SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Finance Director Jim Baker, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Inspections Director Lance Norris, Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Deputy Fire Chief Robert Bosworth, Engineering Director George Small, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Assistant to the Mayor Alice Joyce, Human Services Coordinator Karen Rose, Long Range Planning Coordinator Christ Berndt, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Mayor Waldorf described a petition from Winkie LaForce and Nolo Martinez for the Council to provide $750 for the Familias del Pueblo Road Race to pay for the costs of police assistance to help them with the race. Mayor Waldorf suggested Council support because the money raised by the race would go to support the program for young Latinos.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, THAT THE TOWN ALLOCATE $750 FOR THE RACE, WHICH IS CALLED “MANY CULTURES, ONE RACE.” THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Weezie Oldenburg, Chair of the Community Design Commission (CDC), presented a petition recommending that the Council consider initiating a study to address remaining future growth and development in the northeastern portion of Chapel Hill. She asked, in particular, that it include ad hoc members from various Town advisory boards, citizens from affected neighborhoods, and potential developers associated with this area of Town. Ms. Oldenburg continued that the Commission also was recommending that the Council consider a moratorium on new development in this portion of Town until a study can be completed to provide a better vision for growth and development in this area. She said the members present at the meeting adopted this recommendation unanimously.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER.

Council Member Strom asked if there was also another petition received which was in the same nature of this petition and if the Council was moving in this direction. Mayor Waldorf said the Council had received a petition from citizens living in the Spring Crest neighborhood asking that a moratorium be declared on development in their general area. She commented that there was great opportunity for people to work together on this issue.

Ms. Oldenburg said she had met with the Planning Board and the Transportation Board and that all were in agreement about the problem of growth.

Mayor Waldorf remarked that she hoped that the staff, the advisory boards, citizens and developers could work together on this issue.

Council Member Foy asked how this would affect applications already pending. Mr. Karpinos responded that if there were not a vested right in application, then a moratorium would have the effect of stopping any further development. He said that a moratorium would need to be enacted as a temporary development ordinance in the same way that any other development ordinance needed to be enacted, with a public hearing and action by the Council in the form of a change to the development ordinance, even though temporary.

Mayor Waldorf asked, as her understanding of the law, if the Council should declare a moratorium there would have to be two conditions: (1) there would be a time limit on the moratorium, and (2) the Council was exploring remedial actions. Mr. Karpinos replied that this was generally correct, there had to be a time limit, a study done, and a plan of action developed.

Council Member Strom asked the staff, in its study of a moratorium, to see if there was a way to exclude projects meeting the affordable housing goals of the Council, since he wanted to see these projects continue to go forward.

George Cionciolo, representing the Transportation Board, reported that the Board, on June 5, 2001, voted unanimously for recommendations asking for a 6-12 month moratorium on approval of any Special Use Permits (SUP) for projects within a one-mile radius of either Sage or Erwin Roads and Highway 15-501, if the projects projected 50 or more new additional parking spaces. He asked that a Transportation Task Force be appointed to study the situation, composed of members of the Town Council, Town staff, and each of the appropriate advisory committees. Mr. Cionciolo added that at that time, the Board had not asked that developers be appointed to such a task force, but it had been pointed out that developers needed to be part of the solution. He said, in recommending a moratorium while the issue was being studied, the Board recognized the potential inconvenience to certain members of the community, as well as the cost in time and resources. Mr. Cionciolo added that there would most likely not be any large-scale developments in this area of Town, and any future developments would most likely be in-fill, but there would still be an impact from these developments.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Brown asked that revised Agenda Item 4i be substituted for the one in the notebook, which had an additional bullet that was in line with a petition she had brought to the Council regarding recycling.

Council Member Evans asked if Council Member Brown’s petition were implemented, would that would mean that the Council would no longer receive their notebooks, since they were not recyclable. Council Member Brown said this was geared toward outside consultants. Mr. Horton said the Council could add the words, “or reusable,” for clarity.

Council Member Ward suggested adding the words “locally recycled,” to which Council Member Brown agreed.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1, WITH 4i AMENDED, AND D, G, AND H REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

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

A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2001-06-25/R-2)

WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and

WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:

Planning Board

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON NC 54 IN THE VICINITY OF HAMILTON ROAD (2001-06-25/R-3)

Whereas, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill established a citizen work group to identify and evaluate options for improving pedestrian access to and through the NC 54/Hamilton Road intersection; and

WHEREAS, the Council received and approved the work group’s recommendations for improvements on NC 54 in the vicinity of Hamilton Road; and

WHEREAS, the Town and the State agreed to participate in funding and implementing the proposed improvements;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager is authorized to execute on behalf of the Town a Municipal Agreement outlining the responsibilities of the Town and the State regarding implementation of the proposed improvements.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-164 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (2001-06-25/0-1)

Section 1. The first subparagraph of Section 2-164. Duties and Powers. Article XI.,Chapter 2 of the Town Code, is hereby revised to read as follows:

(1) Recommend public housing procedures, in accord with HUD regulations and within the budgetary and service levels authorized by council, regarding terms of lease, occupancy, late rent fees, pet policy, resident transfers, and other applicable regulations.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO PURCHASE 210 ELECTONIC PARKING METERS TO COMPLETE THE CONVERSION OF MECHANICAL PARKING METERS TO ELECTRONIC PARKING METERS (2001-06-25/R-5)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has determined that there are significant benefits in converting existing mechanical parking meters to electronic meters; and

WHEREAS, we estimate adequate funding is available within the current year’s On-Street Parking Fund budget to purchase the electronic meters;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to purchase and install electronic parking meters in the Town of Chapel Hill.

A RESOLUTION REQUIRING CONSULTANTS TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS FOR THE COUNCIL USING RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING AT LEAST 30% RECYCLED PAPER CONTENT, ONLY MATERIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY RECYCLABLE, AS WELL AS USING THE LEAST MATERIAL POSSIBLE BY MEANS OF DOUBLE-SIDED COPIES (2001-06-25/R-7)

WHEREAS, using recycled paper products and double-sided copies is desirable because it reduces consumer waste in landfills and saves trees; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the following policies regarding documents submitted to the Council by consultants with whom the Town has performance agreements:

1. The Town will require consultants to use recycled paper, containing at least 30% recycled paper content.

3. The Town will require consultants to use the least material possible, as well as using double-sided copies.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2000 (2001-06-25/O-3)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2000” as duly adopted on June 26, 2000, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL PROJECTS ORDINANCE FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS (2001-06-25/O-4)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, that the capital projects ordinance for various capital projects funded from a variety of sources is hereby amended as follows:

SECTION I

The capital projects as authorized by the Town Council includes various capital projects funded from grants, the Capital Improvements Program funds, and other miscellaneous sources of revenue for a variety of projects extending beyond one fiscal year.

SECTION II

The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with implementation of these projects within terms of funds appropriated here.

SECTION III

Revenues anticipated to be available to the Town to complete the project are as follows:

SECTION IV

The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of the project in an informational section to be included in the Annual Budget, and shall keep the Council informed of any unusual occurrences.

Copies of this projects ordinance shall be entered into the Minutes of the Council and copies shall be filed within 5 days of adoption with the Manager, Finance Director and Clerk.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE COMPLETION DATE FOR PRESQUE ISLE (2001-06-25/R-8a)

WHEREAS, ARD Group, Inc. has requested an extension of the completion time limit for Presque Isle; and

WHEREAS, Article 18.6.3 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance requires Council to make the determination that a) the permit holder submits the request within 60 days of the completion time limit; b) the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith; and c) conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development; and

WHEREAS, a) the permit holder submitted the request within 60 days of the completion date; b) the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith; and c) conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the request of ARD Group, Inc. for the extension of the completion date of the Presque Isle to June 23, 2002, to allow construction of the Residential Planned Development in accordance with the December 20, 1999 Zoning Compliance Permit.

A RESOLUTION AMENDING GUIDELINES OF THE HOUSING LOAN TRUST FUND (2001-06-25/R-8.1)

WHEREAS, the current regulations of the Housing Loan Trust Fund adopted by the Council on June 23, 1986 and amended on October 10, 1994, April 14, 1997, and November 8, 1999 do not include providing funds as a grant to organizations for land trust projects regulating the resale of property; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council amends the Housing Loan Trust Fund guidelines to read as follows:

1. Loan. That a loan of $300,000 from revenue sharing funds be made to the (Chapel Hill Housing Authority) for the purpose of establishing a Housing Loan Trust Fund to be implemented and administered subject to their terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.

2. Repayment. That said loan shall become repayable to the Town of Chapel Hill, on demand, in the event of either of the following conditions:

b. The Town of Chapel Hill shall receive the legal authority to directly establish and administer such fund, and it desires to undertake the administration of said fund in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, subject to any outstanding commitment against said fund.

3. Housing Loan Trust Fund. The entire principal of said loan shall be placed in an escrow or trust account with all principal and interest held by said fund, continuously invested in interest bearing deposits in financial institutions doing business in this community. The loan and all interest earned from said deposits shall be known and designated as the Housing Loan Trust Fund. No part of the Housing Loan Trust Fund may be used for any purpose other than as specified herein, and said fund as it may exit from time to time, including any additions that might be made thereto, or such portion thereof as may be necessary to comply with any commitment against said fund, shall continue so long as there exist any outstanding commitment, as herein authorized.

4. Loan and Grant Subsidies. The Council of the Town of Chapel Hill shall be authorized and empowered to grant liens or pledge portions of, or to use portions of said funds for the following purposes:

a. To guarantee the payment of loans made by financial institutions to individuals for the purpose of homeownership acquisition.

b. For guaranteeing the payment of loans made by financial institutions to individuals for the purposes of residential property rehabilitation.

c. To subsidize interest rates on certain of said loans upon the conditions hereinafter set forth, and to pay said interest subsidy from the principal or interest of said fund in such amounts as may be required to carry out purposes herein set forth.

d. For the payment of all expenses including labor, materials, license, permits, etc. during the construction process of residences being constructed for sale to qualified households, provided, however, that all such funds so advanced shall be repaid in full upon the transfer of title to qualified individual or individuals, and the closing of the permanent financing loan on said property. However, the Town Council may elect to allow some or all of such construction loans related to site improvements to be a grant to the project only where necessary for project feasibility, if it makes the following findings: 1) that the project serves low-income households making less than 80% of the are median income; 2) the grant funds would serve to reduce the high costs of the beneficiaries; and 3) difficult topography or other environmental site conditions exist which raise the cost of development and which would reduce the affordability of the project for low-income households.

e. To provide direct deferred payment loans to supplement loans made by financial institutions for the purposes of homeownership acquisition and for residential property rehabilitation.

f. For the acquisition of properties situated within the Town of Chapel Hill suitable for resale to low- and moderate income families qualifying under the provisions of this program, provided that all such acquisitions shall be approved in advance by the Town Council.

g. For payment of pre-development costs (such as feasibility studies, appraisals, land options and preparation of an application) for projects to be developed for the purpose of providing rental or owner-occupied projects. Pre-development costs are eligible as a loan or a grant if the project:

(2) will benefit households earning less than 80% of the HUD published area median income.

h. To provide grants to organizations for land trust projects. Funds may be used as a grant for land trust projects that guarantee long-term affordability of a property through a 99-year renewable ground lease.

a. All loans guaranteed or loan subsidized by the Housing Loan Trust Fund shall not exceed the following maximum amounts: the actual cost of any property purchase; the actual cost of rehabilitating the property to the Town’s property rehabilitation standards; or the actual cost of construction, as the case may be.

b. the maximum interest subsidy paid by the fund shall have a present value not to exceed $20,000.

c. The maximum deferred payment loan to supplement a first mortgage loan at the time of initial purchase shall not exceed $30,000; provided, however, that in the case of resale of a home with an existing outstanding Town deferred payment loan under this program, the deferred payment loan may be reissued to a new buyer and the maximum loan shall not exceed the total amount of the Town’s principal and equity share or interest due at time of resale.

d. The amortization schedule for the repayment of loans identified in subparagraphs a. through c. above shall be within the household’s ability to pay, with approximately 28% of the household’s income generally appropriate for principal, interest, taxes and insurance.

a. Rehabilitation loans shall be either deferred payment loans or amortized over a period of up to 15 years.

b. Home purchase loans shall be either deferred payment loans or amortized over a period of up to 30 years.

c. Construction loans shall be short-term loans with all loan funds repaid in full upon the closing of the permanent financing on the property and transfer of title to qualified buyer (s).

