SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001, 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 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, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Finance Director Jim Baker, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Police Captain Everett Johnson, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 – Ceremonies (none)
Item 2 – Public Hearing: Consideration of a Resolution Finding Time Warner Cable
Basic Service Tier Rates Consistent with Federal Regulations
Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard reported that Time Warner Cable had notified the Town that it intended to set the Basic Service Tier rate in the upcoming year at $9.50 a month for Chapel Hill customers and $13.70 a month for Durham customers. He said that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allows the Town to review these rates, and Mr. Robert Sepe, the Town’s cablevision consultant, had reviewed the rates and determined that they were reasonable rates for approval by the Town, based on FCC standards. Mr. Stockard said the Manager recommended adoption of Resolution 1 which adopted the rates, and also included a request that Time Warner submit an amended September 2001 FCC rate filing to refresh the rates to more current inflation rates. He said the Manager is working with Time Warner to assess how to make Basic Cable as basic and inexpensive as possible.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION: (1) FINDING TIME WARNER CABLE’S PROPOSED 2001 SELECTED BASIC SERVICE TIER RATES AS REASONABLE IN THE MANNER DETERMINED BY FCC RULES AND PROVIDING APPROVAL OF THESE RATES; (2) requesting that Time Warner submit an amended 2001 FCC 1240 form in September 2001 when it submits its FCC 1240 form for 2002; (3) requesting that Time Warner adjust its inflation data from 3% to 2.4% (2001-01-22/R-1)
WHEREAS, Time Warner Cable submitted Federal Communications Commission 1240 Updating Annual Maximum Permitted Rates filings for regulated cable services with the Town of Chapel Hill. Time Warner Cable’s filing covers external costs, inflation, and cable system upgrade costs for the true up period of October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000, and the projected period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Time Warner submitted two FCC 1235 Abbreviated Cost of Service For Cable Network Upgrade filings with the Town in 1999 to be included in the 2000 and 2001 rates. The upgrade rates in these filings were previously found to be reasonable by the Town, and covered capital expenses directly related to cable system upgrades prior to January 1, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Time Warner submitted an FCC 1205 Equipment and Installation Costs filing with the Town, covering equipment and installation costs aggregated on a state-wide basis; and
WHEREAS, Time Warner Cable is permitted, pursuant to the Social Contract and Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration, to estimate and recover anticipated inflation, external costs, and cable system upgrade costs for the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Town received a report from its consultant stating that Time Warner submitted its FCC 1240 and FCC 1205 rate filings on or about September 29, 2000, and the FCC 1235 in September 1999; the FCC published an updated inflation factor on October 4, 2000; Time Warner’s FCC 1240s, FCC 1235s, and FCC 1205 rate calculations comply with FCC rate-making rules, and the requested maximum permitted Basic Service Tier, Network Upgrade Cost of Service, and Equipment and Installation rates are reasonable; and
WHEREAS, the consultant’s report stated that Time Warner used in its 2001 FCC 1240 an inflation factor of 3% for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2000, and for the 2001 projected period; the FCC published the updated 2.4% inflation figure on October 4, 2000, five days after Time Warner completed its rate filings. It would be in the public interest if Time Warner amends its FCC 1240 rate filing prior to completing its next FCC 1240 rate filing in September 2001 for 2002 and that this amended FCC 1240 will incorporate updated inflation figures for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2000 and the projected period of 2001; and
WHEREAS, Federal Communications Commission rules grant local franchise authorities an initial ninety (90) day review period, measured from the date of receipt of said filing by the franchise authority, with which to review the cable operator’s Federal Communications Commission 1240 rate filing. If said ninety (90)-day review period expires before the rates go into effect, the franchise authority retains review and refund authority past the initial ninety (90) day review period as long as all inquiries from the cable operator regarding said review are responded to in writing within fifteen (15) days of said inquiry; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill is certified with the Federal Communications Commission to regulate Basic Service Tier rates provided by Time Warner Cable in franchise NC-0234;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that Time Warner Cable’s Basic Service Tier rate assessed to subscribers within the Town of Chapel Hill shall not exceed the Maximum Permitted Rate, subject to modifications in subsequent findings by the cable operator or franchise authority for Basic Service Tier cable television programming during the 2001 calendar year.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Time Warner Cable may charge a combined monthly Basic Service Tier rate and Network Upgrade Charge rate below the approved Maximum Permitted Rate of $10.12 for Chapel Hill system subscribers and $13.82 for Durham system subscribers, but not above these rates.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Equipment and Installation charge during the projected period of 2001 shall not exceed $28.39.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Time Warner Cable has substantiated the other adjustments to its cable service rates based on past and estimated cost elements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Time Warner has complied with FCC rate-making rules, and its requested maximum permitted Basic Service Tier rate, and Cost of Service Network Upgrade Charge “add-on” rate, and Equipment and Installation rate are found to be reasonable.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it will be in the public interest if Time Warner amends its 2001 FCC 1240 rate filing using updated FCC inflation figures for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2000, and the projected period of 2001, prior to completing its FCC 1240 filing for 2002.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council requests that Time Warner submit an amended 2001 FCC 1240 form in September 2001 when it submits its FCC 1240 form for 2002.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council requests that Time Warner adjust its inflation data from 3% to 2.4%, thus lowering the Basic Service Tier rates.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town retains its authority to issue refunds or rate roll backs after the initial 90-day review period with respect to the restructured rate set out in the FCC 1240 and FCC 1205 rate filings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Time Warner Cable must keep a full and accurate account of all revenues and costs associated with the aforementioned cable rate adjustment.
