Member Bateman asked if the Council was limited to Council Member Wiggins’ three options.  She said that she wanted to take an extreme position on this particular issue.  Council Member Wiggins responded that options were not limited.  Council Member Bateman said that the time has come to recognize that the Town has outgrown the airport being where it is.  She added that she is not willing to continue pushing the odds, even though they are very small, to continue to keep the airport where it is.  She said that she would like to see an option that limits the use to AHEC for a certain amount of time but then phases everything out by the year 2000.  

 

Council Member McClintock said that she would support such an option.  Noting that Council Member Wiggins had done a good job on the report, she said that she is a little discouraged with the Advisory Board because we its charge does not reflect the very thing which poses the biggest risk, which is the constant escalating use of the airport.  Council Member McClintock noted that this was in the Mayor’s letter, but has not been included in the charge to the Airport Advisory Board.

 

Mayor Waldorf concurred examining the problem of escalating use was understood as part of the charge.  She pointed out that there has been a problem getting that written charge to the Board.

 

Council Member McClintock pointed out that most accidents happen on take-offs and landings.  She stressed the fact that two schools are in a straight line with the approach to the runway and that this poses the real problem.  Council Member McClintock agreed that the chances of a death or injury on the ground are not great, but added that injuring one hair on the head of one child as a result of a plane accident would cause the Council to ask themselves what they had been thinking about.  She added that it was like not getting inoculated against TB because chances of getting it are slight.  Council Member McClintock argued in favor of the Council taking a stronger position and requesting the University to begin a search, if they need an airport, and to set a date for when the airport should cease operations.

 

Council Member Evans said that after the October 7th Board meeting at which Dr. Ramsey will come back to the Board with the ramifications of making Horace Williams a private airport, she wants a definition of what that means.

 

Council Member Wiggins said that she thinks private/private means that the University would establish some way for people to gain membership to use the facility.  She explained that the private designation would mean that all others are not supposed to use the airport, but pointed out that there is nothing that one can do to limit operation or to prevent a transient from landing there.  Council Member Wiggins noted that the Town would not want someone flying over it in an emergency not to be able to use the airstrip.  She said that the private designation would discourage landing because it would not be published as a general aviation airport. 

 

Council Member Evans asked if Council Member Wiggins would share other ramifications with the Council if the Dr. Ramsey identifies them.  Council Member Wiggins replied that she would be glad to.  Council Member McClintock noted that the Council needed to agree on what the information is and that the FAA can answer some of these questions.                

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski explained that he lives under the flight path of the helicopters that fly to the Neurosciences Hospital.  He said that he has mixed feelings over this:  he doesn’t want the noise, but he is delighted to have an emergency room there for people who need it.  Mayor pro tem Capowski said that he made a nuisance/benefit analysis and concluded he would rather keep the helicopters.  Noting that most people make these analyses all the time, he pointed out that the question is who is taking the risk and who is benefiting by it.  He noted that people living near the airport seem to be getting little benefit but are taking the nuisance and the small risk.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski argued in favor of eliminating transient use of the airport.  He cautioned that the Horace Williams Tract is a 970-acre tract, 250 acres of which is the airport.  He said that if that tract were developed for economic reasons the airport would be the part developed first, and he noted that the neighbors should be careful what they wish for because whatever is built there will have much more impact on their daily lives, with respect to automobiles and traffic, than the aviation traffic does.  Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that he has heard University officials consider renting space in an airport built by someone else, but he has never heard them express willingness to build one.  He suggested that the University look seriously at the relocation of the airport, but do so by putting some dollars behind it. 

 

Council Member Wiggins said that she had recorded Mayor pro tem Capowski as favoring limiting use of the airport to exclude transients.  She said that she had recorded Council Members McClintock and Bateman as favoring limiting use to AHEC only while phasing out by year 2000.  She asked if there were more sentiments.

 

Council Member Foy requested more information on AHEC, such as how many flights per month or per year that service provides.  He said that he is in favor of limiting use to AHEC only, stating that this is partly because the community is growing, the airport is growing, and demand for airport services will continue to grow.   Council Member Foy added that he is not willing to recommend closing the airport by the year 2000, but is willing to consider limited use, if that is required for the University and hospital. 

 

Council Member Bateman explained that she works at UNC Hospitals and has been a fan of the AHEC program.  She stated that she would like to obtain information on how much life saving activity actually goes on through AHEC, and would also like to know how Duke Medical Center, which does not have an airport near it, manages to have a superb medical program and do organ transplants without having a helicopter pad backup.  Council Member Bateman added that many people take AHEC planes for very valid work, but they do so as a convenience when they are giving lectures because it is easier than having to drive.

 

Council Member Wiggins asked if the AHEC program is part of medical education, rather than medical treatment.  Various Council Members concurred that it was.  Council Member Wiggins then clarified that Council Member Bateman wanted information on how much life saving AHEC is responsible for.  Council Member Bateman said that she did, noting that it has been suggested that AHEC is necessary for organ transplant delivery and so forth.  She said that when the Council discusses limiting the airport to medical use, she would like to know what important medical use they are discussing. 

 

Council Member Foy suggested getting information on whether RDU could be used for those services.   Council Member Evans added that other smaller airports may be used as well, noting that the University has said that RDU is so large they can’t get in and out of there with ease.

 

Mayor Waldorf explained that she had taken a moderate position on this issue in the past.  She said she had accepted that the airport was going to stay, and had joined those fighting to limit increases in levels and types of uses.  She explained that that fight seemed lost last November when Dr. Spangler said that the University will have jets there.  Mayor Waldorf stated, though, that the recent accident has caused her to ask herself how she would be acting and thinking and what she would be saying and doing if the plane had landed on the football team.

 

Mayor Waldorf explained that she is not an overly emotional person, but stressed that she thought the day after the accident that University officials should be asking themselves too what they would do if children had been killed.  Mayor Waldorf noted that pilots who are fine people say that it can’t happen and that it won’t happen.  She pointed out, though, that it almost did happen, and therefore it might happen.

 

Mayor Waldorf argued for closing the airport to transients, at minimum, because that is where the safety risks seem to cluster.  She further argued for limiting it to AHEC only, and, at worst, to University only operations.  Mayor Waldorf pointed out that if the University wants to make the case that it is essential to their service and their academic missions, then they need to look closely at what that definition is.  She said that she would like to see all of the other non-essential activities phased out. 

 

Council Member Brown asked Council Member Wiggins for feedback on the tenor of Advisory Board discussions after the accident and on the University’s reaction to the accident and to the potential for future problems which may not be near misses.  Council Member Wiggins responded that the University was very concerned, and that the Vice Chancellor said that the University had already had preliminary discussions on limiting use of the airport.  Council Member Wiggins said that she thinks the University realizes that the number one concern has to be safety and that it will be looking closely at how to minimize risks. Council Member Wiggins said that the accident at Phillips Middle School was a wake-up call to University administration.

