SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, APRIL 22, 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, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Planner Phil Hervey, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Finance Director Jim Baker, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Reconvening April 8, 2002 Town Council Regular Business Meeting

Item 14 - Appointments

a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: Heidi Perry

Council Members

Bicycle and Pedestrian

Advisory Board

Applicants

Foy

Bateman

Evans

Harrison

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Heidi Perry

b. Greenways Commission: Jim Earnhardt

Council Members

Greenways Commission

Applicants

Foy

Bateman

Evans

Harrison

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Jim Earnhardt

Demetra Stamm

Barry Starrfield

Robert Verboon

c. Horace Williams Planning Advisory Committee: Cam Hill, Ruby Seinreich

Council Members

Horace Williams Planning Advisory Committee

Applicants

Foy

Bateman

Evans

Harrison

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Cam Hill

Charles Murphy, Jr.

Ruby Sinreich

Brynda Smith

Fred Black (write-in)

Rosemary Waldorf (write-in)

d. Council Liaison to Technology Committee:

The Council agreed by consensus to adopt R-12 appointing Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt as the liaison to the Technology Committee.

A RESOLUTION ASSIGNING A COUNCIL MEMBER AS LIAISON TO THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE (2002-04-08/R-12)

WHEREAS, it is the Council’s practice to assign council members to serve as liaisons to advisory boards and committees; and

WHEREAS, no Council member has been assigned as liaison to the Technology Committee;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council assigns Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt to serve as liaison to the Technology Committee until such time as the Council makes new assignments scheduled for December, 2003.

This the 8^th day of April, 2002.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2002. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

APRIL 22, 2002 BUSINESS MEETING

Mayor Foy called the April 22, 2002 meeting to order.

Item 1 – Ceremonies: Proclamation in Recognition of National Volunteer Week

Mayor Foy read the Proclamation, which was accepted by the Council.

A PROCLAMATION REGARDING NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

AND THOSE GENEROUS CITIZENS WHO GIVE THEIR TIME

AND BEST EFFORTS TO THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL

WHEREAS, National Volunteer Week has been recognized as a time to say ‘thank you” since 1974 when President Nixon signed an executive order establishing the Week as an annual celebration of Volunteering; and

WHEREAS, National Volunteer Week provides a special opportunity to encourage men, women and children of all ages to get connected to their communities by volunteering; and

WHEREAS, volunteer activities bridge gaps between people in the community and are necessary for the health of our society; and

WHEREAS, volunteers strengthen America by strengthening communities; and

WHEREAS, both long and short-term volunteer opportunities continue to be available for everyone in our community; and

WHEREAS, based on an estimated dollar value of volunteer time at $16 per hour in 2001 by the Independent Sector, Chapel Hill volunteers invested approximately $176,000 in our community this past year.

THEREFORE, I, Kevin Foy, Mayor of the Town of Chapel Hill, wish to honor and to thank the dedicated citizens of our community who give so freely of their valuable time, energy and abilities by proclaiming this week of April 21-27, 2002 to be officially designated as

National Volunteer Recognition Week in Chapel Hill, North Carolina

And in so doing, I charge interested citizens to observe this week by seeking some area in the community in which they can devote a few hours each week and give aid to people or programs in need.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, ON THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TWO.

Kevin Foy, Mayor

Town of Chapel Hill

Item 2 – Public Hearings

a. Public Forum on Planning Options for Halloween 2002.

Police Chief Jarvies gave a brief history of Halloween in Chapel Hill. He said it had developed from a costume parade on the sidewalk with a few hundred people and 15 or 20 police officers to an event in 2000 that attracted over 50,000 people and over 500 employees, including 300 police officers from Chapel Hill and some surrounding communities. He said to manage that amount of people would take as much as $100,000 costs to the Town. Chief Jarvies said the staff was offering several suggestions as to how future events should be managed. He highlighted:

· Any event of this size would take at least the same amount of employees to manage,

· In any of the planning models the focus was on public safety

Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, thanked Chief Jarvies and the Council for the package of suggestions they had put forth as options for Halloween 2002.

Scott Gardner, representative of Duke Power, thanked the Town for the approach to assessing crowd-control issues, and that Duke Power had safety concerns of citizens climbing utility poles during such events

Mayor Foy said that Transportation assistance was critical to make the event work, and he hoped the Chapel Hill Transit could be involved in getting people from the Park and Ride lots to the downtown.

Council Member Strom said Chief Jarvies did an outstanding job.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE COMMENTS RECEIVED TO THE MANAGER.

Council Member Ward said he was in favor of moving along the line of Option 3, with some modifications.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

b. Public Forum on Weaver Dairy Road Improvements.

Mayor Foy said that Resolution 1 was put forward by him, based on conversations with the Department of Transportation (DOT), and he was offering it as a point of discussion.

Tim Dempsey, Citizens Action for Responsible Roads, said he would be taking about 15 minutes, since other citizens had ceded their time to him for his presentation. He offered the following information:

· In 2025, the average daily traffic on Weaver Dairy Road would be about 20,000 at its heaviest point. Chief Planning and Environment Office from the DOT said 4 lanes are warranted when traffic volumes exceed 30,000. In tight budget times, is $12,000,000 warranted?

· The accident rate on Weaver Dairy Road is equal to the State average—90% are at intersections, left turning lanes and rear end collisions.

· If a pedestrian is hit by a car going 30 mph the survival rate is 50%, at 40 mph the rate drops to 15%. Four lanes and a median are designed for 50 mph. Speed is the issue.

· Raised medians are most useful on high volume, high speed roads. Separating opposing traffic flow and eliminating left-turn friction can increase traffic speeds. Desired turning movements need to be carefully provided so that motorists are not forced to travel on inappropriate routes, such as residential streets, or make unsafe U-turns.

· Alternatives:

· No Build—abrogates responsibility

· Two Lane—turning lanes, pedestrian islands—is there DOT data to negate this alternative?

· Three lane – approved January 2001

· Four lane—with pedestrian crossing islands

· Quote from Janet D’Ignazio:

· “What State DOT needs is strong vision of local use.”

· “Bottom line issue for the DOT—need to have a strong partnership; need communities with strong vision and commitment to that vision.”

· A call for leadership—a good idea in 1988 but things change. Please don’t let us be victimized by DOT. Processes that force you to compromise your own beliefs for State $$$. Elected representatives for Chapel Hill must determine what is best for our Town.

Michelle Ware, Citizens Action for Responsible Roads, said that the Departments of Transportation in Washington, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are reducing four-lane roads to three-lanes to slow car speeds and improve traffic flow, which is called a “road diet.” She cited the statistics from these states. She said Chapel Hill is often used as an example for new ideas, and Weaver Dairy Road was an ideal candidate for a “road diet.”

Seymour Freed, resident of Weaver Dairy Road, said he had studied traffic patterns on I-40 and he had been in communication with the North Carolina DOT but with little success despite written petitions from citizens of the surrounding cities and counties. He said the median promised on I-40 had been reduced so that with present widening there will be no grassy medians, but only concrete. He said that NCDOT had trashed an environmental impact study, which took ten years to prepare. Mr. Freed said the NCDOT only did what it wished to do regardless of what it had pledged.

Dan Okun, professional civil engineer, retired professor of UNC, said he was speaking on behalf of 60 residents of Carol Woods Retirement Community, who were opposed to the widening of Weaver Dairy Road. He described what he called the DOT’s northern link to I-40. He said commuter traffic should be encouraged for I-40 other than a neighborhood road like Weaver Dairy Road. He encouraged other safety measures such as traffic lights, but a four-lane road would increase usage. Mr. Okun said little consideration had been given to environmental issues.

Lewis Woodham, resident of Carol Woods Retirement Community, said the widening of Weaver Dairy Road was a life or death issue. He cited statistics of in and out traffic at Carol Woods, which occurred in the two-lane section of Weaver Dairy Road, without benefit of traffic lights. He said the speed limit was ignored.

Fred Black, on behalf of the Community Action Network, said other issues pale in comparison to safety issues. He said that Weaver Dairy Road was a State road and the process has been in the State Transportation Improvement Plan for making recommendations for many years, and it was time to bring it to a conclusion. He said when the Town Council asked the DOT for delay, it put the planning into havoc and put the funding in jeopardy. Mr. Black said the funding might go to some other project. He said the real issue is the safety, and the Town could not do anything to put improvements, because this was a State-owned road. He said some would wish Weaver Dairy Road to be a neighborhood road, but the fact is that it is not He asked for a road with a median providing all the safety measures recommended.

Roger Lundblad, resident of Weatherstone, quoted an article which said the more a road is widened, the more congested it will get. He said that observing traffic in California, the only way to help traffic was to put in high occupancy lanes (HOV). Mr. Lundblad said that Weaver Dairy Road was a very safe road, it was the drivers who were unsafe. He said safety needed enforcement of the speed limits and enforcement of pedestrian laws.

Bob Tyson said he was concerned about the Silver Creek neighborhood. He said it was difficult to get back into his neighborhood by making left turns, and he was afraid that the traffic would make cut-throughs in the neighborhoods. He advised not doing a retro-fit. Mr. Tyson said the Town should not sign an agreement with the State to commit to funding out of the Town budget for changes or improvements on Weaver Dairy Road.

Lisa Everett, Wisteria Way, which exits onto Weaver Dairy Road, said there was not a bottle-neck at the exit, which the DOT claimed. She said the four-lane highway would increase traffic stagnation, and would increase tractor-trailer trucks using the road. Ms. Everett said the communities which were not walled off would not have their properties increase in value, as claimed by the DOT. She said she agreed with Council Member Harrison that the four-lane option was not warranted, and she felt the DOT was trying to create more use of the road. She agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt that Weaver Dairy Road was not difficult to drive.

Dan Coleman quoted comments made by Mayor Foy, as a candidate and as the present Mayor. He said he would hope that the Mayor would speak against a four-lane highway. He said the Council needed to follow what is right, and continue to support the two- or three-lanes with the safety features.

Jim Call, Director of Facilities at Carol Woods, said the residents were against the widening of Weaver Dairy Road, and were opposed to the noise and air pollution ,and applauded any safety measures.

Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Call if his statement was the official position of Carol Woods. Mr. Call said it was not, although he was speaking for many residents.

Robert Porter, chair of the Orange-Chatham Sierra Club, said that the Town would do nothing right for itself by taking the money from the DOT. He said he was speaking for the Club because of its concerns about the environment and the future of the community. Mr. Porter asked the Council to do all possible to minimize the widening of Weaver Dairy Road, with assurances of safety.

Richard Frank said he thought the negotiations by the Mayor with the DOT was an excellent starting point. He said it took into consideration that the traffic east of the High School needed road widening of the road, rather than the traffic west of the High School. Mr. Frank said one problem was that the widening of the road would help solve the traffic on Erwin Road and Highway US 15-501. He said the other alternatives could be explored with the DOT through their Environmental Impact process, and would take a diligent process. Mr. Frank advised that a group be organized to deal with the DOT officially to evaluate the alternatives. He complimented the Mayor for bringing up the negotiation of the groundwork with the DOT.

Jim Heavner, property owner on Weaver Dairy Road, said he respectfully disagreed with the majority of the speakers this evening, as he has had a long-time concern about the safety of his workers and the other workers in the office campus that had developed on Weaver Dairy Road. He said he felt that the Mayor and the Council was overthrowing all the previous planning for the road over the years, with collected data and the experience of professionals. He said the people who worked for the DOT were doing the very best they could do for the greatest good. Mr. Heavner cited the 30 years it took to widen US 15-501, which has become safer and a more convenient thoroughfare. He said that Weaver Dairy Road was a thoroughfare and had been such in every long-range plan for many years. Mr. Heaver said there had been a traffic fatality at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Airport Road a few years ago, contrary to what had been expressed by some of the speakers. He said he hoped that the DOT would build a road which they thought was best. He offered an editorial in the Chapel Hill News, to be entered into the public record. [I do not have it if it needs to be entered. Mr. Heavner said that cul-de-sacs entered more traffic on the road because of their lack of connectivity. He asked the Council to consider the road for those who would be using it in the future.

Claire Horne, who does not live near Weaver Dairy Road, said she was present in support of Citizens Action for Responsible Roads and the people living in the area. She said she lived in the neighborhoods along South Columbia Street, where they are fighting the widening of that street. Ms. Horne said wider roads degrade the environment and divide neighborhoods, and were outdated for making “bigger is better” roads. She asked the Council members to set the standards for the future by not endorsing the widening of Weaver Dairy Road. Ms. Horne asked them to endorse the most flexible and minimized road design that would meet the needs of the community not the cars.

Kelly Walsh, Springcrest resident, said that when the extension from Sage Road and Weaver Dairy Road is built, it will be 60 feet from her back yard. She said the DOT had told her that no barriers will be built between the road and her home. She asked the Council to consider those neighborhoods being cut apart by the road. Ms. Walsh said barriers needed to be built to protect the children.

Charlie Nelson, Vice-Chairman of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said he had two sons attending or about to attend East Chapel Hill High School and he runs a business on Weaver Dairy Road. He said that the present Weaver Dairy Road was unsafe for everyone. Mr. Nelson said the Mayor’s proposal was unsafe, and the traffic will increase as the Horace Williams Tract is developed. He said if the DOT required the Town to increase the size of the road in the future it would be at the Town’s expense. He said the previous Town Council had considered the proposal very carefully and decided that the DOT’s proposed four lanes would be the best solution. Mr. Nelson said that everyone with whom he has spoken believed that the DOT solution was the best one. He urged the Council to vote for the DOT proposal as the best for the future.

Cindy Risku, President of the Homeowner’s Association of Silver Creek, presented four petitions to the Mayor and Council. She read the petition advocating a two-lane highway. She said that the percentages of the neighborhoods were in favor of Weaver Dairy Road as a two-lane highway with safety improvements. Ms. Risku asked that the Town make the road safer, not wider and take into consideration all of the people who had signed the petitions.

Mac Clarke, Windhover development, said the citizens of the neighborhood supported the Mayor’s plan for a compromise of a three-lane highway. He said the financial aspect of the road that would be built by the DOT was a critical element, if the Town would need to commit to any future widening of the road.

Rosemary Waldorf, resident off Weaver Dairy Road, said she had worked for six years to get an improvement project into the State’s funding cycle. She said she would hope that the Council would reject the “Do Nothing” option, and look at the Mayor’s compromise proposal. Ms. Waldorf said she believed that a four-lane with median from Silver Creek to Sage Road was good, because it would alleviate the problem at Sedgefield Road intersection, and would solve problems for people who had driveways along that section. She said this would help the “super street” envisioned to work better. Ms. Waldorf said at the other end of the road, where the shopping centers are, were safety problems and there should be a median there. She said safety for everyone should be paramount for everyone. Ms. Waldorf stated she hoped the Council would review the accident data, get as many traffic signals possible, and she urged them not to compromise the safety of the entire road.

Scott Radway, member of the Planning Board, said he thought the best option for Weaver Dairy Road would be a four-lane, median divided road from one end to the other. He said he knew the planner for the East Lansing, Michigan roads and he would be happy to invite him to speak to the Council about the different lane options or he would be happy to go to East Lansing to get a personal look and report back to the Council.

The Public Hearing was closed by consensus.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1.

Council Member Harrison referred the Council to a handout he had procured from Orlando, Florida, and called the Council’s attention to a diagram which he said was the closest to what the Council would be talking about.

Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Small to tell the Council about the widening proposed by the DOT for Homestead Road. Mr. Small said the option the Town had put forth was three-lanes, with curb and gutter and sidewalks. He said one of the issues was that this option would make the road very wide.

Council Member Bateman asked what the projected capacity of that road in 25 years was. She said to double the size of a road such as Weaver Dairy Road for a projected capacity of 7,000 cars was not justified.

Council Member Strom offered a “friendly” amendment—in the second paragraph of the first “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED” to strike everything after the word “retrofitted” and the paragraph to read “For those segments of Weaver Dairy Road within the project corridor that are existing five-lane cross sections, the Town would prefer that they be retrofitted to a three-lane configuration.” Third paragraph to read “For the existing five-lane segment of Sage Road between Erwin Road and US 15-501, the Town prefers that it be retrofitted to a three-lane configuration.” Fourth paragraph to read, “For the new alignment segment connecting Weaver Dairy Road to Sage Road, the Town prefers construction of a three-lane configuration.” The mover and seconder accepted.

Council Member Strom said he wanted the public to know that the Resolution contained all the safety improvements the Weaver Dairy Road Safety Committee had recommended to be considered, and this was the compromise the Council had come up with.

Council Member Ward offered a “friendly” amendment that the Council would go on record as saying that “no-build” on Weaver Dairy Road was not an option. “To read, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council expresses to NCDOT that the Council does not wish to consider “no-build” as an option at this time.” This was accepted by the mover and seconder.

Council Member Verkerk offered a “friendly” amendment to read, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council desires to apply the NC54/Hamilton Road template at and in the vicinity of all existing and future signalized intersections on Weaver Dairy Road project corridor from NC 86 to US 15-501, to include:

· Textured crosswalks on all legs

· Countdown signal heads

· Overhead flashing school zone lights

· No turn on reds

· Rumble strips on Weaver Dairy Road approaches

· Explanatory signs for pedestrians

This was accepted by the mover and the seconder.

Council Member Wiggins asked why a three-lane road on Homestead Road would not present safety problems, but three lanes on Weaver Dairy Road would. Mr. Small said it was not a matter that three-lanes or four-lanes were not a safety matter, but one is safer than the other—the four lanes, and the developments in the Homestead Road area are significantly different from the Weaver Dairy Road developments, including the amount of pedestrian traffic.

Council Member Verkerk asked if a comparable road would be Airport Road for the four lanes, saying she would not consider these amenable for pedestrians.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if a factor was that people did not cross the highway at these seven lanes of the highway.

Council Member Wiggins asked Mayor Foy how much assurance there was that anything the Council sent back to the NCDOT, except the four lanes, would have a chance.

Mayor Foy said he had met with Mr. Douglas Galyon, Chair of the N.C. Board of Transportation to discuss the concerns of the Council. He said Mr. Galyon had been very firm that the DOT felt that the four lane option was the best choice, but he would be willing to advocate for the Resolution put forward. Mayor Foy said he discussed his three-lane option, and Mr. Galyon had said the Council should ask for what it wanted, but the DOT would not support a two-lane road. He said money will either disappear for this project by June 30 or the Department will go forward with their own choice.

Council Member Wiggins asked who would be responsible for improving Weaver Dairy Road if the option failed. Mayor Foy said the compromise from the DOT was that if Chapel Hill did not think it was necessary to widen the road, then the Town would be responsible for widening it in the future.

Council Member Wiggins said that if the option was rejected and a future Council decided that the road should be widened, then the Town would be paying twice for the widening, since the money was for Chapel Hill now, and, if not used, a future widening would have to be paid for by the Town. She said this was unfair for the taxpayers in the Town, since the Town was trying to make itself affordable. She said the addition of buses had been just such a contentious issue as this one. She said she would not support the Resolution.

Mayor Foy said the decisions were being made for long-term, and the Town would never build a four-lane highway.

Council Member Wiggins said the Council was setting a precedent by overruling a decision made by a previous Council

Mayor pro tem Evans said there would not be extensive commercial development along Weaver Dairy Road, and there would be a great deal of traffic coming onto the road when the Horace Williams Tract was developed. She said it was the Council’s responsibility to look and plan for the future, and they were not planning for the future if the road was left at two- or three-lanes, because most of the impacts will come from outside of the Town. Mayor pro tem Evans noted the development in Hillsborough that was already in progress. She said she was appalled that the Town would accept the cost of widening the road in the future, because the Town would never be able to afford that and she would never vote to improve a State highway at a cost to the taxpayers. Mayor pro tem Evans said the road would be a very crowded and backed-up two- or three-lane road. She asked how the Town could provide a connector road from the Gateway to the Horace Williams Tract on a two-lane road, using some method of transit. Mayor pro tem Evans asked if the parts of the road which were already three-lanes or more would be torn up to make them three-lanes.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not believe they would be torn up, because the extra turn lanes were basically three-lanes.

Council Member Bateman said she would not support the amended Resolution, adding the roads were being used like “silly putty.” She said the compromise had to be realistic and to work with the DOT. She said the only amendment she would support would be Council Member Verkerk’s.

Mayor Foy said it was time for the Council to make a decision.

Council Member Ward said he would support the amended Resolution. He said he had voted for three lanes a year and a half ago, and he was willing to give it another try, with the omission of a “no-build” option. He said there were efficient three-lane roads and he wanted it looked that. Council Member Ward said wider roads do not address increasing traffic, if a road is built it will be filled.

Council Member Harrison observed how little traffic the DOT shows coming out of Weaver Dairy Road Extension, noting that the traffic would be coming out of Weaver Dairy Road onto Airport Road to reach the Horace Williams Tract, and that was where the money should be spent. He said money should be spent to update traffic signals which were outdated. Council Member Harrison said commercial traffic used back roads to I-40. He said one of the comments by a citizen was for a Committee to be formed to meet with DOT to clarify what the Council wanted.

Council Member Wiggins asked Mayor Foy to be an advocate for his compromise and explain it to the Council.

Mayor Foy said he wanted to bring something for the Council to work from, and what he was lead to believe by DOT, would be acceptable. He said he thought it would be acceptable to the community. Mayor Foy said there would have to be a Mayor’s Committee to help maneuver with the DOT.

Council Member Bateman asked if this Resolution could be adopted as a back-up plan.

Mayor Foy said he felt the Council should go forward and be prepared for some contingencies.

Mayor pro tem Evans asked Mayor Foy what his assurances were that the State would reallocate any surplus project funds to the Town’s Traffic Signal System Upgrade Project.

Mayor Foy said the money was the Town’s money to be adjusted to other projects.

Council Member Strom called the question.

THE AMENDED RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-3, WITH MAYOR FOY, COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, KLEINSCHMIDT, STROM, VERKERK, AND WARD VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, AND WIGGINS VOTING NAY.

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS ON WEAVER DAIRY ROAD BETWEEN NC 86 AND ERWIN ROAD (2002-04-22/R-1)

WHEREAS, it is the Town’s desire to improve Weaver Dairy Road to the extent that it can safely and effectively accommodate existing and future pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic; and

WHEREAS, it is important to the Town that such improvements be designed and constructed so as to minimize disturbance of adjacent properties; and

WHEREAS, project improvements currently proposed for Weaver Dairy Road include construction of a four-lane median divided cross-section consisting of two travel lanes in each direction, a raised center median with exclusive turn lanes and refuge for pedestrians, curb-and-gutter and sidewalks along both sides of the road, and bus pull-offs as necessary; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that a more modest improvement project would meet the objectives of the Town and the State for Weaver Dairy Road at a lower cost than the currently approved project and with less disturbance to adjacent properties;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council proposes the following project design for Weaver Dairy Road:

For those segments of Weaver Dairy Road within the project corridor that are existing two- or three-lane cross sections, the Town would prefer that they be improved to no more than a three-lane configuration.

For those segments of Weaver Dairy Road within the project corridor that are existing five-lane cross sections, the Town would prefer that they be retrofitted to a three-lane configuration.

For the existing five-lane segment of Sage Road between Erwin Road and US 15-501, the Town prefers that it be retrofitted to a three-lane configuration.

For the new alignment segment connecting Weaver Dairy Road to Sage Road, the Town prefers construction of a three-lane configuration.

For the entire project, regardless of cross section, the Town requests that the project include wide outer lanes to accommodate bicycles, curb and gutter and sidewalk along both sides of the roadway, and bus pull-offs and turn lanes as may be necessary.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council understands that the State will acquire right-of-way on the basis of a four-lane median divided cross section regardless of whether a narrower cross section is constructed with the project at this time.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the State consider installing traffic and pedestrian signals at locations identified by the Town’s Weaver Dairy Road Safety Committee.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the State reallocate any surplus project funds which may accrue as a result of this proposed compromise design to the Town’s Traffic Signal System Upgrade Project which is presently unfunded in the State Transportation Improvement Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council expresses to NCDOT that the Council does not wish to consider no-build as an option at this time.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council desires to apply the NC54/Hamilton Road template at and in the vicinity of all existing and future signalized intersections on Weaver Dairy Road project corridor from NC86 to US15-501, to include:

· Textured crosswalks on all legs

· Countdown signal heads

· Overhead flashing school zone lights

· No turn on reds

· Rumble strips on Weaver Dairy Road approaches

· Explanatory signs for pedestrians

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

Mayor Foy suggested a Mayor’s Committee to approach the DOT’s decision. He asked for three volunteers from the Council.

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

Regarding #4h, Council Member Wiggins said she would support the Resolution but she felt that item h was a “political feel-good” Resolution.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2002-04-22/R-2)

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 of February 27, March 1, 4, 6, and 18, 25 and 26.
b.	Nominations to OWASA, Planning Board, and Technology Committee (R-3).
c.	Resolution Referring April 22 Petitions to the Manager for Follow-up Reports (R-4).
d.	Consideration of Demolition of House at 112 Basnight Lane (O-1).
e.	Recommended Process to Amend the 2001-02 Community Development Program (R-5).
f.	Project Closeout for the Lower Booker Creek Trail Project (O-2a, O-2b).
g.	Bid for Construction of the Jones Ferry Road Park/Ride Lot (R-6, O-3).
h.	Resolution Requesting Review of Immigration Laws and Policies (R-7).
i.	Consideration of Approval of Audit Contract (R-8).
j.	Resolution Scheduling Assembly of Governments Meeting on April 29, 2002 (R-9)
k.	Proposed Expenditures from 1996 Public Safety Bond Package (R-10).

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2002-04-08/R-3)

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

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

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

Orange Water and Sewer Authority

Leslie Johns

John McGee

Donald Shaw

Planning Board

Martin Rody

Robin Whitsell

Technology Committee

Robert Verboon

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

A RESOLUTION REFERRING WRITTEN PETITIONS RECEIVED AT THE APRIL 22, 2002 COUNCIL MEETING TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY FOR FOLLOW-UP (2002-04-22/R-4)

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby refers written petitions received at the April 22, 2002 Council meeting to the Manager and Attorney for appropriate follow-up actions.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PROCEED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 2 OF THE CHAPEL HILL CODE OF ORDINANCES AS THEY APPLY TO THE DILAPIDATED HOUSE AT 112 BASNIGHT LANE, TMBL # 7.92.G.9 INCLUDING HAVING THE STRUCTURE DEMOLISHED AND A LIEN FOR THE COST OF DEMOLITION PLACED ON THE PROPERTY (2002-04-22/O-1)

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL as follows:

Section 1. Findings.

A. The Council finds, based on the report of the Town Manager dated April 22, 2002, that the Chapel Hill Inspections Department has taken the procedural steps required by Chapter 9 of the Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances with respect to the residential structure at 112 Basnight Lane, Chapel Hill (TMBL # 7.92.G.9) prior to adoption this Ordinance.

B. The Council finds that the owner of this dwelling has been given a reasonable opportunity to bring the property into conformity with the Housing Code of the Town of Chapel Hill and has failed to do so.

C. The Council finds that the Inspections Department conducted a hearing for the purposes of determining whether the property at 112 Basnight Lane is unfit for human habitation and dilapidated.

D. The Council finds that the Inspections Department, as a result of that hearing, determined that the property is deteriorated and unfit for human habitation and in violation of the Town of Chapel Hill Housing Code.

E. The Council finds that the owner has failed to comply with the Order issued by the Inspections Department on February 6 2002, to have the structure removed and demolished and that the time period established to comply with that order or appeal that Order has expired.

Section 2. Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 9-25 (b) of the Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances, that the Chapel Hill Building Inspector shall have the dilapidated residential structure at 112 Basnight Lane demolished and a lien placed on the property for the cost of the demolition

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Ordinance be recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County indexed in the name of the property owner in the Grantor index.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROCESS TO AMEND THE 2001-2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (2002-04-22/R-5)

WHEREAS, the Town has an ongoing interest in the promotion of Community Development activities in the Town of Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, the Town has received Community Development program income;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the following process to amend the 2001-2002 Community Development program to budget up to $9,000 of Community Development program income:

· Publish a notice in the Chapel Hill Herald on April 24, 2002 to announce the time and date of the public hearing and send a notice of the hearing to our Community Development mailing list (approximately 80 organizations and individuals);

· Conduct a public hearing on May 8, 2002 to receive citizen comments;

· Return to the Council on May 13, 2002 for consideration of the proposal; and

· If the proposal is approved, submit a revised 2001-2002 Annual Update to the Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 (2002-04-22/O-2a)

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 26, 2001 be and the same is hereby amended as follows:

ARTICLE I

Current Revised

APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND

Greenways 107,000 70,000 37,000

Transfer to Multi-

Year Capital Fund 0 70,000 70,000

This the 22nd day of April, 2002.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS ORDINANCE FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS (2002-04-22/O-2b)

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

SECTION I

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

SECTION II

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

SECTION III

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

Current Budget Revised Budget

Adopt-A-Trail Grant 35,000 35,000

Clean Water Management Grant 200,000 200,000

Chapel Hill-Carrboro School 148,059 148,059

Metropolitan Planning Grant 79,000 79,000

State Bicycle/Pedestrian Grant 300,000 300,000

Pritchard Park Gift 100,193 100,193

Pritchard Park Interest & Rental Income 63,807 63,807

Donations 2,000 2,000

Orange County Bond Funds 205,000 205,000

Transfer from CIP Fund 346,549 416,549

Transfer from General Fund 25,000 59,000

Interest Earnings 88,156 88,156

N.C. Transportation Grant 212,865 212,865

OWASA Reimbursement 42,931 42,931

Pedestrian Signal Reimbursement 5,000 5,000

N. C. DOT Grant 136,000 136,000

Total 2,023,560 2,093,560

SECTION IV

Current Budget Revised Budget

Booker Creek Linear Park 20,000 20,000

Dry Creek Trail 270,800 270,800

Lower Booker Creek Trail 651,749 721,749

Pritchard Park 164,000 164,000

Southern Community Park 205,000 205,000

Willow Drive Bridge 343,952 343,952

Hargraves 50,000 50,000

Scroggs School Athletic Fields 148,059 148,059

N. C. 54/Hamiliton Improvements 170,000 170,000

Total 2,023,560 2,093,560

SECTION V

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

SECTION VI

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

This the 22nd day of April, 2002.

A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JONES FERRY ROAD PARK AND RIDE LOT (2002-04-22/R-6)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has solicited formal bids by legal notice on February 27, 2002, February 28, 2002 and March 3, 2002 in accordance with G.S. 143-129 for the construction of the Jones Ferry Road Park and Ride Lot; and

WHEREAS, the two lowest bids received, C.C. Mangum and Narron Construction, were rejected as non-responsive bidders, thereby making the lowest and responsive bidder Jones Bros., Incorporated; and

WHEREAS, the following bids were received and opened on March 26, 2002;

Contractors	Base Bid	Alternate One	Total
C.C. Mangum	$992,195.97	-195.00	$992,000.97
Narron Construction	$993,925.75	714.00	$994,639.75
Jones Bros., Inc.	$994,266.40	523.60	$994,790.00
W. E. Garrison	$1,018,261.06	-1,683.00	$1,016,578.06
Triangle Grading and Paving	$1,028,380.00	263.50	$1,028,643.50
Mellott Trucking	$1,035,342.75	128.00	$1,035,470.75
Barnhill Contracting	$1,042,973.71	-43.40	$1,042,970.32
C & J Utilities	$1,023,967.09	25,110.70	$1,049,077.79
S. T. Wooten	$1,050,994.95	29,010.50	$1,080,005.45
Carl Norris Construction	$1,122,994.33	1,059.10	$1,124,053.43
Riley Contractors Group	$1,132,194.13	1,086.47	$1,133,280.60
Blythe Development Company	$1,154,834.05	-1,266.50	$1,153,567.55
Rifenburg Construction	$1,202,934.00	663.00	$1,203,597.00

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town accepts the bid and awards the contract, to the lowest responsive bidder, Jones Bros., Inc., for the base bid amount for the construction of the Jones Ferry Road Park and Ride Lot in the amount of $994,266.40.

This the 22nd day of April, 2002.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 (2002-04-22/O-3)

ARTICLE I

Current Revised

Budget Increase Decrease Budget

APPROPRIATIONS

Transportation Capital Grant $710,000 $424,000 $1,134,000

ARTICLE II

Current Revised

Budget Increase Decrease Budget

REVENUE

Transportation Capital Grant $710,000 $424,000 $1,134,000

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE REFORM OF U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY (2002-04-22/R-7)

WHEREAS, U.S. international economic policy leads to the impoverishment of workers in developing nations, leading those workers to seek a better way of life in the United States; and

WHEREAS, recent changes in Social Security Administration practices have resulted in dozens of immigrants losing their jobs in our region of North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, immigration reform is needed to remedy this situation, which is affecting millions of immigrants and their families here and abroad; and

WHEREAS, undocumented immigrants pay federal, state and local taxes, including Social Security and Medicare; and

WHEREAS, local governments bear the significant infrastructure and operational costs of providing services to all their residents; and

WHEREAS, not providing a legal means of working and living in this country forces millions of immigrants into a clandestine way of life, creating a black market for documents, which threatens national security and the personal welfare of immigrants;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls upon the United States Government to reform immigration laws in order to provide undocumented immigrants with legal permission to work and live in our community and in our country.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council calls upon the United States Government to institute a long-term immigration policy that will address the economic and national security needs of the United States and calls upon citizens, other local governments, our congressional delegation and other interested parties to endorse similar proclamations in order to encourage the national government to take action.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council reaffirms support of the Orange County, N.C., Statement of Corporate Citizenship and calls on all employers in our region to provide a Living Wage equal to the well-being and dignity of all workers.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE ANNUAL AUDIT CONTRACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 (2002-04-22/R-8)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign a contract with the Certified Public Accounting firm of McGladrey and Pullen, LLP in an amount not to exceed $38,500 if the Town has no additional major State or federal programs from last year and to accept a fee of no more than $2,500 for any single additional major State or federal program.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH ADDITIONAL RENOVATIONS AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS BUILDING (2002-04-22/R-9)

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill awarded contracts on October 22, 2001 to begin the renovation of the Police Department Headquarters Building; and

WHEREAS, the first phase of the renovation project will soon be completed; and

WHEREAS, approximately $150,000 in issued bond funds will remain following the completion of the first phase of the project; and

WHEREAS, additional renovations, including a new telephone system, an electronic security system, and other interior improvements are necessary;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager is authorized to proceed with additional renovations at the Police Department Headquarters building using bond funds already issued and on-hand.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING AN APRIL 29, 2002 ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS MEETING ON THE COUNCIL CALENDAR (2002-04-22/R-10)

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby schedules on its calendar the Assembly of Governments Meeting: Monday, April 29, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

Item 5 – Information Items

Information reports were received without comment.

Item 6 – Presentation on International Council for Local Environmental

Initiatives (ICLEI)

Council Member Verkerk reminded the Council that Item #12 on this evening’s agenda, was related to the issues she was going to talk about. She gave the Council information about the ICLEI Conference:

Cities for Climate Protection

· Seattle 2002—9^th Annual Cities for Climate Protection Workshop

· International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

· Carrboro-Diana McDuffee (Alderman) and Trisha McGuire (staff)

· Chapel Hill—Dorothy Verkerk (Council) and Phil Hervey (staff)

The Science

· Global Warming

· Warmer summers

· Rising shoreline

· More severe storms and more droughts in future

What can small towns do?

· Municipal fleets

· Bio-diesel

· Energy monitoring

· Buying cooperatives

· Join the CCP Campaign

Community involvement

Burlington, VT

· 10% Challenge

· Reduce CO2 by 2010

· Participation at all age levels

· Businesses

· Keeping track

Local businesses and utilities

The leaders

· Seattle Light

· University of Washington Cancer Center

· Boeing

· BP (Beyond Petroleum)

· San Francisco

Why do it? The Ann Arbor Case

Environment/Health

· Energy Savings

· Greenhouse Gas Savings

Economic Incentives

Partners

· Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Orange County, Hillsborough, and University of North Carolina

· Critical for success

· Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

· Ozone Alert Days

· Auto trip reduction

· Potential Targets

· Solid Waste Reduction

· Green buildings

· Waste Water Treatment—the biggest consumer

Next steps:

· Energy Audit

· Set target goals

· Draft an Action Plan

· Implement the Plan

· Evaluate and report on the Progress

There’s a lot of help out there

· ICMA (International City/Council Management Association)

· LGEAN

· Research

· Technology

· Staff

· ICLEI and EPA

· Lists

· Information

· www.lgcan.org

Charles Young, Regional Representative of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Rebuild America Community Partnerships made a presentation on energy savings:

What is Rebuild America? It is a U.S. Department of Energy Program that has been designed to enable communities to form local partnerships that are focused on improving:

· Building energy efficiencies and greenhouse gas reduction

· The local economy

· The opportunity for the creation of new jobs

· Quality of life

· Working environment

How does Rebuild accomplish these goals?

· Technical assistance (at no charge) from the national labs aimed directly at your needs:

· New building design review, for sustainability and life cycle costs

· Specification training and retrofit review for existing buildings

· Financing options

· Marketing and communications

· Sustainability

· Business Partners

Intended to provide RBA Community Partnerships with information, products and services, and any other assistance necessary to move that partnership forward on implementing and maintaining building efficiency in their community.

Overall Goal of RBA

· To Rebuild America’s buildings into high performance buildings that are more comfortable while using less resources.

· Help create self-sustaining partnerships that will continue to expand and grow, with energy efficiency becoming “Business as Usual.”

Steven Morgan, Citizens Conservation Services, resident of Chapel Hill, made a presentation:

Cutting Energy Costs in Town Facilities and Public Housing

· Options for Reducing Cost

· Improving Energy Efficiency

· Mitigating the Environment

· Appreciating real estate values

· Town buildings and Public Housing

· Town Utility Costs

· Potential Annual Savings

Capital Improvements paid from savings: 10 year period: $650 K

· Lighting Measures: Occupancy sensors, delamping, T-8 Flourescent, timers

· Replace rooftop air conditioners: Town Hall

· Insulating Panels on Windows

· Water Conservation Measures

· Controls on Gas DHW, space heating

· Traffic light improvements

· Energy performance contracting defined:

Technique uses cost savings from reduced utility consumption to repay funds borrowed to install utility cost-saving measures.

Elements of an Energy Performance Contract

· High energy use and cost

· Capital to invest/financial expertise

· Technical expertise

· Project construction management expertise

· L-T energy management expertise

· Energy use monitoring

EP: A single contractor

· Audits buildings

· Specifies measures

· Selects contractors

· Supervises installations

· Finances improvements

· Monitors performance

· Trains residents, maintenance staff

Parties to an EPC

· Town and PHA management

· Residents

· Maintenance staff

· HUD (Housing)

· Design engineer

· Construction manager

· Installation contractors

· Local utilities

· Lender

· Local Govt. Commission.

Performance Contracting for PHAs

· Requires no PHA financing

· Requires guaranteed savings

· Agreement from ESCO in 7-12 year contract

· Freezes rolling base for utility

· Reimbursements from HUD

· Windfall to PHA after contract expires

· PHA keeps net savings

Is Housing a good candidate for EPC?

· Master-metered bill portfolio wide above $100,000

· DHW, furnaces equipment needs replacement

· AC needing replacement

· High maintenance costs on energy systems

· Refrigerators more than 5 years old

· High water costs

· Waiver permits treatment of tenant-paid utilities

· Town has separate measures, but same principles

EPC can pay for planned renovations

· A portion of energy-using equipment, appliances can be paid for with PC financing

Craig-Gomains, Lindsay Street, Pritchard Park, Airport Gardens scheduled for new furnaces, new hot water tanks

Paying for window units via Performance Contracting

· Low-flush toilets have a 2+ year payback, and savings justifying $560 in additional capital improvements over 12 years

· Lighting has 4-year payback, and savings justifying $180 in additional capital improvements

· Water rate hikes and refrigerator replacements and savings provide more dollars.

Next steps

· Housing: complete HUD energy audit, then consider feasibility of EPC solicitation

· Town Buildings: internal engineering audit, then consider same feasibility of EPC

· Orange County Landfill: 5-10 MW potential if Town buyer of gas can be identified

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

Council Member Verkerk requested that staff time be allotted to work with the Committee. Mr. Horton said a variety of staff persons would need to contribute, and when it got to the point that there was a clear mission, the Council might want to permanently provide some resources to it.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council consider Agenda Item #12 at this time, since it was a related issue. The Council agreed by consensus.

Item # 12 Appointments

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 18 APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, VERKERK, AND WARD AS THE MEMBERS OF THE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS A CHARGE FOR AN ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE (2002-04-22/R-18)

WHEREAS, the Council adopted on April 8, 2002, a resolution setting the Council Goals for 2002-2003; and

WHEREAS, one the goals was that the Council appoint a committee of the Council to discuss a charge for an Energy, Environment and Sustainability Committee and to bring forward a proposal for consideration by the Council;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby appoints the following Council members to the Council Committee to discuss a charge for an Energy, Environment and Sustainability Committee:

Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Jim Ward.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council Committee will report its recommendations to the Council at a future Council meeting.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

Item 7 – Reconvening Public Hearings on Europa Application.

Planning Department Roger Waldon explained the two applications

Europa Office Building

Two applications:

· Request to modify existing SUP, to create two smaller SUP’s and a vacant tract

· Request for a new SUP on the vacant tract

Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Council, on February 11, had requested a review by the Transportation Board for any new traffic information, and referred the applications with the new Traffic Impact Analysis to the Transportation Board, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and Planning Board.

Mr. Waldon said the staff felt the Traffic Analysis (Item a) was reasonable and it was reasonable to move forward with Items b and c. He said the staff recommendation for Item b was to approve the Modification of the Special Use Permit (SUP), and the staff’s recommendation for Item c was for approval of Resolution A.

Mike Brough, speaking on behalf of the property owner, said he would speak on both issues. He addressed the complexities of the application, and indicated that the owner had some disagreement about whether or not this was an entirely discretionary matter and said that in 1984 Steve Sizemore, development coordinator, stating that in his judgement the SUPs had basically been abandoned by mutual agreement of the applicant and the Town. He said he felt that it was less cumbersome to have each project have its own SUP, rather than an old blanket SUP. Mr. Brough said, in 1976, there was a single SUP issued for two office buildings, and in 1979 a hotel permit was issued for 108,000 square feet to a different developer. He said in 1980 the three permits were combined, so there couldn’t have been any quid pro quo. The Europa property is self-contained, and has nothing to do with his client’s property, he said. Mr. Brough said that the Traffic Impact Study showed that the project would have little impact on the traffic.

Scott Radway, representing the Planning Board, said the Board voted 8-0 in favor of the proposal presented to sever the SUP’s and apply for a new SUP. He said this was in compliance with the new Comprehensive Plan. He said the Board felt it was reasonable at this point with regard to traffic safety, to go ahead with the project.

Harvey Krasny, nearby resident, said that some building would be appropriate, but he was concerned about the traffic matter, especially with the planned “superstreet” and it would be prudent to wait to see if that would happen and improve the area. He read a statement from a member of the Planning Board into the record and he wanted to be sure the letter was being looked into. Mr. Krasny said the neighborhoods were asking that the new project be delayed until the “superstreet” was built.

Lynne Kane, neighborhood resident, said she was not sure that all residents of Summerfield Crossing were opposed to the new development. She said she had spoken with a resident, Fran Greco, of Summerfield Crossing, who said that the majority of the residents were not opposed to the new development.

Council Member Strom asked if the Town had a guarantee of certainty about the “superstreet.” Mr. Horton said it did not, and no one could guarantee that it would be built.

Mr. Brough said the applicant was supporting the Manager’s recommendations on both applications.

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

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 11E, DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION AND TO INSERT IN “REASON FOR DENIAL” THE CURRENT INCREMENTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY IN OUR EFFORTS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND INTERSECTION FAILURE, AND B, THAT THE “SUPERSTREET” PROJECT IS NOT GUARANTEED AND REMAINS SPECULATIVE, AND C, THAT THE SHERATON ORIGINAL SUP FLOOR AREA RATIO OF THIS SITE WAS EXPANDED BASED ON AN UNDERSTANDING OF A LOW DENSITY USE FOR THIS APPLICATION’S LOCATION AND ADD THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 5 THAT THE PERMITTED FLOOR AREA RATIO ON THIS SITE DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERYARD ALONG US 15-501 WOULD NOT BE MAINTAINED.

Mayor Foy said this would be a vote on severing the property. Mr. Karpinos offered that he would like to take a good look at this Resolution 11e more closely, if the Council had no objections.

Council Member Strom, mover, and Council Member Verkerk, seconder, withdrew the motion.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER RESOLUTION 11E TO THE ATTORNEY FOR COMMENT ON MAY 13. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 8 – Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont:

Application for Special Use Permit

Mr. Horton said the key point on the application was a parent agreement between the Developer and the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust.

Roland Gammon, applicant, said they had brought a strategy to accomplish the agreement, if it could be part of the Trust. He said the prices were affordable but were in ranges for income.

Council Member Ward said that on page 17, stipulation #13f, he would like the last sentence to be struck.

Council Member Bateman asked what the price range would be for the houses that would be available as affordable. Mr. Gammon referred her to page 14.

Robert Dowling, Executive Director of the Orange County Housing Corporation, said he had spoken to their attorney, and he said it would be possible to put condominiums in the Land Trust. He said he had asked Mr. Gammon to price all the one-bedroom units at $90,000 for the ten units, two of which would be $100,000, and the two-bedroom units at $140,000 – 6 units for a two family household. He said that all 16 units would be in the Land Trust. He said there had been demand for the other affordable housing units in Town.

Mr. Gammon said the modification to #13 was acceptable.

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

MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 13A, WITH THE AMENDMENT TO 13F.

Council Member Strom thanked the applicant and the Town staff for working hard to get the 16 units worked out for affordable housing.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS AND GREENWAY CONDOMINIUMS AT MEADOWMONT (2002-04-22/R-13a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Roland Gammon and White Oak Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 52, Lot 6 and Lot 38 (PIN#s: 9798-66-4564 and 9797-86-4799), if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 08, 2001 and stamped December 21, 2001, the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan, and the conditions listed below, would:

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

2. Be consistent with the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan that was approved on October 23, 1995.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont in accordance with the plans listed above and the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Developments

1. That construction begin by April 22, 2004 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by April 22, 2005 (three years from the date of Council approval).

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

Land Use Intensity	Hilltop Condominiums	Greenway Condominiums
Total # of Buildings	4	2*
Maximum # of Dwelling Units	48	16
Minimum # of Affordable Units	0	16
Maximum Floor Area	85,600 sq ft	16,656 sq ft
Minimum Outdoor Space	194,326 sq ft	22,292 sq ft
Minimum Livability Space	164,765 sq ft	10,445 sq ft
Minimum Recreation Space	3,000 sq ft	0 sq ft
Maximum # of Parking Spaces	96	25
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces	58	21

* Bicycle storage building included in Total # of Buildings

That because the land area of the this Special Use Permit does not provide sufficient land to demonstrate compliance with the Land Use Intensity requirements of the Development Ordinance, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall obligate land within the bounds of the Master Land Use Plan to enable this development to demonstrate compliance with the Land Use Intensity requirements. With any application for Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall provide document(s), to be recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office, that obligates allowable Land Use Intensity requirements of land located within the boundary of the Master Plan, but outside the boundary of this Special Use Permit, to ensure compliance of this application with the Land Use Intensity requirements of the Development Ordinance.

Stipulations Related to Affordable Housing

3. Affordable Housing Mechanism: That the affordable housing component for this proposed development shall be provided in the following manner:

A) Condominium/Land Trust Model (Option #1): That if a mechanism for a condominium/land trust model can be finalized prior to the issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit, or September 15, 2002, a minimum of 16 affordable housing units located, in the Greenway Condominium site, shall be placed in the Orange Community Housing Land Trust. That the condominium/land trust model shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

That in the event that the condominium/land trust model is not finalized prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit or September 15, 2002, the affordable housing component shall be provided as outlined below:

B) Deed Restrictions (Option #2): That the Developer shall identify and reserve no fewer than sixteen (16) units at the Meadowmont Greenway Condominium site as affordable housing.

That the deed restrictions ensuring affordable housing shall included the following provisions:

· The plans for marketing, sales and continued affordability of these units shall be reviewed approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

· In order to ensure the future affordability each deed conveying title shall contain restrictions as approved by the Town Manager.

· That the deed restrictions and associated documentation on marketing, sales, continued affordability and program administration shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

· That for Option #2, all of the affordable units shall be constructed and available for occupancy, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 25 Hilltop Condominium unit.

That Option #1 and Option #2 must comply with the requirement in the following table.

Requirements for Option #1 and Option #2

Requirement common to Option #1 and Option #2

# of Units

16 units - “A, B, and C Units”

(all located at the Greenway Condominium site)

# Bedrooms per unit

“A & B Units” -- 10 one-bedroom units

“C Units” -- 6 two-bedrooms units

Unit square footage

(approximate sq ft)

“A Units” -- 8 units with 800 square feet

“B Units” -- 2 units with 880 square feet

“C Units” -- 6 units with 1050 square feet

Proposed Size of Household

“A Units” - 1 person

“B and C Units” - 2 person

Requirement specific to each Option

Option #1

(Land Trust)

Option #2 -Alternative

(Deed Restrictions)

Initial Sales Price

“A Units - $90,000

“B Units - $100,000

“C Units” - $140,000

“A Units” - $94,000

“B Units” - $100,000

“C Units” - $140,000

Eligibility Range:

% Median Family Income (MFI)*

“A & B Units” 76-100%

“C Units” 90-100%

(by household size)

“A Units” 80-100%

“B Units” 76-100%

“C Unit” 90-100%

(by household size)

Resale formula

Land Lease

(25 to 30% of appreciation)

“A &B Units” - Priced to be affordable at 80% MFI

“C Units” Priced to be affordable at 100% MFI

Regulatory Mechanism

Orange Community Housing and Land Trust

Deed Restrictions

(To be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager)

Program Administration

Town of Chapel Hill or other entity approved by the Town Manager

* Median Family Income as determined by the most current Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area Median Family Income Chart.

Stipulations Related to on-site Recreation Space

4. Recreation Space: That the developer provides 3,000 square feet of improved recreation space on the Hilltop Condominium site. This improved recreation space is to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the Hilltop Condominium residential units until all the active recreation facilities for that development have been completed.

Stipulations Related to Access and Circulation

5. Parking Lots: That all parking lots and drive aisles associated with the proposed development shall be constructed to Town standards.

6. Hilltop Condominium Parking Lot Design: That the final plans for the Hilltop Condominiums include a revised parking lot design incorporating pedestrian connections between the parking areas and the buildings. The type, location and number of the pedestrian connections shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

7. Greenway Condominium Crosswalk: That the final plans for the Greenway Condominiums shall include a crosswalk across the western entrance into the project site. The crosswalk should be designed consistent with similar crosswalks in the Meadowmont development. The final crosswalk design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

8. Greenway Condominium Pedestrian Connection to the Village Center: That a pedestrian connection be provided on the east side of the property, from the north side of the buildings south to a crosswalk connecting to the village center property.

9. Bicycle Parking: That the development comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards as follows:

Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements

Hilltop

Condominiums

Greenway Condominiums

Total Number or Required Spaces

Number of Class I Spaces

(Garage or secure indoor areas)

Number of Class II Spaces

(Stationary rack)

Stipulation Related to Watershed Protection District

10. Watershed Protection District: Compliance with the Town Watershed Protection District regulations, if applicable, shall be demonstrated with the provision of multiple permanent ponds. For those portions of the development complying with the Low Density Option identified in the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, permanent stormwater retention shall not be required. For those portions of the development complying with the High Density option identified in the Development Ordinance, permanent stormwater retention shall be required in accordance with the requirements of the Development Ordinance.

A. The size, accessibility, location, and design of each pond shall be approved by the Town Manager.

B. These wet retention ponds shall meet or exceed the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management requirements and shall be designed so as to be approved by the Division of Environmental Management, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Town Manager.

C. The property owner shall post a performance bond or other surety instrument satisfactory to the Town, in an amount approved by the Town Manager, to assure maintenance, repair, or reconstruction necessary for adequate performance of the engineered stormwater controls.

D. For ponds proposed to be located within the Resource Conservation District, the ponds must be designed so as not to be inundated by the flood waters from the base flood discharge.

E. The Owners’ or Homeowners’ Association shall be responsible for arranging for annual inspections of all ponds by an appropriately certified engineer, to determine whether the ponds and associated structures are operating acceptably according to design requirements, and to report findings of said inspections to the Town Manager, with such recommendations for maintenance or repair as may be warranted. Any needed repairs shall be completed within 120 days unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded which shall identify these responsibilities of the Owners’ or Homeowners’ Association, including pond maintenance.

F. Maintenance of the ponds shall be the responsibility of the developer or a property/homeowners’ association. A maintenance plan shall be provided for each of the retention ponds, to be approved by the Town Manager. The plans shall address inspection, maintenance intervals, type of equipment required, access to each pond, and related matters.

G. As part of every application for Final Plan Approval, Zoning Compliance Permit, and residential Building Permit, the developer shall provide an up-to-date cumulative total for impervious surfaces in the particular sub-basin.

H. The minimum permanent pool depth shall be at least three (3) feet in addition to enough volume to store the accumulated sediment between clean out periods.

I. All sediment deposited in the ponds during construction activity on contributing sites must be removed before “normal” pond operation begins.

J. Emergency drains shall be installed in all ponds to allow access for repairs and sediment removal as necessary.

K. Anti-seepage collars shall be used on any structures penetrating dams or water retaining embankments.

L. Public storm drainage systems, or other utilities, shall not be located within a pond or dam structure.

M. That no ponds be created within the perimeter landscaped buffer required for the Meadowmont development.

N. That the ponds be located and designed such that damage to existing large trees can be minimized.

That the applicant provide calculations confirming Meadowmont’s overall compliance with Impervious Surface Limits.

Stipulations Related to Landscape and Architectural Elements

11. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan shall include areas of vegetation to be preserved; the anticipated clearing limit lines; proposed grading; proposed utility lines; a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas. That silt fencing and/or tree protection fencing is installed along all construction limits lines including those that are proposed to overlap property lines.

12. Removal of Significant Tree: That the 29-inch oak tree, along the western property line on the Hilltop development site plan, may be removed.

13. Landscape Plan Approval: That detailed landscape plans (including buffers), landscape maintenance plans, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the landscape plan shall include:

A. The 20-foot wide landscape buffer area between the Hilltop development and the adjacent residential single family lots;

B. The 5-foot wide landscape buffer area between the Greenway development and the Meadowmont greenway;

C. A re-landscaping plan for the proposed erosion control sediment basins. The landscaping of the sediment basin associated with the Greenway site shall included two, 2 ½ to 3 inch caliper canopy trees; and

D. A re-landscaping plan for the NC 54 entranceway corridor if deemed necessary by the Town Manager.

E. A landscape plan for the steep slopes around Hilltop Condominiums Building #1.

F. A landscape plan for the east side of the Greenway Condominium Building.

14. Parking Lot Screening: That all Hilltop Condominium parking areas shall be screened from highway view. The screening plans shall be approval by the Town Manager.

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

Stipulations Related to Utilities

16. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time/Warner Cable and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the final plans demonstrate there is no conflict between utility lines, easements, and other site elements.

17. Utility Lines: That all utility lines shall be underground and shall be indicated on final plans.

Stipulations Related to Steep Slopes

18. Steep Slopes: That each submittal for Final Plan approval shall include a map showing lots and street segments on slopes of 10% or more, and indicating how the development and construction will comply with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance:

· For slopes of 10 - 15%, site preparation techniques shall be used which minimize grading and site disturbance;

· For slopes of 15 - 25%, demonstrate specialized site design techniques and approaches for building and site preparation; and

· For slopes of 25% or greater, provide a detailed site analysis of soil conditions, hydrology, bedrock conditions, and other engineering or environmental aspects of the site.

Each Final Plan application shall demonstrate compliance with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance. The Town Manager shall decide if the proposed building and site engineering techniques are appropriate.

Stipulations Related to Fire Protection

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

20. Sprinkler System: That the buildings shall have a sprinkler system in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

21. Fire Hydrant Location: That all new structures shall be located within 500 feet of a fire hydrant, subject to the approval of the Town Manager.

22. Fire Department Connections: That fire department connections shall be no more than 50 feet from the hydrants and located on street side of buildings in visible, accessible locations, subject to Town Fire Marshall approval.

Stipulations Related to Refuse and Recycling Collection

23. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling and for the management and minimizing of construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That a shared access agreement with the Village Center shall be submitted to the Town Manager and recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

24. Illumination of Hilltop Refuse Area: That the final plans included a lighting plan for the illumination of the refuse collection areas at the Hilltop site.

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

Miscellaneous Stipulations

26. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Construction Management Plan shall specify that no construction vehicles serving this site shall use any existing streets, outside the Meadowmont development area, within the area bounded by Ephesus Church Road, George King Road, NC Highway 54, and Fordham Boulevard.

27. Declaration of Condominium: That the Declaration of Condominium document shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Durham County Register of Deeds Office. That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded document to the Town.

28. Ownership and Responsibilities of Common Areas: That an owners’ association be created for the maintenance and regulation of the private (residential, office, park, landscape, and commercial) areas including privately maintained streets and alleys.

A. All property owners owning land within the area of the Master Land Use Plan approval, excluding governmental bodies, shall be represented in the owners’ association. This owners’ association shall have maintenance responsibilities for commercially owned development elements which affect the entire development, including the stormwater management facilities.

B. In addition, separate neighborhood association(s) and/or owners’ association(s) shall be created for the maintenance and regulation of the residential, office, and commercial areas. The documents creating these entities shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager, and shall be recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

C. The responsibilities of these entities shall include the ownership and maintenance of the private alleys, private green spaces, private parks and recreation space, private retention and detention basins, parking lots, and the landscape buffers.

D. These entities shall also be responsible for any “add-on fees” charged by Duke Power for special street lighting.

E. These entities shall have the ability to place a lien on property for nonpayment of dues or fees.

F. The Homeowners’ Association documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Durham County Register of Deeds Office and shall be cross-referenced on the final plat. That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded document to the Town.

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

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

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

31. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That a performance guarantee be provided in accordance with Section 5-97.1 of the Town Code of Ordinances prior to issuance of any permit to begin land-disturbing activity.

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

33. Energy Management: That an energy management program, designed to minimize energy consumption, be prepared and submitted to the town Manager as part of final plans, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

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

35. Construction Sign Required: That the developer shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The construction sign may have a maximum of 32 square feet of display area and may not exceed 8 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

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

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the Special Use Permit application for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

Item 9 – Cross Creek Subdivision: Application for Preliminary Plat Approval

Mr. Waldon said the key issue in the discussion of this application had been stormwater management. He pointed out that there was one significant change to the Resolution in response to concerns about stormwater management, and the language is acceptable to the staff. He said the staff recommended approval of Resolution A.

Jack Smyre, for the applicant, said the applicant was comfortable with the language change in the Resolution. He asked for change in the language in #3, the Habitat for Humanity House, to change “within the Chapel Hill City limits” to “within the Chapel Hill Planning Jurisdiction.” He said that would broaden the applicant’s search for a place to put the house.

Mia Burroughs thanked the Planning and Engineering staff, in particular, Kay Pearlstein and Fred Royal, and said the Town should be proud of their work. She encouraged the Council to support Resolution F proposed by the Planning Board because of the storm drainage issues along Cedar Hills Drive and the culvert.

Ken Pearce said the drainage creek was in front of his home. He asked for the building of the homes to be at the front of the lots, with the inclusion of natural vegetation, and a planting of buffer evergreens.

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

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14A AS AMENDED.

Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed his concern that a small house would be torn down, and a larger one built in its place. He said he was concerned with the working of the Small House Ordinance. He did not think that the small house should be torn down.

Council Member Strom asked if the Homeowners’ Association and the Best Management Practice language standard was clear. Mr. Horton said the staff would not approve the language until it was considered satisfactory by the Town Attorney.

Council Member Strom asked if there was a way to address the concerns of citizens that their lots were going to be in the location of split lots around the White Oak tree. Mr. Smyre said a buffer on the back portion of the applicant’s lots would be acceptable to the citizens concerned. He said these would be Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, the east side lots. Mr. Horton said the language could be modified.

This amendment was accepted by the mover and seconder.

Council Member Harrison commented that the application had offered what is good and what is not about the current Development Ordinance, and he thanked the staff for adding maps in the packet of information.

Council Member Strom commented that this had brought out some of the problems it would be for developing the new Development Ordinance. He said this project could make incremental problems for stormwater management. He said it was a tough call for him to vote, although he did appreciate the work had that been done.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH MAYOR FOY, MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, HARRISON, KLEINSCHMIDT, VERKERK, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER STROM VOTING NAY.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION (2002-04-22/R-14a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Cross Creek Subdivision, proposed by The Design Response, Inc., on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated December 5, 2000, revised October 11, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:

These findings are based on the following:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. Expiration of Preliminary Plat: That this Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one year from the date of approval subject to reapproval by the Town Manager in accordance with the provisions of the Development Ordinance.

2. Number of Lots and Floor Area Restrictions: That this approval shall authorize the creation of 17 lots on 12.78 acres with Lots 16 and 17 each restricted to a dwelling unit with no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area and Lot 2 is restricted to a dwelling unit with no more than 1,100 square feet of floor area.

The house on Lot 16 shall be modified to comply with the 1,350 square foot restricted floor area size. Modification shall be completed prior to Town Manager approval of the Final Subdivision Plat.

These restrictions shall be referenced in the Homeowners’ Association documents.

3. Habitat for Humanity House: That the applicant provide 100 percent sponsorship of a Habitat for Humanity house in the Chapel Hill planning jurisdiction.

Required Improvements

4. New Road: That the new road shall be constructed either:

· To a 30-foot right-of-way to include a 22-foot pavement section, with adjacent 5-foot sidewalk on the west side of the road and a 3-foot shoulder, swales in drainage easement deeded to the Homeowners’ Association outside the right-of-way; or

· To a 50-foot right-of-way to include a 22-foot pavement section, 30-inch curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalk.

5. Payment–in-Lieu for Weaver Dairy Road Improvements: We recommend that the applicant dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way on the Weaver Dairy Road frontage and provide a payment-in-lieu for curb and gutter and for sidewalk.

The applicant shall provide a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The payment shall be made prior to approval of the final plat.

6. Weaver Dairy Road Right-of-Way: That the applicant shall dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way along the Weaver Dairy Road frontage.

7. Alternative Road Design for White Oak Tree Protection: An alternative subdivision road design shall be provided which would preserve the 31-inch white oak tree. The applicant shall include tree protection fencing around the critical root zone of the tree as part of the Landscape Protection Plan.

Stipulations Related to Recreation

8. Payment-in-Lieu for Minimum Recreation Requirements: That the developer provide a payment-in-lieu of providing a minimum of .91 acres of recreation area for this development. The payment amount shall be approved by the Town Manager in accordance with the Development Ordinance, Section 17.9.5.

The recreation payment amount shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat.

9. Pedestrian Connection: That the pedestrian connection be provided as a twenty-foot wide strip of land, deeded to the Homeowners’ Association. The strip of land shall contain a mulched path within a public pedestrian and non-motorized vehicular easement and shall include a sign reading “Pedestrian Path” to mark the location.

Stipulations Related to Resource Conservation District

10. Boundaries: That the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District be indicated on the final plat and plan. A note shall be added to all final plats and plans, indicating, “Development shall be restricted within the Resource Conservation District in accordance with the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.”

11. Variances: That all variances necessary for development within the Resource Conservation District be obtained before application for final plat or Final Plan approval for the subject phase(s) of development.

12. Buildable Lots: That no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District Variance in order to be built upon. In addition, for each lot it must be demonstrated that there is sufficient buildable area outside the Resource Conservation District, slopes of 25% or greater, water quality vegetated buffers, other required landscape buffers, easements, and any applicable building setback limits.

13. Construction Standards: That for the roadway encroachment into the Resource Conservation District, the requirements and standards of Subsections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Development Ordinance and all other applicable Resource Conservation District regulations must be adhered to, unless the application is granted administrative exemptions from provisions of Subsection 5.8.

All required erosion control sediment basins and stormwater improvements, outside the public right-of-way, including associated clearing and grading, shall be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District. All grading associated with the construction of a residence shall be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District.

Stipulations Related to Steep Slopes

14. Steep Slopes: That each submittal for Final Plan approval shall include a map showing lots and street segments on slopes of 10% or more, and indicating how the development and construction will comply with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance:

· for slopes of 10 - 15%, site preparation techniques shall be used which minimize grading and site disturbance;

· for slopes of 15 - 25%, demonstrate specialized site design techniques and approaches for building and site preparation; and

· for slopes of 25% or greater, provide a detailed site analysis of soil conditions, hydrology, bedrock conditions, and other engineering or environmental aspects of the site.

15. Required Landscape Bufferyard: The following landscape buffer is required for this subdivision:

· Type “D” landscape bufferyard (minimum 30-foot width) along the property’s frontage on Weaver Dairy Road.

The Landscape buffer shall be on land deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.

16. Landscape Protection Plan: That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Landscape Protection Plan shall include tree protection fencing between infrastructure construction and existing vegetation to be retained in the following locations:

a) The required landscape bufferyards;

b) Adjacent to any construction within the Resource Conservation District; and

c) Between construction and rare and specimen trees to remain.

That all tree protection fencing shall be installed at a distance from the base of the tree equal to at least one foot per diameter at breast height (dbh).

17. Landscape Planting Plan: That a Landscape Planting Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The plan must indicate how the required bufferyards will meet the minimum landscape planting standards. The Landscape Planting Plan shall also include a plant list, indicating type, size and number of proposed plant.

Stipulations Related to Homeowners’ Association

18. Landscape Bufferyard: That a 30-foot landscape bufferyard easement shall be dedicated on the eastern property line of Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 and shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners’ Association. Existing vegetation within the bufferyard shall remain, except for clearing as required for sanitary sewer easements. Selective clearing within the bufferyard may occur as needed to remove unhealthy or damaged material. Supplemental plantings are to be installed within this bufferyard and additional material may be installed within the bufferyard in the future, subject to the approval of the Homeowners’ Association.

19. Homeowners’ Association: That a Homeowners’ Association be created that has the capacity to place a lien on the property of a member who does not pay the annual charges for maintenance of common areas, however designated. The Homeowners’ Association documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and shall be cross-referenced on the final plat.

Stipulations Related to Water, Sewer, and Other Utilities

20. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Duke Power Company, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

21. OWASA Easements: That easement documents as required by OWASA and the Town Manager be recorded concurrently with the final plat. That the final plat shall be approved by OWASA prior to Town approval.

22. Placement of Utility Lines Underground: That the final plans indicate that all new utility lines shall be placed underground.

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

24. Fire Hydrant Spacing: That maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 feet, unless modified by the Town Manager.

Miscellaneous Related To Stormwater Management

25. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall demonstrate that the downstream drainage conditions are not measurably worsened in a manner directly attributable to the proposed subdivision, according to methodology to be approved by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids, on an average annual basis, and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right of way must be located within storm drainageway easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

26. Operations and Maintenance Plan: An Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be provided for all engineered structures and all said structures shall be located within a “reserved storm drainage way easement” as located on a plat and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds.

27. Best Management Practices: That the level spreader design utilize design methods, based on best available information from the NC State University Cooperative Extension. Final design and locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. These features shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

The level spreader BMP’s shall be designed to adequately remove 85% total suspended solids, on an average annual basis, and treat the first one inch of rainfall from the developed sites.

28. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way be located within reserved storm drainage way easements, of a 30-foot width minimum and be entirely outside the Resource Conservation District.

All proposed drainage swales and constructed stormwater facilities shall be in drainage easements deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.

29. Public and private stormwater drainage curb hood/covers shall be pre-cast stating, “Dump No Waste! Drains to Jordan Lake”, in accordance with the specifications of the Town Standard Detail SD-5A.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

30. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the Construction Management Plan specify that no construction vehicles serving this site may use any existing streets within the Cedar Hills Subdivision with one exception: that Cedar Hills Drive may be used for construction traffic to extend the sewer line from Cedar Hills Drive to the east side of the proposed subdivision.

31. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, and a plan for managing and minimizing construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

32. Open Burning: That the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris association with this development is prohibited unless it is demonstrated to the Town Manager or his designee that no reasonable alternative means are available for removal of the materials from the subject property. The Fire Marshall may establish safety standards, which must be met in order to receive a permit under this Article.

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

34. As-Built Plans: That as-built plans in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates, shall be provided for street improvements and all other existing or proposed impervious surfaces prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.

35. Plant Rescue: That the applicant consider conducting plant rescue activities on the site prior to initiation of development activity.

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

37. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

That a performance guarantee be provided in accordance with Section 5-97.1 of the Town Code of Ordinances prior to issuance of any permit to begin land-disturbing activity.

All erosion control sediment basins, including associated clearing and grading, be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District.

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

39. Street Names and Addresses: That the name of the development and its streets and house numbers be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

40. Street Stubout Signage: That a sign, reading “Roadway subject to future extension” shall be posted at each roadway stubout.

41. Construction Sign: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative and telephone number, the contractor’s representative and telephone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit, prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. The construction sign may have a maximum of 16 square feet of display area and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

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

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Preliminary Plat for the Cross Creek Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14F. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REGARDING STORMWATER ISSUES IN THE CEDAR HILLS DRIVE AREA (2002-04-22/R-14f)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has received a recommendation from the Town Planning Board regarding storm drainage issues along Cedar Hills Drive, downstream from the proposed Cross Creek Subdivision; and

WHEREAS, the Council has been made aware of drainage concerns in this area, particularly as they relate to the size of the culvert under Cedar Hills Drive near Silo Drive.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to investigate the concerns and prepare a report to the Council.

This the 22nd day of April, 2002.

Mr. Horton said the staff would try to have a progress report on this item before the Council’s summer break.

Item 10 – Town Applications for the 2002-03 Community Development

Program and HOME Program

MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 15. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE 2000 – 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (2002-04-22/R-15)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to submit the Annual Update to the 2000 - 2005 Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, including all understandings, assurances, and certifications required therein, for a program of $461,000 of Community Development Block Grant funds and $663,217 of federal HOME Program funds by May 15, 2002.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is hereby designated as the authorized representative of the Town to act in connection with submittal of a Consolidated Plan to provide such additional information as may be required.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 16A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING ACTIVITIES FOR THE 2002-2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (2002-4-22/R-16a)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill held two public hearings to receive ideas from citizens about how Community Development Block Grant funds could be spent in 2002-2003;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the Town’s allocation of $445,000 of Community Development Block Grant funds and $16,000 of anticipated Community Development Program Income, the Town Council approves the following 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant Program Plan:

Public Housing $170,000

Renovations (Airport Gardens) $115,000

Refurbishing Program $ 55,000

Neighborhood Revitalization $168,500

Community Services $ 30,500

(YMCA, Orange County Literacy Council, Police Dept.)

Property Acquisition /Infrastructure (Habitat for Humanity) $ 17,000

Administration $ 75,000

Total $461,000

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to carry out the program, including specific projects for use of Neighborhood Revitalization funds and conversion of Neighborhood Revitalization funds into grants for Land Trust projects, in accordance with guidelines in this memorandum.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to incorporate the 2002-2003 Community Development Plan into the Consolidated Plan developed with Orange County, Hillsborough and Carrboro for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 16B. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).

A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE COUNCIL’S INTENT TO CONSIDER BUDGETING $83,000 OF 2003-2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY (2002-04-22/R-16b)

WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity, Orange County has requested $100,000 of Community Development funds for infrastructure improvements for its project located on Rusch Road;

WHEREAS, the Council has budgeted $17,000 of 2002-2003 Community Development funds to Habitat for Humanity for this project;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill expresses its intent to consider budgeting $83,000 of 2003-2004 Community Development funds to Habitat for Humanity for infrastructure improvements for its project located on Rusch Road.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002

MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 17. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (9-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE 2002–2003 HOME PROGRAM (2002-4-22/R-17)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill held two public hearings to receive citizen comments and proposals regarding the use of $481,000 of federal HOME Program funds, $73,992 of program income, and $108,225 of local matching funds for a total of $663,217;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill approves the following activities to be carried out by the members of the Orange County HOME Consortium in 2002-2003:

Property Acquisition OPC Mental Health Assoc. $ 75,000 Residential Services $ 75,000

Affordable Rentals $ 70,000

Chapel Hill Department of Housing $ 28,117

Down payment Assistance Orange Comm. Housing & Land Trust $ 77,000

New Construction Habitat for Humanity $ 50,000

Second Mortgage Assistance EmPOWERment, Inc. $100,000

Habitat for Humanity $ 40,000

Community Revitalization All Nonprofit agencies $100,000

Administration Orange County Housing and Comm. Dev. $ 48,100

TOTAL $663,217

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes this plan to be incorporated into the Annual Update to the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan developed with Orange County, Hillsborough and Carrboro for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on May 15, 2002.

This the 22^nd day of April, 2002.

Item 11 – Submittal of Manager’s Recommended 2002-03 Budget and

2002-17 Capital Improvements Program

The Recommended Budget was accepted.

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

The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.