SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 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, Planning Director J. B. Culpepper, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, Library Director Kathy Thompson, Senior Transportation Planner David Bonk, Transportation Director Steve Spade, Transportation Operations Manager Henry De Pietro, Transportation Marketing/Outreach Coordinator Len Cone, Information Technology Director Bob Avery, Mayoral Aide Adam Schaefer, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Item 1 – Ceremonies
1a. Recognition of State Bus Rodeo Participants.
Transportation Director Steve Spade provided some history of the Bus Rodeo, noting Chapel Hill had sent five employees to the Rodeo, with one employee placing second in the overall van competition and the Chapel Hill team winning the van competition. He introduced the participants to the Council and the public: Felix Bloch, Robert Aerheart, William Carter, David Daman, and Travis Parker. Mr. Spade noted that William Evans, a Transit supervisor, had worked with the team to get them prepared for the competition.
Mr. Evans explained what was involved in preparing the team for the competition, and Mr. Bloch explained what participating in this event meant to the employees.
1b. Presentation of Fit Community Award.
Regina Blalock, representing the Active Living By Design Committee, presented Mayor Foy and the Council with the Fit Community Designation. She explained the purpose of the program and what was necessary to qualify for the award. She thanked the Council for its promotion of a fit community and the programs that created and promoted a pedestrian- and bike-friendly town.
Item 3 – Petitions
3a(1). Planning Board regarding Recommendations for Development of Future Neighborhood Conservation Districts.
Ruby Sinreich, chair of the Planning Board, stated that the Planning Board felt strongly that there was a need for more deliberation, education, and creativity in the Neighborhood Conservation District process. She stated that the Board continued to feel that a neighborhood committee was essential to lead the effort, especially in cases where there was division within the community. Ms. Sinreich provided an overview of the Board’s specific recommendations as outlined in the Board’s memorandum to the Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(2). Radio Station WCOM regarding Rent Relief.
COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(3). Julie McClintock for Coker Hills regarding Traffic Safety Issues.
Julie McClintock, president of the Coker Hills West Neighborhood Association, provided a brief description of her neighborhood and the people who lived there. She said the neighborhood was built prior to the Town’s requirements for sidewalks, with wide streets that encouraged speeding. Ms. McClintock petitioned the Council to install four crosswalks at the intersections of Kensington, South Lakeshore and Curtis Roads. She also requested a crosswalk at the intersection of North Lakeshore and Rock Creek Road.
Ms. McClintock said their third request was a warning side on that road so that cars traveling down North Lakeshore and approaching a blind curve would be aware that cars may be exiting Rock Creek Road onto North Lakeshore. She said their fourth request was for a crosswalk on Kensington Drive opposite a school patch along an easement installed by the Town years ago and maintained by the neighbors.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(4). Will Raymond regarding NextBus Contract.
Will Raymond spoke regarding Item #5g, Response to Council Member’s Request for Information about the NextBus Automatic Vehicle Location with Passenger Information System Contract. He explained what the automated system would provide, noting he did not believe the Town was getting its money’s worth with this contract.
Mr. Raymond provided an overview of the Request for Proposals, noting what he termed as problems with that document. He shared information regarding other communities that were using the same type of technology, as well as the cost. Mr. Raymond then provided what he believed were the next possible steps to take to negotiate with NextBus. He suggested pulling the contract and resubmitting the Request for Proposals. Mr. Raymond also suggested that this issue be deferred until the next Municipal Networking task force could review the proposal.
Mr. Spade explained that the bid had already been awarded and they would begin installation of the systems on buses in mid-July, with start-up by mid-August. He stated that this system was a valuable tool in managing transit operations, and would allow them to manage the system through understanding where the buses were and if they were on schedule. Mr. Spade explained the process leading up to awarding the contract, and explained his understanding of the technology used in the automated vehicle locating system.
Council Member Easthom asked about ongoing maintenance costs. Mr. Spade said he had talked with AC Transit’s operations manager, who had indicated his satisfaction with the NextBus technology and service, and added that NextBus maintained an excellent reputation.
Council Member Easthom asked how long NextBus had been in existence. Mr. Spade said approximately three years.
Information Technology Director Bob Avery agreed, adding maintenance had been discussed prior to letting the contract. He said the failure rate for NextBus equipment was very low.
Council Member Easthom asked if NextBus was working to upgrade their systems to
provide onboard wireless service. Mr. Avery explained the NextBus system and
how the technology responded to the Town’s needs. He noted that all four
vendors had bid on cellular technology.
COUNCIL MEMBER EASTHOM MOVED THAT THE COMPROMISE PORTION OF THE PETITION BE ANALYZED BY THE STAFF, WITH A REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL.
Mayor Foy said he wanted to know exactly what the Council wanted, noting the contract had been awarded and was being implemented, and he did not believe the Council wanted to back out of that contract. He asked Council Member Easthom what response she expected from the staff.
Council Member Easthom stated she would like to have the staff look at the suggestions Mr. Raymond had noted in the first part of his petition, but was not suggesting withdrawing from the contract.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the essence of the concern was why this was a $1 million contract rather than a $50,000 contract. Mr. Spade provided some information regarding systems used by other communities and the successes and failures they had experienced with different systems.
Town Manager Cal Horton said the Town had received a technology grant from the federal grant, and had put together a Request for Proposals with advice from many. The first bids had been too high, he said. Mr. Horton said they had then sent out new proposals, evaluated them, chosen a vendor, and were proceeding forward. Mr. Horton said they believed the system would do exactly what it was intended to do, and they believe that considering the funding available they had achieved their purpose. He said if it would be of any assistance, he would be happy to respond to the first portion of Mr. Raymond’s petition.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Announcements by Council Members. None.
Council Member Thorpe encouraged the Council to read the Manager’s letter to employees that was published in the most recent employee newsletter. He noted that Mr. Horton would be retiring at the end of August, and thanked him for his valuable service to the Town.
Mayor Foy noted that Item #4c, Response to Letter from Orange County regarding Council Appointment to the Economic Development Commission, would be included in Item #17, Appointments, and considered at that time.
Council Member Thorpe removed Item #4k, Draft Southwest Durham/Southeast Chapel Hill Collector Street Plan.
