SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk and Jim Ward.
Council Member Edith Wiggins was absent, excused. Council Member Ed Harrison arrived at 7:10 p.m.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Finance Director Jim Baker, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Parks and Recreation Planner and Administrator Bill Webster, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Urban Forester Curtis Brooks, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 - Ceremonies. Presentation of Partnership Award to EmPOWERment, Inc.
Mayor Foy presented BB&T representative Tim Strayden with a Certificate of Excellence from the Town of Chapel Hill in recognition of BB&T's support for start-up and home-based businesses and for its role with EmPOWERment, Inc. Mayor Foy also presented a Certificate of Excellence to EmPOWERment, Inc. for its role in working with BB&T to develop the Midway Business Center on Graham Street. He said that this small business incubator would increase economic opportunities for low-income individuals through job creation, affordable office space, and start-up businesses.
Mark Chilton accepted the award for EmPOWERment, Inc. He thanked the Town for its substantial investment in the project and its support. Mr. Chilton pointed out the positive role that BB&T had played in reinvesting in the community and supporting low-income buyers. He noted that BB&T had made more than $3 million in construction loans to EmPOWERment over the last five years, adding that Community Development Block Grant funds had been used to leverage that kind of investment.
Item 2 - Public Hearings: None.
Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
1. Kyle Cattani: Petition to consider modification of Development Ordinance.
Mr. Cattani pointed out that the Town is much more visually attractive in areas where utility lines are buried. He noted that developers are not required to bury these lines but that many of them choose to do so because it looks better. Mr. Cattani explained that the opportunity is open for developers to run lines across their neighbors' properties rather than absorbing the added expense of burying them. He said that Duke Power had installed three-phase power lines through an existing easement within the confines of his property in order to provide service to Carol Woods.
Mr. Cattani pointed out that this "eyesore" is directly visible from his kitchen window. He said that herbicides had been used which are hazardous to his children. He reported that Duke Power and Carol Woods representatives had described burying the lines as "technically unfeasible," even though they do bury them on Carol Woods' property. Mr. Cattani petitioned the Town Council to consider the following modification to the Development Ordinance (July 2000) 14.10:
All utility lines, including three-phase electric power distribution lines but excluding lines used only to transmit electricity between generating stations, shall be placed underground. And all surface disruptions required for installation shall be rehabilitated to the original or an improved condition.
Mr. Cattani also petitioned the Council to withhold occupancy approval to Carol Woods' new development until the damage to his property has been addressed.
Electrical engineer and former Council Member Joe Capowski supported Mr. Cattani's statement, adding that the technical arguments made in a letter from Duke Power “fallacious." Mr. Capowski explained that electricity can be delivered at any voltage and with any number of phases. The danger, he said, comes from voltage. He remarked that Duke Power would only do more if some governmental body requires that. Mr. Capowski recommended that the Town employ someone to represent it and its citizens in these matters. He also suggested that the Town amend the new Development Ordinance to reflect the technical and economic reality of power distribution. Moreover, Mr. Capowski suggested sending the power graph of the Development Ordinance to the Technology Committee for review and suggestions.
Carol Woods Director of Facilities Jim Cole stated that Carol Woods had no choice in how it was served, since that was off their property and off the development plans. He said that Carol Woods had no intention of offending or harming anyone, but had no control of over how Duke Power runs its lines. Mr. Cole argued that withholding Certificate of Occupancy permits would be an unreasonable request by the Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER JIM WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILL STROM, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE, AND TO REFER OTHER ITEMS REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO THE CONSULTANT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
2. Jane Williams Bergsten: Petition for traffic study on Kensington Drive.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THIS PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3. Pinebrook Estates neighbors: Petition for rezoning request.
Susan Morris spoke for the "the overwhelming majority" of Pinebrook Estates residents who had signed a petition asking for rezoning from R-2 to R-1 for their neighborhood. She explained that the 90 residents were attempting to protect their neighborhood from increasing development pressures. Ms. Morris pointed out that the neighborhood consists of single-family homes on four streets, many of which have accessory apartments that they rent to students and others, which would still be permitted under R-1 zoning. She pointed out that building structures could presently be permitted that would not be consistent with the character of the existing homes.
Ms. Morris asked that the zoning be adjusted to reflect what currently exists. She argued that this would be in the spirit of the Development Ordinance (Article 1, General Provisions): "to accomplish compatible development of land, to promote the stability of neighborhoods, to protect property against depreciation, and to prevent overcrowding of land."
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
4. Johnny Randall: Resolution in support of the Morgan Creek Valley Alliance. Johnny Randall, representing the Morgan Creek Valley Alliance, asked the Town Council to support the resolution, which he said already had the support of the Botanical Garden Foundation, the Chapel Hill Museum, OWASA, UNC's Sustainability Coalition, Town of Carrboro, Triangle Land Conservancy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE MORGAN CREEK VALLEY ALLIANCE AND ITS EFFORTS TO PROTECT MORGAN CREEK. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE MORGAN CREEK VALLEY ALLIANCE AND ITS EFFORTS TO PROTECT MORGAN CREEK (2002-03-25/R-0.1)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has established protecting our environment, especially our major watercourses and watersheds, as a high priority; and
WHEREAS, the Morgan Creek valley is important to Chapel Hill from its upper reaches in the watershed of University Lake, its course through town, its links to neighboring Carrboro, and its flowing into Jordan Lake; and
WHEREAS, the Morgan Creek valley includes scenic, cultural, recreational, water supply and wildlife resources including rare and valuable micro ecosystems; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill owns land along Morgan Creek and has planning and zoning authority over a significant portion of its valley; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has already taken significant steps over the years to protect the important and sensitive ecology of Morgan Creek though planning, watershed protection and management of its own property; and
WHEREAS, the newly formed Morgan Creek Valley Alliance seeks to conserve the natural and cultural heritage and ecological integrity of the region and to protect the water quality of the Morgan Creek valley through increasing public awareness, cooperation and broad participation; and
WHEREAS, the Alliance is a voluntary cooperative effort which even in its initial stages has included broad participation from property owners along the creek, NC Botanical Garden through which it flows, the Chapel Hill Museum, the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, Orange County, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Triangle Land Conservancy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that we hereby welcome the establishment and support the mission of the Morgan Creek Valley Alliance to conserve Morgan Creek through public education, cooperation and coordination of public and private parties, and voluntary conservation efforts to protect the natural and cultural heritage and to protect the water quality.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council encourages the Morgan Creek Valley Alliance to pursue its broad based strategy with maximum involvement of the public in the interest of protecting one of our most valuable resources.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
5. Michael Collins: Petition to consider rezoning Colonial Heights Neighborhood from
Residential-2 to Residential-1.
Mr. Collins stated that everything Susan Morris had said about her neighborhood (Petition 3) applied to his as well. He explained that the two neighborhoods had the same basic configuration, the same concerns, and the same strong support for rezoning to R-1. Mr. Collins added that changing from R-2 to R-1 would help maintain their diverse, single-family neighborhoods.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
6. Joseph DeVeaugh-Geiss, Chandler's Green Homeowners' Association: Petition for neighborhood traffic calming measures.
Mr. DeVeaugh-Reiss explained that the Town's Engineering Department had conducted a traffic survey, at the Chandler's Green Homeowners' Association's request, and found a significant speeding problem. He said that Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli had developed a traffic-calming plan, which recommends installing three speed humps and a traffic circle on Sweeten Creek Road. Mr. DeVeaugh-Reiss noted that the Homeowners Association had approved the plan and were petitioning the Council for approval and reallocation of funds to implement the changes. He explained that the Association would be willing to share the cost of implementing safety measures in the Chandler's Green neighborhood.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
7. Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity: Request for expedited review regarding Rogers Road community affordable housing.
Frank Phoenix, director of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, spoke in support of Executive Director Susan Levy's letter to the Town Council dated March 20th. Mr. Phoenix pointed out that Ms. Levy was present, along with five Board members. The letter requested an expedited review of a new affordable housing subdivision on Rusch Road in the Rogers Road community, he said. This subdivision, he said, would consist of 15 lots (12 for detached, single-family homes) for approved applicant families earning 50% or less of the median income. He added that there also would be three attached rental units reserved for special needs populations earning 30% or less of the medium income. Mr. Phoenix explained that the site is close to the Homestead Place, an 11-home affordable subdivision that Habitat developed in 1999-2000.
Mr. Phoenix pointed out that granting of expedited review would be in keeping with Section 7.2 of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which states that the Town's goal is to increase the availability of affordable, well-designed housing for all citizens in Chapel Hill. Section 7A of the Plan, he said, states that government at every level should work to increase affordable housing opportunities. Continuing to read from Ms. Levy's letter, Mr. Phoenix explained that expedited review would help Habitat move more quickly to serve applicant families who want to live in or near Chapel Hill. He said that Habitat hoped to begin construction in September 2003. Mr. Phoenix said they would then have six families in homes by April 2004, six more by September 2004, and the final six in homes by April 2005.