7. Loan Eligibility Requirements. In order to qualify for participation in the Housing Loan Trust Fund program, the following criteria must be met by the applicant:

b. Be unable to obtain a loan, either subsidized or unsubsidized, on comparable terms and conditions;

c. Be the owner of the property in fee simple, if the property is to be rehabilitated, or have clear title if the property is to be purchased or constructed;

d. Be residing in the property to be rehabilitated, or if purchased or constructed, occupy the property when the acquisition is complete;

e. The residence must have an anticipated life or at least 20 years after rehabilitation, or 30 years, if constructed or acquired;

8. Income Limits for Participation in Loan Subsidy Program.In order for an applicant to be eligible for the loan subsidies described under 4.c. and 4.e. the applicant’s gross household income must not exceed 100% of the area’s median household income, adjusted for household size.

9. Income Limits for Participation in Loan Guarantee Program. In order for an applicant to be eligible to participate in the Loan Guarantee Program described under 4.a. and 4.b., the applicant’s gross household income must not exceed 100% of the area’s median household income, adjusted for household size.

10. Computation of Gross Income Gross Income shall be defined as income received annually from all sources by all wage earners in a household. The income from the following sources shall be considered in determining total gross annual income:

11. Security Procedures and Loan Conditions. In the event a loan is guaranteed or subsidized or a construction loan is made by the Trust Fund, the property owner must agree:

a. To execute a note and first lien deed of trust on said property as security for said loan except that deferred payment loans, which supplement a fist mortgage loan from another lender, shall also be secured by a second deed of trust;

b. Must agree to obtain and pay for credit life insurance for the full amount of said loan, if available, and within the means of the property owner;

c. To allow the Town discretion to refinance said loan at such times as might be desirable, to take advantage of favorable interest rates, so long as the amount payable by the applicant is not increased;

d. That the loan shall not be assumed except with the consent of the Housing Authority, and in the event that the property is sold without such consent, the loan shall immediately become due and payable;

e. In the event of the death of the head of the household the loan and loan subsidy may be assumed by the direct minor heirs or such head of household if such heirs own and occupy the property and loan payments are made in accordance with the terms of the original loan agreement.

If the above conditions are not met, the new owner(s) of the property must apply to the Town for the continuation of the loan subsidy or its refinance. If the new owners qualify for assistance, based on the criteria established for the Trust Fund program, the loan subsidy may be refinanced. If the new owners fail to apply for refinancing through the Trust Fund or do not qualify for the loan subsidy, the loan shall be due and payable to the Town in full within 90 days written notice to the new owners.

Nothing contained in this subparagraph e. shall be construed to prevent the new owner(s) and the first mortgage holder from agreeing to continue the loan without further subsidy or guarantee by the Town.

12. Modification. The Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby reserves the right to modify or amend any of the criteria or procedures set forth in connection with said Housing Loan Trust Fund provided however, that no such amendment shall affect or diminish the rights of the holder of any commitment against said fund made prior to the date thereof.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to approve specific projects for land trust projects that guarantee long-term affordability through a 99-year renewable ground lease.

Mr. Horton reported that the recommended budget ordinance for 2001-2002 would establish a rate in the General Fund of 46.1 cents and in the Transportation Fund of 4.3 cents to make a total rate of 50.4 cents, which was a net decrease of 7.3 cents from the current rate of 57.8 cents. Mr. Horton recognized that since there had been revaluation of property assessments, this would still be an increase of 2.2 cents, but it would still be the lowest tax rate ever set by a Council.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, EVANS, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.

AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 (2001-06-25/O-5)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, the following appropriations are hereby made:

It is estimated that the following revenues will be available during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 to meet the foregoing appropriations. It is determined that where estimated revenues are higher than the previous year, the increases were warranted.

GENERAL FUND

GENERAL FUND TOTAL 36,725,000

OTHER FUNDS

There is hereby levied the following tax on each one hundred dollars ($100) valuation of taxable property, located within the Town of Chapel Hill, as listed for taxes as of January 1, 2001 for the purpose of raising revenue from property tax as set forth in the foregoing estimates of revenues, and in order to finance the foregoing appropriations.

There is hereby levied the following tax on each one hundred dollars ($100) valuation of taxable property located in the Downtown Revitalization Municipal Service District established by the Town Council's resolution of June 12, 1989:

Mr. Horton reported that the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) was an extension of part of the program started a few years ago by the Council for preparation of a 15-year Capital Improvements Program. He said it included a number of projects that would be financed over a 10-year period, and included a large number of projects paid for through bond funds and funds from other governmental units.

Council Member Bateman asked how many more years it would be before all the curb cuts were in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Horton said he did not have an answer for that question this evening, but the Town had to show a continuance of making reasonable progress. He said it was usually done in batches, taking two years of funding for a larger contract.

Public Works Director Bruce Heflin said the goal was to award a contract each year, but some years it was more advantageous to batch two-years worth of money to get a larger contract, making it more attractive to more bidders. He said the staff was now identifying the specification locations for the contract going out to bid in July.

COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2000-2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (2001-06-25/R-9)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the Manager’s Recommended 2001-2016 Capital Improvements Program as described in the memorandum dated June 25, 2001 with the following projects to be included in the Operating Budget ordinance for 2001-2002 from the capital improvements fund:

Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan, Effective July 1, 2001

Mr. Horton said this year there were an unusually large number of new positions caused principally by the annexation of Southern Village and Notting Hill.

Council Member Ward asked for a clarification on the creative way the staff was able to find funding for the Parks and Recreation Specialist and the Information Technologist (IT). Mr. Horton responded that in Parks and Recreation the critical thing was recognizing that the Town will receive some program income from the operations of the position, and the Department expects to generate additional programming coming from other operations. Mr. Horton said also there would be some forced salary savings from other positions, as they occurred, to be used for the specialist purpose.

Mr. Horton said the IT position was being funded by transferring a position and funding from the Police Department that the staff felt it could afford to reallocate without great harm to police programs. Council Member Ward asked what the kind of police position it was. Mr. Horton said it would be a position in patrol.

Council Member Ward asked what the revenue would have gone to from Parks and Recreation, if the funds had not been used for the specialist. Mr. Horton replied that it would have come to the General Fund to help meet each year’s objective of returning about $800,000 to the Council for re-appropriation.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Mr. Horton reported that there were alternate resolutions offered for the Council’s approval. He described Resolution A, which would provide for 1.5% range adjustment and step advancement for employees below the Job Rate, and a 4.5% average merit increase for employees at or above the Job Rate, and would be effective on November 2, 2001.

Mr. Horton described Resolution B, which would provide a .72% range adjustment and step advancement for employees below the Job Rate, and 4.5% average merit increase for employees at or above the Job Rate, effective October 5, 2001.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10A.

Council Member Strom said that he would support Resolution 10A, and that he did not like the concept of delaying increases, but Alternative B was a little less fair to those employees who are under the Job Rate. He said that Alternative A did move employees up and gave them a significant increase over the Job Rate, and helped some of the employees at the lower end of the scale. Council Member Strom added that he would like the opportunity to discuss, at the Council’s Retreat, the pay scale and how it would be done in the future.

Council Member Foy disagreed and said he would support Resolution 10B. He said he believed that there was a better way to adjust for inequalities in the lower pay ranges. Council Member Foy said the Council should not bury pay raises into the next year’s budget that it could not afford this year, and that pay raises should be given this year for what the Town could afford.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS, STROM, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, FOY AND WARD VOTING NAY.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORM OF SALARY INCREASES FOR TOWN EMPLOYEES IN FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 (2001-06-25/R-10a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to bring an Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan for approval by Council reflecting salary increases for employees under the following plan:

4.5% average merit increases for authorized employees with salaries at or above the Job

Mr. Horton said most of the user fee schedule and policy changes were in the Parks and Recreation Department. He noted that the plans included a noticeable change in switching to fare-free service in January in the Transportation operation.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING USER FEE POLICIES AND SCHEDULES FOR VARIOUS TOWN DEPARTMENTS (2001-06-25/R-11)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts, effective July 1, 2001 the attached user fee policies and schedules as submitted by the Town Manager on June 25, 2001:

Mr. Horton said the staff recommended adoption of the Human Services Advisory Board’s Needs Report, identifying priority areas of human service needs for Chapel Hill residents.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 12.

Council Member Bateman asked if the Child Care Services Association allotment was for scholarships, and, if so, she wanted the first priority to be scholarships for Town employees. Human Services Coordinator Karen Rose said that generally the scholarships were for low-income families, but the agreement could be written however the Council wished.

It was the consensus of the Council that Town employees whose children qualified for the scholarships would have the first priority.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING 2001-2002 FUNDING FOR PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS WITH HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD (2001-06-25/R-12)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the following appropriations for performance agreements with human service agencies in 2001-2002 to address the community’s human service needs identified by the Human Services Advisory Board:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves, and authorizes the Manager to execute on behalf of the Town, agreements with the above agencies for services described in the Human Services Advisory Board’s report on June 25, 2001.

Mr. Horton reported that the Downtown Commission had proposed for a program of services in 2001-2002, which included a new campaign to remind people that there are plenty of places to spend their dollars in the downtown. He said the staff recommended that the Council proceed to authorize a contract with the Downtown Commission.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 13. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION (2001-06-25/R-13)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to enter into a performance agreement with the Downtown Commission for services in 2001-2002 substantially as in past years, with the funding level to include the estimated revenue to be received from the Downtown Service District tax based on the tax rate adopted by the Council for 2001-2002.

Authorization to Apply for Federal and State Grants for Public Transportation

Mr. Horton said that authorization was necessary to submit grant applications for federal and State transportation operating assistance, capital and planning funds for 2001-02.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR GRANTS UNDER TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ACT, AS AMENDED (2001-06-25/R-14)

WHEREAS, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to make grants for mass transportation program of projects; and

WHEREAS, the contract for financial assistance will impose certain obligations upon the applicant, including the provision by it of the local share of project costs; and

WHEREAS, it is required by the U.S. Department of Transportation in accord with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, that in connection with the filing of applications for assistance under the Federal Transit Act, as amended, the applicant files an assurance that it will comply with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the U.S. Department of Transportation requirements thereunder; and

WHEREAS, it is the goal of the applicant that minority business enterprise be utilized to the fullest extent possible in connection with these projects, and that definitive procedures shall be established and administered to ensure that minority businesses shall have the maximum feasible opportunity to compete for contracts when procuring construction contracts, supplies, equipment contacts, or consultant and other services;

1. That the Town Manager is authorized to execute and file applications on behalf of the Town of Chapel Hill with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, to aid in the financing of operating, capital and planning assistance projects pursuant to Section 5303, 5307 and 5309 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended.

