SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.
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, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Traffic Operations Engineer Mike Stout, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Public Works Director Bill Letteri, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Item 1 – Ceremonies
1a. Swearing in of Town Clerk: Mayor Foy.
Mayor Foy introduced Sabrina Oliver, newly-appointed Town Clerk. He commented that Ms. Oliver came to the Town from the Town of Elon, where she held the positions of Zoning Officer and Town Clerk. Mayor Foy stated she was taking over the duties of Town Clerk from Joyce Smith, who retired on November 30, 2004. He welcomed Ms. Oliver, and administered the Oath of Office.
1b. Council Accomplishments in 2004: Mayor Foy.
Mayor Foy said he wanted to take this time to review the accomplishments of the Council during the past year. He presented a PowerPoint presentation, as follows:
Council Accomplishments
Each January the Council develops a set of goals and priorities for the new year. These goals are prioritized and distinguished by highest, second priority and third priority. Quarterly, the Council receives an update on these goals. This presentation will:
Sampling of 2004 Council Goals and Implementation Plan
Tier 1 Priority
Tier 2 Priority
· Rosemary Street Redevelopment
· Implement Parks and Recreation Master Plan
· Develop Process to Address Neighborhood Traffic Impacts
· Public Arts Master Plan
· Communications with Chatham County
· Communications with OWASA
· Energy Bond/Efficiency
· Town Advisory Board Processes
· Public Dialogue on Homelessness
TIER 1 GOAL SUMMARY
TIER 1 COMPLETED GOAL
Goal: Clean Water
Result: New Stormwater Management Program:
TIER 1 COMPLETED GOAL
Goal: Incorporation of Public Arts Program as Town Government Operation.
TIER 1 COMPLETED GOAL
Result: Completed a design guidelines manual for the Northside Neighborhood Conservation
District.
TIER 2 GOAL SUMMARY
TIER 2 COMPLETED GOAL
Goal: Develop a process to consider neighborhood requests for traffic calming devices and other measures.
TIER 2 COMPLETED GOAL
Goal: Establish a regular system of receiving information from OWASA.
TIER 2 COMPLETED GOAL
Result: The Council helped sponsor a Roundtable Discussion on Homelessness in November, which included interested people throughout the county. The next step is for the Town to develop a partnership with Orange County, Carrboro, and Hillsborough to develop a 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness in our County.
TIER 3 GOAL SUMMARY
TIER 3 GOALS IN PROGRESS
Goal: Increase gas/fuel efficiency in town fleet; create a Chapel Hill Green Fleets Policy.
Goal: Provide defibrillators in major Town facilities – defibrillators help save lives by providing help in case of heart attack.
Update: The Town purchased one defibrillator, which is at Town
Hall in the Council Chambers. Departments that have public assembly areas such
as the Library and Community Center meeting rooms will be encouraged to include
defibrillators in the FY 2005-06 budget.
SOME FOCUS AREAS
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DOWNTOWN
PUBLIC SAFETY
TOWN/GOWN RELATIONS
MAYOR’S OFFICE
Mayor Foy said he believed this put the Council’s work in perspective. He said the Council will be meeting on January 13 to set goals for 2005, and invited all interested persons to attend.
1c. Recognition of Leaflight – Robert Andrew Smith.
Mr. Smith stated that Leaflight does research, planning, education and policy work for sustainable development. He said they have a flagship focus in food security in which they do education and outreach that deals with hunger, agriculture and food distribution programs. Mr. Smith noted they have a program called “Food, Faith, and Farms,” a stakeholder project meaning that there are agencies, businesses and other non-profit organizations that participate in their project and program development. Mr. Smith said that rather than providing direct services, they bring agencies that do provide direct services together.
Mr. Smith noted that the Interfaith Council is a stakeholder, as well as the Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina, and they work with the NC Department of Agriculture, Consumer Services and various volunteers from UNC who assist with survey research. He noted they also have a GIS volunteer performing mapping to study the food system in the State.
Mr. Smith said in terms of sustainable development and stakeholder protection, they are working with the Farmer’s Markets in Durham, Hillsborough and Carrboro. He displayed a map indicating locations of households that benefit from Leaflight’s efforts. Mr. Smith displayed an example of a food donor card, noting that this past year they were able to provide 5,000 meals from local agriculture, compared to 2,500 meals in the prior year. He noted they had recently sent out a mailing to farm communities, and this generated 1,000 meals.
Item 2 - Public Hearings and Forums – None.
Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a. Petitions by Citizens on Items not on the Agenda.
3a(1). Lynn Kane, regarding Locating the IFC Shelter on Legion Road.
Ms. Kane, a resident of Lark Circle and speaking for many neighbors in the Legion Road area, noted that two persons ceded their combined six minutes to her for her presentation, and called the Council’s attention to the written petition provided with the Council’s materials. She said they “insist” on two things: maintaining property values, and maintaining safety and security, adding that this was in the best interest for all homeowners in Chapel Hill.
Ms. Kane asked if this was the “highest and best use of the land.” She commented on what she termed “misconceptions” in recent articles published in local papers. Ms. Kane gave a brief account of other development near her neighborhood, noting they did not oppose projects for the sake of opposition, rather they seek solutions. She then presented her experiences while working in homeless shelters and missions.
Ms. Kane stated that they are not trying to keep homelessness “out of sight,” rather they believe that a men’s homeless shelter does not need to go in a residential area. She said such a shelter belongs away from pedestrians, school children, and homes. She informed the Council that in Pittsboro, the shelter is located on County Landfill Road.
Ms. Kane said that should her neighborhood suffer a loss in property values, then the Town will suffer the loss of tax dollars. She said that just as panhandlers “scare” people away from shops and restaurants, “wandering males scare people away” from residential areas. Ms. Kane said this would result in fewer home sales and reduced prices, with the Town collecting less tax income.
Ms. Kane said the people in neighborhoods go to work, take classes, travel for work or on vacation, and no one wanted to worry about substance abusers “lurking” in the woods or in the dark waiting for an opportunity to break into a home or possibly to assault someone. Ms. Kane said that “grouping” such persons in or near neighborhoods and with an agency that does not have a good record (referring to the IFC) is “outrageous” to homeowners.
Ms. Kane stated that the land in question was set aside for future expansion of the Town’s cemetery, and because it is a highly used cemetery, the land should remain for that purpose and not considered as a site for a homeless shelter. She said that relatives did not want their loved ones’ graves littered with debris.
Ms. Kane said that “grouping males together near us is absurd.” She said that substance abuse programs take a year or more to achieve a measure of success. Ms. Kane noted that the IFC recognized that these males should not be near women and children, and this is borne out by the fact that the Women and Children’s Shelter is located on Homestead Road. She said the neighborhoods are occupied by women and children, therefore homeless males should not be housed near residences.
Ms. Kane said their objections, as well as the objections of the Merritt Mill neighborhood, are not about “not in my backyard,” rather it was about residential safety and security and the best use of Town land. Ms. Kane asked the Council to focus on providing a men’s shelter on Millhouse Road where the new Town Operations Center will be located. She also suggested finding a suitable place near the Chapel Hill Police Department.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Michael McGee said he wanted to address some of the positive aspects of IFC, since Ms. Kane had chosen to present only the negatives. He said that the IFC does many things other than just provide shelter for the homeless, among them distribute food and provide rent and utility assistance. Mr. McGee said the Town has provided the current building at no cost since 1985, adding his thanks to the Town for that.
Mr. McGee said the IFC assists a population who are facing the worst of circumstances. He noted the reasons why people may find themselves homeless, adding that the homeless could be anyone, and it is important to remember that.
Mr. McGee said that there are some users of the homeless shelter that are substance abusers, but it is important to remember that many are not. He said it is also important to remember that substance abuse is not confined to the homeless. Mr. McGee said he was surprised that no one, not Ms. Kane or anyone else, had contacted the IFC about their concerns. He said that he believed that sitting down as a community and talking about these concerns was more constructive that “knee-jerk obstructionism.”
Maggie Silton, the IFC Chaplain, asked the Council and all Town residents to see the homeless for what they are, that being our neighbors and our brothers. She said they are not people to be feared, rather they are people that have a great deal in common with us.
Ms. Silton asked the public to take the time to get to know them, and invited the public to come and have lunch at the Community Kitchen. She said she believed that after spending some time with these residents, you will realize that what they want out of life is exactly what others want from life.
Ms. Silton said after you have finished lunch and sharing with the residents of the Shelter, take a walk down Rosemary Street and look at the new condo construction site. She noted that almost all of the residential units have sold, and all of the retail units have sold, with the residential units selling between $300,000 and $700,000. She asked, “Are you still concerned about loosing your property value? I don’t think you need to be concerned about that.”
Ms. Silton invited the public to come see, listen, and get to know their neighbors.
3a(2). Susanne Haff, representing the Planning Board, regarding Lighting Regulations in LUMO.
Ms. Haff stated the Planning Board was requesting that the Council hold a public hearing to review changes to the Land Use Management Ordinance lighting provisions which would provide additional restrictions regarding upward lighting pollution.
Ms. Haff noted that Orange County appears to have stricter regulations than Chapel Hill. She said that although Chapel Hill’s regulations more strictly regulate spill-over lighting on adjacent properties, Orange County’s regulations provide more detail for protection against upward lighting pollution.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Harrison thanked Ms. Haff for her service on the Planning Board, noting she had recently resigned because she is moving away. He noted that this was her “last great service” to the Town.
3a(3). Marie Eldridge, requesting a Signal Light on Cedar Club Circle.
Ms. Eldridge requested that a signal light that can be tripped by traffic on Cedar Club Circle and/or Sprunt Street be installed at the intersection with Meadowmont Lane. She said that intersection has proven to be difficult for the residents of The Cedars, and that, in turn, presents a problem for all traffic on Meadowmont Lane.
Ms. Eldridge said that staff, parents, and children at Rashkis School are at risk when they drive through this intersection on the way to or from school. She noted that clients at the UNC Health Center are required to make a difficult left turn from Meadowmont Lane to Sprunt Street. Ms. Eldridge said it was imperative that consideration be given to the fact that many elderly motorists, as well as pedestrians, use this intersection, and she did not want to wait for a “disaster” to happen. She noted that her petition had over 250 signatures endorsing it.
Mayor Foy asked the Manager if this was a Town street. Mr. Horton stated he believed it was. Mayor Foy asked if we had studied this street in the past. Mr. Horton noted he did not recall. Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton to give a brief overview of the procedure so that citizens will understand what we would do and how we would do it. Mr. Horton responded they would ask that the Traffic Engineer study the intersection as to its physical layout, engineering, sight distance, lighting and any other factors, as well as a review of any incidents that may have taken place at the intersection. He said that if necessary they would ask the NC Department of Transportation to review the intersection. Then, Mr. Horton said, they would bring a report back to the Council with recommendations for their consideration.
Mr. Horton said that the petitioner as well as any interested parties that we were aware of would be notified when that report was scheduled to come back to the Council.
Ms. Eldridge stated that there had been a study done in the past, which led the Transportation Board to recommend that a 4-way stop be added at this intersection. The Traffic Engineer did in fact present a report which concluded that the visibility was adequate, she stated, so did not recommend the 4-way stop. Ms. Eldridge said that visibility may be adequate according to some standards, but not to her standards when you consider the children and residents.
Council Member Harrison said there was a previous study that came before the Council, and the Council concluded that a 4-way stop at that location was not prudent because of the type of road that Meadowmont Lane is, which is a major thoroughfare in that area. He said he was interested in what a light would cost, and the feasibility of improving the sight lines by modifying or removing shrubbery. Council Member Harrison said he did not believe we would want to take expensive traffic counts.
Council Member Harrison asked how a light could be funded, and if NCDOT could participate. He said he was not a professional engineer, but in his experience the problem as it exists now would not warrant approval of a signal from NCDOT. Council Member Harrison said in reality it takes a death at an intersection before NCDOT would consider a traffic signal. He said it might be possible to study the lane markings including the bike lane and make some changes.
