SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, JULY 2, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Urban Forester Curtis Brooks, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Engineering Director George Small, Assistant to the Mayor Alice Joyce, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1- Ceremonies. None.
Item 2 - Public Hearings. None.
Item 3 - Petitions by citizens and announcements by Council Members
3a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda. None.
3b. Petitions by citizens on items on the agenda.
3b(1). Cameron-McCauley Historic District Neighborhood: Rezoning of University Property to OI-4.
Mayor Waldorf, noting that no one had signed up to speak on this petition, said she would entertain a motion to refer it to item #6 on the agenda, where it was relevant.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEM #6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3b(2). Diana Steele: Rezoning of OI-4.
Mayor Waldorf explained to Ms. Steele that that Town had decided to treat her letter as a petition. She told Ms. Steele that she could speak now or later when the Council discusses item #6. Ms. Steele decided to speak later regarding item #6.
3b(3). Robert Loomis on behalf of the Lake Ellen Homeowners Association: Stormwater runoff and erosion control.
Mr. Loomis, president of the Lake Ellen Homeowners Association, explained that residents were concerned and frustrated about how water quality in their area was continuing to decline. He suggested moving past the status quo by placing protection blankets on the site, evaluating available alternatives, requiring all new construction to have controls, and scheduling a fact-finding tour of trouble spots in the Lake Ellen watershed. Mr. Loomis also recommended that Council members tour the area and evaluate alternative technologies. He noted that the N.C. Division of Water Quality had been studying Booker Creek and that the Town might obtain some restoration funds from that study.
Council Member Brown asked how the Town would deal with projects that are currently underway in order to have more sedimentation control. Town Manager Cal Horton replied that modifying the existing laws and having them apply in a short run would be problematic for the following reasons: Council's summer break; the amount of time it takes to develop, present, and consider ordinance proposals; and the Town would have to work with Orange County, which is the enforcement agency for sedimentation and erosion control. Mr. Horton noted that it would be difficult to make any immediate change.
Council Member Ward asked if there was a way short of changing the rules that the Town could ameliorate the problem. Mr. Horton replied that if the Town determines that a developer was not following the law the Town could then use the law. If a developer is following the law but not doing as well as the Council would like, he said, then the Town could attempt to apply "moral suasion." Council Member Ward recommended doing something in the interim rather than just waiting for the more exhaustive staff report.
Council Member Bateman agreed, and expressed doubts about whether current developments were complying with Town requirements. She supported the idea of visiting sites to determine what could be done in the short run.
Council Member Evans asked how often the Town looks at sites. Mr. Horton replied that Orange County primarily does the soil erosion and sedimentation control enforcement work. He said that when the Town's inspectors are on the site for other reasons they usually check on the effectiveness of these control issues and report problems to the County. Council Member Evans suggested that the staff check on the Lake Ellen area soon so that the County can be notified.
Council Member Strom noted that Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal has the expertise to analyze some of the source material. He asked that Mr. Royal particularly address the sources of the continuing turbidity in Lake Ellen.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION FOR A REPORT AND TO REQUEST THAT, IN THE INTERIM, THE STAFF INSPECT THE AREA WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE MEASURES THAT CAN BE TAKEN TO HELP CONTROL OR MITIGATE THE PROBLEM NOW.
Mayor Waldorf added that the staff should also communicate with the County about this and make sure they are fully aware of what the Town recommends. Council Member Brown agreed to include that in her motion.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council members agreed to hear Council Member Wiggins’ petition regarding item #10 at this point in the meeting, and to hear Cindy Risku speak on the issue as well.
Item 10 - Petitions by the Mayor and Council Members
10a. Petition by Council Member Wiggins to Appoint a Traffic Calming Study Committee for Weaver Dairy Road.
Council Member Wiggins explained that citizens from the Weaver Dairy Road area wanted to be included in discussions about that road. She said that she had decided that the best way to do so would be to appoint a citizens committee to work with the staff to develop a list of recommendations to the Council to be put forward to the Department of Transportation (DOT). Council Member Wiggins asked the other Council members to respond to that request.
Mayor Waldorf stated that she had called Derek Weaver, DOT's manager on this project, and determined that a public hearing on this project probably would occur in November. She said that she had told Mr. Weaver about this probable citizens committee and that he had advised that the committee get started by late August and offered to meet with them. Mayor Waldorf said that Mr. Weaver mentioned placing pedestrian signals and rumble strips along the road, and possibly brick intersecting of the pavement which causes people to slow down. She said that Mr. Weaver had also asked her to emphasize that there would be plenty of opportunity for citizen input regarding design.
Cindy Risku supported the petition, which she described as "extending an olive branch so that we don't feel completely cut out of the project."
Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council ask the Town Clerk to advertise for applicants for appointments to be made on August 27th. Council Member Evans recommended that notices be sent to all citizens on Weaver Dairy Road and that the School Board appoint a member to the committee. Council Member Foy suggested that the University of North Carolina (UNC) Highway Safety Research Institute be involved.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION, AND THAT THE TOWN CLERK ADVERTISE FOR APPLICANTS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO BE MADE ON AUGUST 27, 2001, THAT NOTICES BE SENT TO ALL CITIZENS ON WEAVER DAIRY ROAD, THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD APPOINT A MEMBER TO THE COMMITTEE, AND THAT UNC'S HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH INSTITUTE BE INVOLVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3c. Announcements by Council Members.
Council Member Bateman said that she had received a phone call from a citizen asking about the status of the Town Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance process. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that no one from the Town staff had been able to attend the last meeting on June 25th because they were all busy preparing agenda materials for this meeting. He added that he had not heard anything about what happened at that meeting, but would get some information and share it with the Council. Council Member Bateman expressed disappointment, adding that the public wants to know when these issues will be resolved.
Mayor Waldorf said that she thought this item would come back in the fall. She suggested that the Council adopt a motion asking the staff to conclude their work and get a revised draft back to the Council in the fall.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REQUEST THAT THE STATUS AND DRAFT OF THE ADEQUATE SCHOOLS PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE COME BACK IN THE FALL. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor pro tem Pavăo mentioned the multi-media exhibit about Lincoln High School, which was currently on display at the Chapel Hill Museum. He recommended that everyone go see it and praised the creators, Ed Caldwell, Bob Gilgor, and Morgan Kenney, for their outstanding job. Mayor pro tem Pavăo urged newcomers in particular to see this exhibit which shows a part of Chapel Hill's history that they might not know about.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that Council members had received a memo from her and UNC Chancellor Moeser regarding Town-University fiscal discussions. Reminding the Council that she and Chancellor Moeser had made a commitment to have this work completed at the time of the OI-4 discussions, she explained that the memo was a progress report. Mayor Waldorf then asked to take a few minutes to read the memo because of the high level of interest in it. Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council accept the document for review and make it available to the public.
Mayor Waldorf stressed that the draft was a progress report, which was not complete. She noted that there would be opportunity for further negotiation and advice from the public and Town Council. Mayor Waldorf stressed that the Town ought to continue to pursue certain specific points which are not in the document: the need for the University's development plan to include strategies to avoid or mitigate adverse transportation impacts; and the need for the University to pay the net local cost (i.e. the transit cost that the federal and State governments do not pay for transit services and facilities that are just for the University—both bus service and investment in new park and ride lots).
Mayor Waldorf stated that the Town should continue to negotiate for the ten percent, even though it is not a lot. She suggested that the Town continue discussing its desire that the University pay the cost of constructing and maintaining any new streets that are built internal to campus that are part of the University's development plan. Finally, Mayor Waldorf urged the Town to continue to pursue having the University pay the cost of installing and maintaining any traffic signal system that is internal to campus. She said that this draft was a good start and she hoped the Town would continue working on it.
Council Member Foy suggested that the University step forward and take responsibility for fire protection, for example, rather than saying that the State has to do it. Mayor Waldorf agreed, adding that one can argue that the State should pay for fire protection but in reality that cost is borne by each locality.
