SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
(Rescheduled from January 26, 2004 due to Weather)
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 - Ceremonies: None.
Item 2 - Public Hearings: None.
Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a(1). Jenny Anderson, Chorus Director at Culbreth Middle School, re Request for Funding for Students to Participate in the American Choral Directors Association Southern Division Honors Choirs in Nashville, TN.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT 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(2). Pat Thomas, Garland and K. C. Hattman, re Public Safety Issues on North and Hillsborough Streets.
K. C. Hattman expressed concern about speeding on Hillsborough Street, which he described as a high-speed shortcut to the University. People will move away from Downtown neighborhoods if they do not feel safe walking there, he said. Mr. Hattman asked the Town Council to determine whether or not traffic-calming measures were warranted. The neighborhood had requested and received police patrolling, but such measures had been short-lived and seemed like an inefficient use of police time, he said.
Mayor Foy explained that the Council would have the staff bring back a recommendation on how to proceed. Town Manager Cal Horton said that a report would come back to the Council within two months.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY (9-0).
3a(3). Petition from Michael Ortiz, regarding Village Plaza Expedited Review.
Mayor Foy pointed out that this item was also scheduled for discussion under Item 4f. Council members agreed by consensus to merge the two items when they reach 4f. Mayor Foy also noted a suggestion to address Agenda Item 7 prior to Agenda Items 6, since several citizens had signed up to speak on Item 7. There was no objection to moving Item 7 ahead.
3a(4). Petition from Richard Donnan regarding a request for a traffic study on Hillsborough and North Streets.
Mayor Foy suggested merging this petition with petition 3a(2). There was no objection.
3a(5). Sandra Cummings, regarding Agenda Item 4g - Response to Petition from Eastern Federal Corporation requesting Expedited Treatment for a Special Use Permit Modification Application (R-6).
Speaking on behalf of the Sunrise Coalition's Board of Directors, Ms. Cummings expressed appreciation for the work that had gone into the proposed resolution in response to the Coalition's September 8, 2003 petition. She asked, however, that the Council not adopt the resolution in its current form, but pull it for future consideration. Ms. Cummings stated that the resolution had adequately addressed the need for future noise studies along the I-40 corridor but did not address noise issues related to the current development of land along that corridor.
Ms. Cummings asked the Council Town to direct the staff to formulate a policy or ordinance that would address development along I-40 now, before the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes additional widening. She requested that this be consistent with federal and Sate documentation that had been submitted as part of the Sunrise Coalition's original petition. Ms. Cummings asked that particular attention be given to the categorical exclusion and the 2000 NCDOT noise study that had been conducted as part of the current planned widening of I-40.
Mayor Foy suggested pulling agenda item 4g for consideration at the end of the meeting, as is the custom with consent agenda items.
COUNCIL MEMBERS REMOVED 4G BY CONSENSUS, TO BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
Item 4 - Consent Agenda
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-1 WITH 4F AND 4G REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2004-01-28/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. |
Nominations to Various Advisory Boards and Commissions (R-2). |
|
b. |
Mobility Report Card Fund Transfer (O-1). |
|
c. |
Removal of Rumble Strips on the Westbound Travel lanes of NC 54 Approaching Hamilton Road (R-3). |
|
d. |
Scheduling a Public Forum on Establishment of a Stormwater Utility (R-4). |
|
e. |
Accepting bid and Awarding Contract for Comprehensive Rehabilitation Work at Airport Gardens Public Housing Neighborhood (R-5). |
This the 28th day of January, 2004.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2004-01-28/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:
Library Board
Martha O’Hara Conway
Leslie Johns
Brandon Rector
Brynda Smith
Planning Board
Anita Badrock
Gary Barnes
Donna Bell
Glenn Gerding
Tom Jensen
Rudy Juliano
Richard Killingsworth
Donna Manley
Morgan Metcalf
Gene Pease
Donna Riechmann
Martin Rody
Jaclyn Taaffee
Shawn Thompson
Richard Williams
This the 28th day of January, 2004.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2003” (2004-01-28/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2003” as duly adopted on June 9, 2003 and the same is hereby amended as follows:
This the 28th day of January, 2004.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO REMOVE THE RUMBLE STRIPS ON THE WESTBOUND TRAVEL LANES OF NC 54 APPROACHING HAMILTON ROAD (2004-01-28/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Town has received a complaint from a resident about excessive noise from rumble strips installed on the westbound NC 54 travel lanes approaching Hamilton Road; and
WHEREAS, the Town staff measured noise levels in the vicinity of the rumble strips and found that the measured levels exceeded the allowable levels in the Town’s Noise Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council is concerned about the detrimental effects that such noise can have on the quality of life of Town residents;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to remove the rumble strips on the westbound NC 54 travel lanes approaching Hamilton Road.
This the 28th day of January, 2004.
A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 16, 2004, TO DISCUSS AND HEAR COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION OF A STORMWATER UTILITY TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (2004-01-28/R-4 )
WHEREAS, the Council has directed the Manager to prepare a proposal for implementing a stormwater utility to serve Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, a draft stormwater utility program proposal and supporting fee rate structure have been developed and were presented to the Council at a work session on January 26, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Council is interested in receiving comments from interested citizens regarding the proposed implementation of a local stormwater utility;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby schedules a Public Hearing at 7:00 pm on February 16, 2004 in the Town Hall, 306 North Columbia Street, to discuss and hear comments regarding the proposed implementation of a local stormwater utility intended to provide a stable and adequate source of funding for a comprehensive stormwater management program to serve Chapel Hill.
This the 28th day of January, 2004.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE BID FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION OF AIRPORT GARDENS APARTMENTS (2004-01-28/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill solicited formal bids by advertisement in The Chapel Hill News, Chapel Hill, North Carolina on November 23, 2003 and in The Challenger Newspaper, Wilmington, North Carolina on November 20, 2003, in accordance with G.S. 143-128 for the construction work; and
WHEREAS, the following bids were received and opened December 17, 2003:
VENDOR BASE BID ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3 ALT. 4
(8 Apts.) (8 add’l Apts.) (10 add’t Apts.) (Site Work) (Parking Lot)
Hairston Enterprises $348,304 $368,304 $425,380 $160,995 $ 10,850
General Contractor
Durham, NC
Carl Garris & Sons, $349,000 $355,000 $408,000 $249,000 $ 8,500
Inc.
