SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.

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

Council members present were Laurin Easthom, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Bill Thorpe, and Jim Ward.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Finance Director Kay  Johnson, Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Long Range Transportation Coordinator David Bonk, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Information Technology Director Bob Avery, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, Marketing/Outreach Coordinator Len Cone, Planner Rae Buckley, Engineering Technician Ernie Rogers, Traffic Operations Engineer Michael Stout, and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

Item 1 – Ceremony:  Government Finance Officers’ Association

Excellence in Financial Reporting Award

Mayor Foy remarked that the Government Finance Officers’ Association had announced that the Town’s 2005-2006 budget had been awarded a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award.  He said this was considered the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting, noting that Chapel Hill had received this award seven times in the past.  Mayor Foy said the reason the Town had received this award was because it had managed to take a relatively large document and make it easy to understand, thanks to the efforts of the Finance Department.  He stated that only six percent of North Carolina’s government units received the award.

Mayor Foy presented the award to Finance Director Kay Johnson, giving her the Council’s thanks and congratulations.  Ms. Johnson accepted on behalf of her staff, noting that it was the result of many hours from many good people in the Finance Department.

Item 2 – Public Hearings and Forums

2a.       Continuation of a Public Hearing on the 2006 Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan.

Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster said this was a continuation of a public hearing held in November, at which time various comments and requests were received.  He noted that they were pleased that they had been able to accommodate all of the requests made by advisory boards and outside agencies, all of which were incorporated into the document before the Council.

Mr. Webster said the largest issue raised was finding some kind of greenway connection or access to the downtown.  He said that had been the most vexing issue to address, and they had attempted to do so in the Master Plan by proposing a link to the downtown as well as the campus.

Council Member Strom said he believed it was a great Master Plan and congratulated Mr. Webster on his efforts.  He said he had received an inquiry from a citizen who asked if the Town were to implement changing the classification of a trail, would that come back before the Council.  Mr. Webster said yes, that when a project was received they began with a conceptual plan which had to be adopted by the Council.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY    (9-0).

2b.       Public Forum on the Sidewalk Construction Plan, 2005-2006.

Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland noted that this public forum was to receive public input on the development of a proposed 2005-2006 Sidewalk Construction Plan.  He displayed a slide that provided a brief background regarding projects that had been completed or were under construction as well as those awaiting construction.  Mr. Sutherland noted that the Council had adopted the 2004-2005 Plan in January 2005, which approved a list of 23 sidewalk projects for construction.  He said the Council was scheduled to consider action on the 2005-2006 Plan on February 27.

Mr. Sutherland exhibited a slide which was a graphic representation of a sidewalk request from the Ephesus Safe Routes to School community group, pointing out that groups first, second and third priorities for sidewalks.

In summary, Mr. Sutherland said that approximately $192,000 was available and unallocated to specific projects.  He stated the preliminary recommendation was to continue work on the list of sidewalks remaining from the 2004-2005 Construction Plan.

Mayor Foy noted that the Town would sell bonds in the fall of this year for sidewalk construction next year.  Mr. Sutherland responded that was correct.  Mayor Foy asked what the amount of bonds was.  Mr. Sutherland said he believed it was between $600,000 and $900,000, but he would have to check.

Heidi Harkins, co-chair of the Parents Advocacy Committee at Scroggs Elementary School, said that they encouraged children to finds ways to walk or bike to school, noting the health benefits derived from walking.  She said through the Safe Routes to School initiative, they were working to gather information about how students traveled to and from school, how they made that choice, and concerns parents might have about their children walking or biking to school.  Ms. Harkins said one of the statistics that had been gathered indicated that of the approximately 40% of Scroggs students who lived in the Watts zone, only about 10 percent walk or bike to school.  She said they would like to increase that number.

Ms. Harkins said three safety concerns had been identified as major impediments to increasing the number of children who walked or biked to school, two of which they believed were critical issues that must be addressed immediately.  She said the three safety concerns identified were the Aberdeen Drive crosswalk, the Kildaire/Copperline intersection, and the lack of adequate bike racks.

Ms. Harkins provided a brief background on each of these issues, noting there was an item on tonight’s Consent Agenda that would provide on-street parking restrictions on both sides of Aberdeen Drive within 100 feet of the crosswalk. She also mentioned how busy the Kildaire/Copperline intersection had become, and said they were requesting that raised crosswalks be constructed at both Kildaire and Copperline Roads to increase the visibility of the crossing areas and force vehicles to come to a stop.  Ms. Harkins also stated that on any given day as many as 20 to 30 bikes were left lying on the ground because of the inadequate number of bike racks.

Mayor Foy reminded the public that tonight the Council was accepting comments on the Plan and would refer those comments to the staff, but would take no action on the Plan itself.  He stated the exception was that coincidentally there was an item on the Consent Agenda mentioned by Ms. Harkins that if approved would place on-street parking restrictions on Aberdeen Drive.

Martha Conway, a resident of the Briarcliff neighborhood and an active member of the Safe Routes to School initiative, stated that the Ephesus initiative had identified several new needed sidewalks in the Briarcliff and Colony Woods neighborhoods.  She said those identified sidewalks were not correctly represented in the Plan before the Council this evening.

Ms. Conway said specifically, the memorandum incorrectly stated that the Ephesus initiative did not propose sidewalks along Longleaf Drive from Ephesus Church Road to Leclair Street, and along the entire lengths of Leclair Street and Manly Street.  She said in fact they did propose a sidewalk on Longleaf Drive, which was one of the four sidewalks they had identified as a priority two request.

Ms. Conway commented that the map displayed by Mr. Neppalli that showed sidewalks requested in the Ephesus initiative and those proposed by the Pedestrian Facilities Plan also failed to identify Longleaf Drive as one of their several priority two requests.  She said that the summary of the Active Living By Design Committee action submitted to the Council in March accurately represented the sidewalk and other requests made by the Ephesus initiative.

Ms. Conway requested that these corrections be noted and that an accurate representation of the Ephesus initiative sidewalk requests be incorporated into the Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities Construction Plan, the revised Sidewalk Priorities List, as well as the follow-up report that would be prepared for the Council’s February 13 meeting.

Council Member Ward stated that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had said they wanted to replace projects that had been completed in the Plan with new projects so that there would be an equal number of projects for Town staff to choose based on difficulty, funding, and priorities.  He said in the materials provided for tonight was an evaluation by the staff indicating the real life constructability of the remaining projects this fiscal year.  Council Member Ward said out of that review only three of the dozen or so that remained were likely to be constructed this year.  He encouraged the staff to more than replace enough projects in light of the fact that so few of the remaining projects were likely to be viable in terms of constructability during the next fiscal year.

Council Member Harrison asked, in terms of timing, when the next opportunity was for citizen input on new projects.  Mr. Sutherland said that was done on an annual basis, but there was no reason why that could not be done when the next round of bond funds were available.  Council Member Harrison asked when that would be.  Mr. Sutherland replied in the fall, but this particular construction plan would come back before the Council on February 13.  Council Member Harrison asked when would be the optimum time for proposing new projects for the next plan, adding he did not want to push any into the current plan since so many remained to be completed.  He said in other words, when could projects be moved from “proposed” to “funded.”  Mr. Sutherland said that would be done for the February 13 meeting, and the next cycle for 2006-2007 would take place in the fall of next year, although citizens could make requests at any time.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Sutherland if he had determined the amount of the bonds to be sold this fall.  Mr. Sutherland replied he had, and the amount was $900,000. Mayor Foy said that would mean what, exactly.  Mr. Sutherland responded that would mean we would use those new funds plus any residual not spent in the current plan.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-2.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY    (9-0).

Item 3 – Petitions

3a(1).   Brian K. Payne regarding Expanded No Parking on Whitehead Road.

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

3a(2).   Steve Hoff regarding Portable Stop Signs During Power Outages.

Steve Hoff stated his petition was that when traffic lights were not operational due to power outages, the Police Department place portable stop signs at intersections to remind drivers to treat the intersection as a four-way stop. He said he had contacted the Police Department regarding this, and was told by the Police Chief that the Department did have portable stop signs available, as well as a generator that was capable of supply power to the light box.  Mr. Hoff said the Chief had also stated that working with intersections during such times was both dangerous and labor intensive.

Mr. Hoff suggested re-examining the plan on how to handle situations when multiple intersections had lost power and how law enforcement reacted.  He suggested that when power was out to multiple intersections such as the approach into Chapel Hill on Highway 54, before the first intersection a sign should be posted indicating “Power is Out – Four-Way Stop Signs Ahead” to reduce confusion by motorists. Secondly, he asked, that the Town petition the Department of Motor Vehicles to include within its Driver Handbook the four-way stop sign rule when power outages occur.

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

3a(3).   Chapel Hill Museum regarding a Request for Renewal of Its Lease.

Larry Loeser, Chairman of the Chapel Hill Museum Board of Trustees, provided a brief history of the Museum and noted it was visited by approximately 10,000 citizens each year.  He said they were celebrating their 10th year as a successful museum, and along with that was the necessity to renew their 10-year lease, which was due to expire September 3, 2006.

Mr. Loeser requested that the Town renew the Museum’s lease for a period of ten years, using the same terms of those currently in the lease, and that the renewal take place as quickly as possible.  He offered a short description of the programs, archives and exhibits maintained by the Museum, both permanent and temporary.  Mr. Loeser stated that the Museum had enjoyed a long and positive relationship with the Town, and looked forward to formalizing a continuation of that relationship.

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

3a(4).   Cane Creek Rowing Association regarding Establishing a Rowing Facility at Cane Creek Reservoir.

Mayor Foy said that this petition had been removed from the agenda.

3a(5).   Former Carrboro Mayor Michael Nelson regarding Rosa Parks Memorial Plaques for Chapel Hill Buses.

Billy Madden, a resident of Carrboro and a frequent transit rider, endorsed the idea of distinguishing Ms. Parks in this way.  He suggested that in addition to Ms. Parks’ name, that the names of two other individuals who were arrested for the same reason prior to Ms. Parks be included as well.  These are Ms. Claudette Colvin and Mary Louise Smith.

Mayor Foy said the Council could treat that request as a modification of the petition.

Council Member Thorpe suggested that the Council take action tonight to incorporate the citizen’s suggestions into the request and that the petition be acted on immediately.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO PLACE ROSA PARKS MEMORIAL PLAQUES ON ALL TOWN TRANSIT BUSES AND TO INCLUDE THE NAMES OF CLAUDETTE COLVIN AND MARY LOUISE SMITH.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(6).   Pines Community Center regarding a Request to Forgive the Debt and Request for Development Support from Community Development Grant Funds.

Damita Hicks, President of the Pines Community Center Board, noted that the Center’s petition had been submitted in writing.  She thanked the Council for allowing citizens of Chapel Hill to speak and to express opinions in this open forum.

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

3a(7).   Active Living By Design Advisory Committee regarding Three Petitions:

A. Website Link to Public Works Department Report of Needed Repairs.

A representative of Active Living By Design requested on behalf of the Committee that the homepage of the Town website include a link that would allow citizens to email the Town’s Public Works Department to report a broken sidewalk or burnt-out street light.

B.  Application for Deadline as a Fit Community and Associated Grant Funds.

A representative of Active Living By Design requested on behalf of the Committee that the Council adopt the Bikes Belong Consensus Statement and Resolution supporting Safe Routes to School

C.  Adoption of the Bikes Belong Consensus Statement and Resolution Supporting Safe Routes to School.

A representative of Active Living By Design requested on behalf of the Committee that the Council apply for designation as a Fit Community and grant funds.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE THREE PETITIONS TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(8).   Habitat for Humanity regarding Bradley Green Subdivision.

