SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 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 Acting Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Acting Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal proposed deferring Agenda Item 13, consideration of an ordinance to require fire sprinkler systems, to a later date. The staff had not been able to distribute copies to affected parties, she said, explaining that this was due to the aftermath of Hurricane Isabel.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO DEFER ITEM 13 TO OCTOBER 8, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 1 – Ceremonies: None
Item 2 - Public Hearings: None.
Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a(1) Avram Friedman, Canary Coalition, regarding a resolution requesting the NC Attorney General to file a petition for review against the EPA’s “Routine Maintenance” Rule Change, and urging the NC Congressional Delegation to co-sponsor legislation in Congress to repeal the ruling.
Mr. Friedman thanked Council members for unanimously passing the resolution in the past and asked them to do so again. He explained that the US Environmental Protection Agency had finalized a second rule change to the New Source Review provision of the Clean Air Act. This change re-defines the term "routine maintenance" when applied to grandfathered power plants, factories and refineries, and exempts them from modernizing their emission control systems, Mr. Friedman said. He explained that the resolution would remind the Attorney General of his responsibility under Section 10 of the NC Clean Smokestacks Act to use "all available means" to protect North Carolina citizens from air pollution originating outside North Carolina's borders.
Mayor Foy explained that Mr. Friedman's resolution would ask the Attorney General to act before the deadline of October 27, 2003, to seek a petition for review. Mr. Friedman noted that the actual deadline probably would be at least two weeks later than that.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY TO COME BACK FOR ACTION ON OCTOBER 8, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(2) Margaret Misch for the Orange County Bill of Rights Defense Committee, regarding the protection of the Bill of Rights and the NC Constitution, and a resolution for Council consideration regarding the protection of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Ms. Misch, representing The Orange County Bill of Rights Defense Committee, submitted 627 signatures on petitions urging Council members to not participate, to the extent legally permissible, in law enforcement activities that threaten the civil rights and liberties of Chapel Hill's citizens. These activities include surveillance, wiretaps, and securing private information that the USA Patriot Act and other Executive Orders authorize.
Ms. Misch also asked Council members to work for repeal of parts of the Patriot Act and Executive Orders that violate civil rights and civil liberties. As of September 22, 2003, she said, 168 cities, towns and counties, as well as Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont, had passed resolutions. She pointed out that North Carolina refused to ratify the US Constitution until after the first ten amendments had been added in 1791. Ms. Misch stated that Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VIII, and XIV include protections of concern to Orange County citizens. She asked the Town Council to make Chapel Hill a "safe zone" by passing this resolution, which the Orange County Commissioners adopted on May 20, 2003.
COUNCIL MEMBER MARK KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED TO CONSIDER THE RESOLUTION WITHOUT REFERRING IT TO THE STAFF SINCE IT WAS PURELY A POLITICAL QUESTION THAT DID NOT ASK STAFF OR POLICE TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. IT MERELY ASKS THE TOWN TO OPERATE IN A MANNER THAT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF ITS CITIZENS, HE SAID. COUNCIL MEMBER BILL STROM SECONDED.
Mayor pro tem Evans stated that this had not been on the agenda and must, therefore, obtain unanimous support of the Council for approval. She recommended referring it to the staff so that all citizens could have an opportunity to comment. Mayor pro tem Evans also requested a response from Town and University police chiefs regarding the impact of this resolution.
Council Member Kleinschmidt pointed out that the item had been made public and placed on the Town’s website the previous Thursday. He asked if that constituted being technically on the agenda. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos replied that it was on the agenda, but that it was generally not the rule to take action on petitions the night they are presented except in extraordinary circumstances. In those cases, it requires unanimous consent of the Council, he said.
Mayor Foy noted that the Chapel Hill Police Department had already told the Council that it would not comply with certain activities that might be requested under the Patriot Act. He asked Mayor pro tem Evans if that was the kind of information she wanted. Mayor pro tem Evans replied that she did not recall the Chief Jarvies saying that. It would be worthwhile for both the Town and the University police chiefs to inform the public of their position, she said.
Council Member Ward suggested allowing the public to speak on this issue and also getting more information from the police chiefs.
Council Member Verkerk stated that she was prepared to take action but agreed with the suggestion to allow citizens to express their views. This would avoid risking the perception that the Council had acted preemptively, she said. Council Member Kleinschmidt replied that he had no objection to bringing this back as an agenda item.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stressed that he had not meant to "pull the wool over anyone's eyes." This had been part of public discussion at least since the County Commissioners approved it in May 2003, he said, adding that it had also been on the Town's website, made part of the agenda, and publicized in newspapers. Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that he did not want anyone to have the impression that he, or anyone else on the Council, was attempting to rush it. Council Member Verkerk replied that she had not meant to imply that, but had merely wanted more time to ensure that everyone was comfortable. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that he had understood her intent but had been concerned that the media might reports their comments out of context.
Mayor Foy suggested modifying the motion to request that this item come back as a resolution on October 8, 2003. He recommended also asking for reports from the Town and UNC police chiefs regarding what might be required of them under the Patriot Act and how they would respond. Ms. Loewenthal agreed to include a report from the Town police chief and to request a report from UNC's police chief. Council Member Strom asked to include comments from the Public Library Director as well.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY TO COME BACK ON THE MAIN AGENDA ON OCTOBER 8, 2003, WITH A REPORT FROM THE TOWN POLICE, UNC POLICE, AND THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC LIBRARY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(3) John Hannan, Amran Shrine Circus, regarding a request for funding.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY, AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS TO INCLUDE WHETHER THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESOLUTION ON TREATMENT OF CIRCUS ANIMALS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(4) Jim Heavner, for the Memorial Hall Transformation Committee, regarding a request for funding.
Mr. Heavner thanked the Council for its willingness to bring the Carolina Performing Art series back to Chapel Hill. He expressed hope that there would be funds to begin supporting that during the current fiscal year. Mr. Heavner described the $30,000 request as appropriate because it would yield benefits to multiple sectors of the community. The new Arts Common will provide an entry to the campus and will be the most highly visible connection between Downtown and UNC, he said.
Mr. Heavner pointed out that citizens had demonstrated enthusiastic support by contributing $2.5 million of the $5 million raised in a recent campaign. The University had given it a high priority, he said, and it was the first project supported by its bond issue. Mr. Heavner commented that taking advantage of this opportunity would make Chapel Hill a leading arts community, perhaps the leading arts community, in the Southeast.
Council Member Bateman determined that Mr. Heavner had directed fund raising efforts toward Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, Fearrington Village, and the Governor's Club. He had also approached Durham and other communities, he said, adding that Raleigh's citizens had been generous.
Council Member Verkerk noted that UNC charges for parking at the Memorial Hall lot. She suggested that parking proceeds from the performing arts series be used to support that series. Mr. Heavner praised the suggestion but explained that only the University could set its agenda. He pointed out, though, that there was plenty of available parking in the evening. He added that he would object, if asked, to anyone charging patrons of the performing arts program.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(5) Tim Dempsey, Planning Board Chair, regarding a process for developing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan.
Mr. Dempsey explained that the Planning Board had considered the Action Plan not knowing that the Council had already approved it. He emphasized that Board members still wanted their thoughts to be heard, however. Mr. Dempsey noted that the Transportation Board takes a broader view of issues than the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. The Planning Board would recommend that the two construct the Action Plan jointly, he said, and that they include Planning Board Member Nancy Milio. Mr. Dempsey suggested that the Police Department also look at the plan and that it include information from upcoming Bikes and Pedestrian workshops regarding white outside lanes versus striped lanes.
Mayor Foy asked for clarification of what the Council had actually adopted, adding that he did not recall passing a plan. Council Member Harrison replied that the Council had passed a calendar and a potential process, but not a plan. Mayor Foy suggested treating the Planning Board's request as a petition and referring Mr. Dempsey's comments to the staff to be integrated into the process.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that Agenda Item 14 addresses a construction plan for sidewalks and bicycle facilities.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(6) Lauren Easthom, regarding speeding on Weaver Dairy Road Extension.