Lake View, SC
Cornerstone $480,703 $536,144 $522,367 $408,644 $ 7,556
Construction
Raleigh, NC
Raleigh Durham $494,567 $503,250 $583,342 $349,855 $ 35,000
Construction Co.
Raleigh, NC
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts the single prime base bid and Alternate 2, and awards a contract to Carl Garris & Son, Inc. in the amount of $757,000 for the comprehensive renovation of 18 of the 26 apartments at the Airport Gardens public housing neighborhood.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is authorized to negotiate additional work from Alternates 1, 3 and/or 4 under the current bid prices, and present such change order to the Council at a future meeting.
This the 28th day of January, 2004.
Agenda #4f - Response to Petition from Eastern Federal Corporation requesting Expedited Treatment for a Special Use Permit Modification Application (R-6).
Since there was no objection to the Council's desire to hear #4f at this time, Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton to give a brief introduction. Mr. Horton explained that the staff had failed to note a stipulation calling for rearrangement of a portion of access to the property when considering Eastern Federal Corporation's Special Use Permit (SUP). The rearrangement would involve an adjoining property owner where no easement had been granted, Mr. Horton said. He proposed that the only way to resolve the issue would be to go back through the SUP process and seek a modification. Therefore, the staff had recommended that the applicant file a request for modification and seek expedited treatment, Mr. Horton said. He recommended that the Town waive the usual fees except for the cost of notice.
Eastern Federal Corporation's attorney, Wayne Hadler, of Beemer, Savery, Hadler & Jones, explained that Stipulation #4 in the SUP would require the applicant to obtain easements from an adjoining property owner. Other easements had been deleted, he said, but this one had remained as an oversight. Mr. Hadler requested, on behalf of Eastern Federal, that Stipulation #4 be removed from the SUP.
Attorney Michael Ortiz, representing Whole Foods and Gateway Plaza, contradicted Eastern Federal's written statement that "the driveways intended to be improved in Stipulation #4 are unclear." He also questioned the notion that neither the Council nor the applicant had been informed about the staff's driveway designations. Mr. Ortiz pointed out that an October 2002 staff report had clearly identified the four access driveways and indicated that driveway D was on the Whole Foods property. Furthermore, the theater's own 2002 traffic impact study had clearly delineated access drives C & D, Mr. Ortiz said.
Mr. Ortiz asked the Council to at least follow what the staff report had recommended, which was that driveway D & C be widened to 30 feet. He stated that this had been included in the theater's impact analysis, had been recommended for modification by the theater, was clearly designated in the Town's staff report, was recommended for modification by the staff, and had been included as a stipulation in the SUP. Mr. Ortiz argued that it had not been inadvertently omitted, and asked that a thorough analysis be done rather than expedited processing.
Steve Ginn, whose family owns Whole Foods, characterized the issue as a complex one involving more than a mere correction of a clerical error. The risk of damage to his property was high, he said, and he asked Council members to deny the application. Mr. Ginn stated that he had negotiated a cross-access agreement with the applicant that had been "taken away" at the last minute. He still believed that such an agreement was necessary to address offsite improvements, such as driveway D, as well as circulation and parking issues, he said.
Mr. Ginn stated that a similar agreement with the owner of Gateway Plaza had worked out well and that all were satisfied. He argued that granting expedited review would lead to problems, and he asked Council members to work with the plan as submitted. Mr. Ginn explained that he had engaged an engineering company to review the impact of the applicant's proposal, specifically that of the proposed changes to driveway D.
Consulting Engineer Todd Brooks, of PBS & J, pointed out that driveway D improvements were to include a two-way driveway. That cannot be done at the location where driveway D had been proposed, he said, because of inadequate width and an inability to accommodate an exiting second lane. Mr. Brooks said that the alignment and design of driveway D hinders circulation of theater traffic. He listed several issues that had not been studied, including the impact of queuing and the unique peaking patterns of theaters. Mr. Brooks recommended doing further analysis of the site and maintaining the improvements to access driveway D.
Chris Shaw, who manages the properties at Whole Foods and Gateway Plaza, stated that the majority of business owners there feel as though there is a new and changing issue related to the theater project every time they turn around. They are concerned about traffic flow, he said, and read a letter from Gateway Plaza owner Crowell Little, who was opposed to expedited processing. In the letter, Mr. Little predicted that the failure to address access D and its impact on traffic circulation would make an already bad situation worse. He argued that simply deleting a critical requirement of this SUP would make the situation intolerable.
Business owner Sol Lohen remarked that the traffic situation in the shopping center had become a dangerous problem. He did not have adequate parking for his customers, he said, and he probably would move somewhere else when his lease expires in a year. Mr. Lohen asked Council members to seriously examine the issue and not rush to judgement.
Jim Groot, owner of Red Hot & Blue restaurant, noted that he was one who had signed a petition in favor of granting Eastern Federal expedited review so that they would not get "caught behind LUMO." Since then, though, Eastern Federal had not abided by some of the understandings associated with the SUP approval, he said. Mr. Groot described the commercial area as a tightly knit neighborhood. He urged Council members to remember their campaign promises and to "use caution and consider the impact of an expedited decision that can lead to more of the same." Mr. Groot pointed out that it was Eastern Federal that had drawn the driveway. "And now that driveway has come home to haunt them."
Mayor Foy suggested that the Manager explain that granting expedited review does not mean allowing a hasty decision. Mr. Horton pointed out that it would not, in any way, mean that the Council would move hastily. The application would be processed ahead of those that do not have expedited treatment, he said, and behind those that previously had been granted expedited treatment. Mr. Horton explained that the application would go to the same boards and would be subject to the same notice, reviews, and process of consideration by the Council, but sooner. If the Council chose not to grant expedited review, then it probably would come back for consideration in 9-12 months from now, he said.