2. That the Town Manager is authorized to execute and file with such applications an assurance or any other document required by the U.S. Department of Transportation effectuating the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. That the Town Manager is authorized to furnish such additional information as the U.S. Department of Transportation may require in connection with the applications for the program of projects and budget.

4. That the Town Manager is authorized to set forth and execute affirmative minority business policies in connection with the project’s procurement needs.

5. That the Town Manager is authorized to execute grant agreements on behalf of the Town of Chapel Hill with the U.S. Department of Transportation and N.C. Department of Transportation in aid in the financing of the operating, capital, and planning assistance program of projects.

Council Member Brown said she appreciated working with the members of the Chapel Hill Million Solar Roofs Steering Committee, who were committed to renewable energy and solar energy, adding that many of the members were from diverse backgrounds and professions. She added that people throughout the State had also worked on this issue for years and were advisors to the Committee. Council Member Brown reported that the Committee had very good staff support, both from the Town staff—Lisa Beavers and Philip Hervey—and Rob Stevens and Eric Soderberg from the North Carolina Solar Center, who acted as liaisons. She also acknowledged Larry Shirley, presently head of the North Carolina Energy Office in the Commerce Department. Council Member Brown said two solar professionals, Tom Wills and Tom Henkel, would make the presentation from the Committee.

Tom Wills highlighted the existing conditions in the area, noting such issues as energy efficiency, construction quality, air quality, and roofs. He pointed out ways that the area could work with Wake County and Orange County and the State in promoting tax credits for solar energy installations. Mr. Wills said that the Committee felt it would be beneficial to make citizens aware of not being just consumers, but producer consumers. He pointed out that in the report there was discussion of existing conditions in several buildings, and that this area had an exceptionally rich infrastructure in solar awareness, in solar installations, and in solar professionals, and the Town Code, itself, encouraged energy efficiency.

Tom Henkel said he wanted to focus on the action plan strategies. He reported that there were many solar systems ready for deployment by solar thermal energy, and highlighted some of the areas addressed in the action plan strategies:

· Highlight health and productivity benefits of solar technologies—citing the Smith Middle School as an example

Mr. Henkel thanked Council Member Brown for her leadership in Chairing the Committee and also thanked the other members of the Committee.

Larry Shirley commended the Steering Committee on its Action Report and said it was a model for other communities in the State. He said that Chapel Hill was the fourth community to join the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, and now had the best plan of all. Mr. Shirley said that the solar energy issue was a large issue in the Legislature now. He urged the Council to pursue the energy plan, and said there would be some funds available for the four communities in the program, and, in addition, there was a grant from the Department of Energy of $50,000 to the N.C. Solar Center.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE REPORT TO THE MANAGER.

Council Member Brown added that she was very proud of the State of North Carolina for encouraging energy conservation.

Council Member Strom asked what the status was for the continuation of meetings by the Committee. Council Member Brown said the Committee would be reconvened after the Report came back to the Council.

Council Member Wiggins asked the Manager if he could bring back a report on the savings made in the Hargraves Gym with the installation of the solar panels. The Manager responded that he would do so.

Council Member Foy said the reason he pulled this item was because he was not sure which, or both, Resolutions the Council was adopting. He said the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission (CHPAC) and the Manager were recommending that the Council adopt Resolution A.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 4A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC ART AT THE SOUTHERN FIRE STATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION TO WORK WITH THAT ARTIST (2001-06-25/R-4a)

WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted a budget for the Southern Fire Station project that includes $10,054 for art; and

WHEREAS, the Public Arts Commission has conducted a thorough artist selection process, including representatives of various sectors of the community; and

WHEREAS, the Public Arts Commission recommends that Michael Roig be the artist for the Southern Fire Station project;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to enter into a contract with Michael Roig to complete artwork for the Southern Fire Station project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Public Arts Commission is authorized to proceed with a process that invites public involvement in the development of the art.

Wes Hare, representing the Traffic Management Committee for the neighborhoods, presented the report, saying that the goal of the Committee was to identify and evaluate opportunities for managing vehicular traffic. He said the Committee had held 12 meetings, and was working on a map that included three neighborhoods, all of which had membership on the Committee. Mr. Hare noted that the problems had been identified, with the help of some Town staff, and the report contained criteria for some short-term and long-term improvements. He added that surveys had been sent out to the neighborhoods and there were 179 responses. Mr. Hare discussed some of the recommendations of the Committee:

Mr. Hare said the Committee had voted on the recommendations, but the vote had not been unanimous.

Council Member Evans said when the issue first came to the attention of the Council, one of her concerns was the omission of some numbers that the Council needed, specifically on Hamilton Road, and she did not see any numbers on page 9 of the memorandum for Hamilton Road. Mr. Hare said that Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli had the numbers. Council Member Evans said she would like to see them, as the traffic turning onto Hamilton Road had increased noticeably since there was no turn onto Rogerson Drive and Oakwood Drive.

John Anderson commented that all of the neighborhoods needed traffic-calming devices. He said he believed that everyone should know what category a road was, whether lanes, drives, connectors, or arterials. Mr. Anderson also said his neighborhoods were well connected, but there should be barriers. He said he supported the Report from the Committee.

Deborah Miller asked the Council to accept the recommendations of the Committee to keep the neighborhood as it was—a good neighborhood.

6. Painting no parking one and bus stops at the intersection of Berkley Drive and Hamilton Road

7. Updating the damaged and/or old traffic control signs in all three neighborhoods

Ms. Davis said the last three would be of minimal cost. She said the response to the survey was more like 25% and the responses were mostly in favor of the recommendations. Ms. Davis added that the majority of the non-responders lived in the Glen Lennox neighborhood. She said the Committee had reworked the recommendations that appeared to be contentious, and the diverters did not appear to divert traffic to other streets.

Pat Ruvane, a resident of the Rogerson Drive neighborhood, said she was new to the neighborhood and loved it and asked that the Council support the Committee’s recommendations. She added that she had recently purchased a scooter, so that she could get around the neighborhood.

Elizabeth Earle, a long-term resident of Rogerson Drive, said the streets in the neighborhood were never designed to become thoroughfares, but were for people living in the neighborhoods. She requested that the Council adopt the recommendations of the Committee. She added that the stop signs had helped somewhat in slowing down the direct traffic passing through between the two highways.

Beth Kell, a Committee member, thanked the Council for setting up the Committee with equally divided members of the three neighborhoods, and for the help of the staff. She thanked the Town for providing funds for the traffic study, the staff time, and the facilitators’ time. Ms. Kell said the staff had been very helpful and she praised the work group process. She said the set of recommendations would make the streets safer for all who used them.

Ursula Smith, a resident of the Rogerson Drive neighborhood, encouraged the Council to accept the recommendations of the Committee, saying she spoke as a mother as well as a citizen of the community.

Laurie Lindgrin, a former resident of Rogerson Drive, said there was a wonderful sense of community in the neighborhood, and she supported the recommendations of the Committee, especially the diverters. She added that the intersection of Rogerson Drive and Highway 54 was very dangerous, and that diverters would help the situation.

Valerie Broadwell, a resident of the Rogerson Drive neighborhood, said she had noticed more bicyclists, and realized that the roads and sidewalks were connected now from Meadowmont, down the Highway to other places, and through the neighborhoods. She said this made the area a connective link for bicyclists and pedestrians, who no longer needed to go out onto the Highway, and Rogerson and Oakwood Drives now served as that link. Ms. Broadwell thanked the Work Group for its work.

Mark Broadwell, of the Rogerson Drive neighborhood, commended the Work Group, and addressed the issue of semi-diverters. He said the Town Street Plan classified Pinehurst, Cleland, and Burning Tree Drives as collector streets, and Rogerson and Oakwood Drives are classified as local residential streets. Mr. Broadwell added that the recommendations to install semi-diverters on Rogerson and Oakwood Drives in effect retrofit these two streets so that they will function as local residential streets, but without the semi-diverters they will function as thinly disguised alternate routes between Highways 54 and 15-501. He noted that these two streets provided a safe area for pedestrians and bicyclists, and expressed the hope that the Council would support the recommendations of the Committee.

Joost Verkerk, a resident of the Oakland Drive neighborhood and a member of the Committee, said that the Traffic Study analysis showed that the semi-diverters on Roberson and Oakwood Drives would not move an undue amount of traffic onto Hamilton and Burning Tree Drives. He added that what surprised him was that on Oakwood Drive, without the semi-diverters, the volume of traffic increased dramatically. Mr. Verkerk said he now supported the semi-diverters as a means of slowing traffic. He noted that the issue of high speed on the roads remains a problem, and this would be alleviated by speed humps on the streets. Mr. Verkerk urged the Council to help preserve an old neighborhood, in light of both of the Highways having become multi-lane, high-speed roads.

Robert Foley, a resident of Burning Tree Drive at the intersection of Canterbury Road, said that a traffic study had shown that Burning Tree Drive has about 1,600-1,700 cars per day, and, although the volume of traffic has not changed in the last few years, the speed of the traffic has increased, with 95% of vehicles exceeding the 25-miles-per-hour speed limit. Mr. Foley said the neighbors have requested that on Burning Tree Drive and Canterbury Road, three speed bumps be placed between this intersection and Highway 54, and a traffic circle at that intersection. He said, also, that his neighborhood had voted 75% against placing permanent diverters on Rogerson and Oakwood Drives, because of the increasing traffic on Burning Tree Drive.

Dorothy Verkerk refuted the idea that the neighborhoods of Rogerson and Oakwood Drives would become a gated community with the installation of the semi-diverters, but, rather, was open to pedestrians, often from outside the neighborhood as a kind of greenway. She said the semi-diverters had not stopped people from coming to enjoy the amenities of the neighborhoods. Ms. Verkerk noted that support for preserving older neighborhoods was part of the Town Comprehensive Plan, and the Transit and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Boards had endorsed the recommendations of the Committee.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO REFER THE REPORT AND THE COMMENTS BY CITIZENS TO THE TOWN MANAGER.

Council Member Ward asked how quickly funds could be allocated to improve the sidewalks in the area, and how soon could police enforcement be provided in the areas. Mr. Horton said the staff would comment when the report came back to the Council.

Council Member Bateman requested a number for the amount of accidents that had been caused by the semi-diverters.

Planning Director Roger Waldon reported on the two applications for the Europa Office Building:

· Request to Modify Existing SUP, to create two smaller SUPs and a Vacant Tract

Mr. Waldon said that at the May 14 hearing most of the concerns were traffic concerns, and the impacts of that traffic, and other applications not yet considered. He stated that the key point that the first overview memorandum raised was concerns that information about traffic impacts related to this development was inadequate. Mr. Waldon said that the staff felt that the information provided adequately described the projected traffic impacts for the applications. He said if the Council disagreed with that opinion, there was a menu of resolutions for its consideration:

· Council could decide that additional information was needed regarding the traffic impact study—Resolution A.

· Council could direct the Town Manager, using existing data and studies, to report to the Council on traffic conditions along the whole corridor—Resolution B.

· Council could direct the Town Manager to implement a new study of traffic conditions, but the funding would need to be found, since it was not the kind of study that could be done with existing staff sources and existing workloads—Resolution C.