Northwoods resident Lauren Easthom requested a traffic study regarding speeding on Weaver Dairy Road Extension. That road has a speed limit of 20 mph, but Ms. Easthom, who lives there, said that she had seen people driving faster than 45 mph. She asked the Town to determine where traffic control measures might be added. "When the road officially connects to Homestead Road traffic will increase and what has been a neighborhood road will become more of a parkway," she said. Ms. Easthom expressed concern about her children and others trying to cross that street.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. COUNCIL MEMBER WARD SECONDED.
Council Member Harrison suggested clarifying how much control the Town has over Weaver Dairy Road Extension. He also noted that the speaker had used the terms "traffic calming" and "traffic control" interchangeably. The Town can practice traffic calming, he said, but the State DOT can only practice traffic control. Council Member Harrison commented that Weaver Dairy Road Extension was not the only place in Town that had a speeding problem. He pointed out that the road does have many new inhabitants and said that it often is area residents who are speeding.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(7) Katherine Kopp, regarding request to adopt Town of Edenton to help with recovery from Hurricane Isabel.
Ms. Kopp, a homeowner in both Chapel Hill and Edenton, NC, reminded the Council that Edenton had been devastated by the recent Hurricane Isabel. Ms. Kopp asked Council members to consider adopting Edenton as a sister city, as it had done with Speed, NC after Hurricane Fran. Even a gesture of support would mean a lot to Edenton, she said. Ms. Kopp stated that the greatest needs at the moment were for food, bottled water, and money.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that she had discussed hurricane damage with Ted Vaden, editor and publisher of the Chapel Hill News, who had raised the issue of Edenton as well. She suggested joining the Chapel Hill News in trying to provide support to this community. Mayor pro tem Evans then asked how this had been done with Speed, NC.
Council Member Wiggins, who had worked on the Speed project, explained that some of the Town's Public Works and Law Enforcement employees had helped out in Speed following Hurricane Fran. The Town had been able to recover associated expenses from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), she said. However, Orange County and Chapel Hill tax money must be used locally, Council Member Wiggins explained, and the Town cannot go into its General Fund to sponsor activities in another county or town.
Council Member Wiggins said that a group of citizens, who had organized and named themselves as "Neighbors for Speed," had contributed funds and physical assistance. Donations had gone through the Triangle Community Foundation and people received tax credit for it, she said. Council Member Wiggins explained that a volunteer office at UNC had also sent work crews to Speed. She thought that the Mayor had recruited co-chairs, she said, adding that she had represented the Council on the project. Mayor Foy suggested asking the staff for advice on how to proceed. He noted that a website (www.ncmutualaid.com) lists what various counties and municipalities need.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION, AS DESCRIBED, TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(8) Will Raymond, regarding Red Light Cameras.
Mr. Raymond followed up on questions he had submitted regarding the ethical and technical operation of the red light camera system. He had not received answers to his questions, he said, describing that as "greatly troubling." Mr. Raymond asserted that the Town had done little due diligence before instituting what he referred to as the "scamera" system. He asked that the Council stop deploying these systems until his basic questions had been answered and maybe even to postpone deployments until after the November elections. Mr. Raymond recommended that the system receive the same level of oversight that other law-enforcement activities receive in Chapel Hill. He also asked Council members to pledge that this be the end of this type of automated surveillance enforcement and that there will not be radar-gun or radar-photo enforcement.
Mayor Foy, noting that the staff had been working on Mr. Raymond's questions, asked when a response would come to the Council. Ms. Loewenthal replied that it would take some time to go through the more than 200 questions that Mr. Raymond had raised. She did not have a specific date for when the report would be completed, she said. Mr. Raymond replied that there really were only about 50 core questions, which fell into a few categories: What is the policy? What is the Town going to do to enforce the policy? How often will the Town check that the policy is being enforced? And what will the Town do if the policy is not followed?
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECEIVE THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(9) Sally Greene, regarding support of Civil Rights Petition from Margaret Misch, Item 3a(2).
Ms. Greene spoke in support of the petition presented by Ms. Misch regarding the Patriot Act. She said that the Patriot Act violates not only the Bill of Rights but the NC Constitution and local regulations. Ms. Greene stated that Council approval of the proposed resolution would back up local and State laws and encourage non-compliance with any federal actions that cross the line. Las Vegas had joined the 168 cities, towns, counties and states that had passed resolutions, she said, adding that "even in Las Vegas, people don't want to gamble with their constitutional rights," Ms. Green asked Council members to adopt the resolution on October 8, 2003.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO RECEIVE MS. GREENE'S REMARKS.
Update on Hurricane Isabel Recovery.
Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller said that electrical service had been disrupted for many in Chapel Hill following Hurricane Isabel and that some streets had been blocked by fallen power lines and trees. She reported that Town services were again operating normally and that all streets had been reopened.
Ms. Miller reported that five brush removal crews were working in eight sections of Town. They would be removing debris over the next weeks, and probably months, she said.
Ms. Miller explained that Chapel Hill had deployed a team of six from the Fire Department to work in Columbia, NC. This was in response to a request for assistance from NC Emergency Management through Orange County Emergency Management, she said.
Ms. Miller stated that the Town Inspections Department had conducted a preliminary damage assessment and determined that four housing units had received intermediate damage and seventeen had received minor damage, primarily from fallen trees.
Item 4 - Consent Agenda
Council Member Strom removed 4d, Annual Budget Amendment to Reappropriate Funds for Encumbrances.
Council Member Harrison removed 4e, Information Regarding the Proposed Bond Referenda.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-1 WITH D AND E REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2003-09-22/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
|
a. |
Adoption of Minutes of August 25 and 26, 2003. |
|
b. |
Nominations to Various Advisory Boards and Commissions (R-2). |
|
c. |
Resolution Authorizing the Disposition of Surplus Property (R-3). |
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2003-09-22/R-2)
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:
Faith Nager
Personnel Appeals Committee
Toby Kahr
Ben LaVange
Joanna Smith
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
A RESOLUTION DECLARING 403 ITEMS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DISPOSAL OF SAID PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS (2003-09-22/R-3)
WHEREAS, Article 12 of N. C. General Statutes and Section 4-16 of the Charter of the Town of Chapel Hill authorizes the Town to dispose of surplus property; and
WHEREAS, the Town desires to dispose of certain items of personal property at Auction scheduled for Saturday, October 25, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following items of personal property are hereby declared surplus:
Thirty vehicles including: (1) 1976 Miller 12 ton Trailer, (1) 1993 Chevrolet Van (1) 1993 Chevrolet Blazer, (1) 1994 Ford Explorer, (1) 1994 Dodge Lift Van, (1) 1994 Ford F250, (1) 1995 Ford Taurus, (2) 1995 ODB Leaf Loaders, (1) 1995 Chevrolet Caprice, (1) 1995 Ford F250, (1) 1995 Crown Victoria, (2) 1995 Dodge Lift Vans, (1) 1996 Chevrolet Lumina, (1) 1996 International Rear Loader, (1) 1996 Oldsmobile Ciera Wagon, (1) 1997 Ford Taurus Wagon, (1) 1998 International Rear Loader, (1) 1998 Crown Victoria, (1) 1999 Chevrolet Cavalier, (7) 1999 Crown Victoria, (1) 1999 Dodge Ram, (1) 2000 Crown Victoria.
There are three hundred seventy-three (373) miscellaneous items including: Meyers Snow Plow, Jacobsen & Hustler Riding Mowers, Industrial Fan, Diesel Engine, Pilot Ignition Systems, Office Furniture and Equipment, Projectors, Color TV, Copier, Telephones, Computers and Accessories, Typewriter, and miscellaneous office supplies.
That the Purchasing Coordinator of the Town of Chapel Hill shall be and is hereby authorized to dispose of this surplus personal property in accordance with statutory requirements.
That prior to public auction the Purchasing Coordinator is authorized to dispose of any of the personal property by sale, lease, exchange, sealed bid, or transfer to other government units in conformity with N. C. General Statute 160A-274.
That the terms of the sale shall be to the highest bidder for cash or other form of cash equivalents acceptable to the Purchasing Coordinator. All sales shall be designated final on the day of the auction.
That all items shall be sold on an “as is” and “where is” basis and the Town makes no guarantee or assumes no responsibility for any of the items.