Mayor Foy suggested that this petition be considered along with Agenda Item #7, Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Approval for the Bradley Green Subdivision.  The Council agreed by consensus.

3a(9).   Crosland Company regarding a Request for Expedited Review of the Wilson Assemblage Special Use Permit.

Scott Radway, representing Crosland, noted they had taken seriously the comments made by the Council as well as the Community Design Commission, and had followed up by talking with the Town Manager and staff about ideas on how to achieve some greater density and intensity on the site.  Mr. Radway said they were concerned about staying on schedule for Dobbins Hill Phase II, noting that Crosland would proceed fully with development of the Zoning Compliance Permit materials needed to be in place by June or July, in hopes that it would be approved by the NC Housing Finance Agency in August.  Mr. Radway said they wanted to get the process for the Wilson Assembly aligned with that both in time and in infrastructure.

Mr. Radway distributed a schedule for the Council and staff to review and evaluate as to whether expedited review was justified.  He asked for the Council’s consideration in approving their request for expedited review.

Mayor Foy said that the petition requested that the Council respond at their January 23 meeting, and asked the Manager if that was possible.  Mr. Horton replied that it was.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY, TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL ON JANUARY 23, 2006.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(10). Shawn Aldridge for the Dogwood Acres Neighborhood requesting Changes to the Southern Community Park Plan.

Shawn Aldridge presented a petition signed by approximately 140 residents of the 106 households in the Dogwood Acres neighborhood, including a few from Smith Level Road.  He noted that their petition specifically asked the Council for the following:

1. Return to the park plan recommended by the Committee to Design the Southern Park, which included a small 40 space lot on Dogwood Acres Drive for the dog park and trails, and placed the soccer fields so they were accessed from an extension of the park and ride lot in Southern Village.

2. Insist that the NCDOT install a light at the intersection of Dogwood Acres Drive and US 15-501.

3. Design the Dogwood Acres Drive parking lot so that traffic must enter the west end of the lot and exit the east end of the lot, turning east only onto Dogwood Acres Drive, thus directing traffic toward US 15-501.

4. Move the crosswalk west of the parking lot entrance and fence in the street side of the lot so that pedestrians must use the crosswalk to enter and exit the lot.

5. Lock the parking lot after hours.

6. Reduce the speed limit on Dogwood Acres Drive to 25 mph.  Install speed bumps and “Residential Traffic Only” signs along the entire length of Dogwood Acres Drive.  Install “No Parking” signs on the east side of Dogwood Acres Drive until Alston Drive.

7. Place three-way stops at both intersections of North Circle Drive and Dogwood Acres Drive.

Mr. Aldridge said the purpose of their petition was to address a number of safety concerns identified by the neighborhood.  He said the Small Area Plan that was meant to preserve neighborhoods should be applied here, since Dogwood Acres had been in existence for more than 50 years.  Mr. Aldridge said the manner in which the Southern Community Park plan was currently laid out presented a threat to his neighborhood.

Mr. Aldridge said the original plan for the park was put together with input from the neighborhood.  He said they do not feel that the current plan, which had been changed significantly from the original plan, allowed the neighborhood sufficient input.

Mayor Foy noted that this petition was different from what was on the Council’s agenda this evening as Agenda #8, which was the traffic calming plan for Dogwood Acres Drive.

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

3a(11). Scott Radway regarding a Mixed Use Development at Residence Inn

Scott Radway stated that during the process that lead to the approval of the Special Use Permit (SUP) for the Residence Inn mixed use development, Summit Hospitality Group had volunteered to develop one of the four approved residential dwellings as an affordable housing unit and had remained committed to doing that throughout the process.  Since that time, he said, Summit had entered into a three-party agreement with the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (OCHLT) and the Town of Chapel Hill to provide this unit in perpetuity. Mr. Radway noted that Robert Dowling, Executive Director of OCHLT, had suggested that the provision of one affordable unit in this mostly commercial development where there were only four residences was not the most desirable location for an affordable home.  He said that Mr. Dowling thought that a payment-in-lieu to the Town would result in a more appropriately located affordable home.  Mr. Radway reminded the Council that this same observation was made during the review process by Mark Chilton, then Executive Director of EmPOWERment, Inc.

Mr. Radway noted that Summit stood fully behind its commitment to providing this affordable housing unit in either of two forms: on-site per the signed three-party agreement, or a payment-in-lieu that could benefit a qualified family in a neighborhood.  He said that because the building plans for the office/residential building were nearing completion and construction was scheduled to begin this spring, Summit sought a timely direction on this matter.  Mr. Radway asked that the Council reply to this petition at its January 23 meeting.

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

3a(12).    Diana Steele regarding an Update on the Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth Forum.

Diana Steele, representing the Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth, provided the Council with information regarding their upcoming forum, scheduled for January 19 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber.  She noted the forum’s title was “Staying Progressive in the 21^st Century,” and was a community forum on solar building technologies.

Ms. Steele noted the many groups, organizations, and individuals who had been notified and invited to the forum.  She offered thanks to Town staff for their assistance and support with preparations for the forum, in particular David Bonk, with the Town Planning Department, and Amy Harvey, with the Town Clerk’s Office.  Ms. Steele thanked the Council for its cooperation and support in holding the forum, noting they believe the forum would prove to be a valuable contribution to public and government education and further their goals of reducing pollution and improving the quality of life in neighborhoods and the community as a whole.

Announcements by Council Members

Council Member Strom announced that the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) would hold a celebration of the new express route at the SportsPlex in Hillsborough on January 17^th at 8:30 a.m.  He said they would welcome the arrival of one of the early route buses and celebrate the new route.

Council Member Harrison commented that he had referred a citizen to Council Member Strom and County Commissioner Alice Gordon today, who wanted to share an idea to modify the new route to add an additional stop in Chapel Hill.  He noted that citizen interest was already present to get a stop at the YMCA, particularly for young citizens so that they could experience riding TTA buses.

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-3.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY    (9-0).

Item 5 – Information Reports

Mayor Foy noted that two citizens wanted to speak on various items on the Consent Agenda and Information Reports, and suggested combining those.  He noted that Will Raymond wanted to speak on Item #5e, Response to Petition Requesting Access to Town Council Email and that the Town Public Detailed Financial Information on the Town’s Web Site.  Mayor Foy stated that Gregg Gerdau, Chair of the Town’s Technology Committee, wanted to speak on several items:  Item #4b, Time Warner Cable Rate Review, Item #4n, Cleland Drive Cell Tower Lease Award Proposal, Item #5d, Technology Committee Review of Parking Services Smart Card Initiative, Item #5e, Response to Petition Requesting Access to Town Council Email and that the Town Publish Detailed Financial Information on the Town’s Web Site, and Item #11, Response to Electronic Meeting Proposal.

Council Member Harrison noted that regarding Item #5g, Response to Citizens Petition regarding Crosswalk and Transit Service along Weaver Dairy Road Extension, the date mentioned in the report for the joint transportation forum being held by Carrboro and Chapel Hill was incorrect.  He said the date should be February 17^th, not January 17^th.

Item #5e, Response to Petition Requesting Access to Town Council Email and that the Town Publish Detailed Financial Information on the Town’s Web Site.

Will Raymond noted that information was power, and those who controlled the information were the most powerful and maintained that power by limiting access.  He said that two years ago he had approached the Technology Board about expanding the transparency in local government, including using List Serv and publishing detailed financial information of the Town.  Mr. Raymond said three months ago he had approached the Council with the same request, yet it appeared that another three months would pass before citizens could become members of the email group.

Mr. Raymond requested that his name immediately be added to the email distribution list until such time as the Town puts its List Serv in place, and at such time he would be happy to add his name to that list.  He said his reasons for wanting to be added to the email list were that it was timely, it promoted the most transparency, had “absolute fidelity” that what he was seeing was what the Council was seeing, and the emails would be within context and would have a chronology.

Regarding the financial information, Mr. Raymond noted he would be requesting monthly electronic versions, and said he was disappointed that everyone would not have an opportunity to see it on the Town’s web site.  He said detailed financial information had not been provided that would allow citizens to do a comparable analysis.

Mr. Raymond, speaking to the Manager, said he was formally requesting the detailed financial information for the month of December at this time.

Item #4b, Time Warner Cable Rate Review.

Gregg Gerdau noted he was speaking as a citizen and not as the chair of the Town’s Technology Committee.

Mr. Gerdau stated that this item had not yet been reviewed or referred to the Town’s Technology Committee, and suggested that the Council do so.  He said that would allow citizens to provide input.

Item #4n, Cleland Drive Cell Tower Lease Award Proposal.

Mr. Gerdau said neither this proposal nor any other cell tower lease proposal had ever been referred to the Technology Committee, and suggested that the Council do so.  He said that would allow citizens to provide input.

Item #5d, Technology Committee Review of Parking Services Smart Card Initiative.

Mr. Gerdau said this report had been endorsed unanimously by the Technology Committee.  He said one of the main points of that report was the convening of a Citizens Parking Task Force, and he urged the Council to take that into consideration when reviewing the report.

Item #5e, Response to Petition Requesting Access to Town Council Email and that the Town Public Detailed Financial Information on the Town’s Web Site.

Mr. Gerdau stated that the technology and commercial best practices exist to allow this to occur in real time, at low or no cost.  He said there was no reason commercially not to provide the access to make emails and financial information transparent, as well as to make citizen communications transparent and available in real time.

Item #11, Response to Electronic Meeting Proposal.

Mr. Gerdau said he appreciated Mr. Horton’s response and consideration to the Committee’s Electronic Meeting Proposal.  He asked the Council to instruct Mr. Horton to accept their proposal and allow them to test it as it was written or as modified.  Mr. Gerdau provided some brief information regarding the Committee’s previous use of a UNC List Serv, noting they had discontinued that use when alerted by Mr. Horton in June that its use violated public meeting laws.  But, he commented, discontinuing that use shut down the effectiveness of the Town’s Technology Committee.  Mr. Gerdau said that Committee consisted of fifteen professionals for whom the Town could not begin to think about the cost of hiring even one of them, much less all of them.

Mr. Gerdau said they had requested the help of local expert David Lawrence with the UNC School of Government to help them construct a new method and practice of electronic communication such that the Town would have the ability to conduct a continuous electronic meeting that any citizen at any time with access to the web could observe.  He said they had written a proposal, to be tested for a year, to provide that access.

Mr. Gerdau noted that an archive of five years of electronic messages between the Town and the Technology Committee had been somehow deleted by an official of UNC and a Technology Committee member.  He said without proper controls around transparent communications like those proposed, such mistakes could happen easily.

Mr. Gerdau, quoting from an October 10, 2005 letter from David Lawrence to the Town Manager, stated, “So understood, I think the Committee’s proposal does as good a job as can be done of fitting email conversations into the framework of the Open Meetings law.  That said, I’m certainly not sure that a court would agree that it satisfies the law’s requirements, although I think it probably does.” Mr. Gerdau said that basically meant there was no case law to back up Mr. Lawrence’s opinion.  He said there was no case law to back up the Public Meetings law at all, since it had never been promulgated.

Mr. Gerdau continued quoting from Mr. Lawrence’s letter, stating, “Given the uncertainly, however, I would be quite hesitant in suggesting that a public body such as the Town Council adopt and use the proposal for its own operations.  There is simply too much risk for such a high-profile public body.  The risk is obviously much lower for a group whose responsibilities are entirely advisory.  The optimum, of course, would be for the General Assembly to recognize the utility of some form of Internet-based meeting and provide clear rules for how such a meeting could be conducted.”  Mr. Gerdau said he believed Dr. Lawrence’s recommendation spoke well for the Technology Committee’s request to have a one-year trial period, and requested that the Council provide them that opportunity.