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
Item 3 – Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
1. Nerys Levy, Cultural Arts Group, thanked the Council for this year’s support of the Annual Community Dinner, and petitioned the Council for support of the 2002 Annual Dinner, and to include these annual dinners in its annual budget. She reported the website was www.orangeculturalarts.org.
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).
2. Petition from William Mullin, Director of Facilities Management, from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board of Education for an expedited review of the Special Use Permit (SUP) modification for the Meadowmont elementary school.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3. Petition from Cyndy Risku, President of the Silver Creek Homeowners Association, in reference to Item 8 on the Agenda, which concerned Weaver Dairy Road improvements. The Petition was referred to Item 8 for discussion.
4. Petition from Jeanne T. Connor, Federal Realty Investment Trust, owner of Eastgate Shopping Center, for assistance from the Town of Chapel Hill in solving the stormwater flooding problems the shopping center has undergone, and was undertaking to find a solution to. Mayor Waldorf had suggested to her that she petition the Council, which was the reason for the letter to the Council.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WASADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3c. Announcements by Council Members
Council Member Brown announced that the National Report on Local Government and Community Program and Incentives for Renewable Energy, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, included an article on Chapel Hill, and listed Chapel Hill’s Energy Ordinance as a model for energy conservation.
Item 4 – Consent Agenda
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2001-01-22/R-2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following minutes, resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
|
a. |
Adoption of Minutes from the November 18, November 20 (2 sets), November 27 and December 11 Council meetings. |
|
b. |
Dedication of sewer easements on Town property to OWASA (Parkside I Subdivision) (R-3). |
|
c. |
Dedication of a private sewer easement on Town property (Greendale Park) (R-4). |
|
d. |
Response to request for expedited processing of Special Use Permit Modification Application for UNC Airport Road Office Building (R-5). |
|
e. |
Report on potential locations of dog parks (R-6). |
|
f. |
Amendment of Council Calendar to add February 23 Budget Work Session (R-7). |
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DEDICATION TO OWASA OF A SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED ON LAND OWNED BY THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO NEW PARKSIDE DRIVE AND IS DESCRIBED IN ORANGE COUNTY DEED BOOK 2008, PAGE 284 (2001-01-22/R-3)
WHEREAS, the developer of the Parkside subdivision has requested that the Town dedicate a sewer easement to OWASA; and
WHEREAS, the proposed easement would allow sewer connections to be made to the approved Parkside II subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the property is also the proposed location of a future greenway trail;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to transfer to OWASA a sewer easement approximately 225 feet in length by 30 feet wide located on Town land described in Orange County Deed Book 2008, Page 284.
This is 22nd day of January, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DEDICATION TO ANDRE TAMERS AND CINDY CUOMO OF A SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN GREENDALE PARK ON LAND OWNED BY THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS CHAPEL HILL TAX MAP 49.A.6C. (2001-01-22/R-4)
WHEREAS, the owner of a lot on Sugarberry Road has requested that the Town dedicate a sewer easement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed easement would allow a sewer connection to be made to a new single family home;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to transfer to Andre Tamers and Cindy Cuomo a sewer easement approximately 15 feet in length by 15 feet wide located within Greendale Park on Town land, which is identified as Chapel Hill Tax Map 49.A.6c, contingent upon the developer agreeing to locate the sewer line in a manner that would not result in the loss of any trees over 3 inches in diameter.
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING IN THE REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR UNC AIRPORT ROAD OFFICE BUILDING (2001-01-22/R- 5)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received a petition from Bruce Runberg, with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for expedited processing of a Special Use Permit Modification application seeking approval of a new office building on Airport Road; and
WHEREAS, the proposal 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 the Airport Road Office Building in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO NOTIFY PERSONS WHO OWN PROPERTY WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE POTENTIAL SITES LISTED IN THIS REPORT OF THE FEBRUARY 12, 2001 PUBLIC FORUM (2001-01-22/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Council has received input from citizens seeking Town sites where dog can run off-leash, and;
WHEREAS, the Council formed a Dog Park Committee to research potential, and;
WHEREAS, the Dog Park Committee’s interim report identifies several potential sites for dog parks, and;
WHEREAS, the Dog Park Committee and the Manager have reduced the list of potential sites to the following locations:
· Cedar Falls Park
· Rear of Community Center Park
· Homestead Park
· Southern Community Park
· Meadowmont Park
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to notify all persons who own property within 1,000 feet of the five potential sites listed in this Report.
