SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Jim Ward.

Mayor pro tem Edith Wiggins was absent, excused.

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, Finance Director Kay Johnson, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, and Acting Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Item 1 – Ceremonies:

1a. Black History Month Moment.

Mayor Foy reminded the public that the month of February was Black History Month, and that the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission was sponsoring an exhibit at Town Hall to commemorate it. He encouraged the public to visit Town Hall and view the exhibit.

1b. Distinguished Budget Presentation Award.

Mayor Foy said he was proud to announce that the Town had once again received the Distinguished Budget award. He noted that one of the requirements for receiving this designation was that the budget be readable for citizens. Mayor Foy presented the award to Finance Director Kay Johnson, and thanked her and her staff for their fine work.

Ms. Johnson accepted the award and introduced her staff, present at tonight’s meeting: Jeanne Tate, Amy Orland, Lisa Taylor, and Jeanne Erwin. She thanked each of them for their contribution to making the budget a good, strong document.

Item 2 – Public Hearings: None.

Item 3 – Petitions

3a. Petitions regarding Items Not on the Agenda:

3a(1). Transportation Board, regarding a Request for “No Turn on Red” Sign at Caswell Road and Estes Drive Extension.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3a(2). Fred Lybrand, regarding Potential Legion Road Homeless Shelter Location.

Mr. Lybrand, representing the Pickard Oaks Homeowners Association, said he had several points he wanted to emphasize, and asked the Council to carefully read the written petition. He noted that a shelter at the Legion Road location would endanger and irreparably harm the Pickard Oaks community and other residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Legion Road site. Mr. Lybrand reminded the Council that this location is less than a quarter mile from a day care center, a nursing home/assisted living facility, a new charter school and many businesses.

Mr. Lybrand said that they believe in helping the homeless, but they expect due diligence when justifying a new site, by the Council and by the Interfaith Council (IFC).

Mayor Foy encouraged him and the homeowners association to contact the IFC to make sure they collaborate. He said this was so they could understand the others’ goals. Mr. Lybrand said they looked forward to a dialogue.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3a(3). Downtown Economic Development Corporation, regarding Condemnation Procedures on Property on West Franklin Street.

Andrea Rohrbacher, Chair of the Chapel Hill Downtown Economic Development Corporation (DEDC), petitioned the Council to consider condemnation procedures with respect to the Wicked Burrito property located on West Franklin Street.

Ms. Rohrbacher stated that this property has been sitting idle, unoccupied and unused since January 2000. She stated that the DEDC considered it a major downtown eyesore and an abandoned property. Ms. Rohrbacher noted that communications with the property owner over recent years indicated that the owner had no plans for the site.

Ms. Rohrbacher said the DEDC plans to contact the owners of the property and inquire again about the status of the property and plans and timing for its development and/or use. However she said, given the community history and knowledge about this property, she asked the Town Council to formally consider condemnation procedures with regard to this property.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3a(4). Planning Board, regarding Neighborhood Conservation District Designation.

Darryl Gloss said this was prompted by the minor subdivision proposal for 907 Greenwood Road. He said they were anxious about a proposal to tear down a beautiful home and replace it with two homes. Ms. Gloss said they believed it would damage the distinctive character and the historical significance of the neighborhood. She asked that this area be considered for the designation of a Neighborhood Conservation District.

Ann Tuhume gave a brief history of the development of the Greenwood Road neighborhood, and described its character and style. She said the neighborhood was home to long time residents of Chapel Hill as well as young families. Ms. Tuhume said there was a harmonious mix of incomes, and increased density would damage the character of the neighborhood, as well as damage the flora and fauna.

Mayor Foy said the Council had received a memo from the Planning Department regarding several neighborhoods that wanted to potentially be considered for this designation. He asked the Manager to respond to how we might consider several neighborhoods at once, rather than one at a time. Mayor Foy said some neighborhoods had similar characteristics, and could possibly be looked at concurrently.

Council Member Greene said in the Comprehensive Plan where residential conservation areas are laid out, it directs us that those are the neighborhoods that should be considered first, and Greenwood Road is one of those. She agreed that some of these neighborhoods could possibly be considered together. Council Member Greene said it was not a short or easy process, but the sooner we get started, the better.

Mayor Foy asked if it was possible to have student interns assist with this process. Mr. Horton responded that he would bring forth as many options as possible, but this type of work may be too much for interns. He said the political process in different neighborhoods tends to vary, and we need to respect the need of all citizens to participate and to have trust in the process. Mr. Horton said we will take into account all the various comments and respond accordingly.

Council Member Verkerk said she believed a lot of the process is educational, where the staff would meet with the neighborhood and explain the process. She said she was concerned that if we start piggybacking neighborhoods, we may have to bring the process into the Council meeting process, which is a “more scary” forum. Council Member Verkerk asked that the staff look carefully at the issues that might arise from considering several neighborhoods at once. Mr. Horton commented that there may be more neighborhoods coming forward once the process becomes better known.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3b. Petitions regarding Items on the Agenda:

3b(1). Doug Schworer, regarding Consideration of a Contract Extension for Habitat for Humanity (Agenda Item #8).

THE PETITION WAS RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL BY CONSENSUS FOR CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH AGENDA ITEM #8. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3b(2). Erwin Village Homeowners Association, regarding the Wilson Assemblage SUP (Agenda Item #6).

THE PETITION WAS RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL BY CONSENSUS FOR CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH AGENDA ITEM #6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

Council Member Greene pulled Agenda Item #4f, Calling a Public Hearing to Consider Changes to Lighting Standards in LUMO. She stated that this recommendation came to us from the Planning Board, and she believed the Council needed to deal with it sooner than it was now scheduled. Council Member Greene said she wanted to modify the schedule, and suggested it be switched with consideration of alternate landscaped buffers and considered in the fall of this year rather than in 2006.

Mr. Waldon said he did not believe the items were equal in the amount of staff work required, noting particular issues associated with the lighting standards. Mr. Horton suggested that Mr. Waldon look at the schedule and make a recommendation of what might be rescheduled to allow the lighting issue to be moved up.

Mr. Waldon suggested the following three items may be equivalent to the lighting issue in regard to staff work:

Consideration of changes to definition of floor area to better coordinate with the Building Code;
Consider increasing flexibility with alternate landscape buffers; and
Consider changes to reduce the minimum land area requirement for a Planned Development-Housing to one acre rather than five acres.

Council Member Strom said he had no problem delaying the stormwater issues.

Council Member Ward said he wanted the lighting issue moved up to this year as well, stating that he wanted the Council to deal with that as soon as possible so it would have some value to the community. He said he would support moving the three suggested by Mr. Waldon to the spring of next year. Mr. Horton agreed that those three issues would be appropriate to move. Or, he said, the three dealing with stormwater would be appropriate as well:

Consider changes to stormwater controls for volume; reconsider two-year, 24-hour requirements;
Consider adjustment to porous pavement provisions to allow more credit; and
Consider clarification to water quality treatment required for runoff from public streets vs. private streets.

Council Member Greene asked for a reminder of what the last one on the list entailed, “Consider changes to reduce the minimum land area requirement for a Planned Development-Housing to one acre rather than five acres.” Mr. Waldon gave a brief history of the provisions in the ordinance that deal with the density, saying it was suggested that Planned Developments could possibly be created on smaller lots.

Council Member Ward said we would soon have a one-year tract record on stormwater, and he believed the three dealing with stormwater should remain on the fall 2005 schedule so it could be fine-tuned. He said he would not support moving them back on the schedule.

Council Member Verkerk said she believed it would be more appropriate to delay the stormwater issues rather than the others.