· Council could recess the Public Hearing until November 12, 2001—Resolution D.

Harvey Krasny directed the Council’s attention to the letter dated May 25, 2001, and read a statement referring to the impact of traffic on Erwin Road and what the increased traffic might be if all three proposed developments were allowed. He said he failed to calculate the impact of both in and out traffic, which would double the amount of trips calculated to a potential 14% increase in traffic from these three proposed developments, plus one-half of the traffic from the Notting Hill development, which would bring the increase to 18%. Mr. Krasny requested that the Council stop the development now, before it was too late. He also made corrections to Attachment 1:

Mr. Waldon said these were not yet applications, so there were changing numbers, and the figure for Jefferson Commons was a typographical error.

Gray Styers said he represented the Sheraton Hotel, which would be affected by the applications, and was present to answer questions.

Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Karpinos, Town Attorney, what the next step would be. Mr. Karpinos responded that there were options that could be approved by the Council to defer action until another date was set, or it could act now.

Council Member Foy suggested that the Council should include this project in a broader picture of what would be happening in the area under discussion by adopting a resolution to reflect this concept and to adopt Resolution D, to recess the Public Hearing until a later date.

Council Member Strom replied that if this procedure was approved by the Attorney as a way to go, then he felt it would be a good to do so. He added that since the intersection was being reconfigured, there was a lot of information to be dealt with, and there were some excellent arguments for taking a more holistic look. Council Member Strom said he felt it would be a good investment to have a new study of the area.

Council Member Brown asked for clarification of the views of Council Members Foy and Strom.

Council Member Foy responded that he thought there should be another resolution, not in the packet, to ask the Manager to include this project in a study of the other areas, which included the other projects.

Council Member Strom said he was supporting Council Member Foy’s idea of expanding Resolution C to take a more holistic look at the area.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO DIRECT THE MANAGER TO INCLUDE THIS PROJECT IN THE BROADER STUDY THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD BE UNDERTAKING FOR THE INTERSECTION AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

Council Member Wiggins asked for a clarification as to whether Council Member Foy was asking the Manager to prepare a report with existing information, or a new study. Council Member Foy replied that this study would be part of a larger study of the other projects pending, and the Council needed to know more than just a traffic study.

Mr. Horton said he thought Council Member Foy’s motion would be sufficient if the objective was to recess the Hearing to an indefinite time, to conduct a study of the larger area, and to include the traffic study associated with this project as a part of that. He added there should be recommendations as to how to proceed and accomplish all of those things for the Council’s consideration. Mr. Horton said the staff could bring a recommendation in August as to how it might proceed to consider a moratorium and to consider how to conduct a study including this area and all the other areas.

Mr. Karpinos recommended that the Council set a specific date for the Hearing to be reconvened, this could be included in Resolution D.

Mayor Waldorf said she concurred with what had been brought forward by the Transportation Board and the Community Design Commission that the Council needed to take a look at this general area before approving the developments. She said she did not want to vote for something that would prohibit the Mayor and Council from making a decision on specific transportation issues in this area. Mayor Waldorf added that improvements to Weaver Dairy Road were essential to the development of the whole area.

Mr. Karpinos said he did not think this motion would limit the Council’s consideration of transportation matters in this area.

Council Member Ward asked for a clarification as to what the Council would be getting from the staff between now and November. Mr. Horton replied that the Council would receive a process-oriented report that would describe options for a moratorium, that would suggest a possible area for moratorium, and would suggest how the staff might carry out a study of development proposed in that area and the effects of development on traffic. Mr. Horton said the staff would do an analysis on the data available. He said he would like to bring the Council a process study as soon as possible after the summer break.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE RECESSING THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 12, 2001. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN CONCURRED WITH THE AMENDED MOTION.

Mayor Waldorf asked for a restatement of Council Member Foy’s motion. Mr. Horton said the motion was to instruct the Manager to bring a report on a proposed moratorium defining a proposed area, the issues to be considered, the development that might be affected, and traffic that might be of concern in that area, preferably in late August or early September. Mr. Karpinos said it would be on both SUPs involved.

Mayor Waldorf reiterated that voting for this motion was independent of action on any other transportation improvement decision in that vicinity. The Council concurred.

Mr. Waldon said the request was to change the zoning from Residential 2 to Residential 4-C. He reported that the key issues raised at the Public Hearing on May 14, 2001, were listed in the memorandum, along with staff responses. The staff recommendation for the rezoning, he said, was that the Council adopt the Zoning Atlas Amendment for Conditional Use Rezoning.

Mr. Waldon reported that the staff had revised its recommendation for the Special Use Permit Modification, recommending that the Council approve the SUP with changes:

· Scale back the recommendation to applicant contribution to traffic signal at the intersection of Weaver Dairy and Homestead Roads to 40% with payment-in-lieu.

· Adjusted the size of the path from Street “B” to the building/gym to require the construction of an informal 5-foot wide pedestrian path of Chapel Hill gravel or other suitable material.

· Stipulation 36 revised to clearly indicate that a single Homeowners’ Association, including all dwelling units constructed on this site, shall be created for this development.

Mr. Waldon said that the staff recommended that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with the three amendments, by adoption of Resolution A. He said that page 10 of the memorandum contained a menu of options for the Council’s consideration.

Jack Smyre, speaking for the applicant, said there were eight small concerns, focusing on Resolution A. He said the applicant’s most important concern was Condition #6, the request for widening Homestead Road. Mr. Smyre said the applicant was giving to the Town 14 acres of land that cost the applicant in excess of $800,000, and building and putting in the Land Trust 30 affordable townhomes calculated at $25,000 per unit as a subsidy, the total of which is over $1,500,000. Mr. Smyre said that Homestead Road was already on the TIP for construction in 2005.

Mr. Smyre said the project was down to the bone, and they could not accept that added expense. He added that they would grant a right-of-way for the project, and improvement of the driveway into the gym parking lot. He said the applicant will agree to provide 40% of the cost for a traffic light, but does not believe it will be necessary, and if it turns out it is not necessary, the applicant would want its money returned. Mr. Smyre said the only change would be that they would want a period of exposure to be 5 years instead of 10 years.

Mr. Smyre offered two alternatives to Condition #7. He said there was not enough room on the road to provide all the parking spaces for the 30 townhomes, unless they could have diagonal parking on both sides of the street. The alternative, he added, was to have the expense of maintenance of that street borne by all 191 townhome owners, which will be written into the Homeowners’ Association, so it cannot be voted out, and this would cost about $10 a year.

· Condition #10, Bus Stop, as long as it continues as payment-in-lieu of $5,000.

· Condition #14, Bicycle Parking, either bicycle storage in the townhomes, which the applicant desired, or external secured, covered and illuminated bicycle parking spaces, or the flexibility of being able to provide storage for two bicycles per affordable townhomes. The remaining units will have garages with room for bicycle storage.

· Condition #33, Tot Lots, two located at each end of Weaver Dairy Road Extension which would cost $27,000, and there would be difficulty in finding a place for them. The applicant agrees to a compromise to build one Tot Lot, at a very good location on the western part of the property.

· Condition #48, Affordable Housing Stipulations, the applicant wished an amendment to the Condition to realistically assess the very slim pool of qualified buyers at 80% median income, so that if the property was not sold in 60 days to widen it to 90%, and another 30 days to 100%, in order for the property to be sold. The same conditions would prevail for resale—back to 80%.

Council Member Bateman asked if the 60 days would apply to people in the contract process of purchase. Mr. Smyre responded that would not apply to a buyer in contract for closing. He added that Orange Community Housing Corporation would be the entity for finding buyers for the affordable housing, and they would be Land Trust units, therefore keeping the resale price at the affordable level.

Council Member Strom requested the phasing schedule for building the affordable units, asking would there be 30 units built and on the market at the same time. Mr. Smyre said one stipulation was that 15 units would be built at the same time as 60 of the other units, and the remainder had to be built by the time there were 120 units completed. Mr. Smyre said the applicant intended to follow that phasing, and was looking into 2-bedroom units as part of the first phase, and if the interest seemed more in favor of 3-bedroom units, then the second phase might all be three bedrooms.

Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange County Community Housing Corporation (OCCHC), said he was in favor of approval of the SUP for this development. He said this was the first time that a developer had agreed to provide housing at 80% of median income, and this was an opportunity to have affordable housing provided and subsidized by the private sector. Mr. Dowling said that both boards, the Orange Community Housing Board and the Community Land Trust, had approved the application.

Mr. Dowling said it was important to make this work, as CENTEX HOMES was a big builder and could afford to absorb the cost of building affordable homes, and this cannot always be done with other private sector developers. Mr. Dowling said that CENTEX HOMES was internally absorbing $25,000 per unit. He said it was important to make it work as an example to other builders in the future, and he hoped that CENTEX HOMES would not be further burdened with added costs that they could not absorb.

Mr. Dowling stated that he was 100% in favor of the phasing of median income percentages if the units did not sell at 80% median income, since the Land Trust can, and has, gone up to 100% median income. He noted that the OCCHC would do its best to sell the homes at 80%, but if not they would go to 90% and 100%, since CENTEX HOMES would be holding the burden of financing as long as the units remained unsold. Mr. Dowling urged the Council to support the application.

Council Member Ward asked for clarification of the bike parking for the affordable unit townhomes. Mr. Horton said the proposal made by Mr. Smyre would be acceptable, either with a storage space in each building, or making provision for the bikes in a separate building. Mr. Smyre said that had been recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and that the applicant would try to achieve storage in the townhomes.

Council Member Bateman thanked the applicant for being willing to work with the Land Trust in providing affordable housing, and hoped that this would be a model for future developers. She asked Mr. Horton to comment on Condition # 7 regarding diagonal parking on both sides of the road. Mr. Horton said this was a troubling issue, and that diagonal parking on both sides would be inappropriate for a public street, and could not be guaranteed because a future Council could decide to change the parking allowed on the street by using their police power. Mr. Horton added that having private streets would be fraught with the possibility of problems when residents come to the Council to solve problems on their streets. He said the staff’s preference would be that there be a different design that would take the parking off the system, which allowed cars to back into the street.

Mayor pro tem Pavão said it was his understanding that, if this was built as a private street, the developer would build it to the Town’s specifications. Mr. Horton said the staff appreciated that fact, but did not know if the maintenance would become an issue at some future time. He said if he had a choice, he would ask that the street be built as a private one, with the clear indication in the record that the Council had no intention of ever taking it over for maintenance.

Mr. Smyre reaffirmed the developer’s intention to build the street to a vertical cross-section paved with the thickness of a public street and with the dimensions of a public street. He said his preference would be for a private street, which he thought could be privately maintained, and this could be written into the Homeowners’ Association document that they cannot write out the private maintenance, and which would cost each homeowner about $10 per year. Mr. Smyre said that would allow the streets to have ninety-degree parking, which would be preferred by the homeowners. He said there was not physical room to move all the parking to one side of the street, or to provide parking places off the street.

Council Member Evans asked that the staff responses to suggested revisions to Resolution A be placed into the public record. Mr. Horton said:

· Condition #33—the staff would continue to recommend two Tot Lots, considering the large number of units and the distance involved.

· Condition #11—policy would suggest 420 spaces, and the staff continues to recommend that number.

· Condition #5—five years to get the warrants met on the signal was not very realistic, but that would be a matter for Council decision.

