SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Engineering Director George Small, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 2 – Public Hearings: Zoning of Newly
Annexed Parcels in Durham County
Mr. Horton reminded the Council that the parcels under discussion were small ones, remnants of land needed to be brought into the Town to complete the annexation on its eastern border. He said the Legislature granted the Council’s request for annexation and now the Town needed to zone the land.
Ms. Berndt said the staff was requesting the Council to consider adopting an ordinance on the zoning at this evening’s meeting because the General Assembly adopted legislation annexing these areas into Chapel Hill, and the Town must zone the property within sixty days. Ms Berndt said, in preparation for this evening’s meetings, notices were mailed to property owners affected by the annexation as well as property owners within 1,000 feet of the property. She said the proposal was to zone the properties Residential-1, and pointed out that the Planning Board recommended approval of the zoning. Ms. Berndt said the staff recommended adoption of Ordinance 1, which provided for Residential-1 zoning under Chapel Hill zoning.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS ESTABLISHING ZONING FOR NEWLY ANNEXED PARCELS (2001-09-24/O-1)
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly on August 8, 2001 ratified Senate Bill 657, which added three parcels to the corporate limits of Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, Chapel Hill zoning must be in place within 60 days of the effective date of annexation or the area will have no zoning regulation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:
That the portion of the site identified as now or formerly Triangle Township Tax Map 478, Block 1, Lot 8B that Durham County currently has zoned Residential-20 shall be zoned Residential-1.
That the portion of the site identified as now or formerly Triangle Township Tax Map 478, Block 1, Lot 7 that that Durham County currently has zoned Residential-20 shall be zoned Residential-1.
That the portion of the site identified as now or formerly Triangle Township Tax Map 478, Block 3, Lot 19 that that Durham County currently has zoned Residential-20 shall be zoned Residential-1.
The description of this site to be zoned are indicated on Map 1.
SECTION II
That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 24th day of September 2001.
Item 3 – Petitions
a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
1. Request for Expedited Review of the Special Use Permit for Recycling Facilities at Eubanks Road Landfill.
Mr. Horton said the petition was self-explanatory, and the staff will return to the Council with a recommendation for expedited treatment.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
2. Kristen Willett, Carolina Athletic Association of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Ms. Willett said the Athletic Association was again sponsoring several events for its annual Homecoming Week with many activities planned for students and community, with a theme “Building New Traditions.” She said, with the permission of the Council, the Association would like to sponsor a Homecoming Parade on Friday, November 9, 2001, with a total of 50 participants and lasting one hour. Ms. Willett said the parade route would begin at the Bell Tower Parking Lot and end at the Granville Towers parking lot. She said she had already been in contact with Officer Jack Terry of the Chapel Hill Police Department and Officer Jeff McCracken of the University Public Safety Department, regarding the officers needed to enforce the safety of the streets and the participants of the parade. Ms. Willett said the parade guidelines were enclosed in the petition. She asked for the cooperation of the Council in closing the necessary streets for the parade.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3. Dorothy Verkerk, requesting signalized pedestrian crossing light at on N.C. 54.
Ms. Verkerk petitioned the Council for a signalized pedestrian crossing light at the intersection of Burning Tree and Hamilton Drives and N.C. Highway 54. She described her difficulty in trying to cross the highway at this intersection and the fact that the pedestrian tunnel was filled with water and mud.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Foy asked if the tunnel was finished. Mr. Horton said he did not believe it was, but the staff would follow up on the question.
4. Nancy Garson-Argent, member of the Committee for Human and Animal Safety.
Ms. Garson-Argent urged the Council to adopt the same ordinance adopted by the Orange County Commissioners, regarding the display of wild and exotic animals for entertainment purposes. She described treatment of wild animals in circuses as often inhumane and brutal. Ms. Garson-Argent said most of the animals displayed behavior indicating extreme stress. She said there had been many instances of exhibited exotic animals going out of control and endangering the public. Ms. Garson-Angert said there were many communities in the United States which had adopted such ordinances, and there was considerable community support in the Town for such an ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
5. Vernell Jones, representing the Northside/Chapel Hill Community.
Ms. Jones read a petition concerning complaints from the community about the drug dealers, drug traffic, and drug users in the neighborhood. She said the petition requested that immediate action be taken to resolve the drug problems in the Northside community, and that the citizens were dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking to resolve this problem. Ms. Jones said the community had been complaining about the problem for more than 10 years, and that it was time for the problem to cease. Ms. Jones urged the Council to provide the resources to rid their community of the problems created by drugs.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf added a request to the Manager that as he looked into this issue, that he have the staff ask some questions about the extent this problem was attributed to police surveillance and enforcement, and to what extent it could be attributed to the operations of the criminal justice system.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2001-09-24/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 to Distribute Salary Reserve (O-2). |
|
b. |
Consideration of Acceptance of Bureau of Justice Assistance Block Grant (R-2); (O-3). |
|
c. |
Revision to Sanitation Ordinance Related to Rules for Curbside Roll-carts (O-4). |
|
d. |
Consideration of Resolution Establishing Commercial Refuse Collection Fees (R-3). |
|
e. |
Consideration of Multi-way Stop Signs on Rosemary Street at Boundary Street (O-5). |
|
f. |
Calling a Hearing Regarding Request to Close the Hillcrest Road Right-of-way (R-4). |
|
g. |
Acceptance of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Drug Elimination Grant (R-5); (O-6). |
|
h. |
Resolution Authorizing Maintenance and Storage of a Fire Safety Trailer (R-6). |
|
i. |
Follow-up Report on the Sykes Street Action Strategy (R-7). |
|
j. |
Ordinance Authorizing Salary Increases for Town Manager and Town Attorney (O-7). |
|
k. |
Request for Street Closure for University of North Carolina University Day (R-8). |
|
l. |
Waste Reduction Pilot Program (R-8.1). |
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND "THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001” (2001-09-24/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 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
GENERAL FUND
Non-Departmental
Reserve for Pay 640,000 640,000 0
Mayor/Council 231,128 896 232,024
Town Manager/Clerk 967,261 24,867 992,128
Personnel 566,481 13,920 580,401
Finance 1,336,169 24,481 1,360,650
Legal 217,078 6,542 223,620
Planning 1,053,028 25,209 1,078,237
Inspections 600,285 12,639 612,924
Engineering 947,298 21,851 969,149
Public Works 9,697,244 154,937 9,852,181
Police 8,770,857 193,699 8,964,556
Fire 4,616,792 98,513 4,715,305
Parks & Recreation 2,061,601 26,269 2,087,870
Library 1,859,462 36,177 1,895,639
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (2001-09-24/R-2)
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Assistance have made funds available to enhance the quality of law enforcement services provided to local communities; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Law Enforcement Block Grant application in the amount of $53,673 was approved by the Bureau of Justice Assistance; and
WHEREAS, the block grant funds would be used to purchase supplies and equipment that would increase training opportunities, provide technology upgrades, and help to implement crime prevention programs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to accept the Bureau of Justice Assistance Law Enforcement Block Grant and to make all necessary assurances.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 (2001-09-24/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, 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
GENERAL FUND
Police 8,964,556 53,673 9,018,229
ARTICLE II
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND
Grants 605,143 53,673 658,816
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON GARBAGE, TRASH AND REFUSE (2001-09-24/O-4)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Sec. 8.5 is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Section 8-5. Garbage and household waste cans; construction; location.
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 4:00 6:00 p.m. on the day beforecollection,
with containers removed before 6:00 a.m.on the day following collection.”
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTIONS BEYOND THE BASIC NON-FEE SERVICE LEVEL OF ONE WEEKLY COLLECTION PER CONTAINER PER BUSINESS (2001-09-24/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Town Council adopted a new policy establishing a basic non-fee service level and additional services for set fee(s) for commercial establishments; and
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Services Division staff members have met with each commercial establishment to complete a waste audit to determine each business’s collection needs; and
WHEREAS, the accompanying table of fees establishes costs for services beyond the basic non-fee service level based on recovery of operating costs for providing commercial refuse collections;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that commercial fees are set according to the accompanying table of fees for businesses needing commercial refuse collection service beyond the non-fee service level of one weekly collection per container per business. Pursuant to this fee schedule, businesses sharing a dumpster will receive an additional non-fee weekly collection and tax exempt businesses will receive collections at one half of the applicable fee. Furthermore, these fees will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process and adjusted, if necessary, based on recovery of operating costs.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING STOP REGULATIONS (2001-09-24/O-5)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 21-13(a) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by deleting the following:
“Through Streets Stop Streets
Rosemary Street
Boundary Street”
Section 2. Section 21-13(c) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by inserting the following, in appropriate alphabetical order:
“Intersection(s)
Rosemary Street and Boundary Street”
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective October 22, 2001.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CLOSURE OF THE HILLCREST ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (2001-09-24/R-4)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby declares it’s intent to consider closing the Hillcrest Road right-of-way as shown on Orange County Tax Map 7.56 which said right-of-way is approximately 40 feet wide and 1,050 feet in length, and calls a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., Monday, November 19. 2001 in the Council Chamber at Town Hall, 306 N. Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC to receive public comments on the proposed closing of said right-of-way.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is hereby directed to arrange publication, posting, and mailing of notices of the hearing as required by law.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A PUBLIC HOUSING DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (2001-09-24/R-5)
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has made funds available to public housing agencies to assist in the elimination of drug-related crime from their communities; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the Town of Chapel Hill to provide drug prevention, intervention and referral to treatment programs for its residents of public housing; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development's Drug Elimination Plan was approved by HUD in the amount of $82,552;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Manager to accept the Drug Elimination Plan grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and to make all necessary assurances.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A DRUG ELIMINATION GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE (2001-09-24/O-6)
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; the following project ordinance is hereby established.