Council Member Thorpe, speaking to Mr. Raymond, said it would not be possible for a citizen to get the same information that the Council received at the same time the Council received it.  He clarified that the Council received much more information now than when he had previously served on the Council, and it was just not possible that all of the information could be provided that quickly.

Information reports were accepted as amended by consensus of the Council.

Item 6 – Resolution Calling a Public Hearing to Consider

Rezoning the Mason Farm Neighborhood

Planning Director J.B. Culpepper noted that she had a map available for view if any Council member had need of it.

Mayor Foy noted that the Council would not be taking any action on this other than to consider adoption of the resolution calling a public hearing.  He said any citizens who wanted to comment on whether or not to call a public hearing would be welcome to do so, but the Council would not hear evidence tonight regarding the rezoning.

Lee McIlwain, President of the Mason Farm Neighborhood Association, thanked the Council for considering interim protection of their neighborhood while they were preparing to be considered for a Neighborhood Conservation District.  He said he understood that the recommendation was that 40 properties be included in the consideration for rezoning, and an alternative had been offered that excluded all of the properties on Whitehead Circle.  Mr. McIlwain said they would ask that those properties not be excluded.

Mr. McIlwain said, regarding the six properties that were to be considered for exclusion from the rezoning, all of those properties were under restrictive covenants in effect for another ten years.  He asked that if the Council did eliminate those properties from the public hearing on rezoning, that no decision be made tonight regarding whether they would be included in the Neighborhood Conservation District for their neighborhood.

Mayor Foy asked Ms. Culpepper to point out on the map the six properties referred to by Mr. McIlwain.  Ms. Culpepper displayed the map and identified the four properties on the north side of Mason Farm Road, and the two that faced Purefoy Road.  Mayor Foy said when the Council considered the rezoning at the public hearing they would be considering rezoning all other properties but those six.  Ms. Culpepper said that was correct.  Mayor Foy said when the Council considered the Neighborhood Conservation District, it could include more than what was rezoned.  Ms. Culpepper said that was correct.

Diana Steele commented that she was distressed about the shrinking of what was the Mason Farm Road neighborhood, and if the Council excluded those houses on the north side of the road that neighborhood would be reduced to five houses.  She asked if five houses could be considered a neighborhood.  Ms. Steele said that much of the east side of the original neighborhood had been taken over by the University and its construction.

Ms. Steele commented that if those lots were excluded, that would no longer be the Mason Farm neighborhood, but would in fact be the Whitehead Circle neighborhood.  She asked if that would be the first of many Chapel Hill neighborhoods to disappear.

Mayor Foy asked Ms. Culpepper to explain what the thinking was behind excluding the properties zoned R-1, noting he understood what was behind excluding the four properties zoned R-4.  He asked why they would not be included, at least in the public hearing.  Ms. Culpepper responded that as they looked at those properties on the north side of Mason Farm Road, two of properties were a part of the University’s Master Plan area, and development was underway as student family housing.  But, she stated, that was a decision for the Council to make.

Mayor Foy stated that the lots would have to be rezoned before UNC could develop them.  Ms. Culpepper replied that was correct.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked why the lots on the other side of Oteys Road were not included.  Ms. Culpepper responded they were not part of the Mason Farm Neighborhood Association’s request.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council adopt the resolution calling the public hearing, and amend it to include the four lots in question.  Then, he said, the Council could make a decision as to whether to include the four lots in the rezoning.

Council Member Ward asked about the remaining two properties that faced Purefoy Road.  Mayor Foy replied those lots were zoned Residential-4, and asked if the Council wished to include those in the public hearing as well.  There was no objection from the Council.

Mr. McIlwain noted that their petition had included those six lots because they had long been a part of the restrictive covenants of the neighborhood.  He said another consideration was that the three properties on Whitehead Circle would share a property line with those two properties, and that had been the subject of some negotiations over the years.

Council Member Greene asked about the Association’s thinking in not including the properties on the east side of Oteys Road in their petition.  Mr. McIlwain stated that the Phil and Peg Reese house was the middle property of the three, and that they had at first signed the petition.  He said after talking with their neighbors on either side, they were concerned about pressures building to the east of them as UNC obtained more and more property.  Mr. McIlwain said they were concerned about the effect on property values and the ability to sell their homes if the properties became part of the Mason Farm neighborhood.

Council Member Easthom commented that the petition asked that the Town not postpone action on the petition until after the spring of 2006, as well as asked for assistance from the Town while the petition was under review to prohibit the subdivision of lots, and the construction of new units or remodeling of existing units that would create more than one dwelling unit on a single lot. She asked if Mr. McIlwain wanted that included in the resolution.  Mr. McIlwain stated that he had inferred that the new zone would not affect them much more than the R-1 zone does, in terms of new construction and reconstruction of homes.  He commented he would like to talk with the Council about a possible cap on parking spaces between dwellings and the road in front.

Mayor Foy noted that what was at issue here was putting this neighborhood on hold while the NCD was created so that it did not get subdivided, and the NCD would address such issues as mentioned by Mr. McIlwain.  He stated that the Council could not address these issues in the interim because there was no mechanism to do so other than through an NCD.  Mayor Foy said what the Council was considering this evening was the best it could do until such time as the NCD was created, then all of these issues could be addressed.

Mayor Foy said because of that, he believed the Council needed to limit the rezoning with the idea that its only effect would be to reduce the possibility of subdivision in the interim.  Mr. McIlwain noted the Council had not addressed his second request, which was that the construction of new units or remodeling of existing units that would create more than one dwelling unit on a single lot be prohibited.  Mayor Foy responded the Council was not able to do that, noting that was what the NCD was for.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-13, AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE FOUR LOTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MASON FARM ROAD.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 7 – Bradley Green Subdivision: Preliminary Plat Approval

Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo noted the application proposed to divided the seven-acre site into eight single-family lots, including two lots with floor area restricted units.  He said that the proposal satisfied the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) requirements as it pertained to housing floor area restrictions.  Mr. Poveromo said the proposal also included a voluntary offer from the applicant to construct gravity sanitary sewer lines to the adjacent Habitat site.  He said that adoption of Resolution A would approve the proposal as just described.

Mr. Poveromo stated that the site was located between Weaver Dairy Road and I-40, north of Chandler’s Green, and at the intersection of Amesbury and Ginger Roads.  He noted that several key issues were discussed during the October 10 public hearing, and he would provide detail on one in particular, the housing floor area restrictions.

Mr. Poveromo said that during the October 10 public hearing the applicant had offered a payment-in-kind associated with roadway and sewer improvements, which would benefit the adjacent Habitat site.  He said during that hearing Council members expressed interest in that proposal, and asked the staff to discuss it in greater detail with the applicant and representatives of Habitat.  Mr. Poveromo stated that following several meetings, the applicant returned with three proposals, with the first proposal the subject of tonight’s discussion, the subdivision of the site into eight lots.

Mr. Poveromo said the second proposal was an affordable housing payment-in-kind proposal, and addressed what the applicant had offered during the public hearing for sewer and roadway infrastructure improvements as a payment-in-lieu of providing two floor area restricted dwelling units.  He said that option was not available to the Council at this time under current ordinance, and the applicant has submitted an application to amend LUMO.  Mr. Poveromo said they anticipate returning to the Council in March with language for consideration to amend LUMO.

Mr. Poveromo stated that with respect to tonight’s proposal, the applicant was requesting that the Council include the stipulation on page four of the agenda materials to Resolution A, entitled Affordable Housing: Payment-In-Kind.  He noted that inclusion of that stipulation would continue to allow the applicant to move ahead with the Bradley Green Subdivision, including the two floor area restricted dwelling units, and depending upon Council action on the LUMO text amendment, would allow the applicant to pursue the payment-in-kind option at a future date with possible early release from the 30-month floor area restrictions.

Mr. Poveromo said the third option proposed was to submit an SUP application in conjunction with the Habitat applicant.  That approach, he said, would anticipate the submission of an SUP application that would require the cooperation of two property owners.  Mr. Poveromo noted that they do not have an application to evaluate at this time, and do not recommend that approach.

Mr. Poveromo summarized that tonight the Council would consider adoption of Resolution A  which included eight lots, two of which would have floor area restricted dwelling units and the voluntary offer by the applicant to install gravity sewer to the Habitat site.  As well, he said, was the request by the applicant for the Council to consider adding the affordable housing payment-in-kind stipulation noted on page four, and future consideration by the Council to amend LUMO, which was not before the Council this evening but was expected in March.

Mayor Foy said in order for the payment-in-kind stipulation to be a part of the resolution, the Council would have to amend the resolution to include it.  Mr. Poveromo stated that was correct, as that stipulation was not presently included in Resolution A.

Kelvin Green, speaking for the applicant, noted that the two proposals they had put forth would satisfy the community’s desire to provide affordable housing as well as satisfy the ordinance’s requirements.  He stated they believe both proposals were strong alternatives and urged the Council to allow them to proceed with the project with both options available to them.  Mr. Green said if the Council modified LUMO to allow the payment-in-kind, they asked that lowering the sewer and paving Ginger Road offset the need to provide two floor area restricted affordable housing dwelling units.

Mr. Green said alternatively, in the event that they returned to the Council with a master plan to combine their project with Habitat’s project, they asked that the conditions of the SUP allow them to remove the size restrictions through the SUP satisfying the ordinance requiring 15 percent of homes be affordable. He requested that the Council leave both options available to them and that they be permitted to build six market-priced units in the interim.

Mr. Greene said they had heard the Council’s concerns about the sidewalk along the improved Ginger Road, and had agreed to add that improvement as part of their payment-in-kind.  In the event that the Council accepted their proposal, he said, they would include the sidewalks along the north side of Ginger Road when it was improved to 11-foot-wide travel lanes.

Mr. Green said in the short term, they had proposed improving Ginger Road to a 12-foot-wide gravel road and strongly believed that should be the construction entrance for the development phase of the project.  He added they believed that Amesbury Drive should remain closed during the road construction.  Mr. Greene said in order to make the use of Ginger Road for construction traffic as unobtrusive as possible they proposed to place a temporary tar coating over the gravel if allowed by NCDOT which would reduce dust and make it a more serviceable construction entry.

Mr. Green commended Town staff for their diligent work towards finding an enlightened solution to provisions for affordable housing, and thanked the Council for its support.

Doug Schworer, a resident of Amesbury Drive, noted he was speaking as a resident of area.  He concurred with the developer that Ginger Road should be used for construction traffic during development for several reasons.  Mr. Schworer reminded the Council that last October 17 of the 19 residents of Sweeten Creek Road had presented a petition requesting that Ginger Road be used for construction traffic.

Mr. Schworer displayed a matrix comparing Ginger Road to Sweeten Creek Road, and explained that from a safety perspective and a practical perspective Ginger Road was the most appropriate egress for accessing the construction site.  He provided details regarding the number of school bus stops per day, the number of children riding those buses, the number of homes, speed bumps, pedestrians, and commercial locations.

Mr. Schworer noted that the Planning Board had recommended that Ginger Road be used as the construction route, although Town staff had recommended that it not be.

John Olson, a resident of Sweeten Creek Road, supported the Planning Board’s recommendation that Ginger Road be used for construction traffic during development of the Bradley Green subdivision.  He said he supported that position because of the number of children in his neighborhood, and he was concerned that construction traffic would present an unnecessary danger to them.  Mr. Olson said progress needed to be made, and if Sweeten Creek Road were the only viable option he would support that, but that was not the case. He urged the Council to accept the Planning Board’s recommendation and direct construction traffic to Ginger Road.

Mayor Foy asked for an explanation from the staff as to why they did not recommend that Ginger Road be used for construction traffic.  Ms. Culpepper responded that prohibiting infrastructure construction traffic from Chandler’s Green would require that all of the access come through Ginger Road, and they did not believe that Ginger Road could safely handle the construction traffic associated with this development even if it was widened to 12 feet.  She said they believed that the existing paved public street was the preferred route for construction access.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked what exactly the safety concern was.  Ms. Culpepper replied that a 12-foot-wide road was basically a one-lane road, and there were residents on that road.  She said it did function for two-lane travel, but if two cars approached each other then one had to move aside to allow the other to pass.  Ms. Culpepper said there were only two or three homes on Ginger Road that used it as their access and if construction traffic were introduced, that raised concerns about having that as the only egress to access the site for infrastructure construction traffic.

Mayor Foy asked what specifically were the improvements proposed for Ginger Road.  Ms. Culpepper responded that the applicant had proposed to widen Ginger Road to 12 feet, noting that it was presently 10 feet wide.  Mayor Foy said then Ginger Road would be 12 feet wide with a sidewalk.  Ms. Culpepper said no, that the sidewalk the applicant had proposed was located within the Bradley Green development itself.

Mr. Horton clarified that there would be no sidewalk on Ginger Road unless it were widened to two lanes, which would come in a subsequent phase.

Council Member Easthom stated the applicant had indicated they would tar Ginger Road during the construction phase.  Mr. Green responded that was correct, assuming that it would be allowed by NCDOT.

Mr. Horton remarked they would also ensure that any coating placed on the road met Town standards and did not cause problems with neighbors in the area.  He said if by “tar” the applicant was referring to asphalt, then he believed that could be worked out.

Council Member Strom asked, if the Council were to agree to the affordable housing payment-in-kind option, what would be the improvements to Ginger Road.  Mr. Horton said as they understood it, the applicant was proposing to widen Ginger Road to two lanes with associated drainage facilities and a sidewalk.  He added that whether or not those improvements together with the additional cost of having the gravity sewer constructed would be equivalent to the normal payment-in-lieu had not yet been determined, and it was possible that those additional costs would not be equivalent.  Mr. Horton said they would be recommending an ordinance to the Council requiring an appraisal of value by a competent engineer so that the Council would have some certainty that the in-kind contributions the Town would receive would be comparable to the amount similar to the payment-in-lieu the Town would ordinarily receive.

Council Member Strom said then we have the issue of determining if the payment-in-kind was sufficient.  As far as the improvements to Ginger Road, he said, he was having difficulty determining if the Council proceeded with the affordable housing payment-in-kind option, would the commitment to Ginger Road come after the sixth housing was constructed or would the developer be obligated to move ahead and make the improvements to Ginger Road.  Mr. Horton said the developer would not be committed to making the improvements to Ginger Road immediately, other than widening it to a 12-foot gravel road.

Council Member Ward asked if the staff had considered making construction traffic one-way so that Ginger Road would be used for only half of the expected traffic.  Mr. Horton said that had been considered, but their concern had been for the residents who lived on that road.  He said as an example, their concern was that a resident would be trying to exit their property and encounter a concrete truck, and in his experience a concrete truck would not back up for anyone.  Mr. Horton said that was why the staff had recommended that the existing public streets be utilized instead.

Council Member Ward asked for clarification on the timing of improvements to Ginger Road, that is, to widen it to two lanes with a sidewalk if the Council were to accept the payment-in-kind.   Mr. Horton replied that the applicant could stage things so that they could have the option of widening the road at that point, after the change in the ordinance and if the Council included in Resolution A the stipulation as recommended on page four.  He commented that the applicant could also simply proceed to build two small houses and never make those further improvements to Ginger Road.

Mayor Foy said the improvements to Ginger Road would not be made under the plan that was proposed prior to construction traffic moving through there.  Mr. Horton replied that was correct, and suggested that the Council could request the applicant to consider that.

Mayor Foy asked the applicant to respond to Mr. Horton’s suggestion.  Mr. Green replied they would not consider making the improvements at that time.  Mayor Foy noted the applicant did not want to consider it because they did not want to make the improvements if it met their affordable housing requirements, and that would not be known until later.

Council Member Easthom said she had frequented that area and had noticed that many large trucks utilized Ginger Road.  She wondered if the residents had previously indicated that was bothersome.  Mr. Horton said he could not speak to that.  He said the Town had made residents aware of the proposal and of the hearing, and perhaps if any were present they could speak to that issue, although he personally could not do so.

Council Member Easthom said she wondered if there was much difference between those large trucks and construction trucks, other than possibly the number.  Mr. Horton said the only difference was that what had occurred previously was not something the Town had been asked to condone.

Council Member Kleinschmidt commented that the roadway would be a 12-foot lane rather than a 10-foot lane.  Mr. Horton stated that was correct, and said at the least the conditions would arguably be better than they were presently.  He added the road surface would be linear and stable.

Mayor Foy commented that travel lanes were generally eight feet.  Mr. Horton said travel lanes varied due to various circumstances, adding that 12 feet was not something they would recommend as a two-lane facility.

Council Member Harrison asked Ms. Culpepper if she had received the email he had sent her regarding this issue.  He stated his question was where the construction traffic management issue was included as a stipulation in the proposed Resolution A, noting he could not locate it other than the general “boiler plate” referencing the construction management plan.  Mr. Horton replied that they had not recommended that Ginger Road be used for construction traffic and therefore there was no stipulation in the resolution.

Council Member Harrison said there was not a construction plan that Sweeten Creek Road be used for construction traffic either.  Mr. Horton responded that was correct.  Council Member Harrison said in order to deal with that, then the Council would need to amend the resolution to include such a stipulation, and he preferred to do that.

Council Member Harrison said that having experienced construction traffic on his street that was not supposed to be there because it was a dead end with no construction project on it, he did not think it was a great use of a street with many houses, which Sweeten Creek Road certainly had.  He wondered if the applicant would consider in addition to a tar surface on an improved 12-foot road that some turn-outs be provided for construction traffic to address the Manager’s statement regarding concrete trucks not normally wanting to back up. Council Member Harrison said that might be one way to handle two-way traffic on a one-lane road.

Mr. Horton asked the applicant to respond, clarifying that the question was if they would be willing to provide a couple of turn-outs so that if a passenger car encountered a large truck there would be a space to move aside so that they could more safely pass.  Mr. Green asked if such a turn-out every two to three hundred yards would be appropriate.  Mr. Horton said yes, or whatever was determined as reasonable.  Mr. Green said they would consider that.

Council Member Harrison said he did not know what the NCDOT right-of-way was there, but it was substandard in any case and he believed there would be enough room.  Mr. Horton said he believed the right-of-way was adequate for the provision of turn-outs.  Ms. Culpepper noted that the right-of-way on Ginger Road was 60 feet.  She remarked that there was a standard construction management plan stipulation in the resolution.  Council Member Harrison said he believed the residents were asking for something more.

Mayor Foy stated that it appeared the Council agreed that Ginger Road, not Sweeten Creek Road, should be used for construction traffic and that the stipulation regarding the affordable housing payment-in-kind option be included as well. He asked if the Council had any other issues that should be addressed.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was curious as to why the staff did not recommend the Transportation Board’s recommendation changing the language on the signage on the stub-out.  Mr. Horton said his recollection was that the issue was whether the word “may” should be used, adding that would describe all of the conditions.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the Transportation Board’s recommendation was that the language be changed from “may” to “will.”  Mr. Horton said they preferred “may” because a future Council might decide not to make the connection, causing someone to rely on the road being built and it might not be built.

Council Member Easthom suggested using “will probably.”  Mr. Horton replied that they would design the sign in whatever way the Council preferred.  He said they had used the word “may” because although most people would want to be warned about the possibility of a road, others might welcome the possibility of a road.  Mr. Horton said he believed that if the stipulation stated “will be built” it would imply a greater degree of certainty than actually existed.

Mayor Foy asked the applicant if the Council were to approve the resolution with the affordable housing payment-in-kind stipulation inserted as outlined on page four of the agenda materials, and stipulation that Ginger Road be the only construction traffic corridor with the obligation that they construct three turn-outs at reasonable intervals, would they accept that.  Mr. Green replied they would accept that.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-14a, AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAYMENT-IN-KIND OPTION AS STATED ON PAGE FOUR OF THE AGENDA MATERIALS, THAT A STIPULATION BE INCLUDED THAT GINGER ROAD BE THE ONLY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CORRIDOR, THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS PROHIBITED FROM USING SWEETEN CREEK ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AT ANY TIME THAT GINGER ROAD WAS AVAILABLE FOR USE, AND A STIPULATION THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL CONSTRUCT ON GINGER ROAD THREE TURNOUTS AT REASONABLE INTERVALS AS APPROVED BY THE MANAGER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 8 – Traffic Calming Plan for Dogwood Acres Drive

at the Proposed Southern Community Park

Mr. Webster stated that in May of last year the Council had approved an SUP for the Southern Community Park, and at that time had instructed the staff to come back with a more detailed traffic calming plan.  He said the major concern regarded pedestrian safety on Dogwood Acres Drive.

Mr. Webster provided a brief history regarding the process for the park, stating that in 2000 the Council had appointed a Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan Committee.  He said they had held several well-attended public hearings, and in 2002 the Council had adopted the Conceptual Plan.  Mr. Webster said as was typical with such plans, once adopted it began to evolve.  He said there was a Project Planning Committee that included members of the Council and the County Commissioners, with the County providing significant funds for this project.

Mr. Webster stated that last year the Project Planning Committee had recommended that the Concept Plan be altered to shift additional parking to Dogwood Acres Drive.  Shortly thereafter, he said, the plan was reviewed by the County Commissioners and they then began the SUP process with the Council.  Mr. Webster said the Council had approved that shift of additional parking to Dogwood Acres Drive, which brought it to this point in the public process.

Mr. Webster said from the very beginning of this process they had been developing and expanding a distribution list that was now extensive, and at every stage of the process they had notified neighbors of every public hearing.  He said that because the process had accelerated over the last year, everyone on that distribution list was receiving notification at least once each month and sometimes twice regarding important meetings.  Mr. Webster said he provided that information to make it clear that this process had been well advertised.

Mr. Webster said at the Council’s request they had given the traffic calming issue a major push, notifying everyone in the Dogwood Acres neighborhood about the issue.  He asked Mr. Neppalli to speak about the traffic calming plan and other NCDOT-related issues such as traffic lights and speed limits along Dogwood Acres Drive.

Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli noted that the traffic calming plan addressed the pedestrian safety in the neighborhood, which was of great concern, as well as reduced some of the ongoing and anticipated future traffic problems.  He said when the Southern Community Park Concept Plan was approved, they had instigated a “full blown” traffic study, and one of the recommendations from that study was traffic calming.  Mr. Neppalli noted they had also conducted a traffic signal study at US 15-501 and Dogwood Acres Drive, but the area did not meet the requirements for a traffic signal.  Therefore, he said, they had not included a traffic signal in their recommendations at that location.

Mr. Neppalli said they had discussed with the State to conduct a new study, noting that a construction project was ongoing on US 15-501 and they were not clear whether any traffic would be taking detour roads from US 15-501.  He reiterated that the study had not warranted a traffic signal at Dogwood Acres Drive, but that NCDOT would begin a new study in March of this year, taking new counts including the park and the proposed new school planned to be built on Smith Level Road.