Council Member Strom asked Mayor Waldorf to outline the process from now through the fall. Mayor Waldorf said that it was important to get written or verbal comments from Council members and the public, and she pointed out that the Town would not be able to require all of what is being negotiated.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo recommended collecting both written and verbal comments and then meeting as early as possible in the fall to discuss it.
Council Member Brown suggested specifically inviting the public to comment.
Council Member Evans praised both the Town and the University for the hard work that this represented, and thanked Mayor Waldorf in particular for her contribution.
Mayor Waldorf described the negotiations as an interesting and fruitful process. She pointed out that "a lot of understandings that we've had with the University have been just that," and recommended that future Councils nail agreements down and continue to advocate for other community needs.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE MEMO AND TO INVITE CITIZENS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SEND IN COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS WITH THE ISSUE PLACED ON THE COUNCIL'S FALL AGENDA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Bill Strom removed 4i.
Mayor Waldorf asked to add "the evaluation of cost to local government" to the list of items to consider in 4L. Council members agreed by consensus, and Council Member Evans wondered what "neutral territory" meant. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that Eleanor Howe of the Transportation Board had called him to express support for 4l and to thank the staff and Council for including it.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-1 WITH 4i REMOVED AND 4L AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2001-07-02/R-1)
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. |
Budget Ordinance Allocating Funds for the Mobility Report Card (O-1). |
|
b. |
Revision of Vicious Animals Ordinance (O-2). |
|
c. |
Acceptance of Grants to Police Department (R-2); (O-3a, O-3b). |
|
d. |
Amendment to the Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance Related to Distribution and Sale of Publications within the Public Right-of-Way of the 100 Block of North Columbia Street (O-4). |
|
e. |
Closure of a Section of Clyde Road Right-of-Way (R-3). |
|
f. |
Grant Project Ordinance for the 2001-2002 Community Development Entitlement Program (O-5). |
|
g. |
Traffic Regulations Ordinance Amendment for Public Streets Recently Accepted by the Town Serving New Developments (O-6). |
|
h. |
Cooperating Technical Partnership with Federal Emergency Management Agency (R-4). |
|
j. |
Financing Bids to Purchase Roll Carts (R-6). |
|
k. |
Performance Agreement with the Chapel Hill Carrboro Residents’ Council (R-7). |
|
l. |
Status of Locating Durham Technical Community College Campus in Orange County (R-8). |
|
m. |
An Ordinance Amending the Position Classification and Pay Plan (O-6.1). |
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2000 (2001-07-02/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2001” as duly adopted on June 25, 2001, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
Non-departmental
Contingency 49,765 14,200 35,565
GENERAL FUND
Planning 885,275 71,000 965,275
ARTICLE II
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND
Grants 429,000 56,800 485,800
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE TOWN CODE TO PROVIDE FOR A CRIMINAL SUMMONS TO BE ISSUED FOR A SECOND VIOLATION OF SECTION 4 -16(a); AND TO PROVIDE THAT AN ANIMAL TWICE DECLARED VICIOUS, WHETHER BY CONVICTION OR BY PAYMENT OF THE PENALTY, IS SUBJECT TO DESTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4 -16(m) (2001-07-02/0-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Subsections 4 -16(c) and 4 -16(m), Chapter 4 of the Town Code, are hereby revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4 -16. Vicious animals.
(c) In the event that the custodian of the violator does not appear in response to the described citation or the civil penalty is not paid within the period prescribed, or if the violator previously has been declared vicious upon payment of a citation or the conviction of the custodian, a criminal summons may be issued against the custodian for violation of this chapter and upon conviction, the custodian shall be punished as provided by state law.
(m) Any animal previously declared vicious upon the payment of a citation or by conviction of the custodian for a violation of section 4 -16(a), that commits a subsequent violation as described in Section 4 - 16(a), will cause the custodian to be charged with that violation. Upon the custodian’s conviction of that violation, the animal will be destroyed in a humane manner.
Section 2. In determining whether a criminal summons may be issued for a violation after an animal once previously has been declared vicious upon payment of a citation or conviction of the custodian, only acts committed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered. In determining whether an animal may be destroyed after a conviction of a custodian for a subsequent violation involving an animal previously declared vicious upon payment of a citation or conviction of the custodian, only acts committed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CRIME COMMISSION GRANT, THE GOVERNOR’S HIGHWAY SAFTEY PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT GRANT, AND THE ORANGE CHATHAM JUSTICE PARTNERSHIP GRANT (2001-07-02/R-2)
WHEREAS, the Governor’s Crime Commission, the Governor’s Highway Safety Program and the Orange-Chatham Justice Partnership have made funds available to enhance the quality of law enforcement services provided to local communities; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s applications in the amount of $21,848 was approved by the Governors Crime Commission; and $31,800 was approved by the Governor’s Highway Safety Program; and $42,296 was approved by the Orange-Chatham Justice Partnership; and
WHEREAS, these grant funds would be used to provide geographic mapping capabilities, to purchase video cameras and RADAR units for patrol cars, and to provide comprehensive case management services for juvenile offenders;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to accept the aforementioned grants and to make all necessary assurances.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN DATED JULY 1, 2001 (2001-07-02/O-3a)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan (2001-06-25/ O-6) is amended as follows:
SECTION I
In Section IV, part C, in the Police Department, DELETE the lines
Full-time Part-time
Position: No. Hrs. No. Hrs. Grade
Alternative Sentencing Assistant 1 37.5 - - 31
and ADD the lines
Alternative Sentencing Assistant 2 37.5 - - 31
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 (2001-07-02/O-3b)
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, 2001” as duly adopted on June 25, 2001 be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Police 8,615,239 95,944 8,711,183
ARTICLE II
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND
Grants 485,800 95,944 581,744
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON STREETS AND SIDEWALKS (2001-07-02/O-4)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Sec 17-85 is hereby inserted to read as follows:
Any vendor choosing to distribute free publications in the 100 block of North Columbia Street shall use the modular newspaper racks provided and maintained by the Town in this area. Individual privately owned free-standing newspaper racks shall not be permitted in the 100 block of North Columbia Street for the purpose of distributing free publications.
Any vendor choosing to sell publications in the 100 block of North Columbia Street shall purchase a newspaper rack meeting the design guidelines herein described, and shall locate and maintain the newspaper rack in an area designated by the Town Manager. All newspaper racks used for the sale of publications shall be green metal non-pedestal mounted racks not exceeding 20” in width or 36” in height, excluding top mounted coin slots. These racks shall be free of advertising on all sides excepting the front and top surfaces. Privately owned newspaper racks that do not meet these guidelines or that are not properly maintained, as determined by the Town Manger, shall not be permitted in the 100 block of North Columbia Street for the purpose of selling publications.”
Section 2. Existing Sec 17-85 is hereby renumbered Sec 17-84 and amended to read as follows:
“Section 17-84. Application of article to sale of article on U.N.C. property, sale of newspapers, magazines and food.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to the sale of any article on private property or on the property of the University of North Carolina, nor to the sale of newspapers or magazines except in the 100 block of North Columbia Street as provided in Section 17-85, nor farm products exempted under North Carolina General Statutes 105-53(c), provided such sales do not interfere with or impede the orderly flow of pedestrian or automotive traffic.”
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
A RESOLUTION CLOSING A SECTION OF CLYDE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (2001-07-02/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Council on May 21, 2001, adopted a resolution of intent to consider closing a section of the Clyde Road right-of-way and a public hearing thereon was held on June 18, 2001; and
WHEREAS, closing this section of the Clyde Road right-of-way would not be contrary to the public interest; and no individual owning property in the vicinity of the right-of-way would be deprived of a reasonable means of ingress and egress to his or her property by closing of said right-of-way;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts this order pursuant to North Carolina G.S. 160A-299, permanently closing approximately 1300 feet of the Clyde Road right-of-way as shown on Orange County Tax Map 7.19 and abutting parcels 23 and 23G, all of which shall be recorded on a plat to be approved by the Town of Chapel Hill Engineering Department.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE 2001–2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE (2001-07-02/O-5)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statues of North Carolina, the following grant project is hereby established:
SECTION I
The projects authorized are the Community Development projects as approved by the Council on April 23, 2001: funds are as contained in the Funding Approval and Grant Agreement between the Town and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The projects are known more familiarly as the 2001 Entitlement Community Development Block Grant. The grant activities include renovation of public housing, site improvements, neighborhood revitalization, property acquisition, community services to low-income residents, and administration costs for the program.