· Condition #6—if the Council wished to continue what the staff recommendation that the applicant agree to make certain improvements on Homestead Road and the applicant accepts that, the Council could move ahead this evening. If the Council wished to make the proposal and the applicant does not accept it, then the Hearing would need to be recessed for the purpose of doing a study of the rational nexus and to make sure it met the test. The preliminary assessment was that it would, but the only way to tell for sure would be to go through that careful process.

Mr. Horton added that if the Council agreed with the applicant and relieved the applicant of the requirements for the improvements, and that the Council had decided in a way that the applicant would accept, then the Council could move ahead this evening.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS TO ADJOURN THE HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE HOMESTEAD DEVELOPMENT - Chapel Hill Tax Map Number 24, Lot 16 & Portion of Lot 12 (2001-06-25/O-7)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C), and finds that the amendment is warranted, in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:

SECTION I

That the portion of the site identified as now or formerly Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a portion of Lot 12, that are currently zoned Residential-2 (R-2), located north of Homestead Road, between the University Branch Southern Railroad and Homestead Park, shall be rezoned to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C) zoning, with the following limitations on uses:

· That residential development shall be limited to a maximum density of 4.1 units per acre; and

· That a minimum of 15% of the proposed dwelling units shall consist of permanently affordable units available for private ownership. An affordable dwelling unit shall be defined as a unit that is priced at a level affordable to households earning 80% or less of the median income for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION A, WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS SUGGESTED BY THE APPLICANT TO STIPULATIONS #6, #10, #14, AND #48.

Mayor Waldorf said she was in favor of the motion, particularly with regard to #6, noting that the State should pay for the improvements on Homestead Road rather than for the improvements to be required of the applicant, since the applicant was essentially building a section of Weaver Dairy Road Extension.

Council Member Evans raised the question of including #7, so the Council could move forward. Mr. Horton recommended that the Council choose the private street option, rather than diagonal parking.

Council Member Foy responded that #7 could be left as it was, and he preferred this. Mr. Waldon replied that if it were a public street it could not have the parking as indicated, and one of the staff ideas would be to have a public street and create a parking lot, and to accomplish that some of the units might have to be moved around.

Council Member Ward asked if Council Member Foy would accept a “friendly amendment” to include #7 to be a privately maintained road as currently designed.

The seconder to the motion, Council Member Bateman, said she preferred to listen to the staff. She felt there was merit to having this as a public street, and there was merit to spreading the cost to the Homeowners’ Association, but she was concerned that the 30 affordable units would be stigmatized. Council Member Bateman said she would not accept the “friendly amendment.”

Council Member Evans said that everyone else would have a garage, but this would be an area where parking would be on or near the street, and she felt it was unfair for these residents to have their parking area located some distance from their units. She said it would be better to have the parking available closer to the entrances of the residences.

Council Member Wiggins spoke in favor of the street being publicly owned, adding that she wanted to see a redesign. She said she knew that the parking lot was not a problem, as she had lived in a condominium with a parking lot.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HOMESTEAD (2001-06-25/R-19a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a Portion of Lot 12 (PIN#s: 9880-01-0417 and 9870-92-6174), if developed according to the site plan prepared on February 9, 2001, and conditions listed below, would:

1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;

3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and

4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution of Approval shall only be valid with the approval of a Zoning Atlas Amendment changing the zoning of the site listed above to Residential-4-Conditional, by both the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Homestead in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

1. That construction begin by June 25, 2003 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by June 25, 2006 (five years from the date of Council approval).

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes the construction of a multi-family residential development, specified as follows:

3. Subdivision of Property: That this development (Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a portion of Lot 12), if proposed to be subdivided, must be subdivided in accordance with the Town’s townhouse development provisions. Private parking, private drive aisles, open space, landscape bufferyards, and stormwater infrastructure shall all be common land area that is owned and maintained by a Homeowner’s Association.

4. Weaver Dairy Road Extension: That the following Weaver Dairy Road Extension improvements be constructed, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for this development:

A. That 98 feet of right-of-way be dedicated for the extension of Weaver Dairy Road from Homestead Road to the Parkside II Subdivision. The final right-of-way width shall extend at least one foot beyond the edge of the sidewalk.

C. That one-half of Weaver Dairy Road (the eastern half) shall be constructed, extending from the southern to northern property line of this site, as a 32-foot wide cross-section from back-of-curb to back-of-curb, including curb and gutter, two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 4-foot wide bike lane, a 3-foot planter strip and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk.

D. That the Weaver Dairy Road Extension travel lanes, at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road Extension and Homestead Road, be constructed with temporary southbound left and right turn lanes, and one northbound travel lane.

5. Homestead Road Right-of-Way and Traffic Signal: That the following Homestead Road improvements shall be implemented prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit

A. That one-half of a 90-foot right-of-way be dedicated along all portions of this site’s Homestead Road frontage;

B. That a payment-in-lieu of $24,000 shall be provided for a traffic signal at the Homestead Road/Weaver Dairy Road intersection. In the event that the traffic signal is not installed after 10 years (from the date that the payment-in-lieu is received by the Town), then the payment shall be refunded.

6. Homestead Road Improvement: That the entrance drive to the recreational building on the southwestern portion of this site, shall be redesigned to provide safer ingress and egress, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and installed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for this development.

7. Dedication of Public Streets: That a 50-foot right-of-way shall be dedicated for all internal roadways that are proposed to be constructed as public streets (Streets A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H), and that these streets shall be built to Town standards, including a 5-foot concrete sidewalk. Any on-street parking for Streets C and D shall be designed to meet Town Standards, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

8. Town Standards: That all streets, parking lots, drive aisles and sidewalks associated with this development shall be constructed to Town standards.

9. Traffic-Calming: That standard asphalt shall be substituted for the alternative pavement treatment proposed at key intersections within the development, and that the applicant shall incorporate alternative traffic-calming measures at these intersections, possibly including round-a-bouts, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

10. Bus Stop: That the applicant submit a payment-in-lieu of $5,000 for a bus stop, including pad, bench and shelter, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

11. Vehicular Parking: Parking shall not exceed 110% of the minimum parking requirements (2.0 spaces for each three-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for each one or two-bedroom unit). A maximum of 420 parking spaces shall be allowed.

12. Removal of 3 Parking Spaces on Street B: That the three perpendicular parking spaces at the intersection of Street B and Street D shall be removed.

13. Removal of Perpendicular Parking: That all perpendicular parking spaces located on public streets shall be removed. Alternatively, the plans may be revised to substitute angled parking, as long as the angle does not exceed 45 degrees.

14. Bicycle Parking: That the applicant shall provide a minimum of 233 bicycle parking spaces, as follows:

Minimum Required Bicycle Parking
Method of Providing Bicycle Spaces	Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces
Class I: Dwelling Units with Garage (161 units)	161
Class I: External secured, covered and Illuminated bicycle parking spaces	49*
Class II: Stationary ‘U’ Racks	23
TOTAL:	233

* Note: The developer may choose to provide a storage area for two (2) bicycles as part of each affordable dwelling unit that does not include a garage (30 units), in lieu of the required 49 Class I bicycle parking spaces.

The Class II Stationary ‘U’ Racks shall be distributed throughout the site, being reasonably accessible to all dwelling units.

15. Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed Landscape Plan and Landscape Maintenance Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

16. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which rare and specimen trees will be removed and preserved and including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

17. Landscape Bufferyards: That the following landscape bufferyards shall be provided, and that if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirement, the vegetation shall be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:

Landscape Bufferyards
Bufferyard Location	Bufferyard
South along Homestead Road	30’ Type ‘D’ External
West along University Railroad	30’ Type ‘D’ External
Along the east and west sides Of Weaver Dairy Road Ext.	30’ Type ‘D’ External
Northern Border of site, West of Weaver Dairy Road Ext.	20’ Type ‘C’ Internal
Northern Border of site, East of Weaver Dairy Road Ext.	10’ Type ‘B’ Internal
Eastern Border of site, adjacent to Homestead Park	20’ Type ‘C’ Internal
Southeastern Border of site, adjacent to residential property	10’ Type ‘B’ Internal

18. Preservation of Existing Vegetation: That the plans shall be revised to retain existing vegetation in the northern and southeastern buffers, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We note that limited use of retaining walls may be needed to accomplish this task.

19. Supplement Buffer Plantings: That supplemental evergreen shrubs shall be installed in the site’s perimeter buffers where needed to supplement the existing retained native vegetation, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

20. Weaver Dairy Road Extension Buffers: That the plans shall be revised to retain a significant amount of the existing vegetation in the proposed Weaver Dairy Road Extension buffers (on both the east and west sides of the road). Appropriate revisions shall be made to the proposed surface grading to retain more buffer vegetation, and/or limited use of retaining walls may be utilized to accomplish this preservation of existing vegetation along Weaver Dairy Road Extension, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We note that the side slopes needed to construct the portion of the road that crosses the Resource Conservation District will significantly limit the amount of existing vegetation that can be retained in this specific portion of the buffer area.

21. Preservation of 30-inch Red Oak: That the plans shall be revised to ensure that a minimum of 80% of this tree’s critical root zone remain undisturbed. This tree is located in the “Three-Story Townhome” open space area that is noted for preservation.

22. Preservation of “Master Downs Townhomes” Open Space Pocket: That the plans shall be revised to preserve a pocket of open space/existing vegetation in the northeastern “Master Downs Townhomes” section of the development, similar to the pocket of open space preserved in the “Three-Story Townhome” section of the development, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

23. Slopes in Buffer Areas: That all newly graded landscape buffer areas shall not exceed a 3:1 slope.

24. Parking Lot Plantings: That all parking lot shade trees used to demonstrate compliance with the 35% parking lot shading requirement, shall be a minimum of 2-inch to 2½-inch in caliper when installed.

25. Planting Strips/Screening: That five-foot wide planting strips shall be provided between parking areas and each building, and that all parking areas shall be screened in accordance with Section 14 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.

26. Stormwater Detention Basin: That the Landscape Plan shall provide details as to how the stormwater detention basin will be screened from the view of the surrounding public rights-of-way. In addition, the plan shall provide a detailed landscaping plan for the detention basin.

27. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan shall be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, Public Service Company, BellSouth, Time-Warner Cable, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

28. Utility Lines: That all utility lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be underground.

29. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

30. Fire Hydrants: That all structures shall be located within 500 feet of a fire hydrant. In addition, the plans shall be revised to include an additional sheet that functions as an overall site/utility plan to indicate all hydrant locations on one page, in order to verify that hydrants are properly spaced throughout the development.

31. Sprinkler System: That the buildings shall have a sprinkler system in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager.

32. Fire Department Connections: That fire hydrants and fire department connections shallbe located in accordance with Town policies and regulations, and that fire department connections must be located on street side of buildings in visible, accessible locations.

Stipulations Related to Recreation Area

33. Tot Lots: That two “Tot Lots” shall be constructed as part of the development, one on each side of Weaver Dairy Road Extension. The “Tot Lots” shall be designed and located in such a manner to be within reasonable walking distance for all dwelling units, and shall be approved prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

34. Deed Land to the Town: That the developer shall deed all of the following areas to the Town of Chapel Hill for municipal purposes, unless directed by the Town Manager to alternatively deed the following area (or portions thereof) to the Homeowners’ Association for this development:

A. The 12.5 acres of land on the western and southwestern portions of this site, consisting of all land that is located on this site south and west of the perennial stream, on the west side of Weaver Dairy Road Extension;

B. The first 25 feet of land running along the eastern side of the perennial stream, from the point where the perennial stream crosses the northern property boundary to the point where the stream intersects the proposed Weaver Dairy Road Extension right-of-way; and

C. Additional land in the northwestern corner of the site, including all land on this site that is located west of the following line: That line beginning at the point where the western edge of the Weaver Dairy Road Extension right-of-way intersects the northern property line, and thus running south along the western edge of the Weaver Dairy Road Extension right-of-way for a distance of 125 feet, at which point said line runs due west to the edge of the Resource Conservation District, and then follows said Resource Conservation District boundary southward for a distance of 100 feet, at which point said line shall taper westward to a point that is 25 feet east of the centerline of the eastern bank of the perennial stream that bisects the property.