That it shall be condition of sale that all items purchased shall be picked up and removed from the premises of the Municipal Operations Facility by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the auction. Successful bidders shall bear sole risk for loss of any items remaining on said premises past the designated time.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Item 5 - Information Items
Council Member Kleinschmidt removed items 5a, Response to Petition regarding Time Frames Specified in the OI-4 Zoning District, and 5f, Update on the Automated Red Light Enforcement System.
With regard to 5g, Report of Naming Opportunities for Town Facilities, Council Member Bateman said that the Committee on which she and Council Members Strom and Wiggins serve would recommend that the Hargraves tennis courts be named in memory of Hank Anderson. They would also recommend placing a bench with a plaque in memory of Frances Hargraves at the Hargraves Community Center and naming the Town park next to Rashkis Elementary School as Meadowmont Park, she said. Council Member Bateman explained that these recommendations would come before the Council for a vote on October 8, 2003.
With regard to 5a, Response to Petition regarding Time Frames Specified in the OI-4 Zoning District, Planning Board Co-Chair Sally Greene encouraged Council members to reopen discussions with UNC. As she understands the OI-4 zoning ordinance, she said, an amendment or modification of the Development Plan should be given the same full treatment as a brand new Development Plan in terms of process. This would allow property owners, immediate neighbors, and the larger community to understand what levels of development were being proposed, what impacts would likely accompany the development, and what mitigation measures might be designed and implemented. All of that cannot be done in 90 days, Ms. Greene stated, noting that the UNC Development Plan probably would have failed if the University had forced a vote on it as it had existed at day 90.
Ms. Greene argued that it was in the University's interest as well as the Town's to take the time to hold a public hearing on this. She had not come to propose a new timeframe, she said, but thought that the question was important enough to hold a public hearing on it. Ms. Greene pointed out that the Planning Board was not required to make a recommendation with regard to the Development Plan. This had marginalized the Board, she said, and made the time it spent almost meaningless.
Mayor Foy agreed that the process could "benefit from some tweaking" and suggested that the Council see concept plans, as they do with other development applications. Having seen a UNC concept plan in January or February could have been very productive, he said. Mayor Foy agreed with Ms. Greene's recommendation that the Council talk about how this process could work more effectively.
Council Member Wiggins asked who would initiate such changes. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos replied that it would be an amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO), which the Town Council could initiate. But the more important question, he said, was what response would that one property owner make if there were a proposed change to the ordinance. Procedurally, there might be an opportunity for the property owner to file a protest petition, which would change the vote required for the text amendment and require a supermajority of the Council to make the modification, Mr. Karpinos said. He noted that the Council had initiated text amendment changes in the past, including a couple that were on this evening's agenda.
Council Member Wiggins verified that the OI-4 district was part of the LUMO.
Council Member Harrison agreed with Ms. Greene, noting that the 90-day process had taken 146 days and had for him been extremely unpleasant. He also agreed with the suggestion that the Council see a concept plan.
Council Member Ward suggested approaching this in a less formal way, such as through a Mayor's Committee. He agreed that 90 days was inadequate and did not serve the Council, citizens, or the University. Council Member Ward also agreed that the project would not have been approved if the Council had been mandated to vote in 90 days. He recommended finding a better approach than a supermajority vote, however, since that might lead to a protest petition and so on.
Council Member Strom expressed support for Ms. Greene's recommendation to have a public hearing. He said that the Town had rushed to create OI-4 because the UNC bonds had passed and there had been a pressure to create a zoning category in a very short time. Council Member Strom pointed out that the Council could only control the process. Considering changes to that process in a public forum would be appropriate, he said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed with Ms. Greene's proposal for a public hearing. He also agreed with Council Member Ward's suggestion to find ways of not having to go through a protest petition, supermajorities, and so forth. With regard to the recent UNC Development Plan modification, 90 days had seemed more like six, he said, by the time the Council received the request. Council Member Kleinschmidt recommended involving the community at the start because a more transparent process would increase citizens' comfort level and allow a successful final outcome.
Mayor pro tem Evans argued that informal discussions were more constructive than public hearings with a quasi-judicial overtone. She suggested that Mayor Foy talk with the Chancellor about whether there might be some "change in the process in accordance with the scale of what's being proposed," such as allowing more time if the parties agree. Mayor pro tem Evans advised the Council to find out what is agreeable to both before getting into a "confrontational power play or negotiation with the University."
Council Member Verkerk agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt that 90 days had come up quickly and had seemed like only a week. She wondered if there had been some mis-understanding about what should be brought to the Council's attention. The process began and the clock started ticking, she said, but the Council did not learn about that until about 30 days before the deadline. Mayor Foy replied that this probably was because it was the first time the Council had seen such a request in the new LUMO. UNC and Town staffs were not sure what needed to be done until weeks had passed, he said. Mayor Foy noted that the University had been making adjustments at the same time that the staff was making evaluations. Everything converged and the decision was that this was a major modification that required the Council's approval, he said. But because about 45 days had passed by then, the Council had less than 4 days, Mayor Foy said, adding that obviously it did not work.
Council Member Verkerk agreed with the suggestion to require a concept plan, noting that the original concept proposed by the University had been for 700-800 parking spaces rather than 600.
Council Member Ward clarified that he had not been suggesting not holding a public hearing. Chapel Hill was a community where public input was the bottom line in all Council discussions, he said. Council Member Ward explained that he had intended to say that the University would likely feel the same way about the inadequacy of the 90-day period as the Council does.
Council Member Strom noted there would be value in letting the University know that the Town wanted to adjust this, adding that he thought the University would agree that the process needed adjusting.
Council Member Wiggins pointed out that Council members were not disagreeing with each other. She predicted that UNC would want to discuss how the OI-4 is working, too. Council Member Wiggins noted that the Town was not yet at the public hearing stage. But the Council could have a public forum or work session and invite the University to participate, she said. Council Member Wiggins proposed this as good preparation for seeing how the Council will put together a zoning ordinance for Carolina North. She recommended that Council members find a way to do it so the Council, University and citizens can all work together.
Council Member Strom objected to the suggestion that Mayor Foy discuss this with the University without other Council members being able to provide input on what is wrong with OI-4. The only way the Town will get complete information to prepare for such a discussion is through hearing from citizens, boards and commissions about how OI-4 is working, he said. There was consensus on the Council that 90 days was too short, Council Member Strom remarked, and he predicted that UNC would agree with extending that limit. But there should be much more discussion about issues, such as what constitutes major and minor changes to the Development Plan, he said.
Council Member Wiggins and Mayor pro tem Evans replied that they had never meant that sending Mayor Foy to meet with the University would solve the problem. The Mayor would alert the University that the Council was getting ready to go down this road, Council Member Wiggins said. She stressed that she had never thought the Mayor would solve the problems by talking with the Chancellor off line.
Council Member Bateman said she believed the Mayor to be a great problem solver and would prefer to refer it to him, adding that he usually has really good ideas. But, she also expressed support for Council Member Wiggins' suggestion to hold a work session with the public and the University. But, she wondered, what would they be asking the public to comment on?
Council Member Wiggins inquired about the difference between a public hearing, forum, and work session. Mayor Foy replied that a public hearing is held at a stage where the Council wants public input on whether to amend the ordinance. He pointed out that the Town was not at that point and said that it seemed the Council wanted a hybrid work session/public hearing where they could talk to each other, UNC, and the public. The purpose would be to hear what people think about the development modification process and to move toward modifying OI-4, he said. Mayor Foy suggested that the staff determine when UNC anticipates sending another development modification request so the Council can know how much time it has. He suggested that the Council call for a public work session to discuss OI-4 in general and the timeframe for development modifications in particular.
Council Member Ward asked to expand that to include information on what constitutes a development modification. Mayor Foy agreed that it should include discussion of everything about the OI-4 zone and how it was working.