Section I
The project authorized is the Drug Elimination Grant submitted to U.S. Department of Housing and Department of Housing and Urban Development April 2001; funds are as contained in the grant agreement between the Town and by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Section II
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the project within the terms of the agreement document(s), the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the budget contained herein.
Section III
The following revenue is available to complete the project:
Drug Elimination Grant $82,552
Section IV
The following amounts are appropriated for the projects noted below:
Police Housing Investigator 33,600
Drug Prevention Activities 47,452
Drug Intervention 1,500
Total $ 82,552
Section V
The Finance Director is hereby directed to maintain within the Project fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to HUD as required by the agreement(s) and federal regulations.
Section VI
Funds may be advanced from General funds for the purpose of making payments as due. Reimbursement requests should be made to HUD in an orderly and timely manner.
Section VII
The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of each project in Section IV and on the total revenues received.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO PROVIDE STORAGE, MAINTENANCE, ADMINISTRATION OF AND INSURANCE FOR THE FIRE SAFETY HOUSE, OWNED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE CHIEF’S COUNCIL (2001-09-24/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Orange County Fire Chief’s Council raised $22,000 in donations from various organizations, including a significant donation from the family of the late Carol Warren, who served as Fire Department Secretary for over 29 years, for the Fire Safety House, a mobile classroom that is used primarily to teach burn prevention and fire escape techniques to children;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to provide storage, maintenance, administration of and insurance for the Fire Safety House, owned by the Orange County Fire Chief’s Council.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN’S CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN IMPLEMENTING A PLAN FOR MAKING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SYKES STREET NEIGHBORHOOD (2001-09-24/R-7)
WHEREAS, in December 2000, Orange Community Housing and Land Trust and EmPOWERment, Inc. proposed a partnership among community organizations, neighborhood residents, the University of North Carolina Department of City and Regional Planning, and the Town of Chapel Hill to develop an Action Strategy for the Sykes Street area; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2001, the Council authorized the Town’s participation in developing an Action Strategy for the Sykes Street area; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2001, students from the UNC Department of City and Regional Planning presented a report to the Council that included recommendations for making improvements in the Sykes Street neighborhood;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the town of Chapel Hill that
the Council endorses the Sykes Street Action Plan and authorizes the Town’s
continued participation in implementing a plan for making improvements in the
Sykes Street neighborhood.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the use of $300 of Community Development funds for class expenses related to the project.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2001 (2001-09-24/O-7)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan (2001-08-27/O-4) is amended as follows:
In Section IV, part B, under Elected and Appointed Officials, DELETE the lines
Position: No.
Town Manager 1 $121,000
Town Attorney 1 $110,000
and ADD the lines
Position: No.
Town Manager 1 $127,050
Town Attorney 1 $115,500
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A STREET CLOSING OCTOBER 10 THROUGH 13, 2001, AS REQUESTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA (2001-09-24/R-8)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the University’s request to close the part of Cameron Avenue from Raleigh Street to South Columbia Street between 8:00 a.m. October 10 and 8:00 a.m. October 13, 2001 subject to conditions to be set forth by the Town Manager or Manager’s designee, which may include the following:
1. Personnel shall be on duty at the ends of the closed street areas to ensure access for Town, University and other emergency vehicles into the closed area if needed.
2. The University shall designate a contact for coordination and communication with the Town regarding the street closing.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to approve minor adjustments in the time and location of the requested street closing.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager be given administrative authority to approve future street closures for future University of North Carolina events which require the closure of Cameron Avenue between Raleigh Street and Columbia Street.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH A PILOT PROGRAM FOR WASTE REDUCTION IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR OF THE TOWN AND REQUESTING THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD TO PURSUE FUNDING WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2001-09-24/R-8.1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to proceed with detailed planning and implementation of a pilot program for waste reduction in the commercial sector as outlined in the report of the Commercial Waste Reduction Task Force.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the Town’s representatives to the County Solid Waste Advisory Board ask the Solid Waste Advisory Board to recommend that the Orange County Commissioners provide necessary funding for the pilot program.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
Council Member Brown requested removal of Item 5e, and asked the Council if they would be willing to have the representatives to the Solid Waste Advisory Board make a presentation.
Chapel Hill representatives to the Board Jan Sassaman and Albert Vickers presented a summary of the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board’s activities. Mr. Sassaman said that a number of issues had been addressed during the year, and the substantive ones were:
· The impact on landfill operations of a County-wide construction debris landfill,
· Funding alternatives for water supply to homes on Rogers Road, adjacent to the landfill,
· The solid waste enterprise budget,
· Associated solid waste management plan,
· The potential effects that waste disposal and recycling trends in Orange County and the three towns may have on the economics of the solid waste enterprise itself, and
· Chapel Hill’s proposal for a “Pay-As-You-Throw” Trash Collection Ordinance.
Mr. Sassaman said that the Advisory Board had repeatedly returned to the Solid Waste Management Plan for Orange County, which had been endorsed and approved by the various County governments. He said the role of the Board was not to modify the Plan but, rather, to advise the County Commissioners on how to accomplish the goals specified in the Plan.
Council Member Brown said that one of the goals the Council had for the Board was to give the Council an update periodically on how the County was going forward with the Solid Waste Management Plan, particularly in relation to the waste reduction goals. Mr. Sassaman said that one of the issues associated with achieving that goal (61%) will be some significant concerns associated with financing, and the Board had an ambitious plan to try to come up with some recommendations for alternative financing to the Board of Commissioners, which will occur in January.
Mr. Vickers added there were other items such as mixed waste, collection for recycling, and processing.
Council Member Brown said that if the Public Works facilities go up near the capped landfill, she was requesting the delegates and the Council to consider the use of the methane from the landfill to help the Town in generating power that would be necessary for the Public Works facility. She asked if it would be agreeable to the Council to have the delegates explore the possibility, and work with the staff to bring that to the Advisory Board. Mr. Sassaman said the possibility had been discussed, but not in detail.
Council Member Ward said he would be in favor of the suggestion and wondered if that might be expanded to explore alternatives for landfill uses as positive for the community.
Council Member Foy requested removal of 5c—Report on Use of Town-Owned Athletic Playing Fields, and 5d—Status Report on Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for Schools.
Patrick Sullivan, on behalf of Rainbow Soccer and the Orange County Soccer Group, said he had read the memo from Dr. Cooper recommending usage of the soccer fields in the future, which requested that the Homestead and Scroggs fields not be used until mid-April. He said the fields would be used through mid-November, then close in mid-November until mid-April. Mr. Sullivan proposed that the memo be sent back to the Manager to review it with the Orange County soccer organizations. He commented that if the soccer fields were closed until mid-April that would eliminate the entire spring season, for soccer and any other related activities. Mr. Sullivan recommended monitoring the fields better and limiting the number of activities, and limiting it to just children, who have a smaller impact on the turf.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE COMMENTS FOR A REPORT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Regarding Agenda Item 5d, Council Member Foy said he felt that the momentum for the School’s Adequate Public Facilities was slowing down.
Council Member Wiggins said that she and Mayor pro tem Pavăo had attended the work group meeting and she felt the momentum was strong. She said as soon as a draft was voted on, the document would be distributed to all of the governing bodies. Council Member Wiggins said the goal was to bring back two documents which addressed all questions, and hopefully there would be a document which everyone could agree upon.
Council Member Foy said he would like to have a document that the Council could sign off on by the beginning of December.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo said he thought the Council wanted to have a document on which all could agree as soon as possible. He said if the Land Use Council made no more changes, the document should come back to the Council soon.
Council Member Bateman said she thought the discussion was worth more than simply a memo, and she appreciated Council Member Wiggins saying that the Ordinance had not lost momentum. She said she wanted the Council to see the document before a new Council was seated.
Council Member Wiggins said that Mr. Waldon, Mr. Horton, Mayor pro tem Pavăo, and she could not attend the last meeting scheduled because of a Council meeting, so the meeting to finalize the document was rescheduled at their request. She said it would be a mistake to rush the document without attending to all of the issues that several boards wanted addressed in the document.
Council Member Evans said she understood that the document might be changed enough so the Council would have to hold another public hearing, and some of the other communities had not yet held their public hearings.
Mayor Waldorf said she, personally, would like to vote on the issue before she left the Council.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that he and Council Member Wiggins would do everything they could to get it to the current Council.