35. Pedestrian Path: That the developer shall construct an informal 5-foot wide pedestrian path, consisting of Chapel Hill gravel or other suitable material, or provide a payment-in-lieu for such path, from Street ‘B’ to the building/gym in the southwest corner of the recreational area. We note that such a pedestrian path will include a bridge crossing in the Resource Conservation District. The developer shall be required to revegetate any portions of the Resource Conservation District that are disturbed while constructing the bridge crossing.

Stipulations Related to Homeowners’ Association

36. Homeowners’ Association: That a single Homeowners’ Association, including all dwelling units constructed on this site, shall be created that has the capacity to place a lien on the property of a member who does not pay the annual charges for maintenance of common areas, however designated. The Homeowners’ Association documents shall be approved by the Town Manager, recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and cross-referenced on the final plat.

37. Stormwater Detention Facility: That the Homeowners’ Association shall be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the stormwater detention facility .

38. Ownership of Recreation Area: That all common areas, including landscape bufferyards, open space and Tot Lots shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners’ Association for this development.

39. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling and for the management and minimizing of construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

40. Refuse Collection and Recycling: That the developer shall provide bulk refuse and recycling collection facilities (including corrugated cardboard) throughout the site, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit; OR that the developer shall contract with a private refuse collection and/or recycling collection service for curbside collection, and alternatively indicate how sufficient bulk refuse and recycling collection facilities would be constructed on the plans, in the event that public service is requested in the future.

41. Heavy-Duty Paving: That all drive aisles that provide or potentially provide access to compactors, dumpsters or recycling facilities, shall be constructed with heavy-duty pavement.

42. Pre-construction Conference: That the applicant will hold a pre-construction conference with Orange County Solid Waste staff prior to any construction activity on the site. A note indicating this conference shall be included on final plans.

43. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The plan shall include a detention basin designed (1) to capture the first one inch of runoff, and subsequently release it over a 2-5 day period, and (2) to control the 2-year storm and the 50-year storm, such that for each of these design-year storms, the post-development 24-hour frequency stormwater discharge rate of water leaving the site shall not exceed the pre-development discharge rate. The detention basin shall also have an emergency spillway device safely conveying stormwater exceeding the maximum design capacity. The detention basin shall
be designed and constructed in such a manner to avoid any intrusion into the adjoining Resource Conservation District (RCD).

44. Certification of Storage Capacity: That the Homeowners’ Associationshall provide certification of storage capacity of the detention basins by a surveyor or professional engineer to the Town Stormwater Engineer on an annual basis, to ensure the long-term maintenance and functionality of the on-site detention basin.

45. Bio-Retention: That the plans shall be revised to either (1) establish a bio-retention area on the site and provide the proposed bio-retention area design, including a list of acceptable plant species; or (2) incorporate bio-retention elements into the proposed detention basin, including a list of acceptable plant species, subject to the approval of the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

46. Drainage Easements: That all stormwater infrastructure shall be included a drainage easements that have a minimum width of 30 feet. These easements shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

47. Operations and Maintenance: That a stormwater drainage operations and maintenance plan shall be developed, and approved by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Homeowners’ Association shall have sole responsibility for the implementation of the stormwater drainage operations and maintenance plan.

48. That the developer shall identify and reserve no fewer than 30 dwelling units in The Homestead development as “affordable units,” in accordance with the following conditions:

A. That the affordable units shall only be available for private ownership and occupancy. Homeowner covenants shall be established to prevent rental of these units.

B. That the affordable units shall be priced so as to be affordable for Qualified Buyers. Qualified Buyers shall be defined as individuals or families with gross incomes equal to 80% or less of the median family income for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

C. If an affordable unit is unsold 60 days after the Certificate of Occupancy is granted, then the household income of the Qualified Buyer may increase to 90 percent or less of the median family income. Furthermore, if the unit remains unsold 90 days after the Certificate of Occupancy is granted, then the household income of the Qualified Buyer may increase to 100 percent or less of the median family income. The Purchase Price shall remain affordable to Qualified Buyers earning 80% or less of the median family income; however, if the unit remains unsold, the pool of Qualified Buyers will increase over time to include those households earning up to 100 percent or less of the median family income.

D. Each Qualified Buyer shall deliver to the Developer written evidence, acknowledged in writing by the Orange Community Housing Corporation (or alternative
organization as approved by the Town Manager), that such buyer has been officially determined to be a Qualified Buyer.

E. That mechanisms shall be established to guarantee that the 30 affordable units shall be permanently affordable and available to Qualified Buyers, subject to the approval of the Town Manager and the Orange Community Housing Corporation (or alternative organization as approved by the Town Manager).

F. That 15 of the affordable units shall be constructed and available for occupancy, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 75^thunit. All 30 of the affordable units shall be constructed and available for occupancy, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 120^th unit.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

49. Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall approve the building elevations and the lighting plan for the site, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

50. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until all required public improvements are complete, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.

That if the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; no Building Permits for any phase shall be issued until all public improvements required in previous phases are completed to a point adjacent to the new phase, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.

51. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), and landscape plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans shall conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and design standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual.

52. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, shall be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. A performance guarantee shall be required, in accordance with the Town Code of Ordinances, and the guarantee shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of any permit authorizing land-disturbing activity.

53. Open Burning: That no open burning shall be permitted during the construction of this development.

54. Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

55. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant shall post a construction site identification sign following the issuance of a building permit, prior to the start of any construction activity on the site. The sign’s message shall include the following:

B. Identification of Property Owner’s representative (including phone number);

C. Identification of architects, engineers, contractors, and other individuals or firms involved with the construction (including phone numbers); and

D. Identification of the Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department (including phone number) as the contact for regulatory information.

The construction sign may have a maximum display area of 16 square feet, and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

56. Plant Rescue: That the applicant is encouraged to conduct a “plant rescue” for this site, after issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and prior to the start of construction.

57. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

58. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Homestead.

Item 11 – Response to the NC Department of Transportation Regarding Proposed Improvements to Weaver Dairy Road Between NC. 86 and Erwin Road

Mr. Horton reported that the staff had pursued with the State several options and some members of the Council had met with the Secretary of Transportation in Raleigh, whose staff considered the Council Members’ requests. He noted that after that meeting the Town had received a letter from the Secretary of Transportation, in which he declined to proceed with designing the project as had been requested by the Council—a three lane configuration. Mr. Horton added that if the Council wished to continue with that option, that nothing would happen on the project for the time being. He said there might be a change in policy or a change in Secretaries of Transportation that might cause some difference. Mr. Horton said, alternatively, that if the Council wished to reconsider a four-lane option, the Department of Transportation had indicated that they would proceed with design on that and the project would get back on schedule.

Mr. Horton said Resolution A would endorse the concept of the three-lane cross-section, and re-request that. He said Resolution B would change the Council’s position to endorse the four-lane program recommended by the N. C. State Department of Transportation (NCDOT).

Bill Burpitt, a Mayberry Court resident, said he would support the adoption of the Department of Transportation’s recommendation. He said as a result of the many developments in recent years along Weaver Dairy Road, there has been a tremendous increase of traffic that had far outstripped the capacity of the two lanes to safely or adequately carry that amount of traffic. Mr. Burpitt asked that the Council be as diligent as they are with making sure that construction and development did not outstrip the schools, to ensure that the same level of diligence be used in respect to available surface transportation. He urged the Council to adopt the four-lane concept to provide adequate transportation facilities for the ever-increasing traffic.

Harold Horne, a Weaver Dairy Road resident, said he would hate to think that the Town would lose the funding set aside for improvements on Weaver Dairy Road. He said he had problems getting out of and back into his driveway at certain times of the day, adding that children from Chapel Hill East High School walked on the shoulder of the road to get to Erwin Road, and were passed by large vehicles, which was dangerous. He said there were fewer accidents on four-lane roads than on two-lane roads. Mr. Horne asked the Council to adopt the concept of four-lanes, which was supported by the Manager.

Pat Rhodes said the problem was on the south end of Weaver Dairy Road, but not at the connector at the north end of the Town, which is not congested or backed up. He said the neighbors want the Council to consider approving the three-lane option, and if that meant no-build, then so be it. Mr. Rhodes said that the NCDOT wanted to build another Airport Road on Weaver Dairy Road. He added the environmental impacts were huge, there would be higher, noisier speeds, particularly at night, and, most importantly, would be the destruction of the character of the northern part of Town. He asked the Council to please consider putting off the construction, and not to let the NCDOT proceed with a four-lane super highway.

Walter Capone said he concurred with Mr. Rhodes, and this was a project that concerned safety, the needs of children and families and the community. He said there have been many changes and growth, but the needs of the community were not being served, they served the individuals accessing that road in order to go somewhere else. Mr. Capone said the issue of safety was the fundamental and most critical concern for all involved, and the other issue was the community. He suggested more cost-effective approaches such as better policing, improved signage, increased enforcement of speed limits, greater school zone emphasis, building of sidewalks and bike paths. Mr. Capone said the needs of the community were not to:

Cindy Risku said she was surprised that this project was still an ongoing issue. She said this project had been discussed and voted on by the Council and this still did not appear to be good enough. She said the NCDOT by its decision, has refused to accept and abide by the Town’s decision. Ms. Risku said the letter from the Secretary of Transportation listed as the refusal to construct a three-lane road that the improvement would be too expensive for the results, and the design compromised safety. She said the road as designed now was unsafe, and the sections of the road between Chesley and Silver Creek neighborhoods and the part between Vilcom and the Timberlyne Shopping were widened according to the NCDOT’s plans, and she did not see safety as a priority in this plan. Ms. Risku urged the Council to stay firm in its belief that Resolution A was the proper resolution to be adopted.

· Children living across from the High School are bused to school because the road is considered unsafe to cross.

· Children regularly walk and ride bikes on the road to get to Cedar Falls Park, the convenience store, and their friends’ houses.

· An abundance of inexperienced drivers are on the road as a result of the high school.

· The proposed expansion of the road will result in a very high traffic volume, similar to Highway 15-501 and Airport Road, and which I-40 was constructed to do.

Janis Dempsey reminded the Council that many residents of the Silver Creek area signed a petition supporting the no-build option. Ms. Dempsey said that if Weaver Dairy Road was to truly serve local traffic it did not need to be widened. She said the problem was speed, not traffic, and perhaps if the road were close to capacity people would drive 35 miles per hour. She said if the road was widened it would be used as a bypass and the speed would increase. Ms. Dempsey said she was also concerned with the issue of driver expectation, and drivers have to pay attention when driving on the road. She urged the Council to keep the road as it was.

Jeff Quarles, a resident of Country Road, which under the NCDOT regulation would effectively be eliminated, said this would cause great problems to those living there as to how they would be able to enter and exit their driveways. He urged the Council to vote for the three-lane road, but if they voted for the four-lane road, he asked them to put some language into the Resolution that would protect the residents of Country Road.