Council Member Harrison said this would not “go away” as an issue, but did not think the problem was as acute as it would be in another twenty years, or ten years, or less.
Council Member Verkerk said she was concerned since this was such a new intersection and it doesn’t have a history, and would prefer that it remain without a history. She noted that she visits that area often and there is a light at Meadowmont Lane near the grocery store, but that it did not appear to be long enough to allow a pedestrian to safely cross the street. Council Member Verkerk asked that the light be timed to see if it would allow an elderly person to safely cross the street.
Carl Wilkins, Executive Director of The Cedars, reiterated Ms. Eldridge’s comments about the population using the intersection and the sight visibility. He said they were dealing with people with cataracts, glaucoma, and macular degeneration that in normal routine instances would see very well. But, Mr. Wilkins stated, if they start across the road, they will not have the same vision as others with do not suffer from these problems. He asked the Council to seriously consider the petition and taking it to its next step.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(4). Gary Barnes representing the Transportation Board, requesting Improvements in Street Signage.
Mr. Barnes called the Council’s attention to the resolution provided in their materials that had been adopted by the Transportation Board.
Mr. Barnes noted the following:
In summary, Mr. Barnes noted that the resolution requests that the Town Manager develop a plan for improving Town street and informational (public parking, governmental offices, public facilities, University facilities, hospitals, etc.) signs that:
1. Includes clear standards for the size, format and placement of signs at all intersections involving key collector and arterial roads in Chapel Hill, with the suggestion that overhead signs be used at major intersections;
2. Includes a list of intersections where better signs are most urgently needed;
3. Includes a schedule for implementation that reflects budgetary and regulatory constraints now facing the Town;
4. Includes the University, whenever appropriate, in discussions involving signage relevant to University locations;
5. Involves the Town Staff working with the Transportation Board to develop and implement such a plan.
Mr. Barnes stated that it was their hope that by developing these standards they can welcome our guests each year, be better hosts, and promote tourism that they believe will help redevelop the downtown. He also thanked Council Member Harrison for his work on the Transportation Board.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT THE PETITION BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(5). Yvonne Mendenhall, regarding Stormwater Maintenance Issues.
Mayor Foy noted that a copy of Ms. Mendenhall’s petition was included in the Council’s materials.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3b. Petitions by Citizens on Items on the Agenda.
3b(1). Rene Campbell, presenting an Update from the Chapel Hill Visitors Bureau.
Ms. Campbell said that the mission of the Visitor’s Bureau is to bring more people into Chapel Hill and Orange County, to get them to stay longer, and to spend more money. She said that would generate income, and generate more amenities that both visitors and residents can enjoy.
Ms. Campbell said she was about to begin an active plan of work to prepare a visitor profile. She stated she would be working with the Downtown Economic Development Corporation as well as the Downtown Commission to learn more about the people who visit here and where they learned about Chapel Hill so that we can serve them more effectively.
Ms. Campbell said they would be producing a new visitors guide that would include a focus on experiences and information on the “spirit of place” that is key for them. She said she is also working on a project called “Food for Thought,” because here in Chapel Hill we have the highest per capita of restaurants in the State, and this project would be a promotion of restaurants that buy locally and that support our local farmers and our farmers’ markets.
Ms. Campbell said she would also be meeting soon with Town staff to discuss the placement of directional signage to direct visitors to the Visitor’s Bureau. She closed her remarks by saying she would like to get the Council’s views on what the Visitor’s Bureau should be doing to promote Chapel Hill, Orange County, Hillsborough and Carrboro.
Ms. Campbell’s remarks were received by consensus of the Council.
3b(2). Eric Plow, regarding Weaver Dairy Road Speed Limit.
Mr. Plow, speaking about the section of Weaver Dairy Road located between Airport Road and Homestead Road, said that recently there was a speed trap placed in that area and every day he saw multiple stops by Police presumably for speed violations. He said the speed limit on that section of road is 25 mph, and it can be safely traveled “easily” at 55 mph. Mr. Plow said he knew 55 mph would not be palatable to nearby residents.
Mr. Plow said that by comparison, the opposite side of the road is 35 mph. He stated that if that is the safe speed for that side of the road, then he believes that 45 mph is a “darn safe” speed for the other side of the road. Mr. Plow asked that this not be referred to the Traffic Engineer at this time, rather he asked the Council to drive this section of road and back one time at 25 mph sometime over the next month, adding he would be surprised if they were not “tearing their hair out” by the end of the drive. He asked to come back in a month, after the Council had had the opportunity to drive the road, and make a formal petition to have a discussion regarding the 25 mph speed limit.
Mayor Foy noted for citizens’ benefit that the Town derives no financial benefits from speeding tickets.
The Council received the petition by consensus.
3c. Announcements by Council Members.
Council Member Harrison announced that the Chapel Hill Transportation Board and the Carrboro Transportation Board were holding a joint transit forum this Thursday, January 13 at 7 p.m., 110 Carrboro Town Hall. He said there would be representatives from Chapel Hill and the Triangle Transit Authority, it would be televised on Channel 18, and would have a call-in number at 918-7308.
Item 4 - Consent Agenda
Council Member Greene removed item 4i, Report on Problem Intersections and Alternatives for Improving Intersection Safety and Operations. She noted she had asked the Traffic Engineer to be present to give a brief report on the traffic study requested by the Council.
Kumar Neppalli, the Town’s Traffic Engineer, gave a brief overview of the report. He stated that the report provides specific data on bicycle and pedestrian accidents for 2001 through 2003. Mr. Neppalli said the report contains information on “reported accidents,” noting that term means that at least $1,000 in property damages occurred. He said that there were accidents that occurred with less than $1,000 in property damage that are not reflected in the data.
Mr. Neppalli noted that when looking at accident rates, that in a list of 66 cities over 10,000 population, Chapel Hill ranks in the 40’s in each of the three years. He said they had identified some accident problem areas on US 15-501, especially between Manning Drive to I-40, which is one of the most heavily used traffic corridors in Chapel Hill.
Mr. Neppalli called the Council’s attention to page 3 of the report, which details the top ten accident locations in Chapel Hill and provides a breakdown of bicycle accidents and pedestrian accidents. He stated they had forwarded the accident summary reports to the State and had met with State staff to discuss the details of the report. Mr. Neppalli said the State staff had expressed “surprise” that Chapel Hill was experiencing problems on US 15-501 at most of the signalized intersections, but they have agreed to work with the Town and review the high accident locations identified in the report, and to work with Town staff to evaluate and implement measures to improve safety and traffic operations at the identified intersections.
Mr. Neppalli stated the plan was to come back to the Council in six months to provide a follow-up report. He noted that Mike Stout, the Town’s Traffic Operations Engineer, was present to answer questions.
Council Member Greene said that on the bottom of page 5, there is a statement that reads “ extended yellow and/or extended all-red phasing is not generally accepted or standards practice for traffic control, and is not permitted on State roads in North Carolina for liability reasons.” She asked what “liability reasons” referred to, and was there a method to address this through the legislature since it appears to be a legal issue. Council Member Greene stated this had come up during discussion of red light cameras. Mr. Neppalli said it is actually a federal issue. He said that when calculating low-time or red-time, there are parameters set by the federal government that must be met. He said that every state must meet those parameters, adding that all of their timings are calculated based on that statistical formula. Mr. Neppalli said that federal regulations clearly state that increasing the low-time or red-time to address the problem of red-light running is not a valid improvement for a signalized intersection and is not a standard practice. He said those timings are based on the speed limit, intersection widths, and length of the road.
Council Member Greene said she had read about other places that had extended the yellow or red time, and asked if that was because they had them set at a shorter time that the federal standards allowed. Mr. Neppalli responded that was correct. He added there are minimum and maximum clearance timings, but there is a standard. And, he added, if you violate the standard at one intersection, you have to set that as the standard at all intersections. In other words, Mr. Neppalli said, that new timing becomes your standard, but it must remain within the range set by federal regulations.
Council Member Greene said that on that same page (page 5), there is reference to “ broken or short-circuited vehicle detector loops ” and asked how you determine when one is broken. Mr. Neppalli responded that normally the computer software alerts us to that, but we also conduct field inspections and receive complaint calls from citizens.
Council Member Greene said there is a change in signal lights in progress at the intersection of US 15-501 and Manning Drive, and asked what level of improvement is occurring. Mr. Neppalli said they were replacing the wooden poles with metal poles, noting that the lights and their timing would remain the same.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if there are other legitimate reasons to change timing, such as accidents occurring. Mr. Neppalli said yes, adding that is the reason why the regulations have a minimum and a maximum. He said Chapel Hill’s lights are set between minimum and maximum, and if the State determines there is an advantage is taking the clearance timings to the maximum, then they do so. Mr. Neppalli indicated the minimum is 3 seconds, and the maximum is between 5 and 6 seconds depending on the speed limit.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked about putting up back covers to lights to make them more visible, commenting that this had been discussed about a year ago. Mr. Neppalli said they had not done that to more than those that already had such back covers, but said if the Council was aware of an intersection that might benefit from that, they would consider it.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED R-1, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2005-01-10-05/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 Committees (R-2). |
|
b. |
2nd reading Gas Franchise Ordinance (O-1). |
|
c. |
Resolutions of Intent to Annex Vineyard Square, Larkspur Developments (R-3, R-4). |
|
d. |
Authorization to Sell Extra Set of Legal Encyclopedias (R-5). |
|
e. |
Budget Amendment for Highland Woods Road Realignment Project (O-2). |
|
f. |
Amendment to Stormwater Management Utility Ordinance (O-3). |
|
g. |
Response for Concept Plan Review Request from the University of North at Carolina at Chapel Hill re: 200 Finley Golf Course Road (R-6). |
|
h. |
Consideration of Resolution Finding Time Warner Cable Basic Service Tier Rates Consistent with Federal Regulations (R-7). |
|
i. |
Report on Problem Intersections and Alternatives for Improving Intersection Safety and Operations (R-8). |
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES (2005-01-10/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:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board
Andrea Hundredmark
Ratan (Ray) Piplani
Budget Review Advisory Committee
Roger Badrock
Gary Barnes
Julie Brenman
Ken Brooks
Michael A. Clarke
Harlan Cornell
Robin D. Cutson
Gregg D. Gerdau
James Easthom
George David Hughes
Beverly C. Kawalec
Aaron Nelson
Gene Pease
Jill Ridky-Blackburn
Alan Rimer
Austin Rose
Judy Weseman
Charlie Zimmerli
Planning Board
Jessica Bell
Lukas Brun
Charles Flowers
Andrea Hundredmark
Winkie La Force
Allan Polak
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, A SUBSIDIARY OF SCANA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT TO USE AND OCCUPY THE PUBLIC WAYS OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A GAS UTILITY SYSTEM AND ALL NECESSARY MEANS FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS WITHIN SAID TOWN FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS (2005-01-10/O-1)
WHEREAS, Public Service Company of North Carolina, Incorporated (the Company) proposes to continue to construct, operate and maintain a Gas Utility System and all necessary means for transmitting and distributing gas within the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (the “Town”),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina as follows:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
Whenever and wherever used in this Ordinance the following words and names shall have the following meanings:
TOWN COUNCIL shall mean the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, as now or hereafter constituted.
COMPANY shall mean Public Service Company of North Carolina, Incorporated, a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation, its successors and assigns.
TOWN shall mean the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, including its present and future Town limits.
TOWN MANAGER shall mean the Town Manager of Chapel Hill or his designee.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION shall mean the North Carolina Department of Transportation or its successors.
GAS shall mean natural gas, mixed gas and substitute fuels carried over the Company’s facilities as authorized by the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
GAS SYSTEM shall mean all facilities of the Company in the Town used for the transmission or distribution of Gas within the Town.
FERC shall mean any reference made to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or its successor.
COMMISSION shall mean the North Carolina Utilities Commission or any successor body lawfully constituted.
