SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.

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

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

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Senior Long Range Planner Chris Berndt, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli,  Information Technology Director Bob Avery, Crisis Intervention Unit Director Jim Huegerich, Engineering Director George Small, and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

Item 1 – Ceremonies

1a.       Recognition of the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Coalition of North Carolina.

Trudy Logan said her organization assisted communities throughout the State in preventing teen pregnancies.  She noted the effects of adolescent pregnancies on the lives of young people and the financial burdens it places on the State.

Ms. Logan said her organization trains professionals and community leaders in pregnancy prevention techniques, and provided opportunities for people to learn why they should care about teen pregnancy.  She said the State had over 17,000 such pregnancies in 2003, and of those pregnancies over 400 of them were of teens 10 to 14 years old.

Ms. Logan said in Orange County the numbers were low, but young people should still receive accurate information that could change their lives.  She invited the public to call their offices for more information, or to access their website at www.appcnc.org. 

Item 2 - Public Hearings and Forums – None.

Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members

3a.       Petitions by Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda.

3a(1).   Columbia Place Homeowners Association regarding Parking on the Streets of Columbia Place East, West, and Columbia Place Drive.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(2).   Alan Rimer regarding Request for Crosswalk Sign on Hillsborough Street.

Mr. Rimer petitioned the Council to refer this transportation-related matter to Town staff and the Transportation Board for consideration.  He asked that the Council consider putting a crosswalk sign, such as that utilized at the Weaver Street Market, at the crosswalk on Hillsborough Street next to Aldermen Dorm and the Botanical Garden.  Mr. Rimer stated that during busy times, the street was virtually impassable by pedestrians, and the motorists ignored the posted crosswalk signs on the utility poles.

Mr. Rimer suggested that a crosswalk sign be installed on an experimental basis to see how it worked.  He offered to consult with the staff if they so chose.

Council Member Harrison asked was he asking for a sign in the street.  Mr. Rimer replied yes, that what he was describing was a tall yellow placard that resided in the center of the crosswalk.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(3).   Joe Capowski regarding the Amount of Visible Utility Lines in Chapel Hill, Referring Agenda Item #12.1.

Mr. Capowski displayed photos of the southern entryway into Chapel Hill, pointing out the number of overhead wires.  He then displayed a photo of South Columbia Street on the UNC Campus, noting there were no overhead wires and it was much more “humane.”  Mr. Capowski displayed other photos which made the same points.

Mr. Capowski said the issue before the Council was whether to support burying only electric utility lines or all lines, and as an engineer he broke that question down into three issues – safety and necessity, aesthetics, and politics.

Regarding safety and necessity, Mr. Capowski said we obviously needed electricity, that during storms electric wires come down first because they were mounted the highest, and downed electric wires were dangerous where cable TV and phone wires were not.  He said the conclusion he must draw was that for safety reasons, it was necessary to bury only electric wires.

For aesthetics, Mr. Capowski said, it was foolish to bury electric wires and leave other wires strung on the poles, so why not bury them all.

Lastly, Mr. Capowski noted that politically it was easier to pass a bill for one utility, but in his opinion representatives Joe Hackney and Verla Insko should be relied on to use their knowledge and experience and their opinions should be weighed very carefully.  He said the important thing was to get something passed in the General Assembly.

Mr. Capowski noted that Duke Power would fight this, noting their history was to do only what some level of government required.  He noted that the street rights-of-way belonged to the Town, not to the utility providers.  Mr. Capowski ended his remarks by stating “I have a dream.”  He said that dream was that by the end of this decade, that electric wires from the southern entranceway and the eastern entranceway would be eliminated.  Mr. Capowski asked the Council to do whatever it could to see his dream fulfilled.

3b.       Petitions by Citizens on Items on the Agenda.

3b(1).  Alan Rimer, regarding Item #12, Jordan Lake Non-Point Source Nutrient Management Strategy.

Alan Rimer stated that along with item #12, he would like to address item #4g, Award for Financing of Computer Replacements for the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year, as well.  He said he would not read his comments, but instead would pass out his written comments and ask that the Council consider them when they reached that point on the agenda.

Regarding item #12, Mr. Rimer said he wanted to make four points.  He said the strategy that had been laid out in the memo and the revised resolution under consideration was coincident with those four points.  His four points were as follows:

· The Town Manager should seek a leadership position in the stakeholders group to make sure that the concerns of Chapel Hill citizens are heard, and that Chapel Hill demonstrate its proactive interest in moving ahead to develop appropriate mitigation strategies to protect and enhance Jordan Lake.

· The Town Manager should consider comments from the Stormwater Utility Advisory Board during the various stages of discussion by the stakeholders group.

· The Stormwater staff should consider a broadly-based public education program regarding the appropriate use of fertilizers and other materials which can impact the amount of phosphorous and nitrogen which find their way into the streams leading to Jordan Lake.

· That the Town Manager should keep the Council apprised of developments as is his normal practice.

3c.       Announcements by Council Members.

Council Member Verkerk stated she wanted to wish a happy birthday to Case, Amelia and William who would be 15 and 9 tomorrow.  She said she had promised her daughter she would do that.

Item 4 - Consent Agenda

Council Member Strom pulled #4g, Award for Financing of Computer Replacements for the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED RESOLUTION R-1 WITH #4g REMOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2005-04-25/R-1)

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

a.	Minutes February 14, 28 and March 4, 7, 21 (2 sets).
b.	Nominations to various boards and committees (R-2).
c.	Consideration of Changes to On-Street Parking Regulations on North Street Between Hillsborough Street and Boundary Street (O-1).
d.	Consideration of Changes to On-Street Parking Regulations on Nuttree Lane (O-2).
e.	Approval of Amendments to Town Code of Ordinances, Chapter 21, Traffic Code Due to Name Change of Airport Road to Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. (O-3).
f.	Proposed Town of Chapel Hill Green Fleets Policy.
g.	Removed.
h.	Technical Corrections to Town Code (O-4).
i.	Request for Expedited Processing of Special Use Permit for Family House at UNC (R-5).
j.	Orange County HOME Consortium Agreement (R-6).
k.	Response to Petition re Alcoholic Beverages in Downtown Areas (R-7).
l.	Request for Street Closing May 8, 2005, for Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Dedication Ceremony (R-7.1).

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES (2005-04-25/R-2)

WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and

WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:

Community Design Commission

George Cianciolo

Gretchen G. MacNair

Shireen Smith

Old Durham/Chapel Hill Road Policy Committee

Laura Ann Gilliom

Planning Board

Ralph Beisner

Neal Bench

Jennifer Bennett

George Cianciolo

John Gilmore

Wendy Sarratt

Shireen Smith

Rental Licensing Committee

Carolyn Baucom

Louise Beck

Dottie Bernholz

Jennifer Bowdish

Dan Coleman

William DuPont

Dennis R. Erny

Drew Erteschik

Katie Karpa

Estelle Mabry

Elizabeth Martin

Stephen Mills

Velma Perry

Eric Plow

Diana Whittington Steele

Holly Swann

Emily Wynes

Technology Committee

Ralph Beisner

Brian Russell

Transportation Board

Robert Koontz

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING NO PARKING ANYTIME EXCEPT BY RESIDENTIAL PERMIT (2005-04-25/O-1)

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

Section 1.  Section 21-27.9 (d) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “No parking anytime except by residential permit” is hereby amended by deleting the following:

“Street                         Side                 From                                        To

North Street South Hillsborough Street Glenburnie Street”

Section 2.  Section 21-27.9 (d) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “No parking anytime except by residential permit” is hereby amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“Street                         Side                 From                                        To

North Street                South               Boundary Street                      Glenburnie Street”

Section 3.  Section 21-27.9 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “No parking anytime except by residential permit” is here by amended by adding the following new section:

(g) 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday-Friday

Section 4.  Section 21-27.9 (g) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “No parking anytime except by residential permit” is hereby amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“Street                         Side                 From                                        To

North Street                South               Hillsborough Street                 Boundary Street”

Section 5.  This Ordinance shall become effective May 24, 2005.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING NO PARKING AS TO PARTICULAR STREETS (2005-04-25/O-2)

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 here by amended by adding the following:

“Street                         Side                 From                                        To

Nuttree Lane               South               Cobble Ridge Drive                Rossburn Way

Nuttree Lane               North A point 75 feet east of                        A point 75 feet west of

Brannon Court Brannon Court

Brannon Court Both                Nuttree Lane                           A point 75 feet north of

                                                Nuttree Lane”

Section 2.  This Ordinance shall become effective upon enactment.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS DUE TO THE RENAMING OF AIRPORT ROAD AND MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. STREET (2005-04-25/O-3)

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

Section 1.  Chapter 21 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Traffic code.” is hereby amended by replacing “Airport Road” with “Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard” wherever it appears.

Section 2.  Chapter 21 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Traffic code.” is hereby amended by replacing “Martin Luther King, Jr. Street” with “Jackie Robinson Street” wherever it appears.

Section 3.  This ordinance shall become effective May 8, 2005.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO CORRECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES (2005-04-25/O-4)

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

Section 1.  Section 12-1.  Opening and closing hours of town parks; remaining in parks after closing. is hereby amended by changing the reference “Rosemary Street Parking Deck Plaza” to “Wallace Parking Plaza”.

Section 2. Paragraph (d) of  Section 17-88.  Sidewalk sales by downtown businesses.  is hereby revised to read as follows:

            “(d)  A business permitted to sell under this section may only sell food and non-alcoholic beverages and may not assign or delegate its space or authority under this section to other persons.”

Section 3.  This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.

.  

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING IN THE REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR FAMILY HOUSE AT UNC HOSPITALS DEVELOPMENT (2005-04-25/R-5)

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has received a petition for Family House at UNC Hospitals requesting expedited processing of a Special Use Permit application seeking approval to construct a Residential Support Facility on Old Mason Farm Road; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that there is a significant public purpose associated with development of this application;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to expedite processing of a Special Use Permit application for Family House at UNC Hospitals Development in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO EXECUTE A NEW HOME CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY HOME PROGRAM (2005-04-25/R-6)

WHEREAS, on July 6, 1992, the Council approved the participation of the Town of Chapel Hill in the Orange County HOME Consortium; and

WHEREAS, Chapel Hill, Orange County, Carrboro and Hillsborough are currently members of the Orange County HOME Consortium established on August 3, 1992; and

WHEREAS, on May 13, 1996, the Council authorized the Manager to execute a new HOME Consortium Agreement for the Orange County HOME Program from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999; and

WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999, the Council authorized the Manager to execute a new HOME Consortium Agreement for the Orange County HOME Program from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2002; and

WHEREAS, on June 10, 2002, the Council authorized the Manager to execute a new HOME Consortium Agreement for the Orange County HOME Program from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2005; and

WHEREAS, the current Orange County HOME Consortium Agreement will expire on June 30, 2005; and

WHEREAS, the Orange County HOME Consortium desires to continue to be considered for eligibility under the federal HOME Program operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as authorized under the HOME Investment Partnership Act, as amended;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to execute a new HOME Consortium Agreement for the Orange County HOME Program for the period of July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008. 

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING THE MANAGER’S REPORT ON SERVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION ON MAY 9, 2005 (2005-04-25/R-7)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager’s report regarding serving alcoholic beverages shall be placed on the Council’s May 9 agenda for further consideration.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A STREET CLOSING FROM 2 TO 5 P.M. ON MAY 8, 2005 (2005-03-25/R-7.1)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the Observances Committee’s request to close Stephens Street between noon and 5:00 p.m. May 8, 2005, subject to conditions to be set forth by the Town Manager or Manager’s designee, which may include the following:

1.  Personnel shall be on duty at the ends of the closed street areas to ensure access for Town and other emergency vehicles into the closed area if needed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to approve minor adjustments in the time and location of the requested street closing.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005

Benjie Kelly, a resident of 108 Nuttree Lane, spoke regarding item #4d, regarding changes to on-street parking regulations on Nuttree Lane.  He said the new signs that had been installed today were incorrectly positioned, noting the signs were to have been 75 feet from the corner so that people could see to make the turn.  Mr. Kelly said the new sign was placed about 125 feet from the corner which was no small discrepancy, and did away with the one parking space that he had at his residence.

Mr. Kelly asked that the Council have the signage repositioned so that it was placed as called for in the survey.  He noted that a crew had come out several months ago and placed the 75-foot mark on the pavement, so it was clear where the sign should be posted.

Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli stated that the signs would be repositioned according to the ordinance that the Council had adopted.  He noted that the road had been marked, but they had decided not to add another sign pole so had used an existing speed limit sign pole to attach the new signs.  Mr. Neppalli stated that would be corrected by moving the speed limit sign and the new sign to the 75-foot mark.

Gregg Gerdau, a Member of the Technology Committee, spoke regarding item #4g, Award for Financing of Computer Replacements for the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year.  He noted what was being proposed was to complete a second round of the three-year replacement cycle for Town desktop and laptop computers, and that systems be replaced that had expired warranties and that were originally purchased with basic features.

Mr. Gerdau said that the consideration of replacements within the Police Department carried a different meaning and should receive separate consideration, since that department provided public safety services.

Mr. Gerdau displayed a chart of the cost breakdown provided by Information Technology Director Bob Avery, and stated it was important to note that $51,910 of the $203,940 being proposed was for the Police Department.  Secondly, he said, it was important to note that over the six years of the existing program they had been spending an average of $153,434 per year, and in 2002-2003 they went from spending $145,000 to spending $190,000 in 2003-2004.  This year, Mr. Gerdau said, they were going up to $204,000.  Mr. Gerdau noted that resulted in a substantial increase of over 33%.

