|
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MONDAY, APRIL 24, 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 Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward and Edith Wiggins. Staff present were: Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Finance Director Jim Baker, Housing Director Tina Vaughn, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, and Acting Town Clerk Toni Pendergraph. Item 1 – Ceremonies Mayor Waldorf read a Resolution expressing appreciation to the Chapel Hill Greek Community for its neighborly help on behalf of the Town’s Sister City, Speed, N.C., in its efforts to recover from the floods of Hurricane Floyd. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION TO THE CHAPEL HILL GREEK COMMUNITY (2000-04-24/R-16) WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill is helping to sponsor the eastern North Carolina Town of Speed, N.C. in its efforts to recover from the floods of Hurricane Floyd; and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Greek Community undertook a campaign to design and sell T-shirts to raise money to contribute to Speed, N.C.; and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Greek Community presented a check for more than $2,600 to be spent for the repair of a family’s roof in Speed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that appreciation is hereby expressed to Chapel Hill’s Greek Community for its neighborly help on behalf of our Sister City, Speed, N.C. This the 24th day of April, 2000. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, ON THIS THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND.
Rosemary I. Waldorf, Mayor Item
2 – Public Hearings (none) Item 3 – Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda. Andrew Pearson, Internationalist Book Store, presented a petition for a permit for the Internationalist Bookstore to sponsor a parade through the Downtown, with police escort, on May 1st, 2000, in celebration of May Day. Council Member Brown asked what procedure the Council should take, since there was not the usual time to receive and refer the petition to the Manager. Mr. Horton advised that the Council refer it to him and he would turn it over to the Police Department to work with the petitioner. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Jonathan Howes asked for the opportunity to speak on Agenda Item #6c, the Special Use Permit Modification application for Carol Woods, if it was pulled from the Information Agenda. Eva Metzger petitioned the Council, via mail, regarding installation of a sidewalk on Willow Drive and how safety might be improved. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Announcements by Council Members. Council Member Ward reminded the Council that the Orange County Soccer Symposium would take place on April 26, 2000, at Stanback Middle School, at 7:00 p.m., with Anson Dorrance as guest speaker. He urged Council members to either attend or to share any comments they had with him, as the Council Member representative to the symposium. Item 4 – Submittal of Budget Items Mr. Horton said the recommended budget would total $51 million, the property tax rate would total $.59.2, an increase of 2.9 cents over the present rate. He said 2.5 cents would be in the General Fund, and .4 cents would be in the Transportation Fund. Mr. Horton said one cent on the tax rate for the next year would be the equivalent of around $300,000. He said that services would continue much as they were at present, but there would be some changes. Mr. Horton noted the staff recommendation that the three vacant positions continue to be held vacant: a Recreation Specialist, a Police Officer position, and a construction worker position. He said the staff recommended two changes in service: first, once-weekly curb-side collection of refuse, using roll-carts; and second, holding the amount for police school resource officers to no more than 25% of the cost of the number of positions that the school system would wish to pay for, with the school system paying 75% of the cost. Mr. Horton said the staff proposed service improvements principally in capital funding, with an additional $100,000 for capital maintenance and $90,000 for installment financing, allowing the Town to make critical improvements to key Town buildings. Mr. Horton said the staff recommended no new services, but did recommend funds necessary to proceed with the annexation of the Englewood subdivision, and that funds be included that would be necessary to prepare for the eventual annexation of Southern Village. He said property taxes would produce nearly half of the revenues the Town expected, and State-shared revenues would produce about one-third. Mr. Horton said included in the budget were proposals for fees for services. Mr. Horton said also recommended were changes in the privilege licenses fees that would produce an increase in revenue. He said there would be no change in the grants to others, but there would be a change in the dollar amount for the Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitors Bureau, because that was based on percent. Mr. Horton said debt service would increase because the Town had sold additional bonds and the staff recommended that interest accumulating there be used to pay for one-half of the cost in the first year. Mr. Horton said the staff recommended nothing new in the way of service in the Transportation Fund, but did recommend that an additional $5.00 fee be initiated in vehicle registration, strictly limited to transit services. He said there was an option for the fare-free service, under which the University would pay for all the direct costs of service on key routes intended and designed to serve principally its constituency, with all other passengers allowed to ride without paying a fare. Mr. Horton added the other partners would pick up the costs additionally involved—Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the University. He said that cost would amount to about .6 cent on the tax rate. Mr. Horton said, after various meetings yet to come, the Council was scheduled to consider adoption of the budget on June 12, 2000. Capital Improvements Program Mr. Horton noted that there were provisions made for some installment financing. Town Application for 2000-2005 Community Development, HOME, and Comprehensive Grant Program. Loryn Barnes, Community Development Planner, presented information on the Consolidated Plan, the Community Development Program, and the HOME Program. Consolidated Plan Ms. Barnes said the document included in the Council’s packet represented the Consolidated Plan, which acted as the Town and County’s application for Federal HOME and Community Development Block Grant Funds. She said the Plan was due to Housing and Urban Development in Greensboro, N.C., by May 15, 2000. Community Development Program Ms. Barnes said the recommended budget was for $466,000 of Community Development Funds for a variety of housing and community service activities, including a five-year plan for spending Community Development funds, with the plan serving as a guide to the Council in the use of future spending of these funds. She said Resolution R-1 would adopt the Plan. HOME Program Ms. Barnes said the budget included a recommendation for $536,550 of HOME Program funds for affordable housing activities throughout Orange County. She said the recommendation was for the Council to budget funds in the Housing Loan Trust Fund for the Town’s contribution of a local match, approximately $40,400. Ms. Barnes said Resolution R-2 would approve the recommended HOME Program. Council Member Evans asked what “any housing problem” meant, in the tables in the packet. Ms. Barnes said it typically referred to over-crowded or under-housed situations. COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION APPROVING ACTIVITIES FOR THE 2000 – 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (2000-04-24/R-1) WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill held two public hearings to receive ideas from citizens about how Community Development Block Grant Funds could be spent in 2000 - 2001; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the Town’s allocation of $426,000 of Community Development Block Grant Funds and $40,000 of anticipated Community Development Program Income, the Town Council approves the following 2000 - 2001 Community Development Block Grant Program Plan: Public Housing