Mr. Phoenix pointed out that without expedited review the schedule would likely slip six to twelve months. He noted that the Town already had committed funds to this effort, including $50,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds for acquisition of property and $50,000 from the Chapel Hill Housing Trust Fund for design, survey and engineering costs. Orange County had committed $110,000 in affordable housing bond funds, he said, adding that Habitat had also requested funds for construction from the HOME and CDBG programs. Mr. Phoenix explained that funds for the rest of the project (estimated at $1.5 million) would come from other State and federal housing programs as well as private contributions to Habitat. He added that Habitat had been in dialogue with neighbors regarding sewer hook-ups, and would continue to do South
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
b. Petitions by citizens on items on the agenda.
1. South Columbia Street Improvements.
Aris Buinevisius, spoke on behalf of the Greater Westwood Neighborhood Association and the Westside Neighborhood Association, with support form the Timberlyne Neighborhood Association, Citizen Action for Responsible Roads, citizens of Purefoy and Mason Farm neighborhoods, and the Orange/Chatham Chapter of the Sierra Club. He stated that the South Columbia Street neighborhoods had been participating in public debate about improvements to South Columbia Street since 1989. Mr. Buinevisius reported that the neighborhoods feel the Council was correct in approving the plan to add select turn lanes, sidewalks, and bike lanes, and in making that their highest road improvement priority. To delay the project as it is presently configured and was presented in November 1999, he said, would compromise the safety of pedestrians and bikers. Mr. Buinevisius requested that the Town Council adopt the following resolution, supported by neighborhood groups, Citizen Action for Responsible Roads, and the Orange/Chatham Chapter of the Sierra Club:
WHEREAS the Town Council of Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation have previously agreed to a plan for the modification of South Columbia Street between Mason Farm Road and Highway 15/501; and
WHEREAS the aforementioned plan designates structural changes to Columbia Street to include bicycle lanes, pedestrian walkways, curb and gutter, and appropriate turn lanes; and
WHEREAS these agreed upon modifications would enhance pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, and public transportation movements along the southernmost extent of South Columbia Street; and
WHEREAS the agreed upon modifications appear to represent the least expensive and expedient alternative amongst the numerous proposals discussed, both before and since the agreement, which satisfy the needs of pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, and public transportation movement along the southernmost extent of South Columbia Street; and
WHEREAS, as originally agreed, these modifications would proceed in a timely manner from the present date; and
WHEREAS, the UNC at Chapel Hill and UNC Hospitals have requested that the NC DOT delay implementation of the aforementioned plan and further have requested that the Town of Chapel Hill join in proposing a new study of traffic along the southernmost extent of South Columbia Street by the NCDOT; and WHEREAS the University and University Hospitals provide no data to buttress their claim that the previously agreed modifications cited in paragraph two of this resolution are inadequate;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council of the Town of Chapel Hill reaffirm its support for the South Columbia Street improvements as approved by the Mayor and Council on October 12, 1998 with agreement from UNC and NC DOT; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council respectfully request the NC DOT to proceed with the improvements for South Columbia Street within the timeframe currently listed in the NC Transportation Improvement Plan.
Burwell Ware, representing Citizen Action for Responsible Roads, added their strong support for the efforts to minimize unnecessary widening of South Columbia Street. He said that transforming South Columbia into a five-lane highway would not be in the best interest of the neighborhoods, the Town, UNC, or the fiscal health of the State. Mr. Ware noted that former Chancellor Hooker had taken special care to prevent this from happening. He said that former Mayor Rosemary Waldorf had successfully lobbied the NC legislation to keep the road from being widened and had put forward a proposal that had met everyone's needs. Now, four years later, he said, the new Chancellor had decided to upset this carefully crafted consensus. Mr. Ware suggested that UNC do some research at its own Pedestrian and Bicycle Center to get cutting-edge information about why four-lane roads are being reduced to improve traffic flow in many parts of the nation.
Joan Bartel, a South Columbia Street resident, explained that the bus is her only means of transportation and that she must navigate the road on foot everyday to and from bus stops. Ms. Bartel described that as a "life-threatening situation," adding that it was getting worse because road maintenance had been postponed and denied along that roadway due to the proposal to modify it. She encouraged the Town Council to move forward with improvements before it is too late.
Council Member Verkerk announced that the Sierra Club had contacted her because their representative was not able to attend tonight's meeting. She said that he had asked her to convey the Sierra Club's support for the Council passing the resolution, which the Sierra Club feels is in keeping with Town values.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED THE RESOLUTION REGARDING SOUTH COLUMBIA STREET AS SUBMITTED BY THE GREATER WESTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. COUNCIL MEMBER MARK KLEINSCHMIDT SECONDED.
Council Member Bateman asked to first hear from the University regarding what had changed, other than the Chancellor.
Mayor pro tem Evans agreed, adding that the she thought adopting a resolution on the same night it was introduced was not in keeping with Council procedures. She also noted that Council Member Wiggins was absent.
Mayor Foy pointed out that his opposition to road widening was well known. He stated that the Town had no evidence before it of any reason to change the plan. But, Mayor Foy said, if there is a reason then the Town should hear it. Pointing out that there was a meeting scheduled for April 22 to hear the Chancellor's request, Mayor Foy said that he was not in favor of taking this action this evening.
Council Member Ward agreed that they should wait until after the meeting with the University. He added that restating the Council's position before that meeting would dampen the opportunity to have a discussion.
Council Member Strom pointed out that prior Town Councils had worked hard to turn this into the #1-funded project on the Town's Transportation Improvement Plan. He noted that this was important because it symbolized DOT's new attitude toward Chapel Hill. Council Member Strom stressed how hard the Town had worked on the Development Plan and how it had "bent over backwards" not to interfere with the growth and the good service that the University is charged with providing citizens all over the State. He noted that the road widening was not part of the OI-4 Development Plan, adding that it seems as though there is a continual threat that if the Town does not comply then the University will go to the Legislature, or the Board, or the DOT, and get what it wants. Control of this road belongs to the Town, he said, adding that he did not want to spend work session time on road widening, which is absolutely against Town policy.
Council Member Harrison noted that a recent letter from the Chancellor to the Mayor had not given any basis for changing the Town's path on this. He added that the work session is not intended for a meeting between the Town Council and the University. Council Member Harrison said that he would support the resolution right now. If the University opposes it, he said, then they should bring forward some information for the Council's consideration.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE, 4-4, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KLEINSCHMIDT, VERKERK, STROM AND HARRISON VOTING AYE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, FOY, EVANS AND WARD VOTING NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED OVER TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 8, 2002.
Council Member Evans requested that the Council be provided with a copy of the procedure regarding adoption of resolutions. Council members discussed the schedule for the April 8th work session, and Council Member Ward asked if it would be more than a discussion among themselves. Mr. Horton replied that they would review the history of the proposal for South Columbia Street and the present design. Regarding Weaver Dairy Road, he said, the staff would bring forward the environmental assessment study. Mr. Horton explained that the meeting had been scheduled as a Council work session and that the staff had not extended any invitations to any other participants.
Council Member Bateman suggested directing the Manager to change both of these items from work sessions to agenda items so that people could present to the Council. Mayor Foy explained that the plan was for the Council to become informed and educated about these two roads before hearing from citizens regarding them. He suggested that he and the Manager discuss the scheduling issue the next day, adding that they could arrange to put the issue on the agenda but that doing so would take three or more hours and would push other things onto another agenda. The plan, Mayor Foy said, was to have two meetings - one to gather information, and another to hear from interested parties. He pointed out that the Council needed to resolve this by June and that this was the plan to expedite it. Council members then directed that the meetings be televised.
c. Announcements by Council members.
1. Council Member Ed Harrison.
· Art Exhibit in Town Hall. Council Member Harrison invited citizens to attend the receptions for art exhibits, which are held at the Town Hall. He announced that painter Susan Andron's exhibit would be held from 5:30-7:00 on April 5th.
· Meeting on Transit Issues. Council Member Harrison announced an annual forum of the Transportation Board on Tuesday, April 9th, at 7:30 in Council Chamber.
2. Mayor Foy met with representatives of High School regarding placing school outside the Urban Services Area. Mayor Foy explained that he had met with the Chair and Vice Chair of the School Board and had conveyed the Council's concerns about putting a high school outside the Urban Services Boundary. He said that he gave them information about the Town's policies and its philosophy about keeping that boundary. Mayor Foy added that he would keep the Town apprised of any developments.
Item 4. Consent agenda
Council Member Bateman removed 4c.