Council Member Ward asked Mr. Waldon if it made sense to do some of these three stormwater-related items rather than all, asking if one is more important that the other. Mr. Waldon said he would recommend that they be considered together. Mr. Horton said the stormwater utility work was moving more slowly than planned, and they would be struggling to meet their goals and complete a master plan. He said he believed deferring the stormwater objectives would not cause any harm, and may allow us to gain more experience and provide a better benchmark.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RESCHEDULE THE LIGHTING ISSUE TO THE FALL OF 2005, AND DEFER THE THREE STORMWATER ISSUES TO 2006. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Regarding Item #4b, Establishing a Charge for the Rental Licensing Committee, Mayor Foy said when the Rental Licensing Committee was created, Mayor pro tem Wiggins and Council Member Strom had served as the Council’s liaisons. He noted that Council Member Strom had volunteered to serve again, and asked if other Council members were interested.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had not been the strongest supporter of this program, and noted he would like to work with the Committee.

The Council agreed by consensus to modify Resolution R-3 to include Council Members Strom and Kleinschmidt as the Council’s liaisons to the Rental Licensing Committee.

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1, AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2005-02-14/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:

Consent agenda: action items (R-1). (Any item may be removed for separate discussion at the end of the Council meeting.)

a.	Nominations to various advisory boards and commissions (R-2).
b.	Establishing a Charge for the Rental Licensing Committee (R-3).
c.	Agreements with NCDOT for Reimbursement of Costs Incurred by the Town for Maintenance of Traffic Signal Equipment and Computerized Traffic Signal System (R-4a, R-4b).
d.	On-Street Parking Restrictions on S. Columbia St. near Purefoy Rd. (O-1).
e.	Proposed Sale of a Portion of Pritchard Park (R-5a) (R-5b).
f.	Removed.
g.	Youth Initiative Community Partnership (R-6) (O-3).
H	Call for Public Hearing on LUMO School Site Reservation (R-7), (O-4).
i.	Budget Amendment to Correct Allocation of Accounting Costs for the Stormwater Management Fund (O-5).

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES (2005-02-14/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:

Continuing Concerns Committee

Joe Herzenberg

Observances Committee

Fred Battle

René Campbell

Justin Coleman

Jill Edens

Jesse H. Gibson

Bishop L. Gene Hatley

Creighton Irons

Virginia Knapp

Mae B. McLendon

Al McSurely

Eleanor Murray

Aidan J. Smith

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CHARGE AND TIMETABLE FOR THE 2005 RENTAL LICENSING COMMITTEE (2005-02-14/R-3)

WHEREAS, on January 24, 2005, the Town Council resolved that the Town Manager is directed to solicit applications for appointment to a Rental Licensing Committee; and

WHEREAS, the same resolution established that the Committee begins meeting in March 2005, and is requested to report to the Council in May 2005;

NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the charge of the 2005 Rental Licensing Committee be as follows:

The Rental Licensing Committee is established to provide the Town Council with recommendations as to the effectiveness of the Rental Licensing Program, and

To recommend whether to continue, modify, or abolish the Rental Licensing Program beyond the now established expiration date of June 30, 2005.

The Rental Licensing Committee Shall:

Consider the perspectives of multiple constituent groups including: homeowners, renters, rental property owners, and rental property managers, and

Identify any objectives that the program may have accomplished, and whether those objectives could be accomplished if the licensing program was abolished, and

Present recommendations for the Council’s consideration.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Rental Licensing Committee is expected to begin meeting in March 2005, and report its findings and recommendations to the Town Council in May 2005.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Rental Licensing Committee shall have 12 appointees, plus the following Council members to act as conveners of the Committee:

Council Member Strom; and
Council Member Kleinschmidt.

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DEPARTMENT) REGARDING REVISED REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (MUNICIPALITY) FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT IN CHAPEL HILL, NC AND CARRBORO, NC (2005-02-14/R-4a)

WHEREAS, the Department and the Municipality, have a mutual interest in the efficient and effective operation of traffic signals within the Municipalities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro; and

WHEREAS, the provisions of the North Carolina General Statutes 136-66.1 and 136-18 authorize the Municipality to contract with the Department for the installation, repair and maintenance of highway signs and markings, electric traffic signals and other traffic control devices on State Highway System streets within the Municipalities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro; and

WHEREAS, the Department and the Municipality propose to enter into an Agreement for the maintenance of traffic signals which are on the State Highway system; and

WHEREAS, the Municipality has agreed to maintain and operate the traffic signals that are a part of the State Highway System within the Municipalities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, subject to reimbursement by the Department as set forth in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, this Agreement shall cover the maintenance and operation of the traffic signals for the period from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, with mutually agreed upon extensions being made in one (1) year increments, up to a total duration of five (5) years;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that this Agreement is hereby formally approved by the Council and that the Town Manager is hereby authorized to execute this Agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DEPARTMENT) REGARDING REVISED REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (MUNICIPALITY) FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM IN CHAPEL HILL, NC AND IN CARRBORO, NC (2005-02-14/R-4b)

WHEREAS, the Department and the Municipality have jointly undertaken the implementation of a centrally controlled, computerized traffic signal system to control traffic signals within the Municipalities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro; and

WHEREAS, the construction of said computerized signal system is complete; and

WHEREAS, the Department and the Municipality propose to enter into an Agreement for the maintenance of that portion of the project which is on the State Highway System; and

WHEREAS, the Municipality has agreed to maintain and operate the computerized traffic signal system on the streets which are a part of the State Highway System within the Municipalities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, subject to reimbursement by the Department as set forth in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, this Agreement shall cover the maintenance and operation of this system for the period from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, with mutually agreed upon extensions being made in one (1) year increments, up to a total duration of five (5) years;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that this Agreement is hereby formally approved by the Council and that the Town Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING ON-STREET PARKING (2005-02-14/O-1)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:

Section 1. Section 21-27 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “No parking as to particular streets.” is hereby amended by adding the following in appropriate alphabetical order:

“Street Side From To

South Columbia Street West Fordham Boulevard A Point 530 feet

North Ramp north of Fordham

Boulevard North Ramp”

Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective February 15, 2005.

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT APPROXIMATELY 1.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY THAT IS PART OF THE TOWN’S PRITCHARD PARK IS NOW DESIGNATED AS A ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA (2005-02-14/R-5a)

WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the Council adopted the Report of the Second Pritchard Park Art Garden Committee; and

WHEREAS, the Report recommends that the Town sell approximately 1.117 acres of property to the Siena Hotel in order to allow the hotel to expand its operations; and

WHEREAS, the expansion of the Siena Hotel would provide additional employment opportunity in the community; and

WHEREAS, the expansion of the Siena Hotel would expand the Town’s property tax base and increase revenues to the Town from sales and occupancy taxes; and

WHEREAS, it would be in the public interest to provide the Siena Hotel an opportunity to expand its operations; and

WHEREAS, the expansion of the Siena Hotel could be accomplished in a manner that would still allow development of a Town art garden within Pritchard Park;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council declares that approximately 1.2 acres of property, as shown on the sketch map incorporated in the Manager’s February 14, 2005 memorandum entitled Proposed Sale of a Portion of Pritchard Park to the Siena Hotel, is now designated as an economic development area.

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR COMMENTS CONCERNING A POSSIBLE SALE OF LAND TO THE SIENA HOTEL (2005-02-14/R-5b)

WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the Council adopted the Report of the Second Pritchard Park Art Garden Committee; and

WHEREAS, the Report recommends that the Town sell approximately 1.117 acres of property to the Siena Hotel in order to allow the hotel to expand its operations; and

WHEREAS, it might be in the public interest to provide the Siena Hotel an opportunity to expand its operations; and

WHEREAS, the expansion of the Siena Hotel could be accomplished in a manner that would still allow development of a Town art garden within Pritchard Park; and

WHEREAS, the Council has declared the 1.2 acres in question an economic developments area;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to schedule a Public Hearing on March 7, 2005 to hear comments on a proposal to sell approximately 1.117 acres of property to the Siena Hotel.