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2000-2001 COUNCIL CALENDAR TO RESCHEDULE A BUDGET WORK SESSION (2001-01-22/R-7)
WHEREAS, the Council had previously scheduled a Budget Work Session on March 2; and,
WHEREAS, February 23, 2001, from 12:30-5:30 p.m. has been suggested as a possible meeting date and time;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends its 2000-2001 meeting calendar to reschedule a Budget Work Session for Friday, February 23, from 12:30-5:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber of Town Hall.
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
Council Member Bateman announced, in reference to item e, that a public forum was scheduled for February 12, 2001, for discussion of the sites the Dog Park’s Committee had suggested for location of dog parks. Mr. Horton said this could be announced through the website and the purchase of an advertisement in the local newspaper.
Item 5 – Information Items
Council Member Bateman asked that the responses to the questions raised at the October 18, 2000 Council Work Session on the Homestead Park Aquatic/Community Center Conceptual Plan Interim Report, be put with the information for the Public Forum next week. Mr. Horton said that would be done.
Council Member Ward pulled item a.
Item 6 – Human Services Advisory Board 2001 Needs Report
Terri Tyson, Chair of the Human Services Advisory Board, outlined the process:
(1) a Needs Report is presented to the Town Council to identify the most important human serve needs in the Town;
(2) a budget work session;
(3) a call for applications from human service agencies in the area;
(4) a six-week hearing jointly with Carrboro; and
(5) notification to the agencies regarding the funding level they will receive.
Ms. Tyson said the Board tried to spread the funding over many agencies, adding that needs change from year to year. She reported gathering information from: the Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission Forum, the Orange County Master Aging Plan Work Group, the Triangle United Way/Glaxo Forum on Senior Issues, the 1999 Orange County Community Assessment, the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center staff, agency visitations by Board members, a meeting with the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Superintendent, and other sources.
Ms. Tyson said that the Council last year approved allocations totaling $178,200, and the funding went to 28 agencies. She said the several areas of need identified ere: parent and family support; substance abuse treatment and prevention; youth services; and services for senior citizens. Ms. Tyson then outlined several expected increases in issues:
· Less monies trickling down from the State
· Increase in number of seniors
· Increase in number of Latinos
· Cost of housing and childcare
· Support services
· Increase in mental health services needed
Council Member Bateman asked Ms. Tyson if it was more helpful for the Board to have a set amount of money in the budget to divide up among the agencies, or if it would be more helpful to bring each need to the Council for its decision. Ms. Tyson said it was helpful to know what the amount would be in order to distribute it based on the needs.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council discuss allocating a specific amount of funding after the public hearing on the budget.
Council Member Bateman said the Board would not need the decision right away, as it would not be holding hearings until the first part of March.
Item 7 – Consideration of Annexation Issues
Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt reported the schedule for the proposed annexation:
· a Resolution of Intent adopted by the Council on January 8, 2001, for both areas under discussion;
· recommended adoption of both proposals for annexation at this evening’s meeting so that information could be made available four weeks in advance of a Public Information Meeting;
· Public Information Meeting scheduled for February 26, 2001; and
· Council to hold a Public Hearing on March 19, 2001.
Ms. Berndt said that letters would be sent out after this evening’s meeting to all the property owners in both areas informing them of the Public Information Meeting and the Public Hearing. Ms. Berndt said that after hearing from the public on March 19, the Council would have the opportunity of amending the reports, scheduled for the April 9, 2001 Council meeting. She said the annexation would be effective June 30, 2001.
Ms. Berndt briefly discussed the Services:
· For Area 1 the Town can properly serve the annexation area with its current personnel and equipment.
· For Area 2 additional personnel and equipment, especially in the areas of fire, police, and transit, will be required, and in the first year there will be more costs than revenues.
Ms. Berndt said the staff recommended adoption of both Resolutions approving the service plans for both Annexation Areas.
Council Member Strom asked for an explanation of the difference between year one and year two in revenues or the net effect of annexation of Southern Village, and at the end of year two what percentage of Southern Village would be built out. Ms. Berndt explained that, in the graph on page 3 of the memorandum, there would be a deficit of $181,613, which would be covered by funding for six firefighter positions already included in the budget forecast. She said on page 4, the estimate of a plus on the revenue side would be $10,482, and more information was provided in appendix E, and on page 3 of appendix E the report points out an additional 99 residences for year two.