Mayor Foy removed 4b & 4g.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-1 WITH B, C, AND G REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2002-03-25/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. |
Adoption of Minutes: January 29; February 11, 13, 18, 20, and 25 (2 sets). |
|
d. |
Bid: Renovation of Hargraves Recreation Center and A.D. Clark Pool (R-4a & R-4b; O-1.1). |
|
e. |
Bids for Comprehensive Rehabilitation Work at the Pritchard Park Public Housing Neighborhood (R-5). |
|
f. |
Resolution Scheduling a Public Forum on Options for Halloween 2002 (R-6). |
|
h. |
Proposed Water Conservation Ordinance (O-2). |
|
i. |
Multi-way Stop Signs at the Intersection of Kings Mill Road and Coker Drive (O-3). |
|
j. |
Resolution Scheduling a Work Session on Weaver Dairy Road & South Columbia Street (R-8). |
|
k. |
Resolution Awarding Refunding Bonds Sold on March 12 (R-9). |
|
|
|
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE HARGRAVES RECREATIONS CENTER AND A.D. CLARK POOL RENOVATION PROJECT (2002-3-25/R-4a)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has solicited formal bids by advertisement in the February 3, 2002 edition of The Chapel Hill Newspaper in accordance with G.S. 143-128 for the renovation of the Hargraves Recreations Center and A.D. Clark Pool; and
WHEREAS, the following bids were received and opened on March 7, 2002:
|
Contractor |
Base Bid |
Alt. 2 Concrete repairs to the plaza |
Alt. 3 Partition walls on main floor |
Alt. 4 ADA improve-ments to asphalt drive |
Alt. 5 Pool Fencing |
Alt. 6 Add 2nd floor drain to baby pool |
Base Bid plus Alternates 2,3,4, and 6 |
|
O.C. Mitchell |
$888,000 |
$7,100 |
$4,381 |
$7,500 |
$19,426 |
$1,000 |
$907,981 |
|
Accord |
$880,353 |
$66,320 |
$11,045 |
$9,899 |
$18,674 |
$2,585 |
$970,202 |
|
Keck |
$923,798 |
$39,900 |
$21,900 |
$4,300 |
$19,000 |
$850 |
$990,748 |
|
Voight |
$963,782 |
$31,619 |
$22,525 |
$19,895 |
$19,427 |
$834 |
$1,038,655 |
|
Force |
$973,957 |
$30,841 |
$19,253 |
$11,175 |
$21,735 |
$4,415 |
$1,039,641 |
|
Patriot |
$1,009,500 |
$20,500 |
$13,000 |
$6,000 |
$18,500 |
$800 |
$1,049,800 |
|
Poythress |
$1,062,000 |
$28,000 |
$13,500 |
$8,500 |
$20,000 |
$850 |
$1,112,850 |
|
Progressive |
$1,063,000 |
$37,800 |
$19,000 |
$8,100 |
$20,000 |
$1,000 |
$1,128,900 |
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town accepts the bid of and awards the contract, subject to approval of an installment financing contract by the Local Government Commission, to the lowest responsive bidder, O.C. Mitchell Jr., Inc., general contractor for base bid, alternate 2, alternate 3, alternate 4 and alternate 6 for the amount of $907,981.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council that, because this project is a renovation of aging facilities and is expected to uncover unexpected conditions, the Town Manager is authorized to approve change orders up to $110,000, but not to exceed the combined total project cost of $1,200,000, without additional approval from the Town Council.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FINANCING CONTRACT FOR RENOVATIONS TO THE HARGRAVES CENTER AND THE A.D. CLARK POOL AND BATHHOUSE FOR THE 2001-2002 FISCAL YEAR (2002-03-25/R-4b)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill solicited and received competitive proposals from financial institutions for the renovation of the Hargraves Center and the A.D. Clark Pool and Bathhouse; and
WHEREAS, Bank of America offers the lowest total interest and principal cost of $1,485,390 for the 10-year term contract;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Bank of America on behalf of the Town for the financing of the renovations of the Hargraves Center and the A. D. Clark Pool and Bathhouse at a fixed interest rate of 4.53%;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the aforesaid contracts between the Town of Chapel Hill and Bank of America and the Town of Chapel Hill and O.C. Mitchell Jr., Inc. together with the amounts to be paid thereunder, be and the same are hereby designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations of the Town of Chapel Hill for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council does not reasonably expect that the Purchaser (and any subordinate entities) will issue more than $10,000,000 in qualified tax-exempt obligations pursuant to such Sections 265(b)(3)(ii) during the current calendar year.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 (2002-03-25/O-1.1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2001” as duly adopted on June 25, 2001 and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS FUND 1,460,051 1,200,000 2,660,051
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUE Budget Increase Decrease Budget
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS FUND 1,460,051 1,200,000 2,660,051
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE BID FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION OF PRITCHARD PARK APARTMENTS (2002-03-25/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill solicited formal bids by advertisement in The Chapel Hill News, Chapel Hill, North Carolina and The News and Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina on February 3, 2002, and in The Challenger Newspaper, Wilmington, North Carolina on January 31, 2002, in accordance with G.S. 143-128 for the construction work; and
WHEREAS, the following bids were received and opened February 27, 2002:
VENDOR BASE BID ALT.1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3 ALT. 4
(6 Apts.) (5 Apts.) (4 Apts.) (Site Work) (Fencing)
Accord Contractors $197,846 $169,394 $131,081 $124,415 $ 65,092
and Developers, Inc.
Raleigh, NC
Carl Garris & Sons, $282,000 $236,000 $189,000 $125,000 $ 40,000
Inc.
Lake View, SC
H.M. Kern $324,500 $251,400 $216,000 $207,500 $ 69,400
Corporation
Greensboro, NC
Wild Building $328,848 $255,523 $216,367 $231,350 $ 71,104
Contractors, Inc.
Morristown, TN
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town accepts the single prime base bid and Alternates 1 through 4, and award a contract to the Accord Contractors and Developers, Inc. in the amount of $687,828 for the comprehensive renovation of all 15 apartments and site work, including fencing and central air conditioning at the Pritchard Park public housing neighborhood.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC FORUM ON PROPOSED PLANNING OPTIONS FOR HALLOWEEN 2002 (2002-03-25/R-6)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public forum at 7:00 p.m., Monday, April 22, 2002 in the Council Chamber at Town Hall, 306 North Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC to receive public comments on the proposed planning options for the Chapel Hill Halloween event on October 31, 2002.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is hereby directed to arrange publication, posting, and mailing of notices of the forum as required by law.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR YEAR-ROUND CONSERVATION OF WATER AND FOR TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS DURING WATER SHORTAGES AND EMERGENCIES (2002-03-25/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Article X, Chapter 11 is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:
“ARTICLE X. WATER CONSERVATION REGULATIONS
Sec. 11-101. Purpose.
This ordinance is enacted to support the following primary water conservation and demand management goals:
1. To reduce the rate of growth in overall water use so as to maximize the community’s existing and planned water supply sources; and
2. To reduce the upward trend of seasonal peak day demands that drive the costly expansion of water treatment, storage, and transmission facilities; and
3. To provide an orderly process for reducing community-wide water demands during periods of water shortage or emergencies.
1. All Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) customers are encouraged to exercise voluntary water conservation practices at all times during the year, regardless of water shortage or emergency conditions. OWASA shall periodically provide informational guidelines and conservation tips to its customers.
2. All newly installed or substantially improved irrigation systems that are equipped with automatic timers and which use OWASA-supplied potable water shall be equipped with automatic rain or soil moisture sensors that are activated to prevent the operation of those irrigation systems while rain is falling and/or when soil moisture is adequate.
A water shortage or water emergency shall be deemed to exist when OWASA cannot supply its customers with sufficient water to protect the public health and safety without substantial reductions in water demand.
1. Any of the following conditions, as determined by OWASA’s Executive Director, shall constitute a Stage I Water Shortage:
a) The total volume of water stored in OWASA’s Cane Creek/University Lake/Stone Quarry reservoir system is equal to or less than 125 summer days of OWASA customer demand, as determined on the basis of average raw water usage during the months of May through September of the previous calendar year;
[Example: If the average raw water demand during the previous summer was 10.8 million gallons per day (MGD), and the OWASA reservoir system currently contained 2.8 billion gallons of water in storage, the total volume of stored water would be equal to 2.8 billion/10.8 MGD = 259 days of demand. This example would not constitute a Stage I Water Shortage];
or
b) It is otherwise determined that the Cane Creek/University Lake/Stone Quarry system is unable or unlikely to continue meeting the demands of OWASA’s customers without a substantial reduction in consumption;
or
c) The customer demand for water averaged over three successive days, as measured by OWASA production records, exceeds 90 percent of the target three-day peak limit established for that year. Target limits may be established each April by multiplying average finished water demands for the previous 12 months by a peaking factor of 1.65, or may be established by other production constraints – such as water treatment capacity – determined by OWASA’s Executive Director.
[Example: If average finished water demand for the previous 12 months was 9.5 MGD, then the target limit for the coming summer would be 9.5 MGD x 1.65 = 15.7 MGD. A water shortage would be declared if the demand, when averaged over three successive days, exceeded 90 percent of that target level; e.g., 0.90 x 15.7 MGD = 14.1 MGD.]
2. Any of the following conditions, as determined by OWASA’s Executive Director, shall constitute a Stage II Water Shortage:
a) The total volume of water stored in OWASA’s Cane Creek/University Lake/Stone Quarry reservoir system is equal to or less than 75 summer days of OWASA customer demand, as determined on the basis of average raw water usage during the months of May through September of the previous calendar year;
or
b) It is otherwise determined that the Cane Creek/University Lake/Stone Quarry system is unable or unlikely to continue meeting the demands of OWASA’s customers without a substantial reduction in consumption;
or
c) If the customer demand for water averaged over three successive days, as measured by OWASA production records, exceeds 97 percent of the target three-day peak limit established for that year. Target limits may be established each April by multiplying average finished water demands for the previous 12 months by a peaking factor of 1.65, or may be established by other production constraints – such as water treatment capacity – determined by OWASA’s Executive Director.
[Example: If average finished water demand for the previous 12 months was 9.5 MGD, then the target limit for the coming summer would be 9.5 MGD x 1.65 = 15.7 MGD. A water shortage would be declared if the demand, when averaged over three successive days, exceeded 97 percent of that target level; e.g., 0.97 x 15.7 MGD = 15.2 MGD.]
3. Any other circumstances, including service losses caused by equipment failure, human error, weather, or other natural disaster, which constrain OWASA’s water production capacity to less than the current level of customer demand, may constitute a Water Supply Emergency, as determined by OWASA’s Executive Director.
1. Irrigation of lawns, gardens, trees, or shrubs with OWASA-supplied potable water applied through any system or device other than a hand-held hose or watering can shall be allowed only three days out of each week. Properties with odd-numbered street addresses shall be allowed to irrigate only on Mondays, Wednesdays, and/or Fridays; properties with even-numbered addresses shall be allowed to irrigate only on Tuesdays, Thursday, and/or Saturdays. A total of no more than one inch of water (as measured in a shallow container, such as an empty tuna fish can) should be applied during any given week. The restrictions of this section shall not apply to any persons regularly engaged in the sale of plants, who shall be allowed to irrigate their commercial stock in trade.
2. Irrigation of lawns, gardens, trees, or shrubs with OWASA-supplied potable water that is sprayed through the air via any system or device other than a hand-held hose or watering can shall occur only after dusk or during pre-dawn hours.
3. No OWASA-supplied potable water shall be used on sidewalks, driveways, patios, cars, buildings, or other impervious surfaces of a similar nature.
4. No OWASA-supplied potable water shall be served in public restaurants except on request.
5. Institutional customers, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), shall:
a) Cease the use of OWASA-supplied potable water for outdoor purposes, except as provided in items 1 and 2 above. UNC shall develop a three-day irrigation schedule for campus facilities in consultation with OWASA.
b) Curtail the use of OWASA-supplied potable water for the cleaning of facilities such as window air conditioning units, chilled water coils, closed loop heating systems, and government-owned vehicles.
c) Reduce the heating/cooling load demand from lower priority facilities to the extent allowable with regard to indoor air quality standards and employee health and safety requirements.
1. All the mandatory provisions of a Stage I Water Shortage, as described in Section V, shall remain in effect, except that the irrigation of lawns, gardens, trees, or shrubs with OWASA-supplied potable water applied through any system or device other than a hand-held hose or watering can shall be allowed only one day out of each week. Unless otherwise recommended by the OWASA Executive Director, properties with odd-numbered street addresses shall be allowed to irrigate only on Mondays; and properties with even-numbered addresses shall be allowed to irrigate only on Thursdays. No more than one-half inch of water (as measured in a shallow container, such as an empty tuna fish can) should be applied during any given week. UNC shall develop a one day a week irrigation schedule for campus facilities in consultation with OWASA. The restrictions of this section shall not apply to any persons regularly engaged in the sale of plants, who shall be allowed to irrigate their commercial stock in trade.
2. No OWASA-supplied potable water shall be introduced into any decorative fountain, pool, or pond; or to fill any swimming pool; or to replenish any filled swimming pool, except to the minimum essential for operation.
1. No OWASA-supplied potable water shall be used for any outdoor purposes other than emergency fire suppression.
2. Water service may be discontinued or reduced, as determined by OWASA’s Executive Director, in designated portions of the OWASA service area through the manipulation of valves, pumps, and other appurtenances in order to preserve the availability of water for public health and safety facilities, such as hospitals, medical clinics, etc., fire protection, and other critical community needs.
3. UNC and any other customers that use OWASA-supplied potable drinking water for heating/cooling systems shall reduce the heating/cooling demand in all but the most essential facilities to the extent allowable with regard to indoor air quality standards and employee health and safety requirements.
Any violations of the provisions of this Article shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars ($50.00) or imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days as provided by General Statute Section 14-4, and in addition thereto, such violation may be enjoined and restrained as provided in General Statute Section 160A-175
Section 11-109. Injunctive remedies.
Pursuant to the provisions of General Statute Section 160A-193, the injunctive remedies therein provided shall be applicable for the summary abatement or remedying of appropriate conditions dangerous or prejudicial to the public health both within the town limits and within one mile thereof, and the expenses thereof shall be assessed as provided therein.
Section 11-110. Severability.
If any section, subdivision, clause, or provision of this Article shall be adjudged invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to such section, subdivision, clause, or provision so adjudged, and the remainder of this Article shall remain fully valid and effective.”
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective April 1, 2002.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING STOP REGULATIONS (2002-03-25/0-3)
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
Kings Mill Road Coker Drive”
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)
Kings Mill Road and Coker Drive”
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective April 29, 2002.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS WEAVER DAIRY ROAD AND SOUTH COLUMBIA STREET (2002-03-25/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Council has expressed interest in holding a work session on issues regarding Weaver Dairy Road and South Columbia Street;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby schedules a work session from 5:00-6:45 p.m. on Monday, April 22, in the Council Chamber of Town Hall prior to the regular, 7:00 p.m. Council meeting.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BONDS AND DESIGNATING THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA AS PAYING AGENT FOR THE $3,365,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002 (2002-03-25/R-9)
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2002, the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (the “Town”) adopted a resolution (the “Bond Resolution”), which provided for the issuance of the Town’s General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $3,380,000 (the “Bonds”), the proceeds of which will be used to refund the Town’s General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1992 in the original aggregate principal amount of $5,000,000 (the “Prior Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, during the sale of the Bonds on March 12, 2002, the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds was established at $3,365,000, the principal amortization of the Bonds was determined as hereinafter provided and the Bonds were sold to First Union National Bank (“First Union”); and
WHEREAS, the Town Council now desires to amend and supplement the Bond Resolution in certain respects, approve the form of the Bonds and certain other documents, award the Bonds to First Union National Bank and authorize the execution and delivery by the Town of an Escrow Agreement with First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, as Escrow Agent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 2. The Bonds shall be payable in annual installments on February 1 of each year commencing on February 1, 2003 through and including February 1, 2010 in the following amounts:
Maturity Date Principal Amount
|
02/01/2003 |
$255,000 |
|
02.01/2004 |
230,000 |
|
02/01/2005 |
230,000 |
|
02/01/2006 |
250,000 |
|
02/01/2007 |
245,000 |
|
02.01/2008 |
815,000 |
|
02/01/2009 |
800,000 |
|
02/01/2010 |
540,000 |
Section 3. The form of the Notice of Sale, Bid Form and Official Statement used in connection with the sale of the Bonds on March 12, 2002, copies of which have been provided to the Town Council, are hereby approved and ratified by the Town Council.
Section 4. Notice of the sale of the Bonds was duly distributed calling for sealed bids to be received by the Local Government Commission, at its office in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, until 11:00 a.m., North Carolina time on Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at which hour bidding was closed and the bids described below were found to have been filed offering to purchase the Bonds and to accord in all respects with the terms of the notice, each bid being accompanied by an official bank check, a cashier’s check, a certified check or a treasurer’s check for $67,300 payable unconditionally to the order of the State Treasurer of North Carolina.
Section 5. That the bid offering to purchase the Bonds at the lowest true interest cost
to the Town, such cost being determined by deducting the amount of premium bid from the aggregate amount of interest upon all the Bonds from April 1, 2002 until their respective maturities, was the bid by First Union National Bank offering to pay $3,365,000, plus a premium of $4,307.75, plus accrued interest for the Bonds, and naming for the Bonds the interest rates set forth below under the heading “INTEREST RATES NAMED IN BID”, such true interest cost being 3.7541%.
|
Maturity Date |
Principal Amount |
Interest Rates Named in Bid
|
|
02/01/2003 |
$255,000 |
3.0000 |
|
02/01/2004 |
230,000 |
3.0000 |
|
02/01/2005 |
230,000 |
3.0000 |
|
02/01/2006 |
250,000 |
3.2500 |
|
02/01/2007 |
245,000 |
3.5000 |
|
02/01/2008 |
815,000 |
3.7500 |
|
02/01/2009 |
800,000 |
4.0000 |
|
02/01/2010 |
540,000 |
4.0000 |
Copies of the additional Bids received are described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
Item 5 - Information Items
Mayor Foy removed 5e, Request for Expedited Processing of Special Use Permit Application for Village Plaza Theaters.
Item 5e - Request for Expedited Processing of Special Use Permit Application for Village Plaza Theaters.
Mayor Foy noted that Richard Gurlitz was prepared to speak for Village Plaza Theaters. Mr. Horton explained that adoption of resolution R-12 would expedite the SUP application.
Mr. Gurlitz said that the Village Plaza Theaters were part of a shopping complex owned by three separate entities, which were jointly asking for the SUP to improve that area of Town. Village Plaza Theaters was the applicant, Mr. Gurlitz said, because it was the one most in need of renovations. He pointed out that the improvements would include adequate stormwater drainage, bioretention facilities, landscaping, and better circulation and access. Mr. Gurlitz described this as an opportunity that the Council should grab while it's there.
Mayor Foy described this as a reasonable request, but asked the Town Manager how it would bring the three properties together. Mr. Horton replied that the three property owners had voluntarily agreed to work together and that this is an unusual opportunity in that regard.
Council Member Strom inquired about whether the stormwater management plan would comply with the revisions in the new Development Ordinance. Mr. Horton said that the new standards were not yet clear because the Council was still developing them. But, he said, he expected the new rules to be in place by the time the application came before the Council for a hearing.
Mayor Foy asked when the rules would be applicable. Mr. Horton explained that the Council would determine that, as well as whether or not the new rules would affect this particular application.
Council Member Bateman stated that she had not seen evidence that expedited review in this case would serve a public purpose, so she would not vote for that.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Horton to provide dates on when expedited review would be accomplished vis-à-vis adoption of the new Development Ordinance. Mr. Horton replied that the earliest the Council might finish the Development Ordinance would be October or November, 2002. So the earliest that any application could come before the Council, he said, would be November or January, since there usually are no public hearings in December.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Horton to respond to Council Member Bateman's statement about this expedited review not serving a public purpose. Mr. Horton explained that when the staff first reviewed the application they had not been able to recommend expedited review either, based on the normal standards. But, he said, the Council could use the fact that the applicant would voluntarily do some things that the Town might not normally be able to require as a basis for approving this. Mr. Horton noted that a Mayor's Committees had formerly worked on redeveloping University Mall and Ram's Plaza, but pointed out that such an arrangement would not be appropriate for this application at this point.
Council Member Harrison asked how expedited review would affect the schedule. Mr. Horton said that it might mean getting started in the early winter rather than early summer. Council Member Harrison agreed with Council Member Bateman that there was no public purpose even though the project was appealing.
Mayor pro tem Evans suggested considering whether it meets some of the criteria for granting expedited review, since the opportunity to improve stormwater, landscaping and vitality is enticing.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED R-12, AND COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS SECONDED.
Council Member Ward described the offer as vague.
Mayor Foy noted that this had been suggested as a way to get the three property owners to work together voluntarily to help mitigate the amount of impervious surface in that huge parking lot. Mr. Horton agreed, adding that Mr. Gurlitz had proposed to do more in exchange for expedited review than could be required under the ordinance.
Council Member Kleinschmidt inquired about whether expedited review was necessary to insure further cooperation among the three property owners. Mr. Gurlitz replied that it was difficult to say what the situation would be a year from now. Council Member Kleinschmidt remarked that he could not imagine their goals becoming contrary to each other. Mr. Horton added that since there is only one SUP for that property the property owners are bound together whether they like it or not. Mr. Gurlitz pointed out, however, that the Wellspring property was not bound by the SUP.
Mayor Foy noted that the community would benefit if the Town were to exploit this opportunity.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT R-12 RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE, 4-4, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, FOY, EVANS AND WARD VOTING AYE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, KLEINSCHMIDT, VERKERK AND HARRISON VOTING NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED OVER TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 8, 2002.
Council Member Harrison requested a letter from the three parties assuring the Council that they would work together on this.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked that the letter articulate how things would be different if this were deferred for a year.
Item 5f - Response to University regarding Use of Bible Church Parking Lot
Regarding Item 5f, Harvey Krasny, a Summerfield Crossing resident, reiterated his concerns about the amount of traffic that high-density development would produced at the Irwin Road/Highway 15/501 intersection. He then read his objections to the proposed Bible Church park and ride facility off Irwin Road near Sage Road:
The Irwin Road and 15/501 intersection is already earmarked as unacceptable in terms of level of service. The Sage Road and 15/501 intersection has a level of service of C/C and the added traffic will drag that down to below acceptable levels. The problem of illegally parked vehicles at the University's Friday Center could easily befall the Bible Church park and ride lot.
Mr. Krasney concluded that adding a park and ride to the Bible Church would be counterproductive to the already burdened traffic problems in the northeast area. He asked Council members to ask the University to forget that location as an area for park and ride.
Mac Clarke, a Windhover resident, said that he was in favor of park and ride as way to relieve traffic congestion but that this location raises concerns because of its bad traffic situation. Noting that the word "expansion" had been used in letters from the University, Mr. Clarke pointed out that the University had originally wanted to put 860 spaces on the 487-space lot. Mr. Clarke encouraged Council members to clarify what UNC's plans are, including where the people who park there will come from . He also asked whether the lot would attract cars that would not otherwise come onto 15/501and Irwin Road. Mr. Clarke suggested reviewing access to the lot and deciding whether it should be restricted to Old Sterling Drive. He recommended that the Town Council consider making some parking available for the public and cautioned the Town to be careful that the Bible Church does not expand the lot without approval.
Mayor Foy suggested deferring the item to another time for discussion. He asked the Manager to also bring back any information in response to the speakers' comments and/or Council members' concerns. He noted that the University would continue talking with the Bible Church and would come to the Town for a SUP sometime in the future. Mayor Foy advised the staff to determine what the number of parking spaces will be and to find out where the people will be coming from.
Item 6 - Public Arts Commission Annual Report and Budget Request
Public Arts Commission Chair Renee Piechocki reported on the Commission's activities and presented a proposed budget for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. She commented on art exhibits at Town Hall and the Chapel Hill Public Library, which included 400 works. She mentioned Sculpture on the Green, a two-day exhibit held in conjunction with the Apple Chill Festival, and Summer Select, which allows the display of contemporary art in Chapel Hill through July and August. Ms. Piechocki pointed out that the Commission had featured 15 performing artists at five exhibit openings this year.
Ms. Piechocki noted that in March the Council had voted for a "Percent for Art" ordinance in Town, making Chapel Hill the first in the State to have such an ordinance. As a result, she said, the Commission is actively working with the Town staff to develop a public art program for the Council's review later this year. She outlined the Commission's Five-Year Action Plan as well as its plans for a survey of the artworks owned by the Town.
Ms. Piechocki explained that the Commission was made up of a dedicated group of 16 volunteers and one part-time staff person. She asked that the Town continue the same generous support that it showed last year. Acknowledging that this was a tough budget year, Ms. Piechocki said the information given the Council included a "wish list" of things the Commission would like to pursue if funds were available.
Mayor Foy noted the Commission's impressive list of accomplishments and thanked Ms. Piechocki and the Commission for its hard work.
Council Member Verkerk questioned whether the Town should be maintaining artworks after identifying them. Ms. Piechocki replied that this was exactly the type of question the Commission was asking itself and that they would be presenting those recommendations to the Council.
Council Member Kleinschmidt encouraged Town departments to continue working with the Commission to identify works in the Town's art collection.
Item 7 - Consideration of Resolution Accepting the
Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan
Pam Hemminger, Chair of the Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan Committee, reported that all boards and commissions had approved the Conceptual Plan with a few additions, such as paving part of the path to the dog park. She then listed several other recommendations:
· to better show on the plan the pedestrian connections to the school and the park and ride lot;
· to improve pedestrian access from Dogwood Acres Drive to the greenway;
· to use the Community Center site as a temporary picnic area;
· to have the Town maintain at least a 50-foot buffer along 15/501, which would be enhanced with plantings; and
· to designate where the bus stop and public transit accesses are; and, to put benches in different areas.
Council Member Ward expressed general agreement with the plan, but repeated his previous suggestion to reserve a full size soccer field rather than the "possible youth athletic field" indicated. He pointed out that there had been a well established need for soccer fields in the community and that not reserving this space would be missing an opportunity. Council Member Ward also wondered why there was an open space/meadow being reserved even though Merritt Pasture was nearby and connected by green space. He advised the Town to let that area grow up into a forest. Council Member Ward also suggested that the stormwater management plan be looked at more closely because it might make more sense to build the bioretention ponds closer to the source of the problem.
Council Member Bateman agreed with Council Member Ward's comments regarding the soccer field. She asked Ms. Hemminger to explain again why the Committee had decided not to reserve a footprint for that. Ms. Hemminger said that this issue had been the biggest bone of contention and that this was their best attempt to balance the opposing voices. Council Member Bateman pointed out that the public had approved bonds for more soccer fields.
Mayor pro tem Evans added that this would become a park for all of Chapel Hill, not just those in the southern part who turned out for the meeting. Since there eventually would be a soccer complex in the central or northern part of Town, she said, she supported building one at Southern Community Park. Mayor pro tem Evans also suggested cutting out the water service for dogs as a way of saving money.
Council Member Verkerk questioned the need for the meadow and suggested that the Town would serve more people with a soccer field than with a roller hockey court. Ms. Hemminger replied that roller hockey had become very popular. She said that participants must drive to Cary to play because there is no place to do so in Chapel Hill.
Mayor Foy suggested that someone move the resolution and that the Council give the staff direction on whether or not to implement the study quickly. Mr. Horton asked whether or not the Council wished the staff to develop a phasing plan, since the County Commissioners had earmarked some funds for development of this park in a previous bond as well as this one. He said that the staff would welcome this work assignment.
Council Member Strom suggested adopting resolution R-13 with revisions, and then another resolution instructing the staff to being work on spending the 1997 bond money designated for phase one. He recommended that the resolution also ask the staff to break the plan down into phases two and three to coincide with the proposed bond sale in years three, four and five.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED R-13, WITH AN AMENDMENT TO ADD A BULLET SAYING THAT THE TOWN SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXPLORE A FULL SCALE SOCCER FIELD AND THE POSSIBLE USE OF THE SOCCER SUPER FUND FOR THAT PROJECT. COUNCIL MEMBER WARD SECONDED.
Council Member Evans suggested adding that the clearing of a meadow is not a good use of park funds, nor is the extension of the water line to the dog park. Council Member Strom did not accept those as friendly amendments.
Council Member Ward repeated his objection to clearing land for a meadow. He noted that there were other open spaces on the site and said that he did not want money to go into that until the end, if at all.
Mayor Foy pointed out that decisions regarding money would be made later on. Anything that is not funded, he said, will not be built, whether it's on the map or not.
Council Member Ward remarked that eliminating something means that it has no possibility for funding. He requested more information about the meadow. Bryan Starky, representing OBS Architects, said that the need for open space not designated as parkland had been clearly expressed at meetings. He explained that this area had been chosen because it consisted of young scrub pines, many of which had been damaged by recent storms. Council Member Ward replied that the value of such natural areas now and in the future should not be underestimated or discounted.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Horton to outline the process for phasing and funding this park. Mr. Horton explained that the staff would estimate what each element would cost and would recommend a sequencing that made sense for the site and for the uses that were possible given the available funding. Mr. Horton noted that the Town could not build the entire site with the small amount of money on hand and would have to take into account the likelihood of other funds becoming available. Mr. Horton added that it would not surprise him if there was not enough money to carry out all of the elements.
In response to Council Member Strom's questions, Mr. Horton said that the staff would bring options to the Council that would include a SUP application. He explained that the staff would then bring forward a sequence for the actual construction of the park, providing multiple occasions for the Council to make decisions about how the money would be spent.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council was being asked to endorse a concept plan that is sure to be modified, as money and other considerations dictate, over the next several years. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if it was necessary to request the larger soccer field footprint. Mayor Foy pointed out that this already was part of R-13.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM OFFERED REVISED LANGUAGE FOR HIS AMENDMENT, TO ADD A BULLET THAT A FULL SIZE SOCCER FIELD SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND RESERVED IN LIEU OF THE YOUTH SIZE FIELD SITE AND THE POSSIBLE USE OF THE SOCCER SUPER FUND TO THAT PROJECT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REPORT OF THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN COMMITTEE WITH REVISIONS (2002-03-25/R-13)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has acquired land for development of a southern community park south of Southern Village; and
WHEREAS, the Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan Committee has developed a conceptual plan for a community park on the site; and
WHEREAS, various boards, commissions, and a committee have reviewed the proposed conceptual plan and have unanimously recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, members of the various boards and commissions have suggested revisions to the proposed conceptual plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the Report of the Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan Committee with the following revisions:
· The paved Fan Branch Trail should be extended to the southern tip of the property.
· A sidewalk, paved trail, or improved recreation access should be provided on the north side of Dogwood Acres Drive, from the western property line to the point where the main greenway trail crosses Dogwood Acres Drive.
· The Report should show better connections to Scroggs School and the southern park and ride lot.
· The Report should state that the 50 foot minimum buffer currently shown along Highway 15-501 be maintained and that it be supplemented with additional vegetation if needed.
· The area reserved for the future community center should be designated as a temporary picnic area until such time as the area is needed for some other purpose.
· The need for benches should be articulated in the plan.
· The need for bus routes and stops should be articulated in the plan.
· Space for a third full-size soccer field shall be identified and reserved in lieu of the youth field.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
Council Member Strom asked that the Council instruct the Manager to devise and report on a plan to phase the construction of the Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan. He suggested that particular attention be paid to the 1997 County park bond money which is available for that purpose, and that construction begin as soon as possible.
Mayor Foy said that phase one should be matched up with the available funds to the extent that this can be identified.
Council Member Bateman recalled that the County Commissioners and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen had been given an opportunity to comment on this. Mr. Horton and Mayor Foy noted that neither had commented. Council Member Bateman said that this would not be approved until dialogue was completed with the Chatham County Commissioners. Mr. Horton said that the Town Attorney had pointed out that the Town was not required to obtain a SUP for development of this park. He added that it was the Town's custom to do so, however, and recommended that this custom continue because it establishes certainty about the nature of the development.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, THAT THE COUNCIL INSTRUCT THE MANAGER TO DEVISE AND REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON A PLAN TO PHASE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN, AND THAT PARTICULAR ATTENTION BE PAID TO THE 1997 COUNTY PARK BOND MONEY, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE ,AND THAT CONSTRUCTION BEGIN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Ward asked if there would be ample opportunity in the future to address his concerns about stormwater management. Mr. Horton replied that this would be part of the SUP process and would be considered as the Town develops the individual design for any particular phase.
Item 8 - Recessing Hearings for Europa Applications: Modification of Existing
Special Use Permit and Application for New Special Use Permit
to April 22 to Allow Completion of Traffic Study
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT R-14. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION RECESSING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE EUROPA APPLICATIONS TO APRIL 22, 2002 (2002-03-25/R-14)
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2002, the Town Council held Public Hearings on the Europa applications for Modification of an Existing Special Use Permit and for a New Special Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Public Hearing on this item was recessed and continued to March 25, 2002; and
WHEREAS, following the Public Hearing, it was determined to be desirable to allow additional time for the Planning Board, Transportation Board and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board to review the Traffic Impact Analysis data;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Public Hearings on the Europa applications for Modification of an Existing Special Use Permit and for a New Special Use Permit shall be recessed until April 22, 2002.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
Item 9 - Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont:
Application for Special Use Permit
Mr. Waldon explained that this SUP application is for condominiums on two sites within Meadowmont. He presented slides showing the locations of the two sites and their site plans. Mr. Waldon explained that Hilltop would be 5.58 acres with 48 units in four 3-story buildings with 96 parking spaces (48 below the building). Greenway Condominiums, he said, would be 1.5 acres, with 16 units (10 affordable housing) in a two-story building with 25 parking spaces. A condition for approval, he said, was that the applicant provides a walkway along the eastern edge of the Greenway property.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that there is no affordable housing requirement in the Town's Development Ordinance. There is language in the Comprehensive Plan, however, that suggests that 15% of new dwelling units ought to be affordable to families making 80% of the area median income, he said. He explained that this comes out to about 10 units, adding that the Town staff, the applicant, and Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) had been working hard to insure that these units remain affordable over the long term.
Mr. Waldon stated that the staff had designated $130,000 as the sale price of the affordable units. He said that eligible buyers would be those making up to 100% of median income. He noted that the Council had expressed interest in insuring that the units are permanently affordable by restricting the resale price. Mr. Waldon said that the Land Trust probably was not workable with this site but that the applicant had suggested other things that would place restrictions on resale.
Roland Gammons, speaking as the applicant, stated that he too was concerned about affordable housing. He said that he wanted to create a situation where someone could resell their unit knowing that the buyer has good, market-rate financing options. Mr. Gammons explained that he had consulted with FHA to make sure that he would not create problems regarding long-term affordability. He remarked that he and Robert Dowling, of OCHC, had been working together on stipulations regarding this.
Mayor Foy asked if Mr. Gammons and Mr. Dowling had agreed upon the proposed deed restrictions. Mr. Gammons replied that Mr. Dowling had not been sure whether or not this would fit into the Land Trust. He said that real estate attorneys had told him that deed restrictions have sunset provisions built into them. In the case of a condominium, he said, there is a Declaration of Condominium, which is a perpetual document until the building is either demolished or significantly changed. Mr. Gammons asserted that the Declaration of Condominium would be the better way to deal with this, noting that it could not be amended without the Town Manager's consent.
Mr. Gammons pointed out that paragraph four on page one of his handout had been inserted in place of paragraph four in the original handout. He said that he had asked that prices be put in there, with four of the ten units reserved at the $130,000 maximum. He added that he was willing to reserve six at a maximum sale price of $110,000. Mr. Gammons also said that he would be willing to limit the remaining six in the 16-unit condo to $150,000.
Council Member Strom asked for clarification of the square footage, bedrooms, and bathrooms in the $110,000 units. Mr. Gammons replied that they would include 1-1/2 baths and one bedroom, and would range between 800 and 900 square feet. He said that the larger units would have two bedrooms, two baths, and be about 1,050 square feet. Regarding Item F on the second page of the materials, Mr. Gammons pointed out that he had dropped the Providence Glen set of stipulations 150% to 100% CPI. Item G, he said, had not been in the Council's packet to begin with in order to insure that the seller has the right to some appreciation. This will be controlled so that it will not be out of line in the future, Mr. Gammons said. Paragraph C had not been fully resolved, he pointed out, noting that the Town Manager and Attorney had proposed one version and he and Mr. Dowling were proposing another. The Manager and Attorney should ultimately work out the details and nuances, Mr. Gammons said, so that this is consistent, fair, and predictable.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Gammons to clarify his proposed changes. Mr. Gammons replied that he wanted the Manager's C and his C to mesh and to be more carefully worked out with the Manager and Attorney.
Council Member Strom wondered what an 800 square-foot condo at $110,000 would appraise at. He asked what the 80% of median standard for a family of one would be. Mr. Waldon replied that they had not put that fine a point on it, adding that they had taken the median income for a family of four as the standard. Mr. Waldon said that trying to accommodate for the number of people would raise the level of complexity considerably.
Mayor Foy commented that it does not make sense to have a standard for a family of four when you cannot put a family of four in one bedroom, and described the staff's report as "smoke and mirrors." Mr. Gammons said that a one-person household with an income of $38,500 can borrow $105,000, depending on interest rates and personal debt. Mr. Horton commented that the staff had not attempted to apply "smoke and mirrors" but only the standards the Council had used on previous occasions. Council Member Strom apologized for his comment, explaining that he had been stunned by the discussion of one-bedroom units in this context.
Mr. Gammons displayed slides of the proposed condos from various views. He referred to a citizen's letter concerning density and said that those comments were about a different project across the street. He described the author of that letter as "confused."
Council Member Bateman noted that the letter had just been received that day. Mr. Horton said that Mr. Gammons must have been referring to an earlier letter rather than that one received from Ms. Blackburn today.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that he still had the same problems with this project that he'd had before - that is, the attempt to maintain some exclusivity that is free from affordability. He asked why this was the case. Mr. Gammons replied that some of the design is in response to the site conditions. He also explained that some of the Hilltop design was in response to the Community Design Commission's desire to preserve trees. Mr. Gammons added that the land under the Hilltop condos was originally identified on the approved master land use plan for larger row houses and that they are putting in houses that are significantly less expensive.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Dowling for his opinion about the affordability component of this application. Mr. Dowling said that he had not been pleased with it at the start of the day. He explained that he had been discussing three concerns with Mr. Gammons throughout the day:
· The applicant was not pricing these units for eighty percent of median.
· The long-term affordability policy would not work.
· There were no price points for the non-reserved units.
Mr. Dowling explained that $110,000 is barely affordable at 80% of median and $130,000 is 100% of median. He noted that this would be for one- and two-person households. Mr. Gammons had tried to address all three points, he said, and he characterized himself as trying to be fair but not wanting to be "out-negotiated."
Mr. Dowling commented that his job is one where he learns as he goes. He said that he had told Mr. Gammons that OCHC does not yet understand the complexity of putting condominiums into the Land Trust, as the Council has instructed it to do, so that doing so would not yet be an option. Mr. Dowling remarked that Mr. Gammon's deed restrictions were effective options in terms of restricting price. But putting houses into the land trust means the majority will always be affordable, he said. "And that's what's missing in this proposal", he concluded.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Dowling to explain what he means by $130,000 being 100%. Mr. Dowling said that units need to be priced so that there is a window of eligible buyers. You can not price it so that it is affordable precisely at 80%, he said, because then there really is no market. So OCHC says 80%, he explained, but really tries to price it at 70% in order to get the folks between 70-80% who actually can buy the houses.
Council Member Strom asked if OCHC might complete the work of understanding how to put condos into the Land Trust. Mr. Dowling replied that they would not have time to focus on this until September.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Horton if there was any way to proceed with this permit with the understanding that these units would ultimately go into the Land Trust. Mr. Horton replied that he did not know how to do that, adding that the Council was being presented with information that had not been thoroughly reviewed and agreed upon. He recommended deferring consideration until at least April 22nd, noting that this would provide additional time to determine whether the units can come under the Land Trust.
Mayor Foy suggested that someone make a motion to defer the public hearing until April 22nd.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE RECESSED UNTIL APRIL 22, AND COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK SECONDED.
Council Member Ward pointed out, though, that Council Member Kleinschmidt's question had not been answered. He said that he, too, wanted to better understand why the affordable units were all in the Greenway rather than at Hilltop as well.
Council Member Bateman asked to see this application truly address affordability as the Council had defined in the Land Trust. She suggested that it be deferred until the Land Trust can develop a formula and a process in September. Otherwise, she said, she'd like to see the affordable units scattered throughout the development.
Mayor Foy noted that when this item comes back it should highlight the affordability aspect.
Council Member Harrison, noting that Jill Blackburn's letter differed from her previous one, asked for a response to that as well.
Mr. Gammons commented that he had been given conflicting guidance from various Town entities. He said that it would help him to have more specific guidance regarding percentages of income and so forth. Mayor Foy asked the staff to participate in the discussions between Mr. Gammons and Mr. Dowling. Mr. Horton replied that the developer and Land Trust were still trying to resolve some of the issues that all three had jointly identified in earlier discussions. He added that it appeared to him that the Council expects to meet the challenges that the Land Trust puts forward, which includes the manner in which the Land Trust does this and the pricing points that they find most significant.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Gammons if he was comfortable working with the staff to get the general sense of the Town's concerns. Mr. Gammons replied that he was, but asked if his standards as a private developer would be the same as a non-profit, publicly supported development entity. Or, will they be somewhat different but within similar guidelines? he asked. Mayor Foy assured him that the latter would be more accurate.
Council Member Strom agreed with Council Member Bateman that two or more bedroom units would better address the need. Mr. Gammons replied that the most under-served group was those who were working and struggling. And they are often single, he said. Council Member Evans recalled that the Southern Village developer had said that the one-bedroom units sold better than two-bedroom units because there was a great deal of demand for those from single people. So there was a demand in Chapel Hill for one-bedroom units, she said.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 10 - Cross Creek Subdivision: Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
Mr. Waldon showed the applicant's proposed site plan and a site plan showing the RCD and significant trees. He explained that there had been discussion at the public hearing about preserving one tree in particular and that the applicant had proposed splitting the road around the tree. Mr. Waldon said that the staff approved of that idea and was pleased that the applicant had proposed it.
Mr. Waldon explained that the main issue discussed at the public hearing in February was stormwater management. Historically, he said, the Town has not required any stormwater management improvements for subdivisions because the development ordinance does not require that and the track record had not been good for homeowners forming associations to care for them. But stormwater management had been a concern from the beginning of this application, he said, because of some preexisting flooding problems downstream. Mr. Waldon noted that the applicant had discussed doing some stormwater detention on the site, even though it was not required, to insure that downstream flooding would not be worsened. He said that the staff had tried to apply the same standards (stipulation 24) the Town has been applying to SUPs. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the applicant had objected to that stipulation at the public hearing and had concluded that detaining water for the 50-year storm could make things worse downstream because the peak discharge would be greater than it would otherwise have been.
Mr. Waldon said that the Town's Engineering Department had agreed with the applicant's conclusions and had been working with the applicant to prepare alternate language to stipulation 24. He added that water detained underground cannot be under a public right-of-way but must be under private property with a dedicated easement and owned and maintained by somebody other than the Town. Also, regarding posting a bond to guarantee the performance of the underground water detention system, Mr. Waldon explained that the staff does not believe the Town has the authority to do that. There is an enforcement mechanism in place that would address the same objective, he said, making not maintaining it a violation of approval. Mr. Waldon added that the Town can enforce conditions of approval.
Jack Smyre, the applicant, said he was committed to preserving the 120 year-old white oak, installing a lightning protection system, and making the tree a major feature of the development. Regarding stormwater management, he explained that a design engineer had run multiple scenarios and that the Town staff had reviewed that report. Mr. Smyre stated that the engineer had recommended including design for the five-year storm but that water retention actually contributes to the peak flow beyond that. He stressed that they were committed to doing the right thing and that the right thing in this instance is to detain for the smaller event storms and not to detain for the larger event storms. He said that he could therefore agree to all the provisions but #24.
Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Smyre to repeat what he said about the level spreader. Mr. Smyre stated that the applicant was committed to the level spreader, and he explained how it would work.
Mayor Foy inquired about which storm the level spreader would handle. Mr. Smyre replied that it would address the first inch of rainfall because that is the unclean water.
Mia Burroughs, of 110 Cedar Hills Drive, stated that her property borders the proposed subdivision to the east and that the bulk of stormwater flows through her property via Cedar Fork Creek and then onto Eastgate. She showed a slide of how her house had been surrounded by water on three sides during a rain storm. Although the Town had helped to alleviate that situation, she said, the area still is vulnerable to flooding. Ms. Burroughs said that Mr. Smyre had explained the new stormwater engineer's findings to her. The bottom line, she said, is that beyond a five-year storm the impervious surface in Cross Creek will make the downstream flow worse. She listed the names of all the families that would be affected by this, and noted that ultimately the excess water would end up at Eastgate.
Ms. Burroughs asked the Town Council to reject the applicant's proposed changes to stipulation 24. She pointed out that the Town's stormwater engineer, Fred Royal, had only one working day to look at the latest stormwater analysis. Ms. Burroughs noted that Cross Creek had no competition due to the development moratorium. She stated that "in this case, time might just mean added safety." She stressed that she was not asking the applicant to solve the preexisting problems, but was asking that Cross Creek not be approved until its advocates present alternatives that will not make problems worse.
Ken Pearce, of 36 Cedar Hills Circle, agreed with Ms. Burroughs and added that the road design to accommodate the white oak would result in a tree loss at the back of his lot. As a result, he said, he will lose a privacy buffer and might experience increased drainage problems. Mr. Burroughs expressed appreciation for the applicant's attempt to do the right thing regarding the white oak, but said he was concerned about the consequences.
John Larus, of 106 Cedar Hills Drive, expressed appreciation for the developer's attempt to communicate with the neighborhood. He asked, though, what changes need to be made to the land to actually handle more than a five-year rain and wondered if there was a possible solution to the problem. Mr. Larus supported the idea of a bond that holds the developer responsible if problems result from the development.
Mr. Smyre objected to the assertion that Cross Creek would make things worse beyond a five-year storm. He said that it would only make things worse if they do detention beyond a five-year storm and then release into the area. He acknowledged that neighbors' lots are pushed very close to the back line, noting that those landowners "do not own the first tree that they see." But, he argued, he would only remove a 30-foot swath and the lots are still 170 feet deep. Mr. Smyre explained that the applicant also had offered residents additional plantings and screening along that area.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Smyre if it was his contention that the proposed development does not create any downstream increase in the volume of stormwater. Mr. Smyre replied that if they design the system for one-, two- and five-year storms, they will not be increasing flow downstream at any point. He added that he was asserting, and not contenting, this.
Council Member Harrison ascertained from Mr. Waldon that what was being proposed in stipulation 24 was beyond what is required by the current ordinance. He noted that the reason why the Town was writing a new Development Ordinance was because the current one did not address the kind of issues that this project presents. Council Member Harrison commented that he had not seen any evidence yet that a level spreader would be effective. He noted the difficulty of inspecting underground pipes, and asked if the applicant had chosen that option rather than an extended detention pond because they wanted to maintain surface area for development.
Mr. Smyre replied that getting more lots was a consideration but the larger one was that maintaining ponds becomes a major headache that he did not want to saddle homeowners with. He argued that this would be a superior system because it is out of sight, works well, and requires little maintenance. Regarding the level spreader, Mr. Smyre noted that it could be certified on an annual basis and will "hit the 85% annual," which is the State standard.
Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Smyre to explain how the fifty-year storm would affect people downstream. Mr. Smyre replied that it would look like the photo that Ms. Burroughs displayed, with water on three sides of her house. This would be so regardless of what he does, he said, adding that Cross Creek would be less than 10% of the drainage into her area.
Council Member Harrison expressed support for the Planning Board's recommendation that this development help to revise the culverts downstream. Mr. Smyre replied that he does not believe that the culverts are the restriction. Rather, he said, the flat ground is the problem, as well as the trench around Ms. Burroughs' lot, which makes it even flatter.
Council Member Bateman asked if this proposal would meet the new ordinance and standards. Mr. Waldon declined to answer because, he said, the Town had not yet decided how aggressive they can be regarding stormwater requirements. Council Member Bateman inquired about the proposal from the consultant, but Mr. Waldon replied that he had not compared this development against that because the Council intended to discuss this further.
Council Member Bateman questioned whether the Town would be able to force a developer to assume responsibility for something they should have fixed earlier. Mr. Waldon replied that the Town could approve final plans and then inspect the development to make sure it is built according to the approved plans. Later, he said, if there are complaints and the facility and is not accomplishing what it was supposed to, then the Town could deem it out of compliance with its approval and order that it be fixed. If the Homeowners Association did not comply with that, Mr. Waldon said, the Town would levy fines and ultimately get a judge to order compliance.
Council Member Evans commented that there were homes throughout the community that had been built in areas where they probably should not have been. She asked if the Planning Board's recommendation that the Town's Engineering Department study the downstream water management issues was included in this stipulation. Mr. Waldon pointed out that this would be Resolution F. Mr. Horton recommended that the Council hear from the Engineering Director before concluding their debate.
Council Member Strom asked Engineering Director George Small if Mr. Smyre had said that even after all of the impervious surface is added to the site there will be no change in the rate of release and the rate of run-off from the five-year storm on up. Mr. Small replied that he did not think that was what Mr. Smyre had said. Mr. Smyre explained that the system would continue to release at the designed rate even as the storm piles up, and at some point it would start being bypassed. Council Member Strom asked Mr. Smyre if the additional impervious surface would increase the rate coming off after the five-year storm. Mr. Smyre replied, "Yes, but what it does not do is increase the peak of the hydrograph. It actually knocks it down." This keeps the maximum flow from increasing, he said, and detention beyond a five-year storm would increase it. Council Member Strom commented that at a certain point the water will be coming of more rapidly post-development than pre-development. Mr. Smyre replied that this is true for the large event storm, but that the goal is to get the water off the site in a hurry before the peak arrives.
Council Member Strom said that he would like the staff to go through this one more time. Mr. Smyre said that he did not think the conclusions would be different. He pointed out that the application included stormwater measures even though it was not required to do so.
Council Member Verkerk commented that there seemed to be something wasteful about the plan for one of the houses, which, she said, did not fall within the spirit of affordability. She asked Mr. Smyre why he did not just renovate the house and then build another 1,300 square-foot affordable home. Mr. Smyre agreed that the house could be expanded at some point in the future and, but asked if that was a bad thing. A growing family could rehabilitate it and stay in the neighborhood, he said. Mr. Smyre noted that the house could be restricted from expansion for as long as the Council was comfortable with. But, if at some point someone wants to remodel it and put the second floor back in, "how is that a bad thing?" he asked.
Council Member Kleinschmidt replied that it was a bad thing because it does not insure the continued affordability of that residence. He described the small house as "a big house kit, with ready-to-go features for expansion." Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if deconstruction of a home meets the requirement to build homes to meet certain sizes. Mr. Horton replied that the staff must judge the end product and that there is no rule about the initial construction.
Mr. Horton recommended that the hearing be recessed until April 22nd.
Council Member Ward wondered if narrowing the street would reduce the amount of impervious surface. He asked the staff to revisit options such as no on-street parking. Council Member Ward also asked how anyone knows a development is there is there is an "unimproved pedestrian connection." Mr. Horton explained that it would be a path through the woods, and Council Member Ward said that he wanted an improved path. Mr. Smyre explained that the applicant preferred that it be an easement if it is just an informal path.
Council Member Ward inquired about plantings under the white oak. Mr. Smyre said that the ground cover beneath the drip line would not be ornamental and would not compete with feeder roots. Council Member Ward asked for no soil disturbance within the drip line of the tree, and Mr. Smyre agreed to bring back a detailed explanation of the plans for the area.
Mayor Foy asked for information of whether on-site management of this site would be possible and if the staff had any opinion as to the effect of that.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, TO RECESS THE HEARING UNTIL APRIL 22ND AND GET ANALYSIS ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO CEDAR HILLS DRIVE REGARDING STORMWATER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 11 - Downtown Streetscape Construction Options
Council Member Bateman asked if this could be deferred.
Council Member Evans suggested dealing with it quickly.
Mayor Foy asked if deferring would interrupt the schedule. Urban Forester Curtis Brooks said that he could give a brief presentation, adding that construction would begin in May.
Mayor Foy asked how many Council members wanted to defer this item. The Council agreed by consensus to defer this item until April 8.
Item 12. Petitions: None.
Item 13 - Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items
4b. Resolution Calling a Hearing on Potential Legislative Requests
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-2A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 8, 2002, TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSALS FOR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL’S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE UPCOMING SESSION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2002-03-25/R-2a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing for April 8, 2002, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall on the following proposed items for consideration as part of its Legislative Program for the upcoming session of the General Assembly:
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
Regarding R-2b, Mayor Foy asked to delete University Overhead Receipts as something that the Council considers a potential alternative revenue source.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-2B AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE EFFORTS OF THE N.C. METROPOLITAN COALITION STATE BUDGET TASK FORCE IN IDENTIFYING ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES TO BALANCE THE STATE’S BUDGET SHORTFALL (2002-03-25/R-2b)
WHEREAS, the N.C. Metropolitan Coalition, together with the N.C. League of Municipalities and the N.C. Association of County Commissioners, has announced its opposition to Governor Easley’s escrow of local revenues to balance the State’s Fiscal 2001-02 budget; and
WHEREAS, the Coalition formed a State Budget Task Force to review other options and identified other sources of funds that could be used as alternatives to the Governor’s escrow of local revenues; and
WHEREAS, the Coalition State Budget Task Force identified the following as alternative revenue sources:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby endorses the efforts of the N.C. Metropolitan Coalition State Budget Task Force in identifying alternative sources of revenue to balance the State’s budget shortfall.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
4c. Deferred to April 8.
4g. Award of Bids for Lease Purchase of Vehicle and Computer Replacements for 2001-2002 Fiscal Year.
Mayor Foy asked what the annual payment was, and Mr. Horton replied, $245,000. Mayor Foy pointed out that by taking this action the Council would be making a $245,000 commitment for next year's budget.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE LEASE-PURCHASE CONTRACTS FOR VEHICLE AND COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PURCHASES FOR THE 2001-2002 FISCAL YEAR (2002-03-25/R-7)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill solicited and received competitive proposals from financial institutions for the lease-purchase of a variety of vehicles and computer equipment for various departments; and
WHEREAS, Ashford Capital Corporation offers the lowest total interest cost of 3.12% for the 3-year term for the purchase of vehicles totaling $188,200 and computer equipment totaling $145,000;
WHEREAS, Ashford Capital Corporation offers the lowest total interest cost of 3.94% for the 7-year term for the purchase of vehicles totaling $1,490,900;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Ashford Capital Corporation on behalf of the Town for the lease-purchase of vehicles and computer equipment totaling $333,200 at a fixed interest cost of 3.12% for the three year term at a total principal and interest cost of $351,627 and for the lease purchase of additional vehicles totaling $1,490,900 for a fixed interest rate of 3.94% for a seven year term for a total principal and interest cost of $1,720,480.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforesaid contracts by and between the Town of Chapel Hill, various State contract and other vendors, and Ashford Capital Corporation, together with the amounts to be paid thereunder, be and the same are hereby designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations of the Town of Chapel Hill for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council does not reasonably expect that the Purchaser (and any subordinate entities) will issue more than $10,000,000 in qualified tax-exempt obligations pursuant to such Sections 265(b)(3)(ii) during the current calendar year.
This the 25th day of March, 2002.
The meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m.