Mayor Foy stated that he had voted in favor of the project, but believed that there ought to be some serious consideration given to why the cross-easement agreement is not in place. Mayor Foy explained that if he were to vote for expedited review, it would not necessarily be because he thought the project should be modified, but because there should be some resolution to the issue of having a vacant lot on Elliott Road, he said.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins clarified that the Manager had requested expedited review because the staff believed a mistake had been made. Mr. Horton explained that the stipulation required something that the applicant could not do without the adjoining property owner's agreement. The staff was proposing that the Council change that language to allow the property owner to proceed, he said.
Mayor Foy commented that the Council could come to the conclusion that they had relied on the plans as drawn when approving the project and that this is what should be built there. He emphasized, though, that the Council would need more information before reaching a decision.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that there were two independent grounds, which rely on each other, on which the Council could approve expedited review. Mayor Foy agreed that the two grounds were not mutually exclusive.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (8-1) WITH MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING IN THE REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR VILLAGE PLAZA THEATRE (2004-01-28/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received a petition from Wayne Hadler, attorney for Eastern Federal Corporation, for expedited processing of a Special Use Permit Modification application seeking removal of stipulation #4 of the approved Special Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council believes it is in the best interest of the Town to grant such expedited review;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby:
1. Authorizes expedited review of said application.
2. Schedules a public hearing on the application to be held on March 15, 2004, with consideration of action on March 22, 2004.
3. Reduces the normal application fee, in view of the limited issues involved, and limits the fee to costs of notice and production of materials.
4. Narrows the scope of review to modification of Stipulation #4 only.
This the 28th day of January, 2004.
Item 5 - Information Items
a. Human Services Needs Report.
b. Report on Revised Design Manual and Standard Details.
c. Response to Petition from Clear SKY Networks.
d. Schedule for Review of Pending Concept Plans.
All Information Reports were accepted by consensus of the Council.
The Council had agreed earlier to move Agenda Item #7 forward to next on the agenda.
Item 7 - Response to Council Petition regarding
the SafeLight Chapel Hill Program
Town Engineering Director George Small reviewed the petition asking Council members to terminate the SafeLight Program, also know as the Red Light Program. The staff report included background, statistics, and responses to Council members' questions, he said. Mr. Small explained that the difference between the Chapel Hill program and programs in other towns was that Chapel Hill had engaged for a year-long study with the Institute for Transportation, Research and Education (ITRE) to study the effects of red light cameras on driver behavior at intersections. Terminating the program now would mean not completing that study, he said, but noted that there was a "termination without cause" clause in the contract.
Council Member Verkerk verified that it probably would not cost the Town money to terminate the contract.
Jane Smith spoke in support of keeping red light cameras in Chapel Hill. She described an accident that she and her husband had been involved in where a driver had gone through a red light on Highway 15-501 and crashed into them. Ms. Smith argued that cameras at intersections are a deterrent that encourages greater awareness among drivers when approaching stoplights.
Bobby Clapp spoke in favor of the red light cameras. Public debate on the issue had boiled down to a few issues, he said, listing privacy, technical flaws, profit motive, no due process, and fear of the relationship between the municipality and its citizens. Mr. Clapp refuted those arguments and gave examples of other public/private relationships that the Town engages in. "To say that we are all of a sudden privatizing goes against our norms and our values," he said.
Mr. Clapp remarked that there was no doubt in his mind that the issue was about values. Safety was the foremost community value, he said, adding that continuity in leadership and local government was important to the community as well. Mr. Clapp wondered if residents of Chapel Hill should expect policy swings with changing government officials. He expressed concern that bidding on contracts would no longer be competitive if the Town were to cancel the contract with ACS. Financial concerns might result in some not entering the bidding process and others adding 10% to their bids, Mr. Clapp warned.
Mr. Clapp recommended that the Town make a commitment to the SafeLight Program, which he described as a "proven safety method." He said that many people were in favor of red light cameras and asked Council members to "choose safety" and consider whether they would have the program if they terminate the contract.
Fred Black told Council members that he crosses Airport Road at Estes Drive a couple of times a day. He described the dangers at that intersection and argued that the Town owed it to its citizens to at least test what they said they would provide for at least 12 months. Mr. Black argued that the Town did not have the financial resources to have the police monitoring red light violators. He asked the Council to stick with its decision and obtain the information it will need to continue.
Former Council Member David Godschalk described public safety as a paramount value in Chapel Hill and said that protecting the public was a paramount duty of the Town Council. He characterized arguments in favor of terminating the cameras as secondary issues. "Turning a blind eye" would mean that the Council was condoning lawbreaking and would give the message that the Chapel Hill Town Council “doesn't care,” he said. Mr. Godschalk stated that red light running was a problem that could only be solved by an effective deterrent program. He argued that evidence supports the view that red light cameras are effective. Mr. Godschalk asked Council members who plan to vote against the program to consider what they will say to the family and friends of victims of the next red light running accident.
Landy Qualls reported that 18 tickets had been given out for red light running, at the intersection where the cameras are, between January 1, 2003 and November 30, 2003, according to statistics from the Chapel Hill Police Department. In contrast, she said, 350 people had run red lights in November, according to the Chapel Hill News, and 121 of those had received tickets. So 229 got away, Ms. Qualls said, adding that 350 had really gotten away. Red light cameras were not the enemy, she said, adding that people who run red lights were the enemy.
Leslie Blakey, Executive Director of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, explained that hers was an industry-funded, advocacy organization whose actions were governed by an independent advisory board of traffic safety experts. She pointed out that the yellow light was intended to tell drivers to slow down and be prepared to stop. But some see the yellow light as a signal to speed up, she said, adding that consistent enforcement was necessary to prevent people from making this illegal and dangerous choice.