Meadowmont Affordable Townhomes $ 80,000 Neighborhood Revitalization
Community Services
Administration $ 76,400 Total $466,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council adopts the following five-year Community Development plan:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to incorporate the one-year and five-year Community Development Plans into the Consolidated Plan developed with Orange County, Hillsborough and Carrboro for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on May 15, 2000. This the 24th day of April, 2000. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE 2000 – 2001 HOME PROGRAM (2000-04-24/R-2) WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill held two public hearings to receive citizen comments and proposals regarding the use of $438,000 of federal HOME Program funds and $98,550 of local matching funds for a total of $536,550; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill approves the following activities to be carried out by the members of the Orange County HOME Consortium in 2000 – 2001: Activity Amount Property Acquisition / Rehabilitation (OPC Mental Health) $120,000 Rehabilitation (Urgent Repair and Abundant Life Center) $130,250 Community Revitalization $100,000 New Construction
New Construction (Habitat) $ 62,500 Administration $ 43,800
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes this plan to be incorporated into the Consolidated Plan developed with Orange County, Hillsborough and Carrboro for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on May 15, 2000. This the 24th day of April, 2000. 2000-2001 Comprehensive Grant Program for Public Housing Renovation and Resident Services Tina Vaughn, Director of Housing, presented the information on the recommended 2000-2001 Comprehensive Grant Program for Public Housing Renovation and Resident Services. She said under the Town expected to receive $460,000 in Comprehensive Grant Program funds and $120,000 of Community Development funds, for a total of $580,000 to be made available for public housing renovations and services. Ms. Vaughn said the plan outlined how these funds would be used: $448,000 for renovations at the Lindsay Street neighborhood, $62,000 for resident activities, with $10,000 of this reserved for ACHIEVE! Family Self-Sufficiency Program, and $70,000 for other costs, including the cost of a consulting firm to do the day-to-day monitoring of the renovation work and the salaries of personnel to oversee the contracts. Ms. Vaughn said the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board recommended that the Council approve the Comprehensive Grant Plan as proposed. She said the residents had made suggestions, but agreed that the Plan be approved. Ms. Vaughn said Resolution R-3 would authorize the submission of the annual statement for 2000-2001 Comprehensive Grant Funds, and the Plan was due to the Housing and Urban Development by June 1, 2000. COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN ANNUAL STATEMENT FOR 2000-2001 COMPREHENSIVE GRANT FUNDS (2000-04-24/R-3) BE IT RESOLVED by the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to submit a Comprehensive Grant Annual Statement, as described in the Manager’s memorandum to the Council dated April 24, 2000, to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including compliance with all HUD policies, procedures and regulations required therein, for a program of $460,000 in Comprehensive Grant Program funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is hereby designated as the authorized representative of the Town to act in connection with submittal of an Annual Statement and to provide such additional information as may be required. This the 24th day of April 2000. Item 5 – Consent Agenda Mayor Waldorf said that OWASA wished to add the names of Pat Davis and Mark Chilton to Item 5a, Nominations. The Council made no objections. Council Member Brown removed 5c. COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA, WITH ITEM 5c REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2000-04-24/R-4) 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 24th day of April, 2000. A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2000-04-24/R-5a) 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: Orange Water and Sewer Authority Dianne Bachman Erwin Danziger Pat Davis Milton Heath Dorothy Verkerk Mark
Chilton
Planning Board Chris Beacham Dale Dupree Coker Henry Lister William F. Powers David Roth Dorothy Verkerk This the 24th day of April, 2000. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A BID FOR A 3-YEAR LEASE OF TWO ELECTRIC POWERED COMPACT PICKUP TRUCKS AND THE PURCHASE OF TWO CHARGING STATIONS (2000-04-24/R-6) WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has solicited bids by legal notice in The Chapel Hill News on March 19, 2000 in accordance with General Statute 143-129 for two electric powered compact pickup trucks with charging stations; and WHEREAS, the following bid was received and opened on March 30, 2000:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town accepts the bid of Southlake Ford in the amount of $33,634 for a 3-year lease of two electric powered compact trucks and the purchase of two charging stations. This the 24th day of April, 2000.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SELECTION OF MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP TO PERFORM THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL’S 1999-2000 AUDIT (2000-04-24/R-8) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to accept the proposal for the Town’s 1999-2000 audit from McGladrey & Pullen, LLP for $35,000 with the option to renew the contract for each of the following four fiscal years based upon satisfactory performance each year. This is the 24th day of April, 2000. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 (2000-04-24/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 Non-Departmental Contingency 6,867 3,500 3,367 Mayor/Council 212,268 3,500 215,768 This the 24th day April, 2000. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO INDICATE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT BY SIGNING THE GRANT AGREEMENT AND THE CERTIFICATION OF MATCHING SHARE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF MATCHING FUNDS (2000-04-24/R-9) WHEREAS, the Town, through the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives, has stated the goal of conserving and enhancing areas, sites, and structures of special visual, architectural or historical value; and WHEREAS, updating the Historic District Design Guidelines would help the Town achieve this goal; and WHEREAS, the Town Council indicated the need for updating the Historic District Design Guidelines through the resolution of January 10, 2000, authorizing the Town Manager to apply for a grant for this purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to indicate acceptance of the Certified Local Government Grant by signing the Grant Agreement and the Certification of Matching Share Form and authorizes the expenditure of matching funds in the amount of $6.000. This the 24th day of April, 2000. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 (2000-04-24/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 June14, 1999, be and the same is hereby amended as follows: ARTICLE I Current Revised APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget GENERAL FUND Non-Departmental Contingency 12,867 6,000 6,867 Planning 983,297 14,000 997,297 ARTICLE II Current Revised REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget GENERAL FUND