Mr. Gerdau noted that on March 23 Alan Rimer, also a member of the Technology Committee, had presented four recommendations to reduce that financing, adding that the purchases contemplated by that financing had not been reviewed by the Committee and did not carry a recommendation.  The recommendations were as follows:

First recommendation:

· Recommend the deferral or modification of planned computer hardware replacement and upgrade purchases (per the current three-year replacement cycle policy) for the coming fiscal year.

· Technology Committee will work with Town staff to examine current purchasing practices, replacement cycle policies, hardware and software standards, deployment methods, migration strategies and alternatives for hardware and software financing, and make appropriate recommendations.

Second recommendation:

· Pilot project for the use of open source software to replace existing licensed software operating systems and applications.

· This pilot project will determine what savings might accrue from such a move and will identify the costs and intangible factors that must be considered in such a strategy shift.

· Were such a strategy fully implemented, some members of the Technology Committee suggest savings could range to $180,000 over three years.

Third recommendation:

· Consultant review of virus defense, e-mail retention policies, backup and recovery processes and standardized disk images.

· The overall effect should be increased user satisfaction and lower IT help calls.

· IT Director reported at one point in time at lest 70 percent of all calls were related to these issues, but this is highly variable.

· Estimates on these savings vary, but some members of the Technology Committee believe this savings could amount of $240,000 over three years.

Fourth recommendation:

· Review by the Council of all IT expenditures in all departments as suggested in the Infrastructure Strategic Plan.

· Technology expenditures could not be tracked in any departmental budgets.

· In this year’s budget, a number of new budget costs have been instituted.

· The Infrastructure Subcommittee has recommended an even finer granularity included in the “TC Strategic Plan – Expense Categories” worksheet.

Mr. Gerdau noted that the “concrete” recommendations for tonight were:

· Delay purchasing any computers until an assessment of the current equipment is available (including Police Department needs).

· Then buy enough computers to replace failures only (not 103 computers).

· Review the hardware requirements after the Open Source Pilot.

· Review the manufacturers and contract terms to ensure lower costs (State contracts may not be lower).

· Pay off the last two three-year lease purchases as fast as possible.

· Consider a “pay as you go” financing approach to lower costs.

Mayor Foy thanked Mr. Gerdau and asked if he had a paper copy of his comments that he could leave for the Council.  Mr. Gerdau replied that he would do so, and said he and other members of the Technology Committee would be glad to answer any questions at any time.

Item 5 – Information Items

Mayor noted that a citizen had signed up to speak on item #5e, Request for Expedited Processing of the Special Use Permit Application for the Chapel Hill Kehillah Parking Lot Rental.

Stanley Robboy, a co-President of the Chapel Hill Kehillah, said if the Council decided to take no action on their request they would accept, but wanted to note why they had asked.  He stated they were hoping to rent out parking lot space, which given its location would serve a dual use.  Mr. Robboy said none of the neighbors of the Kehillah had objected to their request, adding the Community Design Commission had discussed this last week and voted unanimously to recommend the project.

Mr. Robboy stated that the potential traffic impact would be only about 100 trips a day which was negligible given the area.  Finally, he said, while they may not receive approval for expedited review, he hoped that the project could move rapidly forward, noting that no construction or other renovations would have to take place.

Mayor Foy pulled item #5a, Report on Downtown Alleys, and referred it to the Downtown Economic Development Corporation.  He noted one citizen had requested to speak on this issue.

Betty Maultsby thanked the Council for the attention that had been paid to the condition of the alley between the Wallace Parking Deck and the 100 block of East Franklin Street, and well as the attention the entire downtown business district was receiving.  She stated she was encouraged by the spirit of shared cooperation reflected in the Manager’s report, noting that lines of communication were open and evident to all stakeholders.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

ITEMS DEFERRED FROM APRIL 11, 2005 BUSINESS MEETING

Item 6 – Response to Petition regarding Traffic

Calming Measures on Lonebrook Drive

Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli noted that the Council had approved installation of traffic calming devices on Lonebrook Drive in January of 2003 under the policies used at that time, and subsequently received a protest petition from a resident of the neighborhood.  He said that the Council had on several occasions requested and received follow-up reports and traffic studies, as well as surveys of the neighborhood which had been included in the follow-up reports.

Mr. Neppalli noted that the Council had approved a new traffic calming policy in June of 2004, at which time it had delayed action on requests for speed humps on Lonebrook Drive and asked the staff for a follow-up report.  He said in November a report was submitted to the Council which stated that the traffic calming devices already installed on Lonebrook Drive did not meet the criteria of the new policy.

Mr. Neppalli noted that there were several options before the Council tonight for consideration, but wanted to point out that they always recommend a combination of speed humps, stop signs or other traffic calming devices to reduce speeding problems, but do not recommend stop signs alone.  He said they had implemented several such measures in neighborhoods in the past, on Sweeten Creek Road and in Glen Lennox, and follow-up studies show they had reduced the speeding somewhat.

Mr. Neppalli stated that the stop signs on Lonebrook Drive at the Tremont Circle and Glenmore Road intersection were removed on April 1, 2005, following instructions established by the Council at its November 9, 2004 meeting.  He gave the Council a brief overview of the events that had led up to that.

Mayor Foy said he wanted to encapsulate what Mr. Neppalli had just stated, noting that there were three options before the Council for consideration.  He stated that Option 1 would reaffirm the November 8, 2004 decision to remove the stop signs, and Option 2 would reinstall the stop signs.  Option 3, Mayor Foy said, would reinstall the stop signs and install two speed humps on Lonebrook Drive.  He stated the Manager’s recommendation was for Option 1, which would mean enactment of Ordinance O-5a.

Tammy Samuelson, president of the Parkside Homeowners Association, is a resident of Lonebrook Drive.  She said she had addressed the Council two weeks ago and asked why they had to abide by a traffic calming policy that was not put into effect until 20 months after they had filed their petition, which contained 63 signatures.  She noted that a valid petition was required to have two-thirds of the service area residents’ signatures which would be 127, but other neighborhoods had not met that goal but were successful with their petitions, so why not them?

Ms. Samuelson said because she did not think the Council would agree with them, they had made an effort to do what was required and set out to obtain the necessary signatures on their petition.  She noted she was able to acquire 102 signatures from the Parkside neighborhood, and Ms. Del Snow acquired 54 from Northwood, for a total of 156 signatures, 82 percent of the neighborhood.

Ms. Samuelson said some may say they had not abided by the April 1 deadline set by the Council for obtaining the signatures, but her response to that was they were being forced to abide by a policy that was established 20 months after the original petition was filed.  For that reason, she said the Council should accept the petition even though it was a few days late.

Ms. Samuelson said she had a true concern about the speeding taking place on Lonebrook Drive, and there were persons present tonight who would speak against the traffic calming devices.  She noted that they do not live on Lonebrook Drive, and did not witness what she sees every day.  Ms. Samuelson ask the Council to give them two stop signs and three speed humps as requested by those 156 residents, adding that the desires of the “many” should outweigh the desires of the “few.”

Del Snow said the need for the stop signs was confirmed by traffic studies which lead to their installation in 2003, adding that these signs were installed under the policy in place at that time, predating the current policy adopted in June of 2004.  She noted that the Manager’s memo states that petition documents were provided to the residents in November of 2004, but no one that she knows ever received those documents.  Ms. Snow said they had no homeowners association and no representative.

Ms. Snow said a lack of consensus among the residents was the reason noted for removal of the stop signs.  She noted that Mr. Plow’s petition with 22 signatures, not necessarily 22 homes, less than one/eighth of the combined population of Parkside and Northwood, was accepted de facto, even though the traffic calming policy states that two-thirds of the homeowners were needed to agree to removal of traffic calming devices.  Ms. Snow said now that Northwood had been given an opportunity to respond, they had done so loudly and clearly, and tonight she was presenting a petition with 54 of the 74 homeowners in Northwood, or nearly 73 percent, in support of reinstalling the stop signs now.

Ms. Snow said there was no acceptable rationale for not installing the stop signs when the safety of children, bicyclists, dog walkers, joggers, and other pedestrians and drivers was considered.  She asked that the Council restore their faith in the “system,” and correct the mistake that was made by reinstalling the stop signs at both Tremont Circle and Glenmore Road intersections.

Eric Frazier, a resident of Northwood, agreed with the previous comments, adding for him it was an issue of safety.  He mentioned the frequent speeding in the neighborhood, noting that a child had been hit by a car on that road several years ago and did not want that to happen ever again.  Mr. Frazier asked the Council to consider the safety aspects of their request.

Mark Zimmerman said the Council had a good policy in place right now, noting the various advisory boards and staff who had reviewed it before the Council had adopted it.  He asked that the Council adhere to it.  Mr. Zimmerman said the petition process was meant to show only that there were enough people who lived in an area to say that they “think” there was a problem.  Then, he said, it was turned over to staff to determine if there was a problem.

Mr. Zimmerman said there had been two traffic studies, and in not one instance did any of the issues identified rise to the minimum level required by the guidelines for traffic calming.  He said it did not matter if 100 percent of people on a road want traffic calming devices, that if the study showed they were not warranted then the policy must be followed.  Mr. Zimmerman said in this case, the studies showed they were not warranted.  He said if they were reinstalled, there must be a compelling reason to ignore the guidelines.  Mr. Zimmerman said in this case, they were not warranted.

Mr. Zimmerman said that unfortunately, the worst thing the Council could do was to install stop signs only.  He said stop signs were the only traffic signal that was strictly prohibited from being used for traffic calming.  Mr. Zimmerman asked the Council to abide by its policy.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was somewhat confused by Mr. Zimmerman’s remarks that the traffic studies did not show a need for traffic calming.  He stated that the record showed that after the initial study, the Manager had recommended the installation of stop signs and speed humps.  Mr. Zimmerman said that recommendation was made before the current policy was put in place.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that was not why they had decided not to go with stop signs and speed bumps after the current policy was enacted.  He said the process was halted because it was determined that the petition was insufficient.  Mr. Zimmerman responded that regardless of what the reason was, there were guidelines now in place that the Council should adhere to.  He said that neither of the traffic studies showed that traffic calming devices are warranted.

Jeff Weinstock said he had understood Mr. Neppalli to state that the Town had changed its position based on the petitions received.  He said that this issue had moved from being one about safety to being one about petitions.  Mr. Weinstock said the Town had said previously said that traffic in that area needed to be slowed, but now the policy guidelines had changed regarding petitions which had become the crux of the matter.

Mr. Weinstock said that as a father with a 12-year-old, you could bet this is exactly a safety issue.  He noted that Mr. Plow, who had petitioned for the stop signs to be removed, no longer lived in the neighborhood.  Mr. Weinstock said Mr. Zimmerman lived in the Tremont Circle cul-de-sac so did not know what the conditions were “morning, day and night.”

Mr. Weinstock suggested that the Council review its petition policy, and balance that with safety and need.  He reminded the Council that the Traffic Engineer and the Town Manager had previously recommended traffic calming devices, then the petition process was changed.  Mr. Weinstock said they agreed with the Town’s original assessment that traffic calming devices were necessary and critical, and it would be a “crime” it they were not reinstalled based on the ability to petition.  He said safety was first and if someone got hurt, no petition would make it right.

Eric Plow agreed with Mr. Zimmerman’s remarks.  He stated that when this issue had first come to light, the Council was being inundated with requests for traffic calming devices from neighborhoods all over Town.  Mr. Plow said at that time there was no official policy, only guidelines that had not been voted on by any Council.  He said the Council wisely put in place an official policy to regulate such requests.  So, Mr. Plow said, it did not matter what had gone before, that now there was an official policy in place and it should be followed.

Mr. Plow suggested that the Council use its limited budget to install traffic calming devices in areas that meet the officially adopted guidelines.

Council Member Verkerk, referring to the area map in the materials, said it showed three speed humps on Lonebrook Drive and in Resolution B, it said two speed humps.  She asked for clarification on that.  Mr. Neppalli responded that under Option 3 noted in Resolution B, there were two speed humps recommended for the Parkside neighborhood, not in the Northwood neighborhood.  He said if Resolution B was adopted, then the stop sign and the speed hump on Lonebrook Dri ve closest to Weaver Dairy Road, as shown on the map, would be removed.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the stop sign and speed hump in the Northwood neighborhood would be eliminated because they were not part of the original petition.  Mr. Neppalli stated that the petition they submitted with 54 signatures had not been received as yet, so was not considered.  He said they had based their recommendation on the interest of the Parkside neighborhood, since they had not received a copy of the Northside petition.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED RESOLUTION R-8.1b, AMENDED TO ADD A STOP SIGN AT TREMONT CIRCLE AND LONEBROOK DRIVE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT.

Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that because they had an existing policy, then the Council should state a reason why it was necessary to do this.  He said it was not unreasonable to accept the petitions presented tonight and determine that they were adequate to fulfill the policy.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said although the petitions may be been received after the April 1 deadline, there was a condition sometimes used in court called “equitable tolling,” where deadlines were ignored and conditions were grandfathered in.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that even though the policy was injected into the middle of this process, the benefit of the original study, even as informal as the previous requirements were, and the Manager’s previous recommendation should be what the Council gave weight to.  He said they had a study that recommended it, and they had more than adequate support of the neighborhood as required by the policy.

Council Member Ward asked Mr. Neppalli to clarify what the study did and did not say regarding traffic calming on Lonebrook.  Mr. Neppalli responded two studies were conducted, one in December 2002 and one in late 2003.  He said numbers of vehicles and rates of speed varied in that 25 mph zone, and offered a brief explanation of the administrative guidelines used at that time to determine if traffic calming devices were warranted.

Mr. Neppalli said that there was a speeding problem on Lonebrook Drive, noting they had measured speed at one location at 55 mph, and 40 mph at another location.  He said they had recommended similar traffic calming devices in a combination of stop signs and speed humps on Sweeten Creek Road, Glen Lennox, and The Oaks.  Mr. Neppalli said they had been consistent in recommended traffic calming devices under the guidelines in place at that time.

Mr. Neppalli said the new policy was adopted last year, and in fact the new process was started with the Lonebrook Drive petition.  He said on November 8, 2004, the Council had agreed to allow the stop signs to remain and to defer installation of speed humps on Lonebrook Drive until the neighborhood submitted a valid petition requesting the installation of traffic calming devices, with a deadline of April 1, 2005.

Mr. Neppalli said when a petition had not been received by April 1, 2005, members of the Parkside Neighborhood Association had been contacted by Town staff on more than one occasion, and they indicated they were unable to collect an adequate number of signatures for a valid petition.  He said in accordance with the Council’s direction at its November 8, 2004 meeting, the stop signs on Lonebrook Drive at the Tremont Circle and Glenmore Road intersections were removed.

Council Member Ward asked if the traffic studies the Town had done indicate that two stop signs and three speed humps were appropriate recommendations?  Mr. Neppalli said they were appropriate recommendations based on the other neighborhoods approved in the past for similar devices.  Council Member Ward said did that mean that the traffic study indicated that was what we should do.  Mr. Neppalli replied yes, that was correct.

Council Member Ward said he would like the Council to approve the two stop signs and the three speed humps, noting that one of the things that Mr. Neppalli indicated was that stop signs should not be used alone but should be coupled with other traffic calming devices.  He said that the disregard that one ends up having for stop signs when they are used for traffic calming was not a good message, and for that reason would like the Council to include that third speed hump that was in the original recommendation.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INSTALL THE TWO STOP SIGNS ON LONEBROOK DRIVE AND THE THREE SPEED HUMPS AS ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED BY THE MANAGER.  COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she supported all three speed humps.  She stated that she and her husband had driven Lonebrook Drive today, adding her husband was “notorious” for driving under the posted speed limit.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said if everyone drove like that, none of these devices would be needed.  But, she stated, obviously something was needed, noting that this was a dense neighborhood with homes close to the road, and drivers needed to be slowed down.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she questioned whether the stop signs were needed, since they were not located at intersections.  She said they were at points where streets entered Lonebrook, but while driving that road today it felt “unnatural” to stop in what seemed like the middle of the street for no reason at the point where the stop signs had once been.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she supported the speed humps.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked who the people were speeding on Lonebrook Drive.  She wondered if they were people just passing through, or were they residents entering and exiting the neighborhood.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she did not believe this neighborhood was experiencing a great deal of cut-through traffic as yet, so maybe more attention needed to be paid to convincing neighbors to slow each other down.

THE MOTION AS AMENDED WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING REINSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON LONEBROOK DRIVE AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH GLENMORE ROAD AND INSTALLATION OF TWO SPEED HUMPS ON LONEBROOK DRIVE IN THE PARKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD (2005-04-25/R-8.1b)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is concerned about vehicular and non-vehicular safety and mobility on Town streets; and

WHEREAS, the Council has received a petition opposing some elements of the traffic calming plan approved by the Council on January 27, 2003, involving Lonebrook Drive; and

WHEREAS, the Council directed the Manager to conduct follow-up traffic studies on Lonebrook Drive and to submit a report including analysis of the results of the traffic studies and recommendations for further action on the approved traffic calming plan; and

WHEREAS, Town staff conducted follow-up studies and the Manager presented a report and recommendations to the Council on April 26, 2004; and

WHEREAS, the Council adopted formal Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures on June 30, 2004; and

WHEREAS, the Council received a follow-up report from the Manager including discussion of the current Lonebrook Drive petitions relative to the requirements of the adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures on November 8, 2004; and

WHEREAS, the Council directed the Manager to remove the stop signs on Lonebrook Drive at its intersections with Tremont Circle and Glenmore Road if a valid petition in accordance with the Council’s adopted Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures was not received by April 1, 2005; and

WHEREAS, a valid petition was not received by the deadline and the stop signs were removed on April 1, 2005 in accordance with the Council’s direction; and

WHEREAS, the Manager presented a report regarding removal of stop signs on Lonebrook Drive to the Council on April 11, 2005; and

WHEREAS, several citizens expressed concerns regarding removal of stop signs on Lonebrook Drive at the April 11, 2005 Council meeting; and

WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the installation of stop signs on Lonebrook Drive at its intersections with Glenmore Road and Tremont Circle and installation of three speed humps on Lonebrook Drive will enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety in the nearby area;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Manager to reinstall the stop signs on Lonebrook Drive at its intersection with Glenmore Road and Tremont Circle and to install three speed humps on Lonebrook Drive.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED ENACTED OF O-5b AS AMENDED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING STOP REGULATIONS (2005-04-25/O-5b)

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

Section 1.  Section 21-13(a) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by deleting the following:

“Through Streets                                Stop Streets

Lonebrook Drive Glenmore Road”

Lonebrook Drive Tremont Circle

Section 2.   Section 21-13(c) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by inserting the following, in appropriate alphabetical order:

“Intersection(s)

Lonebrook Drive and Glenmore Road”

Lonebrook Drive and Tremont Circle

Section 3.  This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

Item 7 – Recommended 2005 Downtown Improvement Projects

Urban Forester Curtis Brooks said that each year prior to the summer construction season, a report was prepared for the Council’s consideration detailing proposed locations where Streetscape improvements were needed and could be implemented using available funds.  He said this year, with the first installment of Bond funding from 2003 available, we now had $530,000 available for funding projects downtown.

Mr. Brooks said consistent with guidance from the Council in the past, tonight they offered three projects for consideration, and recommended that all three be approved.  He said if the Town were to proceed with all three projects, he believed it would utilize all of the available funds currently available.

Mr. Brooks described the three projects, highlighting important aspects of each:

· Recommended Project 1 – Install mast arm traffic signal poles and upgrade the crosswalks on Franklin Street at the intersections of Columbia Street (four poles and crosswalks) and Porthole Alley (two poles, one crosswalk), at an estimated cost of $230,000 (refer to Attachment 2 of the Council’s memorandum).

· Recommended Project 2 – Construct Streetscape improvements in a 700-foot section of sidewalk on the south side of the 100 and 200 blocks of West Franklin Street adjacent to University Square at an estimated cost of $240,000 (refer to Attachment 3 of the Council’s memorandum).  The proposed curb alignment would provide additional area behind the curb for a wide sidewalk and associated pedestrian amenities, but would reduce the width of the current wide outside lane on this block of Franklin Street.

· Recommended Project 3 – Install custom lighting where Streetscape has otherwise been completed on the south side of the 500 and 600 blocks of West Franklin Street from Roberson Street to Merritt Mill Road at an estimated cost of $60,000 (refer to Attachment 4 of the Council’s memorandum).  These lighting improvements would complete the Streetscape project in this area.

Mr. Brooks noted that the recommendation was the adoption of Resolutions A, B, and C authorizing the Manager to proceed with downtown lighting, traffic signal and Streetscape improvements as described in the Council’s materials.

Council Member Verkerk noted that Projects 1, 2, and 3 were all recommended, and asked Mr. Brooks if they were in priority order.  Mr. Brooks responded that Projects 1 and 2, or 2 and 1, were the top priorities, and a good case could be made for either one.  He noted his preference would be to complete Project 1 first, since it would completely finish that part of the Streetscape project in that area.

Council Member Verkerk said in the Master Plan, was the mast arm part of it, or just the crosswalk?  Mr. Brooks replied that both elements were in the Master Plan.

Council Member Strom said on the north side of West Franklin, what sections of Streetscape were actually complete?  Mr. Brooks replied there was a long stretch uncompleted that started at the Carrboro line and continued down through the 600 block and 500 blocks, then down to 441 in the 400 block.  He said they had prepared plans in the past, but not in detail.  Mr. Brooks commented that one reason was their fear that any improvements attempted in the 400 block would damage the trees there.  Mr. Brooks noted that improvements in that area would take place when funding was available.

Council Member Strom said it seemed like spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars on the mast arms was significant for one element, and he was concerned it would look like a “behemoth” in that area.  He said the scale of it looked like it would be a monster, and it was a little scary to support it without realizing the visual impact it would have at that intersection.

Council Member Strom said he supported the textured walkway, although the textured walkway installed at Hamilton Road was already discolored and failing.  He said he was not sure the Town wanted to do the exact same treatment here.  Mr. Brooks said it was a developing technology, improving as time passed.  He noted that the speeds at this intersection were different, and the results may differ.  Mr. Brooks added that there would be maintenance issues associated with that, and it could be repainted and retextured.

Council Member Strom stated he was “underwhelmed” by the amount of light that the pedestrian lights emitted.  He said it was nice light, but was less light than he had anticipated.  Council Member Strom asked if there were wattage options.  Mr. Brooks said there were wattage options, but the lighting specialist working with Town staff and others had developed a uniform safe light that met stringent urban standards for consistency of light.  He added those lights were performing to their expectations.

Council Member Strom said he was interested in a proposal that would shift some of the money earmarked for the mast arms towards the traditional Streetscape improvements on West Franklin Street.

Council Member Greene said she was having trouble visualizing the mast arms.  She said regarding Project 2, she supported removing the Bradford pear trees, and asked if she understood correctly that there would be “hard landscaping” done there?  Mr. Brooks said the sidewalk would be shifted so that it abutted the wall, leaving an “amenity strip” about 12 feet wide.  He said that would result in a brick area with 11 additional planters in which we plan to plant canopy trees to replace the Bradford pears.  Mr. Brooks said the trees would be between the sidewalk and the curb rather than behind the sidewalk as they were presently, noting that it further separates pedestrian movement from traffic.

Council Member Greene asked how large the canopy trees could grow in a brick planter.  Mr. Brooks responded significantly larger, because in a planter they were raised above the surrounding walking area, which decreased the amount of compaction and improved their drainage.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins wondered, given the amount of money for these three projects, if the Council would like to ask the Downtown Economic Development Corporation (DEDC) for some feedback on the Streetscape plan.  She asked if there was time to get that kind of feedback.  Mr. Horton responded if the DEDC could provide that feedback fairly rapidly so they would have direction for the work this summer that would be helpful.

Mayor Foy said he thought that would be fine, but he was not comfortable with the typical mast arm traffic signal pole, saying we needed to come up with a better idea than that.  He said it reminded him of what the University had installed near the Bell Tower on campus, noting it was “industrial” in look.  Mr. Brooks stated that NCDOT would be installing some mast arms later this summer at Church Street and Franklin Street, and what was proposed for this project would be the same or similar.

Mayor Foy said that was what he was objecting to.  Mr. Brooks responded that they would be “much smaller” than the one installed by the University.  Mayor Foy said he did not like the direction in which they were headed.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that was why she had suggested getting feedback from the DEDC.

Mayor Foy said he believed they should get more input on alternatives, and suggested the Community Design Commission, the Public Arts Commission, and Historic District Commission for starters.  He also suggested holding off on the Church Street project.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he understood there would be an encroachment into the street in front of Granville Towers.  Mr. Brooks replied that was correct, about two feet.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he envisioned some time in the future getting on-street parking back in that area.  He asked if this would preclude that from happening.  Mr. Brooks said he believed that had already been precluded, noting it had been removed by NCDOT because of sighting issues as well as lane width.  He said it was unlikely it would ever be considered.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would hope that the Council would be “kinder” to the idea of mast arms.  He stated he had visited historic communities where mast arms were installed, and they were more attractive than wires.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed mast arms were the solution for the future, noting he had seen mast arms that were not industrial and stainless steel, but were painted.  Mr. Brooks said he could provide drawings to give the Council a more visual idea of the appearance of the proposed mast arms but until they actually see it, it would be hard to get a feel for it.

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated he believed the Council needed to actually see what was proposed, and asked Mr. Brooks was there someplace nearby that the Council could visit to see that.  Mr. Brooks replied he would identify one that was of comparable scale and inform the Council of its location.

Council Member Harrison said the project at Church and Franklin Streets was scheduled to be done very soon, and was funded primarily by NCDOT with some Town funds.  Mr. Brooks stated it was suppose to take place this summer.  Council Member Harrison asked if this was a Division 7 project.  Mr. Horton responded that the Council had requested a traffic signal at that location, and was able to negotiate that with NCDOT.  He added it would be installed on a mast arm pole.  Council Member Harrison said he did not want to delay that project.  Mr. Horton said if it was delayed, the Town would most likely lose the cooperation of NCDOT.

Council Member Harrison said regarding on-street parking, as a bicyclist he was not sure that such parking should be added due to the narrow lanes and heavy traffic.

Council Member Hill said he did not have a problem with the current poles at Franklin and Columbia Streets, and the money should be spent on something else.  He said regarding Project 2, it was located across the street from Lots 2 and 5, noting the Council was poised to embark on a major project that would have a “huge” impact on that part of Town.  Council Member Hill wondered if funds should be shifted down to the West Franklin Street project until it was decided what would take place on Lots 2 and 5.  He said the development of Lots 2 and 5 may inspire some changes across the street, which would make this work premature.  Mr. Brooks said it would be an easy shift, noting there were some older drawings that were done that the Council could consider regarding construction projects at a different location.  Council Member Hill said he believed the Council should do that, since it was possible that a developer would make a proposal that would affect the opposite side of the street.