Council Member Ward removed item #4e, Dedication of a Revised Sewer Easement within Pritchard Park to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1 WITH ITEMS #4c, #4e, AND #4k REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item #4e, Dedication of a Revised Sewer Easement within Pritchard Park to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority
David Tuttle said that this sewer easement would be cutting a 30-foot swath through the Pritchard Park for over four-tenths of a mile, sacrificing trails and trees. He said part of this was in the Resource Conservation District RCD), and he believed this easement would violate the Council’s policy regarding the RCD. Mr. Tuttle said he did not believe putting in this sewer line was a practical necessity as defined in the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Mr. Tuttle said the pump station had operated adequately for more than 40 years, and he did not believe the sacrifice of trails and trees would be worth whatever was gained.
Council Member Ward said he had been concerned about this as well, and wanted to make sure that the Council did everything possible to make sure this project was as light on the land as possible. He said there were several issues he would like to see incorporated into the sewer easement agreement. Council Member Ward recommended that construction fencing be incorporated that could not be easily removed, that tree protection as well as tree root protection be provided and shared with the Council, and that OWASA determine the exact footprint needed in order to determine if the width of the easement could be less than 30 feet.
Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin said the staff shared these concerns, and had walked the property several times in order to get a clear picture of what the easement would do. He said they had in fact changed the existing alignment of the easement and altered the pre-existing easement in existence since 1992 in order to avoid some of the more sensitive tree areas. Mr. Heflin said they had obtained commitments from OWASA that they would at the time of construction do a tree-by-tree layout with Urban Forester Curtis Brooks.
Mr. Heflin said he believed OWASA would be willing to provide the sturdier fencing, and he had been told by OWASA Executive Director Ed Kerwin and other OWASA representatives that they would minimize the disturbance as much as possible.
Council Member Ward suggested deferring this issue until June 26 to provide an opportunity for the staff to have further conversations with OWASA to obtain firmer commitments regarding these issues. Mr. Heflin said he did not believe a delay would cause too much concern. Council Member Ward said he would like the opportunity to discuss the issues he had brought up.
Council Member Harrison said he did not believe OWASA would need a 30-foot-wide easement. He said with this particular easement, the wetland located at the bottom of the site was the highest priority location for a watershed protection measure under the Morgan Creek/Little Creek Watershed Plan conducted a couple of years ago. Council Member Harrison said he believed this was worth delaying in order to get a better project out of it.
The Council agreed by consensus to defer this issue until June 26, and that the staff would work with OWASA to address Council Member Ward’s concerns.
Item #4k, Draft Southwest Durham/Southeast Chapel Hill Collector Street Plan
Council Member Thorpe said he had received four calls regarding this, resulting in his request that this issue be delayed until the October 18 public hearing, rather than the September public hearing. He said the compelling reason was to have the most participation possible.
Mayor Foy asked how delaying this would affect the Triangle Advisory Committee’s (TAC) schedule. Senior Transportation Planner David Bonk said the TAC Advisory Committee was scheduled to have a meeting on this plan at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, at which the Town had planned to ask them to delay a decision until the fall. He said the TAC had not yet set a date for adoption, and did not believe delaying until October would be problematic.
Council Member Harrison asked if other jurisdictions were considering a delay. Mr. Bonk responded he did not know. Council Member Harrison said he supported the delay.
COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-7, AS AMENDED TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 18, 2006 AND ASKING THAT THE TAC CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE PLAN AFTER OCTOBER, 2006. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item #4d, Selection of a Design Firm for Library Expansion Project and Pritchard Park Improvements.
Mayor pro tem Strom said the Library Building Committee had picked a first and second choice of a firm for the project and the Council was authorizing the staff to negotiate a contract for services for the addition to the Library. He said they had conducted a national call for project teams, and had an excellent response from local and national firms. Mayor pro tem Strom said the Library Building Committee had identified Wallace Roberts Todd from Philadelphia as its first choice to design the Library, joined by MDA Design Groups and Elizabeth Martin, who had been active in Library design in New York and was a lecturer at Harvard University. Mayor pro tem Strom noted the Committee’s second choice was Robert A.M. Stern/Corley Redfoot Zack, who had a tremendous amount of Library experience nationally. He said the Committee would continue to work after a contract was agreed upon.
Item #4L, Purchase Agreement for a Multi-Jurisdictional Purchase of Property Adjacent to Erwin Road and Pickett Road
Mayor pro tem Strom commented that the Town staff had recommended and successfully completed negotiations with Orange County, Durham County and Durham City for the New Hope Preserve, an assemblage of land just north of the Town limits along Erwin Road. He said the Council had authorized up to $120,000 in the preservation of this land for the New Hope trail system. Mayor pro tem Strom said that $120,000 would not be necessary due to Clean Water Grant receipts that Orange County and Durham County had received, noting that the Town’s contribution would be in the $37,000 dollar range.
Mayor pro tem Strom said our participation as a Council was a catalyst for this deal to come together, noting it was an assemblage of over 100 acres that would have public use in a key spot in the community. He thanked the Manager for representing the Town’s interests well, noting plans for the part would be developed for the next year or so and that Chapel Hill would have a seat at the table. Mr. Horton noted that Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos and Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster were instrumental in making this work.
Item 5 – Information Reports
Mayor Foy pulled Item #5d, Europa Office Building – Request for Minor Change to Special Use Permit Modification, to allow a citizen to speak.
Lynne Kane said that the Europa Office Building would be a good fit with Super Street.
Council Member Ward asked, with regarding Item #5b (Report on Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments: Changes to Vehicular and Bicycle Parking), if this information had been shared with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. Planning Director J. B. Culpepper stated that it had been shared with the Board.
All information reports were received as submitted by the Council.
Item 6 – Status report on Community Carbon Reduction (CRed) Program
Mr. Bonk noted that the Council had received a draft proposal last September from Dr. Douglas Crawford-Brown on the Community Carbon Reduction (CRed) Program, and that report included development of a plan that he proposed the Council engage in. He said since that time the staff had been working with Dr. Crawford-Brown on various aspects of the proposal made in September, and he was presenting an update and some proposals.
Dr. Douglas Crawford-Brown of the Carolina Environmental Program at UNC-Chapel Hill noted that upon deciding to join the CRed Program the Council had started on a four-fold path, the first of which was actually committing to be on the carbon reduction path. He noted that the University had now joined the CRed program as well. The second, Dr. Crawford-Brown said, was to develop a carbon dioxide inventory to identify where the carbon dioxide was coming from, which had now been completed by both the Town and the University.
Dr. Crawford-Brown said the third step was to formally file with the website of the CRed project, and in that formal filing not commit to any particular policy or strategy, but to a timetable and certain broad principles. Dr. Crawford-Brown said the fourth step was to determine what the actual strategies would be to get the reduction, and then to file that. He said that would not be done now, noting he believed the Town should wait for the expected report from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to decide what its specific strategies would be.
Dr. Crawford-Brown provided the Council with the four different estimates of the amount of carbon dioxide that municipal operations of Chapel Hill emitted. He distributed a handout that detailed the four different estimates and how the estimates were derived. Dr. Crawford-Brown provided a description of the four assumptions noted by pie charts in the handout.
Dr. Crawford-Brown said the next step would be for the Town to file a formal pledge on the CRed website. He stated there was no need at this time to specify any strategies precisely, since the Town would wait for the ICLEI recommendations in the fall to develop such explicit strategies. But, Dr. Crawford-Brown stated, there was enough information on hand to make an initial pledge and consider a draft timetable, and he suggested the following draft pledge and timetable for the Council’s consideration:
Draft Pledge: The Town of Chapel Hill has produced a carbon dioxide inventory for all emissions sources owned and operated by the municipal government. That inventory indicates that municipal operations result in the production of between 10,000 and 13,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (the range reflects the uncertainty in this value). This is divided as follows: 38 percent from electricity consumption in buildings; 3 percent from natural gas consumption in buildings; 15 percent from power for streetlights; 18 percent from operation of buses; 14 percent from operation of municipal service vehicles; and 12 percent from employee commuting.
Our goal is to reduce these total carbon dioxide emissions from municipal operations by at least 60 percent by 2050, with a timetable as follows (consistent with the repair and replacement cycle of the Town): 10 percent reduction by 2010; 20 percent reduction by 2015; 30 percent reduction by 2020; 45 percent reduction by 2025; 60 percent reduction by 2030. The strategies to bring about these reductions will be specified in a further submission to CRed in fall 2006, but at least initially include making bus service free to riders (to stimulate ridership), improving the entry and exit doors on municipal buildings to raise heating and cooling efficiency, and migrating town buses and service vehicles to bio-diesel or other biomass options.
Working with the Carolina Environmental Program (CEP) of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Town will implement a system to ensure accurate data capture for emissions in future years so the success in movement towards these goals can be assessed annually. This will include participating with the CEP in an innovative education program using the Town of Chapel Hill as a study site for undergraduate and graduate students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, focused on issues of sustainability, energy, community design and economic development.
We further pledge to develop policies to encourage similar reductions of carbon dioxide emissions in the other sectors of the Town of Chapel Hill (the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the non-municipal and non-university residential, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors), and to work with those sectors in implementing those policies. Finally, we pledge to further this movement towards carbon dioxide reduction, and integrate it with other issues of sustainability, by participating in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) program.
Dr. Crawford-Brown noted on June 27 he would be in England for a government meeting on carbon reduction to be attended by all the heads of participating organizations, including 10 Downing Street. He said in that meeting he would like to be able to step forward and announce that there was one city in the world that had reached the point of filing the formal pledge. Dr. Crawford-Brown said no other city in the word had come this far, noting they were still in the carbon dioxide inventory stage. He said he would like to be able to say the same thing about the University at that June 27 meeting.
Council Member Ward asked who the contact person should be when the Town filed its formal pledge. Dr. Crawford-Brown suggested a staff person such as David Bonk, or possibly the new Town Manager.
Mayor Foy said the Manager had suggested that the draft pledge be referred to him and the Town Attorney for review. He asked the Manager if that could be done by the June 26 meeting. Mr. Horton responded yes.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER THE DRAFT PLEDGE TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY WITH A RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL ON JUNE 26. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 7 – Proposed Rezoning to Create a Neighborhood Conservation District
for the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road Neighborhood
Ms. Culpepper provided a brief overview of the proposed rezoning to create a Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) for the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road neighborhood. She said one issue remaining with this neighborhood was the issue of the boundary of the NCD, and noted they were offering two possible boundaries with Map 1 and Map 2. She said they continued to recommended adoption of Map 1, which would exclude the Winter Drive Subdivision from the boundary. Ms. Culpepper said if the Council wished to include the Winter Drive Subdivision, then the enacting ordinance should reference Map 2.
James Allred, UNC Student Body President, spoke on all four of the proposed NCD districts, noting he lived in the Pine Knolls area. He said the NCD designation would provide protection to property owners and values, but he was concerned about the effect on rentals in these areas. Mr. Allred said he believed it would drive rents up, and might drive renters away from Chapel Hill.
Mr. Allred said it was primarily students who rented, many of whom were graduate students. He said there were also singles and young couples who could not afford to buy property and were renters. Mr. Allred encouraged the Council to delay the creation of these four NCDs, noting he supported the Planning Board recommendation for more deliberation, education, and creativity in the Neighborhood Conservation District process.
Mr. Allred said if the Council did move forward, he recommended placing a sunset provision on them, so that they could be re-examined in several years to discover the effect on renters and others and find solutions.
Loren Hintz, President of the Board of the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Homeowners Association, reiterated the Board’s support of the creation of an NCD. He said they were concerned about tree protection and wanted to make sure that was a priority. Mr. Hintz also supported the comments made by Mr. Allred regarding renters, but said he believed the policies under consideration would address that.
Barbara Nowell, representing the Winter Park Subdivision, asked that they be included in the NCD and that the Council enact the ordinance with Map 2 referenced. She stated they believed that the Winter Park Subdivision was consistent with the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhood and met the distinctive character for an NCD.
Council Member Greene said she would like to formally reverse the name of the neighborhood to from Morgan Creek/Kings Mill to Kings Mill/Morgan Creek, noting that was the name of the neighborhood association. She said the neighborhood association’s recommendation for floor area was .152, as opposed to Clarion’s suggested floor area ratio of .17. Council Member Greene said the .152 resulted from the belief that .152 was the floor area ratio of the largest house in the neighborhood. She proposed that the floor area ratio be set at .15 to be consistent with the Greenwood proposal and to be more acceptable to the neighborhood. Council Member Greene said she believed the fencing regulations were more acceptable now as well.