Council Member Wiggins said that, after the summer break, the process was gearing up again, and believed that this kind of ordinance and memorandum-of-agreement would do a lot to coordinate the planning between the construction of schools and building new residences in Chapel Hill. She said she did not believe there was any resistance to this issue, and the Town’s attorneys were insisting that the Council’s concerns be addressed.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo reminded the Council that the Land Use Council was organized three years ago and the emphasis on putting the document together was quite intense over the last few years. He said the document had come a long way and he was confident that the Land Use Council would go along with it, but he could not guarantee that.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION THAT IT IS THE SENSE OF THE COUNCIL THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PROPOSED ADEQUATE SCHOOLS FACILITIES ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF THEM BEFORE DECEMBER 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Wiggins added the understanding should be that the document might not be ready by that date.
Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal reported that the staff had a field meeting with the homeowners, and the sources of the silt and sediment were discussed. Some minor issues upstream had been found, he reported, and he had asked Dr. Larry Band to discuss watershed dynamics, because the petitioners had brought up good subject matter related to artificial impoundments on creeks and how they should be managed.
University of North Carolina Professor of Geology Dr. Larry Band made a presentation with overheads:
· Overview of urbanizing watersheds: runoff production, sedimentation, nutrient loading.
· Context and drivers for present conditions found in Chapel Hill watershed
· Stormwater management practices goals and impacts
· New and ongoing knowledge and practices for stormwater control
· Land use change impacts on sediment load and stream shape in the Piedmont since European colonization.
· Land use change impacts.
· Lake Ellen Eastwood Lake sedimentation from a combination of natural sources, construction site derived, and remobilized stream bed and bank.
· In order to prevent future erosion, Urban Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control runoff, sediment, pollutants.
Council Member Strom asked Dr. Band if he might be aware of other ordinances that would help in drafting the Town’s Development Ordinance. Dr. Band said there could be some in the large number of smaller projects, where there can be a large amount of sedimentation and coordination between the various water agencies, and the ability to raise the revenue to maintain the infrastructure.
Council Member Strom said the scouring of the banks was the key issue when talking about sedimentation, and he asked Dr. Band if the key element was the rate of release of stormwater. Dr. Band said that was probably what one had the chief control over, and it was a lot easier to control at new construction sites. But, he added, retrofitting areas was more difficult depending on the density. He said it was essential to get the controls in the smaller streams and routing water before it had the ability to infiltrate directly to the stream channel.
Council Member Foy asked how this played into on-site management for each individual residence. Dr. Band said that in many other areas of the country and the world people have rain barrels on their downspouts, and use the water for other things, such as watering lawns.
Council Member Bateman read one of the suggestions from the Lake Ellen community, and asked for Dr. Band’s comment. She said there was a suggestion that the Council lower the limit of disturbed land area from which runoff must be controlled to a minimum of 8,000 square feet. Dr. Band responded that putting erosion controls on smaller development projects would be useful.
Mayor Waldorf said that on page 3 of the staff memo, it was suggested that the Council should think about not exempting subdivisions from stormwater control regulations. She said the Council could go on record that the issue be rewritten as part of the Development Ordinance. Mayor Waldorf said the Council could also go on record that it wanted the Stormwater Utility Committee to specifically address #2 on page 3 of the memo, “Consideration of mitigating the altered hydrology to streams in the developed watersheds…” She said the Manager was suggesting that the Town make an offer to be of assistance to the Lake Ellen Homeowners’ Association, if they wished to initiate some correction to their problem. Mayor Waldorf encouraged the Council to make motions on some of the items.
Council Member Strom said he wanted assurance that the Council could continue to work on the recommendations on October 10, during discussion of the Development Ordinance. He asked that it remain an open topic.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO HAVE THE STAFF WORK WITH THE LAKE ELLEN HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ON THIS ISSUE.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD ADDED TO THE MOTION THAT THE BOTANICAL GARDENS AND OWASA ARE PRESENTLY IN A PROCESS OF WORKING TO SEE IF SOMETHING COULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY ABOUT DESTROYING STREAM SIDES, AND HE ASKED THAT THE STAFF LOOK INTO WHAT THE TWO AGENCIES ARE LOOKING AT TO SEE HOW THEY MIGHT ADDRESS LAKE ELLEN CONCERNS AS WELL AS CONCERNS TOWN-WIDE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 7 – Report on Proposed Revisions to the Noise Ordinance
Police Chief Gregg Jarvies briefly reviewed the background to the current proposed ordinance. He said the Noise Ordinance Study Committee was established in May of 1997, and charged with investigating various types of noises and evaluating methods of reducing the levels of noises that were determined to be particularly disturbing. Chief Jarvies continued, saying that in September 1999, the Council authorized the Manager to contract with Environmental Noise Consultants, Inc. (ENC) of Raleigh to conduct a comprehensive review of the Town’s noise ordinance, and they presented a draft of a noise ordinance at a public hearing April 18, 2001, for comment.
Chief Jarvies said the principle differences between the current ordinance and the one proposed by the staff were:
· The standards against which sound levels are measured are expanded to include not only the A-frequency weighted sound level (dBA), but also the pitch or frequency content of the noise.
· All sounds no matter the source, are measured against the same decibel limits.
· Allowable sound levels at property boundaries are based on the primary use of the property.
· Nighttime sound levels for residential properties are reduced by five decibels.
· Sounds from boom boxes and car sound systems are restricted.
· Permits to exceed sound levels are issued only for Friday and Saturday events.
· Exemptions for government services are limited.
Chief Jarvies continued:
Issues raised by citizens regarding regulation of noise in general:
· Allowable sound and decibel levels
· Permits to exceed sound levels
· Retroactive application of new standards to existing systems
· Nuisance Noises
· Exemptions to noise restrictions
· Penalties and enforcement
Chief Jarvies said the staff recommended that the proposed ordinance not be applied retroactively to current mechanical systems, but any new systems would be required to meet the recommended standards. He added that if the proposed ordinance was adopted on October 10, 2001, that it not become effective until March 1, 2002 so that:
· The Town would be prepared to implement and enforce a new ordinance.
· A new noise meter with increased measurement capabilities must be purchased.
· Town employees must receive training in the ordinance and the use of the new meter.
· A comprehensive public education program must be developed and offered throughout the community.
Noise Consultant Dr. Larry Royster encouraged the Council to give the proposed ordinance a chance, and that it was a good balance of all the needs in the community. He asked that the Council include the three recommendations in ENC’s letter, which included education procedures to prevent problems before they developed.
Marc LaBranche, a resident of Coker Hills, said he generally supported the proposed changes to the Ordinance, but he was concerned about the proposed hours of the sanitation services from 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., which he believed should be the same as the hours for other exempted activities. He said the sanitation services hours could interrupt sleep hours if allowed. Mr. LaBranche said he lived behind the Library and he could hear noise from Elliott Road and Franklin Street, and he had been disturbed by the sound of the trash dumpsters.
Gary Bird said he agreed with Mr. LaBranche, and he asked if the exemptions applied to the recycling dumpsters at University Mall. Mr. Horton said he believed that the stipulation which applied to the recycling dumpsters would override the Ordinance. Mr. Karpinos concurred.
Linda Convissor, speaking on behalf of the University, said that the University had some concerns about the specific language in the Ordinance, and would like to submit written comments next week.
Barbara Crockett, Principal of Montessori Community School, said that without the “grandfather clause” the school would be faced with replacing an air conditioning system approved and installed in 1995. She said the school supported the idea that retroactivity not be made a part of the new Ordinance, that existing mechanical systems be maintained in proper working order, and that existing systems that are replaced must meet a new standard. Ms. Crockett said the standard of replacing or retrofitting these systems were unfair hardships to the small business operators, especially those non-profits such as the school. She added, as a private citizen, that it was her opinion that all recycling and sanitation services should be exempt from the provisions of the noise ordinance, so the workers could work when it was cooler and there was less traffic.
Diana Steele, a resident of Mason Farm Road, said she would like to have the Noise Ordinance in place before the Development Ordinance was passed so the rules would apply to the construction scheduled to occur on Mason Farm Road.
Baird Grimson, President of the Westside Neighborhood Association and a member of the Noise Ordinance Committee, said he fully supported the Noise Ordinance, as did the Association. He said the criteria the Committee had in the proposed Noise Ordinance specifically addressed the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the University and the commercial buildings, which is part of the present Noise Ordinance. Mr. Baird said the decibel levels were measured scientifically and objectively in the Town, and actually were somewhat lenient compared to the actual measurements taken. He said the Association had worked hard to get the Ordinance in place, and it would protect the neighborhoods adjacent to campus from the noise associated with the University Master Plan’s projected growth.
Velma Perry said she worked on the noise ordinance, agrees with it and thinks the Town can benefit from it. However, she said, there are a few things that she would like to have from the old noise ordinance. Regarding rules for residential neighborhoods to submit requests for permits through 12:00 midnight, she said the wording should be changed to until 12:00 midnight and they must take the guests inside of the house so that residents can get some sleep. Also, Ms. Perry said, the old ordinance says that you must lower noise levels starting at 9:00 p.m. She would like to see those two things put back into this ordinance.