PUBLIC WAY OR WAYS shall mean any public street, avenue, road, alley, lane, bridge or other public right-of-way within the Town over which the Town as of the application time has jurisdiction or exercises control.
GOOD UTILITY PRACTICES shall mean the practices, methods and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the gas industry during the relevant time period or other practices, methods and acts which, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could have been expected to accomplish the desired result consistent with reliability, safety, expedition, requirements of governmental agencies having jurisdiction, and at the lowest reasonable cost; the term Good Utility Practices is not intended to be limited to the optimum practices, methods or acts to the exclusion of all others, but rather to constitute a spectrum of acceptable practices, methods or acts.
SECTION 2. Grant of Authority
The right, power and authority is hereby granted and vested in the Company to lay, maintain and operate gas mains, pipes and services on, along, across, and under the streets, alleys, bridges, rights-of-way, and other public ways; and to use those facilities to conduct a gas business. This grant of authority by the Town to the Company is for all street, alleys, bridges, rights-of-way and other public ways over which the Town, as of the applicable time, has jurisdiction or exercises control. Use of Town-owned property other than public ways is subject to a separate lease agreement that contains terms and conditions normally found in leases and easements between the Company and private landowners.
SECTION 3. Conditions on Use of Public Ways
(a) No street, alley, bridge, right-of-way or other public place used by the Company shall be obstructed longer than necessary during its work of construction or repair, and shall be restored to the same good order and condition as when said work was commenced. No part of any street, alley, bridge, right-of-way, or other public place of the Town, including any public drain, sewer, catch basin, water pipe, pavement or other public improvement, shall be damaged. However, should any such damage occur due to the Company's failure to use due care that arises out of the Company, the Company’s agents, or contractors omissions or negligence, the Company shall repair the same as promptly as possible to the same good order and condition that existed prior to the work, and, in default thereof, the Town, after written notice to the Company, may make such repairs and charge the reasonable cost thereof and collect the same from the Company. The Company shall indemnify, defend and save the Town harmless from all liability or damage (including judgment, decrees, and legal court costs) resulting from the Company’s failure to use due care in the exercise of the privileges hereby granted or of its rights under this Agreement. This indemnity provision shall extend to cover the Town should the Company’s agents and contractors fail to use due care.
(b) Any disturbance (other than emergency response) of property within or affecting public ways, as may be necessary for the installation and/or connection of services by the Company, or its agents or contractors must receive prior approval of the Town Manager or Manager’s designee and shall be subject to inspection and street cut fees as provided by the Town Code of Ordinances, including amendments thereto. The Company shall notify the Town Manager’s office 24 hours in advance of the start of construction (other than emergencies) that may damage or otherwise disrupt the normal function of any existing public infrastructure, including but not limited to the obstruction of the normal flow of traffic and/or storm water runoff.
(c) If at any time during the period of this Agreement the Town determines that the Company’s facilities and/or equipment are in conflict with or can reasonably be expected to conflict with existing or new public streets or other Town facilities, or any modifications thereof; the Company, upon a minimum of 180 calendar days’ written notice by the Town, shall remove and/or relocate as necessary the Company’s facilities and/or equipment at the Company’s expense. The Town shall cooperate with the Company, to the extent practicable, to identify alternative locations for the relocated facilities and/or equipment. Where and to the extent that funds are made available to the Town by third parties in connection with the removal and/or relocation of the Company’s facilities and/or equipment, then the Town shall ensure that the Company receives a pro rata share of those funds to the extent allowed by law.
SECTION 4. The Company’s Other Obligations
(a) The Company hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town, its officers, boards, commissions and employees against any and all claims and liabilities arising from the Company’s activities or Gas System, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs.
(b) The Company shall identify and maintain a person employed by the Company who will serve as the Company’s liaison with the Town, and who shall be readily accessible to Town Personnel.
SECTION 5. Service
(a) The Company shall, before entering upon any street, alley, highway, right-of-way or other public place for the purpose of construction or installing any mains, pipes or other apparatus of the gas system, notify the Town Manager or Manager’s designee, in writing or other acceptable means, of the proposed construction or installation and shall, file with the Town sufficient plans and specifications showing the nature, timeframe and extent of the proposed construction or installation.
(b) The Company may supply any form of gas containing approximately one thousand (1,000) BTU's per cubic foot, and its obligation in respect thereto shall continue only so long as it is able to obtain an adequate supply of such gas satisfactory for service hereunder; provided, however, that in the supply of such gas the Town shall enjoy equal rights with respect to other areas served by the Company.
(c) All work upon the streets and public places of the Town shall be done under the general supervision of the Town, and all sidewalks or streets pavements or street surface or any other public infrastructure which may be damaged, displaced or otherwise disturbed by reason of such work shall be properly replaced by the Company, its successors and assigns, to the reasonable requirements of the Town
(d) The Company shall, as to all other conditions and elements of services not fixed herein, be and remain subject to the rules and regulations of the Commission, Department of Transportation and FERC or its successors, applicable to gas service in the Town.
SECTION 6. Nonexclusive Grant and Term
The gas franchise granted by this ordinance is not exclusive. The Town may grant the same or similar rights and privileges to other certified persons or companies at any time, provided that any such grants shall be made under terms and conditions which do not materially impair the exercise of the rights and privileges granted to the Company under this franchise.
Upon ratification and acceptance this franchise shall constitute a contract between the Town and the Company, and shall be in force and effect for an initial term of ten (10) years, unless the franchise is revoked or otherwise expires prior to that time pursuant to the terms of the Gas Franchise Agreement. Thereafter, the franchise shall automatically renew in two year increments, up to an additional ten (10) years, unless either party gives the other notice two years in advance of its intention not to renew the Gas Franchise Agreement beyond the next two year renewal increment.
SECTION 7. Franchise Not Waiver of Law
The franchise is subject to the constitution and laws of the State of North Carolina, and is not a waiver of any present or future law or regulation. This franchise is not a limitation upon the authority of the Town to adopt any law or regulation.
SECTION 8. Regulations, Safety and Customer Service
(a) In the event any provision of this franchise is in conflict with any rule of the Commission or FERC, so that the Company cannot reasonably comply both with the provisions of this franchise and any rule of the Commission or FERC, then the Company is required to comply with such Commission or FERC rule instead of the conflicting provision of this franchise.
(b) Otherwise, the Company shall comply with all applicable ordinances and regulations of the Town.
(c) Gas utility service is not guaranteed free from interruptions, supply failure or outages by reasons of force major, act of God, strike, vandalism, terrorism, breakdown, accident or other happening beyond the control of the Company. The Company will restore service using all applications of Good Utility Practices.
(d) The Company shall maintain and operate its Gas System in compliance with both State and federal maintenance and safety regulations.
Section 9. Police Powers.
In accepting the franchise, the Company acknowledges that its rights granted in the Ordinance and otherwise regarding its operations in the Town’s corporate limits are subject to the police powers of the Town to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the safety and welfare of the public, and it agrees to comply with all applicable general laws and ordinances enacted by the Town pursuant to such police powers.
SECTION 10. Commission Rules and Rates
The Company may from time to time declare, make and enforce such rules and regulations as shall have been fixed or allowed by the Commission as to the sale or distribution of Gas to any of its customers in the Town.
The rates to be charged for Gas at all times shall be such rates as are fixed or allowed by the Commission, including such rates as shall be negotiated by the Company with certain industrial or commercial customers pursuant to authority granted by the Commission.
SECTION 11. Plat of Gas System
The Company shall maintain maps or plats of its Gas System within the area covered by this franchise. Such maps or plats shall be maintained in the Company’s offices, and the Town shall have access to the same during any regular business hours of the Company. The Company shall upon reasonable notice provide such assistance as the Town may require to determine the actual field locations of the Company’s facilities when such locations must be determined for a valid public purpose.
The Company and the Town agree to cooperate with each other regarding the placement of public pedestrian and non-motorized vehicular facilities within Company utility easements, whether located on public property or private property. Subject to the Town’s acquiring easements from the owners of the underlying fee interests in property, such public access facilities shall be permitted within existing Company utility easements provided the Town’s design, location, installation and maintenance of such facilities receive prior Company approval as conforming to Company policy.
SECTION 12. Bankruptcy, Successors, Assigns
In the event the Company is adjudged bankrupt or its assets are placed in the hands of a receiver or other court officer, either voluntarily or involuntarily, or the Company reorganizes, merges or consolidates with any other Company, or the properties and business of the Company are foreclosed or sold to satisfy any lien or indebtedness or obligation of the Company, then the interest, rights and remedies of the Town in respect to said properties and operations shall not be affected or prejudiced, and any receiver, assignee, trustee, purchaser or successor, whether by operation of law or otherwise, so succeeding to or representing the interest or position of the Company, shall be bound by this Ordinance and the terms and provisions hereof and shall be bound to carry out and perform the obligations and duties imposed upon the Company by this Ordinance. Likewise, if the Company reorganizes, merges or consolidates with any other Company, then the Town is bound by this Ordinance.
Section 13. Revocation
In the event the Company violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this ordinance and within sixty (60) days after receipt of written notice from the Town, the Company failed to cure or remedy, or to have begun reasonable measures to cure or remedy any such violation, failure or default, then the Chapel Hill Town Council may cause the Company to appear at a hearing before the Chapel Hill Town Council in thirty (30) days. If at such hearing the Chapel Hill Town Council should determine that the Company’s violation, failure or default has been substantial, repeated or flagrant, then upon such determination the Chapel Hill Town Council may revoke and terminate this franchise; provided, however, that the Company may file with the Town within ten (10) days after such determination the Company’s election to appeal to the proper North Carolina court, and in that event the Town and Company agree that such court shall hear and determine de novo whether there has been substantial, repeated or flagrant violation, failure, or default by the Company of the terms, conditions, or obligations of this Ordinance. Violation or default which cannot be corrected by the Company shall not be grounds for revocation and termination, unless such violation or default shall be determined to be material and continuing.
SECTION 14. Severability, Third Party Rights
Should a court of competent jurisdiction declare any part, term or provision of this Ordinance illegal, unauthorized or in conflict with any law of the United States or the State of North Carolina, or to be in conflict with any valid rule or regulation duly promulgated by any agency or regulatory body of the United States or the State of North Carolina, the remaining portions or provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
The rights hereunder in this Ordinance accrue exclusively to the parties, their successors and assigns. It is the express intent of the parties that this franchise shall not create any rights in third parties.
Section 15. Disposition of Gas System Upon Termination of Franchise and this Agreement.
Upon the termination of the Franchise and this Agreement, for any reason, and upon the Town’s request, the Company shall have one year from such a request to remove all above ground components of the Gas System. The Town reserves any rights it has under existing law regarding disposition of the Gas System upon termination of the Franchise and this Agreement. If, during the term of the Franchise, the Company abandons any main lines in the Gas System in the Town’s corporate limits, the Town may, at no charge, utilize the abandoned main as a conduit for fiber or wires used by the Town for its telecommunications needs, provided such use of any abandoned mains does not impair the Company’s operations.
SECTION 16. Effective Date, Term, Adoption
This Ordinance shall be effective from and after the 10th day of January, 2005, provided the Company shall have executed the written acceptance hereof at the end of this Ordinance, and shall exist in force for a period of ten (10) years hereafter and continue in force. Thereafter, the franchise shall automatically renew in two year increments, up to an additional ten (10) years, unless either party gives the other notice, two years in advance, of its intention not to renew the Gas Franchise Agreement beyond the next two year renewal increment.
All other Ordinances and clauses of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Enacted by the Town Council the 10th day of January, 2005.
________________________________
Kevin C. Foy, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ _________________________________
Town Clerk Ralph D. Karpinos, Town Attorney
SECTION 17. Acceptance by Company
Public Service Company of North Carolina, Incorporated, does hereby accept and approve the foregoing Ordinance and all its terms and conditions, and in consideration of the benefits and privileges granted to it does hereby agree to abide by, carry out, observe and perform all the obligations and undertakings therein provided to be carried out and performed by it.
