|
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Council members present were Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Flicka Bateman arrived at 7:31 p.m. 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, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Solid Waste Administrator Gayle Wilson, Engineering Director George Small, Housing Director Tina Vaughn, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith. Item 1 – Ceremony: Recognition of Bunny Spadaro Mayor Waldorf read a resolution recognizing Ms. Bunny Spadaro, Town of Chapel Hill Personnel Department, for all the years of planting and tending the flowers at the entranceway of the Town Hall and at the corner of the building. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING BUNNY SPADARO. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE WORK OF MS. BUNNY SPADARO IN PLANTING THE FLOWER GARDENS AT TOWN HALL WHEREAS, since 1992, Ms. Bunny Spadaro has planted beautiful flowers and plants at two of the entrances to Town Hall; and WHEREAS, Ms. Spadaro used seedlings and plants from her own flower gardens to plant the flower gardens at Town Hall; and WHEREAS, citizens and employees have enjoyed the beauty of hydrangeas, azaleas, hibiscus, lenten roses, ferns, hostas, roses, salvia, irises and many other varieties of flowers and plants; and WHEREAS, Ms. Spadaro has contributed her own time and resources in developing the flower gardens; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council recognizes the work of Bunny Spadaro and thanks her for providing beautiful flowers and plants for our enjoyment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the Manager is authorized to provide up to $100 annually for the purchase of plants and supplies. This the 6th day of March, 2000. Ms. Spadaro thanked the Council for the recognition, and said in the future she would look to find more native plants and provide more identifying labels. Item 2 – Public Hearings (none) Item 3 – Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members 3a.1. Lewis Miles, 412 Sharon Road Mr. Miles said he was a volunteer present this evening to speak on behalf of the North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections (NCVCE) to petition the Council to pass a resolution supporting campaign finance reform in the North Carolina State Legislature, specifically the Clean Elections Act presently under consideration in both Houses of the Legislature. After summarizing the reasons for support of the Resolution, Mr. Miles asked the members of the various alliances responsible for the petition and present this evening to introduce themselves: Peter Walz North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections Adam Sotak North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections Barbara Neggisheim North Carolina Alliance for Democracy David Hauri North Carolina Alliance for Democracy Ruth Zalph North Carolina Alliance for Democracy Nancy Woods North Carolina Alliance for Democracy and the Raging Grannies Nancy Milio North Carolina Alliance for Democracy Lorena Mills North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections Robert Porter North Carolina Alliance for Democracy Henry Landsberger North Carolina Alliance for Democracy Joe Mazetta North Carolina Elections Committee Bob Willis North Carolina Alliance for Democracy Elizabeth Outz North Carolina Public Information Research Group COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CAMPAIGN REFORM. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CAMPAIGN REFORM (2000-03-06/R-0.1) WHEREAS, spending on political campaigns for legislative and State-wide races in North Carolina has skyrocketed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the high costs of campaigning acts as a barrier to exclude many qualified candidates; and WHEREAS, the increasing importance of private money in campaigns gives wealthy donors and special interests an unfair advantage over ordinary voters and diminishes the rule of “one person, one vote”; and WHEREAS, big donors can use their advantage to win public policies that sometimes harm the public good and add substantial costs for taxpayers; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that we urge the N.C. General Assembly and Governor to enact a Clean Election program similar to those in states as diverse as Arizona and Massachusetts. Such a program provides a competitive amount of campaign money to state candidates who voluntarily (a) demonstrate broad support from registered voters in the relevant district, (b) accept strict limits on private fundraising, and (c) agree to strict campaign spending limits. Such a program should be funded by closing tax loopholes or other means that result in no tax increase for the average taxpayer. This the 6th day of March, 2000. Mayor Waldorf thanked the representatives for bringing this issue before the Council, and making it easy for the Council to be a part of the campaign. 3b.1. Cathy Riley, 1 Timberlyne Road Ms. Riley spoke regarding the construction of sidewalks along Weaver Dairy Road. She said one sidewalk would be temporary, for use until the widening of Weaver Dairy Road by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), scheduled in 2004 at a cost of $180,000, is completed. Ms. Riley suggested other solutions, such as waiting for NCDOT to place the sidewalks as a part of the widening construction, or to build sidewalks to the specifications of NCDOT, so the Town could be reimbursed. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). Council Member Brown said she had a petition later on in the meeting that would be discussed in relation to Ms. Riley’s remarks. 3b.2. Richard Goldberg, Vice-President of the Haw River Assembly Mr. Goldberg said he was responding to Item 5b on this evening’s agenda, which addressed a petition made by the Haw River Assembly at the January 24, 2000 Council meeting. He said the Assembly members appreciated the attention given by the Council to this petition, they felt that the Town Manager’s response was inadequate. Mr. Goldberg said the data showed that the sediment and fecal coliform levels of pollution in Morgan, Bolin, and Meeting of the Waters Creeks was a serious problem, and could be seen by viewing the creek waters. He urged the Council to be more aggressive in addressing the pollution problems, and to improve the methods used to address these problems. 