Grants 801,365 8,000 809,365
This the 24th day April, 2000. Item 6 – Information Items Council Member Pavăo removed Item 6c. Council Member Wiggins asked to be recused from voting on any items referring to the Carol Woods Retirement Community, noting that she was on its Board of Trustees. COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS’ REQUEST TO BE RECUSED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). Council Member Brown removed 6a. Mrs. Martha Drake read a letter to the Council in response to her petition of May 24, 1999, regarding Town Pest Control Practices, Item 6a on this evening’s agenda. She thanked the Town for the progress being made on implementing Integrated Pest Management. Mrs. Drake said those concerned would like to have information regarding the pesticides the Town and the contractors used, and asked that they be reported in a spreadsheet form in order that they might track the usage and the phasing out of chemical treatments throughout the Town. Jonathan Howes, speaking on behalf of the Carol Woods Retirement Community Board of Directors, and its petition for expedited review of a Special Use Permit for expansion and renovations, Item 6c on this evening’s agenda, referred to a letter from CEO Pat Sprigg. He said two questions had been raised at the Public Hearing: · The need for expedited review because of the community-wide need for over 400 new slots for day-care, of which a facility built at Carol Woods could provide services for 64 children, 30% for the Carol Woods staff and the remainder to the community, and · The necessity of sending current residents of Carol Woods to other facilities for care which they had contracted with Carol Woods to provide, due to lack of space for the growing community of people living longer lives and needing services. Council Member Bateman asked how many of the current residents at Carol Woods had to be sent to other facilities. Mr. Howes said that fluctuated on a day-to-day basis, adding that this past week the number was five. Council Member Foy asked how much time an expedited review would save. Mr. Howes said it would be a matter of months, and it would save money for Carol Woods, by not having to pay interest payments. Item 7 – Review of Discussions Regarding a Proposed Single Family Overlay Zone Planning Director Roger Waldon reviewed a petition brought to the Council on September 27, 1999, by a group of citizens called the Northside Community Association. He said the petition asked the Council to consider creating a new zoning district called “Single Family Overlay Zone,” which would contain some features and requirements: · No more than two unrelated individuals aged 18 years or older may reside in any dwelling unit. · If a single-family dwelling is converted to a two-family dwelling, no more than two unrelated individuals aged 18 years or older may have residence on that property. · All dwelling units made non-conforming by this provision would have to annually register with the Town as a non-conforming use. · Property owners of record as of the day of adoption of the ordinance would not be required to comply with the ordinance. · Heirs to property would have special exemption. · Definition of family. Mr. Waldon reviewed the chronological responses and actions resulting from this petition, including an adoption by the Council of a resolution directing the Manager to initiate more aggressive enforcement of occupancy regulations in the Northside neighborhood. He said, looking back, the staff felt it should have more aggressively pursued the creation of a Single Family Overlay Zone. Mr. Waldon said the staff felt that it was a tool that would not work well for Chapel Hill. He said some of the concepts could be problematic, such as having different regulations for different properties, and restricting the occupancy of a single-family house or the two dwelling units of a duplex to a total maximum of 2 unrelated persons per structure, which would be impractical and potentially difficult to enforce. Mr. Waldon said the Comprehensive Plan did not contain the Single-Family Overlay proposal, but it did contain several other proposals designed to conserve and protect the residential neighborhoods, including one specifically aimed at trying to combat the impacts of the conversion of owner-occupied properties to rental housing. Mr. Waldon said the staff was making no recommendations regarding the adoption of the Single Family Overlay Zone, but instead felt other proposals could be utilized within the Comprehensive Plan when adopted. Estelle Mabry, a resident of Pritchard Avenue, asked for the Council’s help in preserving the Northside neighborhood, which she believed felt threatened by possible changes in their neighborhood. She said there were presently many types of residents in the neighborhood and they would like to keep it that way. Ms. Mabry said the University was projecting an increase in enrollment, but it was not providing housing for the increase in students. She said the neighbors liked the idea of rental licensing to help preserve the neighborhood, and asked that some members of the Council sit down with members of the neighborhood and try to work out a solution. Vivian Foushee, a Northside neighborhood resident, said she did not think that the concerns of the neighborhood were being addressed. She said the residents had written many letters, and they felt there had been no response. Ms. Foushee asked that some members of the Council meet with some members of the neighborhood to help them identify solutions. Myles Pressler, of EmPOWERment, Inc., said that the Northside Neighborhood Association had worked on the proposal for a long time, investigating other cities, and had put together what they thought was a good proposal to help preserve the neighborhood. He said that no one had ever sat down with the neighbors to discuss what could or could not work in the proposal, and the residents wanted an opportunity to meet with some members of the Council before it made a decision on the Single-Family Overlay Zone. Mr. Pressler pointed out that the Town had designated the Northside neighborhood as a Historical Zone, but there had been more growth in the neighborhood since then, than in the twenty years preceding the designation. Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Horton what had been accomplished since the Council had passed the resolution on November 22, 1999, requesting the Manager to pursue a more aggressive enforcement of occupancy regulations in the Northside neighborhood. Mr. Horton said he would bring a report to the Council at its next session. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT THE COUNCIL FORM A COUNCIL COMMITTEE TO MEET WITH THE NORTHSIDE RESIDENTS TO DISCUSS THIS CONCERN AND ANY OTHER CONCERNS THEY HAVE HAD. Council Member Evans suggested that the Committee which will be formed, including residents, real estate professionals, students and Council Members who will be working on the licensing issue, might meet with this Council/resident committee, and, later, with the consultant who will be working on the zoning ordinance. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Council Members Bateman, Brown, Foy, and Ward volunteered to serve as Council representatives on the committee. Item 8 – Report on Revising Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance Mr. Horton said the project would require that the costs for the project be taken from Fund Balance, up to about $250,000. He said by the end of the year Fund Balance would not grow much, and would be about the same as it is at the present time. Planning Director Roger Waldon said that a key recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan was a revision of Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance, and when the Comprehensive Plan Work Group discussed the way to do this, the unanimous opinion was to revise it all at once, rather than in piece-meal fashion. Mr. Waldon said the staff recommended that the Council adopt Resolution 10.1 and the attached budget ordinance, which would authorize the Town Manager to negotiate a scope of work and contract with the firm of Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, for submission to the Council for approval, and budget funds for this project. He said this was the same firm who had worked on the Comprehensive Plan, and was well aware of the Town’s goals. Mayor Waldorf asked what the Town might lose by not putting the contract out to bid, rather than going with the same firm that worked on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Waldon said the obvious answer was time, but the staff felt that the firm had done a good job on the Comprehensive Plan and knew what the issues were and were familiar with the Town. Council Member Ward felt the contract should be open for bids, and that another firm might come up with some fresh ideas. Council Member Foy said he agreed, and suggested that the staff pursue working with the Institute of Government, where there might be an opportunity for some creative ideas. Mr. Waldon said the staff did contact the Institute and they said they would be willing to help in the discussion with the staff, but they would not be able to develop a such an ordinance. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT IN ORDER TO FOSTER A DESIGN REVOLUTION IN CHAPEL HILL, TO REQUEST COOPERATION FROM VARIOUS UNC EXPERTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BIOLOGISTS, ECOLOGISTS, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, PHYSICISTS, ANTHROPOLOGISTS, LAWYERS FROM BOTH THE LAW SCHOOL AND THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT, AND THAT THESE PEOPLE WORK WITH THE VARIOUS TOWN DEPARTMENTS, BOARDS, THE TOWN COUNCIL, CITIZENRY, AS WELL AS A SELECTED CONSULTANT, IN REWRITING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. Council Member Wiggins said she was concerned about where the Comprehensive Plan would be in this case. Council Member Brown said she hoped the Council would listen to what these people would say, as they were all involved in the dimensions of the community. She said it could broaden the perspective of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Evans said the diversified group Council Member Brown was referring to were certainly a good resource, but they were not knowledgeable of Town development or in writing development ordinances. Council Member Foy said he seconded the motion, but he felt that the idea would function best as an advisory committee. Council Member Pavăo asked if the Council adopted Council Member Brown’s motion, how much longer would it take to complete a final draft of a Development Ordinance. Mr. Horton said the appointment of a committee usually took a couple of months, and he had no idea how much time beyond that. Council Member Pavăo asked Council Member Brown how long it would take such a committee to draft such an ordinance. Council Member Brown said she did not know. Council Member Foy suggested the committee could be formed while the consultant firm was being chosen, about two months. Council Member Wiggins asked if this would affect the price for the consultant. Mr. Horton said the more meetings a consultant would have to attend, the more it would cost. He said there would have to be many meetings for all the experts to be heard. Mayor Waldorf said the Comprehensive Plan process had been very public and many hours were spent working on it, with several members of the community involved, and she felt the Plan would not mesh with the committee Council Member Brown was suggesting. Council Member Pavăo said it might be advisable to have this committee work with the next revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Brown said she felt it meshed very well, by drawing on the expertise in the community, adding it provided the opportunity to work with the University community. Council Member Strom agreed, but said he was ready to move on with the Comprehensive Plan and the processes for development. He stated he was ready to get the Design Manual written in a parallel path to the Development Ordinance and to begin to implement some of the proposals. Council Member Foy said he felt it was necessary to find someone with the technical expertise to rewrite the Development Ordinance, and the people suggested by Council Member Brown could act in an advisory capacity. He said he did not want to reopen the Comprehensive Plan, but these people could help the input into the Design Manual. Council Member Foy suggested that the committee could meet four times with the consultant. Council Member Strom said if the Council had a broad-based group available to meet with the consultant to look at the broad-based aspects, and it met four times, he could support that idea, and he felt it could make for a better ordinance. The Mover and Seconder agreed to the inclusion of the stipulation to place a limit of four meetings to the motion. Council Member Ward asked how the Development Ordinance rewrite committee would be formed, and would it work as the Comprehensive Plan Work Group had worked or with the staff. Mr. Waldon said the staff would typically use the Planning Board for advice and feedback to the consultant. He said the consultant would work with the staff and the Planning Board, and at several points during the process there would be public meetings and forums with the consultant. Mr., Waldon added that at several points during the process, the staff would be giving feedback to the Council and using the Comprehensive Plan as a guideline. Council Member Ward asked Council Member Brown if she expected her group to work with the Planning Board. Council Member Brown said not necessarily with the Planning Board, but she hoped there would be people who would be interested in the community discussion. Council Member Ward said he was in support of broadening the base of people who could participate and provide some new and different types of perspectives. He said these were examples of the types of experts the Council would like to participate, with the end result of trying to broaden the perspective of input on the Development Ordinance. Council Member Brown said she had included in the language, “including, but not limited to” in the motion. She added one group of participants, writers, to the Motion. Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Waldon if he could see how a group such as Council Member Brown had suggested could fit into working with a consultant for four sessions and to keep it moving. Mr. Waldon said it could work along with the process. Council Member Evans felt that bringing together experts to work with the consultant, but who had limited knowledge of zoning, may result in the group wanting to rewrite the Comprehensive Plan. She said a lot of time had been spent with a very diverse group of people to write the Comprehensive Plan, and she hoped this proposal would not derail the Council’s adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Evans said she hoped that a brand new group of people would not have such a major role. She suggested that the Council members who went to the Conference with the experts might share their information with the Planning Board. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO AMEND COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN’S MOTION TO ADD TO THE MOTION AS STATED THAT THE MOTION BE REFERRED BACK TO THE STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE CONVERSATIONS BY THE STAFF AT THIS MEETING, AND BRING BACK A REPORT TO PUSH ALONG THE COUNCIL’S REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS. Mr. Horton said, as he understood it, that the staff would bring back to the Council a proposal that would outline the elements for a request for a proposal that would go out to consultants. He said, in that request, the staff would spell out that there would be a committee as discussed by the Council, describing the role of the committee and suggesting a pattern of meetings of a limited number. Council Member Foy added that the staff should see what assistance the Institute of Government might provide. Council Member Ward suggested that the group of experts work with the Planning Board, rather than as a separate group, in order to give its expertise and to move the process along. The suggestion to amend the Motion by Council Member Ward was accepted by the Mover and Seconder. THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Mayor Waldorf said the main motion was for the staff to come back to the Council with a proposal for drafting a Request for Proposals for consulting services to rewrite the Development Ordinance, and that part of the scope would include four meetings with the group of specialists who would be working in concert with the Planning Board. Council Member Brown said she would like the group of experts to work, not only with the Planning Board, but also as a separate group. Council Member Bateman called the question. THE MAIN MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Item 9 – Providence Glen Condominiums – Application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment Planning Director Roger Waldon reviewed the proposal before the Council: a rezoning of 23.7 acres of land on the south side of Sterling Drive, and an accompanying proposal for a Special Use Permit (SUP) on the land. He said public hearings had been held, and the Manager had recommended that if the Council approved the SUP, it first vote on the rezoning proposal. Mr. Waldon said concerns for affordable housing had been discussed, and the applicant had brought back a proposal regarding affordable housing. He said the Council suggested that some percentage of the increase in allowable units be offered at a lower price, with initial affordability and ongoing affordability. Mr. Waldon said the applicant was offering, initially, to lower the price of a certain number of the units and committing to certain price levels. He said the proposal also suggested offering these units for sale to the Town, or other organizations that might be interested in purchasing these units, to control the resale over time. Mr. Waldon said the recommendation from the staff continued to be that the SUP would meet the quantitative requirements of the Development Ordinance. He said the more critical question before the Council was did it wish to rezone the property with the proposed limitations on the property. Dawn Heric, speaking for the applicant, listed the proposals to the Council’s request: · Twenty percent of the increased density, or 18 units, will be reserved for sale as affordable, or less expensive units. The initial sales price will be $142,500 with a cap on pricing by a factor not to exceed the Consumer Price Index. · In order to control long-term future pricing, the homes will be offered for sale to both the Town and the Orange Community Housing Corporation or any other non-profit organization for $136, 325, the initial sales price minus the 5% marketing and sales commission that otherwise would be attached to the pricing. · The applicant had been negotiating for attractive financing packages and is committed to making sure that packages like this will be offered to buyers of the units. It appears that creative financing will be offered by at least one mortgage company and one bank for families or individuals that earn 80% or less than the medium Chapel Hill income. · The project meets the unit-size requirements of the mixed-housing ordinance, even though the ordinance does not apply to condominiums. James Carnahan, Jr., speaking on behalf of the Orange/Chatham Group of the Sierra Club, said that the Group saluted both the Council and the developer for trying to provide affordable housing for workers in the Town. He said the reason that the Group was supporting this proposal was because it would help decrease sprawl outside the Town and commuting distances from the Town, thereby decreasing pollution from automobiles. Mr. Carnahan said the Group urged the Council to adopt Resolution A, and supported stipulations #4-11 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and stipulation #5 of the Community Design Commission. Robert Dowling, of Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC), said it was not in a position to purchase these units, but could offer to be a broker for the sale of the units, although the OCHC was not staffed for that purpose. Council Member Foy asked Mr. Dowling how this would work and it he would need subsidized funds to sell the houses. Mr. Dowling said he did not know if $136,000 would be affordable at 100% of median, but the Milton Avenue houses were being sold at $129,000, affordable to families earning 90% of median. He said it might be possible that $136,000 could be sold at 100% of median without subsidy. Council Member Foy asked what the marketing expenses would be. Mr. Dowling said the costs would have to be increased to cover the expenses, or the operating budget would have to be increased to hire an additional person, in which case they could market them for free. Council Member Brown asked why there was a difference between the chart on page 5, the section “Restriction of sales price of 18 units” and the several asterisks indicating deletion by the other Boards, and Resolution A, which included this. Mr. Waldon said that Resolution A was prepared after the other Boards had discussed the issues and there had been a public hearing followed by Council recommendations. Mr. Horton said this was done in order to avoid resolutions for each Board, which saved time and paper and made it easier to spot the stipulations. Council Member Foy asked at what point a Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the Town. Mr. Horton said it was issued when all the facilities had been provided and when the construction itself was complete. Mr. Waldon said after all the facilities and amenities are finished and the units were ready to be occupied, than Certificates of Occupancy were issued. Council Member Foy asked when the financing was done. Mr. Horton said that would be done before the closing. Council Member Wiggins added that it usually took several months before the financing was concluded, but it would have to be done before the closing. Council Member Bateman asked the applicant to address the issue of long-term affordability. Ms. Heric said Mr. Sandman, the applicant, felt that it was not a good idea to put deed restrictions on the properties so that an owner could not profit from resale. She said he also felt that this would be detrimental to the loan process, that mortgage companies might be hesitant to provide a loan for a property that had deed restrictions. Ms. Heric said they used the deed restrictions at Culbreth Park as examples, which gave the Town first refusal on resale of the property at a lower pricing. She said they had looked at other jurisdictions and could find no examples except in the cases of Land Trusts or other non-profits. Council Member Bateman said she was not