SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

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

Council Member Dorothy Verkerk 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, Housing Director Tina Vaughn, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Senior Long Range Development Coordinator Chris Berndt, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, Mayoral Aide Emily Dickens, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Mayor Foy stated that due to the large number of citizens present to address Item #6, Town Council’s 2005 Legislative Agenda, that this item be moved to the beginning of the meeting. There was no objection from the Council.

Item 6 – Town Council’s 2005 Legislative Agenda

Mayor Foy gave a brief account of the process to be used tonight. He stated that because of the number of persons who wanted to speak, each speaker would be limited to two minutes unless prior arrangements had been made by someone representing a group of people. In that case, Mayor Foy said, more time would be allotted.

Mayor Foy noted that Dr. Hazen Ham had contacted the Mayor’s Office prior to tonight’s meeting to indicate he would be representing a group; therefore, he had been allotted ten minutes to speak.

Dr. Hazan Ham, director of the group Call to Action of Durham and Orange Counties, said his organization was made up mostly of churches but included other groups as well. He said they disagreed with some of the issues the Council was considering placing on its legislative agenda, namely the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and opposition to the proposed Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. Dr. Ham said they were issuing a community challenge from Call to Action to the Council because they strongly disagree with some of the actions the Council planned to take to the legislators. He said the challenge was also being issued to the State, since these two issues were State issues.

Dr. Ham said that Call to Action was an organization empowering ordinary people to defend family and social values, which is what he wanted to address this evening. He displayed a list of various churches in the three counties who supported the position of Call to Action, pointing out those that were located in Chapel Hill. Dr. Ham noted their vision was to call the community back to traditional and moral values, that being the family and the sanctity of marriage.

Dr. Ham said they wanted to promote the sanctity of marriage, noting that marriage is the foundation of our society and is the fabric that holds our society together. He said we have allowed the threads of that fabric to be pulled out, until it is not much of a fabric anymore. Dr. Ham noted examples of this would be children with one parent, homosexual marriages, and things that don’t lead too procreation. He said it was a Godly institution, not a right.

Dr. Ham asked that the Council call our community back to morality, noting that if we were upholding traditional family values we would not need an amendment to our Constitution. He asked the Council not to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act. Dr. Ham said they wanted to make a call for change, a call for repentance, a call for this community to give up its ungodly ways and stop supporting perversity and immorality in any form, and to come back to the godliness and morality that our country was founded upon.

Dr. Ham said they support the family, that it was God’s institution and it had to be strengthened and not torn apart. He asked that on behalf of this community, that the Council not oppose the Defense of Marriage Act or the Constitutional amendment.

Darlene Nicgorski said she supported the Council in its opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. She said she was a Christian and considered herself to be a moral person, noting her involvement in the Civil Rights movement and her participation in support of Central American refugees in their fight for justice. Ms. Nicgorski said the most fundamental of all Christian values was to love those who you wanted to love.

Ms. Nicgorski said she was a family, and did not believe anyone should tell her otherwise. She noted she had had a partner for 18 years and was currently caring for her partner’s 87-year-old mother. She asked was that not love and family values. Ms. Nicgorski said she was a Catholic nun for 21 years, stating that was Christian, that was moral, and that was religious.

Ms. Nicgorski said she not only supported the Council in its opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, but asked that they also bring forward legislation to give workplace protection. She said she works in human resources, and there was no protection for gays, lesbians, transgender or bisexual persons in the workplace. Ms. Nicgorski said they have every right to work, and should not be subject to firing at will because of their sexual orientation.

Diane VanderBroek, a resident of Barclay Road, reminded the public that many people had different interpretations of the Bible, noting that there were many different views and aspects about life. She suggested that people abide by the Sermon on the Mount, and not on obscure translations from the Old Testament.

Win Chesson, a life-long resident of Chapel Hill and currently a student at UNC, said he wanted to address the addition of sexual orientation as a category under the North Carolina hate crimes law. He stated his friend had recently been attacked on Franklin Street in what had been termed a hate crime. Mr. Chesson said he and his friends are frequently harassed and yelled at, many times called “fag.” He described that as a form of verbal violence. Mr. Chesson stated the hate crime statute, which was the Ethnic Intimidation Act, to be inclusive and protect all citizens which would include persons regardless of their sexual orientation, gender or disability status.

Brittany Wofford, a second generation Chapel Hillian and a student at UNC, said she had attended public school here all her life, and even in this progressive community she was subjected to such names as bitch, dyke, and fag for her sexual orientation. Ms. Wofford said clearly there was a need for change, and applauded the Council for its support of repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and its opposition to the Constitutional amendment defining marriage and only one man and one woman.

Ms. Wofford said in answer to those who would say she threatened family values, that her parents had been married for 25 years, and considered her as a bi-sexual woman to be the last threat to her family. She said they had loved and supported her, and that was the kind of family value we should embrace, not hate.

Don Willhoit said he had been married for 48 years and had been a member of Binkley Baptist Church for 40 years. He said on behalf of the congregation of the Olin T. Binkley Memorial Baptist Church and its senior pastor, James Pike, who was unable to attend tonight, he expressed thanks and appreciation to the Council for its appropriate, courageous and compassionate stands. Mr. Willhoit said, “As a church that believes in the unconditional and inclusive love of Christ for all of God’s children, we commend you as elected officials and support your decisions to stand against bigotry and hate. We admire you, we salute you, and offer you our thanks.”

Mary Bratsch, a pre-school teacher, said she knows children who reside in households with same-sex parents. She said they are not maladjusted, are not lacking ethics, are not losing their souls, are not spiritually or physically unhealthy, they are not unloved, and they are living their lives as children. Ms. Bratsch said some people may feel sorry for them and pray for them, but they should save their pity when what they believe in would prevent the life-long union of these children’s parents, thereby preventing the children from obtaining the same social sanction that all State-recognized marriages have.

Ms. Bratsch said the same State that regulates the schools that these children attend does not have the right to discriminate against any couple seeking a marriage license. She said if one of these children’s parents were harassed, beaten up or even killed because of their sexual orientation, they would not receive full protection under the law from further attacks. Ms. Bratsch said if you discriminate in this way, you discriminate against the children.

Carole Stevens, a member of Binkley Baptist Church, thanked the Council for the stand it had taken related to issues that impact gays and lesbians. She noted that Binkley Baptist Church policies are such that gays and lesbians are accepted into the full fellowship of the congregation just as any other member.

Paul Lindsay, a member of Binkley Baptist Church, commended the Council for its opposition to the Constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as well as its other efforts to make laws that are fair to all people. He said he and his wife had just celebrated their 50^th wedding anniversary, adding that marriage is a great institution that contributes to the stability of the community and to the raising of children, and to the enrichment of human relationships. Mr. Lindsay said he believed it was only fair that the benefits of marriage be available to everyone in our society.

Morgan Giddings, a professor at UNC, said she had been highly recruited by several universities, but had chosen to come here and work on things like antibiotic resistance. She said the reason she was stating that was because it was the kind of work that benefits everyone, it was highly specialized work that required scientists and technologists with advanced training. Ms. Giddings said that people such as this make up a large percentage of the population of the Triangle area. She said that when colleagues from elsewhere ask her what it is like to live and work here, they express concern that North Carolina is a “conservative, back-water state.” She said her response is that Chapel Hill is a nice, progressive town in the midst of a not-so-progressive area.

Ms. Giddings said she would like for Chapel Hill to continue its progressive attitude, and to stand in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. She said that was one of the progressive attitudes that attract people such as herself to come here to work and do world-class research.

Gloria Lightsey-Lewis, a member of Binkley Baptist Church and an ordained minister, said she had grown up in a community where homosexuality was considered a sin. She said she was thankful for her seminary experience as well as the opportunity to come to know persons who were homosexual, and asked how could she not support them when they were also children of God.

Susan Pike stated that she was a resident of Chapel Hill, a person with a religious background, and a senior citizen. She thanked the Council for its efforts to protect all citizens. Ms. Pike said as a senior citizen she had had many experiences, much of it in a children’s hospital. She said one thing you quickly learn was that when a person’s chest was open the organs all looked the same. Ms. Pike said it did not matter what their sexual orientation happened to be, they all received the necessary help.

Ms. Pike said she had also seen those who helped with the hospitalized children, and not all of them were what society termed as “straight.” She said they made a huge difference to the children as well as their parents, because what was important was what was inside of them that made them care.

Ms. Pike said that marriage was about working through your problems, and caring enough about the other person to work out your differences. She said if there was a threat to her marriage, it would not come from the outside. Ms. Pike said we were not the ones to judge others.

Rhett Brown, an ordained Methodist minister, said he supported the right of gay and lesbians to enter into lifelong, monogamous, faithful relationships blessed by the church and authorized by the United States government. He said as a child, he was taught by lesbian school teachers, and as a Methodist lay person, he was taught by gay Sunday school teachers. Mr. Brown said that in all three universities at which he had worked, he had been employed by gay and lesbian employers, all of whom were a part of local churches. Mr. Brown said he was a Christian today because of the influence of gay and lesbian Christians.

Mr. Brown said he could quote many scriptures in support of the stand he took tonight, but this was a hall of government and we live by the rule of law. He said the question we must face was is it just to discriminate against any oppressed group through the Constitution of the State of North Carolina or the Constitution of the United States, based on their race, gender, age, socio-economic status, the language they speak, the amount of money they have in their bank accounts, or their sexual orientation. As a citizen of the United States, Mr. Brown said, his answer is no.

Michael Williams said his parents would soon celebrate their 47^th wedding anniversary, and they realize that their marriage license was not something he was attempting to steal from them. He said he would like one of his own.

Mr. Williams said in 1992 he moved to Chapel Hill in search of a place he could call home, where all members of the community could feel welcomed and valued, a place of learning and a place of peace. He said he left behind family and history to live in a place where honesty and acceptance, what he considered hallmarks of a life lived on his terms, were also standards of the community. Mr. Williams said Chapel Hill not only lived up to his hopes, but exceeded them.

Mr. Williams thanked the Council for retaining a place where all can feel valued, where all can have dignity as human beings. He said to some, this was just one issue among many. But, Mr. Williams said, this was their life, who they are, the people they love, and where they can feel at home. He thanked the Council for offering a hand to build up those in the community rather than bowing to fear or hate or ignorance. Mr. Williams also thanked the Council for representing their constituents, and their needs and their futures.

Ron Wood said he was also an ordained minister, but not one who believed he had the right to disregard the word of God. He said that just because he may want something or like something, that he could just decide that certain portions of God’s instructions don’t apply to him. Mr. Wood said he was incapable of teaching others that they can choose a path that would bring destruction upon them. He said that one speaker had mentioned the Sermon on the Mount, and had she continued, she would have known that God said that anyone that would teach people to sin is the least in the kingdom of God.

Mr. Wood and he had lived in this community for nine years, and it was not an easy place to build a bible believing church, because so many churches here disregard the bible. He said he came here because he believed that someone needed to be speaking that portion of the bible that this community evidently did not want to believe.

Mr. Wood asked the Council to reconsider its position, noting he believed they had taken that position without regard to the opinions, desires and beliefs of many people in this community. He asked the Council not to forget about those who did not share that position.

Elizabeth Waugh-Stewart said she was a social worker at the Women’s Center and a lesbian. She said she was also a Christian, and it troubled her to hear people who are also Christian to speak badly of her and her family. Ms. Waugh-Stewart said she was not a lesbian because she wanted to be, but because it was how God made her. She said she and her partner were good people, both were social workers, they owned a home, were having a child, and were a family.

Ms. Waugh-Stewart said they were members of a church that had accepted them as a family just as other churches would accept young families. She said she hoped that all gays and lesbians that sought a spiritual community would find what she had, because they deserved it. Ms. Waugh-Stewart thanked the Council for its ongoing support for families like hers.

Ms. Waugh-Stewart said the issue of gay marriage seemed to obscure issues that she considered to be deeply moral and troubling, such as poverty, homelessness, and environmental destruction. She suggested that people should put their energies towards these more moral issues, and let others make their families and love each other as they choose.

Richard Edens, a Pastor at United Church of Chapel Hill, said this was an issue of justice. Rev. Edens said it was not a theological one but a personal one for particular members of his congregation who wanted to be recognized as a family. He said that gay and lesbian couples could go through a lengthy process to obtain a few of the 1,400 rights offered to people who have the benefit of marriage, but it remained less than the recognition of marriage and creating a family.

Rev. Edens said that the discussion of same sex marriages had been taking place in churches of all denominations for the past 25 years, and that these same denominations had witnessed such marriages taking place in many of their churches. He said there were at least six congregations in Chapel Hill that had performed same sex marriages, and even more that were “sympathetic.” Rev. Edens said some of these ceremonies had been called marriages, but more recently they were called “holy unions” or “holy covenants” as there was no corresponding recognition of marriage by the State. Rev. Edens said there were families in Chapel Hill that were recognized as families by their faith community, their extended families, their friendship network, but not by the State. He then stated, “It’s not right.”

Rev. Edens noted that marriage is recognized by church tradition for a variety of reasons, but four are most often cited: a reflection of the covenant with God, a means of mutual joy and companionship, a means when it is God’s will for procreation and the nurture of children, and for the up-building of society. He added that did not have to be exclusively for heterosexuals. Rev. Edens said that all people should be able to share in the joy of committed love and to be recognized for their contribution to their churches, families, community, and society. He urged the Council to put marriage equality on the legislative agenda.

Sibyl Wagner thanked the Council for its progressive attitude and taking care of the rights of all citizens of Chapel Hill. She said she was the “very proud” mother of Brittany Wofford who had spoken earlier, and she wanted this to be a safe town for her daughter as well as a safe world.

Ruby Sinreich said the people of Chapel Hill had demonstrated many times over the last 10 years that they supported the rights of gay people. She said that Chapel Hill was the first town in North Carolina to have an openly gay elected official. Ms. Sinreich said these are our values.

Margaret Chesson noted that she was the mother of a gay son and was a Christian. She thanked the Council for the proposed legislation, adding she believed that God is love and that prayer matters. Ms. Chesson said she believed that giving civil rights to gay couples and making them first class rather than second class citizens and equal to heterosexuals was an act of love. She said she understood that there were different interpretations of the Bible, but her motivation came from her understanding of who God is.

Ms. Chesson said from a civil rights standpoint, that the laws make a difference in how gay people are treated by others. She commented that the civil rights issue is different from the “church” issue and even if you feel differently theologically, that in the case of civil rights you could still support the hate crimes legislation as well as allow gay people to be married and enjoy the benefits just as other married people do.

Donna Bell said she had moved to Chapel Hill because of its values and wanted to raise her children here. She said she also wanted to claim marriage for all of us “non-Christians.” Ms. Bell said that marriage was not the foundation of our society, that communities were the foundation of our society. She said these communities were based on love, respect, and the health and well-being of our neighbors. Ms. Bell thanked the Council for its farsighted vision to recognize that the language in the Defense of Marriage Act had been used to oppress a segment of our society for decades.

Barbara Elder said that she wanted all citizens to have their rights protected. She said she and her husband had been involved in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and they looked back on that struggle as their contribution to the rights of those who needed to be protected. Ms. Elder said she was speaking for all the gays and lesbians who would not be protected unless we protect them with our laws.

Ms. Elder said she was a Christian, and that many other beliefs were represented here tonight. She noted that Jesus Christ had said nothing about homosexuality, but had said everything about love. Ms. Elder said that she had been given the opportunity to become acquainted with gays and lesbians in her church, and they had contributed to her life. She stated that Jesus had said that He did not come to judge but to save, and that had made her think of the many gifts that the gays and lesbians in our town give back to the community, the churches, and the synagogues.

Ms. Elder said that in the not so distant past she, as a woman, would not have been allowed to vote. And, in the not so distant past interracial marriages were not allowed. Ms. Elder said that recently the Supreme Court had upheld the right of death row inmates to marry because it was in their “well-being.” She said that was the right thing to do, because this country would protect what is right for everyone’s well-being. Ms. Elder thanked the Council for what they were doing for all citizens.

Michael Cureton said he was speaking for the children of Chapel Hill who could not be present, those that needed the balance of a household with a father and a mother. He said those children did not care what was going on here tonight. Mr. Cureton said they needed someone in their life to support them, not only their mother, their grandmother or the government, but they needed their father as well. He asked the Council to reconsider its appeal to the State Legislature and rethink its position. Mr. Cureton said the Council had seen what it had done to the community, and that one of the Council’s charges as elected officials was to help protect the children he had mentioned.

Roland Giduz said he had spoken to the Council on several occasions regarding support of legislation that would place a surtax on selected admission tickets to large events. He said that at the recent meeting between the Council and its legislative delegation a question was raised that he wanted to address regarding the University’s stand on this issue. Mr. Giduz remarked that he absolutely and wholeheartedly supported the mission of the University and for what it contributed to the community. He stated that the University had objected to this proposal in the past and may very well object again, but implored the Council to consider the merits of their objection.

Mr. Giduz commented it was appropriate to ask what would the Legislature think about this proposal. He stated that the University must appear before the Legislature to request its appropriations. Mr. Giduz requested that the Council consider the merits of any legitimate statement that the University may or may not choose to make, and also to look to the Town’s needs which are great at this time. He also asked the Council to consider that the surtax would benefit the University and this community.

Mayor Foy thanked those who had attended tonight, and said he particularly wanted to thank everyone for the respect they had shown to others.

Mayor Foy stated there were a total of 16 items proposed for the legislative agenda, noting that he had asked that the Council consider public financing for local campaigns as one of the items to be included. He said they had put it forward in the past, but he believed it was necessary to put it forward again to reaffirm their request for this authority. Mayor Foy requested that it be added to the resolution.

Council Member Kleinschmidt noted he believed it was an oversight, but the Defense of Marriage Act had not been included in the resolution before the Council. He requested that the resolution be amended to include it.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wanted the public to realize that there was more going on here than just the Defense of Marriage Act. He said the Town of Chapel Hill was one of the largest employers in the Town, and that many of its employees benefit greatly from the fact that this community decided about 10 years ago to extend domestic partner benefits to employees who were involved in same sex relationships. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the Constitutional amendment threatens that ability and may well prevent the Town and this community from providing such benefits to its employees because it is “extraordinarily broad.”

Council Member Kleinschmidt said the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act was originally proposed as an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to providing a positive work environment for all people. He said that employees who happened to have been married in other jurisdictions and not recognized in this State would be denied equal treatment under the Defense of Marriage Act. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that in this country same sex couples are getting married in some places, and this community with its University attracts people from all over the country. He said it may have already happened that persons are living in our community whose marriages are not recognized by North Carolina, and it was important that we be able to treat all employees coming from other parts of the country the same. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the Council had heard from “dozens and dozens” of people over the past several days on this issue, and thanked the community and the Council for its support.

Regarding the addition of sexual orientation as a category under the North Carolina hate crimes law, Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had requested that that issue be added to the legislative agenda and requested the Council’s support of that. He said they had received some confusing information from the legislative delegation at its recent meeting about whether or not this issue would go forward. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed there was a new momentum in Chapel Hill as well as the State as a result of a “frightening event” that had taken place in our community just 12 days ago, due in part to a “venomous cultural climate” that targets gays and lesbians.

Council Member Greene also thanked those who had spoken tonight in favor of civil rights, and those who had sent the many emails the Council had received. She said that many of the comments recognized that our Constitution should be interpreted increasingly in favor of increasing our civil rights rather than diminishing them.

Council Member Greene quoted, “The ark of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” She said that many people believe that Martin Luther King had said that and he had, but it had originally come from a 19^th century abolitionist. She said that the moral ark of the universe is very long indeed, but she believed that what we were doing in Chapel Hill is reflective of our community’s values to bend that ark towards justice.

Regarding keg registration, Council Member Greene told Mayor Foy that she would like the Council to discuss this further to reflect a conversation she and the Mayor had had regarding what is really being recommended here. She said from a civil liberties point of view that if we have a law like this, and she agreed that it should be a State-wide law or it would not be very effective, then there needs to be language written into the law to protect the lawful purchasers of kegs who would serve it lawfully to persons over 21. Council Member Greene said that a law that would allow anyone to have access to a list of purchasers was not a good law, and there were other ways that such a law would not protect the interests of lawful purchasers. She said that careful attention needed to be paid that the privacy of citizens was not invaded in any way.

Council Member Greene said her concern was that we may be recommending a law that we would have no control over what it actually said, since we would not draft the law. She said she wanted the Council to be clear about what it was doing.

Mayor Foy said he believed there was general support for some kind of legislation regarding keg registration, but the Council had heard from its legislative delegation that there is a lot of information that is being gathered, and it was clear that if any kind of legislation were to be effective it would have to be broader than just Chapel Hill. He said he believed the Council should deal with the keg registration matter separately and draft something they could all support. Mayor Foy suggested that the Council request guidance from the League of Municipalities regarding potential language of such a law. He said that because this issue is already moving forward, then maybe Chapel Hill did not need to weigh in on it at this time, but should wait until it might have more bearing on what happens.

Council Member Ward stated he supported Council Member Greene’s comments regarding making sure that the language of any law regarding keg registration needed to be carefully worded. He said that the Council had a tract record of submitting fairly general requests and did not always have specifics of the wording of the legislation in their minds or on paper. Council Member Ward stated he did not believe keg registration should be removed from the list unless the Council concluded that keg registration was “a bad idea, period.”

Council Member Ward noted that the facts were that such legislation was supported by nearly half the states in the country, by the American Medical Association, by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, by our local Superintendent of Schools, by our Police Chief, by the UNC-Chapel Hill Dean of Students, by himself, and he hoped by the majority of the Council. Council Member Ward stressed that to remove it from the list now because there was no specific language was “shirking our duty” and sent the message that it should not be considered at all. He said if the Council wanted to add some language to provide particular safeguards or to more specifically clarify a point that is critical to the Council regarding beer keg registration, he would support that. Council Member Ward concluded that by removing the request for State registration of beer kegs from the list because of nonspecific language amounted to dismissing it.

Mayor Foy said he was not suggesting dismissing it but to deal with it separately by endorsing it in a separate resolution, and asking that it be considered in a different manner than the other proposed legislation.

Council Member Greene responded that the keg registration issue was different from the majority of the other requests on the Council’s lists. She explained that as an example, the request for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is an “either/or”, and we were not debating what the wording of a law might look like. Council Member Greene continued, stating the request for repeal of State law 95.98 regarding collective bargaining for public sector employees is an “either/or” issue as well. She said in these cases “tricky language” in the statute was not at issue. Council Member Greene said there are ways to distinguish particular requests and, in the case of keg registration, the Council would not have control of how such a statute might be worded.

Council Member Greene said she personally was not satisfied during the recent meeting with the Town’s legislative delegation that keg registration would address a significant part of the underage drinking problem. She stated she was concerned that the Council was told that such a law had not been easy to enforce in other states, so she was not at a point where she could say that keg registration was a law that the Council should “wholeheartedly” endorse to the Legislature. Council Member Greene said the Council did not have enough information nor did they have enough control over such a law a law would read.

Council Member Greene said she supported the Mayor’s request to have keg registration removed from the list and considered separate so that the Council could “specially” deal with it and keep it moving through the League of Municipalities to work on crafting language that makes sense, if we choose to do that. She concluded that she was not ready to support keg registration in this form tonight.

Council Member Hill noted he supported the Mayor’s request for many of the reasons stated by Council Member Greene. He added that an important part of his agreement was the fact that this legislation was fairly new to the Council’s list, and there had not been enough opportunity for public input. Council Member Hill said the Council had not heard from people would might be “seriously impacted” by such legislation. He said that retailers who provide beer kegs to the public should have the opportunity to voice their opinion. Council Member Hill suggested that the Council set the issue of beer keg registration aside and approve the remainder of the list by adopting an amended resolution.

Council Member Harrison said he had listened to the General Assembly this morning as well as talked with Council Member Greene about this issue. He said he would prefer that this issue move forward to the General Assembly and supported Council Member Ward’s suggestions.

Council Member Harrison said that his 21 years of experience had taught him that the Council could draft a bill, send it to the legislature and have Senator Hackney support it, but that still did not guarantee that the bill would be worded the way the Council had requested. He said there were 169 other members in the Legislature besides Senator Hackney, and anything could happen. Council Member Harrison stated he supported moving forward with it and not removing it from the list.

Addressing the audience and the public, Council Member Harrison commented that a lot of what they see on the Council’s agenda as well as much of what the Council was supporting was a form of “professional courtesy.” He said that the Council wanted to provide that same courtesy to each member of the Council, adding that some of the items were of more importance to individual Council members than others. But, Council Member Harrison added, the Council had an interest in moving the items forward to the Legislature.

Mayor Foy noted that a member of the public who had signed up to speak but was not in the Council Chamber when his name was called was now present and had asked permission to speak. He stated that if there was not objection he would allow the person to speak at this time. There was no objection from the Council.

Gary Barnes apologized for his late arrival, commenting that the Chamber was at full capacity when he arrived and he was not able to enter the room. He stated he wanted to speak in favor of an “entertainment” tax on events at large venues as part of the legislative agenda. Mr. Barnes said the primary reasons were that the Town needed the revenue, that such a tax when considered in the past had received a favorable review although it had not passed, and finally it was an idea whose “time had come.”

Mr. Barnes noted that such a tax would raise revenue that might offset part of the property tax increase the Council was currently considering, and that the tax would largely be paid by persons outside of Chapel Hill and Orange County. He said the fact that the tax would not fall on the shoulders of Chapel Hill citizens was one of its primary benefits.

Mr. Barnes stated that more importantly it was an equitable fee, and believed it would help to “cushion” the impact of recent increases in sales taxes and could generate several hundred thousand dollars annually. He requested that this be made a part of the resolution that goes forward. Mr. Barnes added that he was also speaking tonight for the Community Action Network (CAN) board, who had endorsed this.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council limit its discussion and motion to the three issues that were of the most interest to the public, and dispose of those so that many of those present would be able to leave.

Council Member Ward asked which three items the Mayor was referring to. Mayor Foy responded item (b) opposition to the proposed Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman, (c) the inclusion of sexual orientation as a category under North Carolina hate crimes law, and the item that was inadvertently omitted, the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT THE COUNCIL LIMIT ITS DISCUSSION TO OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DEFINING MARRIAGE AS ONLY THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, THE INCLUSION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AS A CATEGORY UNDER NORTH CAROLINA HATE CRIMES LAW, AND THE REPEAL OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she planned to support the motion. She said she and her husband had been talking all week about this, and he had asked how she came to a decision when there were many citizens on both sides of an issue. Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked all of the citizens who had appeared tonight to share their perspectives with the Council, noting that because there were so many citizens divided on these issues, she had to look deep within herself for an answer.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that as an African-American and as a woman who had been the victim of prejudice, injustice and discrimination she could not help but be supportive of these legislative requests. She noted that when anyone was denied their full justice and equality and the rights of all Americans, then none of us have all of our rights.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins she was a real Christian and was not on the “fringes” of Christianity. She said she was proud to be a member of Binkley Baptist Church because it was a church with a religious gospel, a Christian gospel, and a social gospel. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said Binkley had been a leader in this community for fighting for justice, for desegregation, for integration, against poverty, against homelessness, and was dedicated to working on all of the social issues that go along with being a real and deeply committed Christian. She said she supported these three legislative agenda items.

Council Member Ward said there had been some comments made asking how the Council could support the resolution when it was not supported by some members of the Council as well as some members of the public. He said he believed he represented Chapel Hill by being against hatred and discrimination, and equally important that he supported the dignity and respect of the individual and equality and justice for all. Council Member Ward said it was for those reasons, which he believed were also embraced by the Chapel Hill he knew, that he supported the motion currently under consideration.

Council Member Strom said that once again his colleagues had been remarkably articulate, and thanked Mayor pro tem Wiggins and Council Members Ward, Kleinschmidt and Greene for their comments. He said he would support the three components of the legislative agenda that were on the table, noting that he firmly believed as a political activist that justice, fairness, and equality make our society stronger and set good examples for our children.

Council Member Strom said there had been any number of “high-stake” issues that had produced comment from the public to the Council, and he was constantly moved by Chapel Hill citizens who stand before the Council and share their life experiences. He thanked those citizens for sharing their personal experiences with the Council.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

The Mayor thanked the audience for their participation in tonight’s discussion. He then announced that the Council would briefly recess the meeting.

Upon returning from the recess, Mayor Foy stated that the Council had dealt with three issues, and would not consider the remainder of the items on the legislative agenda. He announced that during the break, he had received proposed language issue (a) support of the State-wide legislation of beer keg registration. Mayor Foy suggested that the following language be substituted for the existing language:

“Support the Legislature’s development of reasonable State-wide legislation requiring registration of beer kegs. The Council defers comment on any specific proposal until such a bill is drafted.”

Council Member Ward said he could support that language and appreciated the effort that had gone into preparing it. He added that the Council had a track record of offering generic bill requests without any comment regarding the deferring of comments until specific language is identified. Council Member Ward said that just last year in a request to our legislative delegation we asked for a bill to authorize local campaign financing, a bill to authorize expenditure for open space, a bill to authorize transfer of development rights, and so on. He said there had been no comment included about the wording of such bills. Council Member Ward said that had not concerned us in the past, and again thanked the Mayor for offering language so that this issue could remain on the legislative agenda.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he supported the revised language as well, adding he believed Council Member Ward was right. He said it did not serve them well to compare the original language to other items from this year or in past years as to being too general. Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that on this particular issue he would not have supported the request as originally written.

Council Member Greene said in clarification, the difference is that there was a potential Constitutional issue here, noting there was a potential fourth amendment issue if the law was not drafted correctly.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-5 AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL’S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE 2005 SESSION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2005-03-07/R-5)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill conducted a meeting with the Orange County Legislative Delegation on March 4, 2005, to discuss potential legislative issues of interest to the Town; and

WHEREAS, the Council has, on January 26, February 14, February 28, and March 4, 2005, discussed publicly and afforded the opportunity for public input on proposed items for inclusion in the Town’s legislative program for the 2005 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly; and

WHEREAS, the Council has considered the comments of its citizens and members of the Legislative Delegation;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby establishes the following as its Legislative Program for consideration in the 2005 Session of the General Assembly:

1) Statewide Legislation.

a. Support the Legislature’s development of reasonable statewide legislation requiring the registration of beer kegs. (The Council defers comment on any specific proposed legislation until such a bill is drafted.)

b. Oppose the proposed Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

c. Support the repeal of the North Carolina Defense of Marriage Act.

d. Include sexual orientation as a category under North Carolina hate crimes law.

e. Support the application of state vehicle regulations to electric personal assistive mobility devices.

f. Support the repeal of N.C.G.S. 95-98 and replace it with a law that would establish collective bargaining rights for public employees.

g. Support for the League’s position regarding annexation law.

h. Support an adjustment to the law enforcement supplemental retirement program to provide that each agency where a retiree worked shall contribute a pro rata portion of the retirement allowance.

i. Support a change in state law regarding public records to reaffirm the confidentiality of public agency attorney work product.

j. Support additional state funding for municipalities providing fire protection services to state university facilities and other state buildings.

k. Support for adjustments to increase the scope of the homestead tax exemption.

l. Support State funding of the State Highway Patrol 800MHz trunked radio system known as VIPER (Voice Interoperability Project for Emergency Responders).

m. Support for additional revenue options for local governments, including:

1. Gas tax.

2. Vehicle registration fee.

3. One-half cent sales tax.

n. Support funding for additional substance abuse treatment facilities and the hiring of additional local Alcohol Law Enforcement Officers.

2) Local Legislation.

a. Reconsideration of a local bill to authorize an additional tax on utility bills to provide funding to put overhead power distribution lines underground.

b. Reconsideration of a local bill to authorize a publicly funded program for Chapel Hill municipal election campaigns.

c. Authorization of a $1.00 per-ticket fee on tickets priced at $30 or higher for events at large venues, with the revenue being earmarked for public transportation and public safety funding.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

Mayor Foy then announced that the Council would now move back to the beginning of the agenda and consider matters in order.

Item 1 – Ceremony

Mayor Foy presented Robert Humphreys, representing the Street Scene Teen Center, with a proclamation in honor of the many years of commitment to Chapel Hill youth.

Mr. Humphreys stated he was the President of the Street Scene Teen Center Board of Directors, and was present tonight to celebrate the 20-year association between the Teen Center and the Town of Chapel Hill. He said that in 1983 the Council had granted a request for use of space in the basement of the downtown Post Office for use as a Teen Center, with the stipulation that no Town funds would be used. Mr. Humphreys said the two-year renovation of the space had been accomplished with volunteer labor, donated materials, supplies and money, and teen power.

Mr. Humphreys said the mission of the Teen Center was to provide the teens of our community with a positive and safe environment away from alcohol and drugs in this primarily college-oriented community, as well as a place to call their own. He offered a brief history of the Teen Center, noting its accomplishments and services. Mr. Humphreys said the two key reasons for the Teen Center’s success was that it was run by and for the teens and they had a voice in what happened at the Center, and that the Board had been fortunate over the years to hire good directors. He stated that their current director, Ben Carter, was “a prize.”

Mr. Humphreys invited the Council and the public to the Teen Center to a community open house, reunion and celebration on March 19 from 4 to 6 p.m. stating it would provide an opportunity to meet the teens and talk about the Center. He ended his statement with a quote from an unknown source that they had used for many years: “Too often we forget to tell teens they’re special, and then we lose them to the first person who does.” He said for 20 years the Street Scene Teen Center had provided teens with a place that did tell them they were special, and thanked the Council for the part it had played.

Mayor Foy thanked Mr. Humphreys for his 20 years of hard work.

Item 2 – Public Hearing: Proposed Sale of Pritchard Park

Property to the Siena Hotel

Mr. Horton stated that as they had worked with the Siena Hotel and the committee appointed by the Council to explore the possibility of developing the Art Garden, we determined that the most appropriate way to proceed would be to declare this small area an economic development area and to utilize the provisions of law that already exist that would make it possible for the Town to negotiate directly with the Siena Hotel. Mr. Horton stated that Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster had worked on this issue for a number of years and would make a brief presentation.

Mr. Webster said that on February 14 the Council had declared this area as a economic development area and this allowed us to proceed with direct negotiations with the Siena Hotel. He said at that time the Council had given the staff direction on the terms and conditions of the sale. Mr. Webster said an ad had been placed in the Chapel Hill News offering the parcel for sale at roughly $489,000 per acre for the 1.1 acres that would be sold, plus eight other conditions that would have to be incorporated into any agreement with the Siena Hotel.

Mr. Webster said a key factor of concern was timeliness, and a main condition was that the Siena Hotel be able to submit a Special Use Permit by the end of this calendar year. He said that should the Council move forward with this tonight, then the Siena Hotel would have to come forward with a Special Use Permit by the end of the year, and at the same time Town staff would begin work on a Special Use Permit for the Art Garden, which would be a modification of the library property.

Mr. Webster displayed an area map of the site, as well as a map detailing the configuration of the land proposed for sale. He noted this was only a conceptual drawing of how it might look when buildings and parking were present.

Council Member Strom said he was generally supportive of this, but pointed out that part of the land that was being proposed for sale was clearly in the Resource Conservation District (RCD). He said he was not sure how Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) stipulations would apply to this property, but said when this comes forward for a Special Use Permit he would pay close attention to the location of the RCD, and the configuration shown on the map was not one he would endorse. Mr. Webster responded that the owner was well aware of the RCD boundaries, and had noted that all improvements would take place outside of those boundaries.

Council Member Harrison said what had been displayed on the map was the old RCD distance. Mr. Webster said they had discussed this with the Town Attorney and the Planning staff, and noted that the map displayed the old distance, but under the new LUMO rules. He explained that because of the existing uses, the RCD distance stayed the same as in the former ordinance, but the new requirements within the RCD fall under the new LUMO. Mr. Webster said that when the LUMO was adopted, language was included that stated that as long as there were existing lots and existing uses, then the RCD did not expand but what you could do within the RCD did fall under the new regulations.

Council Member Greene said according to the map, it looked as if part of a road intruded into the RCD. Mr. Horton responded that a key point to remember was that what had been displayed was not a sketch of what would be submitted to the Council for the Special Use Permit, but a drawing to show the Council the potential nature of the development. He said he would make sure the applicant understood the Council’s concern. Council Member Greene said she wanted to make sure the Council was above reproach when it came to deciding issues such as this.

Council Member Ward said he wanted to be clear about any promises by the Town that came with the sale of this property. Mr. Webster responded that the Siena Hotel was fully aware that the Town was “wearing two hats” in this potential transaction. The first, he said, would be the land sale with the Town wearing the hat of the owner. As the Siena Hotel goes through the Special Use Permit process, Mr. Webster said, they are fully aware that the Town would be wearing the hat of the regulator. He noted as well that the Siena Hotel was aware that there was no promise that the Town would approve whatever Special Use Permit application they may bring forward.

Mr. Horton noted that the only conditions in existence would be those that the Council adopted through approval of the resolution. He said there were no other agreements or conditions.

Mayor Foy noted that there were no citizens who had signed up to speak on this issue.

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

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES OF PRITCHARD PARK TO SIENA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (SIENA HOTEL) WITH CONDITIONS (2005-03-07/R-1)

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 1.1 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, the Council determines that the additional employees that would be hired by the Siena Hotel would receive an average salary of $9.50 per hour; and

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

WHEREAS, on February 14, 2005, the Council designated the property in question as an Economic Development Area; and

WHEREAS, the Council determines that the fair market value of the property is $489,323 per acre; 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 authorizes the Town Manager to execute an agreement to sell approximately 1.1 acres of Pritchard Park to Siena Limited Partnership with the following conditions:

· Upon execution of the agreement, the Siena Hotel would make a payment of $15,000 to the Town to reimburse the Town for past design and staff costs related to this proposal. This amount would be paid within 30 days of execution of the agreement and would not be refundable. These funds would be used to pay part of the Town’s park design costs.

· The Siena Hotel would make a $50,000 deposit toward purchase of the property within 60 days of the execution of the agreement. A provision of the agreement would include language that $20,000 of the deposit would be non-refundable if the Siena Hotel elects not to proceed with the project or fails to submit an application for a Special Use Permit by December 31, 2005. The entire deposit would be returned in the event that the Siena Hotel submits a complete Special Use Permit application prior to December 31, 2005, but the Council does not grant the permit or rezone the property.

· Both the Siena Hotel and the Town would begin work on their respective Special Use Permit applications upon execution of the agreement. Every reasonable effort would be made to submit the applications at the same time. Review of the applications by the Town would occur simultaneously.

· The agreement would include language that both parties would support provisions in the Special Use Permits that would guarantee that all buffers be provided on the Siena Hotel side of the property line or that the Siena Hotel pay for the costs of the Town’s buffer requirements on the Pritchard Park/Siena Hotel boundary as the Town develops Pritchard Park.

· Before the land is transferred, the Council would have to grant a Special Use Permit application to the owners of the Siena Hotel. At the same time, the Council would have to modify the Chapel Hill Library’s Special Use Permit to change the boundary of the existing permit to remove from the Special Use Permit the parcel that would be sold to the Siena Hotel.

· The agreement would expire if the Siena Hotel fails to secure a Special Use Permit by December 31, 2007.

· The Council would have to rezone the property to be sold to the Siena Hotel from Residential 1 (R-1) to Community Commercial (CC).

· The Siena Hotel would make a gift of $85,000 for the art garden prior to the sale of the land.

· The land sale would take place within 60 days of Council’s granting of a Special Use Permit for the Siena Hotel, the modification of the Library Special Use Permit, and the rezoning of the property. The Siena Hotel would pay to the Town the amount of $489,323 per acre as established by a survey.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

Item 3 – Petitions

3a. Petitions by Citizens on Items not on the Agenda:

3a(1). Jill Ridky-Blackburn, regarding a Request for a Neighborhood Conservation District.

Ms. Ridky-Blackburn, Vice-President of the Coker Hills Homeowners Association, petitioned the Council to begin the process to establish their neighborhood as a Neighborhood Conservation District, and that a neighborhood conservation plan be established through consultation between the Chapel Hill Planning Board and the residents of Coker Hills.

Ms. Ridky-Blackburn noted the petition she was presenting to the Council contained 134 signatures, or 59% of the Coker Hills homeowners. She then gave a brief history of the neighborhood and an explanation of the restrictive covenants on the neighborhood, particularly the minimum lot sizes and building setbacks.

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

3a(2). Brian Kinanhan, regarding Earth Action Fest.

Mr. Kinanhan announced an Earth Day event scheduled for April 24, and asked that the Council officially recognize this event and help with some of the logistical requirements.

Mr. Kinanhan said they were a group that believed there were serious environmental issues facing the world, and they wanted to make more people aware of it, and help people to take individual action and then act with others. He said to begin that process they had organized a march, called an Earth Action March, for April 24 that would begin at McCorkle Place and end at the Lincoln Center, where they were hosting an Earth Action Fair. Mr. Kinanhan said the Fair would include various environmental groups that would help to educate people about some of the environmental issues we were facing and possible solutions.

Mr. Kinanhan said one of their goals was to raise funds to purchase “green energy” credits that would be made available to the Lincoln Center so that the Center could supplement the payments currently made for utilities, and the utilities would in turn purchase “green power” for the Center; that is, power from renewable sources such as solar energy and wind energy. He said it is their hope that the Earth Action Fest, Earth Action March, and Earth Action Fair would be something that would take place in hundreds of thousands of communities across the country.

Mr. Kinanhan requested that the Town officially sanction the event and direct the Town Manager to discuss with them ways that the Town might help.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED THAT THE PETITION BE REFERRED TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND STAFF AS WELL AS THE MAYOR’S OFFICE, TO RECOMMEND WAYS THE TOWN MIGHT OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE THE EVENT AND HELP WITH LOGISTICAL SUPPORT. COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3b. Petitions by Citizens on Items on the Agenda. None.

3c. Announcements by Council Members.

Council Member Strom announced that the Orange/Chatham County Sierra was hosting a roundtable discussion on Wednesday, March 9 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chamber. He said the roundtable discussion was being called “Orange County Growth Issues: Prospects and Possible Solutions.” Council Member Strom said that two Chatham County Commissioners, Mike Cross and Patrick Barnes, would participate in the roundtable as well as a citizen activist from Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities, and Jeffrey Starkweather from The Chatham Coalition. He said the event would be televised and the entire community was invited to participate.

Council Member Ward asked how long the roundtable was expected to last. Council Member Strom said they had reserved the facilities through 10 p.m.

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNICL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2005-03-07/R-2)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:

a.	Appropriation of Payment in Lieu of Recreation Funds for Hargraves Park (O-1a, O-1b).
b.	Resolution Requesting County Contribution to Special Olympics Program (R-3).
c.	Proposed Allocation of Additional State Transportation Revenues (O-2).
d.	Project Ordinance for a Transportation Capital Grant (O-3).
e.	Response to a Petition Requesting “No Right Turn on Red” on Southbound Caswell Road at Estes Drive (O-4).
f.	On-Street Parking Restrictions at the Intersection of San Sophia Drive and Telluride Trail (O-5).
g.	Resolution Designating the Town Manager as the Town’s Authorized Agent for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Application Involving Camelot Village (R-4).
h.	Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment Changes to Subdivision Plat Certification Provisions (O-6).
i.	TelCove Franchise Second Reading (O-7).
j.	Stormwater Management Ordinance Revisions (O-8).
k.	Recommended Position Classification and Pay Changes (O-9).
l.	Ordinance Allocating Funds for Printing of “Guide to Town Services” and Updating of Town Seal (O-10).
m.	A Resolution of Support for the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program (R-4.1).

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2005-03-07/O-1a)

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 the 7^th day of March, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS ORDINANCE FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS (2005-03-07/O-1b)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the capital projects ordinance for various capital projects funded from a variety of sources is hereby amended as follows:

SECTION I

The capital projects as authorized by the Town Council includes various capital projects funded from grants, the Capital Improvements Program funds, and other miscellaneous sources of revenue for a variety of projects extending beyond one fiscal year.

SECTION II

The Town Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with implementation of these projects within terms of funds appropriated here.

SECTION III

Revenues anticipated to be available to the Town to complete the project are hereby amended as follows:

Current Budget Revised Budget

Total 6,877,014 6,962,864

SECTION IV

Amounts appropriated for capital projects are hereby amended as follows:

Current Budget Revised Budget

Hargraves Park 0 85,850

All other projects 6,877,014 6,877,014

Total 6,877,014 6,962,864

SECTION V

The Town Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of the project in an informational section to be included in the Annual Budget, and shall keep the Council informed of any unusual occurrences.

SECTION VI

Copies of this projects ordinance shall be entered into the Minutes of the Council and copies shall be filed within five days of adoption with the Town Manager, Finance Director and Town Clerk.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CHAIR OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING THAT ORANGE COUNTY PROVIDE $16,000 TO INCREASE THE ORANGE COUNTY-CHAPEL HILL SPECIAL OLYMPICS RECREATION SPECIALIST’S POSITION TO FULL-TIME STATUS (2005-03-07/R-3)

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill Council recognizes the importance of inter-jurisdictional coordination and its importance to the provision of recreation and park services and facilities within Orange County; and

WHEREAS, the Orange County-Chapel Hill Special Olympics program, operated by the Town of Chapel Hill serves individuals with intellectual disabilities throughout Orange County; and

WHEREAS, Orange County does not currently contribute resources for the Orange County-Chapel Hill Special Olympics program; and

WHEREAS, full-time funding for the Special Olympics Coordinator position has been a primary goal of the Parks and Recreation Commission for several years;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Mayor to send correspondence to the Chair of the County Board of Commissioners, requesting that Orange County provide $16,000 to increase the Orange County-Chapel Hill Special Olympics Recreation Specialist’s position to full-time status.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2005-03-07/O-2)

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BUDGET FOR A TRANSPORTATION GRANT (2005-03-07/O-3)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project is hereby established:

SECTION I

The Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) funds are from 2005 federal funds from an agreement with the Federal Transit Administration.

SECTION II

The Town Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the implementation of the project within the terms of the grant agreements executed with the Federal Transit Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation within the funds appropriated herein.

SECTION III

The following revenue is anticipated to be available to the Town to complete activities as outlined in the project application.

Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307)

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)	$800,000
N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT)	100,000
Town of Chapel Hill (local match)	100,000
Total	$1,000,000

SECTION IV

The following amounts are appropriated for the FY 2005 Section 5307 project:

Capital Equipment	$1,000,000
Total	$1,000,000

This the 7th day of March, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICES (2005-03-07/O-4)

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

Section 1. Section 21-8 (D) of the Town Code of Ordinances, "Except at designated no-turn intersections, any vehicle, after coming to a complete stop for a red light facing the vehicle, may make a right turn after yielding to pedestrians and other vehicles. At the following intersections, designated as no-turn intersections, where a sign reading “No Right Run on Red After Stop” is properly erected, vehicles may not make a right turn against the red light" is hereby amended by inserting the following therein the appropriate alphabetical order:

“Street At For Traffic Approaching from the

Caswell Road Estes Drive South”

Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING PARKING AS TO PARTICULAR STREETS (2005-03-07/O-5)

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 inserting the following therein the appropriate alphabetical order:

“Street Side From To

San Sophia Drive Both Telluride Trail A point 75 feet east

of Telluride Trail

Telluride Trail Both A point 75 feet north of A point 75 feet south

San Sophia Drive of San Sophia Drive”

Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

A resolution designating the Town Manager as the Town’s agent in matters pertaining to a Hazard Mitigation Grant Application for the acquisition and demolition of up to three buildings and the acquisition of land in the Camelot Village condominium complex (2005-03-07/R-4)

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT’S AGENT

BE IT RESOLVED BY the Town Council OF the Town of Chapel Hill

‘ (Governing Body) (Public Entity)

THAT W. Calvin Horton Town Manager

(Name of Incumbent) (Official Position)

is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of Town of Chapel Hill, a public entity established under the laws of the State of North Carolina, this application and to file it in the appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd Congress) or otherwise available from the President Disaster Relief Fund.

THAT the Town of Chapel Hill, a public entity established under the laws of the State of North Carolina, hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State and to the Federal ‘Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance the assurance and agreements printed on the reverse side hereof.

Passed and approved this 7^th day of March, 2005 by:

Kevin Foy, Mayor; Edith Wiggins, Mayor pro tem; Ed Harrison, Sally Greene, Bill Strom, Mark Kleinschmidt. Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, Cam Hill (Town Council)

CERTIFICATION

I, Sabrina M. Oliver, duly appointed Town Clerk of the Town of Chapel Hill do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill on the 7^th day of March, 2005.

Date: ___________________________

_______________________________________

Town Clerk

(Seal)

FEMA Form 90-63, MAR81 FDAA.DOC

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING SUBDIVISION PLAT CERTIFICATIONS (2005-03-07/O-6)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered this additional step regarding subdivision plat certification in the Town’s land use regulatory procedures that will improve the Town’s monitoring and enforcement of subdivision conditions of approval established by the Council; and

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed text amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance and finds that the amendments are warranted in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

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

Section 1. Section 4.6.11, Certificates and Endorsements on Final Plat, Section (b) of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance is hereby revised to read as follows:

“(b) Certificate of dedication and maintenance.

The following shall be printed on the final plat over the signature of the owner(s):

"The undersigned ~~owner~~ party, being duly sworn, certifies that he is the owner or duly authorized representative of the owner of the property designated on this plat as described below, and hereby freely dedicates all rights-of-way, easements, streets, recreation area, open space, common area, utilities, and other improvements to public or private common use as noted on this plat, and further assumes full responsibility for the maintenance and control of said improvements until they are accepted for maintenance and control by an appropriate public body or, by an incorporated neighborhood or homeowners' association or similar legal entity.

Description/reference to lots shown on this plat and covered by this certificate: (insert list of lot numbers or other clear identification of lots covered by this certification) "

______________________________ Date: __________________“

Section 2. Section 4.6.11, Certificates and Endorsements on Final Plat, Section (e) of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance is hereby revised to read as follows:

“(e) Notary public required.

All certification and endorsement signatures on the final plat, except those of the Town Manager, representatives of other governmental agencies and public utilities, and licensed surveyors shall be signed under oath and notarized by the statement of a notary public entered on the final plat. “

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 7^th day of March, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO TELCOVE OPERATIONS, INC. TO PROVIDE VOICE AND DATA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (2005-03-07/O-7)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby grants a franchise to TelCove Operations, Inc. to operate a telecommunications system in the Town subject to the following conditions:

Scope of Services

The company may provide the following services:

Telephone and Data Communications Services, pursuant to authority granted by the Federal Communications Commission.

This franchise does not authorize the company to provide cable television or video services, for which a separate franchise could be requested. This franchise does not authorize placement of public use telephones on Town property or public rights-of-way.

Relocation of Equipment

Any of the company's equipment which may be located in public rights-of-way or other Town property shall be subject upon 180 days' written notice by the Town to removal or relocation at the company's sole expense to other place(s) satisfactory to the Town Manager; provided that places satisfactory to the Town Manager are available within such period and will not result in a material adverse affect on the quality of the company's telephone and data communications service provided to the Town; otherwise, such time period shall be extended as reasonably necessary for the company to find an adequate relocation site, provided, however, that the Town Council approves a separate lease agreement.

Subject to the time frames referenced in the preceding paragraph, removal or relocation may also be required by the Town due to street or utility improvements in general, due to public health and safety problems upon a determination by the Town or for other just and reasonable cause as may be determined by the Town.

Upon the Town's determination of an emergency need to remove equipment, such removal shall occur within the time period determined reasonably necessary by the Town after consultation with the company. Emergency needs are not subject to the time limits stated above.

Disturbance of Property within a Right-of-Way; Inspections

Any disturbance of property within or affecting a public right-of-way, as may be necessary for the installation and/or connection of services by the franchisee, must receive prior approval of the Town Manager or Manager's designee and shall be subject to Chapter 17, Article IV of the Town Code of Ordinances. The franchisee shall notify the Town Manager’s office 24 hours in advance of the start of any construction that will damage any existing public street or significantly obstruct the flow of traffic.

Term of Franchise

The term of the franchise shall be 20 years from acceptance by the franchisee, with the possibility of renewal subject to filing of a renewal application at least one year before the franchise expiration.

If at any time during the initial term of this franchise, or any renewal period, the franchisee sells its assets, or otherwise ceases the provision of telecommunications/data service in the area of the Town of Chapel Hill, franchisee may terminate this franchise upon sixty (60) days prior written notice.

Letter of Credit, Fees and Taxes

The company shall maintain a letter of credit or performance bond in the amount of $50,000, or a guarantee of the company's general partner, acceptable to the Town Manager, with the required amount to be replenished as necessary to maintain the required balance at all times to ensure compliance with all applicable State or local laws, ordinances and regulations and directives of the Town, with terms of the franchise and to ensure payment of any applicable fees and taxes due to the Town. So long as the company is subject to and does pay the State franchise tax imposed pursuant to N.C.G.S. §105-120, the Town shall not, and does not currently, charge a license, privilege or franchise tax on the company, which is not authorized by law and applicable to other similar businesses. Should the Town seek to impose a fee or tax on the company in the future, the company shall have not less than 120 days’ notice prior to the effective date of such fee or tax, and shall have the right to terminate the franchise provided that it shall remove its equipment from the Town property or public right-of-way within 60 days of termination.

Insurance and Indemnification of the Town

The company shall maintain general liability insurance naming the Town as an additional insured party and in a form satisfactory to the Manager. General liability coverage shall be in the amount of at least $1,000,000.

The company shall be required, by acceptance of the terms and conditions of this franchise, to indemnify the Town from all damages that may arise in connection with the company's actions and omissions and to defend the Town at the company's sole expense against any claims in connection with the company's actions and omissions.

Compliance with All Applicable Laws, Ordinances and Regulations

The company shall comply with Town ordinances, construction codes, other policies adopted by the Council, administrative regulations issued pursuant to Council action or policy, with directives of the Town that may be issued under the franchise ordinance terms or general law, provided that such policies, directives, codes, and regulations are consistent with State and federal laws and regulations, and with all applicable State and federal laws and regulations, including any requirement for State right-of-way encroachment agreements, etc. Failure to comply shall be grounds for revoking the franchise.

Acceptance of Franchise Terms

The company shall, within 60 days of adoption of this franchise ordinance on second reading, accept all terms and conditions of the franchise ordinance.

Revocation Procedure

If the franchise is revoked by the Council for failure to comply with any term or condition of this franchise after any cure period, the company shall cease utilizing its facilities located on Town property or public rights-of-way within 120 days of receiving notice of revocation and remove its equipment from public rights-of-way within 180 days. Upon the company's failure to do so, the Town shall have the right to remove the equipment and to draw funds from the letter of credit or to call upon the guarantee to cover such costs.

Before a decision to revoke the franchise, the Council shall adopt a resolution of intent to revoke the franchise with a statement of the reasons for revocation and shall cause a copy of the resolution to be delivered or mailed by first class mail to the company. Company shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the intent to revoke to cure any breach listed in the intent to revoke, or if the cure cannot be reasonably effected within thirty (30) days such time as may be reasonably necessary to effect cure

Transfer Of Ownership

A change or changes in ownership of the franchisee cumulatively totaling a 25% or greater interest in the company shall be subject to review and reasonable approval by the Town Council within 120 days of receipt by the Town Manager of a request from the company for review of such a change(s) in ownership. In the event the Town Council reviews and, for good cause duly substantiated, objects to the change in ownership, it shall have the authority to revoke the franchise in accordance with the procedure set forth in the preceding paragraph.

This the 28^th day of February, 2005. (First reading)

This the 7^th day of March, 2005. (SECOND READING)

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY ORDINANCE (2005-03-07/O-8)

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

Section 1. Section 23-3 of the Town Code is hereby revised by adding the following terms and definitions in the proper alphabetical listing location.

“Customer shall mean the person or entity to which the stormwater fee is billed.”

“Easement shall mean a grant of rights by a property owner to a portion of land for a specified purpose as defined in a recorded deed, as delineated on a recorded plat, or as established in another legal document.”

“Governmental unit shall mean a city, county, school administrative unit, sanitary district, fire district, the State, or any other public district, authority, department, agency, board, commission, or institution.”

“Lot shall mean land bounded by lines legally established for the purpose of property division. As used in this Chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise, the term refers to a zoning lot.”

“Owner shall mean the legal or beneficial owner of land, as shown in the county land records.”

“Person shall mean any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, governmental unit or organization of any kind.”

“Real Property shall mean land, tenements, and hereditaments.”

Section 2. Section 23-7 of the Town Code is hereby revised to read as follows:

“Sec. 23-7. Schedule of Fees and Charges.

(a) The schedule of fees and charges set out in this section is hereby adopted and shall apply to all zoning lots and tracts within the corporate limits of the Town, except as may be altered by credits or exemptions provided in this Article.

(1) The person who is the owner of record on January 1^st of each year of ~~All~~ each zoning lots and tract~~s of land~~ within the corporate limits of the Town, shall be billed ~~for~~ one (1) Equivalent Rate Unit for each 2,000 square feet or fraction thereof of impervious surface area on the subject zoning lot or tract., except as noted in Section 23-8, ‘Billing and Collections,’ below.

(2) The first year service charge per Equivalent Rate Unit shall be $39.00.

~~(2)~~(3) Thereafter, Tthe ~~annual~~ service charge per Equivalent Rate Unit shall be $39.00 per calendar year. The fees charged under this Section are intended for the fiscal year in which the fees become due.

(b) There will be no service charge for zoning lots or tracts with fewer than 200 square feet of impervious surface area.”

Section 3. Section 23-8 of the Town Code is hereby revised to read as follows:

“Sec. 23-8. Billing and Collection.

(a) Method of billing. Billing and collection of the Stormwater Management Utility service charges and any ~~other rents, rates, fees, charges, and~~ penalties for stormwater management services and facilities shall be administered by the Town Manager. Additional guidelines concerning billing may be developed by the Town Manager.

(b) Townhouse, condominium, and similar developments containing impervious surface area in common and individual ownership. The stormwater fee for townhouse and condominium developments and other similar developments containing impervious surface area in common and individual ownership shall be based on the total impervious surface area of all commonly-owned and individually-owned real property within the development. The total stormwater fee for the entire development is divided by the number of units to calculate the fee for each unit. The stormwater fee shall be sent to each unit owner unless the owners’ association has requested one of the fee redistribution options below. The billing option(s) described in this subsection (b) and in subsection (c) below shall not apply to a detached single-family house, a duplex, or a manufactured home or mobile home located on an individual lot rather than in a manufactured home or mobile home park. Billing options listed herein may not all be available in some cases depending on the legal structure of ownership.

(c) Fee redistribution. Upon official request of an owners’ association reflecting a vote in accordance with the association’s bylaws, the stormwater fee for townhouse and condominium developments may be redistributed using one of the options listed below. A request for fee redistribution shall contain all the information required by the Town and shall be binding for the period of time specified by the Town. Approved fee redistribution requests shall become effective in the following billing year.

1. Consolidated billing to the owners’ association or designated agent. The stormwater fee shall be based on the total impervious surface area of all commonly-owned and individually-owned real property within the development and a single bill shall be sent to either the owners’ association or designated agent.

2. Shared billing between unit owners and the owners’ association or designated agent.

i. The stormwater fee for the impervious surface area on commonly-owned real

property shall be calculated and billed to the owners’ association or designated agent. The remaining impervious surface area contained on individually-owned real property(ies) is summed; the total stormwater fee is calculated and then divided by the total number of units; and the stormwater fee for each unit shall be sent to the unit owner; or

ii. The stormwater fee for the impervious surface area on commonly-owned real

property shall be calculated and billed to the owners’ association or designated agent. The stormwater fee for the impervious surface area contained on individually-owned real property is calculated and sent to the property owner.

3. Proportional billing to unit owners. The stormwater fee shall be based on the total impervious surface area on all commonly-owned and individually-owned real property within the development. The total stormwater fee for the entire development is divided proportionally among the units, based on each unit’s interior floor area as a percentage of the total interior floor area within the development as a whole. The stormwater fee for each unit shall be sent to the unit owner.

(d) Easements. Stormwater fees for impervious surface area contained within an easement outside a public street or highway shall be billed to the person or entity responsible for the construction and maintenance of the impervious surfaces within the easement.

~~(b)~~(e)Delinquencies. Stormwater Management Utility service charge billings ~~or other billings~~

~~for rents, rates, fees, charges, and penalties~~ associated with the Stormwater Management

Utility are due and payable on September 1 of the fiscal year for which the fees are charged. Stormwater fees shall be declared delinquent if not paid on or before January 5 of the year following the year that billings are issued. Delinquent billings shall accumulate additional penalties at the rate of 2% for the month of January, and ¾ if of 1% for each month thereafter. This penalty shall be termed a delinquent payment penalty charge. The Town Manager shall have discretionary authority with regard to the assessment of penalties and the time allowed for appeals when situations such as billing errors, incorrect addresses, or processing delays warrant relief in the opinion of the Manager.

~~(c)~~(f)Appeal of disputed bills and adjustments. If any ~~citizen~~ customer wishes to dispute a

stormwater utility service charge billing ~~or any other rents, rates, fees, charges,~~ or penalties adopted pursuant to this Article, that ~~citizen~~ customer must submit a written appeal within 60 90 days ~~of receipt~~ of the billing, stating the reasons for the appeal, and providing information pertinent to the calculation of the billed charge. A timely appeal shall stay the penalty deadlines. An appeal of a disputed bill shall be filed with the Town’s stormwater manager for review and disposition. If the ~~citizen~~ customer is not satisfied with the disposition of the appeal, the ~~citizen~~ customer may further appeal the disputed charge to the Town Manager or his designee who shall make the final ruling on the validity of the appeal.

~~(d)~~(g)Collection of delinquencies: The administrative remedies provided in this chapter shall be

exhausted before recourse to a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Section 4. This Ordinance is effective upon enactment.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, SUCH AMENDMENT TO BE EFFECTIVE MARCH 8, 2005 (2005-03-07/O-9)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following amendments are authorized effective March 8, 2005:

Section III

The assignments of the following positions are changed as noted:

Present Title	New Title	Number of Positions	Present Grade	New Grade
Deputy Town Clerk	No change	1	33	35
Administrative Clerk (Human Resources Department)	Human Resources Specialist I	1	28	30
Traffic Program Supervisor	No change	1	37	39

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2005-03-07/O-10)

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

A RESOLUTION STATING THE COUNCIL’S SUPPORT FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (2005-03-07/R-4.1)

WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program is a foundation of revitalization and development in America’s cities, towns, and neighborhood; and

WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program is a flexible and reliable source of funding; and

WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant program promotes housing choice, affordability and homeownership; and

WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program supports the repair, modernization and security of critical infrastructure; and

WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program is a vital resource for implementing the vision of citizens articulated in local plans; and

WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program is a good investment of public resources; and

WHEREAS, the Town has received Community Development Block Grant Funds since 1974; and

WHEREAS, Community Development Block Grant Funds have allowed the Town to provide affordable housing and community services to lower income Chapel Hill residents; and

WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Funds have been used help the Council meet goals of providing affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization established in the Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, elimination of the Community Development program could result in a significant decrease in the Town’s affordable housing and community development activities;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council supports continuing the Community Development Block Grant program to operate as a separate program with a funding level consistent with current amounts, and maintain the current system where 70% of the community development funds are allocated as a block grant to entitlement communities based on population.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Mayor to forward this Resolution and to send a letter of support to U.S. Representative David Price and Senators Dole and Burr expressing the Council’s position.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

Item 5 – Information Reports

5a. Status Report on Airport Road Name Change to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she wanted to draw attention to the status report presented by the staff, noting it was very much in keeping with the recommendations of the Special Committee that the Town do all it can to assist residents who would be affected by the name change. She said she believed the staff had done a very good job of finding ways to make the change as easy as possible.

Mayor Foy thanked Mr. Horton for taking the initiative to make this work the best way possible for people who would be affected. Mr. Horton responded that the Town Information Officer, Catherine Lazorko, had been leading that work along with Public Works Director Bill Letteri, and they had made a lot of progress.

Mr. Horton called the Council’s attention to the street signs on display in the back of the Chamber, noting that they would not look that large once they were hung. He said the large sign was approximately 12 square feet, and because of the wind load factors that had to be considered the signs could not be any larger. Mr. Horton said the smaller sign was the typical street name identifier sign found on connecting streets.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Horton where the larger sign would be placed. Mr. Horton responded that the larger signs would be primary identifiers at the major intersections, such as at Estes Drive.

The Council accepted the Information Report as presented.

Item 7 – Wilson Assemblage: Application for a Special Use Permit Application

Mr. Horton said this issue had continued to evolve, and that additional information was being provided tonight that had not been included in the materials forwarded to the Council. He said they would present it in as clear a manner as possible, and respected that the Council may have questions as they had not had an opportunity to study the material in advance. Mr. Horton said that Planning Director Roger Waldon would discuss the key issues.

Mr. Waldon said application was last considered on February 28, and the memorandum before the Council this evening recapped the four primary issues from that meeting. He said he would give a brief description of each, then the Council would hear from Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli as well as the applicant.

Mr. Waldon said the first issue was the demolition of existing dwellings on the site, with the point of focus being the farm house fronting on Dobbins Drive. He said at the February 28 meeting it was acknowledged that there were other dwellings on the site that may be candidates for saving along with the farm house. Mr. Waldon said based on that discussion, they had revised the resolution to include a stipulation that the same offer of payment of $8,000 would be extended to any organization willing to move and preserve any of the dwellings. He said it was their understanding that the applicant would agree to that stipulation.

Mr. Waldon said there was one exception regarding removal of the existing farm house fronting on Dobbins Drive, that would require: that demolition of the structure be delayed for one year following approval of the Special Use Permit (SUP); that notice be given to the Town Manager 30 days before demolition would take place; and, that the applicant make available a payment of $8,000 to any organization that is willing to move the farm house off of the site for preservation in lieu of demolition. He said for the additional dwellings on the site, they had included a stipulation that there be a six-month delay.

Mr. Waldon said the second issue regarded the inclusion of drive-through windows for a bank. He said based on the discussion on February 28, they had included a stipulation in the revised resolution that the drive-through lanes be authorized, but with adjustments to the applicant’s proposed floor area allocations to account for the increased trip generation that would be expected with drive-through windows, such that projected trip generation would be identical in either scenario. Mr. Waldon noted that if the Council chose to deny the drive-through windows, language had been included in the memorandum that could be used.

Mr. Waldon noted that the third issue was affordable housing. He said on February 28 the Council had requested whether or not affordable housing units could also be included in the Wilson Assemblage site, in addition to the 32 Dobbins Hill units. Mr. Waldon said the applicant would share his thoughts on that shortly.

Mr. Waldon said the last of the four issues resulted from a citizen who had come to the February 28 meeting to express concern about plans for changes to Dobbins Hill, and noted that she had not been aware of previous hearings about these plans. He said that the Dobbins Hill public hearing was scheduled for April 18, and they were working to make sure that anyone who might have an interest in that meeting was notified. Mr. Waldon said the issue the citizen had raised would be discussed at the April 18 hearing.

Mr. Waldon called the Council’s attention to the handout regarding a new issue that had developed since the February 28 meeting, regarding the schedule for construction of the superstreet. He said that NCDOT had an additional set of bids that came in higher than expected, and asked Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli to address that issue with the Council and offer the most up to date information that we have been able to obtain regarding the superstreet.

Mr. Neppalli commented that he had met with NCDOT officials last week and received a detailed schedule on the superstreet project. He stated that NCDOT had indicated they had met with all those involved with projecting cost estimates for the superstreet project to compare the estimated cost with the bids that had been received. Mr. Neppalli said a report should be forthcoming on NCDOT’s findings some time in April. Once that report is received, he said, there were several options NCDOT must consider before letting the project.

Mr. Neppalli said if it was determined that the estimates were reasonable, then the project could be let. If the estimates fall short, he said, then additional funding would have to be requested from the Board of Transportation. Mr. Neppalli said that could delay the project yet again. So, he stated, it was not clear whether the project would be let in April or delayed until May or June, nor was it clear when actual construction would begin.

Council Member Strom confirmed with Mr. Waldon that the staff recommendation was that the “either/or” language regarding either drive-through lanes at the bank or an adjustment in the square footage be included as a stipulation in the resolution. He asked if the “either/or” option or the original language both required a Sage Road alignment. Mr. Waldon responded yes.

Mr. Waldon noted on page 9 of the memorandum, that stipulation #21 speaks to when Certificates of Occupancy can be issued based on the construction of the superstreet. He said that the alternative language offered in the handout would replace that language, due to the uncertainty of the superstreet construction schedule. Mr. Waldon read aloud the substitute language, noting that the new language meant that construction of this development could not begin until the superstreet contracts had been let by NCDOT, and that the units could not be occupied until after superstreet construction was completed.

Mr. Waldon summarized that the staff was offering three changes from its recommendation on February 28: the additional demolition language previously described; the either/or option with respect to the drive-through lanes for a bank; and, the language just described regarding Certificates of Occupancy and Zoning Compliance Permits. He said with those three revisions the recommendation was that the Council adopt Resolution A.

Council Member Ward asked how did the revision to stipulation #21 change the sequence of events. Mr. Waldon said if all goes well with the superstreet project, the new language would have no effect. But, he noted, if superstreet were to experience a significant delay then this project would be materially effected.

Council Member Ward asked how that would correlate with the urgency to remove some of the homes. If asked if the substitute language was accepted, would it make it less urgent to remove the homes? Mr. Waldon responded that was possible if the superstreet project was delayed. Mr. Waldon said he believed that question should be addressed by the applicant.

Jack Smyre, representing the applicant, Crosland, Inc., said they had been following closely the events over the last week, and the applicant was in agreement with the Manager’s revised recommendation. He reminded the Council that they had consistently requested an extension in the completion date to March 7, 2009 rather than March 7, 2008 in stipulation #1, primarily to accommodate their development partner.

Mr. Smyre said along with that small change, there was one additional stipulation requested by the applicant. He noted that from conversations between the applicant and Orange Community Housing and Land Trust had evolved a pattern of discussion and agreement, and that Robert Dowling would describe the intricacies of the stipulation.

Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, said he was not present to offer any opinion on the SUP for the Wilson Assemblage. Rather, he said, he had come to offer a perspective on the affordable housing component that the Council had addressed to the applicant on February 28. Mr. Dowling noted that the applicant had informed the Council at that time that one or two-bedroom condominiums would be offered at around $100,000. After talking with the applicant, Mr. Dowling had informed the applicant that to be affordable those units should be priced in the $80,000 to $90,000 range, to which the applicant responded that would render the project financially infeasible.

Mr. Dowling said they had developed a proposal that would shed a different light on the rental units proposed at Dobbins Hill. First, he said, he had not discussed this proposal with the Board but had discussed it with individual Board members, adding that the Board would meet on Wednesday night of this week.

Mr. Dowling said that rental housing was a value in Chapel Hill, and not everyone could be a homeowner. If you want to build rental housing for people who make less than 50% of the median income, he stated, tax credits was the most efficient way to do it. Mr. Dowling said if they attempted to build rental housing with local subsidy, such as CDBG or HOME funds, it would require an “enormous” subsidy in order to build 32 units. He stressed that this project would provide 32 affordable rental units for people who make less than 50% of the median income that would be primarily for families.

Mr. Dowling said the applicant was willing to sell the two buildings containing 32 rental units to Orange Community Housing and Land Trust in 15 years at the end of the mandatory compliance period at a “very preferential price.” He said the IRS Code allowed a non-profit organization to purchase tax credit rental properties at the end of the compliance period at a preferential price, although he did not yet know what that price would be.

Mr. Dowling said that the applicant had stated that the project would be built for $3 to $3.4 million. He said that in 15 years, Orange County Housing and Land Trust would be able to purchase those 32 units for less than half of that amount. Mr. Dowling said the “sweetener” was that they would not be obligated to purchase the units in case he was wrong about the amount, but they would have the right of first refusal. He said that the right of first refusal would provide them the opportunity to purchase a property containing 32 rental units that cost over $3 million and that would be worth far more than that in 15 years for $1.5 million or less. Mr. Dowling said that was a good thing for Chapel Hill, and was certainly a good thing for the Land Trust because if purchased the units would become perpetually affordable.

Regarding the Wilson Assemblage affordable condominium units requested by the Council on February 28, Mr. Dowling said there were a number of condominium units in the pipeline coming towards the Land Trust shortly. He noted a project on Airport Road and the Best Western redevelopment project, both of which were condominiums and both of which would have affordable units priced in the $80,000 to $90,000 range.

Mr. Dowling said as far as tax credit rental projects, he was not aware of anything in the pipeline, and that given the price and scarcity of land in Chapel Hill there simply may not be any opportunities for tax credit rental properties in Chapel Hill.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if any thought had been given to the fact that if the Land Trust purchased the Dobbins Hill II units in 15 years how would two managements at the same location work, or had they considered purchasing Dobbins Hill I as well. Mr. Dowling said they had discussed with Crosland, Inc. the potential of purchasing all of Dobbins Hill, because it may be awkward for the Land Trust to own two buildings and another entity owning the other five. From a management perspective, Mr. Dowling said it made sense for one entity to own all of it.

Council Member Hill commented that the stipulation provided to the Council regarding the right of first refusal did not mention a price, although Mr. Dowling had alluded to one. He asked if there was a mechanism that determined the price. Mr. Dowling responded that IRS Code Section 42 determined how that worked, noting the units could be sold for the outstanding debt, and all applicable federal and State taxes.

Council Member Hill asked if there was anything that would prevent the property from being refinanced, which would drive up the outstanding debt. Mr. Dowling responded that there was a clause that said that any debt incurred in the last five years of that 15 year date would count. He said that the tax credits for this project would provide over $2 million in equity, so there was not a lot of debt to begin with. And, Mr. Dowling said, that interest rates were so low that it would be difficult to believe that they would need to refinance that debt in the future when rates would most likely be higher. Council Member Hill said his concern was that this would remain a “good deal” for the Land Trust, since they did not know what would happen over the next 15 years.

Council Member Hill said he assumed that IRS Code Section 42 provided some sort of tax advantage for the seller. Mr. Dowling said that there were no taxes due if it was sold to a non-profit organization. Council Member Hill said if the Land Trust acquired the property he assumed they would continue to rent it, or had they considered selling the units? Mr. Dowling said it was required that whoever purchased it would have to rent it affordably for a period of 30 years. He said if the Land Trust owned it, then after that 30-year period they could consider other options.

Council Member Hill said then, that the net effect for the Town of the Land Trust purchasing the units is “nothing” for 15 years, then the units would remain affordable for another 15 years, at which time the Land Trust could consider other options. Mr. Dowling said that was correct. Council Member Hill said that meant they were talking about a benefit that would not be obtained for thirty years. Mr. Dowling said that was correct, and reiterated that he was not advocating for one method or another, but was providing a perspective. He said there was a need for affordable rental housing in Chapel Hill and he expected that need would become greater over time. Council Member Hill agreed that would probably be so.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Smyre if the proposed language was to be included in this SUP. Mr. Smyre said it was their proposal to insert that language into the resolution before the Council this evening. He said they would have more details when they came before the Council in April with the Dobbins Hill SUP request. Mr. Smyre said that the affordable housing gesture they had made was a “strong” one, noting it was 18% of the project aimed at the 50% median income range and was a needed component in the affordable housing fabric for Chapel Hill. He said these units would remain affordable for an even longer period if the Land Trust were to accept the offer that was made. He reminded the Council that more details would be available when Dobbins Hill came before the Council in April. Mr. Smyre said they were willing to make that a part of the action tonight in order to strengthen that linkage between the Wilson Assemblage and the affordable housing component of Dobbins Hill.

Mayor Foy said he believed the Council would need some guidance from the Manager and the Attorney regarding the language offered in the stipulation. Mr. Horton responded that the stipulation would most likely be inserted after the current stipulation #4, noting that stipulation #4 ties together the Wilson Assemblage and the Dobbins Hill in such a manner that if the Zoning Compliance Permit for Dobbins Hill was not issued, then there would not be one issued for the Wilson Assemblage.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton if he was comfortable with the present language and with working out the details when the other SUP was considered. Mr. Horton responded yes, stating that they had been apprised of this proposal but had not yet investigated it fully. He said he believed it to be a reasonable proposal and recommended it for consideration.

Council Member Ward said regarding the potential purchase in 15 years by the Land Trust, did that purchase include the land. Mr. Dowling said the purchase would be for the two buildings including the land.

Council Member Ward asked if the property lines would be considered normal, or were they only what was under the buildings. Mr. Smyre responded that the detail of the property lines would be submitted when the SUP for Dobbins Hill was reviewed in April. He said they were proposing two lots, one around each of the buildings, be included in the property to provide delineation between the two properties during construction and then would be recombined when construction was completed. Mr. Smyre said those two lots could be left in place and serve as land that would be included with the buildings.

Council Member Strom said part of his question had been answered in that much more detail would be provided during the hearing in April. He stated that he very much agreed with Mr. Dowling’s statements that affordable rental housing in the 50% of median income range was greatly needed. Council Member Strom said the Orange County Affordable Housing Task Force Report documented beyond any doubt that this was both the most difficult type of housing stock to build because of the “incredibly heavy subsidies” there were required to make the rents affordable, and that it was also in the smallest supply.

Council Member Strom said that the 32 units proposed for Dobbins Hill addressed a “remarkable” need in the community and he believed it was an innovative and proactive approach to our affordable housing requirement.

Mayor Foy asked if the applicant had further comments. Mr. Smyre said no, but wanted to reiterate that they agreed with the revised recommendation offered by the Manager.

Mr. Horton noted that the staff had no objection to the completion date in stipulation one being amended to March 7, 2009.

Dr. Harvey Krasny said he was not asking that development be stopped on this project, but was asking that it be done in a rational manner that considered environmental challenges of the people who currently live and work in that neighborhood. He said that the traffic congestion in that area would not be solved by the superstreet. He said it was important to begin addressing the growth there now and not add to already known problems.

Dr. Krasny said he hoped that the Council would feel responsibility first to the people who already lived in that area. He said it was one thing to bring another development into the area, but it was another to bring into the same site offices, medical clinics, services and supplies, and a bank with drive-through windows which would be a traffic magnet. Dr. Krasny said what would be created was a mini-shopping area, and although a mixed-use model was a useful tool in many places to reduce a dependence on transportation, this project would result in a negative impact on the neighbors who would have to live and work around even more traffic.

Dr. Krasny said he did not believe that traffic problems in that area would go away any time soon. He said it was estimated that within four years after the superstreet was completed, the congestion problem would return. Dr. Krasny said that permitting a complex of that size on the Wilson site directly in front of where our traffic problems lie was asking for more congestion problems. He asked that the Council not increase the burden of the residents of this area by adding even more of the same.

Beatrice Brown, a resident of Dobbins Hill, stated this project would bring more traffic to her neighborhood. She said the affordable housing issue was the main concern, noting she believed that given the opportunity everyone could be a homeowner. Ms. Brown said she applauded the applicant for the affordable rental aspect of the project, but the ability to have sales units was there if different avenues were taken. She said she did not believe that the issue had been researched as much as it could have been.

Ms. Brown said concerning the traffic, the area was populated by the elderly as well as many children, adding that children used the cul-de-sac as a playground. She said that some of the units designated for rental use should be shifted back into the Wilson Assemblage and offered for sale or for rental, noting that Dobbins Hill was already crowded. Ms. Brown hoped that the Council would consider her remarks as they made their decision tonight.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the Council had granted expedited review for Dobbins Hill II, and asked if that would include a Concept Plan review. Mr. Waldon responded that the Concept Plan hearing had already taken place, and the public hearing for the project was scheduled for April 18. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said, then, that any concerns regarding appearance, density, or quality of life in the neighborhood would be addressed at the public hearing, and depending on the outcome of Dobbins Hill II ultimately affects the Wilson Assemblage. Mr. Waldon said that was correct, that these were sequential steps and one relied on the other. So, he said, if the Council were to decide when it considered Dobbins Hill that you were not going to approve it, then the Wilson Assemblage could not go forward due to the language in the SUP that linked the two projects.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said in the materials presented tonight the staff had indicated that the residents of Dobbins Hill I would be notified of the public hearing for Dobbins Hill II in April. She asked if those residents were notified when the Concept Plan for Dobbins Hill II was discussed. Mr. Horton responded that they were notified through the normal process, which was to send notices to property owners and to post a sign on the property at the time an application was received. He said that did not include sending notices to individual persons living on the property. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if we would deviate from the normal procedures and send notices to the residents regarding the April hearing. Mr. Horton responded that the applicant had been asked to do that. He added that normal process called for the applicant to submit a set of envelopes for mailing, but in this case the applicant had been asked to provide envelopes addressed to the individual units so that the Town could provide notices.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins reminded the public and the residents of Dobbins Hill I that they would have an opportunity to weigh in on the Dobbins Hill project at the April 18 public hearing. She encouraged residents to think about appearance and placement of buildings, or anything that might affect the quality of life in their neighborhood. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said there was a great need for these affordable units, but no decision had been made as yet. She said the public could still influence the shape that project would take, and hoped that the residents understood that any action the Council might take tonight did not preclude them from having meaningful input.

Mayor Foy said that was a good point, and asked if Dobbins Hill II had been considered yet by the Community Design Commission. Mr. Waldon responded he did not have the schedule with him. Mayor Foy asked if Mr. Waldon could notify Ms. Brown of that meeting so that she could share that information with her neighbors, and Mr. Waldon said he would be happy to do that.

Mayor Foy said although it would come before the Council in April, there would be other discussions that would take place that the public should be aware of. Mr. Waldon said typically the Planning Board would consider a project a couple of weeks before it went to public hearing, so the Planning Board would hear a proposal in early April although he did not have the date.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said if these were condominiums that were individually owned would we ask the developer to provide an envelope for each of the advisory board meetings as well as the Council meeting. Mr. Waldon said the normal process was to request two sets of envelopes addressed to all owners within 1,000 feet of the property. He said the first set of envelopes was used to send out a notice announcing a public information meeting and how someone could get additional information about the application. Mr. Waldon said that after the application had undergone staff review, then they would use the second set of envelopes to mail notices listing the dates of advisory board meetings and Council hearings.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if it was too late to have the notices regarding Dobbins Hill include the Planning Board and Community Design Commission meetings as well as the April 18 public hearing. Mr. Waldon said the system was set up to send those notices to property owners, but in this case they were asking the applicant’s help so that notices would be sent to the individual residents as well. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he intended to petition the Council at the end of the meeting to amend our process so that residents as well as owners were notified when applications were received. He said this might be a good time to test that.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked for this case, could we send notices to each individual unit. Mr. Horton responded that we do not have access to all of the addresses that were potentially located within 1,000 feet of a property, adding that they would have to be purchased from someone in the business of maintaining that type of information. He said the reason we have traditionally used the property address was because it was available as a public record. Mr. Horton said as odd as it may seem, it was not necessarily so that the Town had access to all of the addresses for a particular area.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he lived in a development that people might presume was rental but mostly was not. He said he gets resident notifications, but for the Airport Road name change he received a notice addressed directly to him and well as one addressed to “Resident.” Council Member Kleinschmidt asked why that had happened. Mr. Horton responded staff had worked especially hard on the Airport Road name change to try to get information to every address in the area. But, he said, staff learned that several hundred addresses had been missed because they were postal boxes at a mail store. Mr. Horton said he would not be surprised that when we looked at property records that there may be cases where apartments are located within a property that do not show up in the property record.

Council Member Ward said that based on the new information regarding the schedule for the superstreet, it appeared to him that there might be an increased window of opportunity to provide interested parties with access to some of the existing dwellings that were going to be moved or demolished. He said the proposal was 12 months for the farm house and 6 months for the other dwelling. Council Member Ward said he assumed the construction schedule may change based on when the superstreet was constructed, and if so could that timeframe be reflected in an increased opportunity for removal of the dwellings. Mr. Smyre said he had stayed in close contact with NCDOT regarding the superstreet schedule, including a conversation early today, and his understanding of the meaning of the new information was that there was going to be a period of time in which NCODT would study why the bids came in so high and to re-let the bids. He said the reason they were in agreement with the Managers revised recommendation was because they could not obtain a Zoning Compliance Permit until such time as the contract is let for the superstreet. Mr. Smyre said it was their strong belief through their contact with the NCDOT engineer’s office that this would mean no delay for them.

Mr. Smyre said they understood the staff’s advice to the Council to be prudent that we don’t know for certain, and therefore advocate a more direct linkage with no upset date, with the no upset date being the change here. He said it was a leap of faith for them to proceed with no upset date, but based on the conversations they had held at the highest level with the Chief Engineer at NCDOT, they believe it meant no change to the construction schedule, so it would not necessarily lengthen the time. Mr. Smyre said the six months they were offering was about what they would expect for the Zoning Compliance Permit process and the one year that they were offering for the farm house was because it was not included in the first phase of construction.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-6a WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:

IN STIPULATION 1, THAT MARCH 7, 2009 BE SUBSTITUTED FOR MARCH 7, 2008;
THAT A NEW STIPULATION BE INCLUDED AFTER STIPULATION NUMBER 4 OFFERING THE ORANGE COMMUNITY HOUSING AND LAND TRUST THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TO ACQUIRE DOBBINS HILL II AT THE END OF THE INITIAL TAX CREDIT COMPLIANCE PERIOD;
THAT THE LAND USE INTENSITY CHART THAT WAS BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 15, 2004, BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PRESENT LAND USE INTENSITY CHART;
ADD A STIPULATION THAT NO DRIVE-THROUGHS BE ALLOWED ON THE WILSON ASSEMBLAGE DEVELOPMENT.

For clarification, Mayor Foy said Council Member Strom what exactly he wanted to remove or substitute for stipulation #2, Land Use Intensity. Council Member Strom said that the staff report on page 3 said that if the Council decided to prohibit the drive-through lanes, then the recommendation would be that the Land Use Intensity chart in the resolution be amended with the general office and specialty retail floor areas proposed by the applicant on November 15, 2004. So, he said, he wanted to add the general office and specialty retail square footage.

Mayor Foy confirmed that with that substitution, Council Member Strom’s motion would include that the general office floor area would be 31,250 square feet, and the general business floor area would be 18,750 square feet. He said that the Land Use Intensity Chart would have to be modified to include these square footages. Mr. Horton said that was correct.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM CONTINUED HIS MOTION:

INSERT A STIPULATION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOWS;
INSERT IN STIPULATION 21 THE LANGUAGE PROVIDED THIS EVENING REGARDING THE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND THE ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMTIS BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUPERSTREET.

Council Member Strom said this was not a rezoning, and the uses that the Council had discussed were the uses permitted that exist for this property. He said that had this been a rezoning, the Council would have had significantly more leverage in the permitting process. Council Member Strom reiterated that the Dobbins Hill affordable housing rentals were being offered over and above our current ordinance and had significant value to the community.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR WILSON ASSEMBLAGE (2005-03-07/R-6a)

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 The Design Response, Inc. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27A, Block A, Lot 1, and Tax Map 27, Block B, Lots 3A, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, if developed according to the site plans dated January 18, 2005, 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 the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Wilson Assemblage in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begins by March 7, 2007, and be completed by March 7, 2009.

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes construction of a mixed-use development as specified below:

Land Use Intensity
Net Land Area	824,154 sq ft
Maximum Floor Area Total	208,511 sq ft
Total # of Buildings	17 (15 Residential/2 Nonresidential)
Maximum # of Dwelling Units	149

Land Use Intensity
Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area (50,000 sq ft)	Max. Office-Type Business Use 31,250 sq ft
Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area (50,000 sq ft)	Max. Gen Business, Convenience Business, Barber Shop/Beauty Salon, Clinic (Medical) 18750 sq ft
Maximum Impervious Surface Area	453,285 sq ft
Minimum # of Parking Spaces	396
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces	189

2a. Car Drive Through: That car drive through windows are prohibited.

3. Preservation of Farm House: That the developer defer, for one year from date of issuance of the Special Use Permit, removal of the farm house on Dobbins Drive and offer the house to a preservation or housing organization for relocation and preservation on another site or to an organization or individual that would relocate, preserve or reuse the house. The proposal to relocate, preserve, or reuse the house shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. The same provisions shall apply to the other four existing dwellings on the Wilson Assemblage property (not including the Howell property), with the adjustment that the deferral period for those four dwellings shall be six months rather than one year.

That an agreement between the applicant and the organization or individual relocating and preserving the structure, shall include a payment from the applicant in the amount of $8,000 to the organization or individual moving the structure. Verification of transfer of this payment shall be presented to and approved by the Town Manager.

Thirty-days prior to demolition the applicant shall inform the Town Manager of the failure to secure an organization or individual willing to relocate, preserve or reuse the structure.

Stipulations Related to Affordable Housing

4. Dobbins Hills Affordable Housing Component: A Zoning Compliance Permit for Wilson Assemblage shall not be issued until such time that a Zoning Compliance Permit for Dobbins Hill has been issued. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for Wilson Assemblage, the applicant shall verify that the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency has approved the applicant’s proposal for 32 tax credit affordable units in Dobbins Hill.

4a. Future Ownership of Dobbins Hill Units: That the applicant will agree to grant Orange Community Housing and Land Trust the right of first refusal to acquire Dobbins Hill II at the end of the initial tax-credit compliance period of 15 years under the rules outlined for such a transaction in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Service code.

5. Certificate of Occupancy for 50^th Residential Unit: Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the 50^th residential unit in Wilson Assemblage, it will be necessary to obtain a Certificates of Occupancy for all 32 of the new affordable housing units in Dobbins Hill.

Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues

6. Encroachment Permit: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall secure and provide an encroachment agreement from the North Carolina Department of Transportation for all work within the public right-of-way.

7. Restricted McGregor Drive Connection: That the final plan and plat include a 12-foot paved emergency vehicle driveway with bollards, also capable of bicycle and pedestrian access, between McGregor Drive and the new public street in the Wilson Assemblage development. That the improvements shall be located within a 50-foot wide dedicated public right-of-way. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall record a dedication plat for the 50-foot wide right-of-way.

8. Dobbins Drive Improvements: The applicant shall construct a) a Town standard curb and gutter and b) a five-foot wide sidewalk, along the applicant’s frontage on Dobbins Road. If deemed appropriate by the Town Manager, the applicant may provide a payment in lieu for all or a portion of the improvements along Dobbins Drive.

9. Dobbins Drive Sidewalk Alternate Location: If the Town Manager determines that construction of the Dobbins Drive sidewalk is not practical due to design conflicts associated with the Superstreet project, an alternate location may be within the proposed 25-foot wide Type D buffer along Dobbins Drive. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall obtain Community Design Commission approval for an alternate buffer for any portion of the buffer that includes a sidewalk.

10. Dobbins Drive Sidewalk Public Easement: For that portion of the Dobbins Drive sidewalk located outside the public right-of-way, a public use easement shall be provided over the portion of the sidewalk located outside of the Dobbins Drive public right-of-way, and the Town shall not be responsible for maintenance of this portion of the sidewalk. This easement shall be identified on the final plat and a recorded easement document, approved by the Town Manager, shall be provided prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

11. Dobbins Drive Right-of-Way: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, right-of-way must be provided for the Dobbins Drive relocation that is proposed as part of the US 15-501 SuperStreet project. If the right-of-way has not been acquired by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the applicant shall dedicate the right-of-way required for the future relocation of Dobbins Drive.

12. Erwin Road Sidewalk: The applicant shall construct a five foot wide sidewalk along the applicant’s frontage, the Erwin Village frontage, and Duke Energy frontage along Erwin Road. If adequate right-of-way is not available along the Erwin Road frontage adjacent to the Duke Energy site, the applicant may provide a payment in lieu for this sidewalk. The amount of the payment-in-lieu shall be approved by the Town Manager and shall be received prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

13. Erwin Road Right-of-Way: That the applicant dedicate public right-of-way along the site frontage on Erwin Road to ensure that the right-of-way will be a minimum of one foot behind the back of the sidewalk or half of a 60-foot wide right-of-way, whichever is greater.

14. Internal Public Streets: That a public street shall be constructed to provide access through the site from Dobbins Drive to Sage Road. The public street shall be 27-feet wide, measured from back of curb to back of curb, with 30-inch wide curb and gutter within a 45-foot wide right-of-way, built to Town Standard. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant must submit the final design and construction details for approval by the Town Manager.

15. Internal Public Street Alignment on Sage Road: That the proposed public street within the Wilson Assemblage proposal be aligned with the existing Lowes entrance on Sage Road. The realigned intersection design may incorporate portions of the Lowes driveway and curb line located within the public right-of-way. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, final design and construction details for the intersection alignment shall be approval by the Town Manager.

16. On-Street Parking: That the location and configuration of on-street parking spaces, proposed along the internal public street between Building B and Dobbins Hill, be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

17. Sage Road Sidewalk: The applicant shall construct a five foot wide sidewalk along the applicant’s frontage on Sage Road, including connecting to the existing public sidewalk segments near the existing Howell Building on Sage Road and Walden at Greenfields.

18. Traffic Signal Payment-In-Lieu: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, a payment-in-lieu shall be provided to the Town of Chapel Hill for a traffic signal, with pedestrian amenities including crosswalks on Sage Road and at the Lowes driveway, for the intersection of the new public street and the existing Lowes’ entrance on Sage Road. The amount of the payment-in-lieu shall take into account any existing payments and be based on the percentage of the traffic to be generated by the Wilson Assemblage development in proportion to the existing traffic at the proposed intersection and shall be approved by the Town Manager.

19. Signal Timing Payment: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall provide a payment to the Town of Chapel Hill of $9,000 for revised traffic signal timings at eight affected signalized intersections along US 15-501 Corridor.

20. Howell Properties Driveway on Sage Road: Upon completion of the drive aisle connection between the Howell Properties on Sage Road and the internal public street, the existing Howell Office Building Sage Road driveway shall be limited to right-in/right-out movements, as approved by the Town Manager, or shall remain closed until such time that the restricted movement modification is constructed. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the Town Manager shall approve the design and construction details for the right-in/right-out drive at the existing Howell Property drive on Sage Road.

21. U.S. Hwy. 15-501 and Certificate of Occupancy: That no Zoning Compliance Permit shall be issued for this development until the North Carolina Department of Transportation has executed construction contracts for the Superstreet improvements at the intersection of U.S. 15-501 and Europa Drive/Erwin Road. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for any part of this development until the Superstreet improvements at the intersection of U.S. 15-501 and Europa Drive/Erwin Road, are completed and open to traffic.

22. Traffic Calming Devices: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install traffic calming devices on the through public street internal to the site that would connect Dobbins Drive and Sage Road. The specific design and location of the traffic calming devices shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

23. Building B Driveway Removal: That the proposed two way driveway, shown on the plans closest to the Sage Road intersection shall not be constructed.

24. Internal Pedestrian Connections: That the applicant construct pedestrian connections in the following general locations:

· Between the southwest corner of the Dobbins Hill development and the clubhouse pool area; and

· Between central east/west court yard quad sidewalk (buildings 8, 9, 10, 11) and the proposed north building in Dobbins Hill.

In order to accommodate changes in topography between this development and Dobbins Hill where deemed appropriate by the Town Manager, the design and construction of the pedestrian paths may include stairs or steps.

25. Other Sidewalks: The applicant shall construct the following sidewalks:

· On both sides of the proposed Dobbins Drive entrance, south of the first speed table; and

· A five-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of the proposed internal public street, between Sage Road and the existing pedestrian access connection between Dobbins Hill and Walden at Greenfields. This sidewalk shall be located within a publicly dedicated right-of-way;

26. Bicycle Parking: That the development shall comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards as follows:

Total Number of Required Spaces	189
Number of Class I Spaces	163
Number of Class II Spaces	26

27. Parking Lot Standards: That all parking lots, drive aisles and parking spaces shall be constructed to Town standards.

28. Bus Stop: That a bus stop shall be installed at a location internal to the development, to be approved by the Town Manager.

Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues

29. Required Buffers: That the following landscape buffer be provided; and if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements, the vegetation will be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:

Location	Required Buffer
Dobbins Drive/US 15-501	25’ Type D (Alternate buffer for portion with public sidewalk)
East side of Duke Energy Property	10’ Type B
North side of Duke Energy Property	20’ Type C or alternate buffer if off-site landscape easements unavailable
Erwin Road	30’ Type D
Erwin Village	20’ Type B
Walden at Greenfields	10’ Type B
Sage Rd	30’ Type D – adj to parking 20’ Type C - adj to Building B Alternate buffer – adjacent to refuse facility
East side of Dobbins Hill Property	20’ Type B
South & West side of Dobbins Hill Property	10’ Type B

30. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which rare and specimen trees shall be removed and preserved, as well as all significant tree stands, and including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

31. Landscaping Plan: That a detailed landscape plan including a landscape maintenance plan, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings.

32. Tree Protection Fencing: That the limits of land disturbance with tree protection fencing, shall be shown on the Landscape Protection Plan, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

33. Parking Lot Screening: That all parking areas shall be screened from view in accordance with the provisions of Article 5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The screening and shading plans shall be approval by the Town Manager.

34. Alternative Landscape Bufferyards: That the details for all alternate landscape bufferyards shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Design Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

35. Building Elevations: That the Community Design Commission approve building elevations, including the location and screening of all HVAC/Air Handling Units for this project, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

36. Lighting Plan: That the Community Design Commission approve a lighting plan for this project prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulation Related to Recreation Area

37. Minimum Recreation Requirements: That a minimum of 26,446 square feet of recreation space shall be provided for this development. The applicant may provide a payment-in-lieu for a portion of the required recreation improvement area.

Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues

38. Impervious Surface Limits: That the site shall comply with the impervious surface limits of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Impervious surface area is authorized at 453,285 square feet.

39. 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 include low-impact stormwater management solutions and best management practices, including but not limited to bio-retention, pervious pavements, underground storage, infiltration trenches, vegetative swales and similar techniques.

The plan shall be based on the one-year, two-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 two-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.

That the final stormwater management plan provide detailed information concerning maintenance access points, maintenance schedules, methods used for maintenance, identification of parties responsible for maintenance, and basin/outlet details. The Maintenance and Operations Plan must provide for a pre-cleaning of the underground systems prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and pre-treatment facilities for solids removal. Permanent water quality treatment shall be provided prior to the underground detention of stormwater.

40. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all stormwater detention, treatment, and conveyance facilities shall be located within an easement entitled: “Reserved Storm Drainageway”. A storm drainageway shall be reserved from any stormwater management feature that would obstruct or constrict the effective conveyance and control of stormwater from or across the property, for all engineered stormwater structures above and below ground, and for all conveyance systems such as pipes, streams, or ditches if such systems convey, divert, or otherwise manage surface water flowing onto the property/site from off-site areas. The Reserved Storm Drainageway shall be defined on the appropriate final plan sheet(s) and recorded on the final plat. Maintenance access to the Reserved Storm Drainageway must be provided and shown on the plans.

41. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. The plan shall include the owner's financial responsibility and include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it continues to function as intended and shall be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

42. Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, it will be necessary for the applicant to execute a recorded maintenance and easement agreement with the adjoining Dobbins Hill property owner. The agreement must be binding on all current and subsequent property owners and ensure perpetual compliance with the Town’s stormwater requirements and maintenance of the facilities. Prior to recordation, this document must be approved by the Town Manager.

43. State or Federal Approvals: That any required State or federal permits or encroachment agreements must be approved by the appropriate agencies and copies of the approved permits be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

44. 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 shall 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.

45. 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

46. 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.

47. Approval of Shared-Container and Joint Access Agreements: That a shared-container and joint refuse vehicle access agreement shall be provided between the owners and heirs of the parcel containing Building B and the adjacent Howell Properties on Sage Road. The agreement shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office; and copies of the agreement shall be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

48. Heavy Duty Pavement: That all new drive aisles needed to access refuse containers and shall be constructed of heavy duty pavement. The final plans must include a detail of this pavement section. It will also be necessary to include the following note on the final plans: “The Town of Chapel Hill, its assigns or Orange County shall not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles.”

49. Overhead Obstruction/Utility Lines: That the final plans included details verifying that no overhead obstruction or utility wires will interfere with service vehicle access or operation.

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. Vehicle Access for Fire Fighting: That vehicle access for fire fighting shall be provided to all construction or demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided to within 100 feet of temporary or permanent fire department connections. Vehicle access shall be provided by either temporary or permanent roads capable of supporting vehicle loading under all weather conditions.

54. Water Supply for Fire Protection: That water supply for fire protection, either temporary or permanent, shall be made available as soon as combustible materials arrive on site.

Stipulations Related to Miscellaneous Issues

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

56. Taxation: That during any time this property is exempt from ad valorem property taxes, the owner shall make annual payments-in-lieu of property taxes, the amount to be determined based on a valuation determined by the Orange County Tax Supervisor and the applicable year’s established city and county tax rate.

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

58. Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plan: That a Traffic Management Plan for movement of motorized and non-motorized vehicles on any public street that will be disrupted during construction, including detour information and a pedestrian management plan indicating how pedestrian movements will be safely maintained shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

59. 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.

60. 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.

61. 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.

62. 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 if applicable a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plan and/or plat.

63. 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 16 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.

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

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit application for Wilson Assemblage in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the 7^h day of March, 2005.

Item 8 – Montessori Community School: Application

for a Special Use Permit

Council Member Harrison asked the Council to recuse him from this discussion. There was no objection.

Mr. Horton noted that when the Council last discussed this issue on February 21, there were many areas of agreement and only one key issue identified having to do with accounting of impervious surface area. In response, he said that information had been provided on page 2 of the memorandum.

Ed Harrison, speaking as a citizen, said he supported the adoption of Resolution R-7a, and noted he had brief remarks that he wanted to address to the members of the Montessori School in the audience.

Mr. Harrison said this was the first Special Use Permit the Montessori School had ever had, and was much more difficult to obtain that other types of permits. As a neighbor of the School, he said he had put a lot of thought into it. Mr. Harrison said that since this would be the last time the Council had this before them, he wanted to emphasize to the School that the Special Use Permit was an important document, and everything included in it was there for a reason. He said there were things present in this resolution that had never before been seen in other resolutions before this Council, things that were unique to the project which befits a unique school and a unique neighborhood.

Mr. Harrison said this Special Use Permit would be a living document to him, and he would keep track of it. He said it was his hope that the School would have an ongoing committee during the construction process, adding he believed it would be helpful if the Council could find some way to maintain a relationship with applicants and neighborhoods until a project was built out.

Mr. Harrison said this is a document that would now be turned over to the School to execute, and that the neighbors would live with. He said in square footage it was five times larger than what was built nine years ago, and because of the care that went into it he did not believe there would be five times the impact.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-7a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL (2005-03-07/R-7a)

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 Josh Gurlitz of GGA Associates for Montessori Community School on property identified as Durham County Tax Map 481, Block 7, Lot 7A (PIN 0709-03-04-2720) if developed according to the site plans dated September 13, 2004 and the Landscape Buffer Plan dated October 6, 2004, and the conditions listed below:

5. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

6. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;

7. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and

8. Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modification satisfies public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

Modification of Section 5.9.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance minimum bicycle parking requirements, to allow a minimum of 50 bicycle parking spaces.

Said public purpose being the provision of private elementary school education, which functions as an option to public schools.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Montessori Community School in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begin no later than March 7, 2007 (two years from approval date) and be completed no later than March 7, 2008 (three years from approval date).

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes a school and land use intensity requirements and dimensional standards as specified below:

Land Use Intensity
Net Land Area	409,987 sq ft
Total # of Buildings	5
Maximum Floor Area	37,980 sq ft
Maximum Impervious Surface Area	209,684 sq ft
Maximum # of Parking Spaces Proposed	84
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces	50

South of the existing tri-plex classroom building outdoor activity shall be restricted to quiet student recreational activity. This could include gardening, nature observation and discussion, eating lunch and study. Noisy activities such as carpentry, music practice and band rehearsal are prohibited.

Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues

3. Kiss-and-Go Drop Off Area: That the applicant provide a kiss-and-go drop off area in front of the school.

4. Vehicular Access Limitations to Track Area: That vehicular access to the track shall be identified on the plans as restricted to emergency and special delivery vehicles, with collapsible bollards or similar devices, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

5. Encroachment Permit: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall secure and provide an encroachment agreement from the North Carolina Department of Transportation for all work within the Pope Road right-of-way.

6. Bicycle Parking: That the development shall comply with bicycle parking standards from the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Town’s Design Manual and provide 50 bicycle parking spaces, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

7. Parking Lot Standards: That all parking lots, drive aisles and parking spaces shall be constructed to Town standards.

8. Transportation Management Plan: That the applicant provide a Transportation Management Plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:

a) Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

b) Provision for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;

c) Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

d) Ridesharing incentives; and

e) Public transit incentives.

The plan shall be updated and approved annually by the Town Manager.

Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues

9. Required Buffers: That the following landscape buffer be provided; and if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements, the vegetation will be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:

Landscape Bufferyards
Location	Required Buffer
Eastern Property Line (Pope Road frontage)	30’ Type ‘C’ Buffer
Eastern Property Line (adjacent to undeveloped lots)	20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer
Northern Property Line (towards Roper Lane)	40’ Buffer + 20’ Passive Buffer (grasses and wetland pants)
Western Property Line (towards Colony Woods Dr.)	40’ Buffer + 20’ Passive Buffer (grasses and wetland pants)
Southern Property Line (towards Newton Dr.)	20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer

10. Supplemental Buffer: That the applicant shall provide and maintain a supplemental 20-foot ‘Type-C’ Landscape Buffer between the southern constructed wetland and the required 20-foot ‘Type-C’ Landscape Buffer. Adjacent to this supplemental buffer and extending along the southern edge of the buried storm water pipe the applicant will plant and maintain a dense screen of new evergreen plant material in areas in which existing vegetation permits. The supplemental buffer shall be located as shown on drawing C1-b of approved plans, subject to Town Manager approval.

11. Landscape Buffer Details: That the applicant shall provide detailed information, regarding the location of planting areas (that will be improved to support vigorous plant growth) and board fencing within buffer areas (i.e. in the southern buffer).

12. Save Significant Trees: That the applicant shall minimize land disturbance and save two significant 18 and 20-inch white oak trees in the northeast corner of the site on the eastern edge of the proposed stormwater pond, if practicable, to be approved by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

13. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which rare and specimen trees shall be removed and preserved, critical root zones of all rare and specimen trees, significant tree stands, detail of protective fencing and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas, and including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

That the applicant shall include in the final plans a revised Landscape Protection Plan that identifies the 19” specimen tree that has been noted in the SW corner of the site. The tree species, location, and how it will be protected, if practicable, shall be included on the plan prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

14. Landscape Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a detailed Landscape Maintenance Plan, subject to approval by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

15. Additional Tree Protection Fencing: That the Landscape Protection Plan shall also include the installation of tree protection fencing between the proposed relocated underground electric service line north of the parking lot and adjacent vegetation that is proposed to be retained.

16. Landscaping Plan: That a detailed landscape plan including a landscape maintenance plan, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings as well as the limits of land disturbance and tree protection fencing.

17. Parking Lot Landscape Screening: That all parking areas shall be screened from view in accordance with the provisions of Article 5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The landscape screening plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

18. Shading Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, a Shading Plan must be submitted and approved by the Town Manager demonstrating compliance with Town regulations.

19. Building Elevations: That the Community Design Commission approve building elevations, including the location and screening of all HVAC/Air Handling Units for this project, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

20. Lighting Plan: That the Community Design Commission approve a lighting plan for this project prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Community Design Commission shall take additional care during review to ensure that the proposed lighting plan will minimize 1) upward light pollution and 2) offsite spillage of light.

Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues

21. Watershed Protection District/Impervious Surface Limits: That the site shall comply with Article 3.6.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Impervious surface area is authorized at 170,978 square feet.

22. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan, based on undeveloped site conditions (not existing conditions), for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall include details of two constructed wetlands or similar stormwater management facility. 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.

23. Constructed Wetlands: That the Montessori School shall arrange for an independent evaluation of the School’s stormwater management strategies and designs, to be performed by a stormwater engineer familiar with constructed-wetlands technologies. The Town shall select the professional(s) for this evaluation, with opportunity for School representatives and neighborhood representatives to have input on the selection.

24. 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.

25. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities with provisions for a biannual report to the Town Manager verifying compliance with the plan. 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 in perpetuity and shall be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

26. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan Details: That the Operations and Maintenance Plan for the constructed wetlands 1) delete all notes indicating the use of fertilizer within 30 feet of the wetland; 2) include notes specifically applicable to wetland maintenance such as plant survival and maintenance; and 3) include mosquito control notes which may include the introduction of the Gambusia spp. (mosquito fish), and shall be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

27. Mosquito Control: That mosquito breeding potential of any stormwater control devices, cisterns, or other water-holding structures, shall be minimized, subject to Town Manager approval.

28. State or Federal Approvals: That any required State or federal permits or encroachment agreements must be approved by the appropriate agencies and copies of the approved permits be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

29. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for monitoring and maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the 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. Close attention shall be paid to sedimentation and erosion control measures during construction.

30. Silt Control: That the applicant shall take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues

31. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling, and for managing and minimizing construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

32. Heavy Duty Pavement: That final plans include the following note, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit: “The Town of Chapel Hill, its’ assigns or the County shall not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles.

33. Overhead Obstruction/Utility Lines: That the final plans include details verifying that no overhead obstruction or utility wires will interfere with service vehicle access or operation.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report for all new construction, shall be prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, which demonstrates 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.

Stipulations Related to Miscellaneous Issues

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

38. Temporary Modular Trailer: That the applicant may locate a temporary modular trailer on site, for the purpose of providing administrative office space for school staff during construction, the exact location to be determined by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

39. Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plan: That a Traffic Management Plan for movement of motorized and non-motorized vehicles on any public street that will be disrupted during construction, including detour information and a pedestrian management plan indicating how pedestrian movements will be safely maintained shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

40. Hours of Construction: That the weekday hours of construction shall not start before 7:30 a.m. and shall end no later than 5:00 p.m. That Saturday hours of construction shall not start before 10:00 a.m. and shall end no later than 5:00 p.m. No Sunday hours of construction shall be permitted. Certain holidays shall also be restricted including December 25^th, New Years Day, and the day following each of those if the holiday falls on a Sunday, Martin Luther King Day, Memorial Day, July 4^th, Labor Day and Thanksgiving. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall submit a schedule of operations that could result in objectionable noise to the Town Manager for approval. Once approved the schedule of operations shall be restricted by the hours listed above and a note to this effect shall be included on the plans. Noise generating construction activities shall be minimized on Saturdays whenever possible. Operations which do not generate objectionable noise will not be restricted. Any extension of these hours, for specific operations, shall be approved by the Town Manager.

41. Open Burning: That the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with this development is prohibited.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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 16 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.

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

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit application for Montessori Community School in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This is the 7^th day of March, 2005.

Item 9 – Response to Request from Habitat for Humanity

regarding Sunrise Road Proposal

Mr. Horton noted that this item had been deferred from a previous meeting in order to allow citizens more time to consider it.

Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt provided a brief overview of Habitat’s request for an extension of the Sunrise Road contract. She stated that Habitat had requested a two year extension; however, the staff recommendation was that the contract be extended for one year. Ms. Berndt noted that Habitat had also requested that the loan be converted into deferred loans in the future, and the staff recommendation was that the Council defer consideration of that request until a later date.

Ms. Berndt said at the February 14 meeting the Council had extended the contract for one month to give the Sunrise Road neighbors additional time to review the materials, labeled as Attachment 2 and 3 in the Council’s packet. She said Attachment 3 was the proposal from the neighbors.

Kerry Henry, a resident of Sunrise Road, is an adjacent property owner and lives next to the proposed egress of the development. On behalf of the Sunrise Road Coalition, she thanked the Council for allowing them the additional time to review the materials and prepare a response to the Manager’s recommendation of extending the $50,000 loan for an additional year.

Ms. Henry said it was important to allow adequate time for all interested citizens to review and comment on items such as this. She said last week the Council was provided with the Coalition’s changes to the proposed language in the Performance Agreement between the Town and Habitat. Ms. Henry said they believe that these changes should be incorporated into the Performance Agreement as a condition of the loan extension, adding that they believe the additional language was reasonable and addressed a key question, specifically whether the development was a private or public development.

Ms. Henry said that questions had already been raised regarding the Council’s involvement as a funding and a regulatory body. She said that because the developer had relied upon public funds to acquire the property, and the developer’s implied intension to apply for additional public funds, this private developer was operating as a public developer. Ms. Henry said they were requesting the following:

That the results of all studies be provided to the public within 30 days of completion.
A new extension of this loan would be approved by a majority vote of the Council.
Any plan would abide by the 17 guiding principles forwarded by the Council and the LUMO regulations. The developer would demonstrate that he had complied with the Town’s resolutions impacting this development.
Any plan would address recommendations given to the developer by the Council and the Community Design Commission. Specifically, the developer would address the concerns raised regarding parking, safety, and noise.

Ms. Henry noted that private developers were expected to implement recommendations from these respective bodies. She said the Sunrise Road Coalition supported the extension of the loan for one year with the proposed language changes in the Performance Agreement.

Doug Schworer said he was one of eight Sunrise Coalition board members. He noted that in February 2003 the Town and County collectively provided $300,000 in public funds for the Habitat for the Sunrise Road project. Mr. Schworer said it was their belief that action made that project a public project, and although the project was publicly funded no process was in place requiring Habitat to conduct public meetings and receive public input on all aspects of the development. He said they believe these types of meetings are not only necessary but required prior to any work on the project. Mr. Schworer said that such public disclosure would avoid problems experienced by other entities.

Mr. Schworer said if Habitat wanted to keep the project private, then the project should be funded with 100% private funds. He said they believe that as long as they are using public funds, then all aspects of the planning and development process should be open to the public. Mr. Schworer described the process used by the Downtown Economic Development Corporation as an analogy, adding that Habitat should function in a similar manner as they are using public funds.

Mr. Schworer requested that in addition to the changes in the Performance Agreement, that the Council help guide and direct this developer to use a public process. He said Habitat would conduct a noise study during the predevelopment phase, and that was a good example of how the public had not been engaged as no public meeting had been held nor was any public input solicited. Mr. Schworer said that no terms of the study had been disclosed as well.

Mr. Schworer said that was an excellent example of what they are trying to get the Council to understand and consider as part of why they were asking that a public process be defined to deal with all aspects regarding predevelopment and development of the property.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-8.

Council Member Strom said he had heard for many years that Chapel Hill’s Special Use Permit Process was the most rigorous, careful, open public forum that had the most impact on the shape, scope, scale, design, and livability of projects in the State. He stated it amazed him that there was a group of citizens in Chapel Hill who felt that Chapel Hill’s Special Use Permit process was inadequate in this situation.

Council Member Strom noted that Habitat had done everything they had been asked to do by the community for years and had acted in good faith. He said that the Town staff had been remarkably careful with federal pass-through money and we have a clean record, and he did not see any reason to make special provisions for additional oversight of Habitat at this point.

Council Member Strom said we would have a full, open public process when Habitat decides what application they wanted to put forward.

Council Member Harrison commented that if anything could show him how the Special Use Permit process works in Chapel Hill, it would be the project just passed [referring to the Montessori Community School Special Use Permit].

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A MODIFICATION TO THE TERMS OF A PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR A LOAN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY ON SUNRISE ROAD (2005-03-07/R-8)

WHEREAS, the Town has an ongoing interest in the development of affordable housing in Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, a goal in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan is to increase the availability of well-designed, affordable, safe, and sanitary housing for all citizens of Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, the Town entered into a Performance Agreement with Habitat for Humanity on February 12, 2003, to provide $50,000 from the Town’s Housing Loan Trust Fund to Habitat for the acquisition of a 16-acre parcel of property off of Sunrise Road; and

WHEREAS, the Agreement stipulates that on February 28, 2005, the loan will be repaid in full to the Town of Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, the Agreement stipulates that the loan may be extended in whole or in part for additional periods upon written request to and agreement by the Town Manager. The Town Manager may approve the request if it conforms to Habitat’s plans for developing this property, or the Town Manager may refer the request to the Town Council, at his discretion;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to execute an amendment to the Performance Agreement that would amend Section 3. Terms to read:

“Habitat may have use of this loan for a period of up to three years from the date of this Performance Agreement. On February 28, 2006, the loan will be repaid in full to the Town of Chapel Hill.

The loan may be extended in whole or in part for additional periods upon written request to and agreement by the Town Manager. The Town Manager may approve the request if it conforms to Habitat’s plans for developing this property, or the Town Manager may refer the request to the Council, at his discretion.

There will be no interest charged on the loan.

The Town’s loan is for the purpose of acquisition of property. Subordination of this loan is subject to approval by the Town Manager.”

This the 7th day of March, 2005.

Item 10 – Downtown Economic Development Initiative: Consideration

of Request for Proposals Document and Contract

Authorization for Consulting Services

Ms. Berndt said that tonight was a key decision point for the Council, and gave a brief overview of the various steps the Council had taken to reach that point. She said the key steps in the first part of the process involved a market demand study, development of conceptual master plans, and a financial analysis based on the master plans. Ms. Berndt said the second set of key steps involved developer solicitation and selection and negotiations with the developer. She said the next step for the Council was to authorize issuance of Requests for Proposals. Ms. Berndt said then, if the Council chose to proceed, the next steps would be negotiations with the developer then on to construction.

Ms. Berndt stated that there had been numerous opportunities for public comment through the process, then offered a brief description of the recent actions taken by the Council, noting the most recent action occurred on February 28 when the Council selected five developers to receive the Request for Proposals. She said that tonight the Council would review a draft Request for Proposals document and consider whether to proceed.

Ms. Berndt said if the Council approved the resolutions tonight, the next steps would be to issue the Request for Proposals this week, with a due date of May 2, 2005. Then, May 23-24 would be tentatively reserved for developer presentations of the proposals, followed by Council Committee review, and then Council consideration of selecting a developer scheduled for June 13.

Ms. Berndt said there were two resolutions before the Council for consideration. The first, she said, would approve the issuance of the Request for Proposals to the five selected developers, and the second would extend the contract of the Town’s consultant, Stainback Public/Private Real Estate and authorize Stainback to complete the Request for Proposals phase. Ms. Berndt reminded the Council that they had budgeted funds for that purpose in December 2004.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-9a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP TOWN PARKING LOT 5 AND WALLACE PARKING DECK SITES (2005-03-07/R-9a)

WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Small Area Plan identify key downtown redevelopment sites, including Town Parking Lots 2 and 5; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council has established principles and priorities for development of Town Parking Lots 2 and 5; and

WHEREAS, since November 2003, the Council and the Council Committee on Lots 2 and 5 have been working on a process to develop key Town-owned downtown sites including Town Parking Lots Number 2 and 5 and the Wallace Parking Deck; and

WHEREAS, on December 6, 2004, the Council approved issuance of the developer Request for Qualifications, which the Town’s consultant subsequently distributed to more than 300 firms from the area and across the country; and

WHEREAS, the Town accepted statements of qualifications from six firms that responded to the Request for Qualifications by the January 31, 2005 deadline; and

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2005, the Council Committee on Lots 2 and 5 discussed the consultant’s evaluation of the developers’ statements of qualifications and recommended inviting five firms to respond to a Request for Proposals; and

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2005, the Council authorized issuance of a Request for Proposals to the five developers recommended by the Committee;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes issuance of the attached Request for Proposals to the five firms selected by the Council on February 28, 2005.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to revise the attached Request for Proposals as needed to make minor corrections in style and format and to reflect Council discussion if needed prior to issuance of the document to developers.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-9b. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONSULTANT TO COMPLETE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PHASE FOR THE Downtown Economic development initiative (2005-03-07/R-9b)

WHEREAS, on December 6, 2004, the Council authorized consultant Stainback Public/Private Real Estate, Inc. to commence work on the Request for Qualifications solicitation process and complete the draft Request for Proposals and evaluation criteria for the Council’s consideration; and

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2005, the Council authorized issuance of a Request for Proposals to five development teams which responded to the Request for Qualifications; and

WHEREAS, on March 7, 2005, the Council is considering issuing the attached Request for Proposals to the selected developers;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to complete Phase 2 of the Town’s contract with Stainback Public/Private Real Estate, the Developer Solicitation and Selection Process, based substantially on the terms in the Contract for Consultant Services authorized by the Council on October 27, 2003, and subsequently amended by the Council.

This the 7^th day of March, 2005.

Item 11 – Proposed 2005-2006 Operating Budget for the Public Housing Program

Mr. Horton noted that Public Housing Director Tina Vaughn had faced a difficult challenge this year, which was to make an adjustment to her operating budget during the middle of the year because the federal grant amount was reduced from what was expected. He said she had faced an even greater challenge because the Housing budget was adopted prior to the Town budget and so we had added on the stormwater fee and the County had added on a recycling fee. Mr. Horton said he believed these challenges would continue, since it appeared that the federal government had made the determination to reduce funding for public housing programs. He said Ms. Vaughn had performed difficult work to bring forward a sound budget.

Ms. Vaughn agreed with Mr. Horton that this had been a difficult budget time for her, but they had prepared for the Council’s consideration a proposed budget for 2005-06 for the Public Housing program. She said the proposed budget had been prepared without benefit of knowing exactly what the federal government would do, but they did know that funding would be less in 2005-06 than in 2004-05.

Ms. Vaughn said in preparation for that reduction in funding, they had already taken some budget reductions into consideration. In fact, she said, the proposed 2005-06 budget is $103,000 less than the 2004-05 budget. Ms. Vaughn said the bulk of that reduction was a result of the elimination of a Resident Services position, to allow them to be able to cover expected expenditures and still retain a fund balance that remained within the recommended guidelines.

Ms. Vaughn said the proposed budget totaled about $1.5 million. She said their sources of revenue were based on their “best guesstimate” of subsidy from HUD at $1.123 million, from rental income at $345,700, from other income at $34,400, and appropriation from Fund Balance of $46,500. Ms. Vaughn said that with the use of that $46,500 in Fund Balance, the remaining Fund Balance would be $291,000 which was slightly above the recommended guideline of $288,000.

Ms. Vaughn said the Public Housing budget was due to the federal government 90 days prior to the start of the fiscal year, which is April 1, 2005. She said the Manager’s recommendation was that the Council adopt the resolution approving the Calculation of Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy for the Public Housing program.

Richard Loeber, a member of the Housing Advisory Board, said the specifics of the challenges being faced had been adequately outlined by Mr. Horton and Ms. Vaughn. He said that the Housing Advisory Board had requested that the Council consider removing from the Public Housing budget the stormwater fee of $14,000, the recycling fee of $18,000, and the grounds maintenance of $30,000. Mr. Loeber asked the Council to consider that those funds are supplied by the General Fund, not by the Housing budget.

Council Member Greene said there was no good news here, but she did want to support the recommendation made by Mr. Loeber and the Manager’s memorandum. She stated she was the Council liaison to the Housing Board and had attended the meetings, and it was apparent that this year was as bad as the Manager and Ms. Vaughn had stated.

Council Member Greene said that particularly frustrates her since a federal administrator had come to Chapel Hill to talk with the Council about the homelessness initiative, and the fact that there was a steady increase in funds from the federal government to address homelessness projects. Yet, we now hear that there would be a steady reduction in funding for public housing, she noted. Council Member Greene said she supported “lifting this burden” from the public housing budget, as detailed in Attachment 4 of the memorandum.

Council Member Harrison asked if Attachment 1, the summary of the proposed budget, would have to be amended. Ms. Vaughn responded that what had been provided with the materials was a resolution that would approve the operating subsidy for Public Housing. She said what the Housing Advisory Board was recommending was separate from that document.

Ms. Vaughn said that if the Council approved the Board’s recommendation, it would decrease their expenditures and provide a “cushion,” noting they still did not know what the federal government was going to do. She added that if the federal subsidy is less than projected, they would have to use Fund Balance to cover their expenditures. Ms. Vaughn said such a situation would likely drop the Fund Balance below the minimum recommended guideline, noting that would affect how HUD rates Chapel Hill’s public housing program.

Mr. Horton added that Ms. Vaughn had provided a fair assessment, but he would closely monitor the Housing budget and recommend further reductions to assure that we remained within the recommended guidelines.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO FURTHER CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE HOUSING ADIVOSRY BOARD AS NOTED IN ATTACHMENT 4 OF THE MATERIALS AS THE COUNCIL MOVES FORWARD WITH ITS 2005-06 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 12 – Appointments: None.

Item 13 – Petitions

13a. Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that Council Member Verkerk, who was absent, excused from tonight’s meeting, joined him in presenting a petition to extend notification regulations to include occupants of property along with property owners within the 1,000 notification area of proposed developments. He asked that the petition be referred to staff to come back with comments on the potential obstacles to doing that. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wanted the Council to consider expanding our notification in situations such as the Dobbins Hill and Wilson Assemblage projects where renter-occupants were not notified and had no means of being notified.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT THE PETITION REGARDING EXTENDING NOTIFICATION REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE OCCUPANTS OF PROPERTY ALONG WITH PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 1,000 NOTIFICATION AREA BE REFERRED TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

13b. Council Member Strom said he had meant to bring this up during discussion of the legislative agenda. He said he had recently read an article that stated UNC had this past year established a well funded pact and had been focused on the legislature, getting people elected, and lobbying. Council Member Strom said he wanted to have a conversation about how we support our legislative agenda, and how we get our “side of the story” out to the public and to the Legislature consistently. He said his reasons were that there are a few UNC/Town issues that are working there way towards action items, such as rezoning Horace Williams and making changes to the OI-4 zoning district being the two significant ones. Council Member Strom said he anticipated there would be more conversations about Horace Williams/Carolina North issues.

Council Member Strom said his specific petition was how we make sure that the rationale and historical background and the citizens’ interests that we are representing as a Council are at least being told in Raleigh on a consistent basis. He said he knew we had the support the League of Municipalities, but they often focus on very broad issues and these are specific issues that we would do well to have a strategy of communication.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council refer the petition to the Manager and Mayor, and they would come back to the Council with some advice.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT THE PETITION REGARDING HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RATIONALE AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CITIZENS’ INTERESTS ARE FORWARDED TO THE LEGISLATORS ON A CONSISTENT BASIS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

13c. Council Member Harrison noted that the Mayor had copied the Council on a recent letter sent to Chancellor Moeser regarding open space protection concepts for the Horace Williams tract. He said in his talks with the Mayor, he had brought forward some issues that don’t fix any one category specifically, but there was literature available about different types of open space protection that the University could offer at Horace Williams.

Council Member Harrison said he would like to work with the Manager and staff on developing some strategies, adding he had been asked by a member of the Horace Williams Committee to attend a meeting and talk about it. He noted he had been an open space planner for a long time and would like to apply his expertise to this project, and use the principles the Mayor had sent to the Chancellor. Mayor Foy said hopefully there would be a lot more opportunity to discuss that issue.

There was no objection from the Council.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.