This the _______ day of ___________, 2005.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED
By: __________________________________
Jerry W. Richardson, President & COO
ATTEST:
_______________________________ Its: Assistant Secretary
Judy S. Czerwinski
(Corporate Seal)
The Town Clerk shall deliver to the Company an executed or conformed copy of this Ordinance and the Company’s written acceptance of the agreement thereof, certified as follows:
“Certified to be a true and exact copy of an ordinance duly enacted by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on the 10th day of January, 2005, and the acceptance thereof by Public Service Company of North Carolina, Incorporated the ______ day of _________, 2005.”
(Town Seal) _______________________________
Town Clerk
Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina
This the 6th day of December, 2004. (FIRST READING)
This the 10th day of January, 2005. (SECOND READING)
A RESOLUTION STATING THE INTENT OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL TO CONSIDER ANNEXING THE AREA DESCRIBED HEREIN AND FIXING THE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF ANNEXATION (2005-01-10/R-3)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill:
SECTION 1
That it is the intent of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill to consider annexing the following described territory pursuant to Part 3, Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes of North Carolina:
Vineyard Square Area. The Vineyard Square subdivision and the abutting right-of-way of the State University Railroad spur of the Norfolk Southern Corporation located in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. The boundaries of the area under consideration for annexation are shown on the attached map, incorporated as a part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2
That a public information meeting will be held in the Meeting Room of the Public Library, 100 Library Drive, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 at 4:00 p.m., on the 3rd day of March, 2005. That a public hearing on the question of annexing the above-described territory will be held in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall, 306 N. Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516 at 7:00 p.m., on the 21st day of March, 2005, at which time plans for extending services to said territory will be explained, and all residents and property owners in said territory, and all residents of the Town of Chapel Hill, will be given an opportunity to be heard.
SECTION 3
That a report of plans for extending services to the above-described territory be made available for public inspection at the office of the Town Clerk for at least thirty (30) days before the date of said public information meeting.
SECTION 4
That a legible map of the area to be annexed and a list of persons holding freehold interests in property in the area to be annexed who have be identified, be posted in the office of the Town Clerk at least thirty (30) days before the date of said public information meeting.
SECTION 5
That notice of said public hearing shall be given by publication and first class mail, as required by North Carolina General Statute 160A-49.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Vineyard Square Annexation Area Map here.
A RESOLUTION STATING THE INTENT OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL TO CONSIDER ANNEXING THE AREA DESCRIBED HEREIN AND FIXING THE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF ANNEXATION (2005-01-10/R-4)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill:
SECTION 1
That it is the intent of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill to consider annexing the following described territory pursuant to Part 3, Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes of North Carolina:
Larkspur Area. The Larkspur subdivision and the abutting right-of-way of the State University Railroad spur of the Norfolk Southern Corporation located in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. The boundaries of the area under consideration for annexation are shown on the attached map, incorporated as a part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2
That a public information meeting will be held in the Meeting Room of the Public Library, 100 Library Drive, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 at 4:00 p.m., on the 3rd day of March, 2005. That a public hearing on the question of annexing the above-described territory will be held in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall, 306 N. Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516 at 7:00 p.m., on the 21st day of March, 2005, at which time plans for extending services to said territory will be explained, and all residents and property owners in said territory, and all residents of the Town of Chapel Hill, will be given an opportunity to be heard.
.
SECTION 3
That a report of plans for extending services to the above-described territory be made available for public inspection at the office of the Town Clerk for at least thirty (30) days before the date of said public information meeting.
SECTION 4
That a legible map of the area to be annexed and a list of persons holding freehold interests in property in the area to be annexed who have be identified, be posted in the office of the Town Clerk at least thirty (30) days before the date of said public information meeting.
SECTION 5
That notice of said public hearing shall be given by publication and first class mail, as required by North Carolina General Statute 160A-49.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Larkspur I and II Annexation Area Map here.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PRIVATE SALE OF A SET OF DUPLICATIVE LAW BOOKS TO ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNIT (2005-01-10/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Town Attorney’s Office has an extra set of a 30 volume legal treatise on local government law that may be of use to another governmental agency in North Carolina;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, that the Council hereby authorizes the sale of the duplicative set of McQuillin’s The Law of Municipal Corporations, pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 160A-274, for the best offer made after notice of said sale on the North Carolina local government attorney’s listserve.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004 (2005-01-10/O-2)
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, 2004” as duly adopted on June 14, 2004, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE I |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPROPRIATIONS |
Current Budget |
Increase |
Decrease |
Revised Budget |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GRANTS FUND |
379,783 |
90,000 |
|
469,783 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE II |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
Current Budget |
Increase |
Decrease |
Revised Budget |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GRANTS FUND |
379,783 |
90,000 |
|
469,783 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23-17 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY ADVISORY BOARD QUORUM AND SIMPLE MAJORITY (2005-01-10/O-3)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 23-17 of the Town Code is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 23-17. Quorum and Voting.
A
quorum and simple majority of the Board shall consist of five (5)
members a simple majority.
The vote of a simple majority of those present at a meeting, a quorum being
present, shall be necessary to take any official Board action.”
Section 2. This Ordinance is effective upon enactment.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE REQUEST FOR TOWN COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR 200 FINLEY GOLF COURSE ROAD AND SCHEDULE THE ITEM FOR THE JANUARY 19, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA (2005-01-10/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has received a petition from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill requesting Town Council review of a Concept Plan Review Proposal for 200 Finley Golf Course Road;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to schedule Town Council review of the Concept Plan Proposal, for 200 Finley Golf Course Road, for the January 19, 2005 Public Hearing agenda.
This the 10th day of January 10, 2005.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CABLE CONSULTANT’S REPORT AND FINDING TIME WARNER CABLE’S PROPOSED 2005 BASIC SERVICE TIER RATES TO BE ACCURATELY CALCULATED ACCORDING TO FCC RULES AND REGULATIONS (2005-01-10/R-7)
WHEREAS, Time Warner Cable submitted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Form 1240 Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services; and
WHEREAS, Time Warner submitted FCC Form 1205, Determining Regulated Equipment and Installation Costs; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill is certified with the FCC to regulate Basic Service Tier rates provided by Time Warner Cable in franchise NC-0234; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s cablevision consultants have reviewed the rates and have determined that they are accurately calculated according to the rules of the FCC;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts the cable consultant’s report and finds Time Warner Cable’s proposed 2005 Basic Service Tier rates to be accurately calculated according to FCC rules and regulations.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF WORK WITH TOWN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT STAFF TO IDENTIFY, DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT MEASURES TO IMPROVE SAFETY AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS IN CHAPEL HILL AND REFERRING THE JANUARY 10, 2005 REPORT TO THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY BOARD (2005-01-10/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is interested in creating safe and efficient street intersections to serve motorized vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received and reviewed a summary report including traffic accident data for 2001, 2002, and 2003 in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the data indicates that significant traffic accident problems exist at several locations in Chapel Hill;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests that the North Carolina Department of Transportation staff work with Town Engineering Department staff to identify, develop, and implement measures to improve safety and traffic operations at selected street intersections in Chapel Hill.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council refers the January 10, 2005 report to the Transportation Board and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board for comments.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Item 5 – Information Items
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she wanted to draw attention to item #5d, particularly Attachment 5 on page 16, that highlights Chapel Hill’s achievements for affordable housing as components of new development. She indicated that she had been on the Council for eight years, and her second year on the Council was Mayor Foy’s first year as a Council member. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said from the very first, he exhibited “extraordinary leadership” in insisting that private developers devote 15% of their residential developments to affordable housing. She said the Mayor did that when there were people on the Council, like herself, who did not understand or did not want to use our permitting power in that way. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said at that time she did not feel that was the right way to use the Council’s permitting power, but in spite of that concern and resistance he “plugged away” and convinced her and others who had reservations.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that is what “strong leadership is, when you can persevere and bring people around in the face of opposition.” Now, Mayor pro tem Wiggins said, when we talk about requiring developers to devote 15% of their residential developments to affordable housing, there is no opposition from Council members because it is accepted, and it is accepted within the development community and by citizens at large.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that she did not feel that Mayor Foy had been given the proper credit during recent newspaper articles in providing the leadership in this affordable housing effort we are now in, and as one of the people who did not support him in the beginning, she now offers him her appreciation for his strong leadership. She noted that it is now easy for anyone to take a leadership role in this area because Mayor Foy had “broken the ground.” Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she wanted to thank Mayor Foy publicly.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED R-8.1, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT.
Council Member Greene stated she had asked that the Council be given copies of “Locally Initiated Inclusionary Zoning Programs” prepared by the Institute of Government a year ago. She hoped that the Council members would read that document prior to the work session on affordable housing.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT R-8.1 WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORK SESSION (2005-01-10/R-8.1)
WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to schedule a work session to discuss affordable housing initiatives;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council schedules an affordable housing work session at a time to be determined, in the spring of 2005.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Item 6 – Response to Council Request to Consider Rescheduling
the March 30, 2005 Council Meeting
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-9, AS AMENDED, TO RESCHEDULE THE MARCH 30TH COUNCIL MEETING TO APRIL 5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2005 (2005-01-10/R-9)
WHEREAS, the Council has expressed a desire to reschedule the March 30, 2005 business meeting to a more acceptable date;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends its Council Meeting Calendar for 2005 to reschedule the Wednesday, March 30, 2005, business meeting to April 5, 2005.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Item 7 – Deleted.
Item 8 – Follow-up Report on Orange Flag Crosswalks
and Adopt-A-Crosswalk Program
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED R-10, AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE NC 54/HAMILTON ROAD INTERSECTION AND THE AIRPORT ROAD/HILLSBOROUGH ROAD INTERSECTION AS THE TWO PILOT PROJECT AREAS FOR ORANGE FLAGS, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT.
Council Member Verkerk asked if you are in the intersection and get hit by a car, does carrying the orange flag or not carrying the orange flag make you somehow more liable. She said she believed carrying the flag would make people feel “silly,” and if carrying or not carrying the flag makes you more liable, then that is an issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Karpinos responded we would not know the answer to that until a case was taken to court.
Mayor Foy said he was not going to support the resolution.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said this was a serious matter, noting that someone may have their hands full and are not able to pick up a flag and carry it across the street. Mr. Karpinos said he did not know if a court would say that if a flag were available and you did not use it, then that would be contributory negligence.
Council Member Ward asked if we were increasing our liability if the container of flags was empty and someone crossed the street without one. What kind of additional liability, if any, does this expose the Town to, he asked.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 5-4, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, HILL, STROM, KLEINSCHMIDT AND GREENE VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR FOY, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WARD, WIGGINS, AND VERKERK VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO INSTALL ORANGE FLAGS AT TWO CROSSWALK LOCATIONS FOR A TRIAL PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS (2005-01-10/R-10)
WHEREAS, the Council is interested in improving pedestrian safety at marked crosswalks in the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received a report from the Manager regarding the use of orange flags at marked crosswalks; and
WHEREAS, the Council received recommendations from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and the Transportation Board regarding crosswalk locations proposed for orange flag installations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Manager to install orange flags and signs at the following two crosswalk locations:
1) Highway 54 and Hamilton Road Intersection
2) Airport Road and Hillsborough Street Intersection
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to monitor the use and effectiveness of the orange flag installations and to report back to the Council with his findings and recommendations following a twelve month trial period.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Item 9 – 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Fixed
Guideway Corridor from Chapel Hill to Carrboro
Mayor Foy reminded the Council that this item was about Cameron Avenue.
Transportation Planner David Bonk noted that the Council adopted a resolution on September 27, 2004, recommending that the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) approve the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan with four comments. The fourth comment, he said, was related to the Fixed Guideway corridor between the UNC campus and Carolina North, and stated: The Fixed Guideway map be altered to show Franklin Street as the useable corridor to points west of Columbia Street.