Council Member Verkerk asked for information on how the recent UNC modification request had worked its way up to the Council. Mayor Foy asked Ms. Loewenthal to bring back a report giving the timeline on what had happened and when decisions had been made.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, THAT THE COUNCIL SCHEDULE A PUBLIC FORUM/WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS OI-4, THE TIMEFRAME, AND THE DEFINITION OF MINOR AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS; AND, THAT THE STAFF REPORT ON HOW THE RECENT MODIFICATION PROCESS HAD WORKED FROM BEGINNING TO END. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 6 - Consideration of the State’s Revised Proposal
for the Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project
Town Engineer George Small outlined the project's history leading up to the last State proposal for three lanes east of Kingston Drive and a four-lane, median divided project west of Kingston Drive. The State was still studying a traffic signal at the Silo Drive/Carol Woods driveway, he said, adding that the signal probably is warranted and would be built in 2007-2008. The State will also study whether the crossing a San Sophia Drive warrants a signalized pedestrian crosswalk, he said. Mr. Small explained that the State was looking favorably at placing a Town-proposed roundabout at the intersection of existing and new sections of Weaver Dairy Road, but would do additional studies to determine whether or not that was feasible. Mr. Small indicated a list of answers to questions from Mayor pro tem Evans. He noted that representatives from the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) were available to answer questions.
Council Member Verkerk thanked Mr. Small for his patience in interpreting the Town's desires into language that NCDOT's engineers could understand.
Michele Ware, representing Citizens Action for Responsible Roads, expressed gratitude that the State had heard and responded to citizens' concerns. She asked NCDOT and Council members to reconsider the idea of an unbroken raised center median between Kingston Drive and Airport Road. That would cut those who live north of Weaver Dairy Road off from access to the Timberlyne Shopping Center, she said. Ms. Ware added that the median would also require pedestrians to cross at Kingston or Airport Roads, which they will be unlikely to do, she said. In addition, Ms. Ware predicted that having no left turn lanes onto Banks and Perkins Drives from opposite sides of Weaver Dairy Road would increase traffic flow onto Banks, Kingston and Winchester Drives. These roads are not equipped to handle more traffic, she said. Ms. Ware also said that the raised center median would encourage people to speed.
Citizens Action for Responsible Roads member Tim Dempsey thanked Council members, especially those who had consistently voted to preserve communities along Weaver Dairy Road. He also thanked NCDOT members for listening, responding, and working jointly with the Town. Mr. Dempsey described this as a "happy example of people getting together, changing their minds, and doing the right thing." He expressed lingering concern, however, about the center median and its affect on pedestrian traffic. Mr. Dempsey asked the Town Council to consider adding crosswalks and lights, and to do so in the same spirit that had gotten everyone this far.
Lynne Kane stated that she had written to NCDOT two years ago in support of a two-lane road with a center median. She recommended creating breaks in the center median, however, telling Council members that she uses a center median to get across Highway 15-501 in two stages. Ms. Kane urged Council members to consider the divided road with the center median that the State had offered as a compromise.
George Cianciolo described the State's proposal as "certainly more to our liking," but asked the Council to consider having marked bike lanes on Weaver Dairy Road. Such lanes reduce the width of travel lanes and discourage higher speeds, he said. Mr. Cianciolo said that citizens report feeling safer in marked bike lanes and say they prefer that their children ride in marked bike lanes. But, if the Town does accept wide outside lanes, he said, they should be at least 16 feet wide so that the Town could go back at a later time and add stripes.
Cyndy Risku praised the compromise, adding that it acknowledges that citizens do not need or want a highway but only a road with a turning lane and pedestrian improvements. She had read published statements saying that pavement would be torn up between San Miguel Place and the Chesley neighborhood, she said. Ms. Risku objected to the term "three lane cross-section" in the last bullet of the materials because it is not the same as "three lane road," which can have a five-lane cross-section. She said that the last bullet contradicted the fifth bullet, which stated that right and left turn lanes and bus pull-offs were necessary. Ms. Risku stated that a three-lane cross-section would mean not having turn lanes, but a three-lane road would allow that.
Stateside Road resident Eleanor Howe urged the Council to put striped bike lanes back in the resolution and to keep the raised median where possible. She noted that there already had been one fatality there and that these two amenities would make the road much safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
Mayor Foy stated that the resolution before the Council would endorse in concept the State's revised proposal for approving Weaver Dairy Road. This is not the plan, he pointed out, saying that taking action this evening would mean holding another public hearing in a year or so on the State's revised plan. At that point, engineers would have developed the location of stoplights more fully, he said. There will also be more information on what the Sage Road connector would actually look like and whether the bike lanes should be striped or wide outside lanes, said Mayor Foy. He pointed out that improvements would not begin until around 2007.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED R-5, AND COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT SECONDED.
Council Member Harrison commented that the unbroken median had not been designed to allow "staged crossings" such as Ms. Kane had mentioned. He recommended that the resolution include finding a way to have safe refuge on the median.
Mayor Foy commented that even though the Town had not gotten everything it wanted it had gotten a lot and this had become a much better project. He advised Council members not to make substantive changes to the resolution but to allow the State to go forward. The Council could then approve a separate resolution with suggestions for the NCDOT to look at as they prepare the concept plan, he said. Mayor Foy advised Council members not to hold up the process now, but to segregate the details that must be resolved in a separate resolution.
Council Member Strom agreed with Mayor Foy's proposal, adding that the concept, though not perfect, was moving in the right direction. The process with NCDOT and the Town staff had been very productive so far, he said. Council Member Strom recommended forwarding citizens comments and specific Council concerns to NCDOT and making it clear that these issues would come up when the plan comes forward.
Mayor pro tem Evans reiterated her view that a three-lane road was unsafe, noting that the middle lane on three-lane roads had been called the "suicide lane." But she hoped she would be proved wrong, she said, and would support the resolution because it was important to reach a consensus and move forward.
Council Member Ward agreed with Mayor Foy's recommended process and said that he would have recommendations for the second resolution.
Council Member Bateman suggested changing the third bullet to read "travel lanes" rather than "wide outer travel lanes" in order to be less specific. Mr. Small explained that NCDOT had written "wide outer travel lanes" because the Town had requested that. He verified with NCDOT representatives that either way would be acceptable. Council Member Bateman replied that people might not realize that either is okay if one is specified in writing.
Mayor Foy verified with NCDOT representatives that they would not object to a resolution saying "travel lanes to accommodate bicycles."
Council Member Verkerk accepted that as a friendly amendment, but noted that Town policy was for wide outside lanes.
Council Member Ward said that he and Council Member Harrison would bring forward a petition at a future meeting that would offer a compromise position on bike facilities. It was comforting to hear that NCDOT would defer on this to the wishes of the community, he said.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO ADOPT R-5, AS AMENDED WITH REGARD TO THE THIRD AND FOURTH BULLETS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING IN CONCEPT THE STATE’S REVISED PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVING WEAVER DAIRY ROAD BETWEEN NC 86 AND ERWIN ROAD (2003-09-22/R-5)
WHEREAS, it is the Council’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 Council that such improvements be designed and constructed so as to minimize disturbance of adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the Council believes that the principles of Context Sensitive Design should be included in the development of this project; and
WHEREAS, the Council requested that the State consider a three-lane cross section for improving Weaver Dairy Road rather than a median divided four-lane cross section preferred by the State; and
WHEREAS, the State has presented for the Council’s consideration a revised proposal for improving Weaver Dairy Road as outlined below:
· One travel lane in each direction with a continuous center turn lane on Weaver Dairy Road between Kingston Drive and Erwin Road.
· Two travel lanes in each direction with a raised center median on Weaver Dairy Road between Kingston Drive and NC 86, with additional lanes as necessary to accommodate traffic at the NC 86 and Erwin Road (new alignment) intersections.
· Curb/gutter and sidewalk on both sides.
· Travel lanes to include accommodations for bicycles.
· Right and left turn lanes and bus pull-offs as necessary.
· New traffic signals including pedestrian facilities at the intersections of Weaver Dairy Road with Sunrise Road and Erwin Road (new alignment). Traffic signals including pedestrian facilities will also be installed at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road with Silo Drive, subject to the results of a traffic signal warrants analysis at this location.
· The NCDOT agrees to perform a warrants analysis for a signalized pedestrian crosswalk on Weaver Dairy Road at its intersection with San Sophia Drive.
· The NCDOT agrees to install a roundabout at the intersection of the existing and new alignment segments of Weaver Dairy Road, subject to detailed engineering feasibility study.
· Narrowing of existing five-lane segments of Weaver Dairy Road east of Kingston Drive as necessary to create a uniform three-lane cross section.