This the 14th day of February, 2005.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE. (2005-02-14/R-6)

WHEREAS, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has made funds available to the Police Department to assist in the prevention of youth violence; and

WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the Town of Chapel Hill to provide violence prevention programs for its youth; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has allocated $24,000 for these programs;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Manager to accept the Youth Initiative Partnership Grant from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

This is the 14^th day of February, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2005-02-14/O-3)

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, and the same is hereby amended as follows:

This is the 14^th day of February, 2005.

A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO RE-DESIGNATE POTENTIAL SCHOOL SITES ON CHAPEL HILL’S LAND USE PLAN (2005-02-14/R-7)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby schedules a Public Hearing for April 18, 2005, for the purpose of considering amending Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan to re-designate potential school sites on Chapel Hill’s Land Use Plan so that recent Ordinance language amendments which implement legislative changes regarding reservation of school sites can become operational.

This the 14th day of February, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE to CHANGE THE TIME PERIOD FOR RESERVATION OF SCHOOL SITES IN SECTIONS 4.5.8 and 4.7.8 (2005-02-14/O-4)

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 494 of the 2003 Session of the General Assembly authorized the Town to enact zoning regulations to reserve school sites on property proposed for Site Plan Review or Special Use Permit development; and

WHEREAS, the time period designated for reservation was recently lengthened;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:

Section 1. Section 4.5.8 of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance is hereby revised to read as follows:

“4.5.8 Reservation of School Sites

Whenever a Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification application is submitted for approval which includes part or all of a school site designated to be reserved in the Comprehensive Plan, the Town Manager shall immediately notify the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education, and the Board shall promptly decide whether it wishes the site to be reserved. If the Board does not wish to reserve the site, it shall so notify the Town Manager and no site shall be reserved. If the Board does wish to reserve the site, the Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification shall not be approved without such reservation. A note indicating such reservation shall be recorded on a final plat. The Board shall then have 12 18 months beginning on the date of final approval of the Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification within which to acquire the site by purchase or by initiating condemnation proceedings. If the Board has not purchased or begun proceedings to condemn the site within 12 18 months, the owner may treat the land as freed of the reservation.”

Section 2. Section 4.7.8 of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance is hereby revised to read as follows:

“4.7.8 Reservation of School Sites

Whenever a Site Plan Review application is submitted for approval which includes part or all of a school site designated to be reserved in the Comprehensive Plan, the Town Manager shall immediately notify the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education, and the Board shall promptly decide whether it wishes the site to be reserved. If the Board does not wish to reserve the site, it shall so notify the Town Manager and no site shall be reserved. If the Board does wish to reserve the site, the Site Plan Review shall not be approved without such reservation. A note indicating such reservation shall be recorded on a final plat. The Board shall then have 12 18 months beginning on the date of final approval of the Site Plan Review application within which to acquire the site by purchase or by initiating condemnation proceedings. If the Board has not purchased or begun proceedings to condemn the site within 12 18 months, the owner may treat the land as freed of the reservation.”

Section 3. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Section 4. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.

This the 14th day of February, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2005-02-14/O-5)

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

Item 5 – Information Reports

Council Member Strom pulled Agenda Item #5g, Smart Cards, stating he wanted to refer it to the Technology Committee. He noted that there is a great amount of technology on the market related to parking issues, and wanted the Technology Committee to study the entire topic of electronic support for parking services. Council Member Strom said he was especially interested in efficiency, consolidated technologies, and smart cards. He said once we get that type of information, we can draw other parties in and have a broader discussion about the issue.

Council Member Strom said he believed it would be easy to convert our parking meters to accept smart cards, but some problems exist that need to be looked at. He said it would be helpful if there was some software available that could help.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED THAT AGENDA ITEM #5g BE REFERRED TO THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDYING ELECTRONIC SUPPORT FOR PARKING SERVICES, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Harrison said in regard to Agenda #5f, Response to a Petition regarding the Meadowmont Association Stormwater Management Utility Fees, the Manager’s recommendation was that consideration be deferred until such time that a decision had been made regarding establishment of a credit system for stormwater management fees. He said he believed it was an appropriate response that the Council does not grant 100% credit.

Mayor Foy asked that the Manager contact the Meadowmont Community Association Board Chair to make sure she knew what the conclusion was to their petition. Mr. Horton responded that he was sure she had been notified, but he would confirm that.

All other Information Reports were accepted as presented by consensus of the Council.

Item 6 – Continuation of a Public Hearing on the

Wilson Assemblage Special Use Permit

Mr. Waldon said there was a public hearing on this issue in November 2004. He said at that time the Council had significant concerns, particularly regarding affordable housing. Mr. Waldon said the applicant had come back on December 6 with a proposal to provide affordable housing on an adjoining piece of property in Dobbins Hill. Mr. Waldon said that had come back in January in the form of a proposal for a schedule for review of these two proposals. Now, he stated, the Council is considering the Wilson Assemblage Special Use Permit (SUP), which is now linked to Dobbins Hill due to the affordable housing component.

Mr. Waldon said the projects had two entirely different applicants, and Dobbins Hill would come before the Council very soon. But tonight, he said, the consideration was for the Wilson Assemblage. He displayed a site map and indicated the location of the development.

Mr. Waldon said there were two things that had come to light since the materials were sent to the Council. First, he said that it had been brought to their attention that in stipulation #8 in the proposed resolution of approval, they had neglected to include curb and gutter in the sidewalk requirements. Mr. Waldon said that the stipulation would now read, “That the applicant shall construct Town-standard curb and gutter and a five-foot wide sidewalk…”

Mr. Waldon said the second clarification that he wanted to bring to the Council’s attention was that the plans submitted at the January 19 Public Hearing indicated two driveways intersecting the new street, and after reviewing the plans in detail, Town staff are recommending that only one driveway be constructed. Mr. Waldon indicated that language would be added to stipulation #14 to read “The driveway shown on the January 19 plans intersecting this new street closest to Sage Road shall not be constructed.”

Council Member Harrison said on page 19 under stipulation #15, were they envisioning that Lowe’s would have to realign their driveway. Mr. Waldon said no, the driveway they are referring to is in the Town’s right-of-way.

Council Member Strom asked Mr. Waldon to clarify the McGregor Drive issue. Mr. Waldon responded that McGregor Drive had access to Erwin Road, and their recommendation was for full connection for connectivity. But, he said, an alternative would be to make it an emergency access only. Mr. Horton said we sometimes find ourselves having to recommend connections that neighbors are not in favor of, and the Council may not be as well. But, he said, they have a duty to bring that option before the Council and let the Council make a policy choice.

Mayor Foy said when we discussed this before there was concern about the appearance of this site, and original plans called for preserving the existing house. Mr. Waldon said the Council had expressed interest in ownership of that home, but as plans have evolved those plans included removal of the house.

Mayor Foy said the Council was concerned about this because of the appearance, noting it was an important corridor. He asked Mr. Waldon his opinion of the appearance. Mr. Waldon said they had looked at the plans for the area including the superstreet, noting that a lot of the vegetation would have to be removed. He said that in his opinion, with the superstreet being so close, removal of the house would improve the appearance of the corridor.

Mayor Foy, referring to the road that comes out onto Dobbins Drive on the southeast side, asked how it would interact with the superstreet. Mr. Waldon said that would be a street intersection and part of the superstreet, so a motorist would turn right onto Dobbins Drive and travel down to Erwin Road.