Council Member Brown, Chair of the Noise Ordinance Committee, said she appreciated the work of the staff, Chief Jarvies, Captain Johnson, and Drs. Larry and Julia Royster. She said that it was well understood at the public hearing last spring that the Noise Ordinance should be adopted and effective before the final approval of the University’s Development Plan, so the University could be subject to the new Noise Ordinance. Council Member Brown said that would not happen with the Manager’s recommendation because it would not be approved before October 10, and the Development Plan would be coming before the Council on October 3, 2001, for a vote. She said the way to ensure that the University is subject to the new ordinance is to make it effective before its Development Plan is approved.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE WITH A MODIFICATION TO SECTION 2 ON PAGE 23 WITH THIS LANGUAGE: “THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 24, 2001, EXCEPT THAT PROVISIONS REQUIRING NEW EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE ENFORCED UNTIL MARCH 2, 2002, IN ORDER TO ALLOW TIME FOR TRAINING AND IN THE USE OF THE NEW EQUIPMENT. “
Council Member Evans said that the University is a large player in this and is someone we have not heard from. She said they were part of the public, which the Council always encouraged for public input. Council Member Evans said she was in favor of Council Member Brown’s intent, but she felt the Council needed to allow time for input before the Ordinance was adopted. She suggested changing the date so that could be allowed. Council Member Evans said she found a concern on page 17, under “Exemptions” 11-40A, in the discussion about outdoor athletic events on the campus, and “campus” needs to be further defined or identified as University-owned property. She said that was far too general, and she was sure that there were other clarifications in the document which needed to be addressed. Council Member Evans said the Council needs to have public input because there had been no notification to the University that the Council was planning to take action this evening.
Mayor Waldorf said that the Council was not holding a public hearing tonight. She said she thought the Attorney and the Manager had a different view of how this Ordinance, if adopted this evening or in two weeks, might affect projects that might be approved under the University's Development Plan and it is important to get that on record.
Mr. Horton said he and Mr. Karpinos had no objection to the proposal before the Council, and that the suggested language would still allow the staff to proceed as it needed to acquire the equipment and be in a position to enforce those sections of the Ordinance, once the equipment was present and the staff was trained. He said he would like to make clear and in the record, that he and the Town Attorney believed that the manner in which the staff had proceeded to work with the University would make it clear that the controlling Ordinance for noise regulation would be the Ordinance provisions that are in effect at the time that an individual site permit is issued for a particular building or other aspects of development on the University campus. He recognized that there might be differences of opinion in the action that the Council was considering which would certainly be warranted in the most conservative view, but the staff believed the stipulations that had been negotiated with the University and the application guidelines which they previously agreed to made it clear that if a subsequent Council makes a further modification of the Noise Ordinance, even if it is more strict, those new modifications would apply to any site permit that was under consideration at a future time.
Mr. Karpinos said that the Manager had correctly stated what he believed to be the understanding with the University, based on the Noise and Light Performance Standards that were adopted by the Council in July, and as proposed in the Resolution of Approval of the Development Plan which will be put before the Council for its consideration on October 3, 2001. He said that if the language in that Resolution of Approval remains the same, and the Council chooses to adopt that Resolution, then that would set the noise regulations for the University to be those which are in place at the time a site development permit is approved. If a site development permit is submitted and approved before the effective date of the Ordinance, Mr. Karpinos said, then the old Ordinance would apply.
Mr. Horton said that what he and Mr. Karpinos wanted to make sure was that this viewpoint and their analysis is included in the record, in case at some future time someone wishes to go back and look at legislative intent.
Council Member Brown said she would like to get the staff memorandum which came to the Council August 9, 2001, on the UNC Development Plan on Noise and Light into the record. She quoted “Noise levels from the development proposed in the Development Plan will not exceed those allowed by the Town of Chapel Hill Noise Ordinance in effect at the time the Development Plan is approved, each site development plan for buildings within the approved Development Plan will conform to the noise and light performance standards adopted by the Council.” Council Member Brown said that seemed very clear to her that the Noise Ordinance in place at the time the Development Plan is adopted is the one the University would follow, which was why she felt it was important to go ahead this evening.
Mr. Karpinos said the guidelines approved by the Council on July 2, 2001 said, “The Town Council has reviewed final drafts and the Council adopts these guidelines as included in the Noise and Light Performance Standards, May 23, 2001, and those standards speak in terms of the noise ordinances established at the time the development receives final Town approval. Each application for a site development plan is required to demonstrate it will not exceed the standards of the Noise Ordinance.” Mr. Karpinos continued, saying there was a clear understanding that it is the standards in place at the time the site development plan is approved which would apply.
Council Member Foy said he seconded Council Member Brown’s motion because it was his intent to ensure that there was no ambiguity, and there could not be difference of opinion about what any wording means if the Ordinance was in place prior to approval of the Development Plan. He added the Ordinance could be amended if necessary. Council Member Foy said the Council has the option at this point of implementing the ordinance that is unquestionably of record prior to the approval of the University’s Development Plan. He said if the Ordinance was approved subsequent to the approval of the Development Plan, there could be potential for ambiguity.
Mr. Horton clarified that the material which Council Member Brown read from was material that was included in a submittal by the University, and was pointed out as being in error in the material the staff responded to with Council. He said it was material written by the University, not the Manager.
Council Member Wiggins said she was confused, and it was her wish to support the Noise Ordinance, but she did not want to put the Town’s regulatory relationship in jeopardy with the University. She said before she committed either way she would like more clarification. Council Member Wiggins said she would support Council Member Brown’s Resolution as long as the University cannot take that to the Legislature, because she felt that the relationship the Town had with the University presently was delicate. Council Member Wiggins said such action might look like the Town was not working with the University in good spirits, and she would like to hear from the University. Council Member Wiggins said this was not just a noise issue at stake, particularly that with this on the record, it was targeted toward the University.
Council Member Ward asked if there was an opportunity to accomplish both, to give the University an opportunity to come back with comments, and to get the Noise Ordinance passed before enactment of the Development Plan.
Mr. Horton said the Council was scheduled to consider action on the Development Plan from the University on October 3, 2001. He said there was time between now and October 3, 2001, for the University to provide written comment and the Council could also schedule consideration of the Noise Ordinance on October 3, if it so wished. Mr. Horton said he and Mr. Karpinos’ intent was not to object to the motion put forward, with which they saw nothing wrong, but they simply wanted to clarify for the record their belief that the record clearly showed that future modifications of the Noise Ordinance will have to be met by any site plan permit presented by the University, subsequent to the adoption of any future modification.
Council Member Ward said it seemed like what was being discussed for adoption this evening could also be accomplished on October 3, 2001, if the staff got in writing that the University concurred with the rules that would regulate noise or any other regulations associated with their site plans geared to the time that the site plan was approved, rather than the date of the Development Plan.
Council Member Wiggins said she did not mean that the University should write the Noise Ordinance, but she wanted to make sure that there was an understanding on both sides, so that at some later point the Council cannot be accused of not living up to an agreement.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Horton to clarify his last statement. She assured the Council that the University was part of the Noise Ordinance Committee from the beginning, with four representatives taking part in discussion, and there had been a public hearing on these issues in the spring. Mr. Horton said that they did not object to the motion before the Council, but that they wanted to make clear for the record, that they believed that any site plan permit which the University seeks in the future will be subject to noise regulations adopted by the Council and exist at that future time and that has been agreed upon. He said the final draft of the Noise and Light Performance Standards adopted by the Council and approved by the University state that noise levels shall not exceed noise levels allowed by the Town of Chapel Hill Noise Ordinance, as established at the time that the development or redevelopment received final Town approval under Article 16 of the Development Ordinance. Mr. Horton said that was clarified to mean site plan approval, and there was similar information in the proposed stipulations that the University was well aware of and the Council had received as the information about the University’s Development Plan. He reiterated that nothing has been changed, it just restates what has already been agreed to.
Council Member Evans asked if Chief Jarvies, in consideration of exemptions, meant those soccer fields owned by the University but not on the main campus were also included as main campus. Chief Jarvies said any athletic field would be considered part of the main campus.
Council Member Wiggins said it sounded like the Council could pass the motion tonight, and the University would have to conform to that when their plans come to the Council. Mr. Horton said that was correct, and the Council also could modify the Ordinance two years from the present and any specific site plan coming in after that time would have to comply with the modified Ordinance.
Mayor Waldorf said it was her understanding that whether the Ordinance was adopted tonight or adopted on October 10 was not relevant to whether the University put a project that might come in under a University-approved Development Plan. She said each project will need to comply with the agreed-upon Noise Standards adopted by the Council on July 2, 2001, and were agreed upon by the University.