Council Member Evans, referring to Table 1, Appendix E, page 4, asked for an explanation of the Town Operations for Fire being in the $500,000 range. Ms. Berndt said these would be additional costs for personnel, a fire hydrant along 15-501, contracts with the rural fire department, and a temporary substation, until the permanent fire station was completed.
Council Member Evans said she understood that the additional fire protection would be necessary whether or not Southern Village was annexed, and she did not understand why that cost was considered under the costs of annexation of Southern Village. Mr. Horton said this had been done to show the costs in full rather than prorating them. He said these services were needed to serve the southern section of the city, especially in view of the additional development on the UNC campus and the Hospital. He said the staff did the same total costs in the Police Department, in Sanitation Services, and others.
Council Member Evans asked why there were additional costs for street lights and street signs, when the developer had been asked to build these to Town standards. Ms. Berndt said the street lights were payment to Duke Power for the lighting already there, and street signs were probably for additional signage in the area. Mr. Horton said the real costs for the street lights were costs for the utility costs, and for the street signs, there would be additional costs for redoing the markings and signs. He said there would be continuing costs for these, and there would be an additional cost for staffing. He said this would be an annual cost.
Council Member Evans asked if the staff had looked at providing yard waste service on a contract basis. Mayor Waldorf said there was a public hearing planned in six weeks, and the department heads would be present to answer questions.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked how recycling would be handled. Mr. Horton said that was a County service, and the Town did not have any control over that.
Ms. Berndt reviewed the schedule for the public meetings and the schedule for Council adoption and implementation, and that notices and advertisements would be sent out. She noted that information would be available on the website, at the Town Library, and at the Town Clerk’s Office.
Council Member Bateman asked that, when the notices were sent out, the different meetings would be explained.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REPORT WITH PLANS FOR EXTENDING MAJOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO AN ANNEXATION AREA IN ACCORD WITH G.S. 160A-47 (2001-01-22/R-8)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the annexation plan for extending and financing services to that certain proposed annexation Area 1 (Map 1 – Notting Hill Area) as described in the Council’s resolution (2001-01-08/R-9); which plan was submitted to the Council by the Manager on January 22, 2001 and a copy of which plan shall be retained with the records of this meeting.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to make the report available for public inspection at least 30 days before the public information meeting in accordance with State law.
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REPORT WITH PLANS FOR EXTENDING MAJOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO AN ANNEXATION AREA IN ACCORD WITH G.S. 160A-47 (2001-01-22/R-9)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the annexation plan for extending and financing services to that certain proposed annexation Area 2 (Map 2 – Southern Village Area) as described in the Council’s resolution (2001-01-08/R-10); which plan was submitted to the Council by the Manager on January 22, 2001 and a copy of which plan shall be retained with the records of this meeting.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to make the report available for public inspection at least 30 days before the public information meeting in accordance with State law.
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
Item 8 – Endorsement of Proposed Weaver Dairy Road Improvements
Engineering Director George Small said that Derrick Weaver, from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), was present to answer questions and assist with the presentation. He said the staff brought the report in hopes that the Council would endorse a conceptual proposed plan for the widening of Weaver Dairy Road from NC 86 to Erwin Road, including a new section to be constructed at the eastern end. He said NCDOT had looked at several different options. Mr. Small touched on a few issues raised at the Public Forum:
1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety. All of the options brought forth included sidewalks on both sides of the road, and at least wider out-lanes for bicycle use. One of the reasons for the recommendations of a raised center median was to provide pedestrian refuge.
2. Speeding and More Traffic. Need for more traffic enforcement for speeding. There will be more traffic growth in the area whether or not the road is widened, as the road is the only east/west connector in the northern part of the Town. Mr. Small said it was his opinion that to adequately serve the traffic needs of the future, the road needed two travel lanes in each direction. He said that alternative 2A was the initial choice of the staff because it satisfied the needs of pedestrians and well as traffic needs, and included two travel lanes in each direction and a median with curb and gutter. Mr. Small said NCDOT would be willing to put a 15-foot median in the road, instead of their usual requirement of 20 feet.
3. Stormwater Management. In the project design every effort would be made to mitigate project storm water runoff impacts.
4. Consideration of a variation on the proposed three-lane alternative to include a raised center median rather than a continuous center turn lane. Mr. Small said in both the staff’s and NCDOT’s opinions, this was not a feasible option, because it would be significantly under-designed capacity-wise for increased traffic, and would eliminate the ability for cars to get out of the single travel lane in each direction, and would cause a lot of U-Turns. Mr. Small said NCDOT would not consider this option.
5. The question of taking or relocating houses had various options, and each property would have to be looked at separately.
6. The Manager’s recommendation would connect well to the existing improvements along the road, and would minimize disturbance of already-existing improvements.
Mr. Small said, if the Council approved a Resolution this evening, NCDOT would begin the process of preliminary designs and environmental assessment for public hearings, and ultimately the staff would return with a municipal agreement between the Town and NCDOT.
