SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2003, AT 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 5:30 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, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Senior Planner Phil Hervey, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Discussion of Horace Williams Citizens Committee Report of October 8, 2003
Mayor Foy outlined the Council's plan to discuss the Horace Williams Citizens Committee's recommendations and then decide on what shape they want the report to take. The Council would be in a position to work with UNC as Carolina North develops, he said. Town Manager Cal Horton explained that the staff report was comprised of comments by advisory boards, relevant information from the Comprehensive Plan, and staff comments.
Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt reminded Council members that approximately two-thirds of the 900-acre Carolina North site was in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction, with the remaining third in Carrboro. The site was surrounded by many developed neighborhoods, she said. Ms. Berndt presented the following review of the Council's planning process for Carolina North:
· Council established Committee, October 2002.
· Committee Report to Council, October 8, 2003.
· Council Forum, October 27, 2993.
· Council Work Session, November 17, 2003.
· Council Consideration of Principles, Goals and Strategies, November 24, 2003.
Ms. Berndt discussed key issues/items included in the Council's packet, noting that the page numbers referred to pages in the worksheet, which was Attachment #3. These were:
· Remediation of Waste (page 16).
· Development of Master Plan (page 18).
· Resource Conservation District Overlay Applicability (page 18).
· Population and Employment Projections (page 20).
· Civic Uses: Public Art, Fire Station (page 21).
· Community Fabric/Design (page 22).
· Fiscal Equity (page 25).
Ms. Berndt said that the staff was recommending that standards that had been set for the UNC Development Plan for Central Campus be the minimum starting point for considering stormwater management principles on the property. There was a goal in the Committee's report of 75% open space preservation, she said. Ms. Berndt noted that the Town's 2025 Transportation Plan identifies both Airport Road and the railway as possible transit corridors. The staff was recommending that the Council begin dialogue with UNC early regarding the appropriate regulatory approach, she said. Ms. Berndt stressed that some advisory boards were continuing to meet and would present their materials at the Council's November 24th meeting.
Mayor Foy suggested that Council members either look at the Committee's principles and discuss them or itemize their concerns. He recommended going through the principles one by one, noting that tonight would be the Council's opportunity to comment and also to decide what should be done with those comments. Mayor Foy noted that UNC had held a press conference at which the Vice Chancellor had given details of the University's response to the proposal. UNC planned to make a public presentation on December 2, 2003, at 5:30 at the Friday Center, he said. Mayor Foy told Council members that he had seen the press conference and would review that if anyone wanted him to do so.
Principles 1 & 2 (Attachment 3, Page 15)
Mayor Foy pointed out that the staff had said these were consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Principle 3 (Attachment 3, Page 16)
Mayor Foy noted that the key item for discussion was remediation of waste sites. He reminded Council members that the initial phase of the Carolina North development would be on the portion that abuts Airport Road. This portion does not disturb the area where the hazardous waste dump and the landfill are, he said. Mayor Foy proposed that the Town continue to take the position that those sites must be cleaned up immediately, rather than allowing a seven-year process. He assumed the cleanup was going forward even though he did not know that it was, he said.
Council Member Bateman encouraged Council members to remain strong on waste site remediation. She cautioned that laying down infrastructure would likely disturb the nearby sites.
Council Member Ward noted that UNC had been monitoring those waste sites and said that they should continue to do so. To support development at Carolina North, he said, he would need to be assured that a timely funding mechanism was in place that the State had approved and that the Town understood. Council Member Ward wanted to be able to tell citizens that UNC was expeditiously cleaning up the chemical waste site, he said. He added that he would be looking for details on exactly what that means.
Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that remediation often cannot happen immediately and that one of those sites might take as long as 20 years. She agreed with the importance of addressing the sites but cautioned against saying that the end result had to be achieved before anything else could happen.
Mayor Foy noted that the Planning Board's comments had been similar to Council Member Ward's.
Council Member Strom expressed opposition to the language in Assumption #1 and suggested that the staff bring back options that make it clearer that this needs this to be dealt with expeditiously.
Council Member Wiggins said that she assumed Council members were also urging remediation of any waste that had moved off the Horace Williams property. Council Member Ward replied that the waste was still all on University property. If it were to move off then it would become a much more critical need in the eyes of the State, he said.