Mr. Bonk said the TAC has accepted the first three comments, but referred the fourth comment back to the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill so that they could come to some agreement, since the plan approved by Carrboro reflected that Cameron Avenue was their preferred corridor.
Mr. Bonk said that on October 28, 2004, the town managers and staff from Chapel Hill and Carrboro met to discuss the Fixed Guideway corridor and the directive from the TAC. He noted there was consensus to ask the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen to endorse the following recommendations to the TAC:
1. The description of the Fixed Guideway corridor in the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan should remain as it was in the 2025 Plan.
2. Prior to the adoption of the next updated Plan, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) will undertake a study of the Fixed Guideway corridor to determine feasible alignments and appropriate vehicle technologies. This study would be similar to the major investment study previously completed for the US 15-501 corridor between Chapel Hill and Durham.
Mr. Bonk indicated that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen had adopted a resolution that incorporates these two points. He displayed a map which defined where the corridor is currently planned, which incorporates both Franklin Street and Cameron Avenue. Mr. Bonk said that the first line on the map is a broad line that indicates a “general” corridor, and we are recommending that the Council adopt Resolution R-11 which would undertake a study to more closely define that corridor. He indicated the study would be similar to that undertaken for the US 15-501 corridor.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the original plan defined Cameron Avenue as the corridor. Mr. Bonk responded that the written descriptions indicate Cameron Avenue as a “point of reference.” Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the comments from the TAC were that the line was so broad, why worry about it. He asked if that was what they were saying. Mr. Bonk responded that was, in essence, what the TAC was saying. He added that before this project could proceed any further in terms of implementation there would have to be detailed studies that would inform all the policy makers as to where that would be located specifically.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the Plan says Cameron Avenue now, and both Cameron Avenue and Franklin Street are within the Town of Chapel Hill. He said that by a unanimous vote of this Council, we had indicated we wanted the corridor moved to Franklin Street. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the TAC is saying no, they will not do that, even though it doesn’t matter to them, unless the Town spends tens of thousands of dollars on a corridor study. He asked if the TAC is going to ignore the elected body of the Town of which these roads are wholly within when it doesn’t even matter to them whether its Cameron Avenue or Franklin Street because the “swath” is so broad on the map? Mr. Bonk responded that he believes what the TAC is concerned about, and this was expressed by the Carrboro representatives at the TAC meeting, is that by shifting the alignment to Franklin Street, it raises the issue of how it would continue into Carrboro. He said that Carrboro recognizes that further study would have to be done in order for them to know how the corridor would continue, whether it was coming from Cameron Avenue or Franklin Street.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that what the TAC is saying is that whether we are going to designate one road or another, both of which are wholly within our Town limits, is going to affect Carrboro’s interests. So, he continued, that is an admission that there are interests that go towards the determination of which one it should be, and which we have acknowledged with our prior unanimous vote that we believe it is in the Town of Chapel Hill’s best interest to say it should be Franklin Street. Now, Council Member Kleinschmidt said, the TAC is saying we don’t care what you say, we are going to go with the out-of-town interest.
Mayor Foy said he did not believe that was entirely accurate. He said that the TAC did not want to be involved in a dispute between Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Council Member Kleinschmidt said it should be noted that the TAC is chaired by a member of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. Mayor Foy said that the TAC asked us to work it out with Carrboro, adding that the TAC had not taken any action as yet. Mayor Foy agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt that Chapel Hill has the right to decide where the corridor will be in Chapel Hill. Conversely, he said, Carrboro has the right to decide where it will be in Carrboro. Mayor Foy said he thought that if the Council wanted it to go on Franklin Street, then that is where it will go, but there may need to be some kind of connector into Carrboro.
Mayor Foy said we had not been able to resolve this at a staff level, and had not been able to resolve it at a political level. He asked Mr. Bonk if it was realistic to think that funds would be allocated for this study. Mr. Bonk responded that the TAC had access to planning funds, and if Chapel Hill and Carrboro were to move forward and request funding from the TAC, there is funding theoretically available. He reminded the Council such funding would require a 20% local match.
Council Member Harrison thanked the Council for its previous unanimous vote on this matter, noting that he had attempted to bring a “voice of reason” to the TAC meeting by stating it was a matter of only one block, and that should not hold up progress.
Council Member Strom said he believed this was “overkill” and a “ridiculous approach” to a tightly defined issue. He said the Council did vote unanimously to move the corridor to Franklin Street, and it was becoming more unclear each week whether there was any necessity of bringing a corridor up to Carolina North. Council Member Strom said he believed the Council should restate its interest to move the corridor to Franklin Street and do nothing else. Council Member Kleinschmidt said if that was a motion, he would second it.
Mayor Foy stated that the net effect of that is that the corridor is not settled, and asked Mr. Bonk what would be the impact on Cameron Avenue. Mr. Bonk responded it would have no impact now, and that until a further study was done it doesn’t speak at all to the ultimate feasibility of either Cameron Avenue or Franklin Street. He said that once we get to that point in the process, we would have to investigate both feasible corridors, adding he did not believe we could in good faith move forward in an “alternatives evaluation” without looking at both possibilities.
Mayor Foy asked if Cameron Avenue was named as the corridor in the 2025 Plan. Mr. Bonk said he did not believe it was. Mayor Foy suggested that if Cameron Avenue is named anywhere in the 2025 Plan, that we should have the text say “or Franklin Street” so that it is clear. He said the 2030 Plan is not going to change, that if it says Cameron Avenue then what this Council does will not change that.
Council Member Strom said that TAC members had approached Chapel Hill representatives at the end of the meeting where this was discussed, and told them to resolve this issue with Carrboro or the TAC would have to take a vote. He said if it has to come to a vote by the TAC, then so be it.
Mayor Foy said that if the TAC goes forward with the Plan the way it is, he believes the Council needs to make sure the TAC understands that Chapel Hill prefers that Franklin Street be named as the corridor, and he would prefer that it be named in the Plan. He said he feared that a Council resolution would “just get lost in history.” Mayor Foy said, then, what happens if we can’t get Franklin Street in the Plan? Council Member Strom said we should deal with that when the time comes.
Council Member Ward stated they should be consistent as a Council, state our preference to the TAC, and that our vision is that the corridor be on Franklin Street and it is not an “either/or.” He said he would hope that our TAC representatives would help the TAC see our reasoning and understand our position.
Council Member Greene asked what it would take to get Franklin Street in the Plan, rather than Cameron Avenue. Mr. Bonk said a majority vote of the representatives on the TAC. He displayed a chart that showed the Plan’s attempt to connect points within the corridor.
Mayor Foy said that when it does come time to identify a corridor, the federal government will require us to look at Cameron Avenue, since they require that we look at all options. So, he said, it might be better if we do engage in this now and set the Franklin Street corridor, just as we set the US 15-501 corridor, and then Cameron Avenue would not come up again. Mayor Foy said this was an alternative the Council could consider.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said another alternative would be not to engage in the study, since the TAC was not going to do a study until this controversy arose. He said that we needed to express to the TAC that the Town has legitimate interests in identifying this corridor, and if it doesn’t really matter to them, or they believe it is not going to matter, then change the Plan from Cameron Avenue to Franklin Street and let us control that part of the corridor that is within our Town limits. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that we should acknowledge at the same time that the interests being argued to keep it Cameron Avenue are just those interests that diverge from ours, our legitimate interests that were expressed by a unanimous vote of the Council late last year.
Mayor Foy reiterated that the proposal is to tell the TAC that Chapel Hill wants the corridor changed to Franklin Street, but the fact is that when it comes time to study this, Cameron Avenue will be studied along with Franklin Street.
The Council agreed by consensus to report to the TAC that the Chapel Hill Town Council wants the corridor changed from Cameron Avenue to Franklin Street.
Item 10 – Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment:
Adjusting Size Restricted/Affordable Housing Calculations
Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that a public hearing was held on this issue on October 11, 2004, specifically to consider changes to how calculations are performed for size restricted or affordable housing unit requirements in the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO). He said that the recommendation is that the Council enact Ordinance A, which would adjust the rounding provisions for the size restricted affordable housing provisions in LUMO.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED O-4a, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE to ADJUST THE ROUNDING PROVISIONS FOR THE SIZE RESTRICTED/AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS (2005-01-10/O-4a)
WHEREAS, Section 3.8.5 of Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance provides regulations regarding housing floor area restrictions for major subdivisions and Planned Developments and Section 3.8.6 offers substitution of affordable housing or a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing for the floor area restrictions; and
WHEREAS, Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has brought forward concerns about the method for rounding up or down used in the regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has found that adjustments to the rounding provisions for the size restricted/affordable housing provisions of the Ordinance is desirable, and finds that the amendments are appropriate due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
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 of 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.
3.8.6 Alternatives to Floor Area Restrictions
3.8.6.1 Substitution of Affordable Housing for Floor Area Restrictions
With the approval of the Town Council, for a major subdivision or a Planned Development Housing proposal with 5 or more single-family or two-family lots, an affordable housing component, as defined below, may be substituted for the floor area restrictions described in Section 3.8.5.
The affordable housing component shall provide initial and continued affordability of at least 15% of the dwelling units. The dwelling units shall be priced to be affordable to individuals and families who have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income for a family of four. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded with the dwelling unit(s) to ensure the continued and ongoing compliance with these requirements and shall be sold to individuals ad families who have incomes at or below 100% of the area median income by family size, and published periodically by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban development.
The
minimum number of affordable units shall be determined as described in Section 3.8.5 with the number of
units based on the permissible units on each lot and with resulting
fractions dropped.
The subdivision preliminary and final plats and the Planned Development-Housing proposals minor subdivision plats shall indicate clearly each lot on which an affordable unit must be constructed, and the builder, developer and purchaser shall be bound by the restriction. The recorded plat shall cross-reference the restrictive covenants.
3.8.6.2 Substitution of Payment-in-Lieu of Affordable Housing for Floor Area Restrictions
As an alternative to providing the affordable housing components option in Section 3.8.6.1, a developer of a Major Subdivision or a Planned Development Housing which proposes 5-12 single-family or two-family residential lots may, with the approval of the Town Council, make a payment to the Town whereby the Town may fund affordable housing initiatives.
The Town shall use such payment only for the funding of affordable housing initiatives.
The amount of the payment shall be calculated by multiplying the number of affordable housing units to be provided as calculated in Section 3.8.6.1 (without dropping fractions) by an estimate of funding that would be needed to make a homeownership opportunity in the proposed development available to individuals and families with annual income at or below 80% of the area median income. The estimate shall be developed in consultation with and approved by the Town Manager. The developer shall make the payment before approval of a final plat for the subdivision or approval of a minor subdivision for the Planned Development-Housing, provided, however, that the Town Manager may allow phasing of payments consistent with the approved phasing of the subdivision.
A developer may make a partial payment in combination with the partial provision of an affordable housing component if the Town Council determines that the combination is appropriate.”
Section 2. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Item 11 – Report on Rezoning, Fiscal Equity, and Land Conservation
Issues Related to the Horace Williams Site
Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt stated that the Horace Williams Citizens Committee had presented its final report to the Council on October 11, 2004. At that time, she said, the Council asked for follow-up information concerning three issues:
Ms. Berndt said that regarding the rezoning, we have prepared a resolution that responds to the Council’s request and if the Council chooses to do that, then the resolution would call a public hearing for March 21 to consider rezoning property from its current zoning of a combination of Office/Institutional-2, Office/Institutional-3, and Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2. Ms. Berndt said as an alternative, we recommend that the Council consider another option, that in future discussions with the University that the Council request assurances that no development applications be submitted before “x” date. She said this procedure had been followed in earlier cases.