Jack Smyre, representing the applicant, displayed a site plan map detailing the location and gave a brief history of the project to date. In response to prior discussions with the Council, Mr. Smyre said the applicant had agreed to the following:

the developer had agreed to construct two new buildings on the adjoining Dobbins Hill Apartment site; and
a total of 43 new affordable housing units would be created at Dobbins Hill.

Mr. Smyre said in response to the Council’s affordable housing concerns, the applicant proposes the following:

Just under 18% of the total proposed units (Wilson Assembly plus Dobbins Hill, Phase II) would be affordable units (exceeding the Council’s 15% goal).
These affordable units would be targeted to families earning 50% of the area median income.
Dobbins Hill Zoning Compliance Permit and Wilson Assemblage Zoning Compliance Permit would need to be linked due to shared road access and stormwater facilities.

Mr. Smyre noted another issue was the second driveway intersecting the new road closest to Sage Road, noting that Mr. Waldon had indicated earlier the new language proposed for the resolution of approval to address this issue. He said the applicant would agree to that new language.

Mr. Smyre noted there were a number of clauses that linked them to traffic signal improvements and participating in providing a traffic signal at the Lowe’s intersection. He said pedestrian circulation was also noted as a concern, and their plans had now been amended to allow for more open courtyards and east-west and strong north-south sidewalk patterns. Mr. Smyre gave a brief description of the recreational amenities of the project.

Mr. Smyre said the location and mix of uses was also noted as a concern. He said the isolation of the office building and the residential area were noted, and they had now been brought together and mixed strongly, with the buildings being used to shield the parking areas and to more thoroughly mix the uses on site.

Mr. Smyre said the applicant was in agreement with the sixty-four conditions of approval, with one amendment requested. Regarding the completion date of the project in stipulation #1, Mr. Smyre said this was a complex project, and asked that an additional year for completion be granted. He stated that they were linked to the superstreet project, and could not begin construction until August 2006. So, Mr. Smyre asked that the stipulation be amended to read “That construction begin February 14, 2007, and be completed February 14, 2009.” He said this would be reasonable and fairly customary.

Mr. Smyre said the applicant was doing a great deal of off-site improvements on Erwin Road. He said that in addition to their frontage, there is an existing Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk that is overgrown just behind the curb, and they will replace that with a concrete sidewalk linking McGregor Drive southward.

Regarding the McGregor Drive connection, Mr. Smyre stated the following:

The Applicant is not proposing a vehicular connection to McGregor Drive.
The Applicant is proposing an 8-foot wide greenway trail connection through a water and sewer easement required by OWASA.
Town staff has recommended a full vehicular connection.

Mr. Smyre said it would be easy to achieve that vehicular connection if required. He said that if the Council chooses to not require a full vehicular connection to McGregor Drive, that Town staff had recommended language that reads, “A 12-foot paved emergency vehicle driveway with bollards, also capable of bicycle and pedestrian access.” Mr. Smyre indicated they would agree to the decision of the Council on this issue.

Mr. Smyre provided some information regarding the 1930’s farm house located on the property. He said that the superstreet project will take out all of the trees located in the front yard, and in fact the road will only be about 23 feet from the house. Mr. Smyre said it was their belief that this was not the aesthetic vista view that was sought by the Council. He noted there would be a retaining wall, no trees, with only the house left.

Mr. Smyre displayed a rendering of the complex, showing the massing of the buildings and how the parking is shielded.

Dr. Harvey Krasny said members of the Council were rational and reasonable people, and he did not believe they would force this development onto the nearby neighborhoods. He listed the amenities already available in his neighborhood, as well as the number of office buildings. Dr. Krasny said only the 32 affordable housing units proposed meet an unmet need in Chapel Hill. He said if approved, they would be forcing competition onto the existing businesses. He asked what would be accomplished if those businesses had to struggle to survive, adding that only the developers would benefit from the mixed use.

Dr. Krasny said this project does not serve the public good and the permit should not be approved. Dr. Krasny said it was his hope that some of the members on the Council would be “courageous” enough to say that there is enough high density building in this neighborhood. Dr. Krasny said modest building is not bad, but building “to the max” where there is no need for it is pure waste. He mentioned the drive-through on the plans for the bank, and how this would contribute to traffic congestion.

Rich Harris, representing the Erwin Village Homeowners Association, said he had general concerns about traffic and congestion, but wanted to focus on the McGregor Drive cut-through. He said that this kind of neighborhood would be seriously impacted by a cut-through. Mr. Harris encouraged the Council to visit the site and take a look at the neighborhood. He noted they had many children, and residents and visitors who park on the street, adding that he believes a real safety issue would exist if a cut-through was allowed.

Mr. Harris said that all 32 homeowners of Erwin Village had signed the petition opposing the cut-through. He said it was frustrating to them that not one Council member had addressed this issue at the last hearing, especially since the residents had participated in the process. Mr. Harris asked the Council to weigh in on this issue, and to take them seriously.

Mayor Foy said the Council did take their petition seriously, noting that this was the first time that this configuration had been before the Council, adding that it did not show a McGregor cut-through.

Council Member Greene said Preservation North Carolina was in the business of marketing older homes, and asked if it would be appropriate to ask the developer to contact them, noting it may be possible to sell the home rather than destroy it.

Mayor Foy asked what it would cost to move such a house. Council Member Greene responded that it depended on several elements. Mayor Foy said it may be possible that the Town could have it moved and use it for affordable housing.

Council Member Ward said he would be willing to allow a window of opportunity for that type of process to happen, whether it was Preservation North Carolina, the Land Trust, or some other entity. He said the applicant should work hard to exhaust all alternatives to save the house.

Council Member Strom said he wondered if that house could be incorporated into Southern Community Park.

Council Member Strom asked Mr. Waldon about the right-of-way from the house to the newly proposed Dobbins Drive. Mr. Waldon responded he did not know exactly, but a fair amount of grading as well as elevation changes would be experienced. He said there was also a condition in the resolution requiring a sidewalk. Council Member Strom asked if he was agreeing with the applicant’s assessment that leaving the house there is not feasible given the reconstruction of Dobbins Drive. Mr. Waldon responded that it was possible to leave the house, but he did not believe it was desirable.

Council Member Verkerk said this area reminds her of Merritt Pasture, and to substitute the house with an office building did not appeal to her. She said she would like to see the farm house stay where it was, even if it appeared out of place.

Mayor Foy asked about the opening of the superstreet. Council Member Harrison said it was scheduled for August 1, 2006. Mr. Horton said he believed there was a lot of uncertainty about the actual date.

Mayor Foy noted the Town needed to confirm the date. Mr. Smyre said that date had been confirmed to him just last week by NCDOT staff. He said there were tax credit issues associated with this, so the applicant needed to be able to move forward, based on that date.

Council Member Ward asked for clarification regarding the sidewalk and bicycle amenities. Using the site plan map, Mr. Smyre detailed the sidewalk connections planned for the development, explaining how they tied in to existing sidewalks and provided pedestrian linkage throughout the development. Council Member Ward asked if there would be pedestrian activated signals at the intersections. Mr. Smyre responded yes. Council Member Ward asked about bicycle connections. Mr. Smyre said there were bicycle connections under all three of the possible scenarios offered.

Council Member Harrison asked what way is easiest for pedestrians and bicyclists to move from McGregor Drive to the Lowe’s/Borders retail area. Mr. Smyre said the most likely way would be to use the roadway system, noting it would be the quickest and safest way.

Council Member Verkerk said if Mr. Smyre was inclined to save the house, how would the development be reconfigured. Mr. Smyre said he would not want to save it, due to some questions regarding its structural integrity. Council Member Verkerk said in a perfect world where he gets what he wants and so does she, how would he reconfigure it? Mr. Smyre said it would require a major reconfiguration. He said with the superstreet, the entire area would change along with the right-of-way, taking out trees and vegetation. Mr. Smyre said the house would be only about 23 feet from the roadway if it remained. He said it would be better to demolish it, or, if someone found a use for it, to have it moved. Mr. Smyre again displayed sketches of what the area would look like with the construction of the superstreet.

Council Member Ward said with a curb radius of that width, it makes it more difficult for pedestrians. Mr. Smyre said the Council could take comfort in the fact that there is some talk about moving the sidewalk somewhat. He said they were discussing grade separating the sidewalk and moving it on top of the slope to allow all the buildings access to the sidewalks.

Council Member Ward said these two communities would relate to each other, and asked what was being done so that the amenities of each where accessible to the other. Mr. Smyre responded that the recreation areas were located close to one another, but were not connected for a number of reasons, for instance requirements of different homeowners associations. He said there was no sharing between the two projects because they were, after all, two separate projects.

Mayor Foy asked how the proposed drive-through would work. Mr. Smyre said they had located it on the property to disguise it, and that location would be for the bank’s use only.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked for further clarification. Mr. Smyre said that instead of going north only, they were asked to come south and east, which took quite a bit of property, reducing the area from 20,000 feet to 18,000 feet. Mr. Horton said the staff had believed the building needed to be reduced in size to accommodate the drive-through.

Council Member Ward asked about the pedestrian connection with Dobbins Hill. Mr. Smyre pointed that out on the map, also noting the cross connections.

Council Member Ward asked Mr. Smyre to explain the ramifications to the Howell’s building. Mr. Smyre said that at the time the connection is made, that driveway would be limited or closed. Therefore, he said, the tenants would be encouraged to use the traffic signal to access Sage Road. Mr. Smyre said that the applicant had an agreement with the owners of that property, and they expected no problems with the driveway. He said that the Howells owned both pieces of property and their agreement regarded the access road.

Council Member Strom said for the people on McGregor Drive, he supported the substitute language that provided for an emergency access road only. Also, he suggested that the public hearing be recessed until February 28 so that the Council could consider some of the options that have been presented.

Mayor Foy said if we do that, he wanted the Manager to address at that time the questions regarding the date of the superstreet and how it pertains to the start and ending date of construction of this property.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wanted to see the drive-through removed.

Council Member Greene said she wanted options on what can be done with the house.

Mayor Foy said he wanted to make sure that the residents of McGregor Drive knew that the Council was listening to them, and that the Council understands that there are problems that must be rectified.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 28. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 7 – Continuation of Public Hearings on 229 North Graham Street

7a. Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Zoning Atlas Amendment for 229 North Graham Street.

7b. Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Application for 229 North Graham Street.

Mr. Horton recommended consideration of both items concurrently. The Council agreed by consensus.

Mr. Waldon noted these proposals had been described in detail at the public hearing and they had nothing to add. He stated that they continue to recommend approval of both of these proposals.

Jeff Caiolo, of EmPOWERment, Inc., gave some brief justification for the approval of both of these proposals, noting that it would increase affordable housing and would help add homes that are owner-occupied to the neighborhood. He urged the Council to approve both the Zoning Atlas Amendment as well as the Special Use Permit.

Mr. Caiolo said there were some questions at the last meeting regarding stormwater management, noting after discussions with the Planning Department they were no longer asking for an exemption to that requirement. Regarding the location of the driveways, they could be placed together if the Council desired.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED TO ENACT ORDINANCE O-7, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR 229 NORTH GRAHAM STREET (2005-02-14/O-7)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of Empowerment, Inc. to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-3 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning, and finds that the amendment is warranted in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically:

To create and preserve affordable housing opportunities (Comprehensive Plan, p. 5)
To conserve and protect existing neighborhoods (Comprehensive Plan, p. 4)
To identify areas where there are creative development opportunities (Comprehensive Plan, p. 5)
To implement a strategy to address the effects on neighborhoods of the conversion of owner-occupied residences to rental properties (Comprehensive Plan, p.16);

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:

Section 1. That the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 93, Block B, Lot 41 (PIN 9788075336) located at the intersection of North Graham Street, Whitaker Street, and Nunn Street, be rezoned from Residential-3 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning.

Section 2. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-12, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR 229 NORTH GRAHAM STREET (2005-02-14/R-12a)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Empowerment, Inc. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 93, Block B, Lot 41 (PIN 9788075336) if developed according to the site plan dated September 28, 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 Management 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 it finds, in this particular case, that the following modification satisfies public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

1. Modification of Table 3.8-1 (Dimensional Matrix) of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow a 7 foot minimum street setback instead of the required 10 foot minimum street setback.

Said public purposes being that development of the proposed project provides needed affordable housing for the Town of Chapel Hill.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Empowerment, Inc. in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begin by February 14, 2007 (two years from approval date) and be completed by February 14, 2008 (three years from approval date).

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes the creation of 2 residential lots, and land use intensity requirements and dimensional standards as specified below:

Land Use Intensity / Dimensional Standards

No. of Single-Family Dwelling Units	1 per lot
Type/Number of Dwelling Units	Single Family Use - 2 Dwelling Units
Min Lot Size	Lot 41: 3,344 sq. ft. Lot 42: 4,401 sq. ft.
Max Density per Acre	7.4 units/acre
Min Street Frontage	Lot 41: 56.25 feet Lot 42: 53.5 feet
Minimum Lot Width	Lot 41: 56.25 feet Lot 42: 53.5 feet
Min Street Setback	7 feet
Min Interior Setback	10 feet
Min Solar Setback	15 feet
Max Impervious Surface	30%
Maximum Floor Area (Northside Neighborhood Conservation District)	Lot 41: 979 sq. ft. Lot 42: 1,208 sq. ft.
Minimum Parking	2 spaces per lot

Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, final plans shall be approved by the Town Manager that demonstrate compliance with these standards.

Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues

3. Nunn Street Improvements: That curb and gutter shall be constructed along the property frontage on Nunn Street. That a curb inlet shall be constructed at the intersection of Whitaker Street and Nunn Street to convey stormwater from the site. The plans for the curb and gutter and the inlet shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

4. Nunn Street Right-of-Way: That the Nunn Street right-of-way shown on the Site Plan dated September 28, 2004 shall be dedicated to the public. That sufficient right-of-way on Nunn Street shall be dedicated to provide for the future construction of a concrete sidewalk along Nunn Street, subject to Town Manager approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

5. Dedicated Right-of-Way Recordation: That all required dedicated right-of-way, including additional right-of-way necessary for improvements along Nunn Street, shall be shown on a recorded final plat, subject to approval by the Town Manager.

Stipulation Related to Affordable Housing

6. Affordable Housing: The 2 affordable housing units shall provide initial and continued affordability. Each single-family dwelling unit shall be affordable to individuals and families who have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income. Restrictive covenants, or similar restrictions, shall be recorded with the creation of each lot to ensure the continued and ongoing affordability of the dwelling units. The restrictive covenants, or similar restrictions, shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded concurrently with the final plat.

Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues

7. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. 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.

8. 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.

9. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. We recommend that the plan 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.

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

11. 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

12. Resource Conservation District Boundaries: That the boundaries of any Resource Conservation District, including that associated with the off-site sewer improvements, shall be indicated on the final plans and final plat.

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

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for 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.

17. 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.

18. Fire Hydrant Spacing: That maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 feet, subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Miscellaneous Issues

19. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: That the applicant provide the necessary Certificate of Adequacy of Public Schools prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

20. Building Elevations and Lighting: That the Community Design Commission approve building elevations and a lighting plan for this project prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

21. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle and pedestrian traffic will be managed, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

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

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

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

27. 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 4 square feet of display area and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

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

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

BE FURTHER IT RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit application for 229 North Graham Street in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This is the 14^th day of February, 2005.

Item 8 – Consideration of a Contract Extension for

Habitat for Humanity

Mr. Waldon said the Council had previously approved a loan to Habitat, and time was now approaching for repayment of that loan. He said Habitat was seeking a one-year extension on the due date of that loan.

Steve Henry Herman, a resident of Pine Tree Lane near the site of the Habitat project on Sunrise Road, said he was one of the 197 homeowners in the area who had presented the Council with a petition opposing the Habitat plan, and supporting the Sunrise Coalition’s position. Mr. Herman asked that the Council defer any decision on this issue until their next meeting on February 28, due to the late notice they had received that this issue was on tonight’s agenda. He said they needed time to study the materials and decide what their position might be.

Mr. Herman said their major concern was that they did not understand why Habitat needed additional time to complete the planning that is financed by the loan in question. He said they were not requesting that the Council deny the extension, but do suggest that the wording of the performance agreement be expanded to include specific directions that Habitat should follow during the extended loan period in order to facilitate the timely and successful outcome of the project. Mr. Herman requested an explicit direction be included in the performance agreement that “Habitat resume its dialogue with the neighbors to develop a plan that will have their support.”

Mr. Herman said that presently Habitat had “unilaterally cut off all direct communication” with the neighbors. He said they had offered to meet informally or in a professionally mediated session but Habitat had refused, stating they did not believe it would be in Habitat’s best interest. Mr. Herman said he believed that was in direct opposition to the Council’s request that Habitat work with the neighbors to develop an agreeable plan. He said that if the Council did not follow through on this request, that expensive legal battles may ensue that could have been avoided.

Mr. Herman said that Habitat needed to “come back to the table,” but did not believe they would do so unless the Council insisted. He asked the Council to agree to their request, and “set things back on track.”

Council Member Ward said Mr. Herman had started his comments by asking the Council to wait until February 28 to make a decision, but had also offered some alternative language for the extension. He asked if it was their intent to change the performance aspects of this extension. Mr. Herman said the proposal before the Council was not made public until Thursday of the previous week, so they had not had an opportunity to form their thoughts. He said their main request was to convince Habitat to resume dialogue with the neighbors so that some of their issues could be addressed.

Mayor Foy asked Susan Levy, with Habitat for Humanity, to address the statements made by Mr. Herman. Ms. Levy said their recommendations were that the approval of the extension not be tied to any requests made by the neighbors. She said they had met with the neighbors many times, had held a charrette, and been very open. She said she did not believe it would be especially fruitful to indefinitely continue that process. Ms. Levy gave the Council a brief update on the status of the project.

Council Member Ward said it was incredibly important that the public be made aware of our processes, and because the Sunrise Coalition was not aware of this until a few days ago, he believed that in order to make the process as open as possible, that the Council should delay any action on this issue until February 28 to give the Coalition adequate time to review the proposal and respond.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED TO DELAY ACTION ON THIS ITEM UNTIL FEBRUARY 28^TH, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the loan was due on the 28^th, so Habitat would have to show up at that meeting with a check in hand, just in case. He said he believed that Habitat was making every effort to address concerns of the neighbors.

Mayor Foy asked if the Manager could be given the authority to extend the loan to March 31, to give everyone plenty of time to respond. Mr. Horton said that could be easily accomplished.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD AMENDED HIS MOTION TO EXTEND THE LOAN TO MARCH 31, 2005. COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON SECONDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Mayor Foy suggested this be brought back on March 7^th rather than February 28^th. The Council agreed by consensus to bring this issue back on March 7^th for discussion.

Item 9 – Proposed Process for Continuing Discussions regarding

Changes to the OI-4 Zoning District Regulations

Mr. Horton said this proposes a process, composed of a series of three meetings, beginning with scheduling a community meeting as early in March as possible given the Council’s regular meeting schedule. He said the proposed process was that the meeting be convened in the evening, cablecast, be jointly hosted by the Town and UNC, and be advertised as a Community Dialogue meeting. Mr. Horton said the meeting would be in the Council Chamber, be relatively informal, and the Mayor would moderate. He said the Town Council and University representatives would sit at small tables in front of the Council table, and initial presentations would be offered by Town staff and University staff to cover background and set the stage. Mr. Horton indicated that a hand-held microphone would be available to audience participants, who would be invited to offer comments, ideas, and suggestions regarding provisions of the OI-4 Zoning District. He said the Mayor would call on people and moderate the discussion, and if a question was asked by an audience participant, the Mayor would either turn to staff to invite an answer, or turn to Council/University representatives to invite comment.

Mr. Horton said the second meeting would involve discussions among the Council and UNC representatives, looking for areas of agreement and working out proposal adjustments. Then, he said, the third meeting would be the Council acting in regular session to consider whatever proposals it wished to consider and act on those.

Michael Collins asked the Council to consider that calling for the second meeting between UNC officials and the Town was not necessary, noting he was not sure why that meeting would be needed once the community meeting was held. He said if the process was as open as it should be, that meeting should not be necessary.

Joyce Brown agreed with Mr. Collins’ comments, and noted that many of the issues listed as proposed changes to the OI-4 Zoning District came about as a result of the public process last year. She requested that the Council make sure that none of those issues are “lost” as part of any new public process.

Ms. Brown requested that the Council clarify the legal status of issue #9 on that list of proposed changes. She said this was not on the list of issues that went before the public at the public hearing last year, and asked that they make sure that this was now legally part of the issues that would ultimately be decided by the Council.

Ruby Sinreich said a lot of the problems of OI-4 are partially a result of the way it was negotiated the last time. She said she believed that was due to a lack of transparency in the process used the last time this was considered. Ms. Sinreich said she wanted to see the process focus on how they can work better together, that there is a level playing field, and that the solutions are worked out in public. She said she believed missing from the proposal was the implementation of it. She asked what guarantee do they have as participants of the process that something would be done, asking where was the accountability. Ms. Sinreich said it was important to keep the process transparent and make the process more functional.

Mayor Foy noted that all of the previous meetings were public, as these meetings would be.

Will Raymond said after the first public meeting, then the meeting with UNC and the Town, that a third meeting should be inserted in the process. Regarding lighting at Carolina North, he said if UNC is in violation of the Town’s lighting standards, that no restrictions on further development had been negotiated. Mr. Raymond said another informal public meeting should be inserted after the UNC response to the first meeting.

Mayor Foy said he believed the meeting with UNC and the Town would be with the full Council. Mr. Horton noted that was correct.

Council Member Strom said he had participated on the committee to consider OI-4, and they had made their best possible effort to have a fully public dialogue. He said the Council on December 6, 2004, had requested that the Manager provide documentation on public discussions that occurred during the original Town-University discussions on creating the OI-4 Zoning District and connecting it with the Comprehensive Plan. He said whether or not all of those discussions took place in public or not raises the question of what level staff-to-staff meetings dictated the terms of OI-4. Council Member Strom said this was a significant piece of information that had to be made public in order for citizens to feel confident in the process that took place, as well as the process that would come forward. He said that it was imperative that we be able to document that all discussions are public.

Council Member Strom said Ms. Sinreich was astute when she said that the nine items listed for discussion as proposed changes to the OI-4 Zoning District are really not huge issues, but were “fine tuning” of OI-4, particularly as OI-4 interrelates on edges and neighborhoods. He said that last year he had been talking about the scope and scale of OI-4, and had mentioned that he believed the Council had increased the allowable square footage on campus up to 7 million additional square feet. Council Member Strom said later Mr. Waldon had informed him that the Council had in fact removed any square footage cap.