 

Council Member Wiggins predicted that the Airport Advisory Board will recommend limiting use.  She explained that the reason that hasn’t been done yet is that the University needed more accurate information.  Noting that the Board is advisory to Chancellor Hooker, Council Member Wiggins said that she wants at some point to discuss the relationship between the Town Council and the University’s general administration.  Council Member Wiggins pointed out that decisions can be made at higher University level which undermines an agreement between the Town Council and the Chapel Hill campus.

 

Mayor Waldorf said that in addition to Council Member Wiggins taking messages back to the Board, the Council might consider asking her, as mayor, to write a letter to the Chancellor, conveying the general sense of their discussion.  Council Member Wiggins stated that she hoped the letter would include another request for an official charge with the language that Mayor Waldorf and Chancellor Hooker had agreed to early in the process.

 

Council Member Brown noted that the Council is coming closer together on its attitude toward the airport.  She stated that she is not clear about the kind of medical services the airport provides.  Council Member Brown said that the understands that AHEC is an educational program, but would like to know what services other than education the airport provides and what actual medical uses exist at the airport. 

 

Council Member McClintock noted the need for information on how to deal with private property around the airport.  Noting that the Town has grown around the airport, she pointed out that there may be limits to what the Town can do.  Using the tree issue as an example, Council Member McClintock asked if the University had the right to go onto citizen’s land and cut trees so that planes can land safely.  She also noted the need for data on the Chapel Hill Flying Club, such as numbers of aircraft based at Horace Williams Airport and numbers of participants.  Council Member McClintock said that she hoped the Advisory Board would discuss these issues, and that Council Member Wiggins would bring some information back to the Council on it

 

Council Member Evans stated that she does not want to appear indecisive but feels that she does not have adequate information to take a stand on the issue.  She recalled that 10 years ago they were unable to re-site the airport.   Council Member Evans said that she would like to see a copy of that report in order to recall how difficult the process was.

 

Mayor Waldorf commented that there was no post-mortem done on that process, which she recalled had ended hastily.  She added that the University might be more effective in getting land for an airport and building on it than either a county or a town.  Council Member Evans suggested that Council Member Wiggins have the Advisory Board talk with the University about how a University might be more effective in doing that. 

 

Council Member Evans asked for figures to substantiate the conclusion that the number of people using the airport had grown as the Town has grown.  Council Member Wiggins pointed out that there is a limit to the number of reports that she can get.  Council Member Evans asked if the Council could refer these requests to the staff.  Mayor Waldorf replied that the staff were not experts on the airport.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council wanted to pass a resolution or if they feel they have already conveyed their sentiments to Council Member Wiggins.  Council Member Pavăo pointed out that the Council had passed much information to Council Member Wiggins to take to the Board.  He reminded the Council that it had not picked up on the Mayor’s offer to write a letter to the University Chancellor and suggested that the Mayor put all of the Council’s comments in the letter.  Council Members expressed agreement.

 

Council Member Wiggins stated that Advisory Board’s meetings are open to the public and expressed the hope that people would participate.  

 

Item 8 - Response to Petition from Lake Ellen

 Homeowners on Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Issues

 

Engineering Director George Small explained that the staff’s report was prepared in response to a petition and videotape from the Lake Ellen Homeowners’ Association as well as questions and comments from the Council regarding that petition.  He presented several slides with various views of Lake Ellen:  some showed turbidity after a storm; others showed relatively clear water on clearer days.  Mr. Small showed slides of runoff pipes, check damns, silt ponds and silt basins near the construction area above Lake Ellen, and a map of the area indicating the projects that were underway.

 

Mr. Small then reviewed a written report from the Town which addressed eight issues in response to the petition and the Council’s request.  Mr. Small stated that issue one was to investigate significant monetary fines for the failure of soil erosion and sedimentation control measures.  He pointed out that the ordinance now allows fines of $500 per day and said that assessing those fines is a cumbersome process because they usually have convinced the developer to stop the violations by the time they get to assessing those fines.  Mr. Small noted that there was one fine collected several years ago, and that they had recently collected another from Silvercreek.  He added there is a need to work with Orange County to try and streamline the process.

 

On issue two, issuing “Stop Work Orders,” in the event of SES control failures for all work other than that related to the repair of the failures, Mr. Small stated that the Town generally does that now.  He said that the Town’s engineering inspectors do put pressure on developers.  He gave Parkside as a recent example of how the inspectors told developers to get things fixed before proceeding.  Mr. Small added that they don’t catch all of them all of the time, but the Town is capable of stopping work.

 

On issue three, considering Town rather than County administration of the SES ordinance in Chapel Hill, Mr. Small said that it would be feasible for the Town to do so if it had the resources and received approval from the State Sedimentation Control Commission.  He added that the Town would need some additional manpower to oversee the ordinance. 

 

On issue four, considering limiting or staging development in a given drainage basin or watershed, Mr. Small explained that the Town does not have the authority to do so.  He added that some “phasing” of individual projects is done, but there was mixed opinion among the staff as to whether limiting development would be a successful endeavor or not. 

 

On issue five, identifying possible funding sources for SES remedies, Mr. Small said the best possible source would be the Clean Water Trust Fund.  He noted that the Eastwood Lake Homeowners have applied for that fund money, which is a limited State-wide, and offers no guarantees.  He added, though, that the Governor is encouraging that more money be put into it.  He said that would be the best source, with 319 Non-point Fund as second.  Mr. Small offered to help the Lake Ellen Homeowners to contact people regarding their application.

 

On issue six, commenting on the viability of detention pond theory in general terms, Mr. Small stated that they work very effectively if they are properly designed, sited, constructed, and maintained.  He pointed out, though, that they typically do not take the turbidity out of water because the finest particles are not in the basin long enough to settle out.   Noting that the staff spoke to N.C. State and to the Agricultural Service, as well as read what they could find on it, he reported that flocculants do clarify the water, but only if you get it in the water before a storm and out immediately afterward.   Mr. Small added that flocculants are not yet a practical method for detention basins, but stated that the staff will investigate that and hopes to learn more from experts at the workshop that the Council has requested.

 

On issue seven, considering including specific language in the Special Use Permit regarding functional requirement for SES control measures and the repercussions for failure to comply, Mr. Small reported that the Town could do that, but the technology and process would be difficult and manpower-intensive to monitor and enforce.  He pointed out that trying to put performance standards on soil erosion and sedimentation would be complicated, adding that the Neuse River Basin is trying to do so and those attending the workshop will learn how successful that has been.

 

On issue eight, discussing SES issues from a Town-wide perspective, using the Lake Ellen situation as an example of serious problems, Mr. Small noted that many severe and problematic situations occurred at Lake Ellen all at the same time.  Noting that it could happen elsewhere, Mr. Small stated that the Lake Ellen situation is atypical.  Nonetheless, the staff suggested five items as part of an action plan to manage and control soil erosion, and Mr. Small said that he would be happy to take other suggestions.  He added that the staff hoped to hold the workshop in November and that will give the Council the state of SES in North Carolina as it exists now as well as what is being researched. 