Ms. Blakey reported that there had been 135 red light running crashes in the two-year period ending in July 2003, according to data from the UNC Highway Safety Research Center. Five of those accidents had been fatal, she said. Ms. Blakey stated that red light camera programs had been studied extensively and had been shown to increase intersection safety. Cameras reduce violations by 40% to 50%, and crashes, including rear-end crashes, by 25% to 30%, she said, according to a 2002 study published in the Journal of Traffic Engineering Prevention. A study presented at the 2002 Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences had reported that crashes caused by red light runners were reduced by 18% to 22% and the overall number of crashes at these sites was reduced by 30%, Ms. Blakey said. She urged Council members to keep the SafeLight Program in Chapel Hill.
Indiana resident Anne Sweet, a volunteer with the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running who speaks nationwide on behalf of traffic safety organizations, said that she had become involved when her 21 year-old daughter was killed by a red light runner. She offered an account of the accident that had taken her daughter’s life. Ms. Sweet praised the Town of Chapel Hill for taking steps to increase highway safety and urged Council members to support all proven methods that hold drivers accountable.
Joe Clark, Chief Operating Officer for Public Safety Solutions at ACS, said that cameras had detected more that 1,500 motorists running red lights at the two designated locations since September 2003. He stated that red light violations at 15-501/Sage had dropped by 40% over the same three months. Mr. Clark pointed out that the program had been provided at no cost to the Town. As a violator-funded program, it achieves results without the Town having to fund it through taxes, he said.
Mr. Clark explained that ACS had invested more than $400,000 in Chapel Hill's program, adding that they had expected to recover that investment over the course of the contract. He acknowledged that citations had been issued at a low rate compared to the total number of red light runners captured on film, but explained that ACS was making efforts to improve license plate readability. Mr. Clark asked Council members to accept the Town Manager's recommendation to maintain the program.
Mark Edwards presented information that ACS had obtained by videotaping various intersections over a 16-hour period. Forty-five individuals had run the red light at 15-501/Sage Road, he said, and 64 had done so at Cameron/Columbia, 101 at Cameron/Pittsboro, 87 at 15-501/Manning, and 181 at 15-501/Europa. Mr. Edwards asked Council members to consider the danger that such numbers represent and accept the Manager's recommendation to continue the SafeLight Program.
Michelle Barbee presented a petition with 143 signatures in favor of removing red light cameras, which she said had caused an increase in rear end accidents. There had been 11 rear end accidents in 83 days at Sage Road, she said, and eight at the Airport/Estes intersection. Ms. Barbee reminded the Council that she had previously presented information based on statistics generated from the Town's Engineering Department. Some on the Council had dismissed her report, she said, adding that some were committed to saving the inaccurate and unsafe cameras. Ms. Barbee argued that there was no reason to continue with the study since red light cameras were not the solution to problems at dangerous intersections.
David Hughes said that he had emailed 12 questions to the Town Manager and the Town Engineer. Rear end collisions were not caused by cameras but by people traveling too fast and too close, he said. Mr. Hughes spoke in favor of leaving the cameras in place. The hidden cost of terminating the program now would be the liability the Town would face if there's a serious accident and the Town is charged as being negligent, he said. Mr. Hughes expressed suspicion about some Council members' motivations. He asked the Town Council to demonstrate that life is their most important value.
George Cianciolo noted that the Transportation Board had unanimously adopted the SafeLight Program two years ago and had recently voted again, unanimously, to support it. He recommended that the Council retain the program at least until the study has been completed. Mr. Cianciolo said that he commutes to Duke Medical Center everyday and encounters red light running at least twice a week. He urged Council members to keep the program in place.
Laura Underkuffler told Council members that she had almost been killed by a red light runner, but had been unaware of the magnitude of Chapel Hill's problem until she saw the statistics that had recently been revealed. Ms. Underkuffler argued that red light cameras do change behavior, adding that she had not heard any other proposal that would impact this problem. She suggested having Town police officers issue traffic citations as part of the SafeLight process.
Carrboro resident Ricky White, whose property abuts Chapel Hill, stated that there were alternatives to the SafeLight Program and said that privatizing a police function was not justified. He pointed out that Dr. Hummer's letter to the Council had not reported any evidence that red light cameras work anywhere. Mr. White argued that Chapel Hill's citizens' needs outweigh the needs of the study. He referred to efforts by other communities to keep money within their Towns and said that it sets a bad example to allow Chapel Hill's money from fines to leave so easily.
Will Raymond stated that he represented Chapel Hill citizens who want "true safety that comes with a well-engineered intersection." He stated that there was no proof that red light cameras have a long-term beneficial effect, and questioned some of the studies supporting cameras. Mr. Raymond argued that the camera program concentrates on a fairly rare problem and exacerbates the Town's chief problem, which is rear end accidents. It does not reduce most other types of intersection-related accidents, he said. Mr. Raymond said that installing red light cameras can have a corrupting influence because there is a temptation to generate invalid citations rather than address engineering problems.
Mr. Raymond asserted that poor engineering and poor design lead to red light running and that there were better alternatives to cameras for addressing the problem. There was nothing in the ITRE study that would enhance what the Town has or improve safety at intersections, he said. Mr. Raymond stated that the Town had not attempted to follow ITRE's own guidelines and the study was no justification for keeping the system.
Mr. Raymond objected to a system where one is first found guilty, then pays the fine, and may later appeal, he said. He explained that he had tried to help someone through that appeal process and it hadn't worked. Mr. Raymond stated that there had been no reduction in violations resulting from the program, adding that the claim of a 40% reduction was "disingenuous." He displayed a graph showing an increase in rear end accidents. There was "no dispute" that it was less safe in Chapel Hill because of this system, Mr. Raymond said.