7
SECTION II
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the grant project within the terms of the grant document(s), the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the budget contained herein.
SECTION III
The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project:
Community Development Block Grant: $441,000
Community Development Program Income: $ 35,000
Total $476,000
SECTION IV
The following amounts are appropriated for the project:
Rehabilitation of Public Housing: $170,000
Meadowmont Affordable Townhomes $ 80,000
Neighborhood Revitalization: $ 80,000
Habitat for Humanity: $ 50,000
Community Services: $ 20,000
Program Administration: $ 76,000
Total $476,000
The Finance Director is hereby directed to maintain within the Grant Project Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as required by the grant agreement(s) and Federal and State regulations.
SECTION VI
Copies of this project ordinance shall be entered into the minutes of the Council and copies shall be filed with in five days of adoption with the Manager, Finance Director and the Town Clerk.
This the 25th day of June, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-11 AND 21-13 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING SPEED REGULATIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STOP REGULATIONS (2001-07-02/O-6)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 21-11(B) (2) of the Town Code of Ordinances, "Twenty-five (25) miles per hour on the following streets:" is hereby amended by inserting the following therein the appropriate alphabetical order:
“Aberdeen Drive Main Street
Arlen Park Drive Market Street
Barksdale Drive Meeting Street
Blue Granite Court Melrose Place
Brookgreen Drive Melrose Place
Calderon Drive Newell Street
Camille Court Nolen Lane
Eastgreen Drive Palafox Drive
Edgewater Circle Parkside Circle
Gardner Circle Parkview Crescent
Glade Street Pitch Pine Lane
Graylyn Drive Tharrington Drive
Greenview Drive Unwin Place
Hanser Court Westgreen Drive
Harrison Court Westside Circle
Highgrove Drive Weyer Drive
Hillspring Lane Winston Ridge Drive
Kildaire Road”
Section 2. Section 21- 13 (a) of the Town Code “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by adding the following, in alphabetical order:
“Through Streets Stop Streets
Aberdeen Drive Graylyn Drive (east)
Barksdale Drive Melrose Drive
Butternut Drive Pitch Pine Lane
Copperline Drive Aberdeen Drive (east)
Copperline Drive Barksdale Drive
Copperline Drive Edgewater Circle
Copperline Drive Melrose Place
Culbreth School Road Weyer Drive
Eastowne Drive Old Sterling Drive
Edgewater Circle Calderon Drive
Edgewater Circle Graylyn Drive
Edgewater Circle Newell Street
Edgewater Circle Overlake Drive
Edgewater Circle Parkside Circle
Edgewater Circle Tharrington Drive
Edgewater Circle Winston Ridge Drive
Gardner Circle Hanser Court
Graylyn Drive (west) Aberdeen Drive
Greenview Drive Copperline Drive
Highgrove Drive Brookgreen Drive
Highgrove Drive Gardner Circle
Highgrove Drive Glade Street
Highgrove Drive Glade Street (private)
Highgrove Drive Hillspring Lane
Highgrove Drive Nolen Lane
Highgrove Drive Unwin Place
Highgrove Drive Westside Drive
Kildaire Road Copperline Road
Market Drive Brookgreen Drive
Market Street Greenview Drive
Market Drive Aberdeen Drive
Newell Street Overlake Drive
Newell Street Winston Ridge Drive
Overlake Drive Calderon Drive
Palafox Drive Camille Court
Palafox Drive Harrison Court
Parkside Circle Eastgreen Drive
Parkside Circle Meeting Street
Parkside Circle Parkview Cresent
Parkside Circle Westgreen Drive
Pitch Pine Lane Blue Granite Court
Weaver Dairy Road Palafox Drive”
Section 3. Section 21- 13 (b) of the Town Code “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by adding the following, in alphabetical order:
“Through Street Servient Street
Market Street Main Street”
Section 4. Section 21-13 (c) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by inserting the following, in alphabetical order:
“Intersection(s)
Aberdeen Drive (west)/Copperline Drive
Arlen Park Drive/Parkside Circle-Edgewater Circle
Arlen Park Drive-Westgreen Drive/Newell Street-Eastgreen Drive
Brookgreen Drive/Copperline Drive
Brookgreen Drive/Edgewater Circle
Copperline Drive/Kildaire Road-Barksdale Drive
Gardner Circle/Highgrove Drive
Gardner Circle/Weyer Drive
Greenview Drive/Parkside Circle
Highgrove Drive/Parkview Cresent
Kildaire Road/Market Street
Parkside Circle/Meeting Street
Parkview Cresent/Edgewater Circle”
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY AND THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT REGARDING THE COOPERATING TECHNICAL PARTNERS PROGRAM (2001-07-02/R-4)
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has prepared a Memorandum of Agreement offering the Town of Chapel Hill an opportunity to participate in the Cooperating Technical Partners Program; and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina is in the process of re-mapping flood hazard areas throughout the State and would be a party to said Agreement; and
WHEREAS, both the Chapel Hill Floodplain Management Program and the Federal Emergency Management Agency would benefit from a partnership between federal, State, and local regulators;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to execute on behalf of the Town a Federal Emergency Management Agency Cooperating Technical Partners Memorandum of Agreement.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LEASE-PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF 6,000 ROLL CARTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (2001-07-02/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill solicited and received competitive proposals from financial institutions for the lease-purchase of 6,000 roll carts for implementation of a curbside solid waste collections program; and
WHEREAS, Branch Banking & Trust offers the lowest interest rate of 3.88% for this purchase;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Branch Banking & Trust on behalf of the Town for the lease-purchase of 6,000 roll carts at a fixed interest rate of 3.88% for a three-year term.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforesaid contract by and between the Town of Chapel Hill and Branch Banking & Trust, together with the amounts to be paid thereunder, be and the same are hereby designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations of the Town of Chapel Hill for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council does not reasonably expect that the Purchaser (and any subordinate entities) will issue more than $10,000,000 in qualified tax-exempt obligations pursuant to such Sections 265(b)(3)(ii) during the current calendar year.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO RESIDENTS’ COUNCIL (2001-07-02/R-7)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to execute a Performance Agreement with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Residents’ Council in the amount of $50,000.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND PROVISION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN THE SELECTION OF A SITE FOR A SATELLITE CAMPUS FOR DURHAM TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN ORANGE COUNTY (2001-07-02/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Orange County Commissioners have begun discussions with Durham Technical Community College about the possible development of a satellite campus in Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Commissioners have appointed a Community College Task Force to provide recommendations on the development of a satellite campus; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that 6,500 students are projected to be enrolled in an Orange County satellite campus; and
WHEREAS, survey data indicates that 57% of the these students would live in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area; and
WHEREAS, the development of a satellite campus would have significant transportation impacts and provide an opportunity to encourage alternative modes of transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the Orange County Commissions consider the following issues:
· Include consideration of transportation impacts, particularly access to public transportation, in the decision to select a site for a Durham Technical Community College satellite campus.
· Gather additional information from focus groups representing more diverse groups of potential community college students, including public housing residents, persons receiving public assistance and persons living in Section 8 or other subsidized housing.
· Collect additional information about the location of residence of existing Orange County community college students.
· Minimize travel to the campus by locating it close to large concentrations of potential students.
· Include smart growth considerations in the selection of a site for the satellite campus, including limiting parking areas, to reduce stormwater runoff and encourage the use of alternative transportation.
· Include representatives of Chapel Hill Transportation Board and the Triangle Transit Authority in the process for selecting a site.