3b.3. Bob Clapp Mr. Clapp said the purpose of his comments were to: 1. Draw the Town Council’s attention to the funding dynamic brewing between the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education—or “bullying” by the Commission. 2. Encourage the Town Council to be mindful of what was occurring, and supportive of the schools. 3. Inform the Town Council of the public’s growing concern about this and the upcoming budget process for the School System as it pertained to the County’s budget process. Mr. Clapp referenced articles in the local newspaper regarding a meeting with the School Boards of Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County and the invitation by the Orange County Board of Commissioners to the Board of Education to participate on a task force regarding a school funding plan. He said the County was seeking to apply a formula methodology for funds, and moving away from a supportive needs-based budget approach. Mr. Clapp asked that the Council not be lulled into a sense of ease on the issue, thoroughly review the materials he had presented at tonight’s meeting, be mindful of the future problems, and examine the motives of the County Commissioners regarding a formula-based budget. Mr. Clapp said he shared with the County Commissioners a petition with nearly 100 signatures of people concerned with the budget issues. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). 3b.4. Daniel Rose, representing Crossland Properties, and speaking on behalf of it and the Triangle Apartment Association Mr. Rose asked that, before the Council made a final decision regarding licensing and inspection of apartment units, the apartments not renting to college students be taken out of consideration. He asked that the Town enforce the regulations already in place, and that the penalties should be levied on those causing the problems. Mr. Rose cited a noise problem in the Pine Knolls neighborhood during the weekend when penalties should have been levied. He said professionally-owned rental apartments in Chapel Hill should not be included in the plan for licensing and inspections, because they were not the cause of the problems. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION, AND BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON MARCH 27, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). 3b.5. Philip Goodman Mr. Goodman presented a petition to the Council regarding a proposal for community discussion for a zoning map, and that it be made available to the public for comment by citizens before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. He outlined suggestions for informing citizens and providing them with the opportunity for feedback: 1. Post the latest proposed Land Use Map on the Town website. 2. Advertise four public forums in April in the following schools: Chapel Hill High, Culbreth, Hargraves, and Glenwood. Newspaper ads and articles would also provide maps. The purpose of these meetings would be to answer questions from the public. Two Council members and members of the Town staff could be on hand at each information session. 3. Arrange for a final public forum held by the whole Council to pull together comments and suggestions from citizens. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER, TO BRING BACK TO THE COUNCIL BEFORE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). Item 5 – Consent Agenda: Action Items MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2000-03-06/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:
This the 6th day of March, 2000.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2000-03-06/R-2) WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission: Housing and Community Development Advisory Board Chris Beacham Sharon Bennett Alice Faust Régina Futrell Dorcas Roberson David Roth This the 6th day of March, 2000. A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK ALONG EAST ROSEMARY STREET BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE ANNUAL SIDEWALK/BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION PLAN (2000-03-06/R-3) WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill will propose funds in the Capital Improvements Program for pedestrian projects in the 2000-2001 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Council will have funds available from the first half of the second allocation of 1996 Bond funds to be used for sidewalk and bicycle projects during the next fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Council will receive a preliminary report in Spring 2000 regarding sidewalk and bicycle projects to be constructed in the 2000-2001 fiscal year NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that construction of sidewalk to fill gaps on the south side of East Rosemary Street between Henderson and Pickard Streets be considered as part of the annual sidewalk/bikeway construction plan. This the 6th day of March, 2000. WHEREAS, Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan contains the following language: “The Town shall encourage developers of residential developments of 5 or more units to (a) provide 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households, (b) contribute in-lieu-fees, or (c) propose alternative measures so that the equivalent of 15 percent of their units will be available and affordable to low and moderate income households;” and WHEREAS, development proposals regularly come before the Town Council seeking approval, but without an affordable housing component; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it is the expectation of the Council that applicants seeking approval of rezoning applications containing a residential component will incorporate a “15 percent affordable” feature into their plans, and that mechanisms will be proposed to assure ongoing affordability of these so-designated dwelling units. This the 6th day of March, 2000.