uncomfortable with the deed restrictions, because if owners were enabled to purchase these homes, that ability would come with a certain restriction. She said there were mortgage companies willing to deal with the restrictions, and she urged the Council to look at the issue of long-term affordability. Council Member Foy said what the Council was working toward was long-term affordability, and he felt it was important that that got incorporated into the project. He said it was not a free-market issue, but should be determined by a predetermined rate of appreciation. Council Member Strom clarified that this would not be a first right of refusal, but a predetermined agreement with the Land Trust, which would remain a pre-negotiated component with the Land Trust, rather than forcing the Town to purchase the units if it wanted to protect the affordability. Michael Lattner, the applicant, said his concern was not with the deed restrictions, but if the units were not sold with the deed restrictions and he was left with unsold units, he wanted to be able to sell the units, at the same price, to another buyer without the deed restrictions. Council Member Strom said there was money in the Land Trust for these kinds of sales. Council Member Foy asked how the Land Trust worked in this situation. Mr. Dowling said he did not know how the Land Trust would work in a condominium project, because the Land Trust would not own the land where the 18 units would be constructed. He said better alternatives would be to keep the price restricted by deed restrictions and a formula for the resale of the unit. Mr. Dowling said he was not sure the Town could impose these restrictions since it was not planning to subsidize them. Council Member Foy suggested that the 18 units be affordable, at the price offered by the applicant, and available to the Town or the Orange Community Housing Corporation, not just up until the time the Certificate of Occupancy was issued, but for sixty days thereafter. He requested that there be some kind of deed restriction that the Town or the Orange Community Housing Corporation, or their successors, would have a right of first refusal to purchase the property at a predetermined rate of appreciation. Council Member Foy said he felt that qualified buyers could be found within those sixty days, and with financing. He said he believed the banks would not object, and this would not have a bearing on the issuance of a mortgage. Mr. Lattner said he was agreeable to the restrictions, but he wanted to be able to sell the units after the sixty days Mr. Karpinos said he had not heard mention of a stipulation of what income range buyers of these houses would have. Mayor Waldorf said Mr. Dowling had indicated 100% of Chapel Hill median income or lower. The Council agreed. Mr. Horton said he could have the stipulations prepared for the May 8, 2000, Council Meeting and would work with the applicant on the language. Council Member Strom asked where, within the development, the units would be. Mr. Lattner said they would be spread out among the other units in the development. Council Member Wiggins asked if there would be monthly homeowners’ dues and if so how much would the dues be. Mr. Lattner said there would be dues and they would be based on the square footage, somewhere between $125-$150 per month. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL MAY 8, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Item 10 – Response to Petition to Change Proposed Land Use Plan Regarding Dobbins Properties Steve Dobbins, petitioner, requested that the Council amend the Land Use Plan to indicate the property’s suitability, not just for low-density residential housing as it was currently, but for some mixture of non-residential and residential uses. He said Mr. Maurice, who owned adjoining property, was considering making the same request for his property. Mr. Dobbins said there was a noisy side to his property. He presented a video indicating noisy partying at the fraternities on Cameron Avenue, and another video taken before his homestead was torn down, to show how much sound abatement the house had provided. Mr. Dobbins said it had been difficult to rent to older-than-college people because of the noise. Mr. Dobbins displayed a map indicating neighboring public opinion, some of who objected to the proposal and some who approved the proposal. He said the current Land Use Plan did not provide for transition in the area. Mr. Dobbins asked the Council to adopt an amendment to make a zoning for the property north of a certain line in the neighborhood. He asked the Council to acknowledge that there was a problem with his particular piece of property, and to allow flexibility. Shirley
Van Clay said there were procedures in place to solve dilemmas such as
this, and she objected to using piece-meal solutions rather than the Comprehensive
Plan procedures. Roy Fauber, a resident of East Patterson Place, said the recommendations by the Planning Director and the updated discussions by the Town Manager were excellent documents and covered all the relevant points for the issue. He said he felt any changes to the Land Use Plan would defeat key objectives to both the draft Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Small Area Plan. Mr. Fauber said the Planning Board recommended against changes in the property, and he had commented on the Board’s comments in his earlier letter to the Council. He added that any changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the current Land Use Plan would be inappropriate. Katherine Frank, a member of the Historic District Commission and representative for the Commission to the Comprehensive Plan Work Group, urged the Council to uphold the principles of protection of the historic areas, through application of the Comprehensive Plan. Rafael Tosado, renter at the Dobbins property while a student at the University, said there was a noise problem on the north side of the property, and while working on his dissertation it became unbearable. He said he supported the idea of buildings in the north part of the property to buffer the noise. Mr. Tosado said he now lives on the southern part of the property and supported a mixed use of the property. He said the President of a nearby fraternity and the University supported the petition of the Dobbins family. Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Waldon what the permitted uses within the low-residential designations were. Mr. Waldon said there were no permitted uses within a Land Use Plan, except in zoning, which were residential, place of worship, school, daycare, and public use facilities—but uses for residential were low-density. He said for parcels 5 acres and over, there would be wider uses allowed. Council Member Foy asked if an owner could request a Special Use Permit. Mr. Waldon said a request could come before the Council, but in order to approve it, the Council would have to make one of three findings to justify the change: due to a change or changing conditions, would promote the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, or correct manifest error. Council Member Brown asked if there were a request for rezoning, would that allow for a protest petition. Mr. Waldon said it would, and would require seven affirmative votes of the Council to make it effective. Council Member Bateman said she would encourage the owners to look at some of the other permitted uses within the current zoning or come back to the Council with something specific of what they would like to have on the property. Council Member Evans encouraged the owner of the property to look at conditional use of the property and bring back a design for its use to the Council. Council Member Brown said she thought the Planning Board had recommended that the Council not change