· Include evaluations of any potential costs to local governments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council requests that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization include the potential development of a satellite campus in Orange County in the development of the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN DATED JULY 1, 2001 (2001-07-02/O-6.1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan (2001-6-25 / O-6) is amended as follows:
SECTION I:
In Section IV, part C, in the Police Department, Patrol Division, a Police Officer position is reclassified to Police Sergeant and the following positions are authorized:
Full-time Part-time
Position: No. Hrs. No. Hrs. Grade
Police Sergeant 9 42 - - 38
Police Officer 80 42 - - 32-35
SECTION II
This change is effective July 1, 2001.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
Item 5 - Information Items
Accepted as presented. There was no discussion.
Item 6 - University Development Issues
6a. Overview of Office/Institutional-4 and Rezoning Applications.
Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that the topics resulting from the previous month's public hearing fall into two categories: drafting a new OI-4 zoning district; and an application to rezone UNC's main campus to that district. He said that item #6a was the staff’s attempt to summarize the current status of this issue. Regarding #6b, Mr. Waldon explained that the staff had done its best to respond to comments and questions from the public hearing.
6b. Consideration of ordinance and resolutions regarding Office/Institutional-4 Zoning.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the staff had revised its recommendation for the OI-4 district. He explained that they were still recommending approval but were suggesting seven changes to the draft OI-4 district. Mr. Waldon said that these were not substantive changes but clarifications of questions that were raised at the hearing. They were as follows:
· Adjust the "Intent" section to refer to close neighborhoods and the larger community.
· Change "add" to "or" in Section 16.7.3.
· Add language prescribing the nature of public hearings on Development Plans.
· Add language acknowledging process related to Historic Districts.
· Add language to Section 16.9 clarifying: "5% of new or existing?"
· Add references to guidelines in Sections 16.3.1 and 16.7.1.
· Add language about effective date and transition to Development Plan coverage.
Regarding the last change, Mr. Waldon explained that if property is zoned OI-4, then nothing could be done on that property except by a special use permit (SUP) or by approval of the development plan. He said that the previous zoning would apply in the interim period before the development plan is approved.
Mr. Waldon noted that two additional resolutions were included in #6b. He recommended that the Council formally adopt Resolution A, endorsing the use of the guidelines, and Resolution B, which would make an adjustment adding the development plan to the fee schedule. Mr. Waldon said that there also was a recommended fee for the building-by-building site development permit, but suggested eliminating the line that says "OI-4 site development plan $125" and waiting until later to decide about that.
Regarding the rezoning, Mr. Waldon noted the revised recommendation. He pointed out a letter from UNC Chancellor Moeser suggesting the University's willingness to pull some areas back from rezoning. In accordance with that, Mr. Waldon said, the Manager's revised recommendation is that areas be rezoned—with the deletion of a triangle of land bordered by Columbia Street and Old Pittsboro Road, as well as areas five, six and eight. He noted that there was a valid protest petition on file, which meant that approval to rezone the property would require seven affirmative Council votes.
Nancy Suttenfield, representing UNC, stated that the Town Council's votes would solidify the planning partnership that the Town and University had worked so hard on over the past year. She said that the University had tried to be responsive to community concerns by making the changes in their rezoning request that Mr. Waldon had outlined. Ms. Suttenfield noted that the University also had agreed not to develop on the property east of the Wolfenden's until they acquire the property or until July 1, 2009, whichever comes first. She pledged that the University would work with the Mason Farm Road neighborhood to address their concerns prior to and during designing construction of the new student family housing units in that area. Ms. Suttenfield added that subsequent to the last Town-Gown meeting, the University had learned that neighbors in sub-areas two and three west of Pittsboro Street had objected to the rezoning of those areas. She noted that the University had no plan to develop in those areas and would withdraw the request to rezone those. Ms. Suttenfield commented that the University urgently needed to move ahead with submission, review and approval of the development plan for facilities that will be constructed over the next eight years.
Diana Steele commented that the University had made no effort to find another place to put four buildings that will create a problem for her and her neighbors and her preschool. She stressed that people would be much happier if the University would only develop the bond-funded projects.
Ruby Sinreich expressed disagreement with a recent editorial in The Chapel Hill News which stated that the Council had no option but to rezone. She also disagreed with the editorial's assessment that UNC had negotiated with the Town in good faith. Ms. Sinreich stated that there had been several incidents where the Town had negotiated in good faith only to have the University pull the rug out from under them. For that reason, she said, she was uncomfortable with the amount of flexibility in the OI-4 zone. She also expressed concern about the recommendation to build only the bond projects because UNC does need housing. Ms. Sinreich argued that the summer was the wrong time for the Town Council to make such a huge decision and reminded Council members to keep the Town's best interests in mind.
Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, praised the University and Town for working hard to reach this compromise. He said that the Chamber supported the creation of an OI-4 district as a responsible way to bring University properties together in one zoning district with a uniform approach to managing growth. The Chamber believes that a responsible, well-planned, well-sited, and well-designed growth for the University will benefit Chapel Hill, Mr. Nelson said. Noting that the University's success is important to the success of the community, he asked the Town Council to approve the OI-4 zoning district and to zone the areas as the University has asked so that it can realize the growth and improvements it has been instructed to do by the bonds and as contemplated in its master plan.
Kathy Wilber, a Mason Farm road homeowner, commented on sub-area seven. She said that the University once had the opportunity to house all of its students without interfering with the buffer. She asked Council members to ask themselves why the University had not done so, and asserted that the only way to hold UNC to its agreement to observe the buffer is to deny the rezoning of sub-area seven.
Bob Durovich, a resident of Westwood Hills, said that one should not bargain one piece of land for another. Commenting that his children had attended Ms. Steele's preschool, he said that the University was encroaching without caring about people, whom it treats as impediments to its plan. Mr. Durovich asked if someone could explain why tract nine was being recommended for rezoning to OI-4, which he said was a change in direction, and why there is no alternative to rezoning that tract. He also asked how the Town Council would assure that the University considers the concerns of homeowners as it moves forward with development.
Ken Broun said that he was not satisfied with the compromises because the neighborhood is only slightly better off than it was. He pointed out that a University building will abut Diana Steele's preschool playground and that there would be student housing going in across the street from others without any guarantee of a buffer and a traffic plan.
Mr. Broun remarked that his neighborhood does not object to student family housing but only to having it supplant them and intrude into the neighborhood in an unnecessary way. He requested that those with houses north of Mason Farm Road be permitted to live in peace until, at least, the University "boots them out." Mr. Broun also asked for assurances that there would be adequate buffers and that traffic patterns during construction and after will not disrupt the neighborhood. He asked for assurances that the development will not adversely affect the neighborhoods west and south of campus and that those assurances be monitored and enforced through processes that involve both Town government and citizens. Mr. Broun said that he understood how, with the General Assembly hanging over it, the Town Council might feel that it must approve the rezoning. He suggested that Council members provide the necessary protection for the community during the development stage of these proceedings.
Roy Fauber, who lives in the Cameron-McCauley Historic District, thanked the University, the Planning Board, and the Town Council for listening to citizens' concerns, especially regarding areas two and three. He asked them to make sure to remove those areas from the plan. Mayor Waldorf assured Mr. Fauber that she had talked to every Council member about that and it had been worked out.
Stephen Bond, a professional painter working on Diana Steele's property, spoke in favor of Ms. Steele's preschool and of the children there who, he pointed out, had learned to respect adults.
Peg Rees, president of the Mason Farm/Whitehead Neighborhood Association, said that her neighborhood had been presented with a construction timetable that was much earlier than they had previously been told. She also pointed out that there would be about 500 Odum Village replacement units rather than the 306 they had been told. Ms. Rees added that traffic would use Mason Farm Road for many years until the new access road is built, and noted that a unit near the Wolfenden's will be constructed earlier than the University had previously said. She commented that this makes people in her neighborhood wary of the University as it builds its projects. Regarding the review consideration of maintaining property values on adjacent properties, Ms. Rees stressed that "next to" and "adjoining" should include properties that have a road running between them and the University. Otherwise, she said, only properties on the north side of Mason Farm Road—and none on the west side—would be considered adjacent.