WHEREAS, the Council believes that the State’s revised proposal substantially achieves the Council’s objectives and vision for the Weaver Dairy Road corridor;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council expresses its appreciation to the State for its willingness to work with the Town to develop an improvement proposal that substantially achieves the objectives of both the Town and the State for Weaver Dairy Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council herewith endorses in concept the State’s revised proposal, as outlined above, for the Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the State proceed with necessary revisions in the project Environmental Assessment and drawings in preparation for a Public Hearing at the earliest date possible.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Council Member Wiggins thanked NCDOT for doing the additional traffic analysis that had caused them to change their position. She determined from a NCDOT representative present that a three-lane road was "feasible" meant that they believed it would be safe to have the center lane there, given the projected traffic counts. Council Member Wiggins said that safety had been her concern from the start, and expressed hope that NCDOT would use indicators other than traffic counts or volume when evaluating the intersection at Silo and Weaver Dairy Roads. She asked that special population needs be considered.
Mayor Foy asked Council Member Harrison to begin a resolution forwarding comments to the NCDOT.
COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED THAT THERE BE A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AIRPORT ROAD AND KINGSTON DRIVE WITH APPROPRIATE REFUGE IN THE MEDIAN. COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SECONDED.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked for consideration of striped bike lanes. Mayor Foy commented that he thought they had agreed to leave that open. Mayor pro tem Evans replied that if this was a wish list then she wanted striped lanes on it.
Council Member Verkerk remarked that it would make more procedural sense to either change the policy or to stick with it. Mayor Foy suggested leaving the bike lane alone since NCDOT had said they would do it any way the Council wanted. Mayor pro tem Evans agreed, and then proposed requesting a wider than normal right-of-way acquisition in order to locate sidewalks farther from the road. Council Members Harrison and Strom accepted that amendment.
Art McMillan, a NCDOT roadway designer, said that moving sidewalks out would be acceptable. But NCDOT generally prefers to do that only where no additional right-of-way would be warranted, he said, and would not want to buy additional right-of-way. Mr. Small pointed out that NCDOT's plan was to acquire only the right-of-way necessary for the revised proposal, not a five-lane right-of-way. Mr. McMillan said that the State already owned a five-lane stretch in some areas and could move the sidewalk out in those places. Mayor pro tem Evans encouraged DOT to design it with the maximum area possible. Mr. McMillan suggested that the resolution state "sidewalks as far from the road as possible without acquiring additional right-of-way." The mover and seconded accepted that amendment.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked that attention be paid to where bus stops would be located, since they create pedestrian crossings. She suggested placing them at intersections where pedestrian crossings can be safest. Mr. McMillan replied that NCDOT would locate bus pullouts wherever the Town Engineer says the Town wants them.
Mayor pro tem Evans questioned the number of lanes at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Highway 86. She predicted problems in the future when Weaver Dairy Extension is open because there is only one lane going straight and one turning right. Mr. McMillan replied that the resolution just passed indicates additional turn lanes at both ends of that road.
Mayor Foy noted that the center lane shows left, right, or straight options. And the far north lane shows right or straight, he said, so there will be two lanes going in every direction. Mr. Small interjected that the Town does not yet know what will happen at Sage Road or at NC 86.
Council Member Wiggins repeated her request that NCDOT use criteria other than traffic counts, such as special population needs, in making a final decision on whether a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Silo Road. Both the mover and seconder accepted that amendment.
Council Member Ward recommended leaving a break for vehicles and a pedestrian-activated traffic light in the median running from NC 86 to Kingston Drive.
Council Member Harrison asked about the basis for proposing a continuous median there. According to studies, said NCDOT representative Jim Dunlop, a four-lane divided section works better than a five-lane section with what Council Member Evans had referred to as "a suicide lane." He pointed out that a three-lane cross-section has different operating characteristics than a five-lane road, adding that NCDOT could look at locations along the median to see if a break would be appropriate. But, based on NCDOT policies and studies, Mr. Dunlop said, a full median break for vehicles probably would not be possible in that area. Mr. Dunlop stated that he saw no problem with pedestrian crossings, however, but that they probably would not be signalized.
Council Member Ward confirmed that this would be like a marked sidewalk going through the median. Council Member Harrison said that it would include a marked crosswalk and refuge for pedestrians. Cars would turn into the shopping center from NC 86, or by making right turns off side roads, he said. Council Member Harrison remarked that this would leave fewer things for pedestrians to think about and that signals at Airport and Kingston Roads would create pauses in the traffic.
Council Member Ward wondered if a pedestrian walkway could go down the center of the median to the next intersection where the pedestrian could finish crossing the street. Mr. Dunlop replied that DOT would not encourage pedestrians walking along the center median. He pointed out that there could be more than one pedestrian crossing.
Council Member Strom wondered how many more cars would have to use Kingston Drive if that becomes the entrance to the Timberlyne Shopping Center. Several Council members remarked that Kingston Drive was a small street, and Council Member Strom described it as out of scale with the types of improvements planned for Weaver Dairy Road. Mr. McMillan replied that traffic would be about 1,400 cars per day, about 65 in the peak hour. This is very low compared with traffic volume in the Triangle, he said.
Council Member Strom asked for an alternative configuration for getting into Timberlyne, and Council Member Kleinschmidt wondered if the entrance could be moved down a block to where the current entrance is. Mr. Dunlop replied that such design issues went beyond what he could answer on the spot. But NCDOT would look at a vehicular break in the median that would allow for a left turn into Timberlyne Shopping Center and would be appropriate between the two points, he said.
Mayor Foy summarized the proposed amendment that the resolution include a suggestion that NCDOT look at a left turn vehicular cut as traffic travels west on Weaver Dairy Road at the main entrance to the Timberlyne Shopping Center. The mover and seconder accepted the amendment.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked NCDOT for help addressing safety concerns on the old, two-lane stretch of Weaver Dairy Road near Erwin Road. This State road had been documented as very unsafe and the Town needs NCDOT's help in making it safer, she said.
Council Member Verkerk asked if that stretch would receive sidewalk improvements. Mr. Dunlop replied that it would not.
Mayor pro tem Evans explained that this was why she was asking for help in making that stretch of road safer.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the resolution would include citizens' comments. Mayor Foy replied that this resolution was from the Council and that NCDOT would hear from citizens at the next public hearing.
COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COMMENTS TO NCDOT REGARDING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AND A PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ON THE MEDIAN BETWEEN KINGSTON AND AIRPORT ROADS, AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE PLACING SIDEWALKS FARTHER FROM THE ROADWAY THAN IS NORMAL, SPECIAL ATTENTION TO BUS STOPS, CRITERIA OTHER THAN TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR THE INTERSECTION AT WEAVER DAIRY ROAD AND SILO ROAD (FOR EXAMPLE, SPECIAL POPULATION NEEDS), REQUEST FOR A VEHICULAR BREAK IN THE MEDIAN AT THE TIMBERLYNE ENTRANCE FOR LEFT TURNS AS TRAFFIC TRAVELS WEST ON WEAVER DAIRY ROAD, AND SUGGESTIONS FROM NCDOT ON HOW TO MAKE OLD WEAVER DAIRY ROAD SAFER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE STATE CONSIDER CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS IN ITS REVISED PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVING WEAVER DAIRY ROAD BETWEEN NC 86 AND ERWIN ROAD (2003-09-22/R-5.1)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has endorsed in concept the State’s revised proposal for improving Weaver Dairy Road between NC 86 and Erwin Road; and
WHEREAS, the Council requests that the State consider the following modifications in its revised proposal for improving Weaver Dairy Road, and include in the improvement plans those modifications that are determined to be feasible:
1. Include at least one marked pedestrian crossing and associated median refuge area between Kingston Drive and NC 86.
2. Locate sidewalks as far as possible from the back-of-curb without requiring acquisition of additional rights-of-way.
3. Use criteria other than simply traffic counts (e.g. a special populations criterion) in evaluating the installation of traffic signals and pedestrian facilities at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Silo Drive adjacent to the Carol Woods Retirement Community.
4. Design a median opening between Kingston Drive and NC 86 to provide alternative means of ingress and/or egress for traffic associated with the existing Timberlyne Shopping Center on the south side of Weaver Dairy Road.