Mr. Raymond listed alternative techniques, such as increasing duration of the yellow light, extending the green light using advanced detection, improving the signal operation, improving the visibility of lights and increasing the visibility of signals, resynchronizing traffic, adjusting signals to the 85th percentile of the speed, increasing the size of red light lenses, and using a single officer "rat box" technique. He suggested that the Council discount ACS's testimony about the 16-hour videotape because ACS had refused to share their methodology with him. With regard to the liability issue, Mr. Raymond suggested that the Council worry instead about people suing because the Town installed a system that it knew would increase rear end accidents. He accused ACS of inflating violation statistics and asked the Town Council to remove the system and give other known alternatives a real try.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Raymond to leave his slide showing alternative methods up on the screen. Mr. Raymond agreed, but pointed out that there were about 50 methods and that his slide was not extensive due to the time constraints of his presentation. Mayor pro tem Wiggins replied that she wanted the Town Traffic Engineer to later discuss which ones were already being implemented.
Chuck Hurley, representing the National Safety Council as well as the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, commented that deaths rarely occur as a result of rear end collisions. They occur from T-bone collisions perpetrated by people speeding through intersections, he said. Mr. Hurley argued that the proper implementation of red light cameras was one of the best, proven ways to reduce red light crashes worldwide. He urged Council members to continue doing "the right thing."
In reply to a question from Council Member Verkerk, Mr. Hurley said that six percent of fatalities in the U.S. were from rear end crashes. Side-impact crashes are the truly serious ones, he said, adding that he expected rear-end collisions to resolve itself as people become accustomed to red light cameras.
Retired Chapel Hill Police Lieutenant Tim Presley recommended that the Council vote to continue the camera system and the ITRE study. The Chapel Hill Police Department does not allow officers to follow offenders through red lights, even with their lights and sirens running, he said. Lieutenant Presley concluded that police could never be as consistent as cameras can be. With regard to privatization, he pointed out that the Town already uses a private security firm for patrolling. This issue was personal to him, Lieutenant Presley explained, because for 20 years he had seen the faces of people affected by traffic accidents.
Joe Hummer, a Professor of Civil Engineering at NC State University, elaborated on his written remarks to the Town. The goal of the ITRE study was to find out whether cameras deter red light running or not, he said. Mr. Hummer told the Council that the ITRE study was the first in the nation to allow researchers to recommend camera sites. He expressed concern about interjecting himself into the process by appearing before the Town Council, since a researcher's role is usually more detached than that. Mr. Hummer explained that four months with two cameras was not enough time to determine whether the installation had lead to a major reduction in collisions. He asked Council members to allow ITRE to continue this unique research, which would lead to a good piece of data for other towns in the future.
Council Member Kleinschmidt verified that the study compares where the cameras have not been set up to locations where they have been. Dr. Hummer added that they had randomly selected the locations from a pool of sites, which had been prequalified by the Town staff. In other studies, towns have put cameras at their worst locations, he said, explaining that the Chapel Hill selection process was unique and powerful. Council Member Kleinschmidt verified that researchers were targeting the effectiveness of a "package" of improvements, as Dr. Hummer had referred to them. The Town would not, therefore, be able to distinguish which improvements had made the difference, Council Member Kleinschmidt pointed out.
Council Member Strom summarized Dr. Hummer's statement as saying that selected sites had been more or less pulled out of a hat. How would it affect the study if Dr. Hummer were to learn that there had been a selection criterion before they even got into the hat, he asked. Dr. Hummer replied that the improvements they saw could be generalized only to the set that had been selected. Council Member Strom asked if the study assumed that yellow signals were the same throughout Town. Dr. Hummer replied that this would be part of "the package." Researchers expect variety among members of the pool, he said, but their findings should apply to all members of that pool.
Council Member Hill asked Dr. Hummer if he believed that .3-second timer was too low. Dr. Hummer agreed that it was, noting that people make small mistakes as drivers that really do not affect safety.
Council Member Greene asked what the results would reveal about cameras if the selected sites had changes that the other sites did not have. Attributing an accident reduction to the cameras in that case would not seem quantifiable, she said. Dr. Hummer agreed, but added that one could conclude that the package of improvements, "plus or minus," had some effect.
Council Member Greene referred to an Australian study in which the researcher had concluded there was no difference between the number of accidents at sites with or without cameras. She also noted that some had described a "halo effect" that leads people to behave as though there were cameras at intersections whether there were or not. She asked how the study was accounting for this "halo effect." Dr. Hummer replied that Chapel Hill was too small to determine for certain that an improvement in one area carries over to other areas of Town. His study was addressing the "regression to the mean effect," he said, adding that other researchers probably would address the "halo effect" in theirs.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins commented that a halo effect seemed like a good thing. Dr. Hummer replied that it was only a problem from a narrow research point of view because it interferes with the purity of the experiment.
Diana Steele compared the halo effect to the placebo effect, noting that these effects are good even though they do make research less tidy. She then recommended adding pedestrians and cyclists to the study of cars at intersections. Ms. Steele expressed support for continuing the red light program and any other approach that will teach people to drive more carefully and safely. She also noted red light running problems at the intersection of South Columbia Street and Mason Farm Road.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED R-8, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT WITH ACS, INC.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted the fundamental disagreement in the community over what good policy is. Personally, he had difficulty with the idea of mechanizing and privatizing a police function, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that the SafeLight Program forces Chapel Hill to compromise too much and to alter its values. He noted that there were many options for improving safety at intersections, and said that the Town had not tried reengineering before turning to cameras.
Council Member Kleinschmidt argued against mechanizing the enforcement of laws, adding that being true to the value of good citizenship means finding better alternatives. He urged the Town to look at engineering solutions at intersections where accidents, not violations, occur. It had been shown that violations do not correlate with intersections where accidents happen, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt encouraged Council members to adopt the resolution and then to immediately ask the staff to bring to the Council a list of the most dangerous intersections so that the Town could begin the process of making them safer.
Council Member Verkerk ascertained from the staff that Council Member Kleinschmidt's motion was to terminate the ACS contract, not repeal the ordinance allow the cameras. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos stated that the Council did have an ordinance under which it can have a program. That ordinance would be available under any contract the Council wishes to enter into, unless the Council decided to change the Town Code and remove that ordinance, he said.