Council Member Wiggins repeated her recommendation that UNC remediate any waste that moves off their property. Mr. Horton pointed out that the waste was confined to University property and that UNC had monitoring wells set up that allow them to know if it starts to migrate. He agreed, however, that waste moving off the property would raise the Town's level of concern.
Mayor Foy determined that the Council was in agreement that there should be a funding mechanism in place and a plan to deal with remediation promptly and adequately.
Development Management Principles (page 17)
Mayor Foy ascertained from Mr. Horton that the Staff Comment on page 17 referred to O&I-4 (zoning). Mr. Horton added that it specifically referenced the fact that UNC had engaged its own transportation planning consultant and provided its own traffic impact analysis. There had been much interchange between the Town and University, he said, and the resulting product had been a good one. But, with the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO), the Town Council had established the practice of contracting with a cadre of traffic engineers and selecting one to work on the normal projects that come through, Mr. Horton said. He acknowledged that Carolina North was not a normal project, though, and pointed out that the Council would need to decide what approach to take.
Mayor Foy, describing this as a key matter, asked Mr. Horton to comment on whether handling transportation management plans the way the Town does under the LUMO would be possible in the context of Carolina North. Mr. Horton replied that it would be possible but could be "very challenging" because not many firms were prepared to undertake this level of work. Mr. Horton guessed that UNC might object to the Town handling it and probably would prefer something similar to what the Council had authorized in the past. He added, however, that he did not know for certain since he'd had no communication with UNC in that regard.
Mayor Foy pointed out that the Town Council had made the change in the LUMO because they were more comfortable getting numbers themselves.
Council Member Verkerk suggested that the Town pursue hiring the traffic engineer.
Mayor pro tem Evans described that as an expensive endeavor considering the time span and the scale of the development. Mayor Foy pointed out that the Town would not be paying for the traffic engineer.
Council Member Strom agreed with the principle that the Town should generate numbers rather than simply reviewing them. He preferred to try and follow the principles and spirit of LUMO, he said.
Goal 1 and its Implementation Strategies (page 17)
Mayor Foy ascertained that, as an underlying principle, the Council agreed to having the staff include language that conforms more to the current LUMO practice in some way. With regard to Council Member Bateman's question about how much infrastructure would be built in the first phase of a plan that's 50-70 years in scope, he proposed that Goal 1 of Principle 1 might refer to not doing all of the infrastructure up front. Mayor Foy asked if anyone from the Citizens Committee wanted to comment on what he had just said. Citizens Committee Chair Randy Kabrick replied that Goal 1 had been intended to phase structure so as to minimize disruption. There had been some conflict on the Committee with regard to building the entire infrastructure at once, he said. Mr. Kabrick commented that there seemed to be some conflict between Goal 1 and Strategy A in terms of complete build-out of infrastructure versus phased build-out.
Council Member-elect Cam Hill commented that both Goal 1 and Strategy A had been intended to minimize disruption. Where building it all at once would make life better for people, that's the way to do it, he said. And, where phasing it over time would make life better, then that would be the way to do it. Mayor Foy agreed that minimizing disruption was a good goal to embrace.
Council Member Kleinschmidt pointed out that a particular policy might not fit a particular kind of infrastructure, though.
Council Member Verkerk clarified that the Council would emphasize not having the entire infrastructure go in at once.
Mayor Foy asked Council members for their thoughts on Strategy A.
Council Member Bateman wondered what Ed Holland of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) might think, since installing a sewer line is one of the most destructive parts of building infrastructure. Mayor Foy said that the Council seemed to want infrastructure to be proportionate to what was being built. The Council was cautioning against having all 148 acres of infrastructure go in and just sit there, he said. Mayor Foy emphasized that Council members needed to be clear on what they want, since they could institute requirements in the zone that prohibit certain activities. Council members seemed conflicted about these two, he said, and he urged them to decide which they want.
Council Member Harrison pointed out that infrastructure can become outmoded quickly with a project that goes on this long. There are wastewater infrastructure approaches that were around 20 years ago that one would not want to use now, he said. Council Member Harrison pointed out that this argues against building the entire 1,000 acres of infrastructure all at once, since just building that much infrastructure takes several years.