Chris Grace reminded the Council that there were other concerns such as the elderly living at Carol Woods and Summerville Crossing, who were also at risk from speeding vehicles. She said she had asked the representative from the NCDOT how he proposed to prevent the speeding and he did not have adequate answers. She urged the Council to stick with the three-lane road or a no-build option.

Council Member Wiggins requested Mr. Horton to present the highlights of the information sheet provided to the Council had so that those present could understand the material.

Mr. Horton reported on the improvements that had already been made on Weaver Dairy Road:

· 11,600 feet of Weaver Dairy Road running from NC 86 to the start of the proposed new alignment, east of the Silver Creek subdivision, has about 25% unimproved as an existing two-lane roadway, about 2,910 feet.

· About 46%, 5,340 feet, are partially improved, including half of a five-lane cross section.

· About 3,350 feet, 29%, are improved to a full five-lane width, the former configuration that the Town and the NCDOT had agreed upon years ago.

Mr. Horton said that this information came from the inspection and measurement from the Engineering Department.

· Collisions—between November 1, 2000 and June 21, 2001, there had been 31 reported traffic collisions on Weaver Dairy Road. Of those, 24 occurred in one of the two-lane portions, and 7 occurred in the four-and five-lane portions.

Mayor Waldorf reported that there had been two letters, one from Bruce Sampsell and one from Bruce Ballentine, both in support of the recommendation put forward by the Manager and the NCDOT.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 20A.

Council Member Evans commented that some of the public comment had come from areas that had already been improved and everyone realized that there are problems that have not been improved, and by voting for Resolution 20A there will not be any improvement in the areas where most of the accidents were occurring She added that there will not be improvement in the connection with Sage Road and Weaver Dairy Road near Silver Creek. Council Member Evans noted that many of the residents in the area favored a four-lane road with a median, which was a compromise with the NCDOT’s proposal for five-lanes. She noted that I-40 was an Interstate Highway, not a Town road, and that it would not meet the needs of users of Weaver Dairy Road. She added that she would not support Resolution A.

Council Member Wiggins asked if by voting for three-lanes again would it, in effect, be the same as voting for no improvements at all. Mayor Waldorf said, in her opinion, that if the Town said to the NCDOT that it would like a three-lane improvement, the NCDOT would say they would not build that because they thought it was unsafe and a poor investment of the State’s money, and would reallocate the money for the road.

Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Horton if he had any idea of what the accident rate was on Airport Road before and after the four-lanes were built. Mr. Horton responded that, to his recollection, there had been a great number of incidents in the two-lane section than what were now, in the four-lane roadway, although there has been an increase in speeding on the four-lane than from when it was two-lanes.

Council Member Foy commented that he did not support the four-lane road, but he would like to find a way to build the connection between Sage Road and the eastern portion of Weaver Dairy Road. He added that would be necessary to relieve the traffic burden on the spur section of Weaver Dairy Road, which currently connects to Erwin Road.

Council Member Brown said that the configuration proposed by the NCDOT was not a compromise, since they had offered either a five-lane or four-lane road. Engineering Director George Small responded that both of those alternatives had been requested by the Town and were not the NCDOT’s recommendation.

Council Member Bateman asked if there would be any houses taken under the four-lane option. Derrick Weaver, representing the NCDOT, responded that at this point there were potential relocations with either alternative—the three-lane or the four-lane, but the Department expected that it could limit the number of relocations with either alternative. He added that there were two houses near the intersection of Airport and Weaver Dairy Roads, which would have to be relocated, because in any choice there would have to be a five-lane configuration because of the development currently existing. Mr. Weaversaid there was also one home on the extension to Sage Road that would be taken on either the three-lane or the four-lane alternative, and an additional home on that extension that would be taken with the four-lane, and there may be one other home taken. He said these numbers were just a guess at this time, until further planning was completed.

Mayor pro tem Pavão said he had not supported the three-lane alternative, and still did not, so he could not support Resolution 20A. He noted that he felt if the residents along Estes Drive were asked if they believed that a three-lane road was safe and handled the traffic, there would probably be a resounding “No.”

Council Member Ward reported that he had voted for a three-lane road at the last Council vote, but he did not vote for a no-build option, which would not bring a satisfactory outcome. He commented that the amenities that would come with a four-lane road would bring sidewalks and bicycle facilities to add to the safety, and, if voting for the three-lane option was, in fact, voting for a no-build option, then he could not support it. Council Member Ward said, if the Council went along with the four-lane option, he would like to determine how the Town could continue to work with the NCDOT to address the traffic volume and speeds on the descent on Weaver Dairy Road, for some kind of traffic-calming devices.

Council Member Brown asked how and if the NCDOT would be receptive to traffic-calming devices. She said, addressing Mayor Waldorf’s expressed opinion about whether or not the NCDOT would construct improvements for a three-lane road, that to go forward with something based on an assumption would be a serious mistake for some of the residents along the road and create problems that might be worse than they were now. Mr. Weaver said he could not address that question since he had not worked on a project where traffic-calming devices had been requested and he would have to discuss this with DOT.

Council Member Brown asked if he could also discuss traffic-calming devices on any three-lane project, as a way to go forward with the Resolution 20A this evening.

Mr. Small said there was an example on Highway 54 at Hamilton Road, which involved rumble strips, textured cross-walks, and the landscaping of the median. He thought the NCDOT might consider traffic-calming devices on other roads.

Council Member Strom said large, divided roads divide neighborhoods, and it was a matter of community character and scale. He said he was philosophically opposed to parkways that moved traffic with speed and in a direct manner. He said that use of mass transit and safety was increased by a little congestion, and roads are made safer by slowing down the traffic. Council Member Strom said he was willing to face a no-build option and to pass on the issues to future Councils to deal with them later.

Council Member Wiggins said she had voted for three-lanes before, but she felt that a no-build option was not preferable to four-lanes. She said she thought the improved sections having less accidents was a major safety factor, and the Town could deal with the speeding down the hill, by increased policing of the area. Council Member Wiggins asked Council Member Foy why he thought improving the section between Silver Creek and Sage Road would help improve conditions if there were still some two-lane portions of Weaver Dairy Road, because the traffic would be increased.

Council Member Foy responded that he would be willing to support no-build, if that was what it would come down to, and there was an older neighborhood on the east end of Weaver Dairy Road where the driveways enter onto the road. H e added that it was difficult to live in a neighborhood that had a high volume of traffic, and in the wider sections no one could cross the road.

Council Member Wiggins said no one crosses Weaver Dairy Road at the two-lanes, either, because of the traffic, not because of the amount of lanes. She said she had a difficult time in her car crossing the road, and she stayed out of the way of the high school students driving the road. She said a no-build option was making a statement that the Council did not care how many accidents continued to occur.

Mayor Waldorf stated that she agreed with Council Member Wiggins, and that the citizens who spoke for Country Road had a very difficult situation, and the Town would have to work to help the residents of that road in the event of approval of a four-lane road. She said what she had heard from the speakers this evening was that this was not a very good situation, at the present time, on Weaver Dairy Road. Mayor Waldorf said she disagreed with Council Member Strom that it was all right to put this decision off to future Councils, because there would still be people asking why something had not been done. She said there was a real need to provide for pedestrian and bicycle safety on the road and this could be accomplished with a four-lane road with a median with sidewalks and bicycle lanes.

Council Member Wiggins added that 75% of the road was already improved, and what was being talked about was 25% addition, which would have sidewalks and bike lanes.

Council Member Bateman pointed out that there were already five lines in front of the Timberlyne Shopping Center, so she did not understand why the houses there would have to be taken. She said she would rather see that area remain the same, even if there was no median there. Mayor Waldorf responded that there was no sidewalk and no bike lane on the north side, and when engineers designed roads they try to keep them uniform.

Council Member Ward asked Mr. Weaver if it would be possible to keep the five lanes, adding sidewalks and bike lanes, without impacting the homes under consideration for removal. Mr. Weaver said, in past discussions, that portion of the road had always been discussed as being five lanes because of the heavy development in the area. He said right now there was one 300-foot section that narrowed down, and then widened again, so it would be inconsistent, and in the development in that area the houses would eventually be lost.

Council Member Foy said that Country Road was taken out of the proposal, so what did Mayor Waldorf mean by stating that the Town would have to work with Country Road. Mr. Weaver stated that the NCDOT would commit to keeping Country Road so that the driveways would not enter onto Weaver Dairy Road.

Mr. Quarles asked Mr. Weaver if he would put that commitment in writing. Mr. Weaver stated that he would put it into the project commitment and the document.

Council Member Brown said that what she heard the speakers address mostly was their neighborhood and the wish not to have their neighborhood become a throughway. She said she also felt that there was a feeling of disillusion among the speakers that what they thought had been voted upon and finalized was not. She said she felt bad about that, and what the citizens had thought as a process for the neighborhood, and what they had to go through once again.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 20B IN PLACE OF RESOLUTION A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-3, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, EVANS, WARD AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, FOY, AND STROM VOTING NAY.

Council Member Wiggins requested that the Resolution read: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the Council’s request and understanding from discussions with the State that under no circumstances would driveways serving the properties that front on Country Road be connected directly to the improved Weaver Dairy Road. “

Council Member Ward added a request to create traffic-calming devices. Mr. Weaver said that if the Council wanted to put into the Resolution that it requested that the NCDOT look into traffic-calming devices, he could commit that they would look into the request.

Mayor Waldorf asked at what point did Mr. Weaver think there would be design finished for the road so the Council could look at it. Mr. Weaver said the design was presently on hold, and, if the Resolution passed this evening, he would be meeting with staff to look at bus pull-outs and such, and then they would also look at traffic-calming devices. He said in the fall they would go for a public hearing.

Council Member Foy asked what the status would be for the five-lane portion of a four-lane road. Mr. Weaver said the Town would have to fund a median in the already existing five-lane areas, but it would be part of the project.

Council Member Foy asked if the Council was willing to make a commitment to the NCDOT that the Town would fund the median.

Council Member Ward said he was in favor of the median, and not a five-lane portion on the road, and he would like to see a grassy median wherever there were not turn-out lanes, and, if the Town wanted to pay for it, it should.

Mr. Horton said if the Council wished to proceed in that fashion it would be appropriate to ask the NCDOT to include it in their preliminary design and do a preliminary cost estimate in order to have a real number to work with. He added that the Council could explore the direct allocation funds as a way of paying for most of that kind of improvement. Mr. Horton pointed out that the Council would have to specify an alternate that would request the NCDOT to prepare preliminary engineering design of a retrofitted median in the sections where it did not now exist along with a preliminary cost estimate.

Council Member Wiggins stated that, although it was not her first choice, she would vote for the four-lanes, since she was not willing to vote for a no build. She wanted the neighbors to know why she had had to change her commitment.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE PRESERVATION OF COUNTRY ROAD AND TRAFFIC CALMING, AND A REQUEST FOR A COST ESTIMATE FROM THE NCDOT FOR A MEDIAN DIVIDED ROADWAY. THE AMENDED MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-3, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, EVANS, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, FOY, AND STROM VOTING NAY.