Council Member Hill explained that he had publicly spoken against the cameras prior to becoming a Council member. His objections then, as now, were based on his opposition to privatizing law enforcement, he said. Council Member Hill commented that safe driving would be bad for ACS's business because the more tickets they write the more money they make. He pointed out that the timing on the cameras had been set twice as fast as ACS's own guidelines require, and at least three times faster than that suggested by independent engineers. These conflicts of interest obscure every possible benefit, Council Member Hill said. He remarked that rear-end accidents at camera locations had increased fivefold, while the Town had made less than $1,000. Given the amount of time the staff had spent on this endeavor, he said, it had cost the Town money to make those intersections less safe.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli about the criteria that was used to select the two intersections. Mr. Neppalli explained that 25 sites had been selected based on citizen complaints, police citations, and the number and severity of accidents. The Town then asked ACS to conduct a 16-hour study, he said, and they took the information from that study to ITRE. Then, Mr. Neppalli said, two intersections were randomly selected.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins verified that the Town, not ACS, had selected the two intersections and that accident data had been used as part of that selection.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Neppalli to describe the appeals process. Mr. Neppalli explained that there were two Council-appointed hearing officers to whom citizens could appeal a citation. An appeal goes to the Town staff, which may recommend it to a hearing at Town Hall, he said. Mr. Neppalli stressed that the hearing officer makes the final decision and that ACS is not involved. Mayor pro tem Wiggins ascertained that there had been eight appeals out of 551 citations and that none of those had been dismissed.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked to what extent the staff's design of the program had considered citizens' criticisms about red light cameras. Mr. Neppalli replied that staff members had done their best to implement the Council's policy. Red light cameras are a new technology which is new to the community, he said. The process the Town had implemented was more inclusive and more complex than in other communities, Mr. Neppalli said.
Council Member Verkerk ascertained from Mr. Neppalli that no tickets had been sent to emergency vehicles that were on call.
Council Member Strom verified that ACS had videotaped 25 approaches at 21 locations.
Council Member Kleinschmidt determined from Mr. Neppalli that a minimum of 20 violations per day must exist at an intersection before it qualifies for a camera, unless the Town changes its pricing agreement with ACS.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked the citizens of Chapel Hill for communicating their support and non-support for the SafeLight Program. Support had been overwhelming, she said, adding that many of the concerns of those opposed had been addressed in the program's design and management. Council Member Wiggins stated that she was in favor of the Manager's recommendation to support the program. Cameras were being used in conjunction with other methods, she said, and she expressed satisfaction that the staff had conducted engineering studies and collected data that included accident rates before discussing red light cameras.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins objected to telling the staff to pay attention to what would make intersections safer when they had been doing so for years. The Town staff was fully in charge of the program, she said, noting that they had authorized every citation. Mayor pro tem Wiggins argued that the Town had not lost discretionary power to mechanical devices. Personally, she found it "extremely appealing" that one who is caught running a red light on camera cannot be the victim of selective enforcement, she said. Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that she would support the Manager's recommendation by voting against the motion on the floor. "If you are obeying the laws then your license plate is never photographed," she said.
Council Member Verkerk commented that those who support cameras - such as the Highway Research Center, The National Safety Council, and ITRE - are peer-reviewed, professional organizations. She pointed out that national and local police departments and constitutional lawyers also support the program, as does the Town staff, the NC 54/Hamilton Road Work Group, the Transportation Board, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, two former mayors, and 90% of the citizens who wrote letters to the Town.
Council Member Verkerk said that many of the opponents of red light cameras were "dot-coms" that mainly consist of information taken from newspaper articles. She mentioned that the National Motorists Association was adamantly against the red light camera program. But they were also against seatbelts, helmets, car seats, airbags and mandatory insurance, she said. Council Member Verkerk asserted that it was clear what citizens in this research community wanted. "Surely, a few more months of this program cannot hurt us," she said.
Council Member Greene said that her brother-in-law had been killed ten years ago by a red light runner at a T-bone intersection in Charlotte. This was very personal to her, she said, and she mentioned that Anne Sweet had called her to discuss the issue. Council Member Greene said that she and Ms. Sweet disagree about the cameras but had a lot to agree about regarding public safety, family, and community. She was glad that Ms. Sweet had primarily recommended engineering and education, and the provision of consistent consequences, Council Member Greene said.
Council Member Greene noted that it was the Council's responsibility to filter emotional issues through facts and evidence. She had concluded, she noted, that the cameras had not given the solution that the Town had asked for. Council Member Greene argued that red light cameras should not have been installed in Chapel Hill in the first place. Commercial enterprise and law enforcement do not mix, she said, warning that mixing the two can lead to a "monstrous hybrid," as described by Jane Jacobs in her book, Systems of Survival.
Council Member Greene pointed out that The Federal Highway Administration recommends starting with engineering solutions before going to cameras. And the FHA cites ITRE and The Texas Transportation Institute for doing particularly good research, she said. Council Member Greene stated that both of those research centers stress the importance of studying sites where accidents happen. She proposed that the Town's contract with a vendor had lead to tension between economics and safety, and she quoted a 2001 statement by the Town Manager in which he questioned the feasibility of the program.
"Here we start to see the monstrous hybrid," said Council Member Greene. She stressed that the Town's and ACS's goals were not compatible, referring, in particular, to ACS's threshold of 20 violations at a site. If the Town wants to be safer by having fewer accidents, then it has the wrong set of intersections, she said. Council Member Greene listed intersections where everyone worries about pedestrian safety: Franklin/Columbia Streets, Airport Road/Hillsborough Street, Franklin Street/Estes Drive, Weaver Dairy Road/East Chapel Hill High School, Airport/Weaver Dairy Roads, Columbia/Rosemary Streets, Franklin/Henderson Streets, South Road/Country Club Road, and Hamilton Road/NC 54. These did not make the cut, she said.