Elaine Barney, chair of the Greater Westwood Neighborhood Association, stated that University concessions to Mason Farm fall far short of what it could and should have done, which was to concede the area to its rightful owners who have lived there for many years. She asked that the Comprehensive Plan become a power tool for protecting neighborhoods. Ms. Barney expressed support for the points made by Joe Capowski in The Chapel Hill News, and asked the Council to consider the following points as well:
· OI-4 needs provisions requiring the University to direct its impact away from perimeter neighborhoods.
· OI-4 should require wooded buffers and low building height in transitional areas where feasible.
· OI-4 needs standards regarding height and types of buildings near perimeter neighborhoods.
· The buffer protecting Mason Farm residents from the Smith Center must be kept in tact.
· The development plan and individual site plans must comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
· Given the large scale of the proposed addition to the Ambulatory Care Center and other proposed medical research buildings, there should be a wooded buffer and a transitional height of buildings in this southernmost part of campus.
Joe Capowski, a resident of the Westwood neighborhood, noted that when the late Chancellor Hooker pledged that the University would build "a bed for every undergraduate head" he did not say that those beds would be in the Mason Farm neighborhood. He asserted that this was about University preferences, not needs. Mr. Capowski said that the University owns enough land in Town to grow without taking homes and destroying neighborhoods. He noted that the Town Council's task was to find a balance between the University's preference to grow into neighborhoods and the need to protect the homes and the lives of the people in those neighborhoods. Mr. Capowski suggested that the Council turn to its just-adopted Comprehensive Plan for guidance in determining that balance. He added that the Comprehensive Plan clearly states that neighborhood protection is paramount and that the scales will tilt in favor of neighborhood protection.
Kimberly Brewer, who resides on Purefoy Road, argued that neighborhoods and the Town as a whole need more protection and certainty than is provided by the revised OI-4 district and rezoning, which is being called the compromise solution. She said that UNC's expected development, which will have five million square feet of new buildings, is not a phased approach and is twice the amount that the Town had been told would be submitted. Ms. Brewer said that she and others had suggested that the new OI-4 district cap the amount that could be submitted in a development plan. She noted that the existing O&I-3 zone has such a cap. Ms. Brewer said that the development proposal will be too much for the staff to review in such a short time, and noted that it was citizens who had found errors in the rezoning request last month. She asked the Council to be careful not to approve a development that exceeds what the community can digest.
Council Member Foy explained that he thought the new zone would give the Town certain protections that it has not had in the past, such as minimizing traffic impacts with alternatives to automobiles, widening roads, and improving water quality through managing and monitoring the effects of stormwater runoff. He pointed out that none of that had been in place for the Town to monitor with the old zone and said that this is a better system. During discussions of the actual development plan, Council Member Foy said, is where the Council and citizens will address specific issues. He added that he was not expressing support for rezoning as a result of undue political pressure and that it was insulting to the Council to imply that they would bow to that.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED O-7, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS.
Council Member Brown asked to add, "a development plan shall project… including pollutants and greenhouse gasses" to the last sentence in 16.3 on page eight. Council Member Foy and Mayor Waldorf noted that this referred to the power plant, which was not in the area in question. Council Member Foy asked if Council Member Brown was saying that the development plan had to project anticipated impacts on the power plant. Council Member Brown read, "power plant capacity and emissions including pollutants and greenhouse gases." Mayor Waldorf asked how the Town would measure the greenhouse gases. Council Member Brown replied that the Town would have to determine how to do that. Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member Brown to restate the amendment. Council Member Brown read, "noise, lighting, and power plant capacity and emissions." Council Member Foy said that he would accept that as a friendly amendment, except for the emissions part, then asked Council Member Brown to state all of her amendments so that he could consider them as a group.
Council Member Brown proposed adding "not within the boundaries of an O&I zoning district and not within any Chapel Hill residential neighborhood" to the end of the next to the last sentence on 16.3.2 on page nine. She explained that she was trying to make sure that nothing, such as a parking deck, would be in any residential neighborhood. Council Member Brown asked to delete the first paragraph in 16.4 and to add, "development plan shall address mitigation measures for pollutants and greenhouse gases from the University’s power plant" under B in 16.5. Under C at the top of page ten, she suggested including "an implementation of these measures to be in place before completion of buildings," explaining that she wanted to make sure that there was a schedule of implementation.
Under E, Council Member Brown proposed adding "and that water and sewer capabilities are developed within a framework of overall Town development and other UNC development including Horace Williams and including a worst case drought scenario." Under 16.6, she asked to add "(5) appropriate wooded buffers." In the last paragraph on 16.7.2 on page 11, Council Member Brown suggested including, "the Council will deal with only one development plan at a time and restrict each plan to three million square feet." Under 16.7.3, she asked to add "(3) achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan" and "(4) adhere to the Council approved performance standards."
Mayor Waldorf asked if this referred to the standards that the Council had not adopted yet, and Council Member Brown replied that it refers to when they are adopted.
Regarding 16.8.2, Council Member Brown asked to add "noncompliance with the approved performance standards trigger a halt to further building under the development plan" under the last sentence. Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Karpinos if this is covered by broader provisions of the Development Ordinance. Mr. Karpinos replied that there are enforcement provisions in the Development Ordinance, but they do not go quite as far as Council Member Brown was suggesting.
Under 16.9 on page 18, Council Member Brown noted that B and C had general rules. She asked what the general rule was for D. Mr. Waldon replied that there had been discussion with the Council about that. He said that since the determination would be made on a case-by-case basis the staff did not think it was possible to preordain a standard about what is a significant change. Mr. Waldon said the general guide that they had discussed using was to first determine how close the requested change was to the edge of an area. If it is on the edge then everything needs to be looked at carefully, he explained, and if the open area is larger than proposed then no one would mind, but if it is smaller it would have to be looked at carefully. Mr. Waldon noted that in such sensitive situations a minor change can be approved by the Town Manager but a major change would require Council approval. He pointed out that the Manager had traditionally discussed "gray area" changes with the Town Council as he makes his determination.
Under Purpose and Intent, Council Member Brown asked to add a paragraph regarding the limits of growth from the Council's April 9th unanimously adopted resolution. She explained that the resolution recognizes that there could be a point where the cumulative impacts of University and Town growth would be such that no amount of mitigation would be possible.
Council Member Foy said that he agreed with the sentiments of Council Member Brown's suggestion regarding parking decks, but was not sure how to define what constitutes a residential neighborhood. Mayor Waldorf pointed out that all the Town Council was doing tonight by approving the ordinance and resolution was enabling the University to file a development plan.
Council Member Bateman asked for clarification on how Council Member Brown's suggestion to add buffers in the perimeter transition area was different from landscaping. Council Member Brown said that she sees buffers and landscaping as being different. Council Member Bateman and others noted that such distinctions would be made clear in the development plan.
Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member Foy if any of Council Member Brown's amendments were friendly. He replied that they were not.
Council Member Brown asked if anyone would second any of them.
Council Member Ward said that he favored monitoring and having a mechanism for enforcing standards.
Mayor Waldorf said that it had been her understanding that the performance standards had been structured in a way to achieve that. Mr. Waldon stated that the staff had worked to build in monitoring and were updating the data on traffic and water quality to see if adjustments were necessary.
Regarding enforcement, Mr. Karpinos explained that, considering that standards have been met, there is not much the Town can do if the impact turns out to be greater than anticipated—short of considering that to be the starting point for considering future development. He said that as long as the applicant complies with the standards that were part of the permit then they would be entitled to operate.
Engineering Director George Small noted that in the transportation impact analysis guidelines each of the standards has performance levels that must be achieved. He stated that the Town would ask the University to submit data convincing the Town that they were reaching those goals. Regarding transportation, Mr. Small explained that the Town was asking the University to show what the impacts are and what they will do to mitigate those impacts, and were doing the same with stormwater and light. He said that the Town intended to have performance standards that are measurable and against which they will be able to evaluate mitigation measures once impacts are identified. If the University does not meet the standards that were agreed upon, Mr. Small said, it would be treated like any other project and the application would not get approved.