5. Consider constructing safety improvements on the existing two-lane segment of Weaver Dairy Road south and east of the new alignment location. These safety improvements could include widened travel lanes to accommodate bicycles and construction of turn lanes at the Sedgefield Drive intersection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council expresses its appreciation to the State for its willingness to consider and evaluate the above requested modifications in its revised proposal for improving Weaver Dairy Road.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Item 7 - Response to Letter from UNC Chancellor Moeser
Town Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that UNC Chancellor Moeser had asked that University and Town staffs work together regarding Carolina North. The staff agreed with the proposal, he said, but wanted first to have discussions with the Council regarding the project. He suggested that the appropriate next step was to arrange for substantive, conceptual discussions between the staff and Council regarding Carolina North.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Council set up a committee similar to the one for OI-4. UNC had not been ready to engage in that, but the time might be drawing near that the Council should request it, he said. Mayor Foy asked for suggestions on how to achieve that, noting that they were expecting a report from the Horace Williams Citizens Committee. A first step might be to ask the Chancellor to structure a Council/University discussion process, he said.
Council Member Strom agreed, but added that the Council needed to receive the Horace Williams Citizens Committee report and have a comprehensive discussion with each other and the staff before engaging in discussions with UNC.
Lake Ellen Homeowners Association Board Member Paul Wilson asked Council members to consider that stormwater run-off from Carolina North would empty into Crow Branch, which runs along the base of the Lake Ellen damn. The runoff will turn that normally gentle stream into a raging torrent during storms, he said. Mr. Wilson explained that this would erode the toe of the damn, according to engineering analysis. He said that it would be expensive to repair and would require specialized engineering support. Mr. Wilson proposed that those who benefit by Carolina North reinforce and otherwise protect the Lake Ellen damn. The Lake Ellen Homeowners Association should not have to bear that burden alone, he said.
Council Member Ward pointed out that the Horace Williams Citizens Committee's report and Council discussions would lead to a number of principles and goals that the Town would expect to be followed at Carolina North. He asked Mayor Foy to convey that to Chancellor Moeser, and Mayor Foy replied that this was exactly what he would communicate. That would be the basis for the Council's ability to proceed, said Mayor Foy, noting that there was no current consensus on the Council because they have not talked about it and because the Horace Williams Citizens Committee's report had been delayed.
Item 8 - Continuation of Public Hearing on Red Hot & Blue
(Whole Foods Plaza) Application for Special Use Permit Modification
Mayor Foy described this as a "relatively modest modification" request. Mr. Waldon explained that it concerned whether the scope of this should be limited to hours of operation, as the Council had directed when it called the hearing, or expanded to include other features of the SUP. The staff's recommendation was for approval with the narrow focus on the hours of operation, he said.
Chris Shaw, property manager at Village Plaza/Whole Foods Plaza, thanked Council members for the work they had devoted to the area.
Red Hot & Blue owner Jim Groot thanked the Council on behalf of his employees and the shopping center. He expressed personal gratitude to Town Manager Cal Horton in particular.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-7A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE WHOLE FOODS PLAZA PROPERTY (2003-09-22/R-7a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Ginn and Company, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 46, Block B, Lot 8 (PIN 9799-14-7917), if developed according to the conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit Modification for the Whole Foods Plaza property in accordance with the condition listed below:
1. That the Special Use Permit Modifications approved by the Town Council on February 9, 1981 (Deed Book 359, Page 224) and October 26, 1981 (Resolution of Approval) be amended to delete Condition A(4), imposed originally on March 10, 1969 (Deed Book 261, Page 557).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the Whole Foods Plaza property in accordance with the condition listed above.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Item 9 - Continuation of Public Hearing on Land Use Management
Ordinance Text Amendment for Water and Sewer Provisions
Matt Robbins and his wife Kendra Millis asked that the amendment include existing lots within the Urban Services Boundary. They had emailed the Council in July about a lot they have had under contract since last October, Mr. Robbins said, adding that the lot was on the Urban Services Boundary border. He explained that the County had granted them a well and septic improvements permit but that the lot was unbuildable under the LUMO. Mr. Robbins asked Council members to revise the amendment to allow them to make use of the well and septic permit that had been granted to them.
Mayor Foy told Mr. Robbins and Ms. Millis that this must be taken up as a separate matter. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that the appropriate procedure was to file a petition or an application to amend the LUMO. Mayor Foy advised Mr. Robbins and Ms. Millis to petition the Council in writing. The Council would put it on the agenda as a petition and ask the staff to see what could be done, he said.
Council Member Wiggins inquired about what stage they were at in their planning. Mr. Robbins replied that planning had been stalled because they had been unable to get a Building Permit. They were required to hook up to OWASA, he said, but OWASA would not be available to them for 45 years. Council Member Wiggins verified that the couple already had plans and were ready to begin construction. She suggested asking the staff to expedite this. Ms. Loewenthal agreed to do so.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ENACT O-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE to allow expansion of existing development without connection to public sewer service (2003-09-22/O-2)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has been concerned about the impact of water-sewer requirements on the possibilities for expansion of existing development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
All development within the boundaries of Chapel Hill’s Urban Services Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, shall be served by a public water supply and a public sanitary sewer system. No Zoning Compliance Permit or building permit shall be issued for any structure within the Town’s Urban Services Area (as defined in the Comprehensive Plan), absent evidence that the structure can be served by public water and sewer facilities. Existing development not served by public water and sewer shall not be considered as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 7 of this Chapter. Provided however that permits may be issued to authorize the reconstruction, rehabilitation, renovation, or expansion of a development existing on or before January 27, 2003, whether or not such development is served by a public water supply and a public sanitary sewer system, subject to applicable regulations, including demonstration of compliance with County Health Department regulations.
Section 2. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That this amendment shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Item 10 - Continuation of Public Hearing on Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment for Housing Floor Area Restrictions and Accessory Apartments
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY WARD, TO ENACT 0-3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE to prECLUDE USE OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS TO SATISFY THE FLOOR AREA RESTRICTIONS OF SECTION 3.8.5 (2003-09-22/O-3)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered changes to the Land Use Management Ordinance to preclude the use of Accessory Apartments to satisfy the requirements of Section 3.8.5 regarding size-restricted dwellings;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
(a) Major Subdivisions and Planned Development-Housing proposals which create residential building lots shall restrict the floor area of single- and two-family dwelling units in the following manner:
(b) For a Major Subdivision or a Planned Development-Housing proposal with 5 or more single-family or two-family residential lots, at least 25% of the dwelling units shall contain no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area at the time that the units are initially conveyed.
(c) Each lot that is large enough for only one single-family dwelling unit or that is limited by restrictive covenants to development only with a single-family dwelling unit shall be deemed to house one single-family dwelling unit. Each lot that is large enough for a two-family dwelling unit or that is allowed by restrictive covenants to develop with a two-family dwelling shall be deemed to house two dwelling units. The minimum number of size-limited units shall then be determined by multiplying the maximum number of dwelling units permissible within the development proposal as determined herein by the percentage specified above (resulting fractions shall be dropped).
(d) The subdivision preliminary and final plats and the Planned Development-Housing proposals minor subdivision plats shall indicate clearly each lot on which a size-limited unit must be constructed, and the builder, developer and purchaser shall be bound by that limitation.
(e) No Zoning Compliance Permit or Building Permit shall be issued for the construction or any dwelling unit on any lot that has been designated as a lot on which a size-limited unit must be constructed unless the proposed dwelling conforms to the limitation of this Section. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Section shall not prevent the purchaser of any size-limited unit, or any successor to such purchaser, from enlarging the dwelling unit at any time following thirty (30) months after the issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy for the Unit.
(f) This Section shall not apply to any major subdivision or Planned Development proposal that has been approved by the Town Council prior to the effective date of this Chapter.
(g) For purposes of this Section, “floor area” means floor area, as defined in Appendix A to this Ordinance, whether or not such floor area is intended for or suitable for immediate occupancy.
(h) For purposes of this Section, an Accessory Apartment associated with a “Two-Family Dwelling including an Accessory Apartment” shall not be used to satisfy the requirement of (b) above as a dwelling unit containing no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area.”