 

Blair Pollock, president of the Lake Ellen Homeowners’ Association, said the Association supports all of the measures in the staff report but thinks there are specific areas where the Town could do more.  Mr. Pollock said the neighborhood would like to try the experimental flocculants in two areas, one immediately down stream of the culvert under Highway 86 and the other where the stream enters Lake Ellen.  He reported that they also would like to see the Town’s stormwater design standards revisited to consider leaving basins in place after construction is completed.  Adding that the Association has concerns about Northern Community Park and how stormwater run-off from the parking lot will be managed, Mr. Pollock noted that there were promises made during the original public hearing about control over erosion sediment during the widening of Highway 86, but basins have not been designed to handle that.

 

Mr. Pollock urged the Council pressure the NCDOT to finish that project and not allow any more delays.  Mr. Pollock said that the Association wonders why Weaver Dairy Extension has not been paved.  He suggested investigating the detention pond at the base of where Weaver Dairy meets Booker Creek for possible SES violation, since it has been in disrepair for most of its existence.

 

Mayor Waldorf commented that the staff had offered a good report and action plan, and asked if Council Members wanted to endorse it.  Council Member Evans recommended endorsing all five of the staff’s recommendations and also incorporating the ideas that Mr. Pollock brought forward.  Noting that the staff usually talks about seeding areas, Council Member Evans asked Mr. Small if they do any kind of re-vegetation.  Mr. Small pointed out that the State has reforestation projects, sometimes planting pine seedlings, but, typically, grass is planted around a basin and sometimes shrubs, such as those around Southern Village.

 

Council Member McClintock endorsed most of the staff’s recommendations and stated that she liked Mr. Pollock’s additions.  She added that she wants an ordinance with teeth and requested that the staff come back with a recommendation on penalties.  Council Member McClintock advised the staff to issue “Stop Work Orders” if those are more effective.  She asked the staff to investigate whether those who contribute silt to a lake should be held responsible for cleaning it up, and remarked that detention ponds that leak should be fined.  Council Member McClintock recommended structuring the ordinance in a way that encourages good civic behavior.  She added that mountain streams are clear after heavy rains because there is no construction activity around. 

 

Council Member Foy pointed out that the Town does not seem to have the resources to enforce its ordinances and to identify where the problems are so it relies on citizens’ reports and other haphazard means of finding out what is going on.  He asked if the Town could deputize someone to monitor projects for the duration and then pull them off when the project is done.  Noting that the work does not seem highly technical, Council Member Foy stated that this would not have to be a new staff position. 

 

Mayor Waldorf supported the suggestion.  Mr. Small asked Council Member Foy if he meant a contract employee, and Council Member Foy said that he did. 

 

Council Member Bateman requested clarification on issue one, asking Mr. Small if he said that the staff saw the violation but then violator got a chance to correct it before being fined.  Mr. Small said that was accurate, and Council Member Bateman suggested that there be two steps:  first you’re fined; and second, you correct it.  Council Member McClintock supported that idea and Mr. Small agreed to have the staff look at that.

 

Council Member Brown asked about issue six regarding detention ponds.  She reminded the Council that it had distributed an article about how increasing numbers of detention ponds do have a harmful effect. She suggested keeping a record of detention ponds in the Town so that the Council can see if the information in the article is valid. 

 

Council Member McClintock remarked that continuing to develop large projects with detention ponds is creating a huge debt for future taxpayers. She urged Council Members to encourage the Manager to work with the Technical Committee on an option on how to do stormwater utility.  Noting that Mr. Small’s report states that the Town might not have the authority to “phase” projects, she suggested that Mr. Karpinos see if it would be possible to do a piece at a time in order to deal with the environmental impact as they go.  Council Member McClintock said that she would like to know what authority the Council has to do this. 

 

Mayor Waldorf requested that Mr. Karpinos think about getting legislation to allow “phasing,” which the Council does not now have the authority to do.  She added that both Representative Hackney and Insko were willing to consider this. 

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council did not need to vote since there was consensus that the staff should move forward with this plan, considering the suggestions that the Council had just made.  Noting that there were five more items on the agenda, Mayor Waldorf asked the Council to if they could move a little more expeditiously or if they needed to start dropping items from the agenda.

 

Item 9 - OWASA Related Items

 

9a.  Recommendations Regarding Sewer Assessments

 

Council Member Bateman stated that she, Council Member McClintock and Mayor pro tem Capowski agreed that sewers are more desirable that septic systems in urban areas and want to encourage citizens with septic systems to hook onto sewers.  She noted that the high cost prevents people from hooking on unless there is either an emergency or some financial relief.  Council Member Bateman pointed out that a household with a septic system problem must convince 50% of its neighbors to also hook on in order to satisfy the OWASA process.  Council Member Bateman stated that hers and Council Member McClintock’s proposal differs from that of Mayor pro tem Capowski’s in some ways, but that all three are proposing that OWASA find a better way of giving an estimate when people petition and to look at how it defines “benefiting party.”

 

Council Member Bateman added that she and Council Member McClintock were recommending that the Town provide a 20% subsidy on sewer projects and ask the OWASA Board to reinstate its earlier policy of assuming up to 15% of the design or engineering costs and 5% of the legal cost of a particular project.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski explained that he agreed with almost everything Council Members Bateman and McClintock had written about the need for public subsidy for putting sewers in existing neighborhoods.  He said that he also agreed that OWASA should revisit its 22 year-old agreement with the University on how it was structured.  Mayor pro tem Capowski explained that his proposal differs in that he thinks a 25% subsidy from all sources is reasonable.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski also proposed asking for a $4,500 cap per lot, which he noted is 2-1/2 times the previous high Town subsidy.  Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that he does not think that OWASA should be a subsidizing agency for two reasons:  the involuntary transfer of money from one group to another is the domain of elected public officials who are directly responsible to the people from whom the money is taken, and the OWASA Board of Directors is not structured for that; and OWASA cannot resolve equity issues since the district includes more than Chapel Hill even though most rate-payers are Chapel Hill citizens.

 

Lisa Stuckey, North Forest Hills subdivision resident, reviewed the public health hazards of failed septic systems and the community benefits of sewers.  She gave specifics from her experience in her neighborhood, where water and soil became contaminated before houses could be hooked up.  Ms. Stuckey supported the petition, but remarked that there should be no cap.     

 

Ashley Osment, co-owner of one of three homes on Patterson Place which ultimately were hooked up to sewer in March 1998, reviewed the difficulties she faced when her septic system failed and there was no OWASA policy.  She said she supported the petition but thought that OWASA should subsidize.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Karpinos if there was some way to force home-buyers to notice that they have a septic system and realize that they are responsible for it.  Mr. Karpinos replied that some attorneys find and provide that information when they search a title and give it to the buyer or lending agency, while others do not.  Mr. Karpinos asked Mayor pro tem Capowski if he was suggesting that the seller provide that information under an ordinance.  Mayor pro tem Capowski replied that it would be the seller or his agent.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated he was groping with how to amend the resolution in order to achieve the notification effect.  Mayor Waldorf remarked that she could not imagine that anyone would not ask about sewers.  Mr. Karpinos said that he would have to think about whether notification could be done, adding that matters such as these are privately handled between buyers and sellers and real estate agents who are bound by their code of ethics to give that information when they know it.