Mr. Horton added that there would be no basis for approving a site permit if the University did not meet the standards that it told the Council it would meet. He added that if the University did not like that answer then it would have to sue the Town.
Council Member Strom said that the benefit of having a development plan and OI-4 is that the Town does not have to look at piecemeal projects but can evaluate system-wide impacts. He said that the Town will be able to regularly monitor impacts on stormwater and so forth in a systematic way and will have more leverage to request changes. Council Member Strom also said that, unlike Council Member Foy, he had felt pressure from the General Assembly regarding this issue.
Mayor Waldorf agreed that if the Town follows through with this package then it would have an opportunity to review and approve or refrain from approving buildings because of their system-wide impacts. She added that the scope of the project before the Council calls for something beyond what they have had in the past. Mayor Waldorf expressed appreciation that the University had agreed to actually measuring transportation impacts and mitigating stormwater impacts.
Council Member Foy noted that all of Council Member Brown's ideas were good ones, but suggested that she bring them forward again during discussion of the development plan. He added that there were specific measures for monitoring already in this ordinance. Council Member Brown pointed out that everything she had included in her suggestions had come from comments by citizens.
Mayor Waldorf explained that O-7 was to amend the Development Ordinance to create an OI-4 zoning district.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (8-1), WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed amendments to the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance creating a new office/institutional zoning district, and finds that the amendments are appropriate due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows:
SECTION I
AMEND Subsection 3.1.4 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:
3.1.4 Office/Institutional - 3 District (OI-3) and Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4)
The Office/Institutional - 3 (OI-3) and Office/Institutional-4 districts are intended to provide for major educational, research, public service, and office uses, and their necessary support functions, while minimizing conflicts with adjacent land uses.
SECTION II
AMEND Subsection 11.2.2 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:
11.2.2 Applicability
The provisions of this Article shall not apply to:
(a) trees, vegetation and land disturbing activity normally associated with the landscaping, construction or modification, or occupancy of any existing or proposed single-family or two-family dwelling on an individual lot smaller than 5 acres, unless the property owner voluntarily registers a rare or specimen tree as described in 11.6.4, provided, however, that Section 11.5 of this Article shall apply to all public and private lands within the Town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction;
(b) land in the Town's Office/Institutional-3 or Office/Institutional-4zoning districts, provided, however, that Section 11.5 of this Article shall apply to all public and private lands within the Town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction;
(c) routine maintenance of existing vegetation outside the public right‑of‑way, such as pruning, watering and fertilizing;
(d) the removal of dead trees and shrubs, or trees and shrubs that have been diagnosed and determined to be diseased beyond treatment, the burden of proof being placed on the remover;
(e) the removal of soil or vegetation from undeveloped land to allow for noncommercial open space no greater than 1/4 acre, providing this activity does not take place within the critical root zone of any rare or specimen tree.
SECTION III
ADD a new Article 16 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:
ARTICLE 16: OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL-4 ZONING DISTRICT
16.1 Purpose and Intent
The purpose and intent of the Office/Institutional-4 District (OI-4) is to establish procedural and substantive standards for the Town Council’s review and approval of development on large tracts of land where the predominant use is to be college, university, hospital, clinics, public cultural facilities, and related functions.
The objective of this Article and the OI-4 district is to allow for growth and development while protecting the larger community, nearby neighborhoods, and the environment from impacts accompanying major new development. A key feature of this district is the preparation of a Development Plan that would allow the property owner, immediate neighbors, and the larger community to understand specifically what levels of development are being proposed, and what impacts would likely accompany the development, so that mitigation measures can be designed and implemented.
16.2 Overview of Development Review Procedure
Procedures in this zoning district are designed to facilitate:
· Articulation of development plans that involve multiple buildings in multiple locations over an extended time period on a given tract of land, as defined in a Development Plan;
· Identification of total infrastructure needs for such proposed development as specified in a Development Plan and cumulative impacts resulting from full development as specified in a Development Plan; and
· Provision of measures to mitigate the negative impacts, including off-site construction of parking decks as described in Section 16.3.2, phased in a manner appropriate with the pace of construction.
To this end, owners of property zoned OI-4 are encouraged to prepare detailed Development Plans, as described below, for review and approval by the Town Council. For buildings that are included in an approved Development Plan, Site Development Permits for individual buildings are to be issued by the Town Manager, following a determination by the Manager that such individual building plans are generally consistent with the Council-approved Development Plan.
For development proposed within an OI-4 zoning district that is not included in a Council-approved Development Plan, but is a minor change according to the provisions of Section 16.9, the Town Manager may approve a change to the Development Plan and issue a Site Development Permit. For development proposed within an OI-4 zoning district that is not included in a Council-approved Development Plan and that cannot be considered a minor change to the Plan according to Section 16.9, such development shall be considered to be a Special Use, and subject to the Special Use Permit procedural requirements of Article 18. In the alternative, the applicant may apply to the Town Council for an amendment to the Development Plan.
Once a property is zoned Office/Institutional-4, all regulations, standards, and procedures prescribed for the previously-applicable zoning district shall apply until (1) a Development Plan is approved; or (2) six months has elapsed, whichever comes first.
16.3 Development Plan
A Development Plan shall address issues such as general location and size of new facilities, parking, utilities, stormwater management, impervious surface, and access/circulation. A Development Plan shall identify the general location, size, and proposed uses of buildings. A Development Plan shall project anticipated impacts on streets, water and sewer facilities, stormwater runoff, air quality, noise, and lighting.
16.3.1 Submittal Requirements
Application submittal requirements shall include the following:
(a) Specific descriptions of proposed development with building locations, building sizes, parking arrangements, and description of building heights with consideration of impact on adjacent areas.
(b) Analysis of impacts resulting from proposed development, along with options to mitigate impacts relating to:
(i) Transportation Management (traffic, transit, parking, bikes, pedestrians, air quality);
(ii) Stormwater Management Analysis (quantity and quality); and
(iii) Noise and Lighting Analysis.
Individual effects must be evaluated in the context of the whole development plan and not in isolation. Impacts shall be evaluated in accordance with guidelines endorsed for use by the Town Council.
(c) Preliminary timetable and sequencing schedule for building construction and for related mitigation measures.
16.3.2 Off-site Components
Mitigation measures involving construction of parking decks may need to be developed outside the boundaries of the Development Plan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Ordinance, a parking deck proposed to mitigate impacts of a Development Plan, and approved by the Town Council as part of a Development Plan, may be located on a site not within the boundaries of an OI-4 zoning district. Any such facility shall be reviewed as a Site Development Permit according to the provisions of Section 16.8.2.
16.4 Permitted Uses and Development Intensities
Permitted uses shall be identical with uses listed in the “Schedule of Use Regulations” (Section 12.3) as being permitted in OI-3, except that Place of Assembly shall be considered to be a permitted use and not a special use. The maximum floor area allowed shall be as provided in a Development Plan that is approved by the Town Council. Special restrictions apply in Perimeter Transition Areas (see Section 16.6).
For purposes of calculating compliance with a specified maximum floor area, the following land uses shall not be counted as floor area: new residential development (including Dwellings and Residence Halls), and new Public Cultural Facilities.
16.5 Standards
Development in the OI-4 zoning district shall be designed in a manner that provides a mix of uses, which are integrated, interrelated and linked by pedestrian ways, bikeways, and other transportation systems. Development Plans shall, as practical and consistent with applicable laws and regulations, include measures to encourage reduction of automobile use and promote alternative modes of transportation; to mitigate adverse environmental impacts; to promote conservation of non-renewable energy resources; and to achieve visual continuity in the siting and scale of buildings. Specifically, a Development Plan shall address the following:
(a) Noise: Noise levels from development proposed in the Development Plan shall not exceed those allowed by the Town of Chapel Hill Noise Ordinance.
(b) Environment: Development proposed in the Development Plan shall minimize impacts on natural site features, and be accompanied by measures to mitigate those impacts.
(c) Transportation: Development proposed in the Development Plan shall be accompanied by measures to mitigate transportation impacts that are caused by the development.
(d) Stormwater Management: Development proposed in the Development Plan shall be accompanied by measures to mitigate stormwater impacts (quantity and quality) that are caused by the development.
(e) Public Utilities: There shall be a general demonstration that water, sewer, and other needed utilities can be made available to accommodate development proposed in the Development Plan.
(f) Historic Districts: Provisions of Article 6 of this Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within one of Chapel Hill’s Historic Districts.
16.6 Perimeter Transition Areas
A Development Plan shall designate a Perimeter Transition Area establishing appropriate standards at borders of the Development Plan, necessary to minimize impacts of development proposed in the Development Plan on adjacent property, to be approved by the Town Council as part of the Development Plan. Standards shall address:
(i) Screening mechanical equipment
(ii) Exterior lighting
(iii) Height limits
(iv) Landscaping
16.7 Procedures for Approval of Development Plans
Applications for a Development Plan, Special Use Permit, or Site Development Permit shall be filed with the Town Manager.
16.7.1 Application Submittal Requirements
The Town Manager shall prescribe the form(s) of applications as well as any other material he may reasonably require to determine compliance with this article. Applications shall include information described in Section 16.3.1.
16.7.2 Process for Review
Applications for Development Plan approval shall be reviewed by the Planning Board and forwarded to the Town Council for consideration at a public hearing.
Notice of the date, time, and place of the public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the planning jurisdiction once a week for two (2) successive weeks, with the first notice to be published not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty-five (25) days prior to the date of the hearing.
The Public Hearing shall be open to the public and all interested persons shall be given the opportunity to present evidence and arguments and to ask questions of persons who testify. The Council may place reasonable and equitable limitations on the presentation of evidence and arguments and the cross‑examination of witnesses to avoid undue delay. All persons who intend to present evidence at the public hearing shall be sworn.
The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to establish persuasively that the proposed development will comply with the determinations required in Section 16.7.3.
A record of the proceedings of the hearing shall be made and shall include all documentary evidence presented at the hearing.
Town Council action on an application for Development Plan approval shall occur within 90 days of the date of submittal of a complete application.
16.7.3 Council Action
The Town Council shall approve a Development Plan unless it finds that the proposed development would not:
(i)
Maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare; or
and
(ii) Maintain the value of adjacentproperty.
Town Council action shall be to:
(a) Approve;
(b) Approve with conditions; or
(c) Deny.
16.8 Actions After Decision on Development Plan
16.8.1 Recording Approval
If the application for approval of a Development Plan is approved or approved with conditions, the Town Manager shall issue the approval in accord with the action of the Council. The applicant shall record such approval in the office of the County Register of Deeds. The Development Plan, including all conditions attached thereto, shall run with the land and shall be binding on the original applicant as well as all successors, assigns, and heirs.
16.8.2 Individual Site Development Permits
If the Development Plan is approved, or approved with conditions, the Town Manager may then accept applications for individual Site Development Permits for specific buildings that are described in the Development Plan. No work on a building identified on the Development Plan may begin until a Site Development Permit has been issued. The Town Manager shall prescribe the form(s) of applications as well as any other material he may reasonably require to determine compliance with the Development Plan. If the Manager finds that the application is consistent with the Development Plan, he shall approve the application and issue the Site Development Permit within 15 working days of the submittal of a complete application. If the Manager finds that the application
is not consistent with the Development Plan he shall deny the application within 15 working days of the acceptance of the application and refer the applicant to the Special Use Permit process described in Article 18. Alternatively, the applicant may apply for an amendment to the Development Plan.
16.8.3 Expiration, Abandonment, Revocation of Development Plan
If an application for a Site Development Permit pursuant to an approved Development Plan has not been submitted to the Town Manager within two (2) years of the date of approval of the Development Plan, the approval shall automatically expire. On request by the holder of an approved Development Plan, the Council shall approve the abandonment of the Plan if it determines that no subsequent development approvals have been granted and no construction activity has taken place pursuant to the Development Plan. If material conditions of a Development Plan are violated, and remain in violation after giving the property owner a reasonable amount of time to correct such violation, the Council may revoke the Plan after notification to the property owner and opportunity for property owner response at a public meeting of the Town Council.
16.9 Process for Amending Development Plan
The Town Manager is authorized to approve minor changes and changes in the ordering of phases in an approved Development Plan, as long as such changes continue to be in compliance with the approving action of the Council and all other applicable requirements, and result in a configuration of buildings that is generally consistent with the approved Development Plan. The Town Manager shall not have the authority to approve changes that constitute a modification of the Development Plan.
Before making a determination as to whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification, the Town Manager shall review the record of the proceedings on the original application for the Development Plan and any subsequent applications for modifications of the Development Plan, and shall use the following criteria in making a determination:
(a) A change in the boundaries of the Development Plan approved by the Council shall constitute a modification;
(b) A substantial change in the floor area or number of parking spaces approved by the Council shall constitute a modification. (General rule: more than a 5% increase in overall net new floor area or parking in a Development Plan approved by the Council would be considered substantial.);
(c) Substantial changes in pedestrian or vehicular access or circulation approved by the Council shall constitute a modification. (General rule: changes that would affect access or circulation beyond the boundaries of a Development Plan would be considered substantial.); and
(d) Substantial change in the amount or location of open areas approved by the Council shall constitute a modification.
If the proposed action is determined to be a modification, the Town Manager shall require the filing of an application for approval of the modification, following procedures outlined in this Article for initial approval of a Development Plan.
That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION V
That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
Mayor Waldorf explained that R-9a endorses the detailed reports on transportation, stormwater, noise, and lighting standards. She noted that since they had approved the ordinance the Council had to approve these accompanying standards.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED R-9A, AND COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS SECONDED.
Council Member Ward asked for a friendly amendment to include "visual inspections will occur quarterly within the flood plane…"on 4.Ia, on page 39. Mr. Small agreed that this change was appropriate, and Mayor pro tem Pavăo accepted it as a friendly amendment.
THE MOTION AS AMENDED WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING GUIDELINES FOR USE BY THE TOWN COUNCIL WITH CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE OFFICE/ INSTITUTIONAL-4 ZONING DISTRICT (2001-07-02/R-9a)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted a Development Ordinance text amendment which creates a new zoning district: Office/Institutitonal-4; and
WHEREAS, the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district includes application submittal requirements that include provision of analysis of impacts resulting from proposed development, along with options to mitigate impacts relating to:
· Transportation Management
· Stormwater Management
· Noise and Lighting
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed final drafts of the following documents prepared by Town and University staff:
· Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines dated June 26, 2001,
· Stormwater Management Performance Standards dated June 26, 2001, and
· Noise and Light Performance Standards dated May 23, 2001.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that these guidelines are hereby endorsed as amended by the Council on July 2, 2001 for use in evaluating impacts resulting from proposed development identified on a Development Plan in the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
Regarding R-9b, Mayor Waldorf explained that the Manager had recommended setting the acreage fee but would withhold setting a particular fee for site plan review until they get a better Understanding of the cost of reviewing everything.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-9B WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DELETED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES TO ADD A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FEE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FEE (2001-07-02/R-9b)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted a Development Ordinance text amendment which creates a new zoning district: Office/Institutitonal-4; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has, with the establishment of the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district, created two new types of development applications:
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that application of a development review fee would be appropriate for these types of new applications;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Fee Schedule for Development Review (current copy attached) is hereby amended to add the following new fees:
OI-4 Development Plan …………………………………………..$800 + $40/acre
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
6c. Consideration of ordinance and resolution regarding Zoning Atlas Amendment.
Mayor Waldorf explained that the ordinance in the Council's packet would approve the rezoning without the triangular lot at Columbia Street and Pittsboro Road and two, three, five, six, and eight.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED O-8A, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY.
Council Member Brown offered a friendly amendment to include removal of areas seven and nine, adding that these families deserved the Town Council's protection. The mover and seconder did not accept that as a friendly amendment. Council Member Brown then offered it as a motion, but it failed for lack of a second.
Council Member Bateman said that she would support the ordinance, but without joy and enthusiasm. She read a statement in which she commended citizens for standing up for their neighborhoods, for conveying their understandable anxiety, and for defining their disappointment in an institution where they have made their careers and developed strong loyalties. Council Member Bateman praised the strong communication and process through which the University and Town had worked together, as opposed to the actions of the General Assembly, which she described as "slamming the door shut."
Mayor Waldorf concurred with Council Member Bateman's comments, adding that she believed passing the ordinance would make this a much better project. Pointing out that she wished the University had developed a master plan that did not intrude into a neighborhood, Mayor Waldorf said that the Council tried to accommodate the best that they could.
Council Member Wiggins agreed with those sentiments and said that she felt no joy in supporting the motion. She thanked Mayor Waldorf, Mayor pro tem Pavăo, and Council Members Foy and Strom for the hard work that they had done to get the Town to this point. Council Member Wiggins also thanked members of the University and Town staff who had worked so hard on this.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT O-8A WITH AREAS 2 & 3 INCLUDED WAS ADOPTED (8-1) WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL CAMPUS AREA (2001-07-02/O-8a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of the University of North Carolina to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below to Office/Institutional-4 zoning, and finds that the amendment is warranted due to changing conditions in the area, and 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 areas shown on the attached map labeled 1-9, described and discussed at the June 18, 2001 Public Hearing of the Town Council, with the exceptions noted below, shall be rezoned to Office/Institutional-4 zoning.
The exceptions are the following parcels, shown on the attached map, that are to be removed from this rezoning action, thereby retaining their existing zoning. Those removed parcels are:
· The triangular lot at the intersection of South Columbia Street and Old Pittsboro Road, identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map number 7.88.H.1, currently shown on the attached map as being within Area 1.
· The area identified on the attached map as Area 2.
· The area identified on the attached map as Area 3.
· The area identified on the attached map as Area 5.
· The area identified on the attached map as Area 6.
· The area identified on the attached map as Area 8.
SECTION II
That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
Mr. Horton explained that the Town had begun this process with both the University and the Hospital and had continued to work on investigating the feasibility of providing housing for employees and for possibly developing downtown sites for office, retail and parking. He said that the Town does not have sufficient demand from its relatively small employee group to provide this kind of housing on its own, but that the University does and the Hospital could make a significant contribution as well. Mr. Horton noted that the University and the Hospital still have a number of detailed questions about the proposals.
Mr. Horton pointed out that it would not be possible to put forth a significant amount of office space unless the University was willing to make a long-term commitment under favorable conditions that would allow an income stream. Based on the research done so far, he said, the Town could probably undertake a project that would include limited office, retail, and parking on either or both of Town Parking Lots #2 and #5. Mr. Horton recommended that the Council enter into a process that would generate the kinds of objectives and goals that would typically be found in a master plan. There are a number of ways this could be done, he explained, and recommended a relatively short process involving stakeholders in the area and interested citizens, professional staff, and planners. Mr. Horton suggested that the Council consider holding a work session in late August or early September to consider their objectives and how to proceed.
Council Member Brown requested that the staff include a report on 440 West Franklin Street and how that cost figures in.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that any decisions by the University between now and the time this comes back be included in the report, and she offered to get that information.
Council Member Evans wondered if representatives from UNC and UNC Healthcare should be part of the work session. Mayor Waldorf suggested that Council members meet alone first and include them later on.
Council Member Strom noted that there were many options in the report and recommended that all parties be at the table from the start.
Council Member Foy asked if the consultant would be present. Mr. Horton replied that the consultant would not do more work without being paid more money.
Council Member Brown spoke in favor of a public work session and a process later on to obtain public input. Mayor Waldorf supported the motion but suggested appointing a Mayor's committee to meet two or three times over the summer to bring some focused options to the table in August. Council Member Brown asked that this be voted on separately because she preferred not to have a Mayor's committee.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that he had no objection to a Mayor's committee being formed.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT R-11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A WORK SESSION TO REVIEW PROPOSED EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (2001-07-02/R-11)
WHEREAS, the Town Council first considered an Employer/Employee Housing concept in 1999 as a means to implement the Downtown Small Area Plan vision for West Rosemary Street; and
WHEREAS, the Town, University of North Carolina and UNC Healthcare System have funded a study on the concept; and
WHEREAS, the consultant has presented the parties a proposal for developing housing, offices and retail on downtown sites, including Town-owned properties; and
WHEREAS, the proposal relates to many Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Small Area Plan issues, such as parking, transit, land use, neighborhood impacts, historic preservation, public amenities, and urban design;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council agrees to schedule in late August or September a work session, the specific date, time and place to be determined, to consider the Town-University-UNC Healthcare System Employer/Employee Housing development proposal and related matters.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
Item 8 - Bid for Construction of Weaver Dairy Road Sidewalk
Mr. Horton recommended that the Council not allow the building of the temporary sidewalks as originally planned. He explained that since the Weaver Dairy Road project will proceed it would be better to reserve those sidewalk funds for a local matching contribution for the full sidewalk system later on.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED R-12A, AND COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SECONDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DECLINING TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ASPHALT SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEAVER DAIRY ROAD AND DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO REALLOCATE $180,000 IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR THE LOCAL MATCH OF THE COST OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WILL BE PART OF THE WEAVER DAIRY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SCHEDULED BY THE STATE FOR CONSTRUCTION IN 2004 THROUGH 2006 (2001-07-02/R-12a)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has solicited and received bids for installation of an asphalt sidewalk along the south side of Weaver Dairy Road between Cedar Falls Park and the Timberlyne Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, the Council endorsed a State funded improvement project for Weaver Dairy Road which would include installation of concrete sidewalks along both sides of the improved road within the next two to three years, including the segment between Cedar Falls Park and the Timberlyne Shopping Center referred to above; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered this matter and has determined that it would not be good public policy to utilize the Town’s tax base to finance the construction of an asphalt walkway two or three years before the State tax base finances the construction of a concrete sidewalk in the same area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council rejects all bids and declines to award a contract for construction of an asphalt walkway along the southern side of Weaver Dairy Road between Cedar Falls Park and the Timberlyne Shopping Center.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to reallocate $180,000 in the Capital Improvements Program for the local match share of the cost of sidewalk improvements which will be part of the State’s Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project scheduled for construction to start in 2004 and to be completed in 2006.
This the 2nd day of July, 2001.
Item 9 - Appointment: Historic District Commission
The Council appointed Branson Hobbs to the Historic District Commission.
Applicants |
Waldorf |
Bateman |
Brown |
Evans |
Foy |
Pavăo |
Strom |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
|
|
Richard Barrett |
|||||||||||
|
James Bullock |
|||||||||||
|
Branson Hobbs |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
Item 10 - Petitions
10b. By the Manager and Attorney. None.
Item 11 - Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items
Regarding Item 4i, Council Member Strom said that Section 5, paragraph F on page 16 of the agreement was a key provision that the Chapel Hill representatives on the Water and Sewer Service Boundary Committee had fought tooth and nail for. He expressed concern that removing that paragraph would indicate that the Town would be willing to extend water and sewer service into Chatham County. Council Member Strom said that he was not in favor of doing that and wants the Council to know exactly what it is doing by removing that paragraph.
Mr. Horton said that it would be better if the Council did not act on this tonight since Chris Berndt, who worked on it, was not present and the staff could not provide a clear answer.
Council Member Strom agreed to wait, but then asked about the recommendation in the agreement not to use the new map. He expressed concern that not advocating for the new map might indicate a willingness to go back to the old service boundary lines. Council Member Strom asked what the process would be to advocate for the new map in this agreement.
Mr. Horton replied that he thought the intent was to undertake that kind of process. He recommended bringing that back as well with more complete information on both issues.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO DEFER 4i TO COME BACK WITH MORE COMPLETE INFORMATION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m.