Council Member Bateman asked if the project included the remounting at Sage Road, and, if so, would any dwellings need to be demolished. Mr. Small said it did, and there were two existing dwellings possible for demolition.
Council Member Bateman asked about two other dwellings near the shopping center. Mr. Horton pointed out that on page 7 of the memorandum, Table Two, Revised Recommendation 1A, showing 5 residences to be relocated, and 3 residences in close proximity, was the same as Alternate 1A and 1B.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked how long the Town had been requiring developers to re-widen on Weaver Dairy Road, when they are building a new development. Mr. Small said it had been since the late 1980s.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked if the Council decided not to widen the road would the Town be required to reimburse the developers for what they had already done. Mr. Karpinos said the Town would not.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Small to identify the dwellings for relocation and close proximity on the map. Mr. Derrick Weaver responded that those identified as in close proximity would end up closer to the road, but would not be in jeopardy of being relocated. He pointed them out on the map.
Council Member Evans said some areas had already been developed to five lanes. She asked if the Town could require a developer to make more improvements in the future, after the State had made improvements. Mr. Horton said the requests were based on the impacts of development and on the published plans that the Council had adopted, but the Town could not request more than what had been required by the Council.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council adopted a “less lane” option, would that have any effect on what the Town could require of developers on the Weaver Dairy Extension to Homestead Road. Mr. Horton said it would depend on what plans were adopted for that section of the roadway, and the Council could have differential instructions for differential sections.
Council Member Strom asked if the Council adopted Alternative 4A, could that be constructed so as not to affect the two residences in question. Mr. Small said the houses were either relocated or close to the road, in any of the alternatives for construction. He said only one small house was directly in the path of the road.
Council Member Ward asked, if the Council went for a three-lane cross-section, how would existing wider sections be treated. Mr. Small responded that right-turn lanes would be striped out.
Council Member Brown asked, if the three-lane alternative was adopted, with select widening for turn lanes, would that mean that no residences would be taken. Mr. Weaver said that one house was in the center of the proposed road at Erwin Road and the third relocation would not be affected. Mr. Small noted that the road at Perkins Road was a problem in any scenario, and would have to be corrected.
Council Member Brown asked if the three-lane alternative was adopted could it still have bike lanes and sidewalks. Mr. Weaver said that two relocations would have to be required no matter what alternative was chosen.
Council Member Foy asked if sidewalks were included in all of the scenarios. Mr. Small said they were in all of the build scenarios.
Council Member Foy asked if there were any turns in the section from Sage Road to Weaver Dairy Road. Mr. Small said there was one intersection and pointed the area out on the map.
Council Member Foy asked if the Council adopted Alternative 4A for the section between Sunrise Road and west, would it make sense to choose the Manager’s recommendation for the Sage Road extension. Mr. Small responded that it was a controlled section, and had different characteristics than the developed part of the road.
Council Member Foy asked if the section in front of the high school would be three lanes also, if the three-lane alternative were adopted. Mr. Small said it could be done, but it would be challenging, since it already had four lanes.
Mayor Waldorf asked when the traffic calming devices would be laid over the design. Mr. Small said at a later time, but the plans for the narrower median and narrower lanes would help to slow the traffic down.
Council Member Bateman asked what would happen to the ballfields at Cedar Falls Park under the Manager’s recommendation. Mr. Small they would not be encroached upon.
Council Member Ward said that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had recommended 15-foot wide outside lanes, rather than a striped bike lane, and wanted to know the opinion of NCDOT on that design for a three-lane road. Mr. Weaver said NCDOT generally recommended a 14-foot wide outside lane, so that drivers would not feel safe passing in that lane and the bicyclists did feel comfortable in that width.
Council Member Brown asked what was included in the 44 feet for Alternative 4A. Mr. Small pointed this out on page 24 of the memorandum.
Harold Horne, resident of Weaver Dairy Road for 33 years, said there had been 33 accidents in the last two years between Sunrise Road and Erwin Road, and 23 of those were on the two-lane section near Erwin Road. He said that the “no-build” option was not a good one. He urged the Council to adopt the Manager’s recommendation.
William Burpitt, resident of Sedgefield, said the traffic was heavy at this intersection, making it extremely difficult to exit onto Weaver Dairy Road. He said the pedestrian traffic was also very heavy along that section, with no shoulder to walk on. He predicted more accidents to come, and said it was a very dangerous intersection. He supported the Manager’s recommendation.
Patrick Rhodes, speaking on behalf of the residents on Weaver Dairy Road and Country Road, said they were opposed to the Manager’s recommendation because it would increase traffic and sedimentation seeping down to the creek on Cedar Fork Trail. He urged the Council to consider the three-lane option. Mr. Rhodes said Country Road residents did not want the street to be removed.