Council Member Greene spoke in favor of doing engineering changes first, not at the same time as camera installation. There was no doubt that the ACS's bottom line conflicted with the legitimate goals and priorities of its customers, she said. Council Member Greene recommended pushing harder for a change in State law that would allow engineering solutions. She said that she was presenting the best answer she could for protecting safety and creating the best public policy.
Council Member Ward asked for a response from the staff to the suggestion that engineering solutions had not been used at intersections prior to the red light program. Mr. Neppalli replied that he respectfully disagreed with those statements. The staff reviews high accident locations every year and then goes to the field and makes improvements, he said. Mr. Horton added, however, that there were always more things that could be done to make physical improvements if the Town had more staff and more funds.
Council Member Ward commented that the staff had done much of what could be done prior to the installation of cameras. He stated that the number of detected violations over the past few months had demonstrated a significant problem, and he compared that to the 20 or so yearly citations that the Police Department had issued. Council Member Ward noted that citizen response had overwhelmingly supported photo enforcement. He emphasized that the appeal process was under Town control. Council Member Ward said settings at the .3-second level has a positive affect on how people behave, he said. He argued that removing the cameras before the study had been completed would demonstrate a disregard for citizen safety.
Hummer to complete his work, he said.
Council Member Harrison thanked some of the opponents to the red light cameras for introducing new information at the meeting. He stated that he and Council members who opposed the cameras had “agreed to disagree” on this issue, and that the word “agree” is an important part of that phrase.
Council Member Harrison stated that he had no allegiance to any particular vendor or contractor, but that he did have allegiance to his own personal experience, which included seeing many drivers run red lights in Chapel Hill. He stated he believed that red light cameras had led to an increase in public safety where implemented, and hoped the Town would keep them until the end of the year.
Council Member Harrison pointed out that local government does not receive the fines when traffic offenses go through the court system, either. He noted that he had learned from the Town police chief that day, that there were no more than eight Town police officers on patrol at any time, and only one at night assigned to traffic control. Putting more officers out there for traffic enforcement would affect the tax rate, Council Member Harrison pointed out.
Council Member Harrison agreed with the suggestion to adjust the grace period, but said there was only so much Mr. Neppalli (Town Traffic Engineer) could do to improve the signal system, which has a very old operating system. He explained that he and other Council members were supporting efforts to fund a new Town signal system through NCDOT’s Transportation Improvement Program. Council Member Harrison stated that he was pleased that Chapel Hill had been chosen for the ITRE study. He hoped it would last long enough for Dr. Hummer to complete his work, he said.
Council Member Strom noted that he had voted against red light cameras because the idea gave him the "heebie-jeebies." A minimum of 20 violations per intersection with a .3-second trigger time leads to a system that is stacked against pedestrian safety, he said, noting that safety was the Council's primary goal. Council Member Strom commented on the "compelling testimony" that violations rather than accidents drive the system. He said that the Town had not made an educated academic analysis of the impact of extending yellow lights. It had figured out how to get $15 to $16 million for a transportation system but had not pursued signal system upgrades as aggressively, he said.
Council Member Strom stated that he was a firm supporter of additional police enforcement and proposed that the Council face up to the costs of doing that. Council Member Strom noted that there had been a huge drop-off in violations between .3-second and a full second. He said that the research data would not be valid and could not reach the conclusions the Town is seeking because the program was skewed. Council Member Strom agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt's concerns about privatizing law enforcement. He stated that mechanizing law enforcement was poor public policy and not right for Chapel Hill. Council Member Strom pointed out that Council members must use their best judgement and cannot rely on PR firms and lobbyists to make their decisions for them.
Mayor Foy said that one of the responsibilities of local government was to insure public safety. He and all members of the Council take that responsibility seriously, he said. Mayor Foy pointed out, though, that the issue before the Council was not their commitment to public safety but about whether they believe that automated cameras at red lights, run by a for-profit business, achieve the goal. He was persuaded that the red light program was not, and could not be, devised primarily to insure public safety, he said, because the program must be driven by revenue since private industry is only driven by profit. Mayor Foy pointed out that he had been on the Council four years ago, when the idea first came up, and two years ago, when the Council voted on it. He had opposed it both times, he said. Mayor Foy stressed that he was not opposing the program just because he had in the past, noting there had been strong arguments in favor of it. He was opposing it, he said, for the following reasons:
· It delegates governmental duty to a corporation that does not have the same duty or motives that the government has.
· He is not persuaded that the cameras enhance public safety either for pedestrians or motorists for the simple reason that their placement is dictated by revenues, not by concern for safety, and are not placed at intersections where the highest number of accidents occurs.
· There are other reasonable ways to deal with safety issues in Town, including speeding and other traffic violations.
· This system creates perverse incentives. For example, a person running a red light at The Europa Hotel would pay a $50 fine, whereas a person running a red light at Sage Road would pay $90 in court costs, a fine of $50 to $100, and would be charged insurance points that increase the premium for the next three years. Furthermore, the violation at Sage Road would become part of the public record and part of the individual's driving record, which is not the case if you run the red light at Europa.
Mayor Foy stated that he and all of his colleagues agree that they are obligated to protect public safety, but they disagree about the effectiveness of cameras. He stated that they will work together, and with the staff, to make streets, intersections and sidewalks safe for motorists and pedestrians.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT R-8 WAS ADOPTED (5-4), WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KLEINSCHMIDT, HILL, GREENE, STROM AND FOY VOTING AYE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS, VERKERK, WARD AND HARRISON VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ACS, INC. TO STOP THE SAFELIGHT CHAPEL HILL PROGRAM (2004-01-28/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Council received a petition from a Council member requesting to stop the SafeLight Chapel Hill Program by terminating the contract with ACS, Inc; and
WHEREAS, the Council referred the petition to the Manager for preparing a response to the petition; and
WHEREAS, the Council received a report from the Manager in response to the Petition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Manager to terminate the agreement with ACS, Inc.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to stop the SafeLight Chapel Hill Program.
This the 28th day of January, 2004.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO IDENTIFY PROBLEMATIC INTERSECTIONS, BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS, AND BRING A REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING WHAT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE AT THOSE INTERSECTIONS. COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SECONDED.
Council Member Greene wondered if the report should include intersections that have the most pedestrians and bicyclists at them. Mr. Horton agreed to bring back pedestrian data as well, including pedestrian accident data.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that there was a perception of danger at some intersections even though there might not be a high number of accidents since people are afraid to cross.
Mayor Foy suggested proceeding with the specific motion and then, when that comes back, having a more detailed discussion about some of these other issues.
Council Member Harrison commented that most reported bicycle accidents were in urban areas but the ones that happen on suburban roads worry him more.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE’S REQUEST TO INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCIDENT DATA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 6 - Development of the Horace Williams Property –
Horace Williams Citizens Committee Report
Committee Chair Randy Kabrick highlighted four key changes in the revised report:
· The goal of one bed for every head, to address the current shortage of student housing at the University.
· Reemphasis on the 75% open space goal as permanent, continuous, non-fractured, and without subdivision by roads.
· Reemphasis on transportation being developed around a transit system, including use of the Chapel Hill Transit, rather than single-occupancy motor vehicles.
· Change the zoning to recommend rezoning the entire Horace Williams tract at OI-2 rather than create a new zoning district. That vote was not unanimous and there was much discussion about it, Mr. Kabrick said.
Mr. Kabrick asked Council members to provide guidance to the Committee in terms of carrying out the balance of its charge. He pointed out that there were two vacancies on the Committee, created by the resignation of Kathleen Kearns and the election of Cam Hill to the Town Council. Mr. Kabrick asked the Council to consider making new appointments to fill those positions if they want a full Committee going forward.
Mayor Foy suggested clarifying what the process was likely to be. He ascertained from Mr. Horton that the staff would bring back a resolution to the Council at the next regular business meeting.
Mayor Foy asked Council members if they wanted to fill the vacancies on the Committee.
Council Member Ward commented that some on the Committee felt it was too large already.
Council Member Strom replied that some had mentioned that but that the group as a whole had decided to ask for new members.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO RECRUIT NEW MEMBERS TO FILL THE VACANCIES CREATED BY THE RESIGNATION OF KATHLEEN KEARNS AND THE ELECTION OF CAM HILL TO THE TOWN COUNCIL.
Council Member Harrison inquired about the split vote on new zoning. He expressed interest in knowing more about the reasons. Mr. Kabrick explained that the vote had been 11-5 in favor of the zoning change to OI-2. Personally, he felt that creating a new zoning district would lead to more collaboration with the University when developing that property, he said.
Committee Vice Chair Ruby Sinreich added that the Committee did not necessarily believe that the zoning should remain IO-2. But it would put the Town in a "less weak" position than the current zone and other possible zones, she said, adding that it would be a good stable base to work from in discussions with the University.
Council Member Kleinschmidt ascertained from Ms. Sinreich that the land was currently zoned OI-2, OI-3 and a little R-2. She pointed out that OI-2 requires a SUP for any development over 20,000 square feet, whereas OI-3 requires very little regulation of anything.
Mayor Foy asked if OI-2 would be an interim zone while the Town developed another zone. Ms. Sinreich replied that it was a zone the Town could live with if there was no way to agree on anything else with the University.
Council Member Hill explained that the bulk of development was currently planned in the section zoned OI-2. He agreed that it was a place to start, that it would simplify things, and that it would put the Town in a stronger position.
Mayor Foy remarked that he was not sure he understood the logic, "but okay."
Council Member Strom mentioned that Council Member Greene had petitioned the Council several months ago about having a public forum on changes to OI-4. He requested that the Town calendar a public hearing on that petition and those issues for the same night. Mr. Horton agreed to bring back a date for that public forum if the Council so desired.
Mayor Foy noted that the hearing would not be limited to Council Member Greene's petition, but would include comments on what citizens think about OI-4 and the Horace Williams strategic goals for the community.
Northhaven resident John Ager expressed concern about the level of planning that has been put into the project and the proximity of the proposed development to Northhaven housing. If developed as planned, he said, a major road would run 100 feet from the front of his house. Mr. Ager asked Council members to require an appropriate amount of consideration and due diligence before the plan is rolled out and to ask the right questions throughout the process. Mayor Foy agreed that there was a serious problem with the plan.
Item 8 - Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Draft
2030 Regional Socio-economic Projections
THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO DEFER ITEM 8 TO FEBRUARY 2, 2004.
THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO DEFER ITEM 4G TO FEBRUARY 2, 2004.
Item 9 - Appointment:
a. Planning Board. The Council appointed Donna Bell.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Planning Board |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Anita Badrock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gary Barnes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna Bell |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
5 |
||
|
Glenn Gerding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Jensen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rudy Juliano |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
2 |
||
|
Richard Killingsworth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna Manley |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Morgan Metcalf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gene Pease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna Riechmann |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Martin Rody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
2 |
||
|
Jacklyn Taaffe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Shawn Thompson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Williams |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
Item 10 - Petitions
a. By Mayor and Council members.
With regard to the Creekside development and the RCD, Council Member Greene requested that the staff return to the Council with information refining what can be done within 50 feet of streamside. She wanted to know if it was okay to clear dead trees and if it was okay to disturb the easement that will be going to the Botanical Garden, she said. Council Member Greene asked that the Council, with the staff's input, talk about what kind of land disturbance can take place in the RCD or within a conservation easement that is on the plat. This was unclear in LUMO as it stands, she said.
Mr. Horton offered to bring back a report on the specifics of this particular property and to offer their best interpretation of what the law requires. Council Member Strom ascertained that Mr. Horton already had referred the matter to the staff and had asked them to take a look at what was going on. If enforcement action was required, they would do that immediately, he said.
The meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m.