Council Member Greene asked about the variance from 6,500 square feet that referred to the criteria of the Board of Adjustment. She asked what the intention was of that. Ms. Culpepper said it was intended to reference the variance provision in the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO). Council Member Greene stated that would be true for the setbacks and the fences as well. Ms. Culpepper agreed. Council Member Greene suggested that the information be placed as a footnote.
Council Member Ward said he believed that the Winter Park Subdivision should be included. He said the Merritt Pasture was an amenity for the Town, and creating an NCD would provide protection for the pasture and the views it created.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE O-5, AMENDED TO REVERSE THE NAME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO KINGS MILL/MORGAN CREEK, SUBSTITUTING MAP 2 FOR MAP 1, SETTING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AT .15, AND INCLUDING THE VARIANCE PROVISION FROM THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AS A FOOTNOTE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 8 – Proposed Neighborhood Conservation District
for the Greenwood Neighborhood
Ms. Culpepper provided a brief overview of the proposed rezoning to create a Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) for the Greenwood neighborhood.
Robert McMahan recommended that the Council consider the NCD without the front-yard parking provision change. He said that was added on the recommendation of the consultant, not by the neighborhood, and it disproportionately affected the smaller lots. Mr. McMahan said, more importantly, Section 7.6 of LUMO highlighted nonconformance in front-yard parking. He said that this ordinance meant that existing nonconforming parking arrangements that were made nonconforming by the NCD would have to be eliminated or made to conform.
Mr. McMahan asked the Council to consider the NCD without the parking change, because it was an unfair burden to homeowners and was not necessary to address the original concerns being addressed by the NCD. He strongly encouraged the Council to address the process issues identified in earlier deliberations regarding NCDs.
Parker Sniffen, president of the Greenwood Neighborhood Association, said they were pleased with the recent changes to the proposed NCD and enthusiastically supported the Manager’s recommendation. He said he hoped that staff would comment on parking as a nonconforming issue.
Council Member Greene suggested adding the variance provision to all of the NCD ordinances. She said she hoped that since both of these neighborhoods had wanted tree protection they would put the burden on the Council to work on a Town-wide tree protection ordinance.
Ms. Culpepper said there was a provision in the LUMO regarding nonconformity, as well as the front-yard parking. She said it contained the possibility of an administrative exception if certain conditions existed. Ms. Culpepper said those exceptions included if the parking area was clearly defined and marked, maintained in a safe and sanitary condition, and did not contribute to soil erosion or tree damage.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE O-6, AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE VARIANCE PROVISION FROM THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AS A FOOTNOTE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 9 – Proposed Neighborhood Conservation District
for the Pine Knolls Neighborhood
Ms. Culpepper provided a brief overview of the proposed rezoning to create a Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) for the Pine Knolls neighborhood. She said specific provisions for this neighborhood include a prohibition on new duplex structures and for single-family type development a maximum limit of 2,500 square feet in floor area. Ms. Culpepper said there was a typo in the memorandum where it mentioned the maximum square footage as 2,000, noting it should have read 2,500.
Ms. Culpepper said other standards proposed for single-family development was a reduced maximum percentage of front-yard parking, a reduced height limit, an introduction of bathroom-to-bedroom ratio, and a notification requirement for proposals that increased floor area for single-family or single-family with accessory development.
Ms. Culpepper noted that the boundary of the NCD was an issue for this neighborhood. She said they were recommending boundaries that would include the Manly Estates, the Lincoln Center, and properties known as the Mainsail properties.
Eric Chupp, representing the Mainsail development, offered his support for the NCD, noting they believed the proposal was a good compromise to protect the existing residential neighborhoods from encroaching residential development, yet provided flexibility to promote non-residential development.
Mayor Foy noted he had spoken to the chair of the School Board and they had no objections to the NCD.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE O-7, AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE VARIANCE PROVISION FROM THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AS A FOOTNOTE AND CLARIFICATION THAT THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HOUSING WAS 2,500 SQUARE FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 10 – Neighborhood Conservation District:
Options for the Coker Hills Neighborhood
Ms. Culpepper provided a brief overview of the proposed rezoning to create a Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) for the Coker Hills neighborhood. She said at the May 15 Public Hearing, the Council delayed action due to the conflicting opinions of the neighbors and asked the staff to develop process options that could attempt to resolve some of those conflicts. Ms. Culpepper said the staff had developed several options that were outlined in the memorandum, and she provided an overview of each.
Jill Blackburn, representing the Coker Hills Neighborhood Association, said they were making progress in the neighborhood and gaining a better understanding of the issues. She said the Association had requested more time to better understand the comprehensive wishes of the neighborhood and to have a more thorough discussion among the neighbors. Ms. Blackburn asked that the Council delay action on the NCD to allow them that time.
Mayor Foy asked if Ms. Blackburn was suggesting that the Council take no action on this but wait until the neighborhood came back to the Town. Ms. Blackburn said they wanted more time to work on this, and believed that in a few months they would have a better understanding of all issues and opinions.
Marc LaBranche said he believed it would be helpful for the neighborhood to have some kind of continuing contact with the Town, to lend credibility to their efforts and the process followed. He agreed that action on this should be delayed until further work and understanding took place.
Mayor Foy said he believed they should allow the neighborhood to continue to work on this and ask the Manager to assign a staff person to keep the Council informed.
Council Member Greene agreed, stating that the Planning Board should be kept in the loop. She said when this issue came back to the Council it should come from the Planning Board.
Council Member Ward said it would be helpful to the process to place a timeframe on it so there was not an open-ended drain on resources and to encourage the neighbors to continue to work on the issues.
Mayor Foy suggested having this issue come back on September 27 for an update.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the persons who had spoken tonight were people who supported the NCD, and no one who spoke was opposed to the NCD. He said that was disappointing, and hoped that it did not mean they would not participate in the process. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed that reasonable people could come to an agreement and that this would occur by the end of September.
COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THAT THE MANAGER ASSIGNS STAFF TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 27. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Foy said the Council should recognize that the Town had now successfully completed four NCDs, with Coker Hills being the exception. He said that had been accomplished in an amazingly short time, thanks to the hard work of the staff and the flexibility they had employed. Mayor Foy said it had been an exhausting job for the staff and he commended them on their work and their success.
Item 11 – Traffic Calming Plan for Dogwood Acres Drive at the
Proposed Southern Community Park
Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster stated that when the Council approved the Special Use Permit for the Southern Community Park, it was with the condition that staff bring back a traffic calming plan for Dogwood Acres Drive for Council consideration and approval. He said at the same time the original traffic calming plan was brought forward in January the Council received a petition requesting that a number of issues related to parking and safety on Dogwood Acres Drive be considered. Mr. Webster said that the Council had delayed action and requested that advisory boards consider the traffic calming plan.
Mr. Webster stated that on April 24 the Council adopted a new phasing plan that would reduce the size of the Dogwood Acres Drive parking lot from 122 spaces to 40 spaces, with 110 spaces to be constructed in the northeast corner of the park site. He noted that no other parking spaces were to be constructed in the first phase.
Mr. Webster said a few minor changes had been made to the draft plan the Council had seen in January, with all the elements essentially the same. He said the advisory boards who had reviewed the plan agreed that the plan was acceptable.
Council Member Harrison asked if Mr. Webster had read the email from the citizen who contended that placing the parking in that area would have an impact on the Market Street area of Southern Village. Mr. Webster said yes. Council Member Harrison said that point of view did not match up with what he understood about the entrances to the park. Mr. Webster said what that person was suggesting was that if the Town did not build the Dogwood Acres Drive parking lot that the money be used to extend the entrance drive all the way to 15-501 to cause less of an impact on Southern Village. He said it was true because traffic would not be entering Market Street to get to the parking lot. Mr. Webster said they did not have the funds to do that.
Council Member Harrison asked if the PPC had considered that. Mr. Webster said yes, it had been discussed that as well as other options.
Mayor pro tem Strom said that element remained part of the Special Use Permit, stating there was discussion in the PPC about a future County bond to provide future components to the Southern Community Park.
Council Member Harrison stated that would mean that it would be allowed, but the Town could not pay for it. Mayor pro tem Strom said that was correct.
Council Member Ward said there was a raised speed table directly off 15-501
followed by the table at one of the mouths of the parking lot and another just
west of the exist, then another to the far west. Mr. Webster said that was
correct, noting there were two pedestrian crossings on either end of the
parking lot, and the farthest western crossing was located at an existing loop
trail. Council Member Ward said it seemed unnecessary, and asked why not add
that traffic to the crossing point just west of the parking lot’s western
entrance. Mr. Webster said you could do that, noting that a variety of options
had been discussed. He said the park plan was an attempt to preserve the
entire western end of the park with its existing natural surface trails. Mr.
Webster said if the Town did not have the crossing it would force the users of
that natural trail system into the paved trail system.
Council Member Ward asked how much a raised traffic table would cost. Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli stated it was around $7,000 to $8,000, noting it was a combination of concrete and asphalt. Mr. Webster added that even if the pedestrian crossing was not placed there they would still want the speed table to slow traffic.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-9a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-9b. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE O-8. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 12 – Approval of Traffic Calming Measures on Several Streets
in Neighborhoods Adjacent to the University Campus
Mr. Neppalli stated that the University was required to develop and construct traffic calming measures in neighborhoods adjacent to the University campus as part of the approved guidelines for the OI-4 Transportation Impact Analysis. He said the memorandum contained a resolution and an ordinance that authorized the installation of traffic calming measures on several Town streets, both of which the Manager recommended.
Mr. Neppalli noted a small correction in both the resolution and the ordinance under consideration. He said in the resolution, Item 5 should be corrected to say Ransom Street/West University Drive, and the ordinance should have the same correction.
Elaine Barney stated her support for Ordinance A for traffic calming measures on several streets. She said she had heard over the past few weeks nothing but positive feedback about the plan from her neighbors. Ms. Barney thanked Mr. Neppalli and the University staff for their excellent work during this process.
Baird Grimson, President of the Westside Neighborhood Association, said the neighbors, the Town and the University had worked well together during this process. He said the University had offered to pay for brick imprint on the speed tables in his neighborhood, but noted brick imprints would carry a higher maintenance cost. Mr. Grimson said since the agreement was that the University would pay for the speed tables and the Town would maintain them, he asked that the Town accept that higher maintenance cost and allow the brick imprints to be put in.
Mr. Grimson said he supported approval of the traffic calming plan and urged the Council to adopt it.
Mr. Neppalli clarified that Mr. Grimson was asking that the Council approve the brick imprints on the speed tables in the historic district and accept the higher maintenance costs.
Mr. Horton said if the Council authorized the brick imprints in this instance it must be prepared to approve them all over Town, and the resulting maintenance costs would be substantial.
Mayor Foy said the University had agreed to pay for the initial installation of the imprints. Mr. Horton said they tend to wear out quickly. Mr. Neppalli said the expected life of such imprints was four to five years, at which time they would have to be replaced.
Mayor Foy said if residents requested that they be installed elsewhere in Town, the Town could require that the residents pay for the installation. If they refused, he said, the Town could install the typical speed table. Mr. Horton said that was correct. Mayor Foy asked if the neighborhood had considered that issue. Mr. Neppalli said he was not aware of that. Mr. Horton said he believed it was important that the Council clarify that brick imprints would not be maintained unless the neighborhood agreed to pay for it, consistent with the policy used in other neighborhoods.
Mayor Foy suggested including in the resolution instructions that staff negotiate with the University and the neighbors regarding the brick imprints, and that the Town would not agree to do anything that was inconsistent with its current policy.
Mr. Grimson said his neighborhood formed the major portion of the Cameron/McCauley Historic District, and they had worked hard to maintain and improve the area for future generations. He said when the Town considered this in the future they should keep in mind that this was a registered historic district and therefore not the same as other neighborhoods in Town.
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-10, AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE REVISION TO #5 TO INSERT “WEST” IN FRONT OF “UNIVERSITY DRIVE,” TO INCLUDE INSTRUCTION TO STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE IMPRINTS, AND THAT THE TOWN NOT DO ANYTHING INCONSISTENT WITH POLICY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCES O-9a AND O-9b, AMENDED TO INSERT THE WORD “WEST” IN FRONT OF “UNIVERSITY DRIVE” IN O-9a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 13 – Acceptance and Referral of the Chapel Hill Public Arts Contextual Plan
Janet Kagan, Chair of the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission Contextual Plan Steering Committee, provided an overview of the Plan. She said that Gail Goldman, a public art consultant, was asked to guide the planning process and develop recommendations for inclusion of public art in Chapel Hill.
Gail Goldman provided an overview of the goals and objectives of the plan. She said to her knowledge Chapel Hill was the only municipality taking a proactive, comprehensive approach to embedding public art into the community’s fundamental urban design and processes. Ms. Goldman stated that the Contextual Plan recognized that public art was a vital component of the community, and recognized the necessity of maintaining visibility and engagement between the community and the objectives and priorities of public art.
Ms. Goldman provided a PowerPoint display of photos that were examples of public art integrated into infrastructure and public services. She called the Council’s attention to the Map provided for tonight’s meeting that showed locations and intersections where public art might provide a warm welcome. She suggested that the Council consider increasing the contribution to public art from one percent to two percent to provide more opportunities for public art and for project administration. Ms. Goldman briefly described other recommendations in the Plan.
Ms. Goldman said the Contextual Plan redefined the relationship of art to urban space as an integral part of both the built and natural environment, and most importantly continued Chapel Hill’s tradition of innovation and leadership and sets the stage for the creation of public places with distinction.
Jeffrey York, director of public arts and community design for the North Carolina Arts Council, spoke in support of the draft Contextual Plan. He said studies had shown that public art attracted businesses, tourists and residents. Mr. York said Chapel Hill’s public arts program was only one of three in North Carolina, and the only municipal percent for art program for a community of its size in the entire southeastern United States.
Mr. York said the Contextual Plan was setting a precedent in that it recognized and sought to creatively impact the synergy among existing County and Town priorities, capital projects, and future private developments. He said this proposed plan would embed the creative thinking of artists into the goals of Town Council and citizens. Mr. York said the NC Arts Council applauded Chapel Hill for its forethought.
Lynne Kane commented on how much she enjoyed public art through the Town and termed it a wonderful program. She stated the benches placed in the downtown were hot in the summer and cold in the winter and not very comfortable. Ms. Kane asked when benches were again considered as public art projects that attention be paid to year-round comfort of the users.
Scott Radway, a member of the Community Design Commission, said he had the pleasure of working on this Plan. He said he was excited about the concept of the extension into the private side rather than just the public side, as well as the exciting possibilities that would create. Mr. Radway provided a description of several projects he had been involved in where they had tried to create just the types of neighborhood art that was included in this Plan, as well as places where private art could still be integrated.
Council Member Greene said she was a member of the Steering Committee, and it was exciting to imagine how the Town might make its vision into a reality.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed some extraordinary things were coming in the near future, and he was excited about how to take past experience and move forward by incorporating that into the Town’s own developments, such as on its parking lot projects. He said Chapel Hill’s public art program had grown into a program that was unique to the country, and as they referred this to their advisory boards he hoped they would consider that as well as how they could take this plan and make it real, and to help them understand the funding mechanism and what they can obtain from their private development partners.
Council Member Kleinschmidt thanked Ms. Goldman for her help, noting this was the most exciting project he had worked on during his tenure on the Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Reverend Justin Coleman, representing the Continuing Concerns Committee, stated that after the renaming of Airport Road to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, the Committee had realized that their mission was too broad. He said they had then set about to craft a statement of mission that would clarify their work so that their efforts might be more fruitful and so that members of the community who inquire about the Committee would have a clearer understanding of the Committee’s purpose and task.
Reverend Coleman said what resulted was the draft Continuing Concerns Committee Mission Statement included with tonight’s materials. He stated that the Committee recommended and requested that the Council recharge the Committee in a way that focused on the substantive issues of race, economics, social justice, and power, in addition to the exciting ceremonial and symbolic goals.
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF THE COMMITTEE’S MISSION STATEMENT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
André Wesson, also a member of the Committee, said he looked forward to the work the Committee would do and thanked the Council for the opportunity.
Item 15 – Library Naming Rights Policy
Council Member Greene said what had resulted from their latest discussion was a new clarity on what the request was actually for, which was the Library Foundation seeking to raise funds for books and other materials. She said what the Foundation wanted was to have naming rights within the building. Council Member Greene said it was clear to them that moveable objects within the building, such as books, was probably not appropriate for naming rights.
Council Member Greene said the Naming Committee had provided an array of possibilities for the Council to consider for naming rights:
Council Member Greene said one thing the Naming Committee had not discussed, of which she was reminded by Council Member Harrison, was the Town might consider an option that included the names of private individuals as well as non-profit organizations. She said, for example, the Friends of the Library was a non-profit organization that purchased books for the Library.
Council Member Greene noted that the recommendation regarding name plates was for the lobby of the Library only, and did not go further than that. She said that was a result of their discussion and the realization that the funds raised were for the purpose of purchasing books and other materials.
Gene Pease, President of the Library Foundation, said the Foundation had been working on a five- or six-year campaign to raise as much money as possible, and that the Town because of budget issues would not be able to contribute much towards that, so they were kicking off a $2.5 million fundraising campaign. Mr. Pease said it was also assumed that in order to raise those funds, some kind of naming rights program would be necessary.
Mr. Pease said they did not know how successful they would be, noting the large number of non-profits in the community who competed for the same dollars. He said they had put a plan in place, and tonight they were wondering if they should slow down the naming rights discussion and see how the Foundation succeeded in the first stage of the fundraising campaign. Mr. Pease said he did not think they needed to tackle this issue so aggressively, and asked that it be deferred.
Council Member Ward said if the Council took no action it would allow them to gather some additional expertise from an experienced library architectural team that would be a resource for the Town to draw ideas from based on their experience. He said it was not uncommon for such a team to assist in that.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Council defer consideration on this until it became necessary. The Council agreed by consensus.
Item 16 – Naming of the Old Post Office Plaza
Council Member Greene stated that the Naming Committee recommended naming the plaza itself for an ideal or value, and further recommended that plaques could then be displayed in that space honoring Joe and Lucy Straley and Charlotte Adams. She said the Committee was proposing that the plaza be named Peace Plaza or Peace and Justice Plaza.
Council Member Greene said although the Committee stated no preference between the two options, she personally preferred the Peace and Justice Plaza. She said the people being honored there were and would be people who had staged various types of protests for social justice.