Item 6 – Consent Agenda: Information Items Council Member Strom removed Item 5b, to be discussed during consideration of Item 10. The Council agreed. Item 6 – Greene Tract – Application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment Mayor Waldorf read a letter from the County Commissioners, dated March 2, 2000, and signed by Moses Carey, Chairman of the County Commissioners: “On Tuesday night, February 29, the Orange County Board of Commissioners continued its discussion about the provisions of the solid waste interlocal agreement pertinent to the Greene Tract, after receiving a staff report on what has been learned thus far from the two Greene Tract surveys on cultural/archaeological and biological/environmental resources. “The Board reflected carefully on the comments made by speakers at the Joint Planning Area public hearing on February 21 regarding the proposed rezoning of a 60-acre portion of the Greene Tract. The Board concluded that the right thing to do at this point is to revise the solid waste interlocal agreement to eliminate the requirement that a 60-acre portion of that property must be rezoned to permit certain solid waste activities. The Board noted the challenges involved in siting any potentially necessary solid waste facilities anywhere in Orange County. To that end, the Board specifically requested that the other signees to the agreement recognize and support the County’s position that as operator of solid waste operations, it may, despite diligent efforts to explore alternatives, settle upon the area on and proximate to the existing closed landfill site on Eubanks Road as the location for additional facilities that may be essential to meeting our mutually adopted solid waste reduction goals. “The motion approved by the Board of Commissioners Tuesday night and implementing instructions to staff included: · Staff will develop proposed changes to language in the existing solid waste interlocal agreement that will eliminate the requirement that a 60 acre portion of the Greene Tract must be rezoned before the County assumes overall solid waste management responsibility. · The transfer to the County of title to a 60-acre portion of the Greene Tract remains as a provision of the interlocal agreement. · The County has no reservations about maintaining the deed restrictions on that 60-acre parcel to preclude burial of solid waste. · Staff will continue to work with OWASA as they plan and construct the extension of the main water line to the Rogers Road neighborhood with a target completion time of 18 months. · Staff will review the final consultant reports regarding Greene Tract cultural/archaeological resources and biological/environmental resources, and develop recommendations for the Board of Commissioners’ March 14 meeting regarding the 60 acre portion to be transferred to the County. As soon as possible after that meeting, the Board of Commissioners will communicate to the other Greene Tract owners their proposal for the specific 60 acres to be transferred to the County. · The effective date of County assumption of overall solid waste management authority will be decoupled from the contemplated rezoning of a portion of the Greene Tract, and will be moved forward in two week increments (in keeping with established County payroll periods) to allow: 1) all parties to agree to revisions to the interlocal agreement; 2) staff to receive and evaluate the final Greene Tract survey reports; and 3) the Greene Tract owners to agree on the 60 acres that will be transferred to the County. The revised target for handover is April 17, 2000. · Public comment regarding revisions to the interlocal agreement, the Greene Tract, and other related matters is welcomed at the March 14 meeting, as it would be at any regular meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. “We hope that the Town will continue to support us in the transition to County assumption of overall solid waste management authority. We request your board’s expeditious consideration and endorsement of the courses of action we have outlined above, and look forward to receiving your feedback prior to our next meeting on Tuesday, March 14.” Mayor Waldorf said she was very appreciative that the Commissioners had taken this step and hoped the Council would agree to cooperate with them. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). A RESOLUTION CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING OF THE GREENE TRACT UNTIL THE TOWN MEETING OF MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2000 (2000-03-06/R-5) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Public Hearing on the application to rezone the Greene tract is continued until Monday, March 27, 2000, at 7:00 PM, in the Town Council Chamber in Town Hall. This the 6th day of March, 2000. Council Member Brown said she had several resolutions she wished to delay until the Council could receive citizen reaction to the Commissioners’ letter, and what it meant. She said it essentially meant that the Town was turning 60 acres over to the County without any designation for its use. Council Member Brown asked to delay discussion of her resolutions until the public hearing was held on March 27th and citizen input was heard. She also referred to the Neville Agreement, and said that turning over the 60 acres was contrary to that Agreement, which said that a plan for future use of the Neville and Greene Tracts be developed that is environmentally sound. Council Member Brown asked for clarification of what would be coming back to the Council on March 27. Mr. Horton said he believed that the County would bring back an amendment to the interlocal agreement, to be considered by the Council at the meeting on March 27th. Council Member Ward said it was his understanding that the County could do nothing on the land without the cooperation of the Town, and the legal public hearing process, and he felt comfortable giving the County the asset knowing that the citizens and Council were part of the public process to determine the ultimate land use. Council Member Brown said there had been very strong feelings at the public hearing held on this issue and the citizens should be heard from before going forward with anything that might contradict the Neville Agreement. Council Member Foy said the public hearing already scheduled was for the discussion of the solid waste transfer, so he asked why the Council would need to schedule a second public hearing. Council Member Brown said the citizens should be notified, given a copy of the Commissioner’s letter, and that the public hearing was no longer about rezoning the Greene Tract. Mayor Waldorf asked why the resolution was in the packet. Mr. Horton said the Town Attorney advised it was the most prudent course of action, since the Town did not know what the County Commissioners would request, and the Council could make the public hearing as broad as it wished. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT RESOLUTION 6 AND RESOLUTION 7 AND OTHER INFORMATION BE DELAYED UNTIL MARCH 27, 2000, WHEN THIS ISSUE COMES BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AT THE SAME TIME OTHER INFORMATION COMES BACK TO THE COUNCIL. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Item 7 – Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Materials Handling District Bufferyard Planning Director Roger Waldon said this evening was a continuation of the Public Hearing from February 21, 2000, regarding a proposed Development Ordinance Text Amendment, which would change the landscape bufferyard provision of the recently created Materials Handling zoning district, as requested by the Orange County Commissioners. He said the current zoning required a 200-foot buffer around the entire perimeter of any materials handling facility, and the proposal by the County Commissioners was that the bufferyard would be 100 feet adjacent to any residential use, and with no buffer needed in the non-residential area along the railroad track. Mr. Waldon said there had been a comment at the Public Hearing that some non-residential areas might need a buffer. He said the staff was presenting a revised Manager’s recommendation, Ordinance C, requiring 100 feet for a materials handling facility, except where the adjoining property was held in the same ownership, and some adjustments allowing for railroad spurs. Council Member Bateman said she thought the Orange County Commissioners would identify the 60 acres in the Greene Tract before the Council acted. She said she wasn’t comfortable passing the Ordinance until the acres were identified. Mr. Waldon said that the Ordinance amendment was more generic than the Greene Tract. Council Member Brown said, since the materials handling would no longer be at the Greene Tract, she was puzzled as to why the Council was looking at this at all. Mr. Horton said on November 8, 1999, the Council adopted an ordinance that put into effect language about a materials handling district. He said the Council now had three options: (1) allow the language to stand as is, (2) adopt the new language before it this evening, or (3) ask the staff to bring language that would repeal the language about the materials handling district altogether. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, THAT THE ISSUE BE TABLED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IT NEEDED TO BE DISCUSSED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0). Yonni Chapman, who works with the Martin Luther King Coalition, said that two of the issues the Coalition had worked on was affordable housing and environmental racism, in particular the situation on Rogers Road. He said it was very important that the citizens in the neighborhoods near the Greene and Neville Tracts be advised of the issues to be discussed at the March 27, 2000 Public Hearing. Mr. Chapman said there was concern in the community about affordable housing, recreational area, open space, and environmental justice for the people on Rogers Road. He urged the Council to involve the citizens in the discussions and to vote along the lines of Council Member Brown’s proposal. Council Member Ward asked what could be done to make sure that the people who want to know what the Council will be discussing regarding the Greene Tract are notified. Mr. Horton said the staff could run advertisements, and, if the Council wished, could send a mailed notice. Council Member Foy suggested using the process used by the Landfill Owners’ Group (LOG). Mr. Horton said the staff could do that as well. Council Member Brown said she thought a mailing was needed, since there were many people interested, who were not involved in the process used by the LOG. COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, THAT THE MARCH 27, 2000, PUBLIC HEARING BE ADVERTISED IN THE NEWSPAPER, THAT INFORMATION BE DISTRIBUTED IN A MAILING TO RESIDENTS AND THROUGH THE PROCESS USED BY THE LOG. MAYOR WALDORF OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT AND THE MAILING BE IN LAY LANGUAGE, FOR EASY UNDERSTANDING, CONTAINING AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE INCLUDING THE LETTER FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MOVER AND SECONDER. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT NOTIFICATION BY MAIL BE MADE TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1500 FEET OF THE GREENE TRACT, INCLUDING THE LOG PROCESS. THE AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MOVER AND SECONDER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Item 8 – Report Replying to the Interfaith Council’s Request for Use of Town Facilities Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal said the memorandum addressed a petition submitted by the Interfaith Council (IFC) to the Council on January 10, 2000 inquiring about the availability to the IFC of the present shelter building at 100 West Rosemary Street and the adjoining lot, and the Police building on Airport Road. She said the Task Force on Alternative Locations for IFC Facilities had been looking at properties to locate or relocate the IFC and had suggested five, including the two owned by the Town. Ms. Loewenthal said the staff identified three options for the future of the Town-owned facilities, but none of the options identified the best location for the IFC shelter and offices. She discussed the options: Option 1: No change · The IFC would continue to operate a shelter at 100 West Rosemary Street and have its offices and programming space elsewhere; and, the Police Department would remain in its building at 828 Airport Road. The IFC would continue on a 2-year lease arrangement. · The Town’s Preliminary Cost Projection: $500,000 - $600,000 for repair and restoration of the Police Department building. Option 2: Expand IFC Facilities at the Shelter site · IFC would expand the building or