Ms. Berndt said in the area of fiscal equity, two options were discussed in the report: first, that a committee be established whose members were not associated with the Town or University operations; and second, that the University, as a potential future developer, be asked to pay an independent consultant to develop a fiscal equity model that could be used to estimate direct revenues and direct costs that would result from proposed development of University lands. Ms. Berndt said that a joint committee appointed by the Council and the University could review the consultant’s work and provide feedback on a proposed fiscal equity model. She indicated that this option, Option B, was what was being recommended tonight.
Regarding land conservation, Ms. Berndt said it would be difficult to preserve land “in perpetuity” as suggested, but there were options such as conservation easements or lease agreements which might have potential for future discussions with the University.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if we were pursuing preliminary conversations with the University about doing this. She asked the Mayor had he discussed this with the Chancellor, adding that she did not want to begin this process on a negative note. Mayor Foy responded that he had discussed this with Chancellor Moeser, and the University did not like the idea. He said we had not received any formal communication as yet.
Mayor Foy said he had told the Chancellor that from the point of view of the Town, it makes sense because it gives uniformity to those parcels which are not uniform now, and it gives greater assurance to the neighbors of the property that there would not be any activity on that site without “quite a bit of process.” On the other hand, he said, neither the Town nor the University expects that anything would happen under any current zoning category. Mayor Foy said there are compelling reasons on both sides, but the compelling reason to consider this from the Town’s point of view is the uniformity and the assurance to the neighbors that nothing will happen without their involvement.
Mayor Foy said the major concern of the University is that if we rezone the land, then they seek a rezoning in the future, that the Council would say that we already rezoned it and would not consider a future change. He said he did not believe that was the intention of the Council.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the reasons given for proceeding made sense, but she does understand the University’s point of view. She reasoned that we should sit down with the University and start a process, so that discussions could take place. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said if the University chose not to sit down with us, then we could proceed, but we should at least extend the invitation.
Council Member Strom said he had served on the Horace Williams Committee and this was a key recommendation.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED RESOLUTION R-12, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT.
Council Member Ward agreed that we needed to reach out to the University, adding it was important to gain greater control and have Council review of the activity on the Horace Williams/Carolina North property. He said that the rezoning was in the Town’s and the University’s best interests. Council Member Ward stated that rezoning the property from OI-3 to OI-2 would give greater uniformity, greater protection and involvement by the Town and all of its citizens.
Michael Collins, representing Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (NRG), said that they support the rezoning of the OI-3 tracks to OI-2, leaving the current OI-2 zoning unchanged. He said the NRG felt that rezoning to OI-2 would encourage the University to be more creative in its plans than it has been to date.
Mr. Collins said regarding fiscal equity, they support the fiscal equity principle of having UNC bear the cost of Town services needed by Carolina North, and the goal of developing a process of identifying costs and revenues. He noted that the six strategies listed in the Horace Williams report are a necessary part of achieving this goal. Mr. Collins commended the Manager for suggesting in Option A that a fiscal impact statement be required with each new building or project.
Regarding preservation of part of the Horace Williams tract, Mr. Collins said NRG supports preserving 75% of the Horace Williams tract in its natural state in perpetuity, and encouraged the Town and the University to identify ways to achieve this goal.
Mayor Foy indicated that it had been brought to his attention by Linda Convissor, the Local Relations Officer for the University, that the Council’s packet contained a letter from the Chancellor dated October 15, 2004, that says “I write to register in the strongest possible terms our objection” to rezoning the property. He said the letter goes on to say he hopes the University and the Town will work closely together to develop a process for a zone for Carolina North.
Mayor Foy reiterated that these are parallel processes that are not mutually exclusive, but in his view he believes the Council expects that there will be some other zone crafted for Carolina North.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 8-1, WITH MAYOR FOY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, HILL, STROM, GREENE, VERKERK, WARD, AND KLEINSCHMIDT VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING THE HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY (2005-01-10/R-12)
WHEREAS, the 2000 Comprehensive Plan includes a strategy to continue the Town’s involvement in planning for the future development of the Horace Williams property, with a focus on exploring ways in which future development can help achieve Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives in areas such as transit, mixed-use development, employment, and University housing; and
WHEREAS, the Council appointed a Horace Williams Citizens Committee to develop a set of Principles, including community interests and goals and objectives, to guide the Council’s deliberations with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill regarding the development of the Horace Williams property (Carolina North); and
WHEREAS, the Council accepted a report of the Committee, “Principles, Goals, and Strategies for the Horace Williams Property” on March 22, 2004; and
WHEREAS, a recommendation of that report is that the Council consider rezoning of the property from its current zoning of a combination of Office/Institutional-2, Office/ Institutional-3, and Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2 while the Council and University consider future conceptual plans for the Horace Williams property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing for Monday, March 21, 2005 to consider rezoning of the portion of the Horace Williams property within the Town of Chapel Hill, adjacent street right-of-way and intervening and adjacent railroad right-of-way (Tax Map Numbers 7.24..43C, 7.24..49C, 7.29..1A, 7.29..1B) that is currently zoned Office/Institutional-3 and Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2 as shown on the attached Map 3 contained in the Manager’s memorandum to Council of December 6, 2004.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Regarding fiscal equity, Mayor Foy noted that two options were proposed. Option A, he said, was to establish a committee that would develop a set of community indicators and produce a report on fiscal equity issues, and Option B was to ask the University, as a potential future developer, to pay an independent consultant to develop a fiscal equity model that could be used to estimate direct revenues and direct costs that would result from proposed development of University lands. Mayor Foy reminded the Council that these options were proposed, but the Council could consider any options it wished.
Council Member Hill said that Option B as proposed had merit, noting that the two suggestions were similar except the second option included a report from a consultant. He said he would like to know that the University was willing to pay for a consultant before they chose that option, so that this doesn’t just “die.”
Council Member Strom agreed that Option B was preferable, since it would be someone from “outside” with no personal interest, adding that people who live in Town could not avoid having some interest in the outcome.
Council Member Verkerk agreed with Council Members Strom and Hill.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ENDORSE OPTION B. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
With regard to land conservation, Mayor Foy said that one important point is that the University could lease property to another agency, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, just as it did with the 99-year lease to the Faculty Recreation Club (The Farm). He said there is no specific recommendation in the report, other than to just discuss it, adding the Council needs to define this somewhat.
Council Member Harrison said he was happy that we could now enforce our RCD regulations on the University, particularly for this case. He said there was information available to guide any entity that wanted to do preservation of land, and precedents had been set by the Little Creek/Morgan Creek watershed initiative that received help from Town staff. Council Member Harrison said they had produced a set of maps, all for those watersheds including Carolina North, for land that would “give the most bang for the buck” if it had to be bought or preserved in terms of water quality. He said that data is available.
Council Member Harrison said that he had brought up several months ago that Duke University had registered eleven natural areas with the Natural Heritage program in Orange and Durham Counties and UNC had not offered any areas for registry that they might have, such as parts of Bolin Creek. He said it would be a voluntary protection by UNC.
Mayor Foy said it was not just the environmental quality that was important, but also the open space. He said as we currently envision Carolina North, of the 900 acres that only 300 acres would be developed. Mayor Foy said we have an interest in making sure that the 600 acres remains undeveloped for a significant period of time, including environmentally sensitive areas as well as open space. He said the question is how to proceed.
Mayor Foy commented that we were going to be engaging the University in discussions about fiscal equity, so should we discuss both at the same time?
Council Member Greene said she definitely believed it should be discussed, but thought that the two issues were not directly related.
Council Member Hill said he believed it would be more reasonable to discuss the land conservancy issue along with the rezoning issues. Mayor Foy agreed, saying we did not need to discuss land conservancy with the University at this time, adding he believed it would have little value.
Council Member Greene said she believed the Council should have some agreement, or “resolution,” of its intent, since they had done so for the other issues.
Council Member Hill suggested resolving that the Council’s ultimate goal is that 75% or two-thirds of the property remain undeveloped, which just reiterates what the Horace Williams Citizens Committee recommended.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said we need to explore what kind of mechanisms exist to keep this as green space in perpetuity, noting this property is owned by the State and we need more information as to what extent it is possible for the State to designate the property as green space forever. She wondered if we would need special legislation, since we are talking about State-owned property.
Mayor Foy said this was not likely to happen with any developer unless you have the acquiescence on the part of the developer, because there are no laws to force anyone to do this. He said he thought if it happens it will be because of negotiations that create the zone. But, Mayor Foy said, we were not at the point of negotiating the zone as yet. He suggested that the Council send the recommendations to the University, reiterating that this is a concern that came up in the Horace Williams Report and here are the options that have been developed, and we were forwarding it for information purposes. Mayor Foy said then we refer to ourselves for further consideration in the future.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said we should keep in mind that the Chancellor and Board of Trustees can only speak during their time in office, and that the current Chancellor and Board of Trustees could not speak for future administrators twenty, thirty, or more years from now. She said if we were to get agreement from the University, we should not assume that the issue is solved forever, because future UNC administrators could bring it back up to future Councils.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL SEND THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY, REITERATING THAT THIS IS A CONCERN THAT CAME UP IN THE HORACE WILLIAMS REPORT AND HERE ARE THE OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, AND THAT WE WERE FORWARDING IT FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES. AND, THAT THE ISSUE IS REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE FUTURE. COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE SECONDED.
Council Member Greene said she had served on the Conservation Committee and it is relevant here, because they had talked about examples where the State had in fact worked out a way to put permanent conservation easements on land that the State owns. She said it can be done, although the Council could not do it. Council Member Greene said if the University through the State agrees to do that, it can be done.
Council Member Hill agreed with Council Member Greene’s remarks.
Council Member Ward said he supported placing as much protection on the acreage as possible. But, he noted, 75% of that acreage is about 750 acres, and it would be just like the University asking us for 17,000 or 21,000 parking spaces on that site, meaning “it ain’t gonna go.” He said if we were asking for 75% just to have a bargaining position, and the University asked for the 21,000 parking spaces just as a bargaining position, then he did not want to work that way. Council Member Ward said he did not believe it was realistic for us to say we expect that 75% of that acreage would be permanently protected. He said he was not even sure that was in the best interest of the Town. Council Member Ward said while he “vigorously supports” permit protection on the Horace Williams site, 750 acres is unrealistic and he cannot support that figure, but he could support a more general figure.
Council Member Hill said that the University’s current plan is to develop only 250 acres. Council Member Ward said that figure means nothing to him, because that simply means that phase one is to develop only 250 acres, and phase two may be another 250, and phase three another 250. He said he does not give them credit for saying they have a cluster development or a conservation-minded development, because they haven’t done anything to permanently protect the rest of the land. Council Member Hill said that was the whole point of this, and that the Council had been led to believe that the 250 acres was going to be the entire development over the next 70 years. Council Member Ward said the University had been unwilling to do anything in perpetuity.
Mayor Foy said he did not believe we knew that for sure as yet, stating that we had not engaged in a conversation with the University about exactly what their plans are. He said we have a model, and the model shows a certain portion of land being used and not being used, along with a prediction of a time line. Mayor Foy said that given the density of what has been proposed along with the time line, it was reasonable for us to say that the development will be confined to that area. He said that was the good thing about a 99-year lease. Mayor Foy said that he believes that if the land is protected for the next 70 years, then a future generation could make the decision about what happens then. He said at least we are bargaining in good faith about what is actually planned.
Mayor Foy said there was more than one way to make this effective for us, and if protecting the land in perpetuity is not something that the University will agree to, we at least get it protected by a 99-year lease. Then, he continued, if the University says we can’t do 750 acres but we can do 650 acres, and we say how about 300 in perpetuity, then we continue to negotiate until we get something we can all live with. Mayor Foy said he did not think we were being disingenuous by stating what exactly what our goals are, which is that it be in perpetuity for this much and that is how it would be set. He said that just because 750 acres is not achievable does not mean that “something” is not achievable. Mayor Foy said we needed to set out exactly what we want.
Council Member Ward said that is an admirable goal, but mentally he has taken the next step and concluded that it is not achievable.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 12 – UNC Staff-Faculty Recreation Association (aka The Farm):
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Application and
Consideration of Approval
Mr. Waldon said they had conducted further discussions with representatives of The Farm, and we are now recommending that the Council delete from the resolution of approval the language regarding the payment of ad valorem taxes. He indicated that this issue can be pursued separately from the approval of the Special Use Permit, and that this resolves the objections raised by the applicant at the December 6, 2004 public hearing. Mr. Waldon stated that the recommendation is for approval of the revised Resolution A.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-13a, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR UNC FACULTY-STAFF RECREATION ASSOCIATION (AKA THE FARM) (2005-01-10/R-13a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Dixon Weinstein Associates for UNC Faculty-Staff Recreation Association (aka The Farm) on property identified as Durham County Tax Map 491, Block 6, Lot 8 (PIN 979804708300) if developed according to the site plan dated June 1, 2004, (revised August 10, 2004), and conditions listed below:
1. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Manage-ment Ordinance;
3. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Would 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 a Special Use Permit for UNC Faculty-Staff Recreation Association (aka The Farm) in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. That construction begin January 10, 2007 (two years from approval date) and be completed January 10, 2008 (three years from approval date).
2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes a Non-Profit Recreation Facility and land use intensity requirements and dimensional standards as specified below:
|
Land Use Intensity |
|
|
Net Land Area |
28.25 acres |
|
Total # of Buildings |
6 |
|
Maximum Floor Area |
16,000 sq ft |
|
Maximum Impervious Surface Area |
197,257 sq ft |
|
Maximum # of Parking Spaces |
205 |
|
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces |
52 |
3. Sidewalk Extension: That the existing Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk be extended approximately 70 feet north along the existing gravel parking area adjacent to the new clubhouse and the sidewalk shall be edged with 6 x 6 timbers.
4. Bicycle Parking: That the development shall comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards as follows:
|
Total Number or Required Bicycle Spaces |
52 |
|
Number of Class I Spaces |
6 |
|
Number of Class II Spaces |
46 |
A portion of the parking spaces shall be provided at the pool area.
Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues
5. Sight Triangle Clearance: That clearing and pruning of the sight triangles at Alice Ingram Drive intersections with onto Barbee Chapel Road be conducted and that a note be place on the Final Plans indicating that prior to any sight distance clearing and/or pruning at the Barbee Chapel Road entrance and exit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Town’s Urban Forester.
6. Shading Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, a Shading Plan must be submitted and approved by the Town Manager demonstrating compliance with Town regulations.
7. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which rare and specimen trees shall be removed and preserved, as well as all significant tree stands, and including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
8. Landscaping Plan: That a detailed landscape plan including a landscape maintenance plan, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings.
9. Tree Protection Fencing: That the limits of land disturbance with tree protection fencing, shall be shown on the Landscape Protection Plan, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
10. Building Elevations: That the Community Design Commission approve building elevations, including the location and screening of all HVAC/Air Handling Units for this project, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
11. Lighting Plan: That the Community Design Commission approve a lighting plan for this project prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues
12. Watershed Protection District / Impervious Surface Limits: That the site shall comply with Article 3.6.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Impervious surface area is authorized at 197,257 square feet.
13. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan sealed by an engineer in the State of North Carolina including design calculations and design drawings for all stormwater facilities (including the bio-retention basin and level spreaders) for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall include low-impact stormwater management solutions and best management practices, including but not limited to bio-retention, pervious pavements, underground storage, infiltration trenches, vegetative swales and similar techniques.
The plan shall be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate and the post-development stormwater runoff volume shall not exceed the pre-development volume for the local 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards.
14. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all stormwater management improvements, outside public right-of-way, shall be located inside reserved storm drainageway easements, per Town guidelines, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
15. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. The plan shall include the owner's financial responsibility and include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it continues to function as originally intended and shall be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
16. Resource Conservation District: That the applicant shall identify all areas of Resource Conservation District on the Final Plans prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. No work is authorized in the Resource Conservation District.
17. State or Federal Approvals: That any required State or federal permits must be approved by the appropriate agencies and copies of the approved permits be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
18. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Durham County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
19. Silt Control: That the applicant takes appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues
20. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling salvageable materials from the deconstruction of the farmhouse, recycling, and for managing and minimizing construction debris and removal of existing residential debris piles, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
21. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final Utility/Lighting Plan be approved by Duke Power Company, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
22. Utility Line Placement: That all new utility lines shall be placed underground. The applicant shall indicate proposed off-site utility line routing and upgrades required to service the site on Final Plans, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
23. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report, shall be prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, and showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Town Design Manual, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
24. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
25. Open Burning: That the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris association with this development is prohibited unless it is demonstrated to the Town Manager or his designee that no reasonable alternative means are available for removal of the materials from the subject property. The Fire Marshall may establish safety standards, which must be met in order to receive a permit.
26. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plans (with hydrologic calculations), and landscape plans and landscape maintenance plans be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Design Manual.
27. As-Built Plans: That as-built plans in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates, shall be provided for street improvements and all other existing or proposed impervious surfaces prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
28. Construction Sign: That the applicant shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative and telephone number, the contractor’s representative and telephone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit, prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. The construction sign may have a maximum of 32 square feet of display area and may not exceed 8 feet in height and is removed within 7 days of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.
29. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
30. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit application for UNC Faculty-Staff Recreation Association (aka The Farm) as proposed by Dixon Weinstein Associates in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This is the 10th day of January, 2005.
Item 13 – Wilson Assemblage Special Use Permit/Response
To Dobbins Hill Development
Mr. Horton said that discussion had been held with representatives of the Wilson Assemblage and progress had been made, noting that Mr. Waldon would bring the Council up to date.
Mr. Waldon said this issue was an interesting one that involved more than one party. He said that a public hearing had been held on November 15, 2004, where concerns about affordable housing were raised. The applicant responded with a proposal to increase the community supply of affordable housing on adjacent property, he said, which is Dobbins Hill. Mr. Waldon said this involves tax credits with the State which is one of our best kinds of affordable housing because it reaches families that may not be reached otherwise.
Mr. Waldon said there are two issues before the Council tonight. He said the first issue is a petition received from the applicant for the Wilson Assemblage, Crosland, Inc., and our response to that petition. Secondly, he continued, we have reconvened the public hearing on the Special Use Permit for the Wilson Assemblage. Mr. Waldon said that tonight we are prepared to discuss procedure and schedule. We are not prepared, he said, to offer any substantive evaluation of either of these changes that are being proposed for the Wilson Assemblage or evaluation of what is being proposed for adding affordable housing to the Dobbins Hill development.
Mr. Waldon said what the Council is being asked to do tonight is approve a schedule that will manage this process over the next few months. Regarding the Wilson Assemblage, he said, we recommend that the public hearing be continued until February 14, to allow us time to conduct a staff evaluation of the most recent information received and the adjustments the applicant has suggested.
Regarding the Dobbins Hill development, Mr. Waldon said they are proposing that the Council adopt an aggressive schedule for expedited review. He said in order for the applicant to proceed with the proposal to construct affordable housing on the Dobbins Hill site and keep within the strict time frame associated with the State’s tax credit requirements, it is necessary to grant a date specific expedited processing schedule.
Joada Bowens, representing the Erwin Village Homeowners Association and Erwin Village homeowners, said she had spoken at the previous public hearing regarding the negative impact a through street would have on Erwin Village and McGregor Drive. She had spoken about the serenity, security and safety of their neighborhood and how that would be changed. Ms. Bowen noted she had suggested that the Council visit their neighborhood to see for themselves the character of their neighborhood.
Ms. Bowens said tonight she wanted to submit pictures of her neighborhood in case the Council had not had the opportunity to visit, and also to include some additional names to their original petition that was submitted in August 2004.
Dr. Harvey Krasny pointed out that the applicant had proposed 32 units of affordable housing in the Dobbins Hill development in lieu of placing affordable housing in the Wilson Assemblage development, yet they have not subtracted 32 units from the Wilson Assemblage development. He said this means 64 additional vehicles, assuming each homeowner would have two cars, which means 15% more vehicles in that complex, added to the 402 vehicles originally proposed for the project.
Dr. Krasny said he had to say again, as he had many times before, when are we going to say enough is enough? He said the Town did not have the infrastructure to support this property, noting that there are no plans to widen Erwin Road, there were no plans to widen Sage Road, and there was an expectation of even more traffic coming through because of the Weaver Dairy cut-through. Dr. Krasny said we cannot continue to allow more and more traffic to come into this neighborhood, because they just do not have the ability to support it.
Mr. Jack Smyre, speaking for the applicant, stated that as the Council can see from the materials submitted for tonight’s hearing that they had aggressively responded to the issues raised at the previous public hearing, noting that there is now a voluntary affordable housing component linked to this project. We urge the adoption of the expedited review schedule, Mr. Smyre said, adding they had in good faith already submitted a concept plan application to start that process that would deliver 32 affordable housing units. He noted that this would be roughly equivalent to 18% of the total housing rather than the 15% mentioned earlier. Mr. Smyre said that the affordable housing component would be aimed at those in the 50% median income, a very aggressive response to that concern.
Mr. Smyre said they had also proposed a method by which a public street could be delivered to the Lowe’s driveway, adding it does involve some consideration on their part regarding the geometric standards, but they think it can be done and have offered a program that mitigates the loss of building program to achieve this objective. In addition, he said they had rearranged some elements of the project to give it a strong pedestrian corridor. Mr. Smyre noted that they had also brought residential components down along Dobbins Drive, and have moved the recreational area up more central to the passive recreation area.
Mr. Smyre asked the Council to continue the Public Hearing to February 14 to allow staff time to study the revised plan. He also asked the Council to approve the expedited review for the affordable housing component of the project.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED RESOLUTION R-14, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION CONTINUING THE WILSON ASSEMBLAGE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING (2005-01-10/R-14)
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2004, and January 10, 2005, the Town Council held Public Hearings on the Wilson Assemblage Special Use Permit application; and
WHEREAS, in response to comments from the Town Council and Advisory Board the applicant is proposing to modify the site plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Wilson Assemblage Special Use Permit Public Hearing shall be continued to the February 14, 2005 meeting.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED RESOLUTION R-15, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING IN THE REVIEW OF A PENDING SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR DOBBINS HILL DEVELOPMENT (2005-01-10/R-15)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has received an oral petition for Dobbins Hill Development requesting expedited processing of a Special Use Permit application seeking approval of construction of affordable dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that there is a significant public purpose associated with development of this application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to expedite processing of a pending Special Use Permit Modification application for Dobbins Hill, as outlined in the table below, in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.
|
Dobbins Hill Special Use Permit Modification – Expedited Schedule |
|
|
|
|
|
CDC Concept Plan Review |
January 20, 2005 |
|
Council Concept Plan Review |
January 24, 2005 |
|
Town Staff Reviews |
February 14, 2005 |
|
Advisory Boards Review |
Late March/Early April 2005 |
|
Council Public Hearing |
April 18, 2005 |
|
Council Action |
April 25, 2005 |
|
Final Plan Approval (Zoning Compliance Permit) |
December 31, 2005 |
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Item 14 – Proposed Actions in Response to Recommendations of
the Special Committee to Consider Renaming Airport Road
Public Works Director Bill Letteri stated the staff was recommending a process that would follow up on the recommendations of the Special Committee to Rename Airport Road and would address the need to rename the Town street now named Martin Luther King, Jr. Street. Mr. Letteri said there were four resolutions provided and were recommended for adoption, which would:
· authorize the Manager to begin implementing certain recommendations and take such actions as are necessary to change Airport Road to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard; authorize the Manager to provide help to citizens and businesses with the transition, as allowed by law and within the Town’s available resources;
· establish a citizens’ committee to plan appropriate observances and ceremonies to create the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard;
· establish a second committee to consider the additional proposals of the Special Committee and recommend future actions to the Council; and
· authorize the Council’s Naming Committee, with staff support provided by the Manager, to conduct a process that would result in the renaming of Martin Luther King, Jr. Street.
Charles Wolfe noted he had lived on Airport Road as a student and now managed property on Airport Road, and lived on property adjoining the airport. He said he had a great deal of respect for Dr. King and did not want anyone to take his remarks inappropriately, adding that he was not opposed to having a major road in Chapel Hill named for Dr. King.
Mr. Wolfe stated that the Committee had made its report to the Council on December 6, outlining its recommendations. He said he was somewhat surprised that once the report was released, that an opportunity was not provided for the public to comment on those recommendations. Mr. Wolfe said that he was surprised that there were no roadways named for John Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, or more importantly for George Washington Carver or Rosa Parks. He asked why we don’t recognize others who were instrumental in the Civil Rights movement. Mr. Wolfe asked if there would be any opportunity to discuss this.
Mayor Foy responded that the decision had been made, and what the Council was now considering was how to implement it. He thanked Mr. Wolfe for his comments.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED RESOLUTION R-16a, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH WORK NECESSARY TO CHANGE “AIRPORT ROAD” TO “MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BLVD.” AND TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THOSE AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE (2005-01-10/R-16a)
WHEREAS, the Council created a Special Committee to Consider Renaming Airport Road and to develop recommendations for appropriate memorials to the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
WHEREAS, the Council received the Committee’s report and recommendations on December 6, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Council resolved to change the name of Airport Road to “Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. with a separate sign with the designation “Historic Airport Road”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is hereby authorized to proceed with all necessary communications, design, fabrication, estimation and other steps necessary to effect the renaming of Airport Road, to include: communications with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, U. S. Postal Service, businesses, citizens and others affected by the road name change; to design and fabricate prototypes of proposed signs; to estimate all costs and time necessary to make proposed changes; to prepare a report to the Council at a future meeting to present a proposed street name sign design, costs and schedule.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is also authorized to take the necessary steps to change the address of Town Hall from 306 N. Columbia Street to the appropriately numbered Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. address. Further, the Manager is directed to develop a plan to notify all parties affected by the Town Hall address change and, to the extent practical, utilize all existing stationary, envelops, etc. to mitigate the cost of the change.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is authorized to assist those affected by the change to the extent allowed by law and within available Town resources.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED RESOLUTION R-16b, AMENDED TO INCLUDE MAY 8 AS THE CELEBRATION DATE.
Council Member Greene said that May 8 was the date that Dr. King has visited and spoke in Chapel Hill 45 years ago, and she had submitted for the record three news articles about that event to be included in the record.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORMATION OF AN OBSERVANCES COMMITTEE TO ORGANIZE A ROAD NAME CHANGE CELEBRATION (2005-01-10/R-16b)
WHEREAS, the Council created a Special Committee to Consider Renaming Airport Road and to develop recommendations for appropriate memorials to the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
WHEREAS, the Council received the Committee’s report and recommendations on December 6, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to recognize and celebrate the renaming of the road on May 8, 2005, in an appropriate fashion that would involve the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the formation of an observances committee to organize and develop the logistics of appropriate observances and ceremonies to recognize the road name change. Said committee will be composed of one or more Council member(s), interested citizens and others as determined by the Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is authorized to solicit applications for appointment to the committee and schedule the nomination and appointment process as soon as practical.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED RESOLUTION R-16c, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
WHEREAS, the Council created a Special Committee to Consider Renaming Airport Road and to develop recommendations for appropriate memorials to the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
WHEREAS, the Council received the Committee’s report and recommendations on December 6, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Committee’s report included a number of recommendations for honoring the legacy of Dr. King; and
WHEREAS the Council wishes to consider these recommendations and to receive additional information about them from citizens and affected advisory boards and agencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the formation of a Continuing Concerns Committee composed of one or more Town Council members, citizens and others as determined by the Council to address recommendations contained in the December 6, 2004 report as follows:
a) An annual weekend meeting similar to this forum for a committee of unlimited size to address and discuss race issues in Chapel Hill.
b) A Town proclamation of “Racial Justice Week.”
c) An annual publication on the state of Black Chapel Hill that includes indicators of housing, jobs, education, political power, social issues, health status, etc.
d) A seminar series.
e) Public Arts.
f) Oral history.
g) Annual Brown vs. Board of Education forum.
Said committee will coordinate its work with Town staff, the Library Board of Trustees, the Museum Board of Directors and the Orange County Human Rights and Relations Commission and others as appropriate. Recommendations of the Committee will be reported to Council at a future Council meeting.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is authorized to solicit application for appointment to the committee and schedule the nomination and appointment process as soon as possible.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED RESOLUTION R-15, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REFERRING THE RENAMING OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. STREET TO THE TOWN COUNCIL’S NAMING COMMITTEE (2005-01-10/R-16d)
WHEREAS, the Council has decided to change the name of Airport Road to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, there is now a street in Chapel Hill named Martin Luther King, Jr. Street that will need to be renamed, and the Council desires to proceed with a process for the renaming;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council’s Naming Committee with staff support will develop and conduct a process to solicit proposals from residents of the present Martin Luther King, Jr. Street and others interested for the renaming and will report their recommendations to the Council at a future Council meeting.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
Item 15 – Report from the Council Committee on Selection of a Budget Consultant
Mayor Foy stated that a Council Committee had met that afternoon to interview prospective consultants. He said that it was the Committee’s recommendation that we authorize the Manager to negotiate a contract with Maximus Corporation, not to exceed a sum of $80,000.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED RESOLUTION R-19, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR BUDGET REVIEW CONSULTING SERVICES (2005-01-10/R-19)
WHEREAS, the Council desires to engage a management consultant to review Town service levels, efficiency, and costs in order to make recommendations for improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received the Council Committee report on the Requests for Proposals for budget review services;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Maximus Corporation for a sum not to exceed $80,000.
This is the 10th day of January, 2005.
Item 16 – Appointments
16a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
The Council appointed Ratan (Ray) Piplani to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Andrea Hundredmark |
|
|
X |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
4 |
||
|
Ratan (Ray) Piplani |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
5 |
||
|
||||||||||||
16b. Budget Review Advisory Committee.
The Council appointed Julie Brenman, Joe Capowski, Mac Clarke, Aaron Nelson, Gene Pease, and Alan Rimer to the Budget Review Advisory Committee.
The Council had the opportunity to appoint up to seven members this evening, but agreed by consensus that the six appointed were sufficient and would not appoint a seventh person.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Budget Review Advisory Committee |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Roger Badrock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
1 |
||
|
Gary Barnes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
2 |
||
|
Barry Beggs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Julie Brenman |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
8 |
||
|
Ken Brooks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Joe Capowski |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
8 |
||
|
Mac Clarke |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
||
|
Harlan Cornell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robin D. Cutson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gregg D. Gerdau |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
James Easthom |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeanette Gay Eddy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
2 |
||
|
George David Hughes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Beverly C. Kawalec |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Aaron Nelson |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Gene Pease |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
6 |
||
|
Jill Ridky-Blackburn |
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
3 |
||
|
Alan Rimer |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
8 |
||
|
Austin Rose |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donald Tiedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Judy Weseman |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
Charlie Zimmerli |
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
4 |
||
|
||||||||||||
16c. Planning Board
The Council appointed Donna Manley to the Planning Board.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Planning Board |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Anita Badrock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jessica Bell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Luukas Brun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bobby Clapp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Yolanda Donaldson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Charles Flowers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Matt Hapgood |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrea Hundredmark |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Jenson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Winkie La Force |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bernard Law |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
2 |
||
|
Donna Manley |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
7 |
||
|
Bud Matthews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gordon Merklein |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Allan Polak |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Donna Riechmann |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Martin Rody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Matthew Scheer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Wilhelmina Steen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jaclyn Taaffe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Shawn Thompson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
16d. Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board.
The Council appointed Tony Bayless to the Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board:
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Tony Bayless |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Jamine Gollings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. Daye Jones, Jr. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
Item 17 – Petitions
17a. By the Mayor and Members of the Council:
17a(1) Council Members Harrison and Strom: Proposed Extension of Utilities into Rural Buffer – Durham Subdivision.
Mayor Foy indicated that a resolution was proposed that would request the Town Manager to prepare a report addressing the following issues:
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED RESOLUTION R-21, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON.
Council Member Harrison commented for clarification that the approval given so far was administrative approval, and it was not an action of the Durham Commissioners or anyone else. So, he said, any comments we have would be better to go back to the Durham Commissioners and the City Manager. Council Member Harrison said the Orange County section may end up being completely protected. He said the Durham Commissioners had asked for comments within the next two weeks.
Council Member Ward asked if there would be an opportunity for the Council to influence access into this property. Council Member Harrison said it was a State road and a driveway permit from NCDOT would be all that was necessary.
Council Member Ward asked why did it have to come off of Erwin Road. Council Member Harrison responded that it was because that was the property that they owned, noting the only State road they had frontage on was Erwin Road.
Council Member Strom said the reason they were proposing this action was to circumvent this development from taking place at all, and to have the open space in perpetuity for the entire acreage. He added this might provide an excellent future public access to the New Hope Creek Corridor, which millions of public dollars have been spent to preserve. Council Member Strom said the Commissioners in Durham were very interested in purchasing this property and avoiding having the development take place.
Council Member Ward wanted to add a question to the list, which was what kind influence can we have on a property such as this, whether we were willing to provide access off of Erwin Road or not. Council Member Harrison said it was not a local governments’ call, because it was a State DOT driveway permit. He said we would have local review, but the permit comes from DOT. Council Member Harrison said that it was DOT’s decision because it was a State road.
Council Member Harrison noted that this was in the New Hope Creek Master Plan, of which Chapel Hill is a participant. He said that this piece of land is not designated for acquisition but it was considered to be very close to a logical entry point into the New Hope Creek Corridor, which is what got people’s attention.
Council Member Ward said he was fully in favor of that outcome.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A STAFF REPORT ON ISSUES RELATED TO A PROPOSED DURHAM COUNTY DEVELOPMENT (2005-01-10/R-21)
WHEREAS, Durham County has approved a subdivision for a 42-acre tract of land west of the Durham City limits, for a parcel that straddles the Durham-Orange County line; and
WHEREAS, issues have been raised regarding the potential impact of this subdivision on the Chapel Hill-Orange County Rural Buffer;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council asks the Town Manager to prepare a report addressing the following issues:
Utility Extensions: To what extent are water and sewer lines planned to be extended into the Rural Buffer in Orange County? What configuration of lines is contemplated? What Orange County or Chapel Hill approvals would be necessary before this utility extension can occur? What effect would this have on the current prohibition of utility extensions into the Rural Buffer? Would other properties in Orange County subsequently be able to tie in to these lines?
Purchase of Tract: What are the possibilities for purchase of some or all of the 42-acre tract that is the subject of this development proposal?
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council asks the Town Manager to bring this report along with a draft statement to the Council for consideration on January 24, 2005.
This the 10th day of January, 2005.
17a(2) Mayor Foy: Petition to Refer Proposal to SEE Committee.
Mayor Foy called attention to the petition submitted in the materials for the meeting, describing the Carbon reduction Project (CRed) and what actions the Town might undertake to become an official CRed demonstration site. He said it is the hope of the UNC Senior Capstone Team that the town will become the first U.S. CRed site, modeled after the plan in England.
The Council agreed by consensus to refer the proposal to the SEE Committee.
17(b) By the Manager and Town Attorney. None.
18 – Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items. None.
19 – Request for Closed Session to Discuss Property Acquisition,
Personnel, and Litigation Matters
Council Member Ward asked to be recused from participating in the Closed Session, noting that he had been recused from an earlier meeting that dealt with the same issue.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED THAT HE BE RECUSED FROM THE CLOSED SESSION, AND THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, AS AUTHORIZED BY N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3) TO CONSULT WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY REGARDING A LAWSUIT IN WHICH THE PARTIES ARE THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL AND G. W. HOUSTON, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m.