Kelly Carrigan, resident and spokesperson of Kensington Trace, said that the residents had not been notified of the previous public hearing, and wished to be heard in favor of a three-lane road. She asked if three homes in Kensington Trace under consideration for destruction were still under this consideration. Mr. Weaver said the Manager’s recommendation would not require taking of the three homes. Ms. Carrigan asked the Council to take into consideration the payout date on these homes. She asked that a wall be provided between the complex and the road.
Bruce Ballentine, a Silver Creek resident, distributed a resolution adding a paragraph to Resolution A, as a new 3rd from the last “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,” to read “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the NCDOT design incorporate transitions between the new and existing sections in order to preserve as much of the existing improvements as possible. The existing roadway, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, grass strips, landscaping and buffer walls adjacent to Chesley and Silver Creek are not to be disturbed, other than by re-striping of the existing pavement, if necessary.”
Cyndy Risku, President of the Homeowners Association of Silver Creek, said that a petition from the Silver Creek neighborhood with 62 signatures on two petitions had been distributed, one for “no build” and one for “three-lane road.” She said there were more signatures for a three-lane road. Ms. Risku said, although the plan to make Weaver Dairy Road a major highway had been put on the plans several years ago by NCDOT, that things were different now, and the area had developed into neighborhoods rather than commercial development. She said the neighborhoods did not want to see the road become a major highway. She urged the Council to use common sense and reasoning and vote for a three-lane option.
Paul Vancil, resident of Chandler’s Green, said he wanted to speak in favor of a three-lane option. He said the Manager’s recommended alternative spoke of several issues that would have a negative impact, but this was all overridden by the assumption of increased traffic in the next 25 years. He said he did not believe that the western area, which is projected to have increased development, would ever increase the traffic in the targeted area for expansion of the road. He urged the Council to accept the proposal for a three-lane highway, much less costly and much safer.
Janina DeMassi said that, although the expansion of Weaver Dairy Road had been on the books for several years, the notion needed to be re-examined because of the changes in the nature of the occupants in the neighborhoods—new developments, a senior citizen community, and the high school. She said the crosswalks are not used by the high school students, drivers do not observe the speed limit or the passing laws, and the quantity of new drivers from the high school was a formula for disaster. She urged the Council to vote for a three-lane highway for Weaver Dairy Road.
Philip Kohl, resident of Silver Creek, voiced his concerns to the expansion of Weaver Dairy Road. He pointed out that safety was a major concern with traffic increases, leaving his subdivision was becoming more difficult, and children crossing the street would be in much more danger. Mr. Kohl said this would be a project looking for a need. He urged the Council to vote for the three-lane highway.
Eleanor Howe, representing the Transportation Board, said the Board had considered the issues and felt there should only be three lanes and a raised median strip; sidewalks on both sides of the road; the road would be more dangerous to cross; through traffic should be directed to I-40; and designated bike lanes should be provided. She urged the Council not to vote for the Manager’s recommendation for these reasons.
Cathy Riley, representing the Timberlyne neighborhood and a long-term resident, urged the Council not to adopt the Manager’s recommendation. She added that the public forum held on November 20, 2000, was during the Thanksgiving vacation, so many of the families in Timberlyne were on vacation and did not get an opportunity to attend. She said she was one of the residents whose home was in close proximity, at the corner of Timberlyne Road and Weaver Dairy Road, so would be within 20 feet of the proposed road. She said the homes to be torn down were affordable homes, which the Council had been proposing to increase.
Nick Nickerson said there were two homeowners’ associations in Chesley, and the one he belonged to, Homeowners’ Association Five, supported the three-lane road. He said the other Homeowners’ Association Board supported the Manager’s recommendation.
Walter Capone, Cedar Hills Circle, said his neighborhood supported the three-lane road option. He added to the other speaker’s thoughts, that he felt that the way the expansion had been handled in the Meadowmont area and Highway 54, was to provide safety measures along the road. He urged the Council to vote for an alternative to the Manager’s recommendation, which would be to increase traffic and speeding.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10B, ALTERNATIVE 4A, FOR THE WESTERN END, AND FOR THE EASTERN END, BETWEEN ERWIN ROAD AND WEAVER DAIRY ROAD, THE MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOUR LANES.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR THREE LANES THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE ROAD, ALTERNATIVE 4A.
Council Member Bateman asked Council Member Foy for his rationale. Council Member Foy responded that the portion of the road between Erwin Road and Weaver Dairy Road only had one turn off and with the median, some traffic calming could be achieved.
Council Member Ward suggested that a three-lane grassy median could achieve the same traffic calming, so the travel lanes could match up with the others being considered.
Mr. Weaver said that with a three-lane grassy median, there would be no opportunity for U-turns, and he did not know if NCDOT would accept that alternative. He pointed out that emergency vehicles would have nowhere to turn around except to go to the intersection.