 

Council Member McClintock stated that this issue should be looked at, but suggested cutting discussion off and bringing it back later.  She added that that the Committee had discussed how to finance this endeavor, but had decided to let the Manager suggest options. 

 

Council Member Evans noted she had a neighbor whose septic system failed and had the option of hooking up to OWASA, but chose to install another septic tank.  She asked if the Committee had discussed this issue.  Council Member McClintock responded that the Committee did discuss this and had agreed that it was a desirable goal to have urban areas hook up but some may choose to put in a septic tank. 

 

Mayor Waldorf stated that it was difficult for her to vote on this without having any idea what the annual allocation might be.  Council Member McClintock said that she thought they had discussed $25,000 or $50,000, but she was not sure.  Council Member Bateman said that she did not remember earmarking an exact amount, and had hoped the staff would come back with funding options.  She mentioned an amount of $150,000, but emphasized that she is not sure about amount.  Council Member Bateman noted there was an attachment to the recommendation which says if all of the neighborhoods on the list were sewered in one year it would come to almost $15 million.  She added, though, that of course they wouldn’t be.

 

Council Member Brown said that she believes the wording leaves that decision up to the Council.  Mayor pro tem Capowski said that allocating $150,000 to $200,000 per year probably would be reasonable.   Council Member Foy added that the petition should include that the Council has the ability to “phase.”  Mayor pro tem Capowski pointed out that it would be a couple of years from the time a petition starts to the time the Town would have to put up money.

 

Council Member Foy argued that the Council should be clear that allocating the money is in the Council’s discretion.  Council Member Bateman responded that the Committee had grappled with that and had written, in one draft, that citizens should understand that not every neighborhood that petitions will be approved the first time around.

 

Council Member Brown commented that the language about the line item was a phasing mechanism.

 

Council Member Foy pointed stated that the public might not understand what that means.  Mayor pro tem Capowski explained that there will be language in the final document stating that the Town of Chapel Hill will pay 20% of the bill.

 

Council Member Foy noted that if Ashley Osment, the citizen who spoke about her failed septic system, asked for the 20% she might be in line and the Town might not be able to fund her neighborhood for eight years.  He argued that citizens need to understand that.

 

Mayor Waldorf added that she also wants to understand the commitment that they are making and then wants to make it clear to the public.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski pointed out that there would be no frivolous applications because the property owner still has to pay most of the bill.  Council Member Brown proposed adding “which would be a phasing mechanism” to the line item section of the recommendation.   Council Member McClintock suggested making it simpler, such as “it is understood that the Town can only offer this subsidy to a certain number of neighborhoods per year. “  Noting that the Council needs a predictable policy but does not want to sign onto a blank check, Council Member McClintock suggested telling the public that the Town will commit 20% to everyone coming in but neighborhoods will have to get in line. 

 

Mayor Waldorf agreed with the idea of a cap and asked for comments from those opposed to it.  Council Member McClintock said that she would compromise and agree to the cap.  Council Member Bateman also agreed to the cap.  

 

MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE 20% SUBSIDY IN PARAGRAPH ONE TO 25% WITH A CAP OF $4,500 PER LOT, AND TO CHANGE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH TO STATE THAT OWASA WILL NOT SUBSIDIZE.  COUNCIL MEMBER FOY SECONDED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

 

Council Member Wiggins stated that she was in the process of hooking onto sewer and asked to be excused from voting on the issue.  Mayor Waldorf asked Attorney Karpinos if there would be a problem with that.  Mr. Karpinos replied that the Council could excuse Council Member Wiggins from voting. 

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if anyone wanted to discuss Mayor pro tem Capowski’s proposed amendment.  Council Member McClintock responded that if the argument against having OWASA subsidize is that the Board of Directors, being appointed rather than elected, should not be making such decisions, then she disagrees because they make decisions all the time involving people’s pocketbooks.  Noting that she thinks this is within OWASA’s realm, Council Member McClintock said that it is important for everyone to be part of solving the problem of neighborhoods which have been left out for years.  She added that she might entertain the motion on a cap separately.

 

Council Member Foy stated that he supported the amendment because he agrees that it’s important to maintain as clean a source of where money is coming from as possible, and because it is not OWASA’s responsibility to subsidize this. 

 

Mayor Waldorf said she would vote against the amendment because she is only in favor of the cap part of it.

 

THE AMENDMENT WAS DEFEATED WITH FOY AND CAPOWSKI VOTING IN FAVOR, WIGGINS ABSTAINING, AND BATEMAN, BROWN, WALDORF, PAVAO, EVANS AND MCCLINTOCK OPPOSED.

 

Council Member Evans asked for an amendment to add “with a cap of $4,500.”  Mayor Waldorf asked if that was friendly to the mover.  Council Member Brown said that she would like that to be decided separately.  Mayor Waldorf pointed out that it was not a friendly amendment so if Council Member Evans wanted to push it she would have to move it as an amendment.

 

Mr. Karpinos asked if that was $4,500 per lot.  Mayor Waldorf replied that it was, and Mr. Karpinos pointed out that past discussions involved subsidizing the community and project rather than the lot.  He said that was intended to prevent payments being given to private individuals but rather as a community benefit based on public need.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that the Town subsidy is paid to OWASA, not property owners.  Mr. Karpinos said that limiting it to subsidy per lot would make it appear that the Town is subsidizing individuals rather than projects.  Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the Town could institute a cap which would be measurable to each individual property owner.  Mr. Karpinos suggested that the percentage of the project would end up being the same anyway.  Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that some projects would be more expensive than others.  Mr. Karpinos explained that he meant that a ten lot project would have a cap of  $45,000. 

 

Mayor Waldorf reminded the Council that they were still on the main motion and that Council Member Brown seemed unlikely to accept any amendments.  Mayor pro tem Capowski then proposed an amendment to insert, “$4,500 cap per lot based on the total number of lots in the project which is being subsidized.”  Council Member Brown said that that was okay if offered as a friendly amendment.  Council Member Evans said that was okay with her as well.

 

Council Member Bateman asked Council Member Capowski if he had indexed this for inflation, noting that it was not in his original proposal.  Council Member Capowski then proposed another amendment adding the clause, “this cap will increase with inflation.”  Council Member Brown asked if the language read “reviewed,” rather than “increased.”  Council Member Bateman said that she had meant “adjusted.”  Mayor Waldorf suggested, “this cap will be adjusted annually to account for inflation.”   

 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-7 AS AMENDED.  THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED (9-0).