the Land Use designation for the three properties, as well as the Historic District Commission. Council Member Evans said that she was at the meeting of the Planning Board and they did recommend that the Land Use Plan not be changed, because the alternative was to change it to mixed use. She added that the Board did feel that another plan might be designed, using conditional use as a tool. The Council took no action on this petition. Item 10.1 – Presentation by Erwin Danziger on Orange Water & Sewer Authority’s Quarry Reservoir Proposal Erwin Danziger presented a petition regarding the quarry expansion. He made the following points: · The quarry expansion question would be about a 2-3% difference in the water supply 50-75 years from now, when he then believed the quarry should be added as a water storage basin. · The relocation of Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road would be less safe, destroy 60 plus acres of wildlife habitat and sacrifice the quality of life of the residents in the neighborhood. · There was no reason to set a precedent by establishing an Industrial Node in the protected University Lake watershed. · The neighbors would rather see mining costs increase and have the mining stopped in 12-17 years. · Council could table the matter for 10-15 years, and then see how much water the existing quarry could hold. · Which choice would be cheapest for Martin Marietta, and which choice would be best for the citizens of the County. Mr. Danziger petitioned the Council to make the choice that would be best for the citizens. Elliott Cramer, referring to a handout to the Council which outlined several contradictions made by OWASA, said, most importantly, that OWASA had overestimated its future water demands. He said there would be 2-3% difference in the water supply in 50-75 years, but would have a seriously adverse impact on a racially diverse low-income community. He said no decision needed to be made for 10-20 years, since there would not be a need for more water for 30 or more years. Mr. Cramer displayed charts of OWASA’s water use predictions and supplies. He urged the Council to consider the presentation made to it at the public hearing and how adversely the neighbors of the quarry would be affected. Council Member Brown asked Mr. Cramer to explain the last slide and what it meant. Mr. Cramer said it showed how much water would be available to OWASA with a quarry of varying sizes. Council Member Foy asked about the incremental expansion of the quarry shown on the chart. Mr. Cramer said that OWASA was conceding that, only assuming low-flow toilets without any quarry at all, they had enough water to last until 2050 at their assumed linear growth rates. He said since the growth rate in Chapel Hill would be leveling off, there would only be infill, not the growth land that availability would produce. Mr. Cramer presented the Council with some charts of growth in Chatham County, which he said was not growing as much as it had been reputed to be. Item 11 – Report on Shaping Orange County’s Future Project Peggy Pollitzer, Shaping Orange County’s Future, outlined the schedule for the Task Force: · May 18, 2000—County-wide Public Forum on Task Force Report; · June 2000—presentation of the final report to the jurisdictions; · June and August 2000—staffs to prepare reports; · August through September 2000—public hearings and staff reports; · October 2000—facilitated Assembly of Governments meeting to jointly discuss Task Force Report and identify approach; · October 2000—Task force completes and adopts final report. Council Member Brown asked what time and where the May 18th public forum would be held. Ms. Pollitzer said it would be at 7:00 p.m. at Stanback Middle School on Thursday, May 18, 2000. Ms. Pollitzer highlighted the report, noting it had three guiding concerns: Trend-Growth, Building Community, and Sustainability. She called several recommendations in the report to the attention of the Council. Ms. Pollitzer called the Council’s attention to the goal of conserving natural areas, farmland and other important open space; to transportation, particularly involving environmental issues; the economy; housing; human services; public safety; promotion of life-long learning and adult education; and an appendix on a Citizens’ Roundtable. Council Member Evans asked if there was a way to get Council thoughts to the Task Force. David Stancil, of the Orange County Planning Deparmtnet, said the email address was [email protected]. He noted that all comments received would be forwarded to the Task Force. Council Member Brown commended the Task Force for the amount of work they had done on the Report. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 13. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MATERIALS FROM THE SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY’S FUTURE PROJECT (2000-04-24/R-13) BE IT RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill Town Council calls a Public Hearing to review materials that will be presented from the Shaping Orange County’s Future project. The hearing shall be held at 7:00 pm on September 18, 2000, in the Chapel Hill Town Hall Council Chambers. This the 24th day of April, 2000. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION REFERRING THE SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY’S FUTURE REPORT TO ADVISORY BOARDS AND THE TOWN MANAGER (2000-04-24/R-14) WHEREAS a planning initiative called Shaping Orange County’s Future was begun in 1996, led by a Task Force of Orange County citizens; and WHEREAS on April 11, 2000, the Shaping Orange County’s Future Task Force submitted a report to the Town Council, called, “Provisional Report and Recommendation”; and WHEREAS the contents of this report address a broad range of issues facing Orange County citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby refers this report to the Town Manager and the following advisory boards, with a invitation to offer the Town Council comments and reactions by the end of May, 2000, ¨ Planning Board ¨ Transportation Board ¨ Historic District Commission ¨ Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board ¨ Human Services Advisory Board ¨ Housing and Community Development Advisory Board ¨ Parks and Recreation Committee ¨ Greenways Commission This the 24th day of April, 2000. Council Member Bateman suggested that the Report be scheduled earlier on the agenda for the September 18, 2000 public hearing. Item 12 – Appointments Mayor Waldorf reported that all the applicants to the Stormwater Utility Development and Implementation Committee were appointed unanimously: Phil Berke Mike Hammersley Julie McClintock Paula Gee Davis John T. Laetz James T. Mergner Warren Faircloth (Orange Co. Rep.) Sharon Myers (UNC Rep.) Judith K. Weseman John W. Greene Roy Williford (Carrboro Rep.) Mayor Waldorf noted that the following persons had been appointed to the Work Group to Study Traffic Management in the Glen Lennox, Little Creek, and Oaks I Neighborhoods:
*Appointed. __________________________________ Joyce A. Smith, Town Clerk Item 13 – Resolution to Call Public Hearing on Legislative Requests COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 15. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 8, 2000, TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSALS FOR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL’S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE UPCOMING SESSION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2000-04-24/R-15) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing for May 8, 2000, at 7 pm in the Council Chambers on the following proposed items for consideration as part of its Legislative Program for the upcoming session of the General Assembly: Local bills to: -increase the spending limit on projects constructed by Town Staff; -allow use of video traffic code enforcement for signal violations;