Mr. Neppalli stated they had identified a sight distance problem at US 15-501 and NCDOT had acknowledged the problem.  He noted that even with the widening project they believed a sight distance problem would remain.  Mr. Neppalli said NCDOT would include that intersection in its study and would make recommendations to address the issue.

Mr. Neppalli commented on other issues that citizens noted and said that the Town needs to identify recommendations to address those.  He said that the Town did not have jurisdiction on those locations because most of them were outside the Town limits and were all under the State’s jurisdiction.  Mr. Neppalli stated that in the next few weeks they would be meeting with NCDOT officials and would ask them to address improvements for those areas.

Mayor Foy said a number if citizens wanted to speak on this topic, and he wanted to make sure that everyone knew what the Council was considering this evening.  He stated that included the traffic calming elements on the portion of Dogwood Acres Drive that was inside the Town limits, which was the couple of hundred feet on the east end that the Town had annexed, but the rest of Dogwood Acres Drive was an NCDOT road and the Town had no authority there.  Mayor Foy said the proposal was as  follows: three speed tables which were raised crosswalks; one intersection crosswalk at the entrance to the parking lot; in-street crosswalk signs; signs including advance warning and at raised crosswalks; stop signs warning trail users to stop prior to crossing Dogwood Acres Drive; crosswalk and speed table striping to delineate crosswalks; landscaping and fencing to prevent park patrons from crossing at locations other than the established crosswalks; and, proposed no parking anytime restrictions on both sides of Dogwood Acres Drive within the park area.

Mayor Foy said they would accept comments tonight on those issues, but reminded the public that this evening the Council would not consider changes to the park plan itself.  He noted that earlier today the Town had received a petition, and the Manager would respond to that petition at a later time and the Council would consider it at that time, if appropriate.  Mayor Foy said that petition could not be considered tonight because there was no context for that.  He invited citizens to comment on the traffic calming plan, but if they wanted to address the park plan itself then those comments should be held until the plan came back before the Council.

Rachel Lewis-Marlow, speaking as a member of the Dogwood Acres Drive community and as a soccer mom, remarked she was concerned about the safety of pedestrians and motorists at this intersection.  She said she did not see how any traffic calming measures on that small part of Dogwood Acres Drive would be sufficient to make it a safe intersection.  Ms. Lewis-Marlow noted that she would not allow her children to cross Dogwood Acres Drive, given the current traffic, without close adult supervision.

Ms. Lewis-Marlow stated that a sharp curve and a steep hill were not adequately represented on the map, noting that because of those conditions traffic approaching the park had little time to adjust for any kind of back-up caused by people entering or exiting the parking lot or by pedestrians crossing the area.  She said another thing not accurately represented on the map was that at the intersection of US 15-501 and Dogwood Acres Drive, the traffic count did not accurately reflect the danger.  Ms. Lewis-Marlow stated that the northbound traffic on US 15-501 was coming around a curve and down a hill, and it was nearly impossible to see on-coming traffic as you turned north to come into Town.  She said she supported the park, but did not believe the plans would adequately protect pedestrians or motorists.

James Baxter said if the park was indeed going to be relocated to the south side of Dogwood Acres Drive, there were ways to make it far safer that the current plan.  He said the park on one end of Dogwood Acres Drive and the planned high school on the other end would increase traffic through the neighborhood to a considerable degree.  Mr. Baxter said his neighborhood would become a major cut-through, and he hoped to see the entrance into the parking lot be moved to the western end and the crossing marked “A” on the map eliminated.

Mr. Baxter said if the traffic entered the parking lot on the western side and exited on the eastern side only towards US 15-501, then people exiting the Park would not use the neighborhood as a cut-through to travel into Carrboro, but would use US 15-501 instead.  He said he would further hope that a fence and some sort of landscaping would discourage children and others from jaywalking to the park other than using a crossing such as crossing “C” which was further west than the automobile traffic, thereby protecting children utilizing the park.

Mr. Baxter said as citizens they had far less power than the Town, and asked that the Council help them implore NCDOT to put a light on US 15-501 to assist with the egress from the park as well as general serviceability of the park.  He stated that currently there was not a lot of need for traffic calming in the Dogwood Acres neighborhood, but with the installation of the park and the proposed high school, the need would greatly increase.

Kim Dixon echoed what her neighbors had said this evening, adding that she realized the Council had not yet had the opportunity to review the new petition but she believed the seven items noted in the petition were all reasonable.  She said she wanted to put a human face on the issues being discussed, noting that during the petitioning process she had had the opportunity to visit many of her neighbors.  Ms. Dixon noted she had talked with a neighbor who had lived in her home for more than 50 years, and that woman had stressed that when she drives down Dogwood Acres Drive to US 15-501, she could no longer make a left turn because she would have to cross at least two lanes to get into Town.  She said she believed it was “frightening” to attempt a left-hand turn at that intersection.

Ms. Dixon said that as the Council thinks about the design that existed now, she was certain that if they envisioned themselves living and walking in her neighborhood, they would agree with the neighbors’ concerns and agree that the requests in the new petition were reasonable.  She encouraged the Council to visit her neighborhood and see for themselves how this plan would affect the lives of the people in her neighborhood.

Lynn Bresler, a resident of Northside Drive, suggested that the Council not adopt the resolution currently before them, and that they refer it back to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board as well as the Transportation Board and the Greenways Commission.  She said that resolution did not reflect what was initially approved.

Ms. Bresler said that the plan currently stated that the speed limit had been dropped to 25 mph on Dogwood Acres Drive through the Town’s property, but it was still signed at 35 mph.  Additionally, she said, there was signage on Dogwood Acres Drive next to the Park that said the weight limit was 6.5 tons, meaning that right now heavy vehicles could be driven on that road.

Ms. Bresler said that many of the residents were confused about signage on Dogwood Acres Drive that supposedly pointed to the Town’s property, noting that the sign actually pointed towards the neighborhood.  She said it made it appear that when you exited the Park you were entering the Town of Chapel Hill.  Ms. Bresler suggested that the Council reconsider what was planned because it had not been adequately thought through.

Runyon Woods, a resident of Dogwood Acres and Vice-Chair of the Southern Community Park Design Committee, said he had only recently become aware of the extent of the changes that had been made to the design of the Park since the time the Design Committee had completed its work and passed it along to the Council.  He said effectively, he did not agree with Mr. Webster’s comments regarding the typical evolution of a conceptual plan.  Mr. Woods said the Design Committee’s plan had been gutted by the changes made.

Mr. Woods said essential to the Design Committee’s work was the notion that you would head south on US 15-501, turn south into the park and enter the parking lot, and when you exited that parking lot you would do so through the existing park and ride lot, utilizing the last light at Southern Village to allow you to travel safely to the north and south without crossing lanes of traffic.  He said that had provided three important things for the Design Committee, which were safety for people traveling to and from the park, safety for children going from the parking lot of the Park to the athletic fields, and for decreased impact on the residents of Dogwood Acres.

Mr. Woods said the alternations made since his Committee had finished its work have defeated all three of those factors in a substantial way.  He said they had a 40-space parking lot on the south side of Dogwood Acres Drive intended primarily for people using the dog park.  Mr. Woods said the fact that the Council was now looking at a proposal for traffic calming devices crossing Dogwood Acres Drive in the location that the Traffic Engineer had said this evening had bad sight lines, should indicate to the Council that there had been a series of design errors made since the Design Committee had submitted its work.

Mr. Woods said he knew the current plan had been approved, but the park was not yet built.  He said it was better to step back now rather than build something that would be a mistake that would be in place for many years and would be a hazard to the users of the park and the residents of Dogwood Acres.  Mr. Woods urged the Council to reconstitute the Design Committee and get their input on the current plan.  He said there were much safer ways to design the park than the way it was now designed.

Adam Jackson, a resident of Dogwood Acres, agreed with the comments made by his neighbors.  He remarked that the traffic calming plan was simply not good enough to ensure the safety of people using the park or the residents of his neighborhood.  He stressed that at the intersection of US 15-501 and Dogwood Acres Drive it was impossible to see even if traffic coming north was traveling at 45 mph, adding that the median was not wide enough to sit in.  Mr. Jackson described that intersection as incredibly dangerous.  He asked the Council to visit his neighborhood and attempt to make several left turns out onto US 15-501.  Mr. Jackson said changes needed to be made that were far beyond signage and crosswalks.

David Latowsky, a resident of Dogwood Acres Drive, said the traffic calming issues spoke to the design of the park, and the design of the park spoke to the traffic calming issues.  He said he agreed with his neighbors’ comments, adding it was the Town’s responsibility to act responsibly with respect to this neighborhood, because the park dramatically affected it.  Mr. Latowsky said even though they were not within the Town’s limits they were within its extraterritorial jurisdiction, and it was the Town’s responsibility to take the measures needed so that the impacts of the Park did not disrupt the neighborhood and cause a dangerous situation.

Mayor Foy said the Council had a resolution before it that included the traffic calming measures he had previously listed.  But, he said, given what the Council had heard this evening, he believed the comments should be referred back to the staff for a response.  Mayor Foy said in addition, any comments or questions from the Council about what they had heard this evening should be referred as well.

Council Member Easthom requested that when this came back before the Council that the Transportation Board’s findings be included, noting one of the things that Board had looked at was the inclusion of a traffic light.

Council Member Harrison, addressing Mr. Neppalli, said he could not tell from his discussion of the new traffic study whether the full parking lot was included in the future traffic projections, keeping in mind that it would be used during soccer matches so a lot of the traffic would  happen at once.  Mr. Neppalli said they had included the parking lot in the projections of the existing study.  Council Member Harrison said that since that time US 15-501 had changed.  Mr. Neppalli said the road had changed, but the study had taken into account the additional lanes planned for the future, through 2007.  Council Member Harrison said, but NCDOT could not have taken actual counts as to how it was operating, since it was not operating as a four-lane at that time.  He said the new study would include that, as well as a fully-utilized parking lot.  Mr. Neppalli said that was correct.

Council Member Ward remarked that this discussion reminded him of the process the Town had undertaken with citizens regarding Homestead Road associated with Chapel Hill High School, and Smith Middle School and Seawell Elementary School on Homestead Road and Seawell School Road, where citizens came together and said the roads were unsafe and children could not walk safely to school.  He said there were some differences in the two, but he agreed with how it had been characterized by Dogwood Acre residents, with a park on one end and a school on the other.  Council Member Ward said there would be much more located in this corridor, and the Town needed to be part of the solution.

Council Member Ward stated what he saw depicted on the map did treat some of the issues but left much that was not acceptable all the way to Smith Level Road.  He said the Town needed to be partly responsible for that in addition to NCDOT, the School Board, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the neighbors.  Council Member Ward said that was the group of people who had been gathered together to deal with the issues on Homestead Road, and while there had been some missteps along the way, they were on the cusp of having sidewalks and an activated traffic light so that children could walk safely to school.