 

A RESOLUTION MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON OWASA’S SEWER ASSESSMENT POLICY (98-9-9/R-7)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town provide a 20% subsidy to sewer projects for existing neighborhoods with private systems by providing a line item in the Capital Improvements Program budget with a cap of $4,500 per lot based on the total number of lots in the project which is being subsidized.  This cap will be adjusted annually to account for inflation; and,

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that OWASA reinstate the past policy of adsorbing engineering and legal costs up to the 15% limit for engineering costs and 5% limit for legal costs; and,

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that OWASA provide preliminary cost estimates so that residents signing a petition know what to expect; and,

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that OWASA clarify with the University and appropriate government entities the phrase “benefiting party” in the Sales and Purchase Agreements.

 

This the 9th day of September, 1998.

 

Item 9b - Staff Report on Options for Clarification and Possible Changes to OWASA Purchase and Sale Agreements

 

Council Member Foy asked if the Council wanted to clearly instruct OWASA about prohibiting extension of water and sewer into the rural buffer.  He stated that it is not clear and that OWASA is asking for guidance.  Mayor Waldorf said that she had thought it was clear.  Council Member Bateman suggested asking the staff to ask the OWASA Board and its staff to look at the current stipulation in the purchase and sale agreement that exempts the central campus new construction from paying availability fees. 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO INTERPRET THE LANGUAGE IN THE WATER AND SEWER AGREEMENT TO MEAN THAT WITHOUT THE COUNCIL’S REQUEST OR PERMISSION OWASA IS PROHIBITED FROM PROVIDING SEWER SERVICE IN AN AREA THAT DOES NOT DESIRE SUCH SERVICE, EXPLICITLY REGARDING THE RURAL BUFFER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member Bateman if she felt that her point had been covered and would be followed up on.  Council Member Bateman answered yes.  Mayor Waldorf said that she agreed.

 

Council Member McClintock said that she also agreed, and asked what happened to the recommendations that they had in their report.  Council Member Bateman replied that it was in the resolution about benefiting parties.

 

Mayor Waldorf, in response to Council Member McClintock’s suggestion to drop Item 10, stated that she would be representing the Council at the policy committee meeting for this project and needs feedback from the Council to take with her.

 

Council Member McClintock said that she was willing to go beyond the Council’s 10:30 p.m. meeting deadline to deal with the it, but wanted to skip it now because of the people in the audience.  Mr. Horton noted that it would be helpful if the Council could proceed with the selection of the consultant for the Comprehensive Plan. 

 

Item 11 Staff Report on Traffic Analysis in

the Rogerson Drive/Oakwood Drive Area

 

Valerie Broadwell, a Rogerson Drive resident, expressed concern about the cut-through traffic in her neighborhood.  She stated that she had previously submitted a petition for one-way streets which was signed by all but one person in her neighborhood.  Ms. Broadwell explained that the Council had decided to do a traffic study first in order to assess the impact.  She said that the petition also discussed barriers, and the Council seemed to like that idea.  Ms. Broadwell proposed putting in right-turn barriers on a trial basis for a year rather than doing the traffic study.  She argued that this would protect the neighborhood from cut-through traffic by preventing right-hand turns from Highway 54, and would save $40,000 on a study.           

 

Mr. Small explained that, if requested, the staff would do a limited study on Rogerson and Oakwood Drives, with a limited number of counts.  He said they would examine the one-way street request, as well as the option of putting diverters in, and assess the impact that changing streets would have on the surrounding neighborhood.  Noting that the Council had also asked for figures on an expanded study, Mr. Small estimated that it would cost from $45,000 to $60,000 to have a consultant do it.  He offered a third alternative, which is that the staff could collect some data themselves and come back with numbers on volumes and significance of the problem.  Mr. Small pointed out that the Town could also do as requested and put barriers in and see what happens.

 

Council Member McClintock stated that it may not be a good idea to do the study now because traffic will increase in the future resulting from Meadowmont.  She suggested trying the barriers, and noted that the Council will hear about it if it impacts on other neighborhoods.  Council Member Foy pointed out that the Town has $75,000 from the Meadowmont developer for traffic calming, adding that he would hate to spend half of it on a study which may not be the best way to utilize those funds. 

 

Council Member Evans said that she wanted to see some numbers because she has no idea whether 10 cars or 20,000 cars go down that road.  She stated that they could anticipate the impact on other roads and intersections in the neighborhood if they had that kind of count.  Mayor Waldorf pointed out that the resolution before them does not authorize hiring a consultant, but merely asks the staff to count traffic and report back to the Council.  Council Member Evans stated that she endorses the Manager’s recommendation. 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL NOT ADOPT R-6 AND INSTEAD ASK THAT THE STAFF INSTITUTE A PLAN TO PREVENT RIGHT-HAND TURNS FROM HIGHWAY 54 ONTO ROGERS/OAKWOOD AND TO INSTALL BARRIERS THAT WERE DESCRIBED BY MARK BROADWELL IN HIS LAST PRESENTATION, AND THAT THE COUNCIL RE-EVALUATE THIS IN ONE YEAR.  COUNCIL MEMBER FOY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that he agreed with Council Member Evans.  He pointed out that there was a fatal accident at the Glenwood Shopping Center six months ago.  He explained that the Glenwood School Board has designated Raleigh Road at the Glenwood Shopping Center as a “no walk” zone for children.  He added that the new Raleigh Road/Bypass intersection has among the highest accidents in Chapel Hill.  Mayor pro tem Capowski stressed that there is something functionally wrong in the Glenwood area with regard to traffic, and added that he wants to know what it is.

 

Council Member McClintock pointed out that the issue was neighborhood streets, and Mayor pro tem Capowski said that he understood that.  Mr. Small noted that the Town has no base-line data and if anything this would give them that.  Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Small if his recommendation for R-6 would include getting numbers on Raleigh Road and the intersection of Raleigh Road and the Bypass and the intersection of Raleigh Road and Hamilton.  Mr. Small replied no, they intended to do them on the local streets.  Council Member Evans noted that Hamilton is a local street.

 

Mr. Horton stated that he had asked Mr. Small to develop R-6 as an option for the Council’s consideration because the Town has no figures against which to measure change.  Council Member Brown asked how long it would take to gather the necessary data.  Mr. Small responded that it would take a minimum of two months because it would also need to be done during evenings and on weekends.  Council Member Brown asked if Mr. Small was saying that passing the resolution on the floor would mean that there would be no basis for evaluation.  Mr. Horton said that was correct.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT THE COUNCIL NOT ADOPT R-6 AND INSTEAD ASK THAT THE STAFF INSTITUTE A PLAN TO PREVENT RIGHT HAND TURNS FROM HIGHWAY 54 ONTO ROGERSON/OAKWOOD AND TO INSTALL THE BARRIERS THAT WERE DESCRIBED BY MARK BROADWELL IN HIS LAST PRESENTATION, AND THAT THE COUNCIL RE-EVALUATE THIS IN ONE YEAR.  THE MOTION FAILED (2-7).