General Legislation to:
-revision of statutory authority regarding stormwater utilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council, in order to meet deadlines for proposing local legislation to the General Assembly, states its intent to consider adoption of a Legislative Program following the conclusion of the public hearing. This the 24th day of April, 2000. Item 14 – Petitions a. By the Mayor and Council Members Council Member Brown petitioned the Council to request the Town Manager to ask all Town employees to submit suggestions to the Council for ways that they think the budget could be reduced, with a cash incentive such as a bonus or percentage of the savings for a period of time for suggestions that are adopted and succeed in reducing the budget. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THIS PETITION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Council Member Strom petitioned the Council to adopt a resolution seeking a permanent prohibition on billboard advertising. COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 17. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT ORANGE COUNTY DELEGATES TO THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY SEEK A PERMANENT PROHIBITION ON BILLBOARD ADVERTISEMENTS ALONG INTERSTATE 40 (2000-04-24/R-17) WHEREAS, the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee has studied whether the additional erection of outdoor advertising along the portion of Interstate Highway 40 from the Orange-Alamance County line to the municipal limits of the City of Wilmington should be prohibited; and, WHEREAS, pending the report of the Committee, a moratorium was imposed on the erection of new outdoor advertising along the portion of Interstate 40 from the Orange-Alamance County line to the municipal limits of the City of Wilmington; and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council met with members of the local legislative delegation on April 14, 2000, to discuss this and other upcoming legislative issues; and, WHEREAS, the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee took no action on the billboard matter at its meeting of April 19; and, WHEREAS, the moratorium will expire on July 1, 2000, opening the door to future billboard construction unless the General Assembly enacts legislation that would prohibit billboards; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council requests that local legislative delegates seek a permanent prohibition on billboard advertisements along Interstate 40. This the 24th day of April, 2000. Council Member Foy suggested forwarding the resolution to representatives of the press. Mayor Waldorf suggested it be forwarded to the Orange County Commissioners, the Hillsborough Board of Aldermen, and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, with a letter encouraging them to adopt such a resolution. Item 15 – Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items if Necessary Agenda #5c, pulled by Council Member Brown Council Member Brown noted she wished to have a chance to vote against Item 5c. She did not think the Land Use change should be made without some public input. COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 8-1, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, EVANS, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY. Agenda #6a, pulled by Council Member Brown Council Member Brown commented on Item 6a—Town Pest Control Practices Update. She said it was a serious matter and she would like to have a catalogue of all of the uses of pesticides throughout the Town and to have a goal of having an annual discussion of how the pesticides were being used and where. Council Member Brown said she would like a formal chart showing all the pesticides requested, where they were used, and what the were used for. She added she wished for the Council to adopt the policy, and have included a goal of working toward reduction of pesticide use in the Town. Council Member Brown said she would like to have a proposal put together for the next Council meeting by some members of the Council. Council Member Bateman said she was in favor of pesticide reduction, but would not be interested in the level of detail requested by Council Member Brown. Council Member Evans said she was not interested in the level of detail requested, nor did she feel the Council needed to discuss it on an annual basis. Mayor Waldorf agreed and said she felt that the staff was being quite aggressive already. Council Member Ward asked if the personnel dealing with pesticides received training. Public Works Director Bruce Heflin said that part of the goals and objectives for the current year provided a list of tasks for the coordinator of which one was training and orientation for the supervisors in the three programs—the Housing Department, the Building and Maintenance Program, and the Landscape Program—who are designated as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) supervisors. He said that the overall goal was reduction in the use of pesticides. Mr. Waldon noted that a spreadsheet chart was one of the goals for the next year, in order to computerize the inventory that was already centralized, so that such information would be available on demand. Council Member Ward said he would be willing to work with Council Member Brown on this issue, but he would like to see what the computerized spreadsheet brought for the next year with regard to products. He said, rather than asking for more, he wanted to see what the staff would provide the Council. Agenda #6c, pulled by Mayor pro tem Pavăo Mayor pro tem Pavăo said he respectfully disagreed with the recommendation of the staff regarding the request for expedited processing of a Special Use Permit Modification application for Carol Woods. COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10. Council Member Bateman said she believed that all the reviews were becoming expedited, and she did not believe she would support this expedited review. Council Member Brown asked Mr. Horton if the Council had asked the staff for a report on expedited review. Mr. Horton said he did not recall a request, but did remember the discussion. Council Member Evans said she recalled a report that summarized the criteria being used. Mr. Horton said that had been done some time ago. Council Member Foy asked what expedited review would mean in the length of time for the process. Mr. Horton said it meant less and less time because more and more projects were being expedited, possibly a couple of months. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5-3, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS, STROM, AND WARD VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN AND FOY VOTING NAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS WAS RECUSED. A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING IN THE REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR CAROL WOODS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY IN CHAPEL HILL (2000-04-24/R-10) WHEREAS, the Town Council has received petitions from Mr. Robert Sotolongo for expedited processing of a Special Use Permit application seeking to expand Carol Woods Retirement Community; and WHEREAS, the proposal includes the provision of addition homes, structures for 24 hour supportive care, dining hall renovations and additions, and a child daycare center; and WHEREAS, the projects would satisfy a public purpose 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 a Special Use Permit Modification application for Carol Woods Retirement Community, in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis. This the 24th day of April, 2000. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||