Council Member Strom said he seconded Council Member Brown’s motion because the Council had heard a tremendous amount of evidence that speed was the primary concern, and it would not make sense to start the road out with four lanes, where cars would likely go faster, and then the road would suddenly turn into three lanes.
Council Member Foy said he thought that a grassy median would discourage speeding, whereas a wide-open space might make speeding more prevalent. Mr. Weaver said that what Council Member Foy was proposing would make a good tie-in with the wider, already existing portions of the road.
Mayor Waldorf asked if this proposal would make it a more appealing project for NCDOT. Mr. Weaver said he felt it would make more logical sense, and the four-lane proposal for the new section would be the best way to go.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Weaver why four lanes with a median rather than three lanes with a median was desirable. Mr. Weaver responded that the three lane with median prevented U-turns because of the space, and there really was not much opportunity to have a median in the new section with three turn lanes proposed.
Council Member Foy said he proposed the median because it would be a visible distraction for cars speeding. Mr. Weaver said for such a short section of road and with the turning lanes there would be little median.
Council Member Foy withdrew his motion, and Council Member Brown withdrew her substitute motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10B WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF ALTERNATIVE 4A, THREE LANES, AND THE INCLUSION OF THE RESOLUTION SUGGESTED BY BRUCE BALLENTINE, WITH A MINOR CHANGE IN LANGUAGE, CROSS OUT “AS POSSIBLE” AFTER “EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS” AND CHANGING “ARE NOT TO” AFTER “SILVER CREEK” DELETING “ARE” AND “NOT” AND SIMPLY LEAVING IN THE WORD “NOT.”
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked how this motion would affect the improvements being made by VilCom. Mr. Horton said they would need to finish their construction in order to be in compliance with the SUP approval.
Council Member Wiggins said she thought the transitions from 3 to 4 to 5 lanes might be traffic calming. She said she would not like to see Weaver Dairy Road become another Airport Road, which was conducive to speeding.
Mayor Waldorf said she had some real reservations about the three-lane choice, and she felt that the Manager’s recommendation would not make Weaver Dairy Road another Airport Road. She felt that because this road was the only cross-town road in the northern part of the community, and was no longer just a residential neighborhood road, that the road would become increasingly traveled in the future and should be built for that.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo said he would not support the proposal for three lanes and he felt the Manager’s proposal was the right decision for Weaver Dairy Road.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-3, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, AND COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO WEAVER DAIRY ROAD BETWEEN NC 86 AND ERWIN ROAD TO INCLUDE A THREE LANE CROSS SECTION CONSISTING OF ONE FOURTEEN FOOT WIDE TRAVEL LANE IN EACH DIRECTION AND A CONTINUOUS TWELVE FOOT CENTER TURN LANE, WITH CURB-AND-GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD. (2001-01-22/R-10b)
WHEREAS, it is the Town’s desire to improve Weaver Dairy Road to the extent that it can safely and effectively accommodate existing and future pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic; and
WHEREAS, necessary improvements should be designed and constructed so as to minimize disturbance of adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the Town and the State, and interested citizens, have met and discussed the proposed Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project needs, scope, costs, and impacts; and
WHEREAS, project information and input has been evaluated and considered in conjunction with preliminary studies of several alternative project designs; and
WHEREAS, the Council endorsed-design best meets the project objectives with the least negative impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council endorses a conceptual Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project between NC 86 and Erwin Road to include a three lane cross section consisting of a fourteen foot wide travel lane in each direction to accommodate bicycle use, a continuous twelve foot center turn lane, curb-and-gutter and sidewalk along both sides of the road, and right-turn lanes and bus pull-offs as necessary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the State design incorporate transitions between the new and existing sections in order to preserve all of the existing improvements and that the existing roadway, curb & gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, grass strips, landscaping, and buffer walls adjacent to Chesley and Silver Creek neighborhoods not be disturbed, other than by re-striping of the existing pavement, if necessary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the State concur with the project improvements endorsed by the Town and proceed with preparations for a Public Hearing on the proposed Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project as endorsed herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests the Town be involved to the extent possible in all stages of the project development.
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
Item 9 – Recommendations on Revision of the Noise Ordinance
Police Chief Gregg Jarvies briefly detailed the background for revision of the Noise Ordinance:
· May 1997 Council established a Noise Ordinance Study Committee to investigate various types of noises and evaluate various methods of reducing the levels of noises that were determined to be particularly disturbing.
· January 25, 1999, the Committee presented its report to the Council, which included eight recommendations.
· Following the presentation, the Council determined that there was a lack of expertise among the Town staff to evaluate and implement the Committee’s recommendations and that it had concerns regarding the technical, legal and practical implications resulting from implementation of the Committee’s recommendations.
· September 13, 1999, the Council authorized the Manager to contract with Environmental Noise Consultants, Inc. (ENC) to review the Town’s noise ordinance, recommend changes, and prepare a draft of a new ordinance for the future.