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED TO ADOPT R-6.  COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION, but added that she wanted to put a time frame on it.  Mr. Small suggested December.  Council Member Evans noted that the recommendation does not specify looking at Burning Tree and Hamilton Roads as well.  Mr. Small replied that the staff would collect information on all of the streets on the map included with the Council material.  Council Member Foy stressed that the report should factor in Meadowmont, adding that the Town should not embark on a traffic study unless it takes into account the impending effect of Meadowmont.  Council Member McClintock agreed. 

 

Mayor Waldorf commented that she thought that everyone had that in mind and was working toward it.  Council Member Foy asked if R-6 would be working toward that by providing baseline figures.  Council Member Wiggins answered that it would because the staff would have baseline information when the traffic increases.

 

Council Member Brown added that going forward with R-6 would give the Council the information it needs to evaluate any measures they might implement and their effect on surrounding streets.

 

Council Member McClintock explained that she had thought the Council was discussing spending $45,000-$60,000 on a study.  Realizing that she had misunderstood that, she stated that she was now in favor of adopting R-6.          

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT R-6, AS AMENDED.   THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO HAVE TOWN STAFF PERFORM TRAFFIC COUNTS AND COLLECT OTHER DATA NECESSARY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING OAKWOOD DRIVE/ROGERSON DRIVE TRAFFIC FLOW RESTRICTIONS AND REGARDING THE NEED FOR AN EXPANDED TRAFFIC STUDY OF THE SURROUNDING LITTLE CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD AREA  (9-9-98/R-6)

 

WHEREAS, the Council has received a petition requesting implementation of traffic flow restrictions on Rogerson Drive and Oakwood Drive; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has expressed interest in determining the nature and extent of traffic problems on Rogerson Drive and Oakwood Drive and on the surrounding neighborhood area streets; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council realizes that traffic data must be collected for analysis and development of recommendations;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Manager to have Town staff perform traffic counts and collect other data necessary to make recommendations regarding Oakwood Drive/Rogerson Drive traffic flow restrictions and regarding the need for an expanded traffic study of the surrounding Little Creek neighborhood area by December, 1998.

 

This the 9th day of September, 1998.

 

Item 12 - Selection of Consultant for Comprehensive Plan

 

Council Member Evans, referring to a written memo, stated that the recommendation of her committee is to select the firm of Wallace, Roberts, and Todd.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED ADOPT R-8 TO SELECT WALLACE, ROBERT, AND TODD AS THE CONSULTANT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW.  COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Council Member Brown disagreed with the recommendation and argued in favor of The Cox Company which she felt captured the vision of Chapel Hill’s citizens.  She also argued that Wallace, Roberts and Todd would be more expensive, stating that she had heard an estimate of  $200,000.

 

Mr. Horton replied that the figure was not accurate.  He pointed out that if the Council selected Wallace, Roberts and Todd, the Town would be able to negotiate the work performed by the staff and could add staff for this purpose.  He noted that that position has already been budgeted.  Mr. Horton further stated that selecting this firm may bring the cost down to not much more than $100,000, and added that he would report to the Council again after negotiation with the firm.

 

Council Member Brown insisted that the recommended firm is likely to be more expensive, and added that The Cox Company gave her a good feeling because it seemed to be a solid firm that had worked with communities like Chapel Hill and had a clear idea of what a visioning process is.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Horton if hiring the Cox firm would cost $100,000 in addition to the Town’s staff member.  Mr. Horton replied that it would be at least that much, and added that he is not convinced that The Cox Company clearly understands the number of meetings that would be necessary for citizen involvement.  He stated that the language in their proposal would allow them to renegotiate that after they got more information. 

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that Wallace, Roberts and Todd would cost $104,000 plus $57,000.  He asked Mr. Horton for his opinion on which firm knows more about North Carolina law.  Mr. Horton replied that Wallace Roberts and Todd is the firm on the whole that would do the best job, and they have a clear understanding of North Carolina law.

 

Council Member McClintock stated that one reason they recommended Wallace, Roberts and Todd is that Randall Arendt would be involved.  She stressed that Mr. Arendt would make a significant contribution and could make recommendations on how to implement the plan.  Council Member McClintock stated that she thinks both firms are equally qualified but that the transportation expertise of a more progressive firm would be a resource for this plan.  Council Member McClintock pointed out that this could be the traffic consultant that the Council had been talking about.  She noted the economical advantage of meshing those two tasks together. 

 

Council Member Evans explained that she had talked to someone on the Planning Commission in Williamsburg who had worked with The Cox Company.  She said that her source was supportive but did feel that it was a struggle for The Cox Company to understand how important it was to get out and get broad community input.  Council Member Evans noted that Wallace, Roberts and Todd has broader experience throughout the US.  She added that the committee was pleased with some of their responses to questions such as how they would address some of the issues of diversity in Chapel Hill. 

 

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED  (8-1), WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.

 

A RESOLUTION SELECTING THE FIRM OF WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR REVISION OF CHAPEL HILL’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (98-9-98/R-8)

 

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill town Council has initiated a process to revise Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council intends to retain consulting services to assist in this project; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed proposals to provide such services and finds the proposal from Wallace Roberts & Todd, of Coral Gables, Florida, to be the most desirable proposal;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council selects Wallace Roberts & Todd to assist the town in its efforts to revise Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Town Manager to negotiate a scope of services for Steps 1 and 2 of this project, as described in the attached memorandum and a proposal dated August 28, 1998, with the amount of the contract for work during the 1998-99 fiscal year to be negotiated and presented to the Town Council.

 

This the 9th day of September, 1998.

 

Item 13 - Response to Chapel Hill Merchant (Tom Denham Petition)

 

Mr. Horton stated that there are three ways to approach this petition:  Mr. Denham could apply for a Special Use Permit, which would authorize a temporary building; he could apply for modification of a site plan approval that the Planning Board has already authorized; or he could use a temporary nearby building.  A fourth option would be for Council to instruct the staff to understand the phrase “construction-related” more broadly than it has in the past.  Mr. Horton added that the portable building would have to be attached and secured with appropriate utilities in accordance with Town Code, and that it could not be on wheels.         

 

Mr. Denham, co-owner of the Florenza shop on Franklin Street, explained that he will have to relocate his business for about four months while renovating his store.  He said that the property owner next door has given him permission to put a temporary trailer behind his building in the parking lot.  Mr. Denham explained that remaining close to his main location would keep his business healthy.  He suggested reinterpreting “construction trailer” so that one could be used for business purposes as long as it did not conflict with the public interest.  Mr. Denham noted that his business does not require a public health certificate and his trailer would not be visible from the street.

 

Council Member Evans pointed out that redefining “construction trailer” would not work in this case because the trailer would not be on his property.  Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Horton how the Council could help Mr. Denham without opening things up to the “hot dog trailers” that are now on campus.  Mr. Horton responded that the Special Use process or the Site Plan process would avoid that problem.

