Loading...
10/16/2001 e CITY OF MONROE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 300 W. Crowell Street, Monroe, NC 28112 October 16, 2001 - 6:30 p.m. AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of October 2,2001 Minutes of Board of Adjustment Meetings of June 14, June 28, and August 23, 2001 Minutes of Public Safety Committee Meeting of October 3, 2001 e 2. Budget Amendments A. Budget Amendment for Youth Program Donation - OMNOV A Solutions B. Budget Amendment and Acceptance of Bicyde Helmet Grant C. Budget Amendment for Public Safety Equipment e . e 3. Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements A. Budget Ordinance Amendment B. Award of Bid 4. Notification of Award of Bid - Street Flusher 5. Monroe Housing Authority Contract 6. Summary of Contracts Awarded Pursuant to 0-2001-17 and Change Orders Executed Pursuant to R-2000-76 REGULAR AGENDA 7. Public Hearings A. Project # 01-100-00014 - Conditional Use Permit Request - New Walter Bickett Elementary School- Lancaster Avenue between Kingswood and Oak Hill Drive - 24.89 Acres - Union County Public Schools - Tax ill # 09-279-043 & 044 B. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant C. Consideration of Closing an Unopened Street offlcemorlee Street 8. Action from Public Hearings A. Project # 01-100-00014 - Proposed Conditional Use Permit - New Walter Bickett Elementary School- Lancaster Avenue Between Kingswood and Oak Hill Drive - 24.89 Acres - Union County Public Schools - Tax ill # 09-279-043 & 044 B. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant C. Resolution - Consideration of Closing an Unopened Street off Icemorlee Street 46 e e e e e 9. Project # 01-100-00011 - Conditional Use Permit Request - Accessory Structure With a Home Occupation - 936 Secrest Hill Drive - .923 acres - James Marlow - Tax ID# 09- 216-014 10. An Ordinance to Amend the Code of Ordinances - Chapter 38: Wrecker Service 11. Amendments to Fire Tower Training Agreement 12. Other Business A. Martha Charo Appeal B. Monroe-Union County CDC Grant C. Appointments - Monroe Union County Historic Properties Commission D. Appointments - Firemen Relief Fund Board of Trustees E. Economic Development Commission F. Board of Adjustment G. Planning Board H. ABC Board 1. Proposed Landscaping Funds 13. Closed Session - Property Acquisition 14. Resolution to Open a Portion of Old Closed Session Minutes 15. Budget Amendment-Property Acquisition 16. Library Funds 10-16-01 47 e e e e e CITY OF MONROE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2001 - 6:30 p.m. MINUTES The City Council of the City of Monroe, North Carolina, met in Regular Session in the City Hall Council Chambers, 300 W. Crowell Street, Monroe, North Carolina, at 6:30 p.m. on October 16, 2001, with Mayor Judy L. Davis presiding. Present: Mayor Judy L. Davis, Mayor Pro Tern P. E. Bazemore, Council Members Phil Hargett, Lynn Keziah, Bobby G. Kilgore, Robert J. Smith, City Manager S. Douglas Spell, City Attorney John Milliken, and City Clerk Jeanne M. Deese. Absent: Council Member Billy A. Jordan Visitors: Dennis Deese, Gary Shelley, John H. Crowder, John Ashcraft, Phil Smith, Ed Davis, Michael Young, David Jones, Carolyn Jones, Bobby Haulk, Ray Payne, Vicki Payne, Deanna Griffin, Patrick Griffin, Chris Platé, Sharon Steele, Karen Fowler, Bill Cook, Leah Williams, Shay Carruth, Rena McGee-Helms, Marcia Bruschi, Beth Chorneau, James Moore, Steven Knotts, Lisa Austen, Kim Cooke, Rebekah Lingle, Vivian Lingle, Dennis Layton, Wanda Deese, Mary Lou Gamble, Maryann Deese, Margaret Furr, Mary Ann Sartain, Mary Anne Holt, Sally Cuffe, Ann Helms, Walt Gibson, Evelena Rohr, Kathy Bragg, Chris Bragg, Teresa Murphy, Alan Murphy, Joyce Ingold, John Tarleton, Katherine Armstrong, Lorraine Stacy, Kathryn Rupp, Smoky Mangum, Howard Dehner, Bonnie Whitley, Marshall Jennette, J. Wayne Mangum, John R. Maier, Doris