Council Member Strom said the Council had made a remarkable concession to the University by placing no square foot cap on development. He said the process of having a discussion such as the Manager described would be beneficial. Council Member Strom said the nine issues do not appear to be major issues, but once the initial meeting is conducted, then a public hearing should be convened. He recommended changing the process to keep the community dialogue as the first meeting, but then to immediately convene the public hearing process. Council Member Strom said the public understood that process and had confidence in it.

Council Member Verkerk agreed with Council Member Strom, stating we had a responsibility to have that type of dialogue with the public.

Council Member Hill said this had first been brought up about two years ago, and he did not see that another meeting with UNC would serve any purpose. He said there was plenty of opportunity for dialogue with UNC without having a formal meeting.

Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed with Council Member Strom. He said the nine changes being suggested were minimal, and to put on top of that a summit-like meeting was not necessary. He said they had asked the University to engage with the public to a greater extent, and maybe then they would understand that this was about livability, along with the acceptance of the inevitable University growth.

Mayor Foy suggested modifying the process to conduct a community meeting, then convene a public hearing. He said that something might come up at the public hearing that was not part of these nine issues, so some things might be deferred or continued. Mayor Foy reiterated that the proposed process would be the community dialogue meeting, a meeting with UNC representatives, convening a public hearing, then a fourth meeting for the Council to considser taking action.

Council Member Harrison asked if the nine issues would be included in the community dialogue meeting. Mr. Horton responded that those were the issues identified by the Council. Council Member Harrison confirmed that citizens could bring up additional issues.

Council Member Ward said he wanted to make it clear that “community” means the entire community, and that the University is invited to participate in that meeting as well as all citizens.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said the purpose of the meeting was for citizens to talk to the University, as well as the University to talk with the Council.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-14, AS AMENDED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION INITIATING DISCUSSIONS WITH UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS AND CITIZENS, ASKING FOR PARTICIPATION IN DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL-4 ZONING DISTRICT (2005-02-14/R-14)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council held a Public Hearing on October 18, 2004 to consider changes to the Office/Institutional-4 zoning provisions of Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Council is interested in meeting with University officials and citizens to discuss the proposed changes to the Office/Institutional-4 zoning provisions;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby endorses a process for further discussion, as outlined in a memorandum to the Mayor and Council from the Town Manager dated February 14, 2005, with the Forum adjusted to replace a proposed Town-University meeting with a re-convened Public Hearing; and requests the Town Manager to make arrangements for discussions as outlined in that memorandum.

This the 14^th day of February, 2005.

Item 10 – 2030 Triangle Air Quality Conformity Report

Transportation Planner David Bonk reviewed the findings of the 2030 Triangle Air Quality Conformity Report, and called the Council’s attention to the map provided with the materials that show where the Air Quality Conformity is and which Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) it includes. He said the process for preparing this report and analysis was a federally-mandated process and is the last phase in the development of the regional transportation plans also required by the federal process. Mr. Bonk said these plans are only evaluated in regards to air quality conformity.

Mr. Bonk stated that the results of the air quality conformity analysis for this region indicate that we do meet the minimum requirements for air quality conformity. But, he continued, their analysis of the report and findings have brought forth several concerns, chief among them that in a region, namely the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro region and the capital area region, which is to experience projected increases in congestion anywhere from 80% to 100% of vehicle miles traveled and significant increases in the number of miles of congested roadway, we find it difficult to understand how in the same projection the impacts of air pollution are falling just as dramatically in the opposite direction. Mr. Bonk said this is counterintuitive to what they would expect to happen.

Mr. Bonk said the explanation given to them by the EPA and others is that there are assumptions built into the analysis that deal with issues of improvements of engine technology and fuel quality that will more than offset the increase in vehicle miles traveled. He said the staff’s suggestion was that the Conformity Report should include an explanation of how air quality can be projected to improve while congestion and vehicle miles traveled are expected to increase. Mr. Bonk added that an explanation of the impact of anticipated technology improvements and projected increases in congestion should be included in the Conformity Report as well. He said these should be done in order to illuminate the data for the general public.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Bonk to elaborate on what the normalization procedure was. Mr. Bonk responded that the normalization process attempts to reconcile the vehicle miles of travel projected by the Regional Model and observed vehicle miles in the 2002 base year. He said that normalization was necessary due to differences between the vehicle miles projected by the Triangle Regional Model and projections developed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation of vehicle miles traveled using the Highway Performance Monitoring System. Mr. Bonk said that normalization reduces the amount of vehicle travel projected by the model to conform to projections developed using survey data. He noted that this normalization resulted in a significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled in Wake County.

Mr. Bonk said that while they agree that the lack of base year data for the 2030 Plan had resulted in the need to utilize this normalization procedure, we are concerned that continued use of the normalization process undermines confidence in the regional transportation model. He said they suggest that a more detailed description of the normalization process should be included, and they also recommend that the development of the 2040 Plan include more accurate collection of base year data to minimize or eliminate the need for normalization.

Mayor Foy stated that we seem to have continuing problems with this model. Mr. Horton responded that we had experienced problems with it for a number of years. Mayor Foy stated that this was the same model being used by the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). Mr. Horton responded that was correct, and noted that the hope was that since TTA was having difficulty, that perhaps now greater attention would be paid to it.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-15, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT TRIANGLE AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION REPORT (2005-02-14/R-15)

WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has approved a draft 2030 Regional Transportation Plan; and

WHEREAS, the 2030 Regional Plan has been used to prepare the draft Triangle Air Quality Conformity Analysis and Determination; and

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has released the draft Triangle Air Quality Conformity Analysis and Determination Report; and.

WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Triangle Air Quality Conformity Analysis and Determination Report;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council provides the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee with the following comments and recommendations.

The Report provide a more detailed explanation of why projected air pollutant emissions are estimated to decline at the same time vehicle miles of travel and congestion area projected to increase.
The Report include a more detailed explanation of how the vehicle miles of travel normalization procedure was completed.
The development of the next Regional Transportation Plan include the collection of adequate travel data to reduce the need for normalization of vehicle miles traveled
The Report describe what standards were used to assess the impact of the incident management program as part of the off model analysis.
The Transportation Advisory Committee establish criteria for considering other off-model analysis such as travel demand management programs and land use policies.

This the 14^th day of February, 2005

Item 11 – Demolition by Neglect in the Land Use Management Ordinance

Mr. Horton noted that the Historic District Commission (HDC) had done the groundwork on this issue, and based on that work staff had now prepared what they believe is a stronger ordinance for the Council’s consideration. He said the staff recommended adoption of Ordinance A.

Council Member Greene said she was concerned about the discrepancies between the HDC’s recommended ordinance and the Manager’s recommendation. She said she had conducted her own research, and found similar ordinances from Greensboro, Hillsborough, Fayetteville, and Raleigh. Council Member Greene said what she had found were ordinances that were remarkably consistent and had some overlap to what both the HDC and the Manager was offering, but to her were worthy of consideration in full for what they offer that neither of these proposed ordinances do. For example, she said, the sections on getting a variance due to a hardship had much more specificity and more process in all four of the other towns’ ordinances than did the two proposed ordinances under consideration by the Council.