Council Member Harrison said he would like the Council to direct the staff to look into the initiation of a similar committee constituted with the appropriate people including citizens of the area to address the issues that were raised this evening.  He said the issues were difficult because of the multiple jurisdictions, and NCDOT consistently pleaded a lack of funds.  But, Council Member Harrison said, they needed to push hard to make progress on Dogwood Acres Drive.  He said he wanted the staff to come back with a response to that as well as to the other concerns expressed this evening.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked, when Mr. Neppalli had remarked that NCDOT would undertake another traffic study, was that because of the new school.  Mr. Neppalli said no, the study conducted in 2004 was conducted by the Town, not by the State.  He said that the State had not yet received a formal request by the Town to conduct a study.  Mr. Neppalli said the State had conducted a study six years ago prior to the widening project, and as a part of that study they had concluded that a traffic signal at the intersection of US 15-501 and Dogwood Acres Drive was not warranted.  He said NCDOT had decided to wait until the widening project was completed before conducting another study to get accurate traffic counts on US 15-501 as well as the turning movement counts.  Mr. Neppalli said NCDOT had indicated they would perform the study in February and March of this year.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that study would make actual observations of traffic. Mr. Neppalli said that was correct.

Mayor Foy asked why NCDOT was conducting that study.  Mr. Neppalli responded it was because the Town had requested a traffic signal in response to a petition received from a citizen in October of last year asking the Town to do a study. He said NCDOT’s response was that they had conducted a study five years ago. Mr. Neppalli commented they had reminded NCDOT that more traffic would be coming because of the park and the school and NCDOT had then agreed to conduct the study.

Mayor Foy said that request to NCDOT was for the purpose of deciding if a traffic signal was needed at US 15-501 and Dogwood Acres Drive.  Mr. Neppalli said that was correct.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked Mr. Neppalli what his opinion was as to the outcome of that request.  Mr. Neppalli stated he could not make a comment about that at this time, but would state that the park itself did not create a need for a traffic signal, so whether the park was built or not would not affect the outcome. He stated that because of the number of lanes, they could agree with the citizens that crossing the road was very dangerous.

Mr. Neppalli said they also agreed with the citizens that there was a sight distance problem.  He said they had brought that issue to the State’s attention, noting they had thought the widening project would eliminate the sight distance problems, but they had discovered that was not the case.  Mr. Neppalli said the State had acknowledged the problem and was willing to conduct the new study to identify ways to improve the intersection.

Council Member Easthom asked what would be involved in the NCDOT study.  Would it be just the general number of cars or would safety elements be involved as well? She said whether the park existed or not it appears to her that a traffic light was needed.  Council Member Easthom asked where was that ambiguous “it’s dangerous to cross here” element to their study.  Mr. Neppalli said the State and the Town had a standard traffic signal study process that included the accident history, whether a sight distance problem existed, the roadway width and number of lanes, and how difficult it was to make turns.  He said he was not sure NCDOT would place a traffic signal at this location, but the staff would work with them to try to get a traffic signal approved.

Mayor Foy suggested taking all comments and referring them to staff for a response.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, THAT ALL COMMENTS BE REFERRED TO THE STAFF FOR A RESPONSE.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 9 – Stargate Subdivision: Preliminary Plat Approval

Mr. Poveromo stated that this was a continuation of the public hearing held on November 14, 2005, to consider a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the subdivision of .08 acres into two lots.  He said the site was located on the north side of Weaver Dairy Road just east of the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Sedgefield Road, adding that access was proposed from an existing gravel drive.

Mr. Poveromo remarked that several key issues were raised on November 14, and he would address two of those issues:  sidewalks, and recreation area.  He said the applicant was objecting to the recommendation to provide a payment-in-lieu of construction of a sidewalk.  Mr. Poveromo commented that LUMO required that newly-created lots front on a road that meets Town standards, which includes provision of a sidewalk along that frontage of the road that meet those standards.  He said that Resolution A contained a stipulation that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu not to exceed $5,000 for the construction of a sidewalk, noting that the actual cost was estimated to be between $2,000 and $5,000.  Mr. Poveromo said that during the final planning stage the applicant would provide them with a cost estimate, and staff would review that and determine the actual cost of the construction of the sidewalk.

Regarding the issue of recreation area, Mr. Poveromo stated that the applicant was objecting to the recommendation to provide either a payment-in-lieu or a dedication of recreation area.  He stated that LUMO required a dedication of 7,790 square feet of recreation area or a payment-in-lieu.  Mr. Poveromo noted that Resolution A contained a stipulation that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu of recreation area, or if the applicant does provide a dedication of recreation area then the stipulations would include a requirement that a homeowners association be established.

Ha Ngo, the owner and applicant, noted that their objections to the stipulations described were based on the fact that they were adding only one lot, yet they were being treated as if they were a large developer with a larger subdivision.  She said the stipulations were a result of the activity performed by the previous owner on a larger piece of land which was originally 86 acres, of which she now owned 1.5 acres.  Ms. Ngo said the stipulations were “extravagant.”

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-16a.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 10 – Response to a Petition Requesting Expansion

of the Occupant Notification Procedures

Ms. Culpepper said tonight’s report responded to a petition from a Council member requesting options for the expansion of occupant notification procedures for a major subdivision.  She said the Town’s current notification procedures relied on Orange and Durham County tax records which involved property owners and their addresses. Ms. Culpepper said the Town had historically mailed notices to property owners surrounding the new development.

Ms. Culpepper remarked that they had learned there was a project underway that would supplement the Orange County database, and they planned to take advantage of the new database in order to expand the development notification process to include renters as well as property owners.  She said the Orange County database project was an address verification project, and they believed the completion of that project would allow the Town to mail notices to occupants near new development proposals in Orange County.

Ms. Culpepper said for the Durham County portion of the Town, a current list of addresses was not currently available and would not be a part of the Orange County project.  She said for major developments proposed within the Durham County portion of Chapel Hill, their new recommended procedure would require development applicants to purchase an address list of occupants from a private company.

Ms. Culpepper stated they recommend that the Council accept the Orange County Address Verification Project as a means to expand our mailed notification procedures.  She said that would require development applicants to provide stamped, pre-addressed envelopes for all occupants and owners of surrounding property.  Ms. Culpepper said that although the expanded notification process would not be expensive in the Orange County portion of Chapel Hill, developers whose notification extended into Durham County would be required to contract privately with a mailing list company.

Council Member Ward asked if the applicant would be required to cull the duplicates, noting in many cases there would be duplicates.  Ms. Culpepper stated they do not require the applicant to cull duplicates now, noting it was a daunting task.  Council Member Ward said then it would be their prerogative to do that or not.  Ms. Culpepper responded that was correct.  She added that when you take a 1,000 foot radius around a proposed development and mail notices to all property owners, you do encounter duplicate notification.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said it would be to an applicant’s advantage to cull for duplicates, since postage was now at 39 cents per piece.  He thanked the staff for their response, noting that the Town’s rental population was somewhere around 40 percent which resulted in 40 percent of our citizens not being notified about proposed development in their area.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said although many of those renters were transient, others were renters of long standing.  He commented he believed with the new procedures the Town would be doing a good deed for its citizens.

Mayor Foy asked if some specific action was needed by the Council.  Mr. Horton replied that if the Council found the staff’s proposal to be satisfactory, then they would proceed in the manner as described in the report..  There was no objection from the Council.

The report was accepted by consensus of the Council.

Item 11 – Response to Electronic Meeting Proposal

Mr. Horton stated that he respected that this was a policy issue to be decided by the Council, and that the issues were understood by the Council.  He said they welcomed the Council’s guidance as to any action they might wish the staff to take.

Mayor Foy said he believed the Council had an obligation to have open meetings and be inclusive of all citizens, which was why the Council meetings were broadcast on television, that Council email was open for public inspection, and they should continue to be as open as possible.  But, Mayor Foy noted, he also believed that advisory boards were slightly different from the Council in that it may not be a bad idea to allow the Technology Board to try to bring the Town into this new age of technology for which it did not yet have the tools to deal with.  He said at some point in the future the Council would have to incorporate those kinds of tools as well.

Mayor Foy suggested beginning that process with an advisory board and seeing how that worked.  He said he had talked with the Manager about this, and he agreed with the Manager about the need for openness.  He said if the Town began in an experimental way and came to the inclusion that its processes were not inclusive or were not advancing the Council’s goals, it could make a change. Mayor Foy said he believed it was worth trying.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not believe the Council should act as if people were not communicating and actively ignore it, which was what it would be doing if it did not try to find a way to accommodate new technology.  He said that technology was the way business was being done, whether it was personal business or Town business or government business.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did have some concerns about doing that, particularly when he read David Lawrence’s comment on the first page of the agenda materials: “I think the Committee’s proposal does as good a job as can be done of fitting email conversations into the framework of the open meetings law.”  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was not convinced that our advisory boards and the Council were that different in that one should comply with open meetings law and one perhaps did not have to at times, and he did not believe that Town advisory boards deserved that kind of treatment.  He said he resisted that characterization, but he was willing to move forward.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said this was almost like “litigation bait.”  He stated that maybe as good a job as can be done was good enough, but he was not an expert and was not convinced.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like to add something to the Council’s legislative agenda to bring in this “litigation bait” rather than have it “go down the throat” of some future plaintiff.

Mayor Foy said the distinction he was making was that the Technology Board made no decision that would bind the Town or move the Town forward.  He said they always offered advice, and when they offered advice it was given in an open meeting and citizens were invited to participate in the decision.  Mayor Foy said that was the distinction between the Council and its advisory boards.  He stated he did not think, for example, that the Planning Board would be in that same position, since there were different types of advisory boards.  Mayor Foy said the Technology Board was uniquely positioned to experiment, and he viewed this as an experiment.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the Technology Board was a public body, and that perhaps it was worthy of that kind of characterization but he was not confident about it.  He said he had concerns about this, and if others did as well then they were obligated to stop and think about it some more.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said if not, then we should move forward but he would ask that the Council add to its legislative agenda a request for something from the General Assembly to assure it that this was not a problem.

Council Member Ward supported Mayor Foy’s remarks, noting he was not comfortable making the next step except as an experiment with some time limit placed on it.  He said some of this technology was foreign to him and did not come as second nature as it did to his sons.  Council Member Ward said he believed that some version of this technology would be taking place, and did not think the Town could be better positioned in terms of the general nature of its citizenry with the skills available from the School of Government and in particular David Lawrence, to help craft this to the best that it can.  Council Member Ward said it should be understood that it was ground-breaking territory that the Town was entering in some respect, and although he was somewhat concerned about that, he was not so much concerned that he did not want to give it a try.

Council Member Ward encouraged the Council to give this a try, possibly for 12 months, with its best efforts to make this as open and as transparent as possible.  He said while he understood the differences between the Council’s decision-making and the majority of its advisory boards, it still wanted them to conduct business in an open and welcoming way.  Council Member Ward said he hoped that the Council would proceed with a test case with the Technology Committee, as written out in the memo or with some adjustments.

Will Raymond, a member of the Technology Committee, said there were two criteria that he believed the Council should be interested in.  First, he asked, did this increase the openness of government, and second, did this lower the bar for citizen participation in government.  Mr. Raymond said no openness was being removed, noting you could still attend Technology Committee meetings and hear their discussions, and he welcomed citizen input.

Mr. Raymond said unlike the list serv or email distribution issue he had spoken about earlier this evening where he would be receiving flash reports or citizen complaints on a one-way street, the list serv being considered here was a two-way street.  He said you could not only read the content but could also contribute back into it.

Mr. Raymond said the great thing about this proposal was that it was timely, in that as new ideas were generated they appeared quickly.  He said it was accurate, self-documenting, contextual, and was delivered to your doorstep. Mr. Raymond said that meant the information was self-documenting, it was there and came in a timely manner, and one did not have to go in search of the information.

Mr. Raymond commented that there was a lot of prior art, noting that California as well as many other states had already “taken the dive” into this technology. He stated he knew the laws were new and unusual in this area, but the Town also had the expertise of David Lawrence who had crafted many of these laws to help it along.  Mr. Raymond said this was the best practice, not only for government but for industry.