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-12, AMENDED TO NAME THE PLAZA THE PEACE AND JUSTICE PLAZA, AND TO DESIGNATE JOE AND LUCY STRALEY AND CHARLOTTE ADAMS AS THE FIRST NAMES TO BE HONORED BY A PLAQUE ON THE PLAZA.
Council Member Ward said he supported this effort, but believed that the Plaza name should be Justice and Peace Plaza, noting that in his mind you had to have justice before you had peace.
Council Member Greene said that language had a rhythm, and the phrase peace and justice had a rhythm that tripped off the tongue more easily than justice and peace. She said she did not believe anyone would ever call it the Justice and Peace Plaza. Council Member Ward agreed.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE DESIGN OF THE MARKER TO THE PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION AND HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR REVIEW, WITH A REPORT DUE BACK TO THE COUNCIL IN OCTOBER.
Council Member Ward suggested having a member of staff involved in that, such as someone from Public Works who would be involved in the mounting of the plaques, in order to gain a perspective of what that would take. Mr. Horton said he would do so.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 17 – Appointments
17a. Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership.
The Council deferred appointments to June 26 by consensus.
17b. Greenways Commission.
The Council appointed Mary Ann Freedman, Gary Galloway, Reed Heugerich, and Glenn Parks to the Greenways Commission.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Greenways Commission |
Foy |
Easthom |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Thorpe |
Ward |
TOTAL |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vote For 4 Applicants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
*Cory Brooks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
||
|
June Dunnick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
2 |
||
|
Mary Ann Freedman |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
||
|
Gary Galloway |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Reed Huegerich |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
||
|
Kathryn James |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn Parks |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
||
|
*Stewart Solomon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
||
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
17c. Human Services Advisory Board.
The Council appointed Lisa Armstrong and Ernest Roberts to the Human Services Advisory Board.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Human Services Advisory Board |
Foy |
Easthom |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Thorpe |
Ward |
TOTAL |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vote For 3 Applicants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lisa Armstrong |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Kim Hoppin |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
3 |
||
|
Ernest Roberts |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
17d. Orange County Animal Services Advisory Board.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-13 TO APPOINT CAROLYN GREENE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
17e. Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Council appointed Elizabeth Anderson, Cory Brooks, Eugene Farrar, Joan Guilkey, Faith Nager, and Andre Wesson to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
|
Parks and Recreation Commission |
Foy |
Easthom |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Thorpe |
Ward |
TOTAL |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vote For 6 Applicants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
*Cory Brooks |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Eugene Farrar |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Joan Guilkey |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Charles Hochman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Faith Nager |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
||
|
Bryn Smith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
||
|
*Stuart Solomon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kendra Van Pelt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
||
|
André Wesson |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Raymond Oi-Tung Wong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Other; please list: Betsey Anderson |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
||
|
||||||||||||
17f. Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board.
The Council appointed Tony Bayless, Philip Berke, Donald Brewer, Philip Post, and Karen Vanderwall to the Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board.
|
Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board |
Foy |
Easthom |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Thorpe |
Ward |
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vote for 3 Residential Property Owner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Band |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phillip Berke |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
|
|
Christine Berndt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
|
|
Donald Brewer |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
|
|
Dale Coker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
|
|
Harlan Cornell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Foster |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Daye Jones, Jr. (also Business Employee or Owner) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
|
|
Karen Vanderwall |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vote for 2 Business Employees or Owners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Bayless |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
8 |
|
|
Jamie Gollings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Daye Jones, Jr. (also Residential Property Owner) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
1 |
|
|
Philip Post |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17g. Streetscape Council Committee.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-14 TO APPOINT MAYOR FOY, MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HILL AND EASTHOM TO THE STREETSCAPE COUNCIL COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item #4c Response to Letter from Orange County regarding Council Appointment to the Economic Development Commission.
By consensus, the Council deferred appointments to the Economic Development Commission to June 26.
Item 18 – Petitions
18a. Council Member Easthom regarding Establishment of a Committee to Consider Development of Wireless Communication Network.
Council Member Easthom petitioned the Council to establish a special committee to consider development of a wireless communication network. She said this was a reasonable next step in exploring the potential value of such systems and optional means of developing such a system in Chapel Hill and perhaps adjoining areas. Council Member Easthom said she had listed a number of organizations that might be represented on such a committee, noting that the Council might want to include a representative from UNC student government as well as EmPOWERment on that list.
Council Member Easthom asked how they would include individuals who might be interested in serving. Mr. Horton said they had included an additional Be It Further Resolved paragraph in the draft resolution to solicit additional applications.
Mayor Foy asked if she wanted the resolution adopted tonight. Council Member Easthom said that would require that two Council member be appointed tonight.
Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested deferring consideration of the resolution until June 26.
Mayor pro tem Strom said it might be useful if part of the charge for this committee suggested an interim report come back to the Council, so that the Council could provide some feedback during the process.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed the first thing this committee should do was to establish a timeline of orderly tasks to be met to help guide the Council to where they wanted to go.
Council Member Easthom noted that January 22, 2007 had been suggested as the completion date for the committee’s work. Council Member Kleinschmidt said with the November and December holidays, that timeframe may be too tight.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION ON JUNE 26. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
18b. Council Member Kleinschmidt regarding the Giving Kiosk.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had some concerns about the Giving Kiosk and how they had gotten to this point, noting the Council had deferred this issue to June 26. He said some members of the Public Arts Commission had expressed concern about the process, such as the scope of the Request for Proposals and questions about the cost. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was glad it had been deferred because he did not believe the Council was prepared to vote regarding the placement of something that would be highly visible and public in the 100 block of Franklin Street.
Unfortunately, Council Member Kleinschmidt said, he did not believe he would be prepared to vote on this issue on June 26 either. He said rather than waiting until June 26 to say that, he wanted to note that the Public Arts Commission was preparing a proposal to bring to the Council to allow them to consider works such as this. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the Public Arts Commission could provide guidance to the Council when such proposals as the Giving Kiosk were made. He said he did not believe that the Council had the tools at this time to conduct a fair assessment of such a proposal, and the only way he knew to get the tools was to allow the Public Arts Commission to establish a protocol for consideration of these kinds of issues and advise the Council.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wanted to defer discussion on the Giving Kiosk until the Public Arts Commission had discussed and drafted a protocol for the Council’s consideration.