Maier, Wilton Damon Jr., Rennie Damon, Larry Helms, Mark Eagle, Stephanie Eagle, Gene Jarrell, Gladys Jarrell, Randy Mullis, R. B. Mangum, Jerry Underwood, Russ Colbath, Houston Hawfield, Ana Allman, Marilyn Johnson, Davis Braswell, Lottie Baucom, Patricia Marsh, Roxanne Hudson, Sherri Barber, Judith Arrazo, Ron Vilas, Pam Rains, Troy Penny, La Vondra Edwards, Ron Fowler, Beth Rogers, Donnie Lawrence, Dean Arp, Andrew Wilson, Robert Fisher, Tripp Helms, Carolyn Lowder, Warren Gilmore, Chris Bragg, and others. Mayor Davis called the Regular City Council Meeting of October 16,2001 to order at 6:30 p.m. A quorum was present. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Davis reviewed the Consent Agenda and asked if any member of the Councilor the public would like to have any items moved from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda for 48 discussion. Written background infonnation was provided in advance in the Council Agenda Packets for each item on the Consent Agenda. No further discussion was held. One motion and e vote was taken, which included approval of all items on the Consent Agenda. Item No.1. Minutes of Re2ular City Council Meetin2 of October 2. 2001. Council Member Keziah moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of October 2, 2001. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: e Minutes of the Board of Adjustment Meetings of June 14, June 28, and August 23, 2001, and Minutes of the Public Safety Committee Meeting of October 3, 2001 were received as infonnation of Council. Item No.2. Bud2et Amendments. e A. Bud2et Amendment for Youth Pro2ram Donation - OMNOV A Solutions. Police Chief Haulk reported by memorandum that the Police Department has received a $750 donation from OMNOV A Solutions Foundation to be donated to the Youth Program. These funds will therefore be used for the D.A.R.E. Program and to buy promotional items to give away at various events throughout the City. Council Member Keziah moved to approve Budget Amendment BA-2001-18 to accept this donation and to appropriate the funds: BUDGET AMENDMENT BA-2001-18 1. Amendment necessary to designate and appropriate funds for a donation to the youth fund from OMNOV A Solutions Foundation. e General Fund: Revenues: Donations $750.00 Expenditures: Public Safety $750.00 ADOPTED this the 16th day of October, 2001. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: e 49 e e e e e AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: B. Bud2et Amendment and Acceptance of Bicvcle Helmet Grant. Police Chief Haulk advised by memorandum that the Police Department has received a $2000.00 grant from the Department of Transportation to purchase bicycle helmets. The Department of Transportation funds this grant to law enforcement agencies across the state to support the new bicycle helmet law. Citizens may request to attend a bicycle safety class conducted by the Police Department, and upon completion, participants will receive a bicycle helmet. The Police Department will announce this award and the infonnation about these classes by contacting the media. The officers in Community Police will oversee this project. This funding will allow the purchase of 286 bicycle helmets. Council Member Keziah moved to approve Budget Amendment BA-2001-17 to accept the grant and appropriate funds: BUDGET AMENDMENT BA-2001-17 1. Amendment necessary to designate and appropriate funds for a grant to purchase bicycle helmets from the Department Of Transportation. General Fund: Revenues: Restricted Intergovernmental $2,000.00 Expenditures: Public Safety $2,000.00 ADOPTED this the 16th day of October, 2001. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Co Bud2et Amendment for Public Safety Equipment. Fire Chief Fowler reported by memorandum that staff has identified a need to purchase additional personal protective equipment for fