SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were: Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were: Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Engineering Director George Small, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Police Major Gregg Jarvies, Police Crisis Intervention Specialist Jim Huegerich, Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, Traffic Engineer David Brown, Human Services Coordinator Karen Rose, Police Chief Ralph Pendergraph, Police Analyst Jane Cousins, Finance Director Jim Baker, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 – Ceremonies (none)
Engineering Director George Small said that this evening’s public hearing was called to hear comments regarding a project completed by petition to pave a gravel segment of Sugarberry Road He said. a successful project had been completed, with the final costs being what had been expected, and the preliminary assessment per property owner was $1,255.00. He said any comments received this evening would be returned with staff comments to the Council. Mr. Small said, then the staff would request that the Council pass a formal final assessment roll, and staff would proceed with the process to assess the properties.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 3 – Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
a. Petitions by Citizens
(1) Grace Beattie spoke regarding the Nunn Street/Jay Street development near Village West. She said the developer, A.M. Properties, was preparing to build along Tanyard Creek and had begun building duplexes on the small upper lot. She said the neighborhood committee’s worst concerns were happening. Ms. Beattie said the Town had a right-of-way control on Nunn Street, building regulations, erosion control, Resource Conservation District regulations, the Ttree Ordinance, and the Greenway program. She asked if all of these ordinances were unable to modify the project, then the Town should give high priority to stricter laws and enforcement.
Margaret Heath, a resident of Bluff Trail, displayed photos of the construction being undertaken by the developer. She indicated how close to the Creek the houses were being built. Ms. Heath thanked the Town for all its efforts on behalf of the neighborhood, and said that something like this must be prevented from happening again.
Mayor Waldorf noted the staff had tried to do the best job possible with a difficult situation.
Council Member Bateman asked if there were mechanisms in place now to prevent such a situation from happening again. Mr. Horton said there were several laws in place for any new subdivision, but that this division of property occurred many years ago. Mr. Karpinos said the developer still had to comply with today’s regulations for building permits.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Karpinos to research whether there was anything the Town could do, such as rewriting the ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, to prevent the use of private drives being used to develop historic lots.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER, FOR A REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY OFFERED A “FRIENDLY” AMENDMENT FOR THE REPORT TO INCLUDE OTHER SIMILAR AREAS IN THE TOWN. THE AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MOVER AND SECONDER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(2) Doug Stuber suggested a 10-step program to improve the United States:
· Outlaw bio-engineering.
· Require once-a-year AIDS testing for boys in the military, but allow them to serve openly.
· Peace and justice for all.
· Pay-as-you-play garbage collection mandatory nationwide.
· Attempt to increase gas mileage in cars.
· Legalize marijuana.
· Shut down all nuclear power plants as soon as alternative power is on-line.
· Government-controlled health insurance for everyone who needs it.
· Keep abortions legal.
· String up a monorail system 28 feet above ground nationwide, within a five-year time limit.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO RECEIVE THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4 – Consent Agenda: Action Items (R-1)
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(2000-02-28/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 January 10, 14, 19, 24, and 31, 2000. |
|
b. |
Acceptance of Law Enforcement Block Grant (R-2) (O-1). |
|
c. |
Application for financial assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the Disaster Relief Act (R-3). |
|
d. |
Budget amendment to accommodate cleanup of illegal dump site (O-2). |
|
e. |
Budget amendment to accept funds for recycled art and magic show (R-4) (O-3). |
|
f. |
Budget amendment to authorize a pledge of $5,000 to the Orange County Chamber of the American Red Cross (O-4). |
|
g. |
Transfer of Zoning Enforcement Officer to the Inspections Department (O-5.1 and O-5.2). |
|
h. |
Resolution granting expedited review to fraternities and sororities (R-5). |
|
i. |
Proposed revisions to the Citizen Participation Plan for the Community Development Program (R-6). |
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (2000-02-28/R-2)
WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Justice has made grant funds available to enhance the quality of law enforcement to the community; and
WHEREAS, Town’s application in the amount of $65,737 has been approved by the Department of Justice; and
WHEREAS, the grant advisory board has approved the proposed expenditures of the grant application; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 14 to allow citizens an opportunity to comment on the grant;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to accept the Department of Justice block grant and to make all necessary assurances.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 (2000-02-28/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, 1999” as duly adopted on June14, 1999, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Police 7,737683 65,737 7,803,420
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Grants 801,365 65,737 867,102
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT’S AGENT REQUIRED FOR APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FUNDS (2000-02-28/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has funds available for costs related to natural disasters; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill incurred damage from the snow/ice storm during the period of time designated by FEMA to occur between January 24, 2000 and February 1, 2000; and
WHEREAS, FEMA requires that any locality seeking intergovernmental assistance must authorize its agent to sign the attached “Designation of Applicant’s Agent”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to execute the “Designation of Applicant’s Agent” agreement for the purpose of applying for FEMA funds related to the snow and ice storm designated by FEMA to cover the period of time between January 24, 2000 and February 1, 2000.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND "THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999” (2000-02-28/O-2)
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, 1999" as duly adopted on June 14, 1999, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
Landfill Fund $6,265,275 72,224 $6,337,499
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
Landfill Fund $6,265,275 72,224 $6,337,499
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS FOR A RECYCLED ART AND MAGIC SHOW (2000-02-28/R-4)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Management Department has applied for several grants from State, local and private agencies to support recycling efforts to put on a recycled art and magic show not budgeted or anticipated this fiscal year, and
WHEREAS, the Town has received or will receive the following grants funds to support this project:
NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance $5,000
Orange County Arts Commission: $1,164
NAPCOR: $ 600
Durham Chapel Hill Homebuilders Association: $600
Paper Stock Dealers: $600
DH Griffin Wrecking: $600
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts the aforementioned grant funds for use in promotion of recycling and waste reduction as stipulated in the grants.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 (2000-02-28/O-3)
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, 1999” as duly adopted on June 14, 1999 be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
LANDFILL FUND 6,256,711 8,564 6,265,275
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
LANDFILL FUND 6,256,711 8,564 6,265,275
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 (2000-02-28/O-4)
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, 1999” as duly adopted on June 14, 1999, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Non-Departmental
Contingency 2,867 15,000 5,000 12,867
Agencies: Other 17,500 5,000 22,500
REVENUES
Fund Balance 1,670,630 15,000 1,685,630
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1999 (2000-02-28/O-5.1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section I:
That the Council hereby amends the "Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan and Longevity Plans for Employees of the Town of Chapel Hill and Bonds of Officials" November 1, 1999 (99-6-14/O-9) as follows:
In Section IV, part C, in PLANNING, DELETE the line
Full-time Part-time Grade No.
# hrs. # hrs.
Zoning Enforcement Officer 1 37.5 - - 24
And, in INSPECTIONS, ADD the line
Zoning Enforcement Officer 1 37.5 - - 24
Section II:
This ordinance is effective upon adoption.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 (2000-02-28/O-5.2)
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, 1999” as duly adopted on June14, 1999, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Planning 1,000,147 16,850 983,287
Inspections 478,909 16,850 495,759
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING IN THE REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATIONS FOR RECOGNIZED FRATERNITY AND SORORITY HOUSES IN CHAPEL HILL (2000-02-28/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received petitions from Mr. Aaron Nelson and Mr. Ron Binder and from Mr. Gary Giles for expedited processing of fraternity and sorority Special Use Permit and Special Use Permit Modification applications seeking to comply with the automatic sprinkler system code; and
WHEREAS, the proposals are intending to comply with automatic sprinkler system; and
WHEREAS, the projects would satisfy a public safety objective.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to expedite processing of Special Use Permit and Special Use Permit Modification applications for University recognized fraternities and sororities seeking to comply with the sprinkler system requirements of the Town, in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A REVISED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (2000-02-28/R-6)
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1995, the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board adopted a Citizen Participation Plan for the Town’s Community Development Program; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recommend that the Town modify its Citizen Participation Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the Citizen Participation Plan as modified in Attachment 1.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
The Town of Chapel Hill
Citizen Participation Plan
for the
Community Development
The January 5, 1995 Consolidated Submission for Community Planning and Development Program Regulations require the Town of Chapel Hill to adopt a Citizen Participation Plan that establishes the policies and procedures for citizen participation.