Mr. Horton said the key thing the staff was trying to do was to make clear that the Town understands and respects that there is a more conservative view, and they simply disagree with it. He said the more conservative view put forward was that the only ordinance that could ever apply to the University Development Plan or any portions of it was the ordinance that exists at the time that the Development Plan was adopted, rather than at the time individual site plan permits were adopted. He said the specific motion that was put forward would create no harm. Mr. Horton said that because this Ordinance was of particular interest to the community, the staff recommended that it be put forward for discussion on one evening and voted upon another evening.
Council Member Wiggins asked Council Member Brown if her Committee had considered Ms. Perry’s concerns, and, if so, how was it resolved. Council Member Brown said they had addressed Ms. Perry’s main concern, which was boom boxes and that was in the present Ordinance, adding she would be glad to put her other concerns into the form of a motion. Mr. Horton noted that Chief Jarvies indicated that the language was the same and had not changed.
Council Member Evans said that in all fairness, instead of adopting the Noise Ordinance this evening, the Council could get the public and the University’s written statement, and if there were exceptions or problems they could be addressed before the Council takes the vote. She said that, if taking the conservative route, the Council could adopt it at a later time before it adopted the University Development Plan. Council Member Evans said it was unfair of the Council to adopt the Ordinance this evening when a major player, the University, had not had a chance to weigh in on it. She said she would be happy to support a motion to adopt the Ordinance before the Council adopted the University’s Development Plan, but to do so this evening seemed unfair.
Council Member Ward said he continued to be unsure about whether there was a list of primary categories and his concern was based on the lower decibel that needed to be adhered to if a residential property is being abutted. He asked what methods were being introduced to integrate mixed use into the community. Chief Jarvies said in its discussions the Committee had considered how to integrate properties with varying uses, and the primary focus was on reducing noise to residential properties at night.
Council Member Bateman said the Council had held several public hearings on this issue, and she planned to support the motion. She said she would hope that Ms. Convissor would convey the University’s concerns, and she would still be open to future amendments if appropriate. Ms. Convissor said the University was very much under the belief that the Ordinance that is in effect at the time the site development plan is submitted will be the one that holds. Ms. Convissor said that some of the concerns were:
· Semantics—such as the word “thoroughfare”.
· A provision limiting University events that are exempt to only twice a year, a large concern of the students.
· How emergency generators are viewed both in their maintenance and their operations in times of emergencies.
· Sanitation issues—sanitation services start as early as 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m. from the Friday Center.
Council Member Ward called the question.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 8-1 WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS VOTING NAY.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE III OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING NOISE (2001-09-24/O-8)
Sec. 11-37. Article designated noise control code.
This article shall be known as the "Noise Control Code for the Town of Chapel Hill."
Sec. 11-38. Terminology and standards.
(a) Terminology.Major terminology used in this article is defined below. Terms not defined herein shall be in conformance with applicable publications of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or its successor body.
(1) A-weighted sound level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-frequency-weighted network and slow meter responsesetting. The level so read is designated dB(A).
(2) Decibel (dB): Unit of level when the base of the logarithm is the tenth root of ten and the quantities concerned are proportional to power. Unit symbol, dB.
(3) Sound pressure level:Ten times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of the time-mean-square pressure of a sound, in a stated frequency band, to the square of the reference sound pressure in gases of 20 micro Pa. Unit decibel (dB); abbreviation, SPL; symbol, Lp.
(4) Sound level meter: Device used to measure sound pressure levels with a standardized frequency weighting and indicated exponential time weighting for measurements of sound level, or without time weighting for measurement of time-average sound pressure level or sound exposure level.
(5) Sound level weighted sound pressure level: Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the squared A-frequency-weighted sound pressure to the squared reference sound pressure of 20 micro Pa, the squared sound pressure being obtained with slow (S) (1000 ms) exponentially weighted time-averaging selected. Unit decibel (dB). [However, herein the unit for A-frequency weighted measurements will be referred tosimply as dB(A).]
(6) Time-interval equivalent
continuous A-frequency-weighted sound pressure level: Ten times the logarithm
to the base ten of the ratio of the time-mean-square instantaneous A-frequency-weighted
sound pressure during a stated time interval T, to the square of the standard
reference soundd
(7) Time-interval equivalent continuous band sound pressure level: Sound pressure level for sound contained within a restricted frequency band during a stated time interval T. Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviated as L b,eq,T.
(8) Filters: Herein refers to either an octave-band or one-third octave-band frequency filter as defined in ANSI S1.1-1994. Measurements with the A-frequency weighting filter provide a single overall sound level for a noise source after the contribution of the low frequencies has been significantly reduced. Octave-band and one-third octave-band filter measurements provide more accurate information about the frequency pitch characteristics of the noise source.
(9) Emergency work: Any work performed for the purposes of maintaining public safety, preventing or alleviating physical trauma or property damage threatened or caused by an existing or imminent peril.
(10) Steady-state sound: A steady-state sound is one that exists twenty-five percent of any one-measurement interval. A measurement interval is a continuous period of fifteen seconds. Examples would include music sources, PA sounds, exhaust fan noise, heating and air-conditioner noise, etc.
(11) Adjoining Property: Property which shares a contiguous boundary with another.
(b) Instrumentation, requirements and measurement procedures: The instrumentation requirements, personnel training or qualifications and reporting procedures to be used in the measurement of sound as provided for in this section shall be those as specified herein:
(1) Sound level measurements shall be obtained following the general guidelines outlined in the references listed below and as specified in documents formulated by the city pertaining to the enforcement of this code.
(2) Sound level meters shall be of a least Type Two as defined in ANSI S1. 4-1997for integrating-averaging sound level meters. The sound measurement system shall be serviced and calibrated and operated as recommended by the manufacturer or as outlined in the general order defined in (4) below.
(3) Persons using the sound measuring equipment and related instrumentation shall be trained in its proper operation, use, and care.
(4) The town manager or his designee shall issue a general order adopting standards and procedures for sound level measurements and enforcement consistent with this article.
(c) References:
(1) ANSI S1.43-1997. American National Standard Specifications for Integrating-Averaging Sound Level Meters. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY.
(2) ANSI S1.4-1983 (R 1997). American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY.
(3) ANSI S2.11-1966 (R 1993). American National Standard Specifications for octave, half-octave, and third-octave band filter sets. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY.
(4) ANSI S1.1-1994. American National Standard Acoustical Terminology. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY.
(5) ANSI S3.20-1995. American National Standard Bioacoustical Terminology. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY.
(6) ANSI S1.40-1984(R 1997). American National Standard Specification for Acoustical Calibrators. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY.
Sec. 11-39. Maximum permitted steady-state sound levels and sound pressure levels.
(a) No person or group of persons shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound in such a manner as to create a root mean square (rms) steady-state sound level that exceeds the limits set forth either in Table 1 or in Table 2 when measured at any point on the boundary planes of the property line from which the sound originates, or beyond.
(1) A-frequency-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels:
Table 1. Maximum Sound Level Limitations at the
Property Boundary-Plane by Primary Use Category, dBA
Primary Use Category Daytime * Nighttime *
Residential 50 45
Business, Office, 65 55
Shopping Center, Thoroughfare, 70 65
and Industrial
* Daytime and nighttime are defined in section 11-39(d).
(2) One-Third Octave-Band Sound Pressure Levels:
Table 2. Maximum One-Third Octave-Band Sound Pressure Level Limitations At The Property Boundary-Plane by Primary Use Category, dB
One-Third One-Third
Octave-Band Octave-Band SPL, dB
Center Frequency, Hertz Residential Business, Office, Commercial, Institutional
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
16 83 78 98 88
20 75 70 90 80
25 67 62 82 72
31.5 60 55 75 65
40 57 52 72 62
50 56 51 71 61
63 55 50 70 60
80 54 49 69 59
100 53 48 68 58
125 52 47 67 57
160 51 46 66 56
200 50 45 65 55
250 49 44 64 54
315 47 42 62 52
400 45 40 60 50
500 43 38 58 48
630 41 36 56 46
(b) In Table 2, the allowed one-third octave-band sound pressure levels for the nighttime and daytime for the shopping center, thoroughfare and industrial boundaries are +5 and +10 dB higher than is defined for the daytime business, office and commercial, and institutional boundary planes.
(c) When the primary use of the property where the noise is produced differs from the primary use of the adjoining sound-receiving property, then the maximum permitted sound levels or sound pressure levels which will apply are the lower of the levels shown in Tables 1 and 2 for the two primary use categories involved.
(d) For purposes of this ordinance daytime is defined as 7:00 am until 11:00 pm and nighttime is defined from 11:01 pm until 6:59 am from Sunday through Thursday. For the days of Friday and Saturday daytime is defined as 7:00am until 12:00am and nighttime is defined as 12:01am until 6:59 am.
Sec. 11-39.1. Nuisance noises.
(a) It shall be unlawful to create, cause or allow the continuance of any unreasonably loud noise, particularly during nighttime, which interferes seriously with neighboring residents' reasonable use of their properties. Steady state noises that do not exceed the allowable sound levels as defined in Section 11-39 (1, 2) are not nuisance noises. Nuisance noises may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Yelling, shouting, whistling or singing.