A RESOLUTION ENDORSING A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO WEAVER DAIRY ROAD BETWEEN N.C. 86 AND ERWIN ROAD TO INCLUDE A FOUR-LANE MEDIAN DIVIDED CROSS-SECTION CONSISTING OF TWO TRAVEL LANES IN EACH DIRECTION, WIDE OUTSIDE LANES TO ACCOMMODATE BICYCLE USE, NARROWED RAISED CENTER MEDIAN WITH EXCLUSIVE TURN LANES AND REFUGE FOR PEDESTRIANS, CURB-AND-GUTTER AND SIDEWALKS ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, AND BUS PULL-OFFS AS NECESSARY (2001-06-25/R-20b)

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 designated 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 has reconsidered its previous request for a three-lane project design;

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 N.C. 86 and Erwin Road to include a four-lane median divided cross-section consisting of two travel lanes in each direction, wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycle use, raised center median with exclusive turn lanes and refuge for pedestrians, curb-and-gutter and sidewalks along both sides of the road, 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-and-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 prepare preliminary engineering designs and cost estimates for a retrofitted median, where appropriate, along areas of Weaver Dairy Road where there is already a five-lane cross-section already exists.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the Council’s request and understanding based on discussions with the State and statements made by the State project manager to the Council on June 25, 2001, prior to adoption of this resolution, that under no circumstances would driveways serving the properties that front on Country Road be connected directly to the improved Weaver Dairy Road.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that DOT look into traffic calming and consider traffic calming measures which would be appropriate for this project including rumble strips, textured crosswalks, roundabouts, and/or other measures.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the State proceed with preparations for a Public Hearing on the proposed four-lane median divided Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests the Town be involved to the extent possible in all stages of the project development.

A citizen asked why the Council referred to Resolution A as a no-build option. Mayor Waldorf explained the letter from the NCDOT, noting that if the Council approved, again, the three-lane option, then NCDOT would do nothing, so in effect approval of Resolution A would result in no action.

The Council appointed Tom Mills to the County seat and Dan Shugars to the Town seat on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

The Council appointed Henry Clark, Jr., Richard Loeber, Carol Siebert, and Elizabeth Welsby to the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board.

The Council appointed John Covach, Terri Tyson, and Malcolm White to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

4g- Revisions to Sanitation Ordinance Related to Rules for Curbside Roll-Carts

Council Member Brown said she foresaw problems in some neighborhoods with identifying carts that are left on the curb. Mr. Heflin responded that each cart had an identifying number and that number corresponded to an address to which it was delivered, and a record was kept in the Public Works Department. Mr. Heflin said the enforcement efforts would be in a graduated manner by taking steps for enforcement by reminding people of the violation before they would issue citations.

Council Member Brown said that identification of ownership might be confused if someone retrieved the wrong cart. Mr. Heflin said that the Department would issue written notification and written letters to the owners of the properties. He added that if a person received notification that he/she was in violation of the ordinance, then that should be an incentive to be sure the person had the right cart.

Council Member Brown asked if it was the owners not the residents of property who were responsible for the carts. Mr. Heflin responded it was both, and the Department would work with the owners as well as the residents. Mr. Horton said one solution would be similar to what the Town used on multi-recycling containers, because the containers had identifying marks, and identifying marks could be put onto the carts.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON GARBAGE, TRASH AND REFUSE (2001-06-25/O-2)

Any person or association referred to in section 8-3, and receiving twice weekly service, shall provide suitable standard metal or plastic receptacles, generally known as garbage cans, for deposit of garbage, household refuse, and other refuse. Said receptacles shall be of thirty-two gallon capacity or less and shall be watertight, of fly-proof construction and with a tight-fitting lid when used for wet garbage or other decomposable material. Such receptacles shall weigh sixteen (16) pounds or less when empty and may not be loaded with more than forty-five (45) pounds of refuse at a time. Such receptacles shall be located conveniently for the collector, but shall in no case be placed on the street or sidewalk unless done under the regulations prescribed by the town manager under authority of the council. Any person or association referred to in section 8-3, and receiving once weekly curbside service, shall provide suitable standard metal or plastic receptacles, generally known as garbage cans, for deposit of garbage, household refuse, and other refuse. Said receptacles shall be of thirty-two gallon capacity or less and shall be watertight, of fly-proof construction and with a tight-fitting lid when used for wet garbage or other decomposable material. Such receptacles shall weigh sixteen (16) pounds or less when empty and may not be loaded with more than forty-five (45) pounds of refuse at a time. Residents may choose to utilize a mobile refuse cart provided by the town. Unless granted an exemption by the town due to age or health, once weekly service collections will be curbside. Receptacles shall be conveniently located at the curb, but shall in no case be placed on the street or sidewalk as to create a hazard or interfere with traffic. Trash is to be placed at the curb no earlier than 6:00 p.m. on the day before collection ~~before 6:00 a.m. on collection days~~, with containers removed before 6:00 a.m. on the day following collection ~~7:00 p.m. on the same day~~.”

(a) Any violation of sections 8-5, 8-23, 8-24, 8-24.1, 8-25, 8-26, 8-33, 8-35 or 8-38 shall constitute a civil violation and be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25). Each day that a violation continues uncorrected shall constitute a separate violation. In addition, the town may refuse to empty any receptacle containing loose household refuse or garbage in violation of section 8-23.”

Council Member Bateman said she had a request from the Habitat Board that under Resolution 6 stipulations the language would be changed to read “that the lots that are used would be donated.” Mr. Horton said this would be to insure that the Town of Carrboro would not take the property that the Town of Chapel Hill had donated to them and raise the price of it in some fashion. He said it was intended that Carrboro use the property in the same manner as it had been donated to them. Mr. Horton said he and Mr. Karpinos would work on the language.

COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6, WITH AN AMENDMENT TO READ “THAT THE LOTS THAT ARE USED WOULD BE DONATED.” THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO INITIATE PROCEDURES FOR CONVEYING TWO LOTS ON CREST DRIVE TO THE TOWN OF CARRBORO (2001-06-25/R-6)

WHEREAS, the Council received a petition from Habitat for Humanity to build a house on Town-owned property located on Crest Street in Carrboro (a portion of Tax Map # 7.97.B.21B); and

WHEREAS, the Council received a petition from the Town of Carrboro requesting that the Town either share an easement with the Town or consider combining two properties off Crest Street;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to initiate procedures for conveying a portion of lot 7.97.B.21B to the Town of Carrboro pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 160A-274.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conveyance of land to the Town of Carrboro would be contingent on a performance agreement with the Town of Carrboro and the following specific items:

1. The creation of two new lots would not adversely impact the terms of the Town’s Conditional Use Permit for the Oakwood public housing;

2. The Town of Carrboro would prepare a modification to the Town’s Conditional Use Permit to subdivide the property;

4. The Town of Carrboro would strongly consider placing the properties in the Land Trust;

5. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development would approve the changes in the land area of the property owned by the Town; and

6. The Town of Carrboro would assume all closing costs for the conveyance of the properties.

BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen consider conveying one or both lots to Habitat for Humanity, Orange County.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to provide a sewer easement along the Town’s property line as requested by the Town of Carrboro in a letter dated May 29, 2001 to the extent necessary, with the specific location to be determined by the Manager.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

a.	Adoption of Minutes of April 23, 25 and 30, and May 2, 7, 9, 14, 21, and 30, 2001.
b.	Nomination to the Planning Board (R-2).
c.	Municipal Agreement for Funding of Improvements in the Vicinity of N.C. 54 and Hamilton Road (R-3).
e.	Amendment to the Duties and Powers of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board (O-1).
f.	Purchase of Electronic Parking Meters (R-5).
i.	Policy Regarding Presentations and Submittals to the Town (R-7).
j.	Year-End Budget Amendment for 2000-2001 (O-3); (O-4).
k.	Presque Isle: Special Use Permit for Time Limit Extension (R-8a would approve; R-8b would deny).
l.	Response to Request from the Orange Community Housing Corporation and the Community Land Trust in Orange Count (R-8.1).

PROJECTS	Reappropriation to 2001-2002	New AppropriationS: 2001-2002
Municipal Operations Space Needs Study	0	10,000
Extraordinary Maintenance, Emergency Repairs	29,000	30,000
Town Hall: Capital Maintenance	25,000	0
Town Hall Parking Deck: Capital Maintenance	0	7,000
Fire Station No. 2: Capital Renovations	0	11,000
Fire Station No. 3: Capital Maintenance	105,000	0
Fire Station No. 4: Capital Maintenance	0	58,000
Parks and Recreation Admin Offices: Capital Maintenance	15,000	0
Public Works: Capital Maintenance	15,000	0
Town Hall: Generator	24,000	0
IFC Shelter: Capital Renovations (Phase I)	0	20,000
IFC Shelter: Capital Renovations (Phase II)	0	14,000
Museum: Capital Maintenance	0	9,000
Post Office/Courthouse: Capital Renovations (Phase I)	0	30,000
Cemetery Maintenance	16,500	0
Curb Repairs: ADA Compliance	18,500	6,500
Railroad Crossing Improvements	9,000	0
Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities	50,000	100,000
Street Paving	11,000	0
Traffic Calming	20,000	0
Aerial Topography Maps	0	40,000
Infrared Rescue Cameras	0	28,000
AD Clark Bathhouse: Capital Renovations	0	69,000
Community Center: Capital Renovations	0	60,000
Hargraves Center: Capital Renovations	0	77,000
Library: Capital Maintenance	0	58,000
Park Restrooms/Bathhouses: Capital Maintenance	0	3,000
Greenways	0	107,000
Small Park Improvements	55,000	0
Tennis Courts, Basketball Court	0	25,000
TOTAL	393,000	762,500

AGENCY	AMOUNT
A Helping Hand	500
Alliance of Aids Services	1,000
Alternative Sentencing	3,000
American Red Cross	1,000
Chapel Hill Training Outreach Project	3,000
Charles House	5,500
Child Care Services Association	10,000
Club Nova	2,000
Communities in Schools of Orange County	5,500
Community Cuisine	-
Community School for People Under 6	9,000
Dispute Settlement Center	7,000
El Centro Latino	5,000
El Pueblo	500
Empowerment, Inc.	-
Family Counseling Service (CHANGE)	2,500
Family Violence Prevention Center	14,000
Freedom House	14,000
Hopeline	500
Interfaith Council	1,000
KidSCope	4,000
Mental Health Association	6,000
Middle School After School Program	35,000
Orange County Disability Awareness Council	1,000
Orange County Literacy Council	8,800
Orange County Rape Crisis Center	12,000
Planned Parenthood	1,500
Street Scene Teen Center	6,000
The Arc	9,700
The Women’s Center	11,000
Triangle Family Services1,	1,000
Triangle Hospice	4,500
Triangle Radio Reading Service	3,000
TROSA	2,000
Volunteers for Youth	5,500
TOTAL	196,000

Planning Board

SECTION I

SECTION II

SECTION III

SECTION IV

GENERAL FUND

GENERAL FUND TOTAL 36,725,000

OTHER FUNDS

PROJECTS

Reappropriation

to 2001-2002

TOTAL

SECTION I

Stipulations Related to Recreation Area

Stipulations Related to Homeowners’ Association

Miscellaneous Stipulations

Applicants

Applicants

Applicants

Applicants

Applicants	Waldorf	Bateman	Brown	Evans	Foy	Pavão	Strom	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Applicants	Waldorf	Bateman	Brown	Evans	Foy	Pavão	Strom	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Henry Clark, Jr.	X	X	X	X		X	X	X		7*
Normal Fitzgerald	X	X			X		X			4
Richard Loeber	X	X		X	X	X		X	X	7*
Carol Siebert		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	8*
Elizabeth Welsby	X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	8*