Citizen participation is an essential component in the preparation and development of the Community Development (CD) Program. This Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) sets forth a process to keep citizens informed and to allow for citizen input at all stages of the program, including development of the Consolidated Plan, program implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.
The Town shall provide for a citizen participation process at the community-wide level. This process must:
Ø Be conducted in open;
Ø Involve lower-income persons, minority groups, the elderly, the handicapped, the residents of the CD area(s) of concentration, the business community, and civic groups who are concerned about the CD Program;
Ø Include reasonable efforts to ensure continuity of participation by citizens or citizen organizations throughout all stages of the program;
Ø Provide citizens with adequate information;
Ø Encourage citizens, particularly those living in slum/blighted areas and where CD funds will be used, and all minorities to submit their views and proposals and to participate in the Consolidated Plan and amendment process, and to provide comments on the performance reports; and
Ø Provide substantial representation of lower-income persons and minority groups on any community-wide or neighborhood advisory committee that may be established.
The following process addresses these performance standards.
Citizens have been and will continue to be involved in the development of the Consolidated Plan. Prior to adoption of the Consolidated Plan, the Town will make available a proposed plan in a manner that affords citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine its contents and to submit comments. The Community Development staff will also consult with the Town’s Housing Department and other assisted housing providers and provide the organizations with information about the Consolidated Plan activities related to its development and surrounding communities so the information can be shared at annual meetings. The following information will be included in the proposed plan:
Ø The amount of assistance the Town expects to receive including grant funds and program income;
Ø The range of activities that may be undertaken including the estimated amount that will benefit persons of low- and moderate-income ;
Ø The Town’s plans to minimize displacement of persons and to assist any persons displaced, specifying the types and levels of assistance the jurisdiction will make available or require others to make available to persons displaced;
Ø How the Town will make this information available.
Prior to submission of the Consolidated Plan, a
period of not less than thirty (30) days will be provided for citizens to comment
on the proposed plan. The proposed plan will include the contents and purpose
of the Consolidated Plan, including the contents and purpose of the Plan, a
list of locations where copies are available; and provide free copies to citizens
and groups that would like a copy. Citizens Typically
citizens may obtain a copy of the proposed Consolidated Plan at no charge
from the Planning Department in Chapel Hill Town Hall, 306 North Columbia Street,
Chapel Hill. Copies of the proposed Plan will also be made available for review
at the Town’s public library. Citizens will be directed to submit their comments
to the Planning Department. All comments received will be summarized and
for those not accepted, the reason why.
The Citizen Participation process is applicable to program amendments as required in section 91.105 of the Consolidated Submission for Community Planning Development Program Grant Regulations. The Consolidated Plan will be substantially amended whenever an activity previously described will not be carried out, or to carry out an activity not previously described in the action plan or to substantially change the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity. An activity will be substantially changed when: (1) there is a change in the use of CD funds from one activity to another; (2) the activity location is changed to a location that is outside of the previously stated community; and (3) the beneficiaries change from one type to another (i.e. low-moderate households to low-moderate jobs).
Prior to a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan, citizens will be given reasonable notice of, and opportunity to comment on such proposed change and reuse of funds. Public notice will indicate the specific aforementioned criteria or mason for the amendment to the Consolidated Plan.
The Town shall hold a public hearing to receive citizen comments on a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan. Public notice will result to provide the public a description of any changes adopted. All citizen comments submitted in writing, or orally will be considered. A summary of all comments or views and for those not accepted the reasons why not accepted, shall be attached to the substantial amendment of the Consolidated Plan. A period of no less than thirty (30) days will be provided for citizens to comment before the amendment is implemented.
Citizens will be given the opportunity to comment on all performance reports the Town submits to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Reasonable notice of submission of reports will be published in local newspapers. The Town shall provide a period, not less than fifteen (15) days to receive comments on the performance report that is to be submitted to HUD prior to its submission.
Any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally during the preparation of the performance report will be attached to the report and for those not accepted the reasons why.
The Town will hold at least two public hearings during the development of the Consolidated Plan. The pre-submission hearing will be held at the initial stage of the development of the Consolidated Plan to obtain community views on housing and CD needs and to develop proposed activities for the program year. A second public hearing will be held to obtain community input and review the specified planned CD activities, and to review program performance.
Any comments or views of citizens received in writing or orally at the public hearings will be considered in preparing the final Consolidated Plan. A summary of these comments or views and for those not accepted the reasons why shall be attached to the Consolidate Plan.
Notice of public hearings will be advertised in The Chapel Hill Herald or other local newspapers at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing. The local radio station, WCHL will also be informed about any public hearing and mailings will be made to interested persons and organizations as noted in F.1. below.
All public hearings will be held in the Council Chamber of Town Hall, located at 306 North Columbia Street. This room is centrally located and is accessible to handicapped residents. Town Hall was designed to meet the North Carolina Building Code requirements for handicapped. The meetings will be held at times convenient to potential and actual beneficiaries.
The Town shall provide full public access to program information and will make good fait efforts to keep citizens informed, consistent with the rights of personal privacy and obligations of confidentiality.
The major means of assuring that adequate information is received by citizens as follows:
Resources must be made available to provide technical assistance to: 1) citizen organizations, so that they may adequately participate in planning, implementing, and assessing the program; and 2) groups of low- and moderate-income persons and groups of residents which request assistance in developing proposals and statements of views. Assistance may be made available to citizens who are organizing and operating neighborhood and project area organizations.
Resources presently available:
1. Staff planner(s) for the CD program can assist citizen groups in interpreting the federal CD regulations and local timetables, in advising groups concerning the procedures to be followed, and in providing relevant background documents and available data.
2. The Planning Department provides technical assistance to the recipients of CD grants, Housing Loan Trust Fund and HOME Program grants.
3. Other non-profit organizations operating in the community may also provide technical assistance from time to time.
It is the policy of the Town of Chapel Hill to provide a just procedure for the acknowledgement, presentation, consideration, investigation and disposition of complaints received concerning the Community Development Block Grant program.
A complaint is a clam concerning any action on the part of a department or contract agency or firm involved in carrying out the CD program, based upon any event or condition which effects the circumstances under which a citizen lives, allegedly caused by misinterpretation, unfair application, violation of contract or lack of established policy pertaining to program implementation and which the complaint feels infringes upon the health, safety welfare or right to due process for himself/herself or his/her family, property or personal possessions.
When a person directly affected by the Community Development program has a complaint, the following successive steps are to be taken. The number of days indicated for each step should be considered the maximum number of number o f working days unless otherwise provided; every effort should be made to expedite the process. Upon request by the citizen, assistance by the Community Development Planner may be in the form of explanation of the procedure, preparation of the complaint, identification of resources, etc. These activities can occur in any of the steps listed below.
Step 1 – A citizen with a complaint may first present it verbally to the Town Planning Department, contract agency or contract firm that is the subject of the complaint. T his step is not a prerequisite for making a written complaint as set forth in Step 2.
Step 2 – If the response that the citizen receives in Step 1 is not satisfactory or if the citizen initially wishes to submit a written complaint, Step 1 procedures shall be followed. The citizen may also present his complaint in writing to the Town Planning Department, contract agency or contract firm which is the subject of the complaint. The Town Planning Department shall investigate the complaint further and respond to the citizen with a written evaluation within fifteen (15) working days when practicable.
Step 3 – If Step 2 does not resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the citizen, the citizen shall request that the Town Manager evaluate the complaint. The CD Planner will assess the nature of the complaint and report to the Town Manager. The Town Manager shall then review the written documentation of the complaint and develop a response.
At any time, a citizen may make an oral or written petition to the Town Council describing the nature of the complaint.
If a significant number of residents of the CD areas speak and read a primary language other than English, bilingual opportunities must be provided at public hearings, and major notices and documents must be printed in the primary language.
The Town Council Chambers is audio-equipped for the hearing impaired and this availability of service is always indicated on all Town Council agendas, as well as in all public notices for public hearings. The public notice also states that Deaf and Hearing impaired individuals needing interpreter services should provide the Town Manager’s Office five (5) days prior notice by voice and TDD. The TTY (Teletypewriter) Devise and the TDD (Telecommunication) Devise are available for use in the Town of Chapel Hill Clerk’s Office, which is the primary communications system for all Town Departments. The Town’s TDD number is 968-2728/TDD, and will be on correspondence to all citizens.
Adopted by Planning Board on 4/10/78
Revised 9/18/78
Revised 5/01/79
Revised 4/15/80
Revised 3/15/89
Adopted by Housing and Community Development Advisory Board on 11/28/95
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
Item 5 – Consent Agenda: Information Items
No discussion. The information reports were received by consensus.
Item 6 – Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission’s Annual Report
Linda Cocchetto, Co-Chair of the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, summarized the report. She said its mission was to enhance and enliven our community through the display of art in public spaces. She reported on projects completed during the year and for the upcoming year:
· Several exhibits featuring over 30 artists during the past year, at the Town Hall and the Chapel Hill Public Library, with a reception for the artists at each of the exhibits.
· More exhibits, six at the Town Hall and six at the Chapel Hill Public Library, are planned for the upcoming year.
· Another Town employee exhibit planned for the fall.
· The Commission participated in the selection of the art to be hung in the Town Hall Atrium.
· A Master Plan for Art is being developed by UNC undergraduate students in Art, under the supervision of Professor Jim Hirschfield, to look at places for art and sculpture to be placed on the campus and in the Town.
Joan Page, Co-Chair of the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, reported on projects in process:
· A Sculpture on the Green project scheduled in conjunction with Apple Chill, with sale of the sculptures made available on McCorkle Place on the UNC campus.
· Received a matching grant of $900 from the Orange County Arts Commission to fund the Sculpture on the Green project.
· Exploring, in collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department, ways to enhance the Pritchard Park area around the Chapel Hill Public Library, with the hope that the Siena Hotel would help fund the project.
· Application for 501(c)(3), for non-profit status, is scheduled for completion in the spring, to enable the Commission to receive corporate matching grants from persons who donate to the Arts Commission.
· A plaque with the names of all persons donating $100 or more to the Commission is on display in the foyer of the Town Hall.
Ms. Page said the Arts Commission appreciated the support of the Comprehensive Plan Work Group’s recommendation to the Town to adopt a percent of funds for art, and the Town’s funding financial support for a staff position to support the Commission’s activities. She said the Commission looked forward to the day when Chapel Hill might sponsor its own arts festival.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT $1,000 BE CONTRIBUTED FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND TO THE ARTS DEPARTMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA TO SUPPORT A SYMPOSIUM ON URBAN LIVABILITY ENTITLED “PUBLIC ART: A SYMPOSIUM FOR ARTISTS AND THE PUBLIC.” THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Brown asked if the sculpture project during Apple Chill was a juried exhibition or if it was open for everyone, and was the Commission planning to use any of the sculptures as permanent exhibitions in the Town. Ms. Cocchetto said there was a Sculpture on the Green Committee, chaired by Betty Cloutier and Nancy Preston, who were preparing a brochure to be sent to artists who might wish to participate. She said she did not know if it was to be juried.
Council Member Brown said the reason she had asked the question was that she wondered if any of the sculptures might be for sale for use at locations in the Town.
Mayor Waldorf said Nancy Preston asked if the Town would be able to purchase one of the pieces of sculpture for the Town, and she had responded with a contribution of $500 from the Mayor’s supplies budget. Ms. Cocchetto said the Commission had discussed getting the businesses and corporations interested in funding such things as the sculptures for the Town.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council was interested in doing more in the way of funding.
Council Member Brown suggested waiting until this first funding worked out, and then the Council could determine if it could do more toward enhancing the Town with the sculptures.
Item 7 – Process for Area-Wide Traffic Management Study of Glen Lennox, Little Creek, and Oaks I Neighborhoods (Resubmitted from February 14, 2000)
Engineering Director George Small said the report was in response to a request from the Council following debate regarding traffic diverters the Town placed on Oakwood Drive and Rogerson Drive and the intersection of NC 54. He said following the meeting at which citizens expressed their support and opposition to permanent traffic diverters, the Council asked for a proposal for a study of a larger area bounded by US 15-501/NC 54/Burning Tree Drive/Cleland Road.
Mr. Small said the proposal before the Council was a two-phase traffic study, which would gather before and after data about traffic circulation, patterns, speeds, and volumes, with diverters in place as they are presently, and after removal. He said while the data was being studied, the diverters would be reinstalled on Oakwood and Rogerson Drives. Mr. Small said the staff was proposing that a citizens committee be established to work with the staff, and the neighborhood representatives could discuss options for whatever might be effective in those neighborhoods. He said it involved three neighborhoods: the Oaks I, the Little Creek area, and the Glen Lennox area. Mr. Small said the staff proposed to collect the data under both phases and solicit representative people from the neighborhoods as a compact group. He noted that studies of the traffic associated with the Meadowmont development would be included in the data. Mr. Small asked the Council to adopt the attached ordinance for $6,000 to add additional traffic counters to aid in the study.
Dorothy Verkerk thanked the Council for adding two crossing guards to the Hamilton Road/NC 54 intersection. She proposed that the Council hire a professional Traffic Calmer, as an expert evaluator of the various tools needed for traffic calming. She felt that this expert could be used throughout the Town.
Beth Kell said she agreed with Ms. Verkerk, but suggested that any study compile current traffic data as well as future projections for traffic on NC 54. She said after this study was completed, then a citizens group could be established.
Madeline Jefferson made note that Kenneth and Pattie McIntyre had submitted a letter to the Council. She said it was important to collect the data after the traffic diverters were removed. She suggested using a facilitator, possibly from the Dispute Settlement Center, to work with the neighborhood group. Ms. Jefferson said that she and three other members of her neighborhood wanted to serve on the neighborhood citizens committee.
Ed Wise said he felt a citizen’s committee was a good idea. He said Oakwood Drive needed to be used as a bypass road in order to lighten the traffic on Burning Tree Drive. Mr. Wise suggested widening Rogerson Drive, and added a study of the traffic on both Burning Tree Drive and Oakwood Drive was needed.
Valerie Broadwell discouraged the Council from forming a work group, based on her experiences as Chair of the Hamilton Road/ NC 54 Work Group. She said the Work Group functioned well because they were all coming from the point of view of making the intersection safe for pedestrians, but they disagreed on how to make this happen. She said the proposed work group would not all have the same point of view for traffic solutions. She said the issue was not the technology, but the political will to accomplish a solution. Ms. Broadwell said it was a matter of whether pedestrians and bicyclists were given rights, or, that motorists had more rights. She felt an expert could determine the priorities more efficiently.
Council Member Wiggins asked that the Traffic Calming Study be made available to the citizens group.
Council Member Ward asked if the two-phased study could be accomplished in the time period proposed by the staff. Mr. Small said the staff would like a longer period of time, such as three to six months, but staff could probably make some predictions within the sixty days.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7.
Council Member Brown said she believed that going ahead with a citizens committee was better than not doing so, but thought the idea of hiring an expert in traffic calming could help with creative solutions, such as the expert hired in the Pinehurst Drive traffic discussion. She asked Mr. Horton if there were members of his staff who might have the expertise to develop such a creative solution. Mr. Horton said the staff had developed considerable expertise in this area over the past several years, and, at this stage, he would not want to have traffic calming as the only solution being applied. He said the staff would probably see different solutions after viewing hard data.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Horton to describe some of the different solutions, other than traffic calming. Mr. Horton responded that there might be a need for sidewalks, changing of the roadside landscape, drainage systems, and other engineering possibilities.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, THAT THE COUNCIL REQUEST THAT STAFF HIRE AN OUTSIDE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT FOR $3,000 OR LESS, TO LOOK AT THE AREA DESCRIBED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, AND CONSIDER FUTURE TRAFFIC AND CONSIDER A TRAFFIC CALMING SCENARIO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
Mayor Waldorf asked if a consultant could be hired for $3,000. Mr. Horton said only if the consultant did it as pro bono work. Mr. Small said he knew it would be impossible to hire anyone who would do the job they would be requiring for $3,000.
Council Member Ward asked Ms. Verkerk if there was an opportunity to get the UNC Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center involved. Ms. Verkerk said this was a sub-group of the Highway Safety Research Center at UNC. She said that Dr. Charles Zegeer worked on the Hamilton Road/NC 54 Work Group without being paid, and the Research Center worked as consultants. She said that the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center would concentrate on other safety measures, as well as traffic calming devices.
Council Member Ward said he saw the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center as a means of getting expert advice and it would work well with the Town’s citizens.
Council Member Wiggins said it would be helpful to combine the expertise from the University with a citizens group. She said that citizens should be involved in helping the Council find a solution.
Council Member Brown asked Council Member Wiggins if her proposal to have an expert work with a citizens group was part of the motion on the floor.
Council Member Wiggins said that might work.
Council Member Brown suggested including the language “traffic management” along with “traffic calming” in Council Member Strom’s motion, and asked Mr. Horton if that would include the issues he had discussed. Mr. Horton said so long as it took into account all of the things that help to make a neighborhood work well for people in vehicles, people on bicycles, and people walking, which were the key issues.
Council Member Strom said that Council Member Wiggins had added a new dimension to the discussion that was really worth considering, and he wished to remove his substitute motion.
THE MOTION WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE INFORMATION CENTER. THE MOVER AND SECONDER ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITIZEN WORK GROUP TO IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANAGING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WHILE MAINTAINING REASONABLE MOBILITY AND ACCESS FOR RESIDENTS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS IN THE GLEN LENNOX, LITTLE CREEK, AND OAKS I NEIGHBORHOODS (2000-02-28/R-7)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council is concerned about traffic management in the Glen Lennox, Little Creek, and Oaks I neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Council realizes that such traffic management must consider neighborhood livability, reasonable mobility and access for all area residents, and practical access for provision of routine and emergency services;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby establishes a citizen work group to identify and evaluate opportunities for managing vehicular traffic while maintaining reasonable mobility and access for residents and service providers.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the work group shall include four representatives from each of the affected neighborhoods (Glen Lennox, Little Creek, and Oaks I) in addition to one representative from the Town Transportation Board, one representative from the Town Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and, if available, one representative from The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC) as an at-large representative, for a total of 15 members.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if the HSRC cannot commit a person to formally serve on this committee, the committee should seek advice and input informally from Mr. Charles Zegeer or other qualified HSRC staff.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests an interim progress report approximately four months after the group begins its work, with a target date for completion of work and presentation of a final report and recommendations by the end of the calendar year 2000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is directed to advertise the proposed work group, to solicit applications to serve on the group, and return applications to the Council for selection as quickly as possible so the group can begin its work.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
Mr. Horton said the word “facilitator” would be deleted from the staff proposal.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY 9-0).
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 (2000-02-28/O-6)
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, 1999” as duly adopted on June 14, 1999, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Non-Departmental
Contingency 8,867 6,000 2,867
Engineering 906,093 6,000 912,093
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
Item 8 – Providence Glen Condominiums – Application for a Zoning
Atlas Amendment and Special Use Permit
Planning Director Roger Waldon presented a follow-up report and review of two applications: one for Conditional Use Rezoning, and a second, for a Special Use Permit (SUP). He said the application was to rezone 23.7 acres of land on the south side of Sterling Drive, north of the Lowe’s site, from Residential-2 to Residential-5-Conditional Use zoning. He said that a request for Conditional Use Zoning allowed an applicant to propose limitations on use as part of the rezoning request, and an accompanying SUP application would come with the request, as was the case with the application before the Council this evening. Mr. Waldon said the staff was suggesting that the Council consider the rezoning and the SUP separately, and if both were acceptable, the staff recommended that the Council approve the rezoning and then the SUP. He said if the SUP was denied, then the staff recommended that the rezoning application also be denied. He said at the Council’s places this evening was information about the existing characteristics of the Residential-2, and the characteristics of the Residential-5-Conditional Use zoning.
Mr. Waldon then discussed the SUP application, in which the applicant proposed: 192 dwelling units, consisting of 16 condominium buildings of 12 units each, and 383 parking spaces, 97 of which would be garage spaces. He said at the Public Hearing there were some key issues, one of which was affordable housing. He sated the applicant had met with Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) Director Robert Dowling. Mr. Waldon said the compromise worked out in the discussions was to allow a provision for the decrease in purchase price of some of the units by offering a package of less expensive amenities. He said a second key issue at the hearing was parking, and the Council felt that 317 parking spaces would be required, although 383 spaces were proposed in the site plan. He said the applicant requested keeping the 383 spaces as proposed. Mr. Waldon said the staff recommendations were that the Council review both recommendations in tandem, and, if the Council found the conditions included in the SUP acceptable, that the Council approve the rezoning application and the SUP application.
Dawn Heric, speaking for the applicant, Michael Sandman, responding to the Council’s concerns said the applicant would:
1. Provide a pedestrian connection to the adjacent 5-acre property on Sterling Drive.
2. Consider reducing the amount of on-site parking. The applicant felt that the amount of parking required for these types of condominiums, in this price range, would not be excessive. Alternative forms of transportation include: sidewalk on Sterling Drive from Sage Road to Eastowne, public pedestrian path to be installed to connect Sterling Drive to the Lowes Shopping Center, bus pull-off installed on Sterling Drive, 100 covered bicycle storage units installed on the site.
3. Investigate the potential use of porous asphalt and the applicant determined the site would still have a wet pond, whether paved or not, which the applicant felt was a visual amenity to the site. The soil on the site could not support a porous pavement system.
4. Explore the possibility of increasing the affordability of the condominiums. After discussion with the OCHC, the applicant determined that it was too late to incorporate affordable units as defined by the ordinance. When the units were designed the applicant did not know about the affordable housing ordinance, when there could have been changes made. After discussion with OCHC, the applicant and the OCHC Director Robert Dowling, mutually agreed to try to lower the entry-level price for all units within the development, which would be accomplished by low-cost fixtures and finish options that would lower the cost per unit by $4,000. Mr. Dowling agreed to help develop this option package prior to final approval for the project.
Ms. Heric introduced Bill Derks, engineer and Project Manager for the development, and Michael Latner, Land Planner for the project.
Andrea Rohrbacher, of the Parks and Recreation Commission, noted that the review of the application for the development showed a lack of a play area for small children, and suggested that this be a requirement of the development, especially since there was a lack of Town parks in this vicinity. She requested support of the resolution requiring a play facility for the development.
Council Member Foy expressed his concerns that the applicant was not aware of the requirement of 20% affordable housing in developments over 100 units. He said it was in the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADJOURN THE HEARING UNTIL MARCH 20, 2000, TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS ADEQUATELY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUE, AT $130,000-$140,000 PER UNIT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 9 – University Mall Redevelopment Special Use Permit Modification
Planning Director Roger Waldon discussed the reopened hearing for consideration of a Special Use Permit to authorize redevelopment of the University Mall site. He said that the Mall as it exists presently does not meet many of the current regulations, so one of the aspects of the requests was seeking a modification of the Town’s regulations. Mr. Waldon said the staff was recommending that the Council make the finding that what was being proposed satisfied public purposes to the equivalent or greater degree with what was being proposed. He said Resolution A would approve the applicant’s proposal with a set of conditions. Mr. Waldon said some of the conditions had been discussed at the public hearing, and some were new, such as a recommendation that the University Mall developer provide 50% of the cost of construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Estes Drive between the Chapel Hill Community Center and Fordham Boulevard.
Jimmy Smith, with JS Architecture, planner and architect of the proposed Mall redevelopment, thanked Council Members Evans, Foy, and Pavão for their assistance in the project, and recommended that future projects should have this assistance, as it would help in the approval process. He noted improvements made to the site plan:
· Added 45 tree islands.
· Added a lawn area at Estes Drive, with deletion of the bay of parking along the road.
· Reduced the parking for the whole site by 256 spaces, 12.5%.
· Created 3 landscaped pedestrian paths.
· Reduced the impervious area by approximately 1.37 acres.
Mr. Smith said the applicant’s people met with members of the Binkley Church and the issues of concern were:
· The visibility and location of the K & W cafeteria.
· The possible combination of driveways from Willow Drive.
· Access from the Church to the Harris Teeter store and the K & W cafeteria.
Mr. Smith illustrated the proposed combination drives, but he said he did not believe this issue could be resolved for several months. He displayed the buffers, which had been increased, and the addition of two sidewalks, one to the K & W and one to the Harris Teeter.
Steve Brown, Kane Realty Corporation, the management and leasing company which manages University Mall, said that moving the K & W was not totally in their control, as Belks, an anchor tenant, might not agree to the relocation of the cafeteria.
Council Member Bateman asked if Belks had been asked. Mr. Brown said his predecessor had shown the plans to the anchor tenants and they had approved the location of the K & W, but they had not seen the plans for the relocation.
Council Member Brown asked what the objections might be. Mr. Brown said the anchor tenants were very sensitive to visibility and parking, and said, from his experience, he did not believe that Belks would approve the relocation of the cafeteria because of its location in the parking field. Council Member Brown said it would provide quicker access to the cafeteria for Belks patrons.
Mr. Smith said the applicant respectfully objected to being responsible for one-half the cost of the sidewalk construction on Estes Drive, feeling it was a large amount of money. He said they objected to construction of a ramp to Willow Drive, because it could cost around $15,000. He asked what the word “majority” meant in Resolution A, item #13; did it mean more than 50%. Mayor Waldorf said it meant more than 50%.
Gary Bird, Ridgefield resident, commented on some staff responses regarding the recycling center:
· Regarding the collection times—the residents consider the 6:00 a.m.-8:00 a.m. better than what they had experienced before with times being 3:00 a.m-6:00 a.m. for collection.
· Regarding the amount of noise generated, the data showed the noise was unreasonable, and the Town should use the Noise Ordinance as a guide to the generation of noise at the site.
Mr. Bird noted that a collection had occurred at 5:45 a.m. this morning in his neighborhood. He asked the Council to consider sound barriers or, more importantly, moving the recycling center off the Mall site.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Bird what data he meant and could he supply the Council with the data. Mr. Bird said, referring to the Noise Ordinance, that the measurement for the sounds from the recycling collection on the day the data was collected was 72-89 decibels, which was measured by a Chapel Hill police officer.
Alexandra “Sandy” Brownstein, 22-year Ridgefield resident, said during the last year the neighbors in Ridgefield had been seriously inconvenienced by the recycling pick-up noise. She said the neighborhood was requesting a reasonable solution to the hours of recycling pick-up, as they believed that Town services should be beneficial to improving the quality of life, not to denigrate it. Ms. Brownstein said she was also concerned about the noise that would be generated by the HVACs to be installed at the Mall. She suggested that the issue of noise at the Mall be included in the other noise generations being investigated by the noise expert the Town had hired.
Rev. James Pike, Senior Minister of the Olin T. Binkley Baptist Church, expressed the Church’s appreciation for the relationship they have had with University Mall, and he hoped that partnership would continue in a positive way. He said the Church was grateful for the improvement at the Mall. Rev. Pike said they had concerns about the unknown factors in the proposal, and requested a continuance so they could have more conversation with the developers and with the owner of the Mall. Rev. Pike said the Church wanted assurances that the impact would be positive for the Mall and the neighbors, including the Church, and the eighty community groups using the Church facility during the year. He said the Church considered itself a church in the marketplace, a center.
Don Wilhoit, Chair of the Binkley Church Council Committee on University Mall, said the members had one meeting with the developers and were unable to adequately address their concerns. He said the priority concern was the location/orientation of the K & W cafeteria building, with the two windowless walls facing the Church. He said the architect suggested double screening, but the Church did not want to be screened from the Mall, but would prefer open space and parking area, not a heavy buffer. Mr. Wilhoit said the driveway could be a “win-win” situation, if they could work together. He said there were concerns about the Chapel Hill Tire building, as well. He requested a delay in the hearing until March 20th so the parties involved could meet together weekly to work out solutions amenable to everyone.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, THAT THE COUNCIL CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO MONDAY, MARCH 20TH, TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANTS AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM BINKLEY CHURCH TO CONTINUE THEIR DISCUSSIONS OF THE IMPACT OF THIS REDEVELOPMENT ON THE CHURCH AND OPTIONS THAT MIGHT ADDRESS THESE IMPACTS.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH THE STAFF TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY OTHER NEIGHBORS CONCERNING NOISE FROM THE RECYCLING CENTER AND POSSIBLE HVAC SYSTEMS, AS WELL AS FROM THE HYDRAULIC SYSTEM THAT COULD BE PART OF THE NEW BUILDING.
THE MOVER, COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, AGREED TO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THE SECONDER, COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, SAID HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE RECYCLING CENTER, AND FELT IT WAS A COUNCIL DECISION.
Council Member Brown said it was a decision that had to be made before the Council went forward with the proposal, and for the staff to investigate.
Council Member Pavão said he preferred dealing with this as a separate issue. He said it was a matter of timing, changing the collection time. Mr. Horton said he believed this could be done.
Mayor Waldorf said the Council, after a decision is made about the hearing, could pass a resolution to change the pick-up time. There was no objection from the Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT.
Council Member Pavão said he felt the Church members and the applicants should have an opportunity to work out their differences and come to an agreeable solution within the time set by Mr. Wilhoit.
Council Member Ward asked when it would be an appropriate time for him to voice his concerns for the project. Mr. Karpinos said if they were concerns which the applicant might work on before the next hearing, it would be good to get them on the table at the present time.
Council Member Ward said he felt an ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) assessable ramp on Willow Street was necessary, and the Council could work with the applicant on the location. He said the construction traffic should not be allowed to use Willow Drive, except for the first driveway next to the Binkley Church. He said he would rather have shade trees within the parking area itself, rather than along the buffer. Council Member Ward said he felt bike racks need only be at the three entrance doors to the Mall and he would like to have bike racks at the other three buildings in the Mall area, to bring the total to the six that had already been discussed.
Council Member Foy asked that, during the discussion between the Church and the applicant about the shared driveway, the discussion would also include the building proposed near the Harris Teeter store, and how that would interact with the road. He said the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had recommended that the bike racks be covered and lighted, and asked what the cost would be.
Council Member Strom asked for specifics for an easement along the south of Estes Drive for a potential Greenways connection. Mr. Smith said the applicant did not own the property Council Member Strom was discussing.
Council Member Evans said, when she requested a sidewalk on Estes Drive, she did not mean all the way to Fordham Boulevard, but only from the Community Center to Willow Drive and to the bus stop, and that area was what she meant for the applicant to share in the cost of construction.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Brown asked if the Council did change the time for recycling collection to a later time by a resolution, would the County, when it took over collection of recyclables, have it within its realm to change the time back. Mr. Horton said he would bring back to the Council a resolution containing a stipulation to cover such a situation.
The Council agreed by consensus.
Item 10 – Items Related to the Community Development Program Budget
Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes reported two Community Development Program items:
10a. Continues the process to amend the 1999-2000 Community Development Program to reallocate $113,000 of program funds to:
EmPOWERment Inc. for the Midway Business Center $ 60,120
Neighborhood Revitalization $ 52,880
$113,000
10b. Provides a recommendation to the Council for allocating $185,380 of Community Development Neighborhood Revitalization Funds. The sources include:
1. Proposed Reallocation of
Community Development funds: $ 52,880
(from Agenda Item 10a)
2. Existing Neighborhood Revitalization
Budget:
Original Budget: $50,000
10/11/99Amendment: $82,500 $132,500
$185,380
Proposed Use of Funds
Acquisition of Properties (Police Department Request) $ 70,000
Abundant Life Center Renovation Project $ 40,000
Neighborhood Revitalization (General) $ 75,380
$185,380
Ms. Barnes said the request from the Police Department was for the purchase of a vacant lot, and to purchase and renovate a vacant house in the Northside neighborhood. She said if the Council approved the funding, the staff would work with EmPOWERment, Inc. to renovate and sell the home to a low-income family.
Ms. Barnes said the second request was from Ms. Ester Tate for funds to renovate the Abundant Life Center, which provides housing for 18 low-income, high-risk individuals and the only single-room occupancy facility in Chapel Hill. She said the staff recommended the funds as a grant, to be used along with other funds to renovate the building. Ms. Barnes said the staff recommended that Ms. Tate apply for funds through the Orange County HOME Program.
Ms. Barnes said the third request was from EmPOWERment, Inc. for funds for Neighborhood Revitalization activities. She said, in addition, EmPOWERment, Inc. requested $15,000 to purchase an apartment in the Pine Knolls neighborhood. Ms. Barnes said the staff recommended the funds for eligible activities such as property acquisition and/or rehabilitation, second mortgage assistance, public improvements, and community services. She said a qualified 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization, including EmPOWERment, Inc., could apply to the Town for the use of the funds. Ms. Barnes said the staff also recommended that the Manager be authorized to approve specific projects for use of the funds. Ms. Barnes noted that both the Amendment and the recommended allocation were reviewed and approved by the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board.
Council Member Wiggins said Ms. Tate’s original request was for $125,000, and she asked Ms. Barnes how the staff had approved $40,000. Ms. Barnes said the $40,000 originally came from the requirement for matching funds through the NC Housing Finance Agency, which provides loan funds. She said Ms. Tate was not looking for loan funds, but she was looking for grant funding. She said the staff had not changed the $40,000 allocation request, but the Council could revise that figure.
Council Member Brown noted the intent was to purchase one or possibly both of these properties and asked if the staff had ever considered putting these properties into the Land Trust. Ms. Barnes said it had not been considered but certainly was a possibility. Council Member Brown said she would like the Council to consider the possibility of putting the properties into the Land Trust.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1999 – 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (2000-02-28/R-11)
WHEREAS, on November 22, 1999, the Council adopted a process to amend the 1999 – 2000 Community Development program to reallocate $113,000 of Community Development funds; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2000, the Council held a public hearing to receive citizen comments on how to reallocate $113,000 of Community Development funds; and
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council amends the 1999 – 2000 Community Development program to reallocate $113,000 of Community Development funds as follows:
EmPOWERment (Midway Business Center) $ 60,120
Neighborhood Revitalization $ 52,880
$113,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to submit an amended 1999 – 2000 Annual Update to the Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to reflect this amendment.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 12.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THE PROPERTIES IN NORTHSIDE BE PUT INTO A LAND TRUST. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY AGREED TO THE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING $185,380 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION FUNDS (2000-02-28/R-12)
WHEREAS, on October 11, 1999, the Council amended the Community Development program and allocated $132,500 of Community Development program income to the Neighborhood Revitalization Activity; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2000, the Council allocated an additional $52,880 of Community Development funds for Neighborhood Revitalization activities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council allocates $185,380 of Community Development Neighborhood Revitalization funds as follows:
Acquisition of Properties in Northside (Police Dept. Request) $ 70,000
Abundant Life Center Renovation Project $ 40,000
Neighborhood Revitalization $ 75,380
$185,380
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that properties purchased in the Northside area be placed in the Land Trust, and that homes built on those properties be considered for Town employee housing.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
Council Member Foy asked if there was a way of including Town employees when the properties were offered for sale. Mr. Horton said the staff would work on the language and bring it back to the Council before the properties were sold.
Item 11 – Technology Improvements in the Police Department
Police Chief Ralph Pendergraph asked the Council to consider the proposal, which involved both citizen and officer safety.
Police Analyst Jane Cousins said the Police Department had outlined five different options in their agenda item, and they were recommending Item #5: Install mobile data terminals which connect via radio modem to both the State information network and the Police Department records program. She said this option also would require the replacement of the in-house software. Ms. Cousins said the present in-house software was not up to the standards the Police Department had thought it would be, and it has had serious problems, the software vendor had not been able to correct. She said the grant of $85,000 from the Governor’s Crime Commission for mobile data terminals (MDT’s) in patrol vehicles had not been used, due to the problems with the in-house software. Ms. Cousins said the Department would be able to extend that funding. She said the Department recommended the purchase of a law enforcement soft-ware program, which was being used by many mid-size law enforcement agencies in the State, which, in addition to the other functions necessary, would allow the Department to apply functions not being used now—GIS functions and mapping.
Ms. Cousins said the mobile data terminal, a laptop computer in a patrol vehicle, would allow the user to connect to the State Police Information Network, allowing officers to check license information from their vehicle, and to communicate with any other police vehicle in the State. She said the officer would also have wireless communication with a database in the Police Department, which would also allow a mug shot to be displayed on his/her computer screen, as well as other information on local law offenses. Ms. Cousins said the combination of replacing in-house software and the installation of the MDT’s would have many benefits: the safety of the officer; decreasing voice radio communication; providing a secure method of communication; providing better services to citizens; and making the system more efficient. Ms. Cousins said there was $185,000 in grant funds available to fund about one-half the cost of the recommended equipment.
Council Member Bateman asked how much time a dispatcher spent a day sending, retrieving and relaying information. Ms. Cousins said approximately 1 ½ to 2 hours per day.
Council Member Evans asked if the University Police Department had the same kind of technology to link up with other public safety departments. Ms. Cousins said she was not sure if the University had MDT’s, nor did the other agencies in the County that used the 911 Center, which is run by Orange County staff.
Council Member Foy asked if the material already in the database would have to be manually entered into the new system. Ms. Cousins said she did not know of any other way to re-enter the data, having checked with staff and the software vendor.
Council Member Foy asked if the re-entering of data was considered in the budget, and how long would it take. Ms. Cousins said the staff would re-enter the data and it would probably take one staff person a year to do the task. She said what was in the DOS system would be put into an Access file, but the data in the new system could not be transferred, because of the problems in the system.
Council Member Wiggins said she had thought of saving dollars through two of the advantages for adopting Option 5: page 6, the last two paragraphs—officers remaining in their assigned patrol areas, and reducing paper work. She asked the Manager how adoption of Option 5 would affect the budget process. She asked if the Town would be committed to the costs in the future, and she asked if some funds could be reallocated with the Town or within the Police Department. Mr. Horton said the staff was not far enough along in the budget process to give confident advice.
Mayor Waldorf said the decision to provide MDT’s had been a policy decision at the budget process the previous year, and it was her understanding that the Police Department was now trying to find ways to implement the funding for that policy decision. Ms. Cousins said when the grant was received from the Governor’s Crime Commission the Council had to approve the match money of $28,000, and the Council also allocated an additional $59,000 for the Police Department to do more with MDT’s.
Council Member Wiggins said then the Town was already committed.
Mayor Waldorf said the Council had made the decision, but the decision could be reversed.
Council Member Strom said he supported Option #5, but he questioned would there be savings as the Town continued to invest in technology, which the Council, at its Retreat, had endorsed. He said he hoped this system could be joined with other Town systems in the future.
Council Member Wiggins said the Council had to keep in mind the savings or reallocation of money as it approved “big ticket” items in the future.
Mayor Waldorf said one of the advantages for saving staff time would be that the Police Department could be working on the back-log of requests from citizens, such as more traffic enforcement, and it could convert to dollar savings or providing additional services.
Council Member Foy asked Ms. Cousins to elaborate on the difference between Option #4 and Option #5. Ms. Cousins responded that Option #4 eliminated the wireless connection to the Police building, but each MDT has software on it that coordinates with the in-house records system, which can be downloaded onto a floppy disk and inputted into the database at the Police building. She said the officer is unable to see the information on the screen in his vehicle.
Mayor Waldorf said that would be a working handicap for the officer in the car, because the officer might not get the safety information needed immediately.
Council Member Foy said he was concerned that there was a great deal of technology that would have to be learned at once, and asked if the technology would be learned and implemented right away. He said he would like to know what the benefit would be for Option #5. Ms. Cousins said the training for the MDT’s would require about four more hours than the training for the in-house software. She added there were two members on staff who would train the officers, and it would be part of the training for all new officers.
Council Member Foy asked if phasing in the system, by adopting Option #4 this year and Option #5 next year, would be an option. Ms. Cousins said it could be an option.
Finance Director Jim Baker said once all federal and State funds were utilized, the Town would be financing $186,000 over three years for Option #5, and financing $96,000 over three years for Option #4. Mr. Horton added the upgrade could be done in another year.
Council Member Foy said he thought that it would be preferable, from an implementation perception, to upgrade from Option #4 to Option #5 over a year. Mr. Horton said the staff would not have put Option #4 before the Council unless they had thought it was viable.
Council Member Brown asked if there would be an additional cost if the Council decided to implement Option #4 and then upgrade it in the future. Ms. Cousins responded there would be no extra cost in adding the second part upgrade at a later time. Mr. Horton added there might be some inflation costs, but the relative costs would be about the same. He said it would be a choice the Council would make as to whether or not it wished to go the extra step in added technology now or in the future.
Council Member Brown asked if the staff had considered any cost-savings within the Police Department to offset the cost of Option #5. Ms. Cousins answered they had not specifically looked at other savings. Mr. Horton said he had looked at ways to cut costs, and, because the largest portion of the Police Department’s budget was personnel, and with one position remaining vacant, it would be very difficult to cut any costs. He said there were many more demands on the time of the Police officers from community-oriented policing issues and from citizens.
Council Member Pavão said, although Option #5 was a matter of dollars, it was also a matter of Police safety. Ms. Cousins agreed that it was a matter of safety.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Horton if he had recently thought of raising revenue via use of the 911 service. Mr. Horton said the 911 service was operated by the County, but the staff could take a look at the possibility.
Council Member Wiggins asked if there was a way of identifying the nature of the 911 calls to see if charges could be made for non-emergency calls. Mr. Horton said the 911 Center operators had declined to consider the kind of system under which there would be two different levels of calls taken.
Council Member Wiggins asked if false alarms could be charged for. Mr. Horton said the staff would take a look at whether or not funds for false alarms would come to the Town rather than to the County.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 13A.
Mayor Waldorf said that the difference between Option #4 and Option #5 was not just for officer safety, but for efficiency, immediacy of information, and assisting officers in doing their jobs on the spot.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO PURSUE THE PURCHASE OF RECORDS SOFTWARE, MUGSHOT SOFTWARE AND EQUIPMENT, AND MOBILE DATA TERMINALS THAT CONNECT VIA RADIO MODEM TO BOTH THE STATE AND CHAPEL HILL POLICE DATABASES (2000-02-28/R-13a)
WHEREAS, the operations of the Police Department would be greatly enhanced if the records-management software is replaced; and
WHEREAS, Department operations would be enhanced if officers have access to the department’ electronic files; and
WHEREAS, officer safety would be enhanced by less use of voice radio transmission and the quicker retrieval of information from the State; and
WHEREAS, services to citizens would be improved by officers remaining in their patrol areas to generate reports and receive information; and
WHEREAS, there is a financial plan to purchase and maintain the systems;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to pursue the purchase of records software, mugshot software and equipment, and mobile data terminals that connect via radio modem to both the State and Chapel Hill Police databases.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
Item 12 – (Approved during Consent Agenda)
Item 13 – Preliminary Approach to Development of a 15-year
Capital Improvements Program
Mr. Horton said in addition to the outline for a Capital Improvements Program (CIP), a summary of the first product, the evaluation of the existing buildings in the Town’s inventory, had been distributed to the Council. Mr. Horton said he believed the Town could undertake to develop a 15-year Capital Improvements Program that would be of real benefit to the Town, that would outline needs that would give the Council an opportunity to plan how to meet them, give an opportunity to develop options ahead of the need, and that the work on the whole would be worthwhile. He said the Council had an option to choose at what pace it wished to proceed.
Mr. Horton said with the present sources of resources the Town had, it would take several years to fully develop the 15-year CIP covering all the topics the Council might want to cover. Mr. Horton said there were some things that could be put into the CIP very quickly, such as those already completed or due for completion, such as:
· A Master Plan for development of the Greenways System.
· Within 12 months a Master Plan for the Parks & Recreation System.
· Within 12 months a Master Plan for Library Development.
· A Comprehensive Plan soon to be adopted, which would give excellent guidance as the Council undertakes the work of deciding what resources are needed by the Community.
Mr. Horton said a few key steps were:
· Developing an inventory of potential capital needs categories.
· Determining priorities for projecting and assessing capital needs by category.
· Projecting and assessing capital needs for each priority.
· Determining realistic funding mechanisms and a funding schedule for high priority projects.
Mr. Horton said the CIP could be developed over a period of a few years with the present staff, or more quickly, which would require spending more money.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Horton if the wealth of information the staff had provided to the Council regarding the Post Office building would be required for every building, and what the cost would be. Mr. Horton said the work had been done for a total of $10,000, and he felt it was necessary in order that nothing be overlooked.
Council Member Strom said he felt this was a good start and the Council would benefit from taking a comprehensive approach to capital improvements, and the approach of getting as much in place from what the Town already had was the way to go.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council, with the Manager’s recommendation, consider the ideas raised in the report at a budget work session.
Item 14 – Final Approval of Bond Sale
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 15. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BONDS AND DESIGNATING THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA AS PAYING AGENT FOR THE $4,700,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2000
(2000-02-28/R-15)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (the "Town") as follows:
Section 1. Notice was duly distributed calling for sealed bids to be received by the Local Government Commission, at its office in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, until 11:00 A.M., North Carolina time on Tuesday, February 15, 2000, for the Bonds, at which hour bidding was closed and the following bids were found to have been filed offering to purchase the Bonds and to accord in all respects with the terms of the notice, each bid being accompanied by an official bank check, a cashier's check, a certified check, a treasurer's check or a financial surety bond in the amount of $94,000 payable unconditionally to the order of the State Treasurer of North Carolina.
(1) Bid of Wachovia Securities, Inc. offering to pay $4,700,000 plus accrued interest for the Bonds, and naming for the Bonds the interest rates set forth below in Column (1) of the tabulation headed "INTEREST RATES NAMED IN BIDS."
Maturity Bonds Interest Rates Named in Bids
(1) (2) (3) (4)
2001 $175,000 5.20% 5.20% 5.40% 5.00%
2002 200,000 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.00
2003 250,000 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.00
2004 200,000 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.00
2005 200,000 5.25 5.30 5.40 5.00
2006 75,000 5.25 5.30 5.40 5.20
2007 200,000 5.25 5.30 5.40 5.20
2008 200,000 5.25 5.40 5.40 5.20
2009 200,000 5.25 5.40 5.40 5.20
2010 300,000 5.25 5.40 5.40 5.20
2011 300,000 5.25 5.40 5.40 5.30
2012 300,000 5.25 5.40 5.40 5.50
2013 300,000 5.25 5.40 5.40 5.50
2014 300,000 5.25 5.40 5.40 5.50
2015 300,000 5.25 5.40 5.40 5.75
2016 300,000 5.30 5.40 5.40 5.75
2017 300,000 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.75
2018 300,000 5.40 5.40 5.50 5.75
2019 300,000 5.40 5.40 5.50 5.75
Section 3. That the bid offering to purchase the Bonds at the lowest net interest cost to the Town, such cost being determined by deducting the amount of premium bid from the aggregate amount of interest upon all the Bonds from March 1, 2000 until their respective maturities, was the bid Wachovia Securities, Inc. offering to pay $4,700,000 plus accrued interest for the Bonds, and naming for the Bonds the interest rates set forth above in Column (1) of the tabulation headed "INTEREST RATES NAMED IN BIDS" in Section 2 above, such net interest cost being 5.2895%.
Section 4. It is hereby determined that under the terms of the Notice of Sale with respect to the Bonds the bid of Wachovia Securities, Inc. should be accepted and the acceptance thereof is in the best interests of the Town.
Section 5. The Bonds are hereby awarded to Wachovia Securities, Inc. at the price set forth in Section 2 above offered for the Bonds and at the rates of interest named in said bid as set forth above in Column (1) of the tabulation headed "INTEREST RATES NAMED IN BIDS" in Section 2 above, and the Bonds shall be issued bearing interest at those rates.
Section 6. The Bonds shall be prepared and executed by the Mayor and Town Clerk of the Town substantially in the form and manner set forth in the Bond Resolution, as amended by the terms of this Resolution, with a certificate of authentication to be added thereto and executed by the Director of Finance of the Town. Bonds in typewritten form shall be delivered to or upon the order of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York upon payment of the purchase price and accrued interest no later than March 1, 2000.
Section 7. The Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina is hereby designated and appointed by the Town to act as Paying Agent for the Bonds.
Section 8. The officers and agents of the Town are hereby authorized and directed to do all acts and things necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Resolution.
Section 9. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage.
This the 28th day of February, 2000.
Mayor Waldorf announced that Scott Radway had been appointed to the Planning Board with 5 votes.
|
Planning Board |
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Applicants |
Waldorf |
Bateman |
Brown |
Evans |
Foy |
Pavão |
Strom |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Henry Lister |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
||||||||
|
Scott Radway |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
5 |
||||||
|
Charles Beacham |
X |
1 |
||||||||||
Item 16 – Petitions
a. By the Mayor and Council Members.
(1) Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council wished to continue cablecasting the budget work sessions.
Council Member Foy asked how much it cost. Town Clerk Joyce Smith responded approximately $80 per hour. Mr. Horton added the total cost is about $200 a session.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO DISPENSE WITH CABLECASTING BUDGET WORK SESSIONS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 7-2, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, EVANS, PAVÃO, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOY AND STROM VOTING NAY.
Mr. Horton noted that videotapes are made of the sessions if anyone wanted to view them.
(2) COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT THE PETITION FROM STEVE DOBBINS BE REFERRED TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WOULD COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL.
Council Member Pavão said the Historic District Commission had already sent its recommendations to the Council.
Council Member Brown said her petition was to make it an official request, and was just a nicety. She stated she was trying to honor the Historic District Commission, since the referral was to the Planning Board. Council Member Brown said she wanted to acknowledge and recognize the Historic District Commission and their official position.
Council Member Foy suggested sending the Council’s thanks to the Historic District Commission.
Mayor Waldorf agreed to write a letter of thanks to the Commission.
(3) COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO REQUEST THE MANAGER TO INVESTIGATE THE RESEARCH MENTIONED IN AN ARTICLE IN “BIOCYCLE WORLD”, AS TO WHETHER THIS MATERIAL IS NOW AVAILABLE, AND IF SO, DETERMINE IF IT WOULD BE A PRACTICAL AND MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DEICER WHERE NEEDED DURING WINTER MONTHS.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the staff had heard about this salt substitute for de-icing. Mr. Horton said he had not.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the investigation could be put off for a while, since the budget was presently the priority.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).
(4) Council Member Strom said that he and Council Member Bateman wanted to know where the issue of establishing a leash-free dog park stood. He said he wanted this to be an action item for the Parks and Recreation Department and for the Council to pursue. He added the inclusion of a brief discussion of some rules for leash-free to the petition.
Council Member Strom said he had visited an in-town park in Philadelphia that had a list of rules and regulations posted, and many other communities were also establishing these kinds of parks.
Council Member Brown said she thought the Council had already asked the staff to work on this issue when it was discussing Merritt Pasture. Mr. Horton said the staff brought back a report stating that they had not been able to identify a suitable site.
Council Member Bateman said she had discussed this with the Parks & Recreation Commission, and the Council needed to identify who would pursue this issue.
Council Member Evans said if it was an urban one it did not have to be huge.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN AND STROM BE APPOINTED AS A COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE ISSUE OF A LEASH-FREE DOG PARK IN CHAPEL HILL, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY COULD CALL ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF, OR ANYONE ELSE FOR HELP.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).
(5) Council Member Strom said, in his role as liaison to the Community Design Commission, had the opportunity to review the concept plan for a 52-acre property off Homestead Road. He said he believed it would be useful for the Mayor to appoint a committee of the Council to meet with the developer to review ideas in the new Comprehensive Plan relevant to this property, and give an early sense of the Council’s concerns and interest to the developer. Council Member Strom said the property was important because it was at an entranceway to the Town, and near the Horace Williams property.
Council Member Brown said she was opposed, saying she felt it was going in the wrong direction, by establishing relations between Council and the developer, leaving citizens out. She asked for a Council motion so she could vote against it.
Council Member Wiggins said she supported the ad hoc committee method, because the Council had been very successful in achieving some of its goals. She suggested that whomever served on the committee should take special care in working with the developer to maintain the integrity of the public hearing process.
There was no motion, but Mayor Waldorf noted that Council Member Brown had been opposed to the petition.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m.