add another building to the lot, which would not intrude on the projected road corridor. The IFC has requested a 25-year lease, if this expansion is approved, but this would limit the flexibility for the Town. In addition to funding from the community, funding would probably come from HUD, which requires a 15-year lease. · The Police building would remain and in need of immediate repairs. · The Shelter would remain on a non-tax basis, and would not be available for Town usage. Option 3: Town makes the Police building available to IFC. · The Town would sell its property at 100 West Rosemary Street, which has been appraised at $1,050,000. Town would make the Police building available to the IFC. · The advantages, in addition to the proceeds from the sale of the building, the building would be back on the tax rolls, and the Town would have the opportunity to design a facility for a modern law enforcement department. · The disadvantages would be the need to find, acquire, and finance a new site, as well as a new building. · The building on a new site would take three to four years, and would require the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars to make the repairs needed now to stop the further deterioration of the Police building. Ms. Loewenthal said the last option would be the most risky. She said the costs for the options were summarized on page 4 of the memorandum, but she emphasized that there were no exact cost figures at the present time, only estimates. Ms. Loewenthal said the staff was recommending Option #2, expanding IFC facilities on the present site, which would be the most fiscally conservative direction for the Town. She added it would give the Town the flexibility to decide what to do with the present Police building, and it would give the flexibility 15 years out as to what to do with the present building on West Rosemary Street. Ruby Sinreich, neighbor to the Shelter, said it was important to have the Shelter in the downtown from a transportation and land use standpoint, which would take advantage of the mixed-use and walkable nature, and its special resources. She said it was also important to have the Shelter downtown for the social environment, since having it away from downtown put it in an “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” place. Ms. Sinreich said she appreciated the work of the Task Force and agreed with the Manager’s recommendation for Option #2, unless there was another recommendation for another actual downtown location. Mayor pro tem Pavăo, Co-Chair of the Task Force for Alternative Locations for IFC Facilities, asked “What is downtown?” He said that all five sites that the Task Force had suggested as possible locations for the IFC, had problems. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that he didn’t think anyone doubted that the IFC provided a valuable and necessary service to the community. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said he had always believed that the IFC should be downtown, but after hearing that the IFC was in a crunch for space, and the Task Force finding temporary quarters to replace their Wilson Street quarters, with a three-year renewable lease, he was concerned with the IFC remaining in the present quarters. He said it was an inadequate building for the services the IFC provided, and even with spending their limited resources, $1 to $1.5 million for an extra building, the facility would still be inadequate. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said one of the reasons given for keeping the IFC downtown was that it provided a quick lunch for those working downtown, but the IFC provided many more services than a lunch program. He said he would like the question of IFC location turned back to the Task Force and have them revisit the five sites recommended and look at the problems that each site had. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said there was no longer a timing crunch, so there would be time to deliberate all the issues, and perhaps the Task Force might be able to look at other site alternatives. He asked the question, “Is that the best site for the Shelter?” COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION 10. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member Ward asked if the County Commissioners had closed the door on the Homestead property, and was there any connection with other conversations with the County. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said the door had not been closed and he thought that was an issue that the Task Force could readdress. He said one of the reasons the County Commissioners had withdrawn the property was because the IFC wanted to know which sites were truly viable. Mayor pro tem said all the sites needed to be revisited to see which site would be the best for the services provided by the IFC. Council Member Bateman said it was the IFC Board who would be making the decision as to where the site should be, and if the Council felt that the Police building would not be an available site, then the Council should agree to leasing the Municipal Building, with the addition, for another 15 years. She said if the IFC Board did not believe this building would be the solution for serving their clients, they should be able to say so. Mayor Waldorf asked if the Police Department site was big enough to build a shelter. Mr. Horton said it was 10,000 square feet, enough for a shelter facility. Mayor Waldorf said she would like to have that possibility explored by the IFC and the IFC Task Force. She said giving over the Police building was not the only option for that site. Mayor Waldorf said she had heard from other IFC members, and felt herself, that expanding the Shelter was not the best option, and she would like to see other options explored, before the Council committed itself to Option #2. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said the IFC members had specifically asked the Task Force to remain intact, in order to explore all the recommended sites and to decide where to go, after the possibility of those sites had been explored. Council Member Evans said, as a representative of all of the citizens, she felt the Council needed to be concerned about the need for more municipal offices, which were needed presently and would be needed in the future. She said the old Municipal Building was a logical place for the offices, in order to keep municipal offices in the downtown, as recommended by both the Comprehensive Plan and the Draft Comprehensive Plan. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE IFC AND IFC TASK FORCE. Council Member Wiggins said she thought the reason Council Member Bateman’s motion did not receive a second was because the Council felt it would take the Police building out of consideration, and she would like all the options to remain open, and other considerations be investigated as well. She said that Option #2 and Option #3 were very expensive in terms of dollars, which the Town would have to supply. Council Member Wiggins said she would not like to eliminate the Police building from consideration and if the Shelter did locate there, she wanted to keep a Police substation in that area. She said the Police did like the area where they were presently located, but with the new communications system they would be able to communicate no matter where they were located. MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE MANAGER’S REPORT TO THE TASK FORCE FOR FURTHER DELIBERATION BY THE TASK FORCE. Council Member Foy said he felt the present location of the IFC was among the less appropriate places for it its permanent place, because it was not good for the IFC, it was not the right use as far as the Town’s assets were concerned, and there were better uses for that property. He said he would encourage the Task Force to look at other sites, but that this did not mean withdrawal of Town support. Council Member Bateman said the IFC Board should give the Town a radius wherein they thought the Shelter should be located, and their options for location. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that had already been done, and that was how the Task Force came up with the five locations. MAYOR WALDORF OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE IFC BOARD AS RECIPIENTS OF THE COMMENTS AND MANAGER’S REPORT. THE MOVER AND SECONDER ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. Council Member Strom said he preferred that the location of the Shelter be downtown, and did not feel that the Police building was a viable option. He said he believed that Parking Lot #3, a Town-owned property, could be considered as a fresh site to be considered by the Task Force when reviewing the options. Council Member Evans said the Council had looked at Parking Lot #3 for many other options, and she was not excited about the possibility of a site for the Shelter there, but felt it should be looked at as one of the options. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said the Task Force had looked at and would look at any viable site. Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Task Force look at the viability of the IFC constructing a Shelter on the Police building site. Council Member Ward asked if part of the discussion included splitting up the various functions of the IFC onto different sites. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that had been discussed, and although the IFC preferred to keep all the functions together, they would consider splitting them up if necessary. Council Member Ward said he would encourage the IFC to consider the possibility of splitting up the functions, if that would help toward a solution. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0). COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, THAT THE MAYOR WRITE A LETTER TO THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING REMOVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF HILLSBOROUGH STREET FROM THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. Council Member Evans stated that the idea of moving traffic through a downtown had changed since the Thoroughfare Plan was written, and was counter-productive to all the plans the Town had for its downtown, such as being pedestrian-friendly and viable. Mr. Horton suggested that the staff do some background work in order to put forth a good case for the rationale behind the request, before the Mayor wrote the letter. Council Member Brown suggested that the Mayor contact the University for support to add to the rationale behind the request for removal of the extension from the Thoroughfare Plan. She said many letters had been written over the course of many years with the same request. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Item 10 – Report on Proposals to Reduce Impervious Surfaces Mayor Waldorf said Item 5b would be discussed in the context of this item. Planning Director Roger Waldon said the Council had identified six objectives regarding new development for changes in the ordinance language. He said there was discussion in the memorandum of each of the six items with some background, and noted that staff ideas were also included. He pointed out a correction on Attachment 1, page 2, b) the words “ground level loading areas” should be deleted, because there was a State law pertaining to loading areas. Mr. Waldon said the staff suggestion was that the Council, after this evening’s discussion, consider sending some, all, or none of the suggestions to the advisory boards. He said the staff had constructed a working resolution that the Council could use as a model to refer the memorandum with the six ideas to the five advisory boards. Mayor Waldorf asked if all of the items would require public hearings. Mr. Waldon said any change to the Development Ordinance would require a public hearing, but some of the items were not Development Ordinance items. Council Member Foy asked how, after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Ordinance has been revised, the Design Manual would fit in. Mr. Waldon said the Design Manual was different and did not have the force of law that the Development Ordinance had, rather it was a statement of expectations of developers by the Town. Council Member Foy asked how the Design Manual would work with street widths. Mr. Waldon said often in the Resolutions of Approval the Council would specify the width of the street, but the Town Manager in reviewing final plans, could inform the developer of what is required. He said the main keeper of the Design Manual was the