Mr. Raymond said it would improve openness, and would lower the bar for citizen participation.  He said he highly endorsed this, and noted that Mr. Lawrence was enthused about the Technology Committee taking this on.  Mr. Raymond said Mr. Lawrence had pointed out that as an advisory board that did not make decisions that were binding on the Council, the Committee was the perfect test bed for this.  He said he believed this would be the way business was conducted in the future by all of the advisory boards, as well as by the Council.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that Mr. Raymond had suggested this process would be a two-way street where citizens could participate in the conversation, but his understanding was that was not the case.  He said his understanding was citizens could watch the conversation.  Mr. Raymond said the Committee had originally said that anyone could join in, including Council members, and participate.  He said there was an issue of what to do with spam, and the Committee had discussed that.

Mr. Raymond said what was interesting was that every document he had requested from the Town was an open document and clearly labeled as such, so we would need to make sure that we had the same kind of validity with these emails and make sure that people understood that, and that the documents would be open and available for all time.  He said that would police the spam or bad language.  Mr. Raymond said regarding this being a two-way street, other communities did moderate the list, and were very clear about what they would remove, such as bad language and spam, and placed it in an accessible archive.

Mayor Foy said that the report clearly indicated this would be a one-way street.  Mr. Raymond commented that the original proposal that he had been involved with suggested a two-way street.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said additionally, the report noted that no new topics could be brought up in the electronic forum.  Mr. Raymond said he believed that was valid, because in other forms of communication you could create your own parallel email list commenting on our emails.

Council Member Easthom said her question was the timing of this, noting the material would be in a “read only” basis with a blog format following.  She said as well, the visually impaired had the opportunity to attend Council meetings to obtain information and wondered how those individuals would be privy to an electronic media such as this.  Gregg Gerdau, Chair of the Technology Committee, said the suggested procedure was that the Committee hold regular face-to-face meetings, that those meetings be recorded, and those recordings placed on a web log, which was a continuous electronic meeting that was limited to the Committee only, such as their deliberations by email.

As an example, Mr. Gerdau said if he sent an email to a Council member and copied two others on it, and the Council member then responded to the three of them, then that was in fact an open meeting.  He said what they wanted to do was make those comments available, but did not want to prohibit people from communicate using email.

Mr. Gerdau said that step two of the proposal was that the list serv, which was by its nature a “reply to all” device, allowed them to communicate with each other as a Committee but not to receive comments from others.  He said the Committee comments would then be posted to a secondary device, a web log, which would be maintained and moderated, and would permit citizens to post comments.  Mr. Gerdau said that would be where the Committee would receive public comment and Council comment, as well as review archived material.  He suggested the Council might want to access the MP3 recordings currently posted by the Committee.

Council Member Easthom asked what Mr. Gerdau meant by “moderate,” asking if that meant duplicate emails or extraneous spam or others, and how would one know what had been moderated out and remain truly open.  Mr. Gerdau said they remained opened by asking for a one-time registration by people coming into the web log to tell who they are so that they could make their comments.  He stressed that anyone could read the material, but in order to post comments you would have to register.  Mr. Gerdau said registering would also ensure that there was a real person who wanted to share information rather than a spam-generating computer somewhere in the world.

Council Member Easthom said Mr. Gerdau had mentioned the MP3 recordings of the Committee’s regular meetings, and asked how the visually impaired would get information on the electronic meeting.  Mr. Gerdau said he did not know how to address that issue at this point, but it would be looked into.

Mayor Foy asked if the Committee was willing to consider that as a challenge as they try to work through this process.  Mr. Gerdau said yes, that he believed that would be one of the many challenges they would address as they worked through this.  However, he said, the Council was using email to communicate, and this was the way to assure that those communications were transparent but would give citizens a change to respond.

Council Member Greene agreed with Mayor Foy’s early comments, stating this was the future and what better place to start than with the Technology Committee.  She said one of the things the Council was concerned about was people being shut out of these conversations.  Council Member Greene said people interested in technology issues were likely to have computers or access to one, and she appreciated the notion that people contributing information would have to stay on topic.  She said this was well worth experimenting with in order to figure out how to better deal with the technological world.  Mr. Gerdau pointed out that they would need no budget, and were ready to move forward now.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO PERMIT THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT A TRIAL FOR ONE YEAR BEGINNING TODAY AS STATED IN ITS REPORT PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL ON JANUARY 9, TO PROVIDE PERIODIC REPORTS ON HOW THE SYSTEM WAS WORKING, WHAT PROBLEMS SURFACED IF ANY, AND RESPOND TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE COUNCIL AT THE JANUARY 9 MEETING.

Council Member Ward asked if there was any value in having Mr. Lawrence appear before the Council or did Mr. Gerdau feel that Mr. Lawrence would participate with the Committee to the extent appropriate.  Mr. Gerdau responded he would be happy to invite him to appear, but Mr. Lawrence had assisted them in crafting the report, so he was in general behind their efforts.  He said he believed that Mr. Lawrence would tell the Council the same that he himself would tell them, and that is that the open meetings law had never been challenged or promulgated.  He said the Council was taking on some new territory, but on the other hand that territory was already being marched over by everyone sending emails today.  Mr. Gerdau said what they were attempting to do was to formalize the process.

Mayor Foy said the motion had requested periodic reports, and suggested asking for those reports on a quarterly basis and that they be provided to Mr. Lawrence as well as the Council.

Council Member Ward suggested including in the motion that the Mayor would send a letter to Mr. Lawrence thanking him for his assistance and informing him of the Council’s intention, and to invite him to share any additional information.

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated he wanted to make sure that the Technology Committee had endorsed this process.  Mr. Gerdau said it needed to be referred to the Committee because they had not endorsed it in total, noting they had not been able to send it until they had received Mr. Horton’s comments.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said the motion should include the Technology Committee’s endorsement.

THE MOVER AND SECONDER ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENTS AS STATED.  THE MOTION AS AMENDED WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 12 – Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment regarding

Certificates of Appropriateness in Public Rights-of-Way

Ms. Culpepper said a hearing had been held on November 14 to receive comments regarding this LUMO amendment.  She said they were recommending that the Council enact Ordinance O-7 to amend LUMO regarding installation of regulatory signs, other traffic control measures and devices, and utility distribution systems in public rights-of-way in local historic districts.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE O-7.

Council Member Greene said since the November 14 hearing she had attended a meeting of the Historic District Commission in her role as liaison, and had listened to their concerns about this.  She said the Commission appreciated, at least reluctantly, the notion that the Council did not want to leave the Commission in control of whether things such as parking meters were installed or not. Council Member Greene said at the time the Commission did not have the present language before them, and they wanted to make sure that the Council was referring to traffic devices and not other things in the public right-of-way. She reminded the Council they had heard about a street this evening that was 10 feet wide but had a 60-foot right-of-way.  Council Member Greene said with a right-of-way that wide there could be sidewalks, building encroachments or other things that the Historic District Commission would have control over that they, and she believed rightly, did not want to give up.

Council Member Greene said she believed the language regarding utility distribution systems was too broad, and asked why that was included when what they were really addressing was the issue of traffic devices.  She proposed striking that language.

Council Member Easthom asked for clarification regarding the statement in the memo that said if the text amendment were approved, it would allow for the installation of parking meters proposed on Cameron Avenue.  Mr. Horton said that parking meters were defined as a traffic control measure or device.

Mayor Foy said he believed Council Member Easthom was asking if this amendment would install the parking meters.  Mr. Horton said the Council had previously authorized installation of the parking meters but they had been unable to do so, but if this amendment were adopted the parking metes would be installed.

Mayor Foy asked if Council Member Greene’s suggested amendment was acceptable to the mover and seconder.

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos asked Council Member Greene if she was referring to above grade utilities in the right-of-way, and that below ground utilities were not at issue.  Council Member Greene said the Commission had very strong opinions regarding sidewalks.  She said suppose a sidewalk had to be taken out to dig a trench for a cable line, then what kind of sidewalk was put back. Council Member Greene said the Town could require a particular kind of sidewalk when a different kind had been there before.  Mr. Horton responded that typically in such cases the same type of sidewalk would be installed.  Council Member Greene said typically, yes, but that was not a guarantee.  Mr. Horton reminded the Council that sidewalks in historic districts had to be approved by the Historic District Commission.

Council Member Kleinschmidt remarked that sidewalks were not included in the language, since they were neither a regulatory sign nor a traffic control measure nor a utilities distribution system.

Council Member Greene stated her concern was the language was broader than the problem it was addressing.  Mr. Horton responded they had intentionally broadened the language because they did not want to be in the position of not being able to put in traffic control signs, utility poles, wires to provide telephone service and things of that nature.  He said they believed if the Council authorized that then they would be able to proceed and the Historic District Commission should not be able to prevent it.

Council Member Greene asked Mr. Karpinos what he meant when he had mentioned above grade versus below ground utilities.  Mr. Karpinos said he was curious as to what the actual concern was, if it was things that you could actually see or whether there was some other issue.  Council Member Greene said it was things that could be seen within the actual right-of-way that were not traffic control devices, since those devices were what the problem was.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked about power lines.  Mr. Horton stated that when they had examined the current language in LUMO it was their opinion that the Historic District Commission would also have authority over utility poles of every type, street light poles, telephone lines, and electrical distribution lines.

Council Member Greene remarked that she believed the Historic District Commission would want at least to comment on what type of street light poles were installed in an historic district.  Mr. Horton replied that commenting was far different than controlling, and under the current language the Historic District Commission would have control.

Council Member Hill commented that in fact Duke Power moved poles frequently without asking the Historic District Commission, but he was not suggesting that they should have to.  Mr. Karpinos remarked that he believed there were some franchise utility laws at work here that had allowed some of that to take place by Duke Power as well as Southern Bell and possibly others.  Mr. Karpinos said he did not believe the cable company had asked permission from the Historic District Commission when they had installed fiber optic cables.

Council Member Hill said he did not believe the occupants of an historic district would enjoy having to get permission to get a cable line moved, noting it would prove cumbersome.

Mayor Foy suggested that language remain as is.  There was no objection from the Council.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 13 – Annual Traffic Calming Report and Recommendations

Mr. Neppalli said this was the first annual report on the Town’s traffic calming program that was adopted in June of 2004.  He said the report included recommendations for implementation of traffic calming measures at seven locations for which they had received valid petitions.  Mr. Neppalli stated they had conducted studies and neighborhood meetings, and had worked with the neighborhood associations and directly with the neighborhoods over the past year.

Mr. Neppalli stated that the Council had issued $300,000 in bond funds in fiscal year 2004-2005 of which approximately $32,000 had been expended, leaving approximately $270,000 available.  He said the schedule called for an additional $100,000 to be issued this year and another $100,000 next year.

Mr. Neppalli said they were recommending that the Council adopt Resolution R-7 authorizing the installation of traffic calming measures as outlined in the agenda materials.  He stated that although Town staff had been working on this for a year, the residents had been patient throughout the process.  Mr. Neppalli said they were planning to bring forward another report in June as the policy called for, noting they were currently processing 20 additional petitions for traffic calming measures.  He said all petitions determined to be valid would be brought before the Council in June.

Mayor Foy stated that the seven locations recommended for traffic calming measures were:

1.   Pinehurst Drive (Oaks II Area): seven speed tables

2.   Cedar Hills Area: five speed tables

3.   Nottingham Drive: four speed tables

4.   Colony Woods Drive: three speed tables

5.   Silver Creek Trail: three speed tables

6.   Cypress Road: two speed tables and one all-way stop control at the intersection of Cypress Road and Spruce Street

7.   Pinehurst Drive (Meadowmont Area): three speed tables and one all-way stop control at the intersection of Pinehurst Drive and Gurnsey Trail

John Poteat urged the Council to adopt the recommendation for traffic calming on Cypress Road, noting it was a walk zone for elementary school children and was used as a cut-through from Damascus Church Road to the 15-501 Bypass.  He said he and his neighbors had met with Mr. Neppalli many times, noting that the process had been a long one but it had been transparent.  Mr. Poteat said that Mr. Neppalli and his staff had been good to work with.

Council Member Harrison said Cypress Road was notable for its steepness, and in the proposal there was a strategically placed device coming up the steepest part. He asked Mr. Poteat if he and his neighbors would mind having a slightly narrower device to enable bicyclists to get around on either side.  Council Member Harrison said now he believed there was about a foot and a half on either side of the device that was actually asphalt.  Mr. Poteat said he would have to defer to someone with more expertise.  Council Member Harrison said he did not know if Mr. Neppalli was willing to tailor the size of the devices to the street.  Mr. Poteat said his only concern was if it got too narrow then cars would drive around it which would defeat its purpose.  Council Member Harrison agreed, noting he had stopped using that street by car, but he was making his request for all those who ride bicycles.  He said providing a little more room on either side would be helpful.

Mr. Neppalli said they could not recommend reducing the size of the traffic device to accommodate bicycles.  He said that bike lanes required a minimum of four feet, and if they accommodated bicycles at a speed hump they would be required to provide four feet on either side.  Mr. Neppalli said that studies had shown that with narrower devices cars tended to pass over the device with one side on and one side off, in some cases causing damage to the cars.  He said they did not want to create such a situation in Chapel Hill.

Council Member Harrison said he was not requesting an official bike lane, adding that now there would be about 13 inches of space when traveling up a steep hill.  He commented there were many bicyclists in the area and he preferred to make it a multiple-use road.

Mayor Foy suggested letting Mr. Neppalli work on this and talk with the neighbors, and try to find a solution.  Council Member Harrison said he did not believe that this would be the only location where this would be an issue.

Arnold Loewy asked that the Council not turn Pinehurst Drive into an obstacle course, adding he did not think that was too strong a term as there would be seven speed tables on one small street.  He reminded the Council that they had tried placing two speed tables on Lakeshore Drive and within a year or so they were removed due to residents’ complaints.  Mr. Loewy said that was understandable.

Mr. Loewy said it had to be rough on cars to move over seven speed tables every day, back and forth, on a commute, as well as making the commute most unpleasant.  Mr. Loewy said the most important issue for him was that his wife had a bad back, and essentially speed tables for her were unsafe at any speed. He said he would have to pass over them at about 5 mph, but having to brake prior to each speed table was in itself not good for her back.  Mr. Loewy said his wife was not the only person in his neighborhood with a bad back and that should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Loewy said regarding the safety issue, he suggested that at best they were talking about a trade-off.  He stated that no doubt there would be fewer cars going at excessive rates of speed which was good, but those that traveled fast regardless of the speed tables, and there would be some, were likely to careen out of control.  Mr. Loewy said that some might not care what happens to a driver who goes that fast but they surely care about the children who may be hurt when that happens.  Mr. Loewy recommended being nice to cars, protecting commuters, protecting his wife’s back, saving some taxpayers’ money, and protecting our children.  He said “just say no” to speed tables on Pinehurst.

Jay Klompmaker, President of the Oaks II Homeowners Association, said he believed that Mr. Loewy’s was the only negative vote they had regarding the speed tables.  He said they had discussed this at their December meeting and it had been approved.  Mr. Klompmaker said he believed this would address the most important issue for the residents, which was the excessive speed on Pinehurst Drive.  He said that Mr. Neppalli had provided “wonderful help” and thanked him for being a responsive bureaucrat.

Polly Vanderbilt urged the Council to support the resolution, reminding the Council that her neighborhood’s petition had been sent to the Town over two years ago. She said that 76 percent of her neighborhood supported the traffic calming devices.

Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, a resident of the Oaks II, urged the Council to adopt the traffic calming measures.  He said he was concerned about his children as well as other children in the neighborhood with regard to the excessive speeds exhibited by some drivers, some as much as 55 mph.  Mr. Bennett-Guerrero said his neighbors had the same concerns, and as a parent he was strongly in favor of this.

Bill Saks, a Board member of the Oaks Villas Homeowners Association, said he had first heard about this on Friday and had not been aware of where the speed tables were planned to be installed.  He said it appeared that in order to reach his job in Durham he would have to travel over four speed tables on Nottingham as well as seven on Pinehurst. Mr. Saks said that seemed extreme to him.

Mr. Saks said he agreed that some drivers traveled at excessive speeds, and suggested the installation of only two speed tables.  He noted that was what Burning Tree Drive had and it appeared to be effective.  Mr. Saks asked Mr. Neppalli if that was workable, noting that both of those areas were nine tenths of a mile each.

Mr. Neppalli remarked that the Town had received a request for additional speed tables on Burning Tree Drive, so apparently two was not enough.  He said the number of speed tables that were recommended was based on the studies they had conducted as well as using nationwide data.  Mr. Neppalli said that speed tables were only effective if installed on a long stretch of roadway such as Pinehurst Drive, with a minimum of 500 to 1,000 feet.  He said studies had shown that using speed tables every 300 feet were most effective in reducing the speeding problem.

Jim Smalley, a resident of Cypress Road, said he had watched traffic progress over the last thirty, due primarily to developments that had occurred in the area. He said Cypress Road and the surrounding area was a residential neighborhood with many children as well as elderly persons.  Mr. Smalley said the traffic had increased multiple times over the last 10 or so years and they had tried many things to try and slow the traffic down, but were unsuccessful.  He said he believed it would take installing speed tables to help calm it down.

Mr. Smalley said he appreciated Council Member Harrison’s comment regarding riding a bicycle over the speed table, but he believed he was one of only two people who road bicycles up that hill.  He noted that the hill was a “blind” hill, and during times of heavy traffic, such as early morning and late afternoon, it was difficult for residents to exit their driveways.

Council Member Harrison agreed that the traffic calming devices were needed.  He noted he believed that neighborhood needed a traffic calming study conducted.

William Dunk, a resident of Nottingham Drive, said he was shocked that the Town had become so unsafe in regard to traffic, certainly less safe than the area he had moved from about nine years ago.  He said he supported all of the suggested devices in his neighborhood.  Mr. Dunk said he walked the neighborhood along Pinehurst and Nottingham Drives almost daily, and it was riddled with speeding cars.  He said there would certainly continue to be accidents unless something was done, and nothing worked as well as speed tables.

Jeannie Beckham, a resident of Pinehurst Drive, said her homeowners association had made this initial request for traffic calming in 2003.  She said they had dozens of residents who had spent hundreds of hours collecting the signatures necessary for a valid petition.  Ms. Beckham said their results indicated that they had collected 152 signatures of the 207 possible, and she urged the Council to seriously consider that those numbers reflected the views of the neighborhood.

Council Member Easthom said she realized how hard Mr. Neppalli had been working and how responsive he had been to citizens, calling it “fantastic.”  She said regarding notices for meetings such as tonight, a speaker had indicated he had not received notice until this past Friday.  Council Member Easthom wondered if it was possible to provide earlier notification.  Mr. Neppalli replied they would be glad to consider that request and to do that in future.  He said their regular process was to mail a postcard notification no later than Thursday before a Monday meeting, but they would try to do that earlier from this point on.  Mr. Neppalli explained that he had not been certain that this item would be on tonight’s agenda, and therefore had not mailed the postcards earlier.

Council Member Thorpe said he was surprised that anyone on Pinehurst Drive did not know about this meeting, noting he had received about 200 emails from residents regarding this.  He said those emails had started back in early November, and he encouraged citizens to continue to contact the Council with their concerns.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-17.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY  (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE O-8. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Mr. Neppalli clarified for the benefits of the citizens that in the report they had indicated they were not recommending street imprints on the speed tables which had been requested.

Item 14 – Appointments

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, THAT ALL APPLICANTS ON THE BALLOT FOR THE HORACE WILLIAMS CITIZENS COMMITTEE AND THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING TASK FORCE BE APPOINTED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).       

14a.     Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

The Council appointed David Love to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

	Council Members
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board		Foy	Easthom	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Thorpe	Ward	TOTAL
Vote For 1 Applicant
David Love		X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	8
Douglas Wilson						X					1
Other; please list

14b.     Horace Williams Citizens Committee.

The Council appointed John Ager, Lawrence Daquioag, Ed Neely, and Will Raymond to the Horace Williams Citizens Committee by a previous motion.

	Council Members
Horace Williams Citizens Committee		Foy	Easthom	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Thorpe	Ward	TOTAL
Vote for 1 Citizens with Special Expertise
Lawrence Daquioag
Vote for 1 Neighborhood representative
John Ager
Ed Neely
Will Raymond
Other; please list:

14c.     Inclusionary Zoning Task Force.

The Council appointed Deloris Bailey, Sarah Donahue, Thomas Kelley, John Mackowiak, Rick Robinson, and Larry Short to the Inclusionary Zoning Task Force by a previous motion.

	Council Members
Inclusionary Zoning Task Force		Foy	Easthom	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Thorpe	Ward	TOTAL
Vote For 2-5 Applicants
Delores Bailey (Affordable Housing Development)
Sarah Donahue (Housing and Community Development Advisory Board Rep. of Public Housing residents/Neighborhood Rep.)
Thomas Kelly (UNC Academic)
John Mackowiak (Neighborhood Rep.)
Rick Robinson (Residential Real Estate)
Larry Short (Residential Real Estate)
Other; please list:

14d.     Orange County Air Quality Advisory Committee.

The Council appointed Bryn Smith to the Orange County Air Quality Advisory Committee.

	Council Members
Orange County Air Quality Advisory Committee		Foy	Easthom	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Thorpe	Ward	TOTAL
Vote For 1 Applicant
Bryn Smith		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Other; please list:

Item 15 – Petitions

15a.     By the Mayor and Council Members:

15a(1). Mayor Foy: Resolution regarding Mountains to the Sea Trail.

Mayor Foy remarked he had met with the new mayor of Hillsborough, Tom Stevens, and he had sent his regards to the Council.  He said Mayor Stevens had asked him to bring a petition to the Council regarding the Mountains to the Sea Trail currently in the planning process that moved through Orange County, specially through northern Orange County and the Eno River Trail.

Mayor Foy suggested referring this to the Manager for some advice and then to hopefully endorse this trail.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER FOR A RESPONSE.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Announcement

Council Member Thorpe reminded the Council and the public about the upcoming Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration on Sunday evening at the Friday Center.  He noted this was the largest community celebration planned, jointly sponsored with the University, and invited all to participate.  Council Member Thorpe said another event was planned for Monday at the First Baptist Church and encouraged everyone to attend that as well.

Council Member Thorpe commented that on a personal note, if a call or an email was received by the Town from someone who refused to give a name, he found that to be disturbing.  He said he believed the staff had handled it appropriately, as they had passed on exactly what had been received.  But, Council Member Thorpe stated, in the future he did not want to receive any information from a person who wanted to remain anonymous, because they may relate some things to the staff that the staff in turn would not want to have to relate to the Council. He said that if citizens wanted to suggest, recommend, or complain about an issue, then they should provide their name.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.