Council Member Ward noted that the Council was agreeing with Council Member-elect Hill's earlier comment that the Town should minimize disruption to the community. To the extent that this can be done, particularly on the periphery, then that's what the Town should do, he said. Council Member Ward suggested, for example, that utility lines be put in place that would be adequate seven years from now even though they might not be needed at the start. Those sorts of things would help minimize disruption to the entire community, he said. Council Member Ward added, though, that it would as unreasonable to ask the University to guess about infrastructure that might be needed 70 years from now.
Mayor Foy suggested deleting the words, "at the beginning of the project" in Strategy A. It would then say: "Build infrastructure (on-site and off-site) so that roads, transit…." Council members agreed by consensus.
Goal 2 and its Implementation Strategies (pages 18-19)
Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that the LUMO might be dramatically different 20 to 30 years from now. She suggested that the wording say it should conform to "whatever is the adopted policy of the Council." Mayor Foy replied that, as always, it would apply to whatever is in effect at the time.
With regard to the staff comment on Goal 2, Strategy C, Mayor Foy asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos if the Council could add the wording of the Resource Conservation District (RCD), if they created a zone for this project, so that it would not be an overlay. The precise legal answer, said Mr. Karpinos, is that land owned by the State cannot be put into an overlay district without the State's consent. But, if the Council could develop a set of standards and a general zoning district that would have the same standards in effect that would apply generally, without the need of having an overlay zone, then that might be an approach that would reach the Town's goals just as an overlay district would, Mr. Karpinos said.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Council include a goal of having the RCD rules apply. Council Member Strom agreed, adding that this was exactly the type of situation the Committee had discussed. They thought a different zone would be appropriate for sites such as this one, he said.
Goal 3 and its Implementation Strategies (pages 19-20)
With regard to Goal 3, Strategy B, Council Member Harrison expressed support for the staff's comment regarding "critical root zone." Town staff should have much say over where construction equipment can be used, he said.
Council Member Strom noted that there was an item on the State agenda each year regarding the shortage of inspectors. He said that inspection and control of sedimentation and erosion was very important and that he wanted UNC to support the Town's request for additional inspectors. Council Member Strom also suggested asking UNC to help Orange County fund a position to oversee the Carolina North development. Council Member Strom recommended identifying a funding source from the applicant to adequately oversee the Carolina North project.
Mayor Foy agreed, noting that in the past the Town had not had adequate inspection. Council Member Bateman also agreed. She suggested adding, "to minimize the fiscal impacts on the community" because there would be community costs involved in having this approved.
Council Member Strom stressed that the language should not be ambiguous. Mayor Foy proposed including both. They should ask UNC to find a way to insure that sufficient inspections are going on that insure that rules are being adhered to, he said. And they should keep that in mind for other costs that the community will have to either absorb or have UNC mitigate, said Mayor Foy.
Council Member Ward commented that the end result was that the Town needed to have enforcement of the regulations. He expressed support for efforts to strengthen enforcement ability at the County level. Council Member Ward said that he would keep open how the University would help the Town do that. He wanted to address the problem, he said, but did not want to dictate how the University must achieve it.
Mr. Horton reminded Council members that the State administers inspections of UNC projects. Ms. Berndt pointed out that the Citizens Committee had recommended, in Strategy E on page 29, that the University fund an emission control and sedimentation inspection position with Orange County dedicated to the Carolina North development. She noted the staff's comment on that same page, which said that under present law the State carries out this function for State projects.
Council Member Wiggins remarked that the County does not always inspect County projects efficiently, or correctly. She said that another Council committee would recommend that the project fund its own regular inspection and insure water quality, and so forth. Council Member Wiggins stressed the importance of leaving it among the goals, however, as an expectation that UNC would go beyond the State in insuring and protecting the environment.
Mayor Foy said that was a good point. Despite the fact that the State inspects, UNC could agree to have funding in place for some other inspection process, he said. Mr. Karpinos noted that this would involve negotiating with UNC to see what they would agree to. Mayor Foy suggested having that come back in some form as part of the underlying principles.
With regard to Strategy E, Council Member Verkerk asked to add, "provide safe alternative pedestrian corridors when sidewalks are closed due to construction. There was no objection.
Neighborhood/Community Interface Principle 1 (pages 20-21)
Council Member Bateman asked to add the following as Goal 1E: "Reserve a school site sufficient to accommodate levels from pre-school through high school." She stated that this requirement would be consistent with other developments in the community. Carolina North will generate so many jobs that it will stress the schools, she said.
Council Member Strom asserted that the size and scale of Carolina North means it would need a K-12 school, or three school sites.
Council Member Bateman reminded Council members that she had served on a University committee, called University Uses, and had participated in discussions about building a secondary magnet science/math school or a very early childhood school to capitalize on the Frank Porter Graham School being there. She had been disappointed that previous committees had not advocated for schools, she said, adding that more than one school on the site would be okay with her.
Council Member Ward suggested describing the school plan more broadly than K-12. He would not want to prevent the University from taking on opportunities that might fit well with their mission, he said. He proposed that there might be a way to do that and also meet Town goals. Council Member Ward noted that a school represents a relatively small fraction of school costs. And only about 5% of that cost is for land, he said. Council Member Ward suggested broaching the subject that UNC might help the community with construction or infrastructure costs.
Mayor pro tem Evans proposed that Strategy A gave the Town the flexibility it needs. The Town does not know whether Frank Porter Graham will move there and/or what facilities will be needed, she said.
Council Member Bateman expressed a preference for a separate goal so that having a school site would be emphasized.
Mayor pro tem Evans referred to a previous discussion about building a school on Seawell School Road near the three that already exist.
Mayor Foy commented, however, that those schools were not exactly close to where Carolina North would be.
Mayor Foy asked if the Council had agreed on the goal of having a school site. "Only if it's needed," said Mayor pro tem Evans, adding that otherwise it would cut into open space. "Obviously, if nothing gets built there it won't be needed," said Mayor Foy.
Council Member Kleinschmidt pointed out that the reason for having schools was broader than the fact that there will be many people whose children will populate them. The University has unique opportunities to develop educational programs for pre-K through 12, he said, and it's in the community's interest to have them consider this and continue their commitment to innovative approaches. Council Member Kleinschmidt added that UNC seemed to have found the phrase "especially daycare and K-5" too limiting. He suggested removing that reference and allowing it to be broader than that.
Mayor Foy suggested removing "especially daycare and K-5" from Strategy A and adding a Goal 1E as follows: "Reserve a school site sufficient to accommodate several levels, from pre-school through high school." Council members agreed.
With regard to Goal 1A, Mayor Foy inquired about the meaning of 25% of housing for students. Council Member-elect Hill replied that the amount of housing would be for 25% of the daily population at Carolina North. If they had 10,000 people working there, there would be enough housing for 2,500, he explained.
Council Member-elect Hill said that he did not understand why the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board wanted to strike the word "students" from the last sentence in Goal 1A. Mayor Foy replied that he thought it was simply unclear and could be construed as student housing.
Council Member Bateman clarified that the sentence meant employees, including students.
Council Member Ward wondered about the phrase, "reflect the salaries of those using the site," in the first sentence in Goal 1A. How does that compare to the range of employment at UNC, he wondered, since people working there would be paid more than those working for UNC as a whole. Council Member Ward said that he envisioned providing housing for the lower half of the spectrum. The Town would not have to work hard to find housing in Town for a research scientist making $500,000 a year, he said.
Mayor Foy commented that it might be speaking to a diversity of housing.
Council Member Ward suggested striking the words "using the site" and saying "reflects the range of salaries of the University" instead.
Council Member Verkerk agreed with the point, and Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not think the Committee realized it could be interpreted that way.
Mayor pro tem Evans said the Committee had thought there would be many low-paying lab technician jobs and had wanted to make sure there was housing for lower paid employees.
Council Member Ward inquired about the best way to communicate the Council's desire to work on this issue.
Mayor Foy pointed out that at least 15% of the housing should be affordable and suggested that the Council be explicit about that.
Council Member Strom noted that the Committee had also talked about creating housing options for students that would compensate for the shortages on campus. He had been unable to find a reference to that in the report, he said.
Ms. Berndt explained that the Committee had talked about a diversity of housing types, ranging from dorms to single-family homes, with low-income housing included. She recalled a range of housing opportunities that should reflect different salary levels, from service worker to faculty, in addition to student levels, she said.
Council Member Strom recalled that there had been much Committee discussion about phasing. The Committee had been very interested in getting the housing built at the beginning, he said. Council Member Strom asked if there was a specific reference in the report to phasing/timing. Ms. Berndt pointed out that there was a section on Development Management and Phasing. But she agreed that it would be worth clarifying by mentioning it again in this section.
Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed agreement with Council Member Ward's earlier suggestion to reference the University's broad salary schedule. He expressed concern that setting a percentage for affordable housing could allow UNC to build housing for two ends of the salary curve with nothing in between.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that she'd understood the Committee to mean student housing should primarily be for graduate and undergraduate family housing. The University had a policy of trying to create more undergraduate housing on the main campus so they would not have to transport students as much, she said.
Mayor Foy asked if there was any objection to including the Public Arts Commission's comments on Goal 1D. Similarly, he asked about including the staff's recommendations for a fire station and for structures to be built with sprinklers in Goal 1D, Strategy A.
Council Member Ward determined that there was no objection to adding the language he had suggested regarding housing. He asked for clarification of what that means with regard to student housing, however. Mayor Foy replied that the language means that 2,500 of 10,000 housing units would reflect the salary range of the people who work there.
Council Member Ward described Carolina North as an opportunity and an obligation for UNC to address the issue of how the 6,000 or so students who live off campus raise the cost of rental property and make it unaffordable for many working class people. He was advocating for more housing for students, he said, adding that UNC should decide where that housing would make the most sense.
Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested that the Council was interpreting the second sentence in Goal 1A as including the people who are there regardless of what they are doing there. This would mean including students as well, he said.
Mayor Foy recommended changing the wording, since it did not specify what type of housing.
Council Member Strom proposed adding another goal saying that the development should be used to address the severe shortage of undergraduate housing.
Mayor Foy suggested adding another goal that specifically addresses student housing at Carolina North. He recommended that the staff bring back language in that regard.
Council Member Ward wondered about deleting the word "students" from Goal 1A, but Mayor Foy and others did not see it as incompatible.
Neighborhood/Community Interface Principle 2 (pages 22-25)
Mayor Foy noted that Strategy H was an opportunity to get UNC's help with Airport Road, and suggested that the Council strongly emphasizing that.
Council Member Verkerk noted that "bicycles" should be changed to "bicyclists."
Council Member Ward encouraged the Council to specifically add Estes Road Extension, Seawell School Road, and Homestead Road, or to reword Strategy H to say, "roads along the perimeter of this property need to be modified to ensure safe crossing of pedestrians and bicyclists."
Mayor Foy noted that Airport Road would continue to be urbanized. He said that Carolina North might be an impetus for that and would generate traffic from I-40 all the way down to downtown Chapel Hill. Mayor Foy stressed that Airport Road would need to get much attention if Carolina North is to move forward.
Mayor pro tem Evans recommended adding a Strategy I, saying: "Ensure safe crossing of Seawell School Road, Estes Drive and Homestead Road for pedestrians and bicyclists."
Mayor Foy asked if there were any objections to comments on pages 22 and 23.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted, under the staff comment on Strategy A, that the 250-foot buffer would be changed with the new zoning.
Council Member Strom commented that the most important goal was to have a transit-oriented development from the outset. Developing "the major entranceways on existing arterials," as written in Strategy A, seemed to him like a suburban, non-transit-oriented development approach, he said. Council Member Strom stressed that this should be a central issue for the Council.
Mayor Foy commented that he had taken the wording in Strategy A to mean not creating a new inward-looking way of approaching this development. "Don't turn your back on the Town," is what he thought it meant.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that this was how the subcommittee had viewed it as well.
Mayor Foy proposed that these were not bad strategies as long as the roads did not turn into parkways to the development.
Council Member Strom argued that it might not be a good idea to develop a series of major entranceways to this project. Transportation and land use principles ought to be given priority with regard to entranceways, he said. Mayor pro tem Evans replied that transit needed to access Carolina North somehow.
Mayor Foy asked Council Member Strom to elaborate on his remarks. Council Member Strom predicted that there would be problems if 10,000 cars approach the project through a Homestead Road access point. He expressed concern that the language under Strategy A on page 22 would encourage development of several major entranceways.
Mayor Foy wondered about deleting Homestead Road and leaving Airport Road and Estes Drive. Council Member Strom replied that doing that would be "a start." Mayor pro tem Evans opposed the suggestion to remove Homestead Road.
Council Member Harrison asked Council Member Strom if he envisioned many small entryways, including bus and mixed transit. Council Member Strom replied that he envisioned severely constrained and reduced parking. Designing a transit-oriented development from the outset does not mean having a suburban model with 20,000 parking spaces, he said.
Council Member Harrison agreed that the proposal seemed to envision a small number of entrances with much traffic coming in each. Council Member Strom replied that it struck him that way when he read the language. It would be in the Town's and Committee's interest to avoid that, he said.
Mayor Foy pointed out that Principle 2 says, "create a campus facility that is open, welcoming and part of the community fabric while at the same time respecting the privacy and integrity of adjoining neighborhoods." He recommended deleting the word "major" from "major entranceways" in Strategy A. Mr. Horton suggested saying "confine" rather than "develop" the entranceways. This would address Council Member Strom's concern that the original wording invited traffic, he said.
Council Member Strom expressed agreement with those suggestions, but added that striking Homestead Road would be a good idea, too.
Council Member Ward asked if this would preclude using the rail corridor from the park and ride lot on Eubanks Road. He did not want to rule that and bus transit out, he said. Council Member Strom replied that he was thinking about automobile access.
Mayor Foy suggested deleting the entire second half of the sentence so that Strategy A would read: "Confine the entranceways on the existing arterials. Orient the development to Airport Road…"
Council Member Bateman objected to Airport Road and Estes Drive being the only access points because that would put to much pressure on those neighborhoods. Mayor Foy pointed out that the Council would talk more about that when they get to the transportation section of the report. Council Member Bateman said that she understood that but, since she was retiring from the Council, this might be her only chance to comment.
Mayor Foy pointed out that the Council's 7 p.m. public meeting would begin in just a few minutes. He proposed that Council members either continue the work session for twenty more minutes and then start the meeting, or start the meeting on time and continue the work session afterwards. Mayor Foy pointed out that the Council probably would not finish this tonight anyway. He said that they could schedule another work session or use the following Monday to continue this work since they would not finish it in time to vote on it that night. If the Council got their comments to the Committee by its December 18th meeting they could start out the new year with firm principles, he said.
Council Member Wiggins suggested that someone go through the Committee report and make sure that the Council is not contradicting itself and leaving its comments open to multiple interpretations. She asked who would do that and Mayor Foy replied that the staff could help. He saw the document as providing the Council's direction to themselves as they enter into discussions with UNC about the zone, Mayor Foy said.
Council Member Wiggins ascertained that the document would at some point have the Council's recommendations incorporated into the draft.
Council members agreed to begin their business meeting on time and to continue this discussion at the November 24th Council meeting.
Council Member Strom agreed with Mayor Foy's earlier suggestion to send the report back to the Citizens Committee before adoption. The Committee could give the Council much advice and clarifying feedback on the University's plan, he said, noting that UNC's plan would come out on December 2nd.
Mayor Foy suggested referring Council comments to the Committee to be incorporated along with what UNC presents on December 2nd. Then it would all come back to the Council at the first meeting in January, he said, adding that the Council would then be prepared to adopt their goals.
Mr. Horton pointed out that meeting for an hour prior to the November 24th meeting would give the Council greater assurance of finishing up that evening.
Council Member Verkerk said that she was not in any rush if the Committee wanted to look at it first.
Council Member Strom argued that the Committee should hear the Council's conversation.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that the Town and Committee might be crafting goals that reflect what UNC will present. It was unfortunate that the University had been forced to disclose information, she said, adding that UNC had made it clear that everything presented had been premature since every part of it was in flux. Mayor pro tem Evans recommended that the Council forward their comments on the Citizens Committee report to UNC for incorporation in the University's plan.
Council Member Harrison asked for clarification of next week's plan. Mayor Foy explained that the Council would meet at 5:00 p.m. and spend an hour talking about traffic calming. Then they would discuss Horace Williams from 6:00-7:00 p.m., he said, and begin their regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. Council Member Harrison predicted that it would take more than one traffic calming work session to get it right.
Mr. Kabrick said that the Committee really wanted feedback from the Council. In response to Mayor pro tem Evans remarks, he said that the Committee had not been formed to think about what UNC was doing. The Citizens Committee's task had been to think about what was right to do, and their recommendations reflect that, Mr. Kabrick said.
The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m.