 

Mr. Horton stated that he would refuse to implement the last option if the Council were to tell him how to interpret “construction related,” he offered the staff’s interpretation: “to include portable buildings onto or near a construction site to allow continuation of a business that would otherwise have been disrupted by construction activity.”  Acknowledged that this is “stretching things” Mr. Horton pointed out that it is an option which would not allow hot dog stands. 

 

Council Member Pavăo asked if that would resolve the problem, and if it included meeting the code.  Mr. Horton replied that the structure would have to meet all the normal safety codes, which would include having a substantial foundation, rather than wheels or concrete blocks.  Council Member Pavăo asked Mr. Denham if that was possible for him to do.  Mr. Denham replied that it would be.   Mr. Pavao asked Mr. Horton if he was comfortable with the language.  Mr. Horton replied that it was at the very edge of discomfort but that he would make it work.  Mayor Waldorf asked if Mr. Horton would be more comfortable including a time limit.  Mr. Horton replied that the Town would not give Mr. Denham a certificate of occupancy for his new building until the trailer was gone.

 

Council Member Foy wondered how long the Special Use Permit process would take.  Mr. Horton responded that the fastest one they had ever done took 29 days.  Council Member Evans asked what the next fastest was, and Mr. Horton replied two to three months.  Council Member Foy asked Mr. Denham how quickly he needed permission.  Mr. Denham indicated that he needed it soon.

 

Council Member McClintock asked if this interpretation of “construction-related” would allow others to do the same thing.  Mr. Horton said that he would feel obligated to treat anyone similarly situated in the same manner, but was not sure if others would be able to demonstrate that.  Council Member McClintock explained that she wanted to help Mr. Denham but was worried about opening things up.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ALLOW A BROADER INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM CONSTRUCTION-RELATED TO INCLUDE PORTABLE BUILDINGS ON OR NEAR A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO ALLOW CONTINUATION OF A BUSINESS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN DISRUPTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Mr. Horton noted that the Council could change this policy later on if it turned out to be a bad idea.

 

Item 11 - Consent Agenda Items Pulled for Discussion

 

4c - Resolution Authorizing the Manager to Request that the NC Department of Transportation Designate Meadowmont Lane as a Town Street

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski pulled item #4c for further discussion.

 

Mr. Horton explained that the State would not agree to some of the details of the Meadowmont final plans that are important to the Council, such as a differential pavement at a key intersection.  He pointed out that planting trees would be impeded if the State controls the street.  Mr. Horton suggested that it would be preferable to make these Town-controlled streets in order to carry out the designs that the Council had approved.  Noting that the State does not provide enough money to do things the way that Chapel Hill wants them, Mr. Horton said the Town probably would receive some Powell funds.  He described this as a normal condition, and proposed that the Town take control of Meadowmont Lane and Barbee Chapel Road. 

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski explained that he pulled this item because he remembered how the construction of Finley Forest Condos destroyed Barbee Chapel Road.  Noting that Meadowmont will be built over a number of years, Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Horton when the Town could accept these two roads.  Mr. Horton replied that they would be accepted at the time that they were fully constructed to meet Town standards.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski predicted that the roads will be destroyed by construction traffic.  He asked how the Town could guarantee that they would stay in driveable condition without spending Town money.  Mr. Horton explained that the Town would include in its acceptance agreement provisions for the Town to require a bond to guarantee the condition of the streets for a period of time.  Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the Council should amend R-2 to force that bond.  Mr. Horton replied that it was an ordinary requirement.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that he was delighted that the Town, rather than the NCDOT, would be involved.  He reiterated his opinion that that those roads will be destroyed several times because of the amount of construction going on. 

 

Mayor Waldorf agreed, and suggested passing the resolution but asking the Manager to pay special attention to the bonding terms.  Mayor pro tem Capowski suggested putting that in the resolution.  Mr. Horton noted that construction detail of the street is most important and the Town would have a very heavy specification because it anticipates these difficulties.  Mr. Horton noted that the Town will pay special attention to the bonding requirements as well.

 

Council Member Evans noted that the roads are transit corridors as well, and Mr. Horton agreed that the buses tear the streets up.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski proposed an amendment to say  “the Town of Chapel Hill will have sufficient funds available from the developer to cover the repair of these streets under construction for the entire build-out time of the Meadowmont project.”

 

Mr. Karpinos and Mr. Horton noted that they could not say without more information if that wording is acceptable.  Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that he was concerned because this will be much more than a two year project.  Mayor Waldorf suggested adding the phrase “with special attention to bonding requirements” only.  Mayor pro tem Capowski insisted that “for the entire period of build-out” be included as well.  Mr. Horton pointed out that that would be for an indefinite period because it is possible that it would never be built out. 

 

Council Member Bateman wondered if it would be better to put off voting.  Mayor Waldorf urged the vote.

 

Council Member Evans pointed out that the Council could amend it later but should pass it now in order to say that the Council wants Town rather than State roads.

 

Council Member Bateman stated that Mayor pro tem Capowski’s point is a good one.

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested passing the resolution and asking the staff to address the other concerns when they can.  Mr. Horton said that he could come back with an answer on October 12th on how to approach this.  Mayor Waldorf pointed out that everyone agrees that Mayor pro tem Capowski’s suggestion is reasonable but they don’t know quite how to do it.  She recommended initiating R-2 and making Meadowmont Lane a Town street.  

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO PASS R-2 AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO REQUEST THAT THE NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DESIGNATE MEADOWMONT LANE AS A TOWN STREET.  THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO REQUEST THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DESIGNATE MEADOWMONT LANE AND BARBEE CHAPEL ROAD EXTENSION IN THE MEADOWMONT DEVELOPMENT AS TOWN-OWNED STREETS (98-9-9/R-2)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to request that the North Carolina Department of Transportation designate Meadowmont Lane and Barbee Chapel Road Extension in the Meadowmont development as Town-owned streets.

 

This the 9th day of September, 1998.

 

5a - Report on South Columbia Road Repairs


This item was pulled by Mayor pro tem Capowski for further discussion.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski explained that the curb and gutter between Cameron Avenue and South Road is falling apart.  He stated that the NCDOT’s claim that repair of this is beyond the scope of their routine maintenance program needs to be challenged, and asked Mayor Waldorf to put this item on the agenda.     

5b - Report on Meadowmont Village Center Revisions in Accordance

with Stipulations of Approval

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski pulled item #5b for further discussion.

 

Mr. Horton explained that the Council had asked the Meadowmont developer to replace a 106-space portion of a proposed parking lot with public green space in the Village Center.  Mr. Horton stated that the developers plan appears to meet his understanding of what the Council desired, and, without further direction, the staff would approve it.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asserted that one cannot build a 106-space parking lot on 31,000 square feet of land, and indicated that he thought that York Properties manipulated information in order to give up less area for green space.  Council Member Capowski stated that he also was bothered by the staff approving the proposal, which he said did not satisfy paragraph 2a of the Special Use Permit.  Mayor pro tem Capowski moved to require the applicant to satisfy paragraph 2a by providing 76,000 square feet of greenspace in lieu of the 106 parking spaces which is required by paragraph 2a of the Special Use Permit. 