Council Member Greene said she was the Council’s liaison to the HDC, but had not been present during the HDC’s meeting when they had produced their proposed ordinance. But what she sees, she said, was basically four examples of a tried and true ordinance that seems better in some ways than what is being proposed. Council Member Greene proposed that the staff take a look at the four ordinances from various cities she had brought forward in conjunction with the HDC and come back to the Council with one consistent recommendation that they had both agreed on that incorporated some of that language.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REQUEST THE STAFF AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION REVIEW THE ORDINANCES FROM GREENSBORO, HILLSBOROUGH, FAYETTEVILLE AND RALEIGH, AND COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH ONE CONSISTENT RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY BOTH AGREED ON THAT INCORPORATED SOME FO THE LANGUAGE FROM THOSE ORDINANCES. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 12 – Legislative Agenda for 2005

Mayor Foy said the annual meeting with the Town’s legislative delegation was scheduled for March 4. He said the Council would have another opportunity for discussion of this issue at its February 28 meeting.

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said this was an opportunity for the Council to decide what issues on the list of items already identified should go forward for discussion with the delegation.

Will Raymond requested the legislative delegation be asked to strike Chapel Hill from the list of towns that are allowed to install photographic “red light camera” equipment.

Council Member Greene asked to add to the list the repeal of the prohibition of collective bargaining for public employees.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like Chapel Hill to join Carrboro in asking the State to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and to add opposition to the marriage amendment currently being proposed in the General Assembly which undermines many of the objectives that underlie our original request to appeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the potential for that amendment to prohibit the Town’s ability to offer Domestic Partner benefits to our employees is an extraordinarily broad proposal that has in other states been found to actually be unconstitutional, because of their process for adopting this into law. He asked that the Town continue to request that the Defense of Marriage Act be appealed in order to protect our employees.

Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Karpinos about item b. on page #2, regarding support of modification of the law related to electric personal assistive mobility devices. He said the major modification in the bill that had been proposed on these devices, generally known as Segways and brought in by the League of Municipalities in 2002, was an amendment to let municipalities regulate by ordinance the time, place and manner of operation of these devices. Council Member Harrison said he had contacted the League staff person today who had asked exactly what the Town’s request was, because the Town may not need anything beyond the proviso already in the bill. He asked Mr. Karpinos for his opinion.

Mr. Karpinos said that law is enabling legislation that would allow the Town to enact an ordinance so that these vehicles were defined and treated in the same manner as bicycles and other vehicles that have to comply with the rules of the road, and having to have lights and other devices for reflective purposes when driven at night. He said that is not now required by State law. Mr. Karpinos said the purpose of this proposal is that those devices would be treated in the same manner as bicycles.

Council Member Harrison said that this condition exists because right now Segway devices are exempted from the State law because of the wording of the definition. Mr. Karpinos said that was correct. He indicated that this proposal was prompted by an incident where a citizen had an encounter with another vehicle which had nearly resulted in a serious accident, noting that the citizen was present and may want to address the Council.

Steven Waters, the citizen identified by Mr. Karpinos, said he was concerned about the legislation that Segway had “shoved down the throats of 41 states” that defines the Segway as a pedestrian, stating it was not a pedestrian. He said he supported legislation that denoted a Segway as a vehicle, because clearly if a bicycle is a vehicle then a motorized Segway was a vehicle as well.

Council Member Strom asked Mr. Karpinos to update the Council on the Homestead Exemption Act, as well as the funding mechanism for burying overhead power lines. Mr. Karpinos responded that the funding mechanism to bury overhead power lines was not considered last year, so we would have to request it again. He said the Homestead Exemption Act was to be considered this year by the General Assembly. Council Member Strom said he believed we should pursue the funding mechanisms regarding the burying of overhead power lines.

Council Member Strom asked for an update on the luxury tax, or “ticket tax.” Mr. Karpinos commented that the idea had not been well received by the General Assembly.

Mayor Foy commented that Greensboro now had the ability to levy such a tax.

Council Member Strom said he believed that the proposal to make this a luxury tax and to place such a tax on tickets over a particular amount made a lot of sense. He said “if you could afford $30 for a ticket, you could afford $31.”

Council Member Verkerk said that UNC was proposing to raise student fees to fund athletic programs, so that’s a little bit hypocritical. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the students would have to approve that fee.

Mayor Foy said if the Council wanted to request that authority, then they should discuss a threshold and indicate that this was not a “tax.”

Council Member Strom asked if the Council was in agreement that we should pursue a funding mechanism to place overhead power distribution lines underground. The Council agreed by consensus.

Council Member Ward said he hoped we would pursue the funding mechanism on higher priced tickets, so that local theatrical productions or tickets to students would not be affected. He said perhaps it would be useful for the Mayor to have a conversation with the Chancellor to engage the reality of the University’s position. He said it would be better to have the University’s support rather than having them as an adversary.

Council Member Ward also asked to add to the list the authority for keg registration, in an effort to reduce the problematic use of alcohol by our teenagers.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said when we talk to the University about the ticket levy, he would like to make sure there was no undercutting of prices, so that $500,000 worth of tickets were not sold at $29.95 to undercut a $30 limit.

Mayor Foy asked if in the past we had suggested that if we were to have such a levy, that it would be used for transit. Mr. Horton responded that in the past there had been a suggestion, but it was not discussed last year. Mayor Foy suggested that before the Council adopts its formal legislative agenda, that this be considered because that might help to get the University’s cooperation.

Council Member Greene said that Roland Giduz had informed the Council that the ticket prices charged by UNC already had a tax built into it that goes directly to the State.

Council Member Verkerk said along with the tax levy of $1 on tickets $30 or over and the idea of using it for transit, we should keep in mind the underpayment of fire protection. She said it could be proposed to the University and to the State that this is really a public safety issue that is being funded by the levy, and that these types of events do cause public safety issues.

Council Member Verkerk said she believed that before we bring collective bargaining to the legislators, she would like the Council to have a discussion about it, such as how it might change the relationship between the Council, the Manager, and employees.

Council Member Harrison asked the Mayor why he thought the luxury tax should be a fee rather than a tax. Mayor Foy responded because “taxes don’t pass,” and suggested that it could be a surcharge or something similar.

Mayor Foy brought to the Council’s attention the letter included with the materials from Moses Carey, Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. He said that Commissioner Carey was requesting that when the Council formed its legislative agenda, that it be forwarded to the County, and the County would forward their agenda when it was finalized. Mayor Foy said it was the County’s hope that each could endorse the other’s legislative goals, as appropriate, and collaborate during the 2005 General Assembly session and be supportive of each others priorities.

Item 13 – Appointments:

13a. Discussion of Appointment to the Downtown Economic Development Corporation.

Mayor Foy was appointed as the Town’s representative to the Downtown Economic Development Corporation by consensus of the Council.

13b. Continuing Concerns Committee.

Joe Herzenberg was appointed by acclamation of the Council.

13c. Observances Committee.

Mayor Foy said that Council Member Greene and Mayor pro tem Wiggins were our liaisons to this Committee. He said they had suggested that the application process for this Committee be ended on Friday of this week, with the Council making appointments on February 28. Mayor Foy suggested that the Council endorse the composition of the Committee as noted in the agenda item.

Council Member Ward said it was his understanding that the members of this Committee were not required to be residents of the Town. Mayor Foy responded that was correct.

Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that was true of the Continuing Concerns Committee as well. Mayor Foy said yes, that there were no residency requirements for either of those committees.

The Council endorsed the composition of the Committee by consensus.

Item 14 – Petitions:

14a. By the Mayor and Council Members.

14a(1). Involvement of Advisory Boards in the Budget Process.

Mayor Foy proposed that every member of all advisory boards be contacted to request that they bring forth any ideas or insights they may have regarding the budget and budget process.

Council Member Strom said he wanted the Library Board to consider out-of-County user fees, and to bring forward options for the Council to consider, including fee levels that might help the Town recover direct costs.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m.