Audiologist Julia Royster, President of ENC, outlined the phases in the process:
· Meetings with citizens, noise committee members, Town staff, and other municipalities for feedback about the current noise ordinance and the proposed changes.
· Site visits to area where noise annoyance issues were particularly troublesome, including some night visits.
· Development of a draft ordinance which included information collected from citizens, Town staff, technical data retrieved during site visits, and the professional experience of the consultants.
· Presentation of the draft ordinance to the Council and to the pubic, with additional amendments made to the draft following comment.
Dr. Royster described the level of noise and its effect on people. She said that people have different expectancies of noise levels from different environments. Dr. Royster said that the evaluation of noise levels were determined by visits to 35 locations selected by Chief Jarvies during the daytime and during the nighttime, and 10 locations were sampled on a Friday evening in commercial area of the Town, where there were bands, bars and fraternity parties. She said the noise levels were higher in the commercial areas than in the residential areas, and lower at night than in the daytime.
Dr. Royster said the draft ordinance was developed to allow Chapel Hill to keep its good acoustic environment by limiting sound levels to levels slightly higher than the current average levels for different areas in Town during the day and night. She said one major difference in the draft ordinance from the current ordinance was that the draft allows high sound levels in areas zoned for business, commercial, institutional, or industrial uses, than in residential zones. She said if commercial zones bordered residential properties, the lower level of noise in a residential zone would be allowed.
Dr. Royster said that another difference would be that violations would be judged in two ways, the limits would be different, and noise ordinances would be treated the same throughout the Town. She said the draft ordinance would require limits only if the noise limits were exceeded. Dr. Royster said the draft included exceptions to “nuisance noises,” and it included a penalty for fines of violation to provide for enforcement. She said they recommended a “Noise Awareness Program” for school children, and to require developers to provide information about the noise expectations for construction.
Council Member Ward asked how the ordinance addressed the duration of noise. He asked what a commercial area would be allowed to do with noise levels within its boundary, if it bordered a residential area. Dr. Royster said the commercial property would have to comply with the residential area level bordering it. She said the entire ordinance was designed toward sounds more than an impulse noise.
Council Member Ward asked if the University had had input into the ordinance discussions. Dr. Royster said there had been representatives and students at meetings.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 18, 2001, FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECEIVING CITIZEN COMMENT ON THE REPORT ON PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE REVISIONS (2000-01-22/R-11)
WHEREAS, on September 13, 1999, the Council authorized the Manager to contract with Environmental Noise Consultants, Inc. of Raleigh to conduct a comprehensive review of the Town’s noise control ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Environmental Noise Consultants, Inc. has presented to the Council a proposal for revising the Town’s noise control ordinance; and
WHEREAS, changes to the noise control ordinance could have technical, legal and practical implications for citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to ensure that citizens have an opportunity to comment on the report;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that a public hearing be scheduled for April 18, 2001, to provide citizens the opportunity to comment on the report.
This the 22nd day of January, 2001.
Item 10 – Update on University Discussions and Proposed Statement
to the UNC Board of Trustees
Mayor Waldorf made a correction to her cover letter memorandum to read that the Trustees meeting for February was a workshop, and a meeting of the Town/Gown Committee was scheduled for February 9, 2001, from 2:00 p.m.- 4:00 p.m. She said she had received a letter from Chancellor Moeser supporting the cooperative process between the Town and the University.
Diana Steele commended the Town and the University for working together to find mutual solutions to the issues concerning them both. She was relieved to learn that the transportation issue was still open for discussion and hoped that her house would be spared from destruction. She said she was pleased with the discussions with the consultants.
Council Member Bateman asked how many square feet in the University would be constructed in connection with the bonds. Mr. Horton said that at one point it was estimated that about 226 million of the 550 million would be for new construction, and the remainder would be for renovations.
Council Member Bateman added the impact on the schools to the list of concerns in the memorandum, last paragraph on page 3.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ENDORSE MAYOR WALDORF’S STATEMENT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED TO NOMINATE COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, AND COUNCIL MEMBER STROM NOMINATED COUNCIL MEMBER FOY AS THE ALTERNATE. BOTH ACCEPTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 12 – Petitions (none)
Item 5a – Information Report
Durham’s NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study
Council Member Brown suggested that, since the report was long, the staff prepare a list of the key points to bring back to the Council for discussion before approval. Mr. Horton said they would have it prepared for the February 15, 2001 Council meeting, so they could discuss it before the late February meeting of the Durham City Council.
Council Member Evans asked that one of the items she would like included was the three “Proposed Thoroughfares” approaching or crossing into Chapel Hill.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that the Highway 54 transit corridor had not been mentioned in the report and she would like information about that.
The Council agreed to postpone discussion until the staff could prepare a short summary of the key points in the report.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.