(2) Noisy parties.
(3) Loading operations. Loading, unloading, opening or otherwise handling boxes, crates, containers, garbage cans, or other similar objects.
(4) Repair of motor vehicles. The repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle.
(5) Sound amplification equipment, television, or musical instrument.
(1
(2
(3
(4
(5
(11) Security alarms. The sounding of a security alarm, for more than twenty (20) minutes after the owner or responsible party has been notified by law enforcement personnel.
(b) It shall be unlawful to operate a vehicle sound system on public or private property, or a boom boxon public property, in such a manner that the sound emanating from such equipment is detectable at a distance of 30 feet from the source.
Sec. 11-40. Exceptions.
The following are exempt from the provisions of this article:
(a) Sound emanating from regularly scheduled outdoor athletic events on the campus of the University of North Carolina, or on the grounds of local schools, or parks.
(b) Construction operations from 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends for which
building permits have been issued, or construction operations not requiring
permits due to ownership of the project by an agency of government; providing
all equipment is operated in accord with the manufacturer's specifications, and with all standard
equipment, and with
(c) Noises of safety signals, warning devices, emergency pressure relief valves, all church bells and the bells of the Bell Tower and the bell on South Building on the University of North Carolina campus.
(d) Noises resulting from any authorized emergency vehicle when responding to any emergency call or acting in time of emergency.
(e) Sound at street fairs conducted by or for the Town of Chapel Hill.
(f) An official all-campus University of North Carolina event, held on the University Campus, no more than one weekend in duration, occurring no more often than twice per year.
(g) All noises coming from the normal operations of properly equipped aircraft (not including scale model aircraft).
(h) All noises coming from normal operation of motor vehicles properly equipped with the manufacturer's standard mufflers and noise-reducing equipment.
(i) Noise from lawful fireworks and noisemakers on holidays and at religious ceremonies.
(j) Lawn mowers, agricultural equipment, and landscape maintenance equipment used between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends;providing all equipment is operated in accord with the manufacturer's standard mufflers and noise-reducing equipment in use; and is in proper operating condition. When practical, such equipment shall be located so as to minimize the noise impact on surrounding residences.
(k) Musical accompaniment or firearm discharge related to military ceremonies.
(l) Emergency work necessary to maintain public safety, or to restore property to a safe condition following an accident or natural disaster, or to restore public utilities and infrastructure following an accident or natural disaster, or to protect persons or property from an imminent danger.
(m) Noises resulting from the provision of government services necessary to maintain the public infrastructure.
(n) Noises resulting from work performed by non-government agencies, provided that such work is necessary to maintain the public infrastructure, and that a permit for the work has been issued by the town.
(o) Noises resulting from the provision of sanitation and recycling services between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. in accordance with a permit issued by the Manager.
(p) Any other noise resulting from activities for which a permit allowing exemption from this article has been granted by the Town. Regulation of noises emanating from operations under such permit shall be according to the conditions and limits stated on the permit.
Sec. 11-41. Permit to exceed noise limits.
(a) A person or group of persons may apply for a permit specific to the time and place of a planned activity in order to produce or cause to be produced sound no more than 10 dB in excess of the sound limits specified in Section 11-39 only during the daytime hours on Friday and Saturday.
(b) Any person or group of persons desiring a permit shall apply as provided herein, and shall provide all information required.
(c) Any person desiring a permit to exceed the sound level limits as specified herein and for the allowed times must apply seven days prior to the activity for which the permit is requested.
(d) In considering and acting on all requests or permits pursuant to this article, the town manager shall consider, but shall not be limited to the following, in issuing or denying such permit: The timeliness of the application; the nature of the requested activity or event; the time of the event; the duration of the event; other activities in the vicinity of the location proposed; the frequency of the application; the effect of the activity on the residential areas of the town; previous experience with the applicant; and previous violations, if any, of the applicant.
(e) In addition, in order to issue a permit, the manager must determine that granting such a permit would have minimum or no impact on the surrounding area, or that the event is of a community-wide nature.
(f) A permit granted under this section will require the payment of a fifty dollar ($50.00) administrative fee.
(g) Permit holders agree to contact at least one adult at every residential address within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the property boundary of the site for which the permit has been issued. Such notification must be made in writing using the notification form provided by the police department, and be done at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the starting time of the permit.
(h) Permit holders agree to cooperate with town officials in enforcing this noise ordinance by having the signer(s) of the permit available at the site of the event during the entire time for which a permit has been issued and capable of assisting town officials in enforcing the noise ordinance
Sec. 11-42. Violations.
(a) When it is reasonable and practical to do so, a person believed to be violating any portion of this article may be givenan oral order to cease or abate the noise immediately,or as soon as is reasonable or practical, prior to being charged with a violation.
(b) If the order to cease or abate the noise is not complied with, the person or persons responsible for the violation may be charged with a violation of this article.
(c) A person or group of persons will not be deemed to haveviolated Section 11-39.1a of this article unless the noise being created, caused, or allowed to continue by said person(s) is reported on at least two occasions, at least twenty minutes apart, by different complainants at two different locations, or unless the noise is of such a nature that a reasonable person should have known that the noise was a nuisance as defined in Section 11-39.1(a).
(d) Steady-state sounds, created by existing sources and/or equipment in place and operational prior to the effective date of this ordinance,and maintained in good working order, are not violations of this article if the sound levels created do not exceed the limits allowed by ordinance prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
Sec. 11-43. Penalties and Enforcement.
(a) Any violation of this article is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine not to exceed $150, imprisonment for not more than ten days, or both.
(b) Violation of section 11-41 of this article is cause for immediate revocation of a permit to exceed normal sound limits.
(c) The town manager or the town manager’s designee may deny a request to receive a permit to exceed the normal sound limits to any person or group of persons who have, within the previous six months, violated any condition of this article.
(d) Violations of this article may also be enforced by assessment of a civil penalty of up to $500 per day as provided by law. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. The manager shall determine the amount of the civil penalty to be assessed under this section, shall make written demand for payment upon the person responsible for the violation, and shall set forth in detail the violation for which the penalty has been invoked. If payment is not received or equitable settlement reached within sixty (60) days after demand for payment is made, a civil action may be initiated to collect said penalty. In determining the amount of the penalty the manager shall consider the extent of the inconvenience or harm inflictedby the violation, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with the ordinance.
(e) In addition to the civil and criminal penalties, the Town may institute legal procedures for injunctive relief for any violation of the article.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective September 24, 2001, except that the provisions requiring new equipment shall not be enforced until March 2, 2002, in order to allow time for training in the use of the new equipment.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT THIS ORDINANCE, BY PETITION, MAY BE APPLIED TO ALL EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE, AND PROPERTY SHALL BE ALLOWED A GRACE PERIOD OF UP TO AT LEAST THREE YEARS IN WHICH THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BRING EXISTING MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW STANDARDS. THIS WAS TO BE PART OF THE ORDINANCE ADOPTED.
Council Member Ward asked for the opinion of the Attorney. Mr. Karpinos stated that it was a complicated issue and he would like the opportunity to provide input at a later time.
Council Member Brown withdrew her motion, since it was a concern of the Council.
Council Member Evans said it was also a concern of the business community, who commented on the immense costs of replacing all of their facilities throughout the community, and she would like to hear the Attorney’s comment.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO REFER HER MOTION TO THE ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATIVES’ COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Brown left the meeting, unexcused, at 9:15 p.m.
Item 8 – Response to Petition Regarding Moratorium
on Development at Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road
Planning Director Roger Waldon said this issue was before the Council in response to three petitions. He said one petition was from a neighborhood, the second was from the Transportation Board, and the third from the Community Design Commission. Mr. Waldon said they were different and described different areas of concern, but all were similar in that they requested that the Council call a moratorium on development in similar, but separate, areas in the northeast section of Town. Mr. Waldon reminded the Council that a moratorium was an amendment to the Town’s Zoning Atlas, a temporary rezoning, and required the same process that any other rezoning would. He said the process for rezoning would be typical, requiring a notice to property owners, a review by the Planning Board, public hearing by the Council, and action.
Mr. Waldon said attached to the memorandum in tonight’s materials was an article by David Owens, faculty member of the Institute of Government, in which he described the key points needed to be included in a moratorium. He said that one of the key points in the memorandum would be identification of any actions that would be taken during the period of moratorium to address the concern identified. Mr. Waldon displayed a map and identified the shaded parcels where development applications and proposals have been received. He said all other existing developments, or those under construction, were also identified. Mr. Waldon added that five different development proposals had been described by these petitions. He pointed them out on the map:
· Europa Office Building Special Use Permit (SUP)
· Eastowne 501 Office Building SUP
· Marriott Residence Inn Rezoning and SUP
· Jefferson Commons at Chapel Hill Rezoning and SUP
· Notting Hill II Rezoning and SUP
Mr. Waldon said included in the memorandum was an evaluation of the idea of a moratorium, and a number of reasons why the staff thought that a moratorium was a tool that was not well suited to the situation. He said, in recognition of different opinions on the moratorium, the staff had offered a series of options:
· Resolution A—schedule a Work Session
· Resolution B—instruct the Town Manager not to schedule any public hearings on rezoning applications in the areas described in the petitions until the Council conducts such a Work Session
· Recommend adoption of both resolutions.