Section 2. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That this amendment shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Item 11 - Public Hearing and Land Use Management Ordinance
Text Amendment for Reservation of School Sites
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ENACT O-4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE to ALLOW RESERVATION OF SCHOOL SITES IN SECTIONS 4.5.8 and 4.7.8 (2003-09-22/O-4)
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 494 of the 2003 Session of the General Assembly authorized the Town to enact zoning regulations to reserve school sites on property proposed for Site Plan Review or Special Use Permit development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
“4.5.8 Reservation of School Sites
Whenever a Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification application is submitted for approval which includes part or all of a school site designated to be reserved in the Comprehensive Plan, the Town Manager shall immediately notify the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education, and the Board shall promptly decide whether it wishes the site to be reserved. If the Board does not wish to reserve the site, it shall so notify the Town Manager and no site shall be reserved. If the Board does wish to reserve the site, the Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification shall not be approved without such reservation. A note indicating such reservation shall be recorded on a final plat. The Board shall then have 12 months beginning on the date of final approval of the Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification within which to acquire the site by purchase or by initiating condemnation proceedings. If the Board has not purchased or begun proceedings to condemn the site within 12 months, the owner may treat the land as freed of the reservation.”
“4.7.8 Reservation of School Sites
Whenever a Site Plan Review application is submitted for approval which includes part or all of a school site designated to be reserved in the Comprehensive Plan, the Town Manager shall immediately notify the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education, and the Board shall promptly decide whether it wishes the site to be reserved. If the Board does not wish to reserve the site, it shall so notify the Town Manager and no site shall be reserved. If the Board does wish to reserve the site, the Site Plan Review shall not be approved without such reservation. A note indicating such reservation shall be recorded on a final plat. The Board shall then have 12 months beginning on the date of final approval of the Site Plan Review application within which to acquire the site by purchase or by initiating condemnation proceedings. If the Board has not purchased or begun proceedings to condemn the site within 12 months, the owner may treat the land as freed of the reservation.”
Section 3. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Item 12 - Update on Orange Water and Sewer Authority Initiatives
OWASA Chair Bernadette Pelissier updated Council members on OWASA's water conservation measures. She reviewed their campaign to advertise and discussed an in-house report describing 50 different water conservation practices. Ms. Pelissier said that some of those measures might need Council support and noted the need to revise water and sewer master plans. OWASA staff already was providing some technical consultation to UNC on Carolina North, Ms. Pelissier said.
Ms. Pelissier discussed the $45 million Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Project, the largest capital improvements project that OWASA has ever undertaken. She described the plan to improve the quality of treated effluent, which will provide an opportunity to reuse water. Ms. Pelissier discussed the plan to expand capacity and explained that construction would not begin for a year and would take several years to complete. With regard to water reuse, she pointed out that treated effluent was suitable for irrigation, cooling towers, boilers, industrial processing, toilet flushing, and other purposes. The primary use on UNC's campus would be for cooling towers, co-generation facilities, boiler plants, and irrigation, she said.
Water reuse would leave reservoir water primarily for human consumption, Ms. Pelissier explained. She said it would make the water supply less vulnerable to drought and reduce the amount of nutrients discharged downstream. Ms. Pelissier described this as a cost-effective, safe and reliable way to meet multiple objectives. The anticipated cost would be between $10 and $13 million, she said, adding that neither OWASA nor UNC had such funding available.
Ms. Pelissier asked the Town to partner with OWASA, UNC, Carrboro and Orange County to obtain State and federal funding. The Clean Water Management Trust Fund is one source of funding at the State level, she said. Ms. Pelissier reported that UNC and OWASA had jointly funded a study of the potential benefits and costs of reclaimed water. She reported that preliminary pilot tests had been extremely favorable and that the final report would be completed within a couple of weeks.
Council Member Harrison asked if UNC was committed to this degree of water reuse. "Most definitely yes," Ms. Pelissier replied.
Ray DuBose, UNC Director of Energy Services, commented that the University had learned many lessons during the drought last year. Everything they learned had indicated that this would be a win-win-win for the community, OWASA, and the University, he said.
Council Member Harrison asked Ms. Pelissier about her statement that OWASA would upgrade to Jordan Lake nutrient study requirements, and if this had been a Board action. Ms. Pelissier replied that the "fact that the project has been approved is a Board action." She added that they have a fairly good idea of what the standards will be.
Council Member Ward asked Ms. Pelissier if the $45 million would provide ten years capacity. Ms. Pelissier replied that most of that money was for upgrade rather than expansion. Council Member Ward clarified that it would not be $45 million every ten years. He also determined that UNC would have to do additional water treatment for cooling towers, which have very special needs. Ms. Pelissier explained that effluent water can be used for irrigation but not necessarily for cooling towers.
Council Member Ward asked if water that had been treated for other purposes would have the correct pH for irrigation. OWASA Director Ed Kerwin replied that the intent was to reach all objectives but that OWASA was still working on how to do that technically. He said that the largest use would be for chiller plants. Ms. Pelissier added that there had been some preliminary discussion about water reuse at Carolina North. She noted the value of putting that infrastructure in place from the outset.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked about the impact of retrofitting on the continuing affordability of homes. She also wondered if the $45 million would come from increasing water rates. Mayor pro tem Evans asked that OWASA consider economic sustainability along with environmental and social factors. Ms. Pelissier replied that economic sustainability was included in all of the Board's discussions. She said that OWASA would be looking at rate structures. Ms. Pelissier reported that many Board members had been concerned with making sure that rates do not rise too much, making it unaffordable for low-income people.
COUNCIL MEMBERS RECEIVED THE REPORT BY CONSENSUS.
As noted earlier, the Council agreed to defer this item to the October 8, 2003 Council Meeting.
Item 14 - Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities Construction Plan for 2003-2004
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED R-8, AND COUNCIL MEMBER WARD SECONDED.
Mayor pro tem Evans inquired about the $180,000 of 1996 Street Bond funds that had been reserved for a sidewalk from Cedar Fork Trail to Kingston Drive along the south side of Weaver Dairy Road. She asked if this meant there was an extra $180,000 for the Weaver Dairy Road project that could be allocated elsewhere. Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt replied that this probably could be done since the money had been held in reserve for a meandering sidewalk along Weaver Dairy Road. If NCDOT funds the entire project, then those funds could be made available for other purposes, Ms. Berndt said.
Ms. Loewenthal commented that the staff would let the Council know if there had been a change. But she thought that NCDOT was expecting the Town to finance the sidewalks as planned, she said. Mayor Foy asked for clarification from the staff on that.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2003-2004 SIDEWALK AND BICYCLE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION PLAN (2003-09-22/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has available approximately $50,000 in Capital Improvements Program funds for sidewalk and bicycle facility projects in the 2003-2004 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to pursue other sources of funding for sidewalk projects, including Direct Allocation funds from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed projects for possible use of these funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Program funds and Community Development Program funds be used to continue work on the project list approved last year as contained in Resolution 2002-11-25/R-5a.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is directed to apply for up to $100,000
of FY 2003-2004 Direct Allocation funds with a local match of $25,000 for the following project to enable the Town to complete the project:
Ø Airport Road (east side), Timber Hollow Court to Homestead Drive
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Item 15 - Council Naming Committee Policies and Procedures
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED R-9, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM.
Council Member Strom added that the Committee had already met several times. Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard had provided great staff support, Council Member Strom said. He also stated that Council Member Bateman had been a "great leader" who had been relentless in getting questions straightened out and answered.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the need to revise the policies and procedures observed by the Naming Committee with regard to naming of public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Naming Committee has worked to clarify several provisions within its policies and procedures to provide greater direction for the Committee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby establishes the policies and procedures for the Council’s Naming Committee as outlined in the Council Memorandum and Attachment 1 dated September 22, 2003;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these policies and procedures be included in the Town Council Procedures Manual.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Item 16 - Report on Advisory Boards’ Processes for
Citizen Comments and Applicant Interviews
Mac Clarke commented that the Manager's report had raised more questions than it answered. He proposed that the Council appoint an ad hoc committee to review issues regarding boards and commissions. Mr. Clarke said that the following issues should be addressed:
Summerfield Crossing resident Dr. Harvey Krasny stated that he had made multiple presentations to four different advisory boards over the past six years. Citizens can help the process if boards and commissions are receptive to citizen input, he said. Dr. Krasny complained, however, that he had sometimes felt that they viewed citizen input as a necessary part of the process but of little value. One chairperson had curtailed his presentation during the past year, he said, even though there was no time limit.