Engineering Department, working closely with the Planning Department. Council Member Foy said he felt like the Council was looking at the options in a piecemeal fashion. Council Member Strom said the problem was not the amount of impervious surfaces, but the amount of water leaving the sites, and they were not necessarily connected. He said there was a section in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, Section 9, stating that the Town should be looking at a whole new type of site design, and that the Design Manual should be changed to implement low-impact development design strategies. Council Member Strom said the stormwater management industry was headed in that direction. He said that the reason he pulled Item 5b was because there was a discussion of the 303 (d) issues, but the conclusion was that the Town should start a stormwater utility. Council Member Strom said it would be up to the Council to direct the goals and strategies that the stormwater utility would have. He said he would like the Boards and Commissions to comment on the low-impact design strategies, but he wondered if the Council wanted to put its energy into creating the Design Manual to back up the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Brown asked what sort of progress had been made in looking at the different way cities were looking at stormwater management. Engineering Director George Small said the report would be brought to the Council at its second meeting in April. Council Member Brown asked Mr. Brown to relate the report to the issue being discussed presently. Mr. Brown said that in Olympia, Washington, the developers maintained run-off water on site, and the main reason they could was because of the type of soils there which percolated the water. Council Member Brown said there was another type of study which looked at the issue more holistically, and asked if it would relate to the discussion this evening, since she thought it would be another piece of information the Council could use in dealing with the issue. Mr. Small said that was “performance zoning,” and the report to the Council would include comments on this. Council Member Ward said all the issues had merit and should eventually be incorporated into the future Development Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, but should be forwarded to the advisory boards before the Council took any action. COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE WORDS “FOR COMMENT” FROM THE “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.” Council Member Ward said he wanted the advisory boards to be aware of it and to comment on it. Council Member Strom asked where, in Option 2, the number setting maximum parking came from. Mr. Waldon said it was based on a Council referral to the staff, based on a petition by Mayor Waldorf. He said in the past it was based on a case-by-case discussion with the applicants, or on the minimum requirements, and the Mayor had offered a maximum number instead, to be inserted into the Development Ordinance. Council Member Strom asked if it was possible to add “curb and gutter,” in Option 3. Council Member Ward advised that it be added. The Council agreed. Council Member Strom asked where the 50 percent came from in Option 6. He said he would prefer more flexibility. Mr. Waldon said that provision had been in the Development Ordinance for a long time, and that broadening the percentage would certainly be open for discussion. Council Member Bateman asked for a translation of Roman Numeral iv, in Option 6, page 7, b). Mr. Waldon said the language was currently in the Development Ordinance, and it could be explained in easier language in a footnote. Council Member Bateman suggested inviting Professor Phil Burke from the University of North Carolina to speak on this subject to the Council when the comments on the issue came back to the Council from the advisory boards. Mr. Waldon said he thought the subject would be ready for further discussion in May. Council Member Strom said in Report 5b it had been suggested that the Town do some “storm flush” testing, and asked if the Town was doing that presently, and would it be a difficult addition. Mr. Small said it was not being done and would be difficult, and there was no one on the staff with that capability. He said Durham had an entire division for stormwater management, and three people who were doing stream analysis. Mr. Small said the Town did not have the resources to do that kind of analysis. Council Member Strom asked if there was a group of volunteers in the Town who did “stream watch.” Mr. Small said there was an informal citizen group, but no one had yet adopted a stream. Council Member Wiggins said by reducing the curb and gutter requirements, and narrowing the streets, the cost of housing development would be reduced. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL HEREBY REFERS THESE PROPOSALS AND COUNCIL COMMENTS ON THE BROADER ISSUE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND OTHER COUNCIL COMMENTS FROM MARCH 6th TO THE FOLLOWING ADVISORY BOARDS FOR COMMENT:” THE MOVER AND SECONDER ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION REFERRING CHANGES REGARDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTIONS TO ADVISORY BOARDS (2000-03-06/R-8) WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has expressed concern about increases in impervious surface and the Town parking regulations; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has indicated a desire to consider changes that would reduce impervious surfaces and improve parking regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby refers the following proposals to Advisory Boards for comment: 1. Changes to reduce permitted uses in the Resource Conservation District; 2. Changes to establish maximum parking space requirements; 3. Changes to reduce street widths in residential areas in the Design Manual under certain circumstances; 4. Changes to require plantings between sidewalks and roadways; 5. Changes to set limits on parking lot paving; and 6. Changes to encourage/require shared parking. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby refers these proposals and Council comments on the broader issue of stormwater management and other Council comments from March 6th to the following advisory boards for comment: · Community Design Commission · Parks and Recreation Board · Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Board · Planning Board · Transportation Board This the 6th day of March, 2000. Council Member Bateman said, if it was all right with the Council, she and Mr. Waldon would decide when to invite Professor Burke to speak to the Council. The Council agreed. Item 11 – Proposed 2000-2001 Budget for the Public Housing Program Housing Director Tina Vaughn said the proposed budget was required to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by April 1, 2000. She said in the proposed budget no new programs were being proposed, no additional staff was being proposed, and no major capital expenditures were being proposed. She said the proposed budget totaled $1,403,385, a $2,230 decrease from the current budget. She said, in order to cover the proposed expenditures, the Department needed to use about $19,000 of the fund balance, which at the end of the next fiscal year would be a $390,000 fund balance, within the HUD guidelines. COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). (Remainder
of page intentionally left blank)
Item 12 – Petitions a. By the Mayor and Council Members. Council Member Brown said her petition came as a result of a call from a citizen. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 11 DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO PREPARE A REPORT TO THE COUNCIL REGARDING THE WEAVER DAIRY ROAD SIDEWALK PROJECT, TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL APRIL 10TH. Council Member Brown said she appreciated the Manager’s help on this issue. She said if the resolution passed, she would ask the Manager to hold off on any bids for construction until the report came back to the Council. Council Member Evans asked Mr. Horton how the Town would be able to ensure that the sidewalk didn’t have to be torn out. Mr. Horton said he could not recall a similar case, but when an asphalt path is built, it is built with the expectation that at some time it would be replaced by a normal concrete sidewalk. He said there were several possibilities: a) that the DOT would give the Town credit if it built the path, and would replace the path with new sidewalk with no charge to the Town; 2) that the Council could offer to pay 70% and the DOT would pay 30% of the sidewalk cost, or 3) using direct allocation funds, using federal/State funds, with federal money paying 80% and the Town paying 20% of the costs. Mr. Horton said that a meandering asphalt path would have to be torn out, whichever way the Council chose. Council Member Bateman asked if there was a difference in a meandering asphalt path and a sidewalk. Mr. Horton said a sidewalk would have a less steep gradient, could be wider, may have more permanent drainage features, would meander less, and be made of concrete instead of asphalt. He said the Council had been petitioned over several years, many years before the DOT improvements were to begin, to install the sidewalks, and the Council had acted in response to these petitions. Council Member Bateman said she thought the Council should rethink the sidewalk at Weaver Dairy Road, since the DOT had decided to start construction sooner than originally anticipated. Mayor Waldorf said she would vote against the resolution because of all the petitions requesting sidewalks from citizens over the years, and the Council had voted to install these sidewalks. She said she did not want to rescind the promises made to these citizens. Mayor Waldorf stated she felt that they should be notified of any decision not to build the promised sidewalks. She also said, based on past experience, that the DOT construction could possibly be delayed a year or two. Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Horton if he said one of the options would be to put in the meandering path and get credit for putting in a sidewalk later. Mr. Horton said that was the usual practice of the DOT, with no additional cost to the community. Council Member Ward said, if the DOT would not charge for replacing the asphalt path with a concrete sidewalk, he thought the project for the path should proceed. Council Member Strom said he supported having a report back from the Manager, as soon as possible. Council Member Brown requested that the residents of the area be notified, so they could speak at a public hearing when the report came back from the Manager. Council Member Foy asked the Manager if he could say how long it would take the Town to install the sidewalk. Mr. Horton said a meandering path could be installed in the next few months, depending on how the bids came back. Council Member Foy clarified that the DOT would replace the asphalt path with a sidewalk at no additional cost to the Town, and the cost of building a sidewalk was twice that of an asphalt path. Mr. Horton stated that was correct. Council Member Ward asked what the report would be telling the Council. Mr. Horton said the two key additional things the staff could calculate for the Council were: to make some assumptions of the cost of constructing the sidewalks on Weaver Dairy Road, and determine what matching amount the Town would have to spend, if it used direct allocation dollars with a 20% match; or to estimate the cost if the Town paid 70% and the DOT built the sidewalks, estimate the cost of the meandering path, how far it could be built with the available $180,000, and interpret that into how much sidewalk the Town might end up with provided the State did not change its policy. Council Member Ward asked what the difference would be in time if the Council waited for the additional report. Mr. Horton said there would be no difference in the time. He advised the Council to wait until the staff brought back the report, before the staff sent notices to several hundred residents. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-2, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, EVANS, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR WALDORF AND MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO VOTING NAY. Item 14 – Request for Closed Session to Discuss Property Acquisition, Personnel, and Litigation Matters COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. |