Mayor Foy noted there was a citizen who had signed up to speak, and suggested she be allowed to do so before the Council continued its discussion.

Mary Jo Stone, Chair of the DEDC, said regarding Project 1, they supported the proposed improvements, but believed it was inappropriate to use Streetscape Bond funds for these upgrades.  She noted that these funds would be more appropriate coming from the Public Works budget.  Ms. Stone said the DEDC was also interested in having the mast arms designed for adequate street signage, banners, and holiday lighting.

Ms. Stone said regarding Project 2, they did not feel there was a need to create unnecessary impervious surface with a 10-foot sidewalk in that area.  She said there would be no sidewalk dining there, and it was possible to have only a six or seven-foot sidewalk since there was no retail business on the street.  Ms. Stone said they did not feel it was necessary to reduce the width of the street to provide planting areas of trees.  She said with a narrower sidewalk, the planting areas would be the same as that recommended by staff.

Ms. Stone said on-street parking had been discussed in this area for many years, and it was the only area of Franklin Street without on-street parking.  She said reducing the width of the street would make it more difficult and was premature no matter which side of the street the parking was located.

Ms. Stone said the DEDC supported the lighting improvements proposed for the 500 and 600 blocks, noting this area needed enhanced lighting.  But, she said, they wanted to know why this was not paid for by the developer of the project in this area when the other Streetscape improvements were made.  If this was not paid for as part of the developer costs for the Franklin Hotel, Ms. Stone asked, then why should Streetscape Bond funds pay for it rather than the Public Works budget.

Ms. Stone said the DEDC would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the Council.

Council Member Verkerk asked that when this came back to the Council for further consideration, that staff keep in mind that the mast arms would be in a place where 45,000 students could potentially make them a part of a celebration.  She added that she did not believe the Council was ready to adopt these proposals.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION, THE DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION, AND INVITE MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AND THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION TO ATTEND THAT MEETING.  THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT MR. BROOKS COULD, IN A TIMELY FASHION, DEVELOP AN OPTION FOR WEST FRANKLIN STREET CONSTRUCTION AS A FOURTH PROJECT TO WHICH FUNDING MIGHT BE SHIFTED FROM ONE OR MORE OF THE OTHER PROJECTS FOR ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ON WEST FRANKLIN STREET, AND THAT THESE BOARDS BE GIVEN THAT OPTION TO CONSIDER AS WELL.  COUNCIL MEMBERS VERKERK AND GREENE ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had a concern that this would be the first summer that the restaurants on West Franklin Street would be able to serve beer at their sidewalk dining tables.  He asked how the improvements of West Franklin Street would be different, noting he believed that area would be a “rich evening dining area,” even more so as the temperatures warm.  Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if large planters were placed in that area and would they leave no room for outdoor dining.  Mr. Brooks said where other improvements were done in that area, most of the areas were able to accommodate sidewalk dining.  He said he believed there would be adequate room between planters.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked that Mr. Brooks point out that concern when this issue was discussed by advisory boards and other groups.  Mr. Brooks agreed to do so.

THE MOTION AS AMENDED WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Ward asked for an update on the status of the crosswalk in front of University Square at the intersection of West Franklin and Church Streets. He asked if a traffic island was part of that project.  Mr. Horton responded that it was a crosswalk with pedestrian amenities, but no traffic island.  Mr. Brooks added that the work had been scheduled to be completed this summer, but they did not yet have a firm commitment from NCDOT.

Continuation of April 25, 2005 Business Meeting

Mayor Foy said that before continuing with Item #8, he wanted to address Item #11, a Report on Potential Process for Addressing Neighborhood Conservation District Petitions.  He suggested that since it may be late in the evening before that item was addressed, he believed the Council should discuss it to the extent possible, but to agree now that they would not make a decision tonight but hold it over until the next meeting.  Mayor Foy said he knew there were citizens who wanted to comment on it who were not present, and those who were present but may not want to stay to a late hour.  The Council agreed by consensus to discuss the item this evening but to make no decision, and have it placed on the agenda for the next meeting for further discussion.

Mayor Foy said that Delores Bailey had requested that if the Council agreed to hold its decision on this issue until the next meeting, that people who were present tonight from the Pine Knolls community could speak tonight if they choose, but if they wanted to wait until the next meeting they could do so.  He asked Ms. Bailey if she wanted to make a statement.

Ms. Bailey asked those present who were in support of the Pine Knolls petition for the Neighborhood Conservation District to stand.  She noted that some people had already left the meeting, but were in support of the petition.  Ms. Bailey said she would save further comments until later.

Item 8 – Proposed Rezonings of Portions of the Horace Williams Tract

Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt stated that tonight’s discussion would center around the part of the property that was currently zoned Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) north of the Horace Williams Airport, and the part zoned Residential-2 (R-2).  She displayed a site map noting the two areas.  Ms. Berndt stated there were two separate actions before the Council for consideration:

· rezone the OI-3 portion to OI-2, consisting of 286 acres; and

· rezone the R-2 portion to OI-2, consisting of 160 acres.

Ms. Berndt said the potential findings that the Council may have for rezonings was to correct a manifest error, changed or changing conditions, or to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Berndt stated that enactment of the proposed Ordinance A would rezone the OI-3 portion of the tract to OI-2, and that Ordinance B would rezone the R-2 portion of the tract to OI-2.  She noted the two key issues were the question of whether to retain the R-2 zoning on the property, and was there a Comprehensive Plan basis for the rezoning.  Ms. Berndt said that regarding the first issue, the Council could choose to go either way, and on the second issue, they believe a case could be made that the rezoning would support the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it would give the Council more ultimate control over the future development of that property.

Ms. Berndt said the Manager’s recommendation was that the Council approve both rezonings because it achieved the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, which would mean enactment of both Ordinance A and B.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said Ms. Berndt had referred to the Comprehensive Plan basis that would give the Council more control and thereby allowed them to achieve their objectives.  He said with the R-2 section, that proposed a zoning that would actually “go the other way,” meaning they would lose some control of what is presently zoned R-2.  Ms. Berndt replied that the Council could, as mentioned at the previous hearing, consider the R-2 as a “holding zone” in effect because it had lower floor area now.  She said it would still permit a mixed-use development, but at a lower intensity.  Ms. Berndt said their recommendation was that the Council consider the property as a whole, and consider the OI-2 as being appropriate.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said did that mean that rezoning the R-2 portion was not seen as giving up some control.  Ms. Berndt said it was a discretionary decision for the Council to make.

Council Member Strom said in order to do a mixed-used development in an R-2 zone, what steps would you have to go through to accomplish that.  Ms. Berndt said it would be a planned development for the property.  Council Member Strom said then the Council would have to see a master plan for it.  Ms. Berndt replied that was correct.

Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper clarified that it would not necessarily be a master plan, but as a planned development it would require a Special Use Permit.  She commented that it could involve a master plan as well as a Special Use Permit.

Michael Collins, speaking on behalf of the citizens group Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (NRG), restated their position on the proposed rezoning.  He said they continued to support the rezoning of the OI-3 portion of the Horace Williams tract to OI-2, and leaving the   R-2 zoning unchanged.

Mr. Collins said OI-2 and R-2 provide more protection to neighborhoods than OI-3, a fact acknowledged by the Horace Williams Citizens Committee, the Planning Board and the Transportation Board, all of which made recommendations identical to NRG’s position.  He said they commended the recent efforts by Mayor Foy and UNC officials to work together, and the University’s offer to drop their protest petition in return for a Council resolution affirming the intent to negotiate a new zone when the time was right.

Mr. Collins said this was a welcome acknowledgment that this rezoning was “not a big deal,” noting its primary purpose was to create a safe environment on the Horace Williams tract until an agreement would be worked out.  He said that all parties agree that some rezoning would have to take place once all the issues surrounding it had been resolved and the project was ready to move forward.  Until that time, Mr. Collins stated, it was “good common sense” to retain the zoning that offered the best protection to the surrounding neighborhoods.

Mr. Collins urged the Council to rezone the OI-3 portion to OI-2, but to leave the R-2 portion unchanged.  He said it would cost the University nothing to drop its protest petition in return for the Council’s adoption of the proposed resolution of intent.

Laurin Easthom encouraged the Council to rezone the OI-3 portion of the Horace Williams tract to OI-2, but to leave the current R-2 zoning in place.  She said she was encouraged by the good communication in looking towards the future for the Horace Williams tract, but was discouraged by the proposed “up-zoning” of R-2 to OI-2.  Ms. Easthom said she understood the reasons why the rezoning was proposed, but believed it should remain R-2.

Ms. Easthom said the R-2 portion of the tract was the one of the most environmentally sensitive and was the largest portion contiguous with existing neighborhoods.  She said it contained steep slopes and intermittent streams, and described the properties located around the site.  Ms. Easthom noted that a previous memorandum from the Manager stated that one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan was to protect existing neighborhoods.  She said if the Town and the University were committed to their stated common goal of more housing at Carolina North, then the R-2 zoning would safeguard that.

Will Raymond stated that during a recent WCHL Radio forum on Town-Gown relations, he had called and asked UNC Chancellor Moeser to review the Horace Williams Citizens Committee Report and describe specifically what elements he agreed with and those he did not.  He said the Chancellor had dismissed his question, and “joked” about a citizen’s “remembrance of a town that never was.”

Mr. Raymond described his life in Chapel Hill, beginning in the late 1970s, noting the last 14 years had been spent in “spitting distance” of the Horace Williams Airport.  He said his memories were of an open, cordial and honest relationship with UNC.  Unfortunately, Mr. Raymond noted, over the past five years the relationship had deteriorated as UNC had sacrificed decades of well-established good will for what he believed was troublesome gain.

Mr. Raymond said that once again, Chancellor Moeser failed to respond to a request for a public review of the Horace Williams Citizens Committee report.  He said that until UNC extends to the Town the courtesy of reviewing the report and responds point by point, the most prudent course of action was for the Council to protect the community.  Mr. Raymond said for that reason, he urged the Council to accept the Planning Board’s recommendation to rezone the portion that was OI-3 to OI-2, and to keep the current R-2 zoning.

Randy Kabrick, Chair of the Horace Williams Citizens Committee, confirmed the Committee’s recommendation to rezone the OI-3 portion of the Horace Williams tract to OI-2, and to retain the current R-2 zoning.  More importantly, he said, the Committee’s second and unanimous recommendation was to support the ultimate creation of a new zone for the development of the tract.

Judith Wegner, Chair of the UNC Faculty Committee, stated she was gratified that the Mayor and the Chancellor were communicating regarding this issue.  She said she believed that it would be wise to have a single, comprehensive look at the entire area.  Ms. Wegner said a collaborative dynamic was in the best interest of all concerned.  She said it would be “extremely healthy” for everyone to take a step back and set up some process that would start from the bottom up and provide an opportunity to move ahead in a considered way.

Mayor Foy said he spoke to Chancellor Moeser about this in an effort to explain the Council’s reasoning as to why they felt it was necessary to proceed with this rezoning.  He stated his argument to the University was that the Town was left with no Council review of building on the Horace Williams property under the OI-3 zone, and that was not fair to the citizens or to the Council that something would be built there without review by the elected representatives of the community.  Mayor Foy said he believed that was an important step for the Town to take.

Mayor Foy said on the other hand, none of them knew what zone would be applicable to that property in the event that it was developed.  He said they anticipated a long process to figure out the appropriate zone, and did not believe that there was an appropriate zone currently in existence that could be applied to the Horace Williams property.  Mayor Foy said the property was unique, and what the Town wants and what the University wants for that property would require stringent guidelines that were applicable to that 1,000 acres.

Mayor Foy stated that on behalf of the Council, he had told the Chancellor that the Town’s primary goal was Council review in the event that development was proposed for that property.  He said the Chancellor responded that nothing would be proposed for that property until they had worked out a zone together.  Mayor Foy said his comment was that if the University would not propose any development until they had worked out a zone together, then why did the Chancellor oppose a rezoning now?  He said after consideration, the Chancellor had responded that they would not oppose the rezoning if the Council would offer assurance that they would ultimately work with the University in the future to develop a new zone.  Mayor Foy said during all his work with the Horace Williams Citizens Committee and all of his conversations with the Council, there was no objection to that, and they would be willing to affirm that.

Mayor Foy said that was how the proposal had come forward, and the “kink” in all of that was the proposal to rezone from R-2 to OI-2, because the Chancellor had said that if the argument was that the zoning did not matter as long as the Council had oversight in the event some development was proposed, then why did it matter if it remained R-2.  Mayor Foy said his response was he did not think it mattered, because the Council did not intend that anything would be developed under any existing zone.  And, he continued, as long as we have oversight in the existing zones, we have certain protections.  Furthermore, Mayor Foy stated, the Council always had the authority to rezone any property in Chapel Hill as long as it was done in accordance with the law.  At any time if it were necessary the Council could rezone that entire property R-1 or R-2, he added.

Mayor Foy stated that in his opinion, the Council should protect its interests, assure the University of the Council’s intentions, and they would be in a good position to move forward with the University.  He encouraged the Council to rezone the entire property to one zone, OI-2.  Mayor Foy said he believed that would be a major accomplishment and would assure the University in the form of a resolution that it was the Council’s intent that whatever zone was placed on the property, it was a holding zone and was not meant to be a permanent zone.

Council Member Strom asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos to explain to the Council the status of the protest petition filed by the University, based on the correspondence received from the Chancellor.  Mr. Karpinos said currently, the University had filed a protest petition on both rezonings.

Mayor Foy said the Council would vote separately on each rezoning, and each one would require seven votes.

Council Member Strom said it would take more than a conversation between the Mayor and the Chancellor to remove the protest petition.  Mayor Foy commented that the protest petition had not been removed.

Council Member Harrison said regarding the two rezonings, that the land that was R-2 in one scenario was left as R-2 so that would not be a rezoning.  He asked if the University was protesting the OI-2 rezoning as well.  Mr. Karpinos said there were two protest petitions submitted, one for each of the proposed rezonings. 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like to propose a resolution to reaffirm the Council’s commitment to rezone the OI-3 portion to OI-2 as a holding zone, and that the Council commit to work with the University to develop an appropriate zone for any future development on that property.  He said he believed that such a resolution was in line with everything that had been said about the property from the Council and from the Horace Williams Citizens Committee since the beginning of discussions on this issue.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would enthusiastically move that.

Mayor Foy noted that he had asked Mr. Karpinos to prepare a resolution to that effect, and asked Council Member Kleinschmidt if he would be willing to move adoption of that.  Mayor Foy then read aloud the “Be It Resolved” portion of the proposed resolution.  Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed to move the resolution.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that because this resolution had not been available to citizens prior to the meeting, that the Mayor read it aloud once again.  Mayor Foy again read aloud the “Be It Resolved” portion of the proposed resolution.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF R-10.1.

Council Member Ward asked for confirmation that adoption of this resolution would not preclude any action in the future regarding R-2, OI-2 or OI-3.  Mayor Foy responded that this resolution indicated that the Council would make some decision regarding rezoning.

Council Member Ward asked if the wording in the resolution that referred to the “entire” Horace Williams property needed to be modified, since a third of the property was located in Carrboro.  Mayor Foy said the language could be modified to say “in Chapel Hill.”  Council Members Kleinschmidt and Greene agreed to that amendment.

Council Member Verkerk proposed changing the word “believes” in the “Be It Resolved” paragraph to the word “understands.”  Council Members Kleinschmidt and Greene agreed to that amendment.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she was “extremely” uncomfortable with adopting the resolution because she was not sure what the consequences might be.  She said she would be more comfortable if she knew exactly what the proposed rezoning would be.  Mayor Foy said they would not know that until it was rezoned.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that was exactly her point.  She said that since she did not completely understand it, she would not vote for it.

Mayor Foy explained that what the language meant, exactly, was that if the Council voted to rezone OI-3 to OI-2 and do nothing with R-2, then the Council considered all of that to be its holding zone.  If the Council voted to rezone OI-3 to OI-2 and voted to rezone R-2 to OI-2, he said, the Council considered all of that to be a holding zone.  Mayor Foy said that the property that was in Chapel Hill, however it was zoned, the Council would consider that to be a holding zone, and that they would engage in some process in the future at the appropriate time to develop a new zone.

Mayor Foy said that was in direct response to the Chancellor’s request that the Council make it clear that any rezoning was a temporary zone pending a request from the University to rezone the property, and that at the appropriate time the Town and the University would work cooperatively to develop a new zone for the entire tract.

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated he believed the resolution would create a situation where the Town and the University could look to the future together, and would assure citizens that the Council would have oversight of any future development that might take place on the Horace Williams property.

THE MOTION AS AMENDED WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION INDICATING A WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE UNIVERSITY TO DEVELOP APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY (2005-04-25/R-10.1)

WHEREAS, the Town Council has received and considered a letter from Chancellor Moeser regarding the University’s position on the proposed re-zoning of the Horace Williams property;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council understands that the proposed zoning of the Horace Williams property would serve as a reasonable temporary measure and that the zoning would be appropriate as hold zones for the property until such time as more appropriate zoning is established; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby indicates its willingness to work cooperatively with the University at the appropriate time to develop new zoning for the future development of the entire Horace Williams property in Chapel Hill.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED ENACTMENT OF O-6a, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE HORACE WILLIAMS TRACT (2005-04-25/O-6a)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Office/Institutional-3 to Office/Institutional-2 zoning, and finds that the amendment is 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 that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:

SECTION I

That those portions of the site presently zoned Office/Institional-3 be rezoned Office/Institutional-2.

These properties are identified as now or formerly by the following Chapel Hill Township Tax Map numbers, including intervening and abutting road and railroad rights-of-way:

Portion of Chapel Hill Township, Orange County Tax Map 29, Lot 1A

Portion of Chapel Hill Township, Orange County Tax Map 29, Lot 1B.

The description of the portions of this site to be rezoned is indicated on Map A, attached.

SECTION II

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

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED ENACTMENT OF O-6b.  THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked the Mayor for his efforts to bring some spirit of collaboration to this issue.  She said it had long been her feeling that the University had opposed the rezoning because they had not been approached with information prior to the proposal and they had not been engaged in the process.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed the University’s protest petition was their way of stating that they wanted to participate in any discussions regarding the Horace Williams tract.

Council Member Hill said he was disappointed with the University’s characterization of this process, noting the language in the Chancellor’s letter to the Council.  He said it had not been that big of a surprise, and it had been a deliberative process.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said the University had been provided with a copy of the Horace Williams Citizens Committee report almost a year ago, and that was highlighted as a first step.  He said that the community, including the largest citizen, the University, had a 12-month notice.

Mayor Foy commented that the unanimous passage of the resolution was a gesture of good faith by the Council, and they had “done the right thing.”

Council Member Harrison said he did not like to overuse the term “Chapel Hill values,” but what the Council had done by taking action by three unanimous votes was to reaffirm Chapel Hill values.  The one that had meant the most to him, he commented, was the Council’s power to control the land use of the property, noting he lived in a neighborhood that experienced an OI-2 with none of the special use permit protections 10 years ago.  Council Member Harrison said that the same property next to his had acquired another OI-2 SUP in the last few months.  This time, with the LUMO in place.  This time, the neighborhood had clearly expressed its values and they had received a much better land use from it.

Council Member Harrison said the Horace Williams project was hundreds of times larger, but the principles were the same.  He said the Council had done a good job, noting a nine to zero vote was hard to argue with.

Council Member Ward expressed his appreciation to the Mayor for his leadership.  He said while everything was not a blanket rezoning of OI-2, the crux of the matter was the Council’s ability to unanimously adopt a resolution that stated that this Council understands the action just taken to keep zones on this property was intended to be holding zones, so that the citizens had the protection that they deserved.  Council Member Ward said he believed the Mayor’s efforts were successful in that he brought the Council to this point.

Mayor Foy said he had spoken to each of the Council members individually, and respected their positions.

Council Member Strom asked if the Mayor had a response to the letter written to the Chancellor in March regarding the fiscal equity issues as they relate to Horace Williams.  He asked if during the Mayor’s conversations with the Chancellor, was there any conversation about the Legislature’s potential role in future Horace Williams issues.  Council Member Strom said he wanted to know if the University was willing to specifically respond to our requests to acknowledge that this had to be worked out between the University and Chapel Hill.

Mayor Foy responded he believed this was a step in that direction.  He said this was the Council’s acknowledgement of the Chancellor’s request that they come to that agreement, and that they may wish to have further discussions regarding how the Council will proceed with the process and its commitment to that process.  Mayor Foy stated that as the Council enters into the process for Carolina North, he expected that both sides would make a commitment that the process would be binding.

Regarding fiscal equity, Mayor Foy stated that he had met with the Chancellor along with the Manager and several of the Chancellor’s staff recently to talk about a transit master plan and fiscal equity.  The Council has verbal commitments for the University’s participation with us, he said, but none of that had been decided as yet.  Mayor Foy said he and the Manager were working toward the specifics of that, but noted it would require the entire Council to decide what would be acceptable regarding fiscal equity and the transit master plan.

Council Member Strom asked if that meant that they were discussing the proposal made in the Mayor’s letter, that a neutral third party be engaged to establish some guidelines and benchmarks for fiscal equity matters.  Mayor Foy responded that they had a verbal commitment that there would be a neutral third party that would work with them, not someone at the University.

Mr. Horton confirmed that was correct, noting they would utilize Mike Smith of the School of Government, whom they considered to be neutral to this purpose to help find a potential consultant who would prepare a financial equity model.  He said the Council and the University would together reach agreement on the selection of the consultant.  Mr. Horton noted that the Chancellor had expressed some concern of the timing of when that would be done, but had also expressed support for the general idea and offered to contact Mr. Smith at the appropriate time.  Mr. Horton stated that the Council had already invited its transit partners to a joint session, which would take place in September.  He said at that meeting, the Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the University would sit together and hear a proposal from consultant John Bonsell about how a transit master plan might go forward and be developed.

Item 9 – Zoning Atlas Amendment for Greenwood Neighborhood

Ms. Berndt noted that the Council would consider rezoning the Greenwood neighborhood from Residential-1 (R-1) to Residential-1A (R-1A), or to Residential-Low Density-1 (R-LD1).  She noted that four basic issues had been brought forward during the previous public hearing:

1. Number of nonconforming lots, brought up by the Planning Board.  We believe the impact would be minimal on existing single-family homes.

2. Moratorium, suggested by the Planning Board.  Information regarding this issue was noted in detail in the Council’s agenda materials.  We believe the procedure now in use to be more appropriate than a moratorium.

3. Previous subdivision of lots.  A speaker had referred to this, but we point out that his comments were regarding the subdivision of land on which there were no houses; and, the current LUMO does not allow that type of subdivision.  We believe that any issues that might arise regarding this could be addressed during the Neighborhood Conservation process.

4. Timing.  The ordinance the Council was to consider would become effective upon adoption.

Ms. Berndt said the Manager’s recommendation was that the Council enact Ordinance A, rezoning the Greenwood neighborhood area from R-1 to R-LD1.

Robin Knudsen urged the Council to adopt Ordinance A to protect the Greenwood neighborhood from in-fill and high density development until a detailed conversation district plan could be devised.  She said that action would benefit the entire community, since the wooded lots of the neighborhood provide stormwater control.  Ms. Knudsen said development of the wooded lots would create additional impermeable surfaces which would increase stormwater runoff, and in turn increase stormwater fees for everyone.

Ms. Knudsen also urged the Council not to vote to join the Community Carbon Reduction Project, also known as C-Red.  She stated that project was proposed by UNC, and called for more high-density development and in-fill in order to promote the use of public transit in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  Ms. Knudsen said that the results of C-Red must be weighed against the goals and objectives of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.  This means, she said, that those Council members who would vote to approve this project would also be voting for more in-fill and more high-density development.

Ms. Knudsen noted the neighborhoods that had already expressed a desire to have the protection of the Neighborhood Conservation District designation, and said that C-Red would affect each and every one of them if accepted by the Council.

Anne Terhune stated that contrary to a recent newspaper article, she believed the neighborhood’s goals and the Council’s goals were compatible.  She said the Greenwood neighborhood representatives had been respected and supported by the Planning Board and the Council.  Ms. Terhune said the Council had a stated goal that neighborhoods should be protected from incompatible development, and Greenwood had been identified as an area that should be protected.  She noted that the neighborhood had already gathered more than the 51 percent neighborhood support necessary for it to be considered for the Neighborhood Conservation district process, adding that the process was lengthy and required commitment, input and effort from those who lived in the neighborhood.

Ms. Terhune asked that the Council allow the neighborhood time to work through the legitimate and fair to all Neighborhood Conservation District process.  She said the proposed zoning change would give the Town, the neighborhood and developers a chance to communicate and negotiate how to keep the neighborhood as viable as it is now.

Ms. Terhune described the current conditions of the neighborhood, noting that there were no large houses on small lots.  She stated that if developers were allowed to subdivide lots, build homes and then move on, the neighborhood would be left to deal with the “diminishment” of the neighborhood.

Darryl Gless urged the Council, the media, those who might want to subdivide lots in Greenwood, and anyone else who might be interested to read the Town Manager’s report dated April 18.  He said that report made an irrefutable argument that rezoning Greenwood now to R-LD1 was the best way to preserve Greenwood from the accumulating market pressures that could cumulatively destroy it.

Mr. Gless said they had accumulating evidence that damage would happen fast, noting there was one house in the 800 block built by a developer that was oversized, had denuded the lot of trees, and built much too close to the road.  He said Greg Eisenhower had proposed subdividing a lot at 907 Greenwood and building two houses, but had met with the neighborhoods regarding his proposal and withdrawn once he recognized the damage that would occur.

Mr. Gless reminded the Council that 122 of the 169 properties in Greenwood could potentially be subdivided, homes could be torn down and large houses built, unless the Council took immediate action.  He asked the Council to please vote to rezone the neighborhood R-LD1, and then to initiate the process to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Greenwood neighborhood.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED ENACTMENT OF O-8a, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE GREENWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD AREA (2005-04-25/O-8a)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the current “tear-down, subdivide” possibilities in the Greenwood neighborhood and determined to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below to Residential Low Density-1 zoning, and finds that the amendment is warranted due to changing conditions in the area, and in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

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

SECTION I

That the portion of the site identified as now or formerly by the following Chapel Hill Township Tax Map numbers, including intervening and abutting public right-of-way:

Chapel Hill Township:

Tax Map 49, Block A, Lots 1-6, 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, 7-14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 15A, 17, 17A, 18-24, 24A, 25, 25A, 26, 26A, 27-31, 31A, 32, 32A, 33-36;

Tax Map 55,  Block A, Lots 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5B, 5D, 5E, 6, 6A, 7, 7B; Tax Map 55, Block B, Lots 1-9, 9A, 9B, 10-15;

Tax Map 55, Block C, Lot 9;

Tax Map 55A, Lots 1-3, 5-16;

Tax Map 58, Block A, Lots 1-6;

Tax Map 58, Block B, Lots 1, 1A, 1B, 2-11;

Tax Map 58, Block C, Lots 1-21;

Tax Map 58, Block D, Lots 1-7;

Tax Map 59, Block B, Lots 1-6;

Tax Map 59, Block C, Lots 1-4;

Tax Map 59, Block D, Lots 1-7;

and that are currently zoned Residential-1, shall be rezoned to Residential-Low Density 1 zoning.  The location of the entire property to be rezoned is indicated on Map 1, attached.

SECTION II

This ordinance shall be effective upon enactment.

SECTION III

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

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

Item 10 – Dobbins Hill Development Phase II Application for a

Special Use Permit Modification

Mr. Horton reminded the Council that the Dobbins Hill application was firmly connected to the Wilson Assemblage application.  He said staff had been working on issues identified by the Council at its last discussion.  Mr. Horton noted that one of those key issues was provisions for the ultimate purchase of Dobbins Hill Phase II by the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, noting that discussions had taken place and progress made in understanding those provisions.  He said Mr. Waldon would provide additional information.

Planning Director Roger Waldon said they offered a recommendation for approval of the Dobbins Hill Application for a Special Use Permit.  He said the memorandum provided discussion of the issues that had come up, but he wanted to offer additional information regarding the tax credit issue.

Mr. Waldon said that Robert Dowling of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust had described how the financing for this project involved the State’s Housing Finance Agency and the State’s tax credit subsidies that would help make these units affordable.  He said the issue discussed was what would happen to the property at the end of the commitment for the tax credits.  Mr. Waldon said there were already some units in the development approved by the Council in 1993, and the applicant was at that time working with the Land Trust to arrange for transfer of the units to the Land Trust at some point in time.

Mr. Waldon said the Council had noted that was a good arrangement, and had asked the staff if they could go back and make it even better and also asked what they had learned from that arrangement that could be applied to these 32 new units.  He stated that a lot of discussion had taken place since the Council’s agenda materials were distributed, with both the applicant and with Mr. Dowling.  Mr. Waldon said he had distributed some additional information in the form of a supplemental memo which contained language for a substitute stipulation.  He stated that Mr. Dowling and the applicant could explain why this was the best alternative, noting that over the last several days they had come to the realization that what had previously been proposed would not work very well.

Mr. Waldon said that they asked that the Council substitute the language from the supplemental memo into the resolution of approval, and that the resolution approving the Dobbins Hill Special Use Permit be adopted.

Jack Smyre of Crosland, Inc., speaking as the applicant, said they had followed closely the revisions to Resolution A since the Public Hearing, including the substitute language proposed in the supplemental memo.  He said they were in complete agreement with Resolution A as revised, noting that all five advisory boards that had reviewed this application had recommended adoption as well.  Mr. Smyre urged the Council to adopt Resolution A with the necessary amendments.

Mr. Dowling said the substitute language contained in the supplemental memo would best accomplish the Council’s goals.  He noted that the original language proposed regarding the option to purchase would be at variance with IRS language and not work based on what he had learned from an attorney.  Mr. Dowling said the language regarding Right of First Refusal, as contained in the substitute language, was the proper way to go.

Council Member Strom asked if it would accomplish the Land Trust’s goals as well.  Mr. Dowling responded it would, noting it would accomplish their goal of providing permanent affordability of these 32 units.

Council Member Ward asked what the status was of the integration of the speed table at the throat of the entrance drive that would connect the sidewalks on the east and west side of the entrance drive.  Mr. Waldon noted that was on page 8 of the memorandum, and stated that a stipulation had been included in Resolution A for a striped pedestrian crosswalk at the south end of the existing Dobbins Hill entrance.

Council Member Ward said he had been talking about the south end closest to the newest building, noting the plan called for only a traffic table there.  Mr. Smyre said he believed Council Member Ward was talking about the southernmost raised speed table that was not indicated on the site plan as functioning in a pedestrian manner.  He said the request was that the southernmost raised speed table be marked the same as the other two, and be incorporated as a pedestrian crossing.  Mr. Smyre said that had been noted and it was now in the plans.

Mr. Waldon said that was already noted in the plans.  Council Member Ward commented that it was not previously connected to the sidewalk system.  Mr. Horton responded that staff would make sure that it was connected, noting that Stipulation 13 in Resolution A gave the Town permission to do that.

Council Member Ward said he hoped the applicant would agree to add language that the developer construct universal access to pedestrian connections, which would get at the connections that go to the west of Dobbins Hill.  He noted there was a grade change there that was an issue, and he wanted a solution that did not include steps that were not accessible by a growing number of the population.  He asked that the wording of Stipulation 13 be amended to read “that the developer construct universal access to pedestrian connections.”

Mr. Horton asked Council Member Ward that if the conclusion is that there was an area that could not be done without steps, would he prefer that it be eliminated?  Council Member Ward replied no.  Mr. Horton said we would need to ask the applicant if he had figured out a way to achieve that objective at all of the locations.

Mr. Smyre said they had identified one location where it would not be possible without the addition of steps.  He said they had approached this issue with the understanding that there may well be an area or areas where there would be difficulties, and in this case that difficulty could not be overcome and steps were necessary.  Mr. Smyre stated that the public sidewalk system would be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it was only this “short-cut” route that would have a vertical discontinuity.  He noted it was the northern connection on the western boundary that would require the steps.

Mr. Smyre noted that there was an embankment located on the eastern boundary and the route was very short, and it may well require steps as well.  He said they had been asked to provide short cuts, and that was what they had done.  Mr. Smyre said they would do whatever was necessary to provide that short cut.

Council Member Ward asked Mr. Horton to explain what that meant.  Mr. Horton responded that there was one location where the applicant knew he would have to provide steps, and most likely a second one that would require steps as well.

Mr. Horton asked Mr. Smyre if cost was the issue with the second site.  Mr. Smyre said no, rather they were concerned about the physical reality that there was only a certain horizontal distance and a certain vertical distance that had to be negotiated.  Council Member Ward asked if it was the one closest to Sage Road.  Mr. Smyre replied yes, but reminded the Council that this was a cut through route, and not the only route available to a pedestrian.

Mr. Horton noted such problems had been solved in the past, and they had worked with Mr. Smyre to attempt to solve them here.  He said he was familiar with the terrain and did not see a solution.

Council Member Ward said it appeared the applicant was comfortable that the southern access route could be accomplished without stairs, and would like that written into the stipulation, and that to the greatest extent possible the applicant would work with the Town Manager to seek possible solutions to other access areas.  Mr. Horton asked Council Member Ward if he would agree that rather than have language added to the stipulation, it would be acceptable to note for the record that the applicant and the Town Manager would work to seek a solution.  Council Member Ward said that would be acceptable.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED R-12a AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE TAX CREDIT CHANGES REPRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT 1 OF THE COUNCIL’S MEMORANDUM, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT.

Council Member Verkerk noted she would not support the motion, stating she had not liked this proposal from the beginning because of the affordable housing issues.  She commented she found it interesting that the Council had granted traffic calming measures for Lonebrook Drive, and now they were going to open up the cul-de-sac in Dobbins Hill which was a very quiet area, safe area and allow through traffic.  Council Member Verkerk said there was a stark contrast there.

Council Member Verkerk said they had also protected the Greenway neighborhood by restricting high density development and in-fill, and not allowing huge mansions to be “shoehorned” into the neighborhood.  She asked what we were now doing in Dobbins Hill.  She answered that we were “shoehorning” in two huge buildings, and did not believe it was fair to give Lonebrook traffic calming and protection to Greenwood and open up Dobbins Hill to more traffic.

Council Member Verkerk said she understood the need for this type of housing, and completely supported that.  But, she stated, she was torn because she did not believe the development was “thoughtful” and did not treat the people living there now fairly.

Council Member Harrison said he agreed with a great deal of what Council Member Verkerk had said, but had come to a different conclusion and would support the motion.  Because he paid particular attention to transportation issues, he said he was glad that the eastern entrance that had not been present on the original concept plan had been added as a signalized entrance to Lowe’s.  Council Member Harrison noted that this was, in terms of the amount of square footage they were getting, almost a “back door” rezoning.  He said in just about any other place in the State a rezoning would have been required to get this.

Council Member Harrison said the overall tract, the Wilson Assemblage and Dobbins Hill Phase II, had just about maxed out the area in terms of transportation, noting that with construction of the planned superstreet Sage Road would have to work harder than it does now.  He said he wanted to note that so when the next proposal was made, he could say “I told you so.”  Council Member Harrison said that overall this was a supportable project, and thanked Council members and Mr. Dowling for working through the affordable housing issues.  He repeated that this corner of Town was maxed out, and whoever came next would have a tough time.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 8-1, WITH MAYOR FOY, MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GREENE, KLEINSCHMIDT, WARD, STROM, HILL AND HARRISON VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK VOTING NAY.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-HOUSING, FOR DOBBINS HILL PHASE II (2005-04-25/R-12a)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Council finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by The Design Response, Inc. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block B, Lot 3 (PIN 9799594073), if developed according to the Dobbins Hill Apartments Phase II Site Plans dated February 24, 2005, including the off-site roadway and stormwater facility improvements stipulated below, and shown on the Wilson Assemblage 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 by the Town Council of Chapel Hill that it finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

1. Modification of Table 3.8.1 Dimensional Matrix of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow the Dobbins Hill development to exceed the maximum permitted floor area by 21,248 square feet for a total of 95,500 square feet.

2. Modification of Table 3.8.1 Dimensional Matrix of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow the Dobbins Hill development to exceed the maximum dwelling unit density by 1.8 units per acre for a maximum density of 11.8 units per acre.

3. Modification of Table 3.8.1 Dimensional Matrix of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow the northernmost end of the Building A exceed the 34 foot primary height limit by eight feet and that portions of the roof protrude outside the building envelope by up to three feet.

Said public purpose being the applicant’s proposal to provide 32 affordable housing units. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification, Planned Development-Housing, for Dobbins Hill Phase II in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begins by (two years from approval), and be completed by (three years from approval).

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit Modification authorizes construction of 32 multi-family residential units as specified below:

Land Use Intensity
Net Land Area	297,984 sq ft
Maximum Floor Area Total	95,500 sq ft
Total # of Buildings	7 (2 new/5 existing)
Maximum # of Dwelling Units	87
Minimum # of Parking Spaces	150
Minimum # of Bicycle Parking Spaces	48
Minimum Recreation Space	12,574 sq ft

3. Minor Subdivision Approval:  That approval of the Minor Subdivision application creating the lots authorized with this approval shall be by the Town Manager. That an entity is designated to be legally responsible for maintenance and control of the common land areas and that all parking area, drive aisles within the Special Use Permit shall be common land area, unless alternate agreements are authorized by the Town Manager.

Stipulations Related to Affordable Housing

4. Dobbins Hills Phase II Affordable Housing:  Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance, the developer shall verify that the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency has approved an additional 32 tax credit affordable units in Dobbins Hill. 

5. Dobbins Hill Phase II (new 32 units) Continued Affordability:  That the owners of Dobbins Hill II agree to provide a right of first refusal to Orange Community Housing and Land Trust per the IRS code Section 42 (i) (7).  This Right of first refusal shall be included in the partnership agreement executed by the owners of Dobbins Hill II.

That the Town Manager and Orange Community Land Trust shall review and approve the agreement and terms and conditions of the tax-credit program;

Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues

6. Public Streets Connection to Sage Road:  That unless the developer of Wilson Assemblage completes the construction of this portion of the public roadway beforehand, the developer shall construct a public street, from the northwest corner of the Dobbins Hill site to Sage Road as identified with the Wilson Assemblage approved.  That the location and construction of the public street, including sidewalks and all associated infrastructure, shall be constructed as approved on March 7, 2005 by Town Council for the Wilson Assemblage Special Use Permit.  Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the final design and construction details must be submitted for approval by the Town Manager. 

7. Right-of-Way Dedication Plat:  That the Town Manager approves a right-of-way dedication plat for that portion of the required public roadway located between Sage Road and the east property line of Dobbins Hill. That a certified recorded copy of the right-of-way plat shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

8. Public Street Alignment on Sage Road:  That the proposed public roadway connection to Sage Road 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. 

9. Traffic Signal Payment-In-Lieu:  That unless the developer of Wilson Assemblage satisfies this condition from the Wilson Assemblage approval, 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.  This payment shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

10. Signal Timing Payment:  That unless the developer of Wilson Assemblage satisfies this condition from the Wilson Assemblage approval, the developer of Dobbins Hill Phase II 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.  This payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

11. Encroachment Permit:  Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the developer shall secure and provide an encroachment agreement from the North Carolina Department of Transportation for all necessary work within the public right-of-way associated with this project.

12. Traffic Calming Devices:  That unless the developer of Wilson Assemblage satisfies this condition from the Wilson Assemblage approval, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the developer of Dobbins Hill Phase II shall install traffic calming devices on the public street connection to 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. 

13. Internal Pedestrian Connections: That the developer construct pedestrian connections in the following general locations as shown by the submitted “Neighborhood Pedestrian Circulation Plan (Attachment 9).  The final design and location of the pedestrian connections shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

14. Striped Pedestrian Crossing:  That improvement to the pedestrian circulation plan shall included a striped pedestrian crosswalk at south end of the existing Dobbins Drive entrance.

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

Total Number of Required Spaces	48
Number of Class I Spaces	32
Number of Class II Spaces	16

16. Northwest Parking Lot Design:  That the developer shall construct a parking lot as shown by Attachment 8A or 8B.  That the final design of the northwest parking lot shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager and Duke Power Company.

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

18. Bus Stop Shelter Payment-In-Lieu:  That a payment-in-lieu in the amount of $6,175 shall be provided for a bus stop pad, bench and shelter prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  Payment may be used to improve the existing bus stop on Dobbins Drive or for a future bus stop on the new public street between Sage Road and Dobbins Drive.

That, after five years from the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for Dobbins Hill Phase II, and following a written request by the owners and or developer of Dobbins Hill Phase II, that the bus shelter payment-in-lieu, shall be refunded, if the payment has not been used to improve the existing bus stop on Dobbins Drive or for a bust stop on the new public street between Sage Road and Dobbins Drive.

Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues

19. 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
East Property Line	20’ Type C
South Property Line	20’ Type C & 10’ Type B
West Property Line	10’ Type B
North Property Line	20’ Type C
Dobbins Drive driveway	Alternate Buffers

20. 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.

21. Landscaping Plan: That a detailed landscape plan including a landscape maintenance plan, and a landscape plan for the landscape buffer located in the northwest corner of the property 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Alternative Landscape Buffers: That the details for any alternate landscape buffers shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Design Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

25. 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.  That the Community Design Commission shall also review and approve any proposed fencing, including the proposed fence around the tot lots.

26. 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.

Stipulation Related to Recreation Area

27. Minimum Recreation Requirements: That a minimum of 12,574 square feet of recreation space shall be provided for this development.  The developer may provide a payment-in-lieu for a portion of the required recreation improvement area.

Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues

28. Off-Site Stormwater Facility:  That unless the developer of Wilson Assemblage complete this improvement beforehand, the developer shall construct the off-site stormwater facility pond and underground detention feature, as approved on March 7, 2005 by Town Council for the Wilson Assemblage Special Use Permit.  Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the developer must submit the final design and construction details for approval by the Town Manager. 

29. Stormwater Easement Plat:  That an easement plat for off-site stormwater construction and maintenance shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.  A certified recorded copy of the easement plat must be submitted prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

30. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the developer 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, such as 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.

31. 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 an easement dedication plat.  Maintenance access to the Reserved Storm Drainageway must be provided and shown on the plans.

32. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the developer 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.

33. Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement:  Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, it will be necessary for the developer to execute a recorded maintenance and easement agreement with the adjoining Wilson Assemblage 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. Silt Control: That the developer 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

37. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling of glass, plastic, aluminum, newspaper and other materials 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.

38. Approval of Cross Access Agreements: That a cross vehicular and pedestrian access easement shall be provided between the owners and heirs of the Wilson Assemblage parcel and this Dobbins Hill property.  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.

39. Heavy Duty Pavement:  That all new drive aisles, needed to access refuse containers, 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.”

40. 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.

41. 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.

That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the developer provide verification of approval from Duke Power Company for the proposed parking area in the Duke Power Company utility easement behind Building A.

42. Utility Line Placement: That all new utility lines shall be placed underground. The developer 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.

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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

46. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: That the developer provides the necessary Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

47. 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.

48. 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.

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

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. Construction Sign: That the developer 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 six feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

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

55. 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 Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit Modification Planned Development-Housing application for Dobbins Hill Phase II in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

Item 11 – Report on Potential Process for Addressing Neighborhood

Conservation District Petitions

Ms. Berndt stated that she would outline potential options for responding to the three requests to initiate Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) in the Greenwood, Pine Knolls, and Coker Hills neighborhoods.  She said the Council had first discussed this at its planning retreat in January, and had adopted a goal as its third highest priority to develop a plan to address these requests.  Ms. Berndt said in the Comprehensive Plan there were areas identified on the Land Use Plan as residential conservation areas, and two out of the three neighborhoods fall within those defined areas.

Ms. Berndt gave a brief overview of what a potential process could be.  First, she said the Council could initiate this process on its own motion or use the petitions that had been submitted with the appropriate signatures, noting the Greenwood and Coker Hills neighborhoods both appear to meet the requirement of signatures of 51 percent of the property owners.  Ms. Berndt noted that as yet we had not received a valid petition from the Pine Knolls neighborhood.

Ms. Berndt said the recommendation was that the Council consider one area at a time, noting they made that recommendation in recognition of their upcoming more limited staff resources to undertake the project.  And, she said, they also request that the Council authorize them to investigate looking at professional consultant services to undertake the studies, and suggested that they report back to the Council on June 15 so that it could be considered as part of the Town’s budget.  Ms. Berndt said they would research appropriate firms to determine what such studies would cost.

Ms. Berndt said they recommended that the Planning Board be used as the main advisory board to implement the studies with additional citizens appointed from each of the neighborhoods to work with the Board.  She said they believed that would streamline the process, since one board would be committed and understand all the parameters involved.

Ms. Berndt said they also proposed a template that could be used in each process, which involved a total of nine meetings with the Planning Board and the neighborhood representatives.  She said three of these would be major public events inviting the entire neighborhood.  Ms. Berndt said once a draft plan was proposed, the next step would be in the Council’s arena for consideration with additional public hearings.

Ms. Berndt said their recommendation was that the Council authorize the staff to develop additional cost estimates for consideration with the 2005-2006 budget on June 15.

Mayor Foy said several citizens had signed up to speak, and reminded the Council that they had agreed by consensus to discuss the item this evening but to make no decision, and have it placed on the agenda for the next meeting for further discussion.

Janet Kagen, a resident of Coker Hills, encouraged the Council to initiate a NCD process for every older neighborhood in Chapel Hill.  She suggested that everyone felt the pressures of what it meant to live in a fragile community.  In Coker Hills, Ms. Kagen said, many of the residents who were the original homeowners when the neighborhood was established in 1960 were moving on.  She said they had already experienced one home built that was out of character with the neighborhood.

Ms. Kagen said as she listened to the Council’s discussion, she concluded that many of Chapel Hill’s older neighborhoods were what could be called affordable.  She said they contained modest, 2,000 square foot homes on lots of .6 acres that many could afford to buy.  But, Ms. Kagen said, substitute that house with a 5,000 square foot home that would sell for $700,000 would make it unaffordable.

Ms. Kagen said she took issue with two areas contained in the proposal.  The first, she said, was that she encouraged the Council to address all neighborhoods simultaneously, and secondly she was distrustful of any outside consultant other than the Town’s own Planning staff addressing the concerns.  Ms. Kagen said there was no more appropriate place to start that with the Planning staff, adding that their perspective of looking at the community and identifying what made each of these older neighborhoods unique and valuable was important.  She said it was important to keep a diversity of housing stock and a diversity of residents who could live in Chapel Hill so that the community could continue to be alive and thrive.

Delores Bailey noted that the Pine Knolls petition did not contain the necessary signatures, but that would be done if necessary.  She noted she had several concerns, the first being the suggested process.  Ms. Bailey said she believed the spirit and intent for creating an NCD was being misunderstood.  She said she was concerned that the process would pit one neighborhood against another, making it harder to determine which neighborhood had the most immediate need.

Ms. Bailey said when the Northside NCD was created it was done due to the outcry from the neighborhood for protection that LUMO could not provide.  She said that each of the neighborhoods believed their need to be the greatest, and wondered what would happen while waiting for their turn for consideration.  Ms. Bailey requested that the Council modify the process so that the neighborhoods would be considered simultaneously rather than one at a time.

Laura Moore, a resident of Morgan Creek Road, noted that the board of the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Neighborhood Association would be meeting this week to discuss potentially apply for consideration as a NCD.  She said that the process outlined tonight appeared convoluted and hoped it could be streamlined to implement the new concept of an NCD more quickly.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that an NCD process could be initiated with Council action, and wanted the Council to go on record as initiating that process rather than waiting for signatures to be acquired from the homeowners.

Mayor Foy asked if the Manager if something more specific needed to be done to accomplish that.  Mr. Horton said it could be done by simple motion.  Mayor Foy said he would then accept Mayor pro tem Wiggins request as a motion.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED THAT THE PINE KNOLLS NEIGHBORHOOD BE DETERMINED A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT UNDER THE COUNCIL’S DIRECTION AS DEFINED IN THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD.

Council Member Greene said that the other two neighborhoods had or were in the process of acquiring the required 51 percent of homeowner signatures, and that the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill neighborhood was prepared to do that.  She asked was there a rationale for requiring that, or would the Council just make a similar motion so that signatures were not required.  Council Member Greene said that was a rhetorical question because we had the flexibility to do that under the LUMO, but wondered if we should state our thoughts about what we were doing.

Mayor Foy said when we modified the ordinance to include this option for an NCD, there was much discussion about how many residents of a neighborhood had to agree, but also we wanted the Council to be able to initiate the process in Northside.  He said at that time Northside was under siege, and he believed that Pine Knolls was as well and that was why the option to initiate the process by simple motion of the Council was included.  Mayor Foy said it appeared that Pine Knolls had the support of the majority of the residents and he did not believe that the Council would be precipitous in taking this action.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said in neighborhoods like Northside and Pine Knolls where there was limited owner-occupancy, the Council needed to have a process to pursue protection.  Council Member Greene said she agreed, but she wanted it stated for the record that this was not an arbitrary action.

Council Member Strom said he believed that the NCD provisions of LUMO was one of the most innovative and successful components of that ordinance.  He said he understood the staff’s concern about doing more than one neighborhood at a time, but believed we needed to find a way to consider them simultaneously.  Council Member Strom said the requests for an NCD needed to be moved through to a successful conclusion as quickly as possible without forcing other neighborhoods to wait for several years.  He said the key point was if it took that long, a different Council would be seated and they would be well into the next iteration of a Comprehensive Plan rewrite.

Council Member Strom said he seriously thought that some of the older neighborhoods had similar issues and that the principle role that the NCD overlay would play would be in the area of height limitations and setbacks, and would not have many of the complexities of the Northside neighborhood.  He stated that if it turned out that the work done in Northside was applicable to Pine Knolls, then there was already a template in place and they may be able to move ahead more efficiently.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Harrison said he believed that because of the struggle to maintain owner-occupancy in the Northside neighborhood, that process was more difficult than what would be faced in neighborhoods like Coker Hills.  He said he was not excited about the prospect of having citizens pay for a consultant who may not understand the Chapel Hill community, so was not sure he was in agreement with the proposed process.  Council Member Harrison said he was in agreement with the strong and expanded role suggested for the Planning Board, and noted that a citizen from Coker Hills had offered that neighborhood as a “work horse” for the process and he believed they should take him up on that offer.

Council Member Ward said he believed these neighborhoods were vulnerable, and the prospects of having some of them wait for several years for a process was something he wanted to avoid.  He said there must be a solution, and suggested that they may want to go through a rezoning much like that for the Greenwood neighborhood to create a holding zone that could be changed once the NCD process was completed.  Council Member Ward said rezoning in areas where an NCD process was likely might “stem the tide” while they were waiting in line to go through the process.  He asked for feedback from the staff regarding this suggesting when this issue came back for discussion.

Council Member Greene said having served on the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District Committee, she believed it was the most cumbersome that the Council would face, noting that duplexes were the most vexing issue.  On the issue of how much Planning Board control versus citizen input you want, she said that was a tricky balance for her because the neighborhood needed to be involved.

Council Member Greene said the proposal that the Council appoint the three to five neighborhood representatives to assist the Planning Board through the normal appointment procedure should be looked at.  She suggested that it may be more appropriate that if a neighborhood had an existing neighborhood association, which she believed all three of these neighborhoods did, then they should appoint the delegates.  Council Member Greene said this would give the neighborhoods enough of a buy-in that they were willing to participate fully rather than believing that the Council was completely controlling the process.

Council Member Greene said the suggested process called for the development of design guidelines, and she recalled from the Northside process that that did not come until later.  She said the district had been put in place and then design guidelines were developed, adding that was a detail that the Council should discuss.

Council Member Greene said there was a lot that needed to be discussed regarding a potential process, and many citizens had shown a willingness to work together.  She said all of them could have said “me first,” but they were all saying that they should work together.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said when this came back, she wanted the Manager to include a report on the various options suggested by Council members.  She said it appeared that an outside consultant had weak support, and whether they did the processes sequentially or one a time, she wanted the report to specifically illustrate what that would mean in terms of staffing and what other projects would have to be delayed and for how long.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she would like to know how much a consultant would cost and how long the services would be needed, adding that with a tight budget she was not interested in another consultant.  She said she was interested in how much of an impact such a process would have on development staff work if done solely by staff, even if neighborhoods working with the Planning Board took more responsibility.

Mr. Horton replied they would do their best to explore all of the options discussed and report to the Council.  He said one of their concerns was that at the same time that they were working with the Council on the development of Lots 2 and 5, which would be one of the most significant negotiations the Town had ever undertaken, they would also be losing not just one but two key staff members.  Mr. Horton said that after some analysis, there was a possibility that even more turnover may be experienced among the Planning staff.  He said they would be challenged greatly.

Mr. Horton said if all the staff was doing was the NCD process, that would be a major challenge, but they would also be attempting to work with the Council on the development of Lots 2 and 5.  He said his preliminary guess was that almost everything else would have to be delayed.  Mr. Horton said they had been thinking about this as carefully as possible while working on the budget, which was one of the most difficult budgets the Council had ever had to face.  He said they would do their best to respond to every option and provide alternatives, as well as respond to the cost issues.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the Manager had previously mentioned asking for informal requests for proposals from consultants, and asked exactly what did that mean.  Mr. Horton replied that it was a description of law, meaning that when they were doing this kind of requests for proposals, it was not required to be a formal bid process.  He said it would not require that they write specifications, but would only explain the general work to be done.

Mayor Foy asked if it would be possible to get some help from planning graduate students as part of this potential staffing issue.  Mr. Horton said that had been considered, and his immediate reaction was it would not be something that would help get the work done, rather it would make the work take longer.  Having supervised many graduate students over the years, he said, that was his opinion.

Council Member Strom said when thinking about this for the next meeting, was it possible to come up with an “express” NCD process.  He said they knew what the significant issues were in some of these neighborhoods, and possibly could develop a template that could address the significant concerns.  Or, Council Member Strom noted, they could have a process where a group of neighbors expressed the significant concerns and then use some combination of professional staff or even graduate students along with the collective wisdom to fast track a template that could then be discussed.  In other words, he said, take some of the steps out of the process.

Mr. Horton responded that was a possibility, noting if we were able to develop a listing of categories of decisions that would have to be made by the neighborhoods, and if the neighborhoods worked within their own cherette process and did not demand the kind of process that the community normally expects, then it was possible it could be done in a shorter time.  He said there was always the risk that someone in the neighborhood would be left out, that the minority voice in a neighborhood would not receive a fair hearing from a neighborhood group.  Mr. Horton said one of the advantages of a Council-directed process was that it tends to insure greater probability that everyone would be heard.

Mr. Horton said they would explore any and all ideas the Council wanted explored, but was trying to be realistic about how much work they could perform and in what period of time.  He reiterated that it would be challenging.

Mayor Foy asked that the Manager place this issue on the agenda for the Council’s next regular meeting, and to place it towards the beginning of the meeting so that Council could act on it at that time.  He said additional public comment would also be heard at that time.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated she was pleased that the Council was able to offer this process to those neighborhoods who had requested protection.  She said she had lived in Chapel Hill for nearly 40 years, and there were two neighborhoods who had cried out for this type conservation years and years ago.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said it was not until about half of the members who were now on the Council had found a way to address that plea that relief was found.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said as an African-American, she could not help but be aware that when two predominantly Black neighborhoods had cried out for years for conservation and protection because they saw their neighborhoods disappearing.  She said those neighborhoods were completely different now.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that fortunately, those neighborhoods at risk now have a tool.  But, she added, it saddened her that the Northside and Pine Knolls neighborhoods had not had that protection earlier.

Item 12 – Jordan Lake Non-Point Source Nutrient Management Strategy

Update and Designation of Manager as Representative for Discussion

Council Member Strom noted that he and Council Member Harrison had developed Resolution 13-A and it was included with the Council’s materials.  He said it would be helpful for the Council to have that in front of them during the discussion.

Engineering Director George Small said this had first been discussed at the April 5 meeting, and additional information was provided now.  He said this involved the non-point source pollution management strategy being proposed for Jordan Lake by the N.C. Division of Water Quality.

Mr. Small commented that the issue was one they had been dealing with for a couple of years, particularly the amount of nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus levels, entering Jordan Lake from a variety of sources.  He said if not controlled, a nutrient-response model suggested that Jordan Lake would experience algae growth resulting in an inability to support its intended uses as a water supply source, a recreation source, a regional drinking source, and aquatic habitat.

Mr. Small said an informal work group had been meeting to discuss this issue and to talk with the N.C. Division of Water Quality over the last couple of years about the strategy they had been planning.  He said that they were asking that the Council designate the Manager or his designee as the Town’s authorized representative in more formal discussions than had occurred in the past.  Mr. Small said a proposed strategy had been developed by the N.C. Division of Water Quality, and when that was released the stakeholder group of communities and counties in the watershed of Jordan Lake would respond to that and to the impact of attempting to achieve that strategy.

Mr. Small said the Council’s memorandum contained information about the strategies being considered and the kinds of things that were likely to occur in achieving the reductions that the strategies were proposing.  He said that included a requirement that they would not only be able to implement strategies locally to reduce pollutants, but also be able to measure the success of those strategies.  Mr. Small said that would impact Town resources, not only financial resources but staff resources as well.

Mr. Small said what they wanted to accomplish was to formalize the relationship with the stakeholder group, noting Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal had been very involved and would continue to do so.  He said they would work with the N.C. Division of Water Quality and other communities, and as they learn more about the proposed strategy they would report back to the Council on whether they agree or disagree, how it could be implemented, and what the impacts would be.

Council Member Harrison said they had added several paragraphs to the original draft resolution which added more detail, and to show that Chapel Hill saw the glass as half full as opposed to half empty.  He said they wanted to present a more positive statement, and did that by showing more of the problems but also that Chapel Hill was “ahead of the game,” noting the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and LUMO, OI-4 zoning for the campus and the stormwater utility.  Council Member Harrison said because of those efforts, Chapel Hill was better off than the other municipalities or counties in the Jordan Lake watershed.

Council Member Harrison said that Raleigh and Chapel Hill were the only two new stormwater utilities in the region after Durham, and no one else was moving on that.  He said that would prove to be a great benefit to the Town.  Council Member Harrison said their purpose was to state a constructive and positive approach to this issue, and wanted the designee to carry that into the discussions.

Council Member Strom said he was proud of the work the Council and staff had done regarding stormwater, noting they had been successful in setting lofty goals for themselves and backing it up by putting an ordinance and resources in place that were necessary to reach their objectives.  He said he believed their role in this stakeholders group was to share successes and advocate aggressively for cleaner water in our lakes and streams.  Council Member Strom said the resolution speaks to that and hoped that whoever the Manager appointed would have great success in the discussions.  He said he also believed the N.C. Division of Water Quality was doing a good job in pushing municipalities and counties to get on board with protecting Jordan Lake, noting that was important.

Council Member Harrison noted we were not yet in the regulatory process, that this was the pre-process that would likely take about three years, then another three years to get it put in place.  He said this would take a minimum of six years, and he and Council Member Strom wanted to be sure that the Council was kept apprised of what was happening.

Council Member Strom said he believed they could have a significant impact on the outcome when the regulations were put in place and what they would actually be.

Mayor Foy thanked Council Members Strom and Harrison for their work on this issue, noting it was technical and required a lot of thought and attention to detail.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED R-13a, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE TOWN MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE AS THE TOWN’S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN THE JORDAN LAKE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL STAKEHOLDER GROUP AND TO REPRESENT THE TOWN IN DISCUSSIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD STANDARDS FOR JORDAN LAKE (2005-04-25/R-13a)

WHEREAS, in 2002, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality placed the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake on the 303(d) list of impaired waters and committed to developing a Total Maximum Daily Load standard for nutrients for that portion of Jordan Lake; and

WHEREAS, in 2003, a stakeholder group was established to work with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and Environmental Management Commission to develop the Total Maximum Daily Load nutrient standards and a Nutrient Management Strategy for the Jordan Lake watershed; and

WHEREAS, the planning jurisdictions of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, as well as portions of the Town of Cary, City of Durham, Town of Morrisville, and unincorporated areas in Chatham, Durham, Orange and Wake Counties are located within the Upper New Hope Arm of the Jordan Lake watershed; and

WHEREAS, in 2002, all of Booker Creek, Little Creek, and Meeting of the Waters Creek, and parts of Bolin Creek and Morgan Creek,   were also placed on the 303(d) list of Impaired Waters, and these creeks are wholly or partially within the jurisdiction of the Town of Chapel Hill and flow into the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake; and

WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina Division of Water Quality proposed nutrient loading reduction target for the Upper New Hope Arm portion of Jordan Lake is 35% total nitrogen reduction and 5% total phosphorous reduction; and

WHEREAS, urbanized land use increased in the Jordan Lake Watershed 57% between 1982 and 1997; and

WHEREAS, according to the 2003 Tetra Tech, Inc. Jordan Lake Total Maximum Daily Load Watershed Model for the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake, non-point nitrogen sources account for 55% of loading contributions and non-point phosphorus sources account for 82% of loading contributions; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill, through the approval of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, 2003 Land Use Management Ordinance, OI-4 Zoning, and the establishment of a Stormwater Management Utility demonstrates a strong commitment to reduce pollution in the creeks in its jurisdiction and its portion of nutrient loading into Jordan Lake; and

WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Chapel Hill Town Council to aggressively seek the removal of all the creeks in its planning jurisdiction from the Impaired Waters list; and

WHEREAS, the newly formed Upper New Hope Arm Stakeholder Work Group will continue to discuss issues and will prepare comments regarding the proposed nutrient standards and strategies for review by each jurisdiction;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is designated as the Town’s authorized representative in the Jordan Lake Multi-Jurisdictional Stakeholder Work Group and to represent the Town in discussions with this work group pertaining to nutrient management strategies and Total Maximum Daily Load standards for the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager will report back to the Council after each meeting of the Jordan Lake Multi-Jurisdictional Stakeholder Work Group, and will seek policy guidance from both the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Chapel Hill Stormwater Advisory Board throughout this stakeholder process.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005

Item 12.1 – Utility Tax District Legislation

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos reminded the Council that former Council Member Joe Capowski had spoken about this issue during the petition portion of the meeting, and he had adequately summarized it.  He said there was some proposed legislation that would allow us to create a district and add a utility tax to electric bills, and the question now was whether we want to have that modified to also include other wire utilities, such as cable television and telephone.  Mr. Karpinos said there were some questions of cost, aesthetics and the likelihood of it passing.

Mr. Karpinos said the Council had received an email from Representative Insko noting the bill would have less success of passing if it included other utilities, and it was a question of the Council deciding.  He said he had indicated that the Council would be discussing this issue and he would try to give her a comment from the Council for her to take back to the House committee where this matter was not pending.

Mayor Foy agreed with Mr. Capowski’s bottom line, which was to get something passed.  He said he believed they should continue on the path they were presently on.  Mayor Foy said he had spoken to representatives of Duke Power about this, and believed if no groundwork had been laid with the other utilities that they would face an objection.  He said he was in favor of trying to get the electric utility authorization, and believed that if they were to bury the electric lines and offer to bury the other lines at the same time, it was probable that the other utilities would not object.  Mayor Foy said he believed what was at issue here was how would the revenue be collected, and they have said they would like to collect it on the electric bill.

Mayor Foy said he believed it was reasonable to proceed in that manner, and asked was there any objection.  There was no objection from the Council.  Mr. Karpinos said he would relay that information to Representative Insko.

Item 13 – Appointments

13a.     Old Durham/Old Chapel Hill Road Policy Committee.  The Council appointed Laura Ann Gilliam to the Old Durham/Old Chapel Hill Road Policy Committee.

	Council Members
Old Durham/Old Chapel Hill Road Policy Committee		Foy	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Verkerk	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Laura Ann Gilliom		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Other; please list:

13b.     Rental Licensing Committee.  The Council appointed Delores Bailey, Carolyn Baucom, Louise Beck, Dottie Bernholz, Dan Coleman, William DuPont, Drew Erteschik, Estelle Mabry, Stephen Mills, Velma Perry, Diana Steele, and Holly Swan to the Rental Licensing Committee.

	Council Members
Rental Licensing Committee		Foy	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Verkerk	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Vote for 4 Homeowners or Neighborhood Reps
Estelle Mabry		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Velma Perry		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Diana Steele		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Delores Bailey			X	X	X	X	X			X	6
Vote for 2 Renters
Dottie Bernholz (also Rental Prop. Owner/Mngr.)				X				X			2
William DuPont		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Drew Erteschik *			X	X	X	X	X			X	6
Emily Wynes		X							X		2
Vote for 6 Rental Prop. Owners/Mngrs
Carolyn C. Baucom		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Louise Beck *		X	X	X			X	X	X		6
Dottie Bernholz (also Renter)		X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X	8
Jennifer Bowdish		X						X	X		3
Dan Coleman		X	X	X	X	X	X	X			7
Dennis R. Erny *										X	1
Katie Karpa *									X		1
Elizabeth T. Martin *
Stephen Mills		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Eric Plow				X		X		X		X	4
Holly Swann *			X		X	X	X			X	5
Other; please list:

13c.     Council Liaison to the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board Work Group.

Mayor Foy stated that Council Member Strom had volunteered to serve as long as the Council instructed him to move forward on Pay as You Throw, move forward on curbside mixed paper, and to not support a MRF on the Council’s behalf.  He asked if there was any objection from the Council.  There was no objection.

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED R-14 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER STROM’S NAME INSERTED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION APPOINTING AT LEAST ONE COUNCIL MEMBER TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD WORK GROUP (2005-04-25/R-14)

WHEREAS, the Council at its April 5, 2005 meeting received a petition from the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board Chapel Hill representatives; and

WHEREAS, the petition requests the participation of the Town of Chapel Hill to produce a new Solid Waste Management Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council appoints Council Member Strom to the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board Work Group.

This the 25^th day of April, 2005.

Item 14 – Petitions

14a.     By the Mayor and Council Members.

Council Member Greene said the Council had a work session scheduled for Wednesday regarding housing, and reminded the Council that they had in the past received a pamphlet on local inclusionary zoning ordinances.  She said her petition to the Council was to please read it prior to that work session.  Council Member Greene said the staff had given the Council a lot of information about this complicated subject, and she looked forward to a good discussion.

Mr. Horton offered to redistribute the information that Council Member Greene had referred to.

14b.     By the Manager and Attorney.  None.

Item 15 – Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items

The Council agreed to discuss item #4g, Award for Financing of Computer Replacements for the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year, at the Budget Work Session on April 27^th.

The meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m.