Dr. Krasny assured Council members that he understood that unchecked and open-ended citizen presentations would be counterproductive to the process. But, he argued, there should be some flexibility because boards and commissions are there to collect all relevant facts and to air problems and issues before they offer advice to the Council. Dr. Krasny acknowledged that some boards and commission were seriously challenged by the packed agenda before them. But cutting down on citizen input was not the right way to solve their problem of time management, he said.
Council Member Bateman commented that this was the first time in her six years on the Council that she had heard such criticism of the Town's boards and commissions. She expressed understanding of the speakers' comments but said that she was not clear about what the problem was.
Council Member Strom said that the Council was at a point where it was looking for more input and guidance from boards and commissions and spoke in support of forming a committee to review procedures. He described this as a fair request and expressed support for a committee comprised of citizens, Council members, staff, and members of the boards and commissions. This could be a productive conversation for the community to have, said Council Member Strom.
Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that boards and commissions must sometimes limit citizens' comments in order to accomplish what needs to be done. She pointed out that citizens' comments are timed at Council meetings, too. Mayor pro tem Evans remarked that nothing is perfect but that she did not think that anything was broken that needed repair. She wished there were more applicants for some boards and commissions, she said, adding that the time commitment prevents people from serving. Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that this topic comes up periodically. She suggested waiting until after the upcoming elections, so that new Council members can be included in the decision.
Council Member Bateman asked Town Clerk Joyce Smith why some boards and commissions interview applicants while others do not. Ms. Smith replied that by not giving that specific direction, the Council had left that choice up to the boards and commissions. Some choose to interview and some do not, she said, adding that this is largely based on the amount of time they can devote to interviewing.
Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed concern about the inconsistent selection of boards and commissions members, noting that even individual boards sometimes interview and sometimes do not. He suggested trying to make this consistent, but added that if the choice is to not have them interview then there needs to be some way to get advice on appointments. Council Member Kleinschmidt remarked that since the Council relies on recommendations it should clarify whether or not those recommendations are meaningful if applicants are not regularly being interviewed.
Council Member Verkerk described the selection process as ad hoc, noting that it had developed organically over the years. She suggested that even the application might need to be reviewed.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (7-2) WITH MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS AND COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN VOTING NAY.
Council Member Wiggins observed that the two who had voted “Nay” were the two who were leaving the Council. Council Member Bateman replied that she had been consistent over her six years as a Council member. She would prefer to send it back to the boards and commissions and ask them about their policies, procedures, preferences and ideas before deciding what to do, she said.
Mayor Foy noted that a committee could do what Council Member Bateman had just outlined, and asked Council members how they wanted to appoint the committee. Mayor Foy suggested that the boards and commissions might want to provide input on what issues would be addressed.
Council Member Ward suggested putting this on the agenda for the Council's planning retreat in January. Then there will be two or four new Council members, he said. Council Member Ward remarked that some boards and commissions might not interview because they already know the applicants personally.
THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENS TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE JANUARY 16, 2004 PLANNING RETREAT.
Item 17 - Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for
the Annual NC League of Municipalities’ Annual Conference
October 12-14 in Winston-Salem, N.C.
Mayor Foy stated that he was going to the League of Municipalities’ annual meeting and suggested that the Council appoint him as the Council delegate.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, TO ADOPT R-10 AS AMENDED TO APPOINT MAYOR FOY AS THE DELEGATE TO THE ANNUAL NC LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES CONFERENCE, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON AS THE ALTERNATE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REGARDING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE DELEGATE TO THE NC LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES’ MEETING (2003-09-22/R-10)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby designates Mayor Kevin Foy to serve as the Council’s voting delegate and Council Member Ed Harrison to serve as its alternate to the NC League of Municipalities’ annual meeting October 12-14, 2003.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Item 18 – Appointments
18a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. The Council appointed Nathaniel Stookey.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Foy |
Bateman |
Evans |
Harrison |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Jed Dube |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
Christine Khoury |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
1 |
||
|
Oliver Medzihradsky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brynda Smith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Smith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Barry Starrfield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nathaniel Stookey |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
7 |
||
|
Karen Whichard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
18b. Parks and Recreation Commission. The Council appointed Faith Nager.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board |
Foy |
Bateman |
Evans |
Harrison |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Faith Nager |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
||
|
Tony Smith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Barry Starrfield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
18c. Personnel Appeals Committee. The Council appointed Toby Kahr, Ben LaVage, and Joanna Smith.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Personnel Appeals Committee |
Foy |
Bateman |
Evans |
Harrison |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Toby Kahr |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
||
Ben La Vange |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
||
|
Joanna Smith |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
||||||||||||
18d. SafeLight Chapel Hill Hearing Officers. The Council appointed Rita Berman, Eric Muller, and Evelyn Nichols.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
SafeLight Chapel Hill Hearing Officer |
Foy |
Bateman |
Evan |
Harrison |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
Rita Berman |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
6 |
||
Eric Muller |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Evelyn Nichols |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
6 |
||
|
Will Raymond (write-in) |
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
2 |
||
|
||||||||||||
Item 19 - Petitions: None
Item 20 - Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items If Necessary
Agenda #4d - Annual Budget Amendment to Reappropriate Funds for Encumbrances
Council Member Strom inquired about unexpended funds for 2002-03 funded CIP projects being rolled over to the 2003-2004 budget. He asked if any of that money could be put back into the General Fund. Ms. Loewenthal replied that the funds had been rolled over because they had been allocated for specific jobs that had not yet been completed.
Mayor Foy asked if all of the $25,000 for traffic calming had been allocated. Ms. Loewenthal replied that she would need to check on those specific allocations. But the Town Council had instructed the staff to hold that amount until it had been specifically allocated, she said.
Council Member Strom requested more specific information for the next meeting, and Mayor Foy suggested that the Council take no action on that tonight.
Agenda #4e - Information Regarding the Proposed Bond Referenda
Council Member Harrison explained that a citizen had asked him to point out that bond issues were not the only potential impact on the tax rate. The cost of the new Town Operations Center (TOC) would have an impact as well, the citizen had said. Council Member Harrison asked if the staff had planned to discuss tax rate implications of the TOC. Ms. Loewenthal replied that such information had not been included because the Council had not yet decided on a budget. More importantly, she said, tonight's information related only to the impact of the bonds on the budget. Ms. Loewenthal noted that there were many issues that could impact the budget, including the TOC.
COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO ADOPT R-3.1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION TO CITIZENS REGARDING THE BOND REFERENDUM ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003 (2003-09-22/R-3.1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to distribute the attached information to citizens through the Town’s website, in response to requests, through the news media and through other means as the Council may instruct.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Agenda #5f - Update on the Automated Red Light Enforcement System
Council Member Kleinschmidt questioned the proposal to randomly select intersections for the study. He noted that the two sites that already have cameras had not been selected at random. They had been chosen because of specific problems at those intersections, Council Member Kleinschmidt said. Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli replied that there were specific characteristics for each location, such as number, type, and severity of accidents. Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) does not want the Town to install cameras where it has the highest number of accidents but where ACS thinks it can best reduce the number of violations, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that he had been critical of the program from the start and did not want a study coming back that did not provide the kind of information needed to assess the program. Mr. Neppalli noted that ACS would make the final decision, not the Town.
Council Member Harrison asked why left turns had been included as potential violations. Mr. Neppalli explained that the intersection in question was "left turn protected," meaning that one could turn left only at the green arrow. Council Member Harrison asked if the Town would be placing signs at city limits alerting people to the red light cameras. Mr. Neppalli replied that the staff had been working on a design and would present it to the Town Manager within the week. Council Member Harrison noted that signs at intersections seemed very close to the road. Mr. Neppalli replied that the General Statute requires the Town to place them within 300 feet of an intersection. Council Member Harrison replied that it looked closer than that to him.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mayor Foy to meet with the Manager and decide on the best way to inform the community of the difference between paving and milling. Some complain that the Town is wasting money re-paving roads when it is, in fact, milling them, she said. Council Member Wiggins pointed out that milling is less expensive.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.