 

Council Member McClintock asked Mayor pro tem Capowski how he had arrived at 76, 000 square feet.  Mayor pro tem Capowski explained that paragraph 2a says that the developer has to provide green space equal to a parking lot of 106 spaces.  He stressed that this does not mean physical space, where you could stash 106 cars and ignore buffers and driveways.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski argued that there is no way that an architect could design a 106-space lot in 31,000 square feet, unless he could drop the cars into place.  He added that it also would not fit the buffer requirements of Chapel Hill.   

 

Mayor Waldorf asked for comments from the staff and the applicant.  Council Member Foy seconded Mayor pro tem Capowski’s motion.  Mr. Horton stated that the staff had no greater direction from the Council than a 106-space parking lot, adding that the staff made the best interpretation they could.  Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Waldon if one can construct a 106-space parking lot on 31,000 square feet under Chapel Hill’s development ordinance. 

 

Mr. Waldon responded that one could not do so from scratch, or in isolation, but that the staff had considered the context of the Village Center.  Mayor pro tem Capowski stressed that he and Mr. Waldon differed.  Mr. Horton commented that that was why they bring reports to the Council, so that the Council can correct them if they make a mistake. 

 

Mr. Dockery, of York Properties, noted that the additional greenspace at the Village Center enhances the plan that they developed.  He said that they used land equivalent to 106 parking spaces.  He added that building a parking area on a vacant lot somewhere probably would require more land than it does in the context of the Village Center.  Mayor pro tem Capowski pointed out that the Council had asked for “land equivalent to 106-spaces” and that the letter from York Properties had changed that to say “106 parking spaces.”    Mr. Dockery replied that those were his words, and that was his intent.  He explained that he was not trying to change the condition.  He said that was just how he interpreted it.

 

Mr. Horton pointed out that the original discussion was about cutting the number of parking spaces from 1,083 spaces to 987 spaces.   He said that had lead the staff to think the context was this plan, which lead them to recommend approval.   Mayor Waldorf agreed about the context in which this came up.  Council Member Foy asked if the Council had meant 987 spaces as a maximum.  Mayor Waldorf said that the objective was to reduce parking.  Mr. Dockery displayed a letter which he sent early in the process, in which York Properties had discussed less open space than they ended up with.

 

Council Member Pavăo asked if the proposal reduces the number of spaces to the limit that Council intended to reach.  Mr. Horton said that it did.  Council Member Pavăo asked what the Council was discussing if it had achieved its goals.  Mayor pro tem Capowski explained that the goal was to reduce parking spaces, but also to increase green space.

 

Council Member Brown recalled that the original discussion involved disappointment that Meadowmont was not providing as much greenspace as the Council had envisioned.   Council Member Bateman stated that she did not remember the discussion, so she intended to rely on the written report that 106 parking spaces is 106 parking spaces.

 

Council Member Bateman called the question.

 

Council Member Evans pointed to the irony of the situation, noting that the Council would be delighted if an applicant built a 106-space lot on 31,000 square feet.

 

Council Member Brown called the question again.

 

Noting that there is a difference of opinion over how much space 106 parking spaces take up, Council Member Evans wondered if Council could ask if the proposal was acceptable to the applicant, or negotiate.  Mr. Horton replied that negotiation would not take place unless Council directs that to be done.  He added that asking if a proposal is acceptable is typically done before a vote is taken and would no longer be relevant.  Mr. Karpinos added that that would take place during the application for a Special Use Permit.  He explained that this is a matter of interpreting something that is in an adopted Special Use Permit, rather than negotiating a condition of approval prior to a Special Use Permit being issued.  

 

Council Member Evans asked what happens if the Council votes in favor of this and the developer feels it is unfair, or inappropriate.  Mr. Karpinos responded that the developer would decide what happens.  Council Member Evans asked if the additional green space could be put somewhere else on the Meadowmont site.  Mayor Waldorf noted that the question had been called and she was about to call for the vote.  She added, though, that she planned to vote against the motion because it is unclear and she doesn’t understand what the implications would be.    

 

MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 76,000 SQUARE FEET OF GREEN SPACE IN LIEU OF THE 106 PARKING SPACES FOR THE VILLAGE CENTER AS
REQUIRED IN PARAGRAPH 2A OF THE VILLAGE CENTER SPECIAL USE PERMIT.  THE MOTION WAS APPROVED (5-4), WITH MAYOR WALDORF, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS, EVANS AND PAVĂO VOTING NAY. 

 

 Item 10 - U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study, Draft Phase I Report

 

Mayor Waldorf explained that she needed to take the Council’s input on this item to a Policy Committee meeting the following week.  Council Member McClintock stated that she disagreed with some of the recommendations, specifically the last three at the bottom of page 11 and the first one at the top of page 12.

 

David Bonk, Town Transportation Planner, explained that the Town did not think the consultant’s work to date had given enough attention to specific elements recommended in the report.  He said that to test whether changes in land use policy would have an impact on transportation within this corridor the modeling assessment process has to be sensitive to that. 

 

Council Member McClintock questioned whether many people would be walking along 15-501.  Mr. Bonk replied that it might happen if mixed use development occurs.  Council Member McClintock pointed out that studies have shown there is not much traffic in these areas, and stated her concern that this gives the message that the Town did not like the consultant’s conclusion and was seeking a different conclusion that would show that a lot more people will be walking and cycling.  Mr. Bonk replied that the response is based in part on data from other sources which does show that there are differences between different types of land use. 

 

Mayor Waldorf noted that it was important to her to know what the Council thought about the first three bullets.

 

Council Member McClintock said she liked the bus-way and was questioning doing away with the expressway altogether.

 

Council Member Foy said that he thought the Council should express in the strongest terms possible that they want the expressway removed from consideration.

 

Council Member Brown remarked that this had been the Council’s position all along, but agreed that it is worth reiterating clearly.  Council Member Brown added that she strongly supported looking at bus-way technology, as well as light rail system. 

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if there was general agreement on those two points.  Council Member Evans asked if the recommendations included traffic signals.  Mr. Bonk said that they did.

 

Council Member Evans asked why the study was done from Eastgate to I-40 and did not include the intersection at 54.  Mr. Bonk explained that the roadway improvements are focused on the bypass to bypass area only. 

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Bonk for an explanation of table 1 on page 5 of the Study, and offered a supplement to R-5 for consideration.  He also commented that the Study showed him that the Town would not get much “bang for the buck,” and he asked that Mayor Waldorf convey that message to the Policy Committee from him.

 

Council Member Brown noted the time, and suggested giving Mayor Waldorf a vote of confidence on the first two bullets and dealing with the rest of R-5 later.  Mayor Waldorf asked Council Members to give her their opinions by Monday evening. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:02 a.m.