Council Member Greene said she was joining Council Member Kleinschmidt in this petition, and wanted to add the context of the master plan draft where they were on the verge of thinking about art holistically in Chapel Hill. She said it seemed that this was the kind of project that the Public Arts Commission and the process was designed for, since they were moving out beyond public art in public spaces.
Council Member Greene said this was private art that was being funded by private money, yet would be placed in the very public 100 block of East Franklin Street. She said the Public Arts Commission was on the cusp of designing a plan specifically for this type of project that involved private money but in a public place.
Kate Flory, representing the Public Arts Commission, said she had talked with Council Members Kleinschmidt and Greene regarding this. She said the timing was perfect in that the Commission had received many requests in the past year for this type of art. Ms. Flory said the Commission was now discussing procedures for that so that something would be in place that would address those types of requests.
Ms. Flory said the Commission was designing a six-step process, and she had suggested to the two Council members that the Council might choose to wait until the Commission had that process in place before proceeding with this type of public art. She said the process would contain benchmarks where the Commission would report back to the Council throughout the process.
Liz Parham, representing the Downtown Partnership, which had brought forth the original request for the Giving Kiosk, said she was concerned about the delay. She said they had planned to have the Kiosk installed around the beginning of school, at the end of August or early September, to coincide with the educational campaign geared specifically towards students. Ms. Parham said waiting for the Arts Commission to develop a policy could delay their project six months or longer.
Ms. Parham said their other concern was the expenses already incurred on the project to get the design to this phase, and they were currently working with the artist on the next phase to bring that back to the Council on June 26.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said whether the Council considered this tonight or several weeks from now, without substantive changes he would not be able to support the project, adding the kiosk looked like a “gum catcher.” He said it was unfortunate that some costs had already been incurred, but he believed that they were going down a road that could become even more costly to this public space. Council Member Kleinschmidt said if the Council moved forward on this now they would not be following the public art vision that they have endorsed.
Council Member Greene asked Ms. Flory how far away the Commission was in finalizing its six-step process. Ms. Flory said they would meet in a few days and at that meeting would set up a subcommittee to finalize the draft process. She said they did not meet in July so the Commission would not act on it until their August 9 meeting. Ms. Flory said after that, it would be a matter of putting together a subcommittee to work on the Giving Kiosk project, so it may be September or October before they would come back to the Council.
Mayor Foy asked if this project had ever been brought before the Commission. Ms. Flory said she had spoken to Ms. Parham several months ago, and had provided her with a sample Request for Qualifications to follow. She said she had spoken to the Commission regarding this project, and the Commission had provided some feedback through her back to Ms. Parham, primarily about the budget.
Mayor Foy asked Ms. Flory to provide the Council with a brief outline of the six-step process. Ms. Flory said the process included how a project would be referred to the Arts Commission, the different aspects they would consider to decide if it was or was not a good project, the problems or areas of concern that should be considered more closely, and any follow-up procedures required. Ms. Flory said their follow-up would closely resemble what they already do for the Percent for Art program. She said the process would contain steps where the project would frequently come back before the Council.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the Arts Commission was also in a position to advise the Council on the realistic nature of a proposed budget, whether or not the artist selection process was done in a manner that provided for the largest opportunities for people to participate, and to help the Council identify appropriate places for public art. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he thought the location was a great place for public art, but he had no faith in the process used up to now. He said he could not support this or any similar project until a process was in place to provide the Council with as much information as possible.
Council Member Greene said she appreciated the concerns expressed by Ms. Parham, but as a community they would be doing themselves a disservice if they did not take advantage of the very process that the Council had worked hard on over the last few years to bring them to the level where they have a commission that was ready and willing to engage in conversations about how to construct a process to create a piece of privately-funded public art.
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED THAT THE GIVING KIOSK BE PLACED FIRST IN LINE IN THE PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION’S FORTHCOMING PROCESS FOR SHEPHERDING THROUGH PRIVATELY-FUNDED WORKS OF PUBLIC ART. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT.
Mayor Foy said he would not support that motion, because it was somewhat punitive toward the Downtown Partnership at this point. He said the Partnership had not done anything wrong to get to this point in the process, and he was not confident that making them go through a new process would get the Town to a different place. Mayor Foy said the Town should have been clearer about what it wanted.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed he had been very clear when this was brought to the Council about the process that was used. He said he had left their last discussion on this believing that a process that was similar to the Public Arts process was used to identify this artist and this design. Council Member Kleinschmidt said perhaps his questions at that meeting were not clear enough, but he had since learned that no such process had been used, and that the budget for this project was way off the mark.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the Council’s interest in that space for potential public art was much more valuable than what had already been expended on this project. He said this was all about making a prudent decision.
Council Member Ward said he did not feel he had enough facts to make a decision, but did not want this to be considered as penalizing the Downtown Partnership. He said he wanted to have a project that worked in many different ways, and was not confident that would be the outcome. Council Member Ward said he was inclined to support the motion to delay, but wanted to expedite the process in terms of encouraging the Arts Commission to move forward on this as quickly as possible to act on this request and others in the future.
Council Member Ward said he also wanted more information on the finances so that they were not inappropriately asking the Downtown Partnership to shoulder costs that it could not bear.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-2, WITH MAYOR FOY AND COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON VOTING NAY.
18c. Council Member Greene regarding new policies and operational changes recently enacted within the UNC Health Care system.
Council Member Greene distributed a letter that had been sent to her from Tim Hinninger, a retired UNC Professor who lives at Carol Woods. She noted the letter was also signed by Florence Soltys and John Hammond, adding that Dr. Hammond was also a retired UNC Professor. She said she was passing this on to the Council, stating she intended to sign this petition because it was thoughtful and made much sense.
Council Member Greene said the petition basically stated that the UNC Health Care System was not fulfilling its mission of being operated for the people of North Carolina in terms of the ways fees worked and the way health insurance policies were dealt with. She said she was passing this on to the Council to consider and reflect on and take action if they wish.
Council Member Harrison commented that at the recent County Democratic Conventions a resolution similar to this was passed by both Durham and Orange Counties, so it was a growing theme.
THE COUNCIL RECEIVED THE PETITION BY CONSENSUS.
Item 19 – Discussion of Consent Agenda Items: None.
Item 20 – Request for Closed Session
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER PERSONNEL MATTERS RELATED TO THE MANAGER SEARCH PURSUANT TO THE APPROPRIATE NC GENERAL STATUTES. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m.