· Resolution C—call a public hearing on a moratorium.
Ann Hill, representing a group of concerned citizens, felt this was an undue concentration of current and future construction between Erwin Road, I-40, and Highway 15-501. She said there were nine neighborhoods represented. Ms. Hill described, with overheads, the changes over the past six years in the neighborhoods with new developments, some requiring rezoning. She said the infrastructure was not currently meeting the needs of the community, and the group felt that a moratorium would be helpful.
Mac Clarke, a resident of the Windhover Development, described the difficulty of making a left turn onto Erwin Road during peak traffic hours of the day. He said that Erwin Road was already at more than 100% of capacity without any new developments. Mr. Clarke said the collision rates at the intersections of Weaver Dairy and Sage Roads with Erwin Road had more than doubled since 1996. He said that the new developments would primarily use Erwin Road as exit routes. Mr. Clarke said the neighborhoods did not believe that the DOT plans for widening the intersections of Erwin Road and Highway 15-501 and Erwin Road and Sage Road would have any affect on the Erwin Road traffic, but might attract more traffic to Erwin Road. He advised the Council that good planning required study of the impact of new developments before development, not afterwards.
Eve Beringer Klein said she wanted to address the impact of new developments on the school system, the extreme overcrowding in several schools cited, overcrowding on school buses without use of seat belts, and trailers for additional classrooms. She asked the Council to consider letting the schools catch up so the children could be accommodated in a successful manner.
Mark Newman, a resident of Englewood Drive, said the neighborhoods faced many water run-off problems, as did the Lake Ellen neighborhoods. He distributed a photo to the Council of the background of his home. Mr. Newman said the photo was taken several days after a 2-inch rain, and the water was waist deep about 30 feet from the end of his yard. He said OWASA staff had visited the site several times during the summer to try to improve water flow. Mr. Newman said further development would increase these problems.
Harvey Krasny, a homeowner in Summerfield Crossing, invited the Council to come to the intersection of Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road at peak traffic time to observe the bumper-to-bumper traffic. He asked that the Council, before it approved any more development on Erwin Road, consider the consequences in added traffic. Mr. Krasny agreed with the staff report that a Marriott Hotel was not an appropriate use in this location. He said the neighborhoods had been bringing their concerns of the developments since 1997, and he came before the Council with the same concerns in 1986. He read part of his statement at that time. Mr. Krasny asked for approval of a moratorium.
Jeff Fiendt, an Erwin Road resident, supported Mr. Krasny’s remarks regarding traffic, and wondered what the impact would be with the new developments. He asked the Council to look at the total picture.
Jim Baker said he would support the Council’s vote for Resolutions A and B.
David McFarling, a resident of Old Oxford Road East and a lifelong resident of Chapel Hill, said before Erwin Road was paved, it had heavy traffic on it. He said there was unbridled development along Erwin Road and it was creating a very dangerous and inconvenient traffic situation. Mr. McFarling said his father was nearly killed in his own front yard by a car crashing through. He said what was needed was a plan to manage the development and traffic on Erwin Road. Mr. McFarling said the area had always been rural, and was now zoned Medium-Density Residential.
Frank DiMauro, a resident of Windover and President of the East Chapel Hill High School PTA, said he was concerned about the lack of pedestrian walkways on Erwin Road and Weaver Dairy Road, and there was no safe place to ride a bicycle to the school. He asked for a moratorium or no approval for new construction.
Matt Barkling, an Englewood Drive resident, said that Ephesus Church School was over-capacity, Philips School was slightly over-capacity, and Estes Road Elementary School was at capacity. Mr. Barkling said that three of the proposed developments did not conform to the current zoning. He said the undeveloped land near I-40 looked like it had a very high capacity to absorb run-off and inhibit erosion. Mr. Barkling reported the Presque Isle subdivision at the corner of Sage and Erwin Roads had stopped construction, but was not completed and was proposing more construction. He noted that a number of facts given in the memorandum on traffic density numbers are on land that is not supposed to flood to waist-high water. He challenged the statement of the staff on adequate infrastructure.
Council Member Foy said he could support a moratorium, but he was not sure what the effects of the moratorium would be, because the Council needed to know what the affects of the cumulative developments would be. He asked if the moratorium was different from the Work Study Group’s recommendation with regard to how a potential Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance would interplay with it.
Mr. Waldon said if the Council did choose to declare a moratorium, one of the key points would be what it would want to accomplish during that moratorium period. He said that the difference between a moratorium and the recommendation about a Work Session was that a moratorium required a public hearing, so the Council could not set a moratorium this evening, but it could call a Work Session and instruct the Manager to not calendar any of the zoning applications until the Work Session took place.
Council Member Foy asked if the Council passed an Adequate Public Facilities for Schools Ordinance by December 1, 2001, and it was immediately binding, would it matter whether a moratorium had been initiated and would expire in June 2002. Mr. Waldon said it did not matter the way the Ordinance was being structured at the present. He said the current version of the draft likely to come before the Council was of a nature that an application for a residential development could come to the Council and, after approved by the Council, the developer would have to go to the school district for a certificate of adequacy.
Mr. Horton added that one of the things that the Council could decide to do after having the discussion in January would be to proceed with calling for a moratorium, so he did not see that as a delay of anything except when the Council might consider the issue.
Mayor Waldorf added that in January the Council might decide to establish a Work Group to do a Small Area Plan and hold consideration of any developments in abeyance until that Plan was complete. She said it was not as legally cumbersome as a moratorium, and she felt there was a less complicated way to do this.
Mr. Horton said there was a clock that began ticking once a moratorium was declared, and a moratorium cannot extend indefinitely. He said it had to end at some point.
Council Member Foy said if the Council did not declare a moratorium, then it needed to give the residents some assurance that what action the Council took would be binding in some sense. He asked what kind of assurance would be given by declaring a Work Group. Mr. Horton said the Council could set a schedule.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked if the schedule would be established at the first meeting of the Work Group. Mr. Horton said that could be done if the Council wished to do so.
Council Member Strom said that one of the citizens asked what kind of information existed presently versus what the Council would be receiving if it decided to have a Work Session in January. He asked Mr. Waldon what kind of information the Council would be receiving prior to a Work Session. Mr. Waldon responded that there were a number of pieces of information that had not yet been compiled, such as the 15-501 Investment Study with a study of land-use in the 15-501 corridor, traffic data, and the traffic statements that had been prepared for other developments in the area. He said the staff could be reviewing the Town’s Parks and Open Space planning for this part of Town. Mr. Waldon said stormwater information was available on maps, and projections of school-age populations could also be obtained.
Council Member Bateman requested the study by the DOT for the proposed superloop and the relocation of Weaver Dairy Road four lanes, to see what the impact would be. Mr. Waldon said that was another piece of information that was available and should be studied.
Mayor Waldorf said she thought it might make sense for the Council to appoint a Work Group to address this issue on a fixed time frame, with Chairs or Vice-Chairs of the advisory boards involved, plus representatives of the neighborhoods involved, to pull together all the information available to create a Small Area Plan.
Council Member Strom asked when Mayor Waldorf was suggesting that the process begin. Mayor Waldorf said she thought the Manager’s suggestion to hold a Work Session in January was a fine suggestion and if the Council wanted to move forward now, people could start working on it. She said she felt it was the way to proceed, by getting the boards together with the citizens.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION CALLING A WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONS (2001-09-24/R-9a)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received requests for study of areas in the northeast sections of Chapel Hill, as described in a neighborhood petition received May 21, 2001, a petition received June 25, 2001, from the Transportation Advisory Board, and a petition received June 25, 2001, from the Community Design Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to have an opportunity to review information describing current and projected conditions in these areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council schedules a Work Session for January 2002, to review such information.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
Mr. Horton said the Council meetings currently scheduled were: January 14, 2002, a regular Business Meeting; January 23, 2002, a Public Hearing night; and January 28, 2002, another Business Meeting. Mr. Horton said the Council could meet a couple of hours before those meetings. He said the staff could take a poll to see which date would be acceptable.
Council Member Foy stated that by taking this course of action the Council had decided not to declare a moratorium, at least for the time being. He stated that in order not to mislead anyone the Council needed to be clear that it would not be stopping the two developments which had a right to development without rezoning. Mr. Horton said that the Council had encouraged the redevelopment of Ram’s Plaza and he felt that would be a desirable community objective, and that the two developments not needing rezoning could go forward.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9B.
Council Member Bateman said she wanted to make sure that any action taken by the Council would not preclude any effort by the Orange Community Development Corporation (HCDC) and the Land Trust for affordable housing on the Town-owned land in the area. She said these two entities needed to apply for a tax exempt credit. Council Member Bateman said that two letters had been sent to the Council by Mr. Dowling and the Council had not yet responded.
Mr. Karpinos said Resolution 9b would have an effect on these entities if the areas needed rezoning.
Mr. Horton said there was a fairly long lead time on this kind of work, and he did not know if a rezoning would have to be in hand before an application could be applied for through the federal process.
Robert Dowling, Executive Director of HCDC, said the rezoning and the SUP had to be in hand by April 2003. He said the initial application for tax credits occurs in January 2003.
Council Member Foy asked for clarification of the Work Group process for not issuing permits by the Manager. Mr. Horton said none would be scheduled until the staff received clarification from the Council’s action.
Council Member Wiggins asked what would happen for affordable housing in the area under discussion, and asked if that should be part of the discussion.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO TOWN MANAGER REGARDING SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARINGS (2001-09-24/R-9b)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received requests for study of areas in the northeast sections of Chapel Hill, as described in a neighborhood petition received May 21, 2001, a petition received June 25, 2001, from the Transportation Advisory Board, and a petition received June 25, 2001, from the Community Design Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to have an opportunity to review information describing current and projected conditions in these areas, and has scheduled a Work Session for this purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council instructs the Town Manager not to schedule Public Hearings on rezoning applications for the areas described in the petitions until after the Town Council has conducted this Work Session.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
Item 9 – Response to Petition from Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighbors
Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt reviewed the petition. She stated that on June 11, 2001, the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association asked the Council to help them in developing a small area plan and in creating a residential conservation overlay district. She said the staff had considered 3 options:
1. Development of a small area plan for the neighborhood, which the staff says is premature because of the schedule in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Designate the area a residential conservation area on the Town’s Land Use Plan. The Council could consider applying at the present time would be to consider expanding the residential conservation area on the Town’s adopted Land Use Plan.
3. Designate the area a Neighborhood Conservation District when the draft Development Ordinance is adopted. There would be in that Ordinance a mechanism for establishing a Neighborhood Conservation District. That option was premature, but could be a later option.
Ms. Berndt said the Resolution before the Council would begin to initiate a process to amend the Town’s Land Use Plan. She said if the Council adopted Resolution 10 the staff would come back with a process that would include a public hearing for considering amending the Town’s 2000 Land Use Plan to expand it as shown on the map she had displayed.
Heidi Chapman, President of the King’s Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association, said that they supported the staff’s recommendation as to the residential conservation area. She asked the Council to move as quickly as possible to amend the Land Use Plan and to schedule a public hearing to amend the Plan. Ms. Chapman said they would like to be considered for the neighborhood conservation district when the Development Ordinance was enacted.
Diana Steele, a resident north of the area under discussion, said she would like to urge the Council put into place anything it could, legal and procedural, to protect any of Chapel Hill’s remaining neighborhoods. She said the area was a precious resource for the community.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10.
Council Member Evans asked what effect a petition to protect these neighborhood would have on an application for development in the neighborhood. Ms. Berndt responded that the main advantage of definition on a comprehensive Land Use Plan was that if there was a rezoning involved, one of the findings in a rezoning was that it comply with the Comprehensive Plan, so the Council, when evaluating information, could use the Comprehensive Plan and its designation to make its decision. She added that if it were an SUP the same would apply, so the Council would have additional policy in place so it could be used in evaluating the SUP. Ms. Berndt said for a subdivision it would not apply.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION INITIATING A process to amend the Town’s Land Use Plan to designate the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek area a Residential Conservation Area (2001-09-24/R-10)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council received a petition from the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association requesting assistance in the planning of their neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhood is adjacent to the University of North Carolina campus and may be affected by future growth of the University;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby initiates a process to amend the Town’s Land Use Plan to designate the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek area a “Residential Conservation Area,” and directs the Manager to return to the Council with a report outlining a process for this amendment, including a date for a Public Hearing.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
Item 10 – Process for Developing Downtown Master Development Plan
No discussion.
Item 11 – Review of Issues Regarding Wide Outside Lanes and Bicycle Lanes
Transportation Planner David Bonk reviewed the background of the issues. He reported that on June 11, 2001, the Council reviewed information concerning the provision of bicycle lanes and wide outside lanes. Mr. Bonk said the Council also reviewed the recommendations of the Transportation Board and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and requested that the Boards meet to resolve the differences in their recommendations. He reported that in July 2001, the Chairs of the Boards met but continued to disagree over the issue of whether bicycle lanes or wide outside lanes should be used as the standard design for improvements on arterial and collector streets. Mr. Bonk reported that the Manager’s recommendation was adoption of Resolution A, setting a policy to pursue the construction of bicycle lanes on arterial and collector roads in Chapel Hill. He said the staff also recommended adoption of Resolution D, which directed the Town Manager to prepare cost estimates for the development of an educational program for bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists and the implementation of a comprehensive signage program indicating bike routes and lane sharing. Mr. Bonk said Resolution B was the Transportation Board’s recommendation, and Resolution C was the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendation.
Dorothy Verkerk amplified a few points from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s comments. She said the Board believed that bike lanes would not inherently increase bicycle traffic, since this was a hilly town. Ms. Verkerk added that there were some novice cyclists who would feel uncomfortable in a wide outside lane, and there was the infrastructure of the sidewalks for this, and this was allowable. She said she had talked with many bicyclists and their preference, with one exception, was for the wide lanes, because they worried that a bike lane would restrict them legally. Ms. Verkerk said she would prefer that the Council vote for Resolutions C and D.
Loren Hintz, Chair of the Transportation Board, pointed out on a Town map where the bike lanes existed and no longer existed. He felt that if the Town adopted Resolutions B and D a much better bike system could be built for the Town. Mr. Hintz said both Boards had agreed with points 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Resolution B which were a good synthesis of what the Boards felt would be useful.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 12A.
Council Member Evans said that since the bike lanes were removed from Cameron Avenue the cyclists were using the sidewalks, which also had many pedestrians, and she did not think this was safe.
Council Member Ward said he was a bicyclist advocate, but he did not think that bike lanes were safer than wide lanes. He felt that Resolution B would give more latitude than Resolution A, because there were areas where one of the options would be better than the other, and each area deserved to be looked at as to what would be the best for it.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT A SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION 12B.
Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member Ward to explain the difference between the two Resolutions, since they looked similar to her. Council Member Ward said there were subtle differences.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION 12C. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, AND EVANS VOTING NAY.
Mr. Karpinos urged the Council to delete the last phrase in Resolution C, because he did not feel it would be acceptable or legal.
THE AMENDED RESOLUTION, DELETION OF THE LAST PHRASE IN RESOLUTION 12C, WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-3, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN AND EVANS VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BICYCLE FACILITIES WITHIN THE TOWN (2001-09-24/R-12c)
WHEREAS, it is the goal of the Town of Chapel Hill to accommodate the needs of existing bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, is the goal of the Town of Chapel Hill to encourage greater use of bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill 2000 Comprehensive Plan includes the objective “develop and maintain a system of safe and efficient bikeways (on-street bike lanes and off-street paths within greenways) designed to contribute to Town-wide mobility, connecting neighborhoods with activity centers, schools, parks, and other neighborhoods”; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan recommends the Town “adopt revised roadway standards incorporating on-street bike lanes, including a commitment to install bike lanes in roadway resurfacing projects where feasible:’
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, that the Town Council adopts the following policy:
- Roads with 35 mph and 45 mph speed limits
- Intersections are minimal, with limited cross traffic
- Few driveway cuts
- Limited turning movements
- Descents with high speeds (>25 mph) are not an issue
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to incorporate this policy in all design guidelines used by the Town to construct or improve roadways.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
Item 12 – Appointments
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADOPT AN AMENDED RESOLUTION 13, WITH MAYOR WALDORF AND COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SERVING AS A DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE TO THE N.C. LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES’ ANNUAL MEETING IN OCTOBER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REGARDING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE DELEGATES TO THE NC LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES’ AND NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES’ ANNUAL MEETINGS (2001-09-24/R-13)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby designates Rosemary Waldorf to serve as the Council’s voting delegate and Bill Strom to serve as its alternate to the NC League of Municipalities’ annual meeting October 14-16, 2001.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council makes no designation for a voting delegate to the National League of Cities’ 2001 Congress of Cities annual meeting December 4-8, 2001.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14 TO DESIGNATE COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN AS THE COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE ORANGE COMMUNITY HOUSING LAND TRUST BOARD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORANGE COMMUNITY HOUSING LAND TRUST ORGANIZING BOARD (2001-09-24/R-14)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council appoints Council Member Flicka Bateman to serve as the Town’s representative on the Orange Community Housing Land Trust Organizing Board until its Annual Meeting in the spring of 2002.
This the 24th day of September, 2001.
Item 13 – Petitions
Mayor Waldorf said that the County Commissioners had drafted a policy statement for use of County funds for joint arts and open space projects, and asked the Council to get back to them by October 1, which she and the Manager did not think was possible. She petitioned the Council to refer the statement to the Parks and Recreation Commission and to the Manager to get their advice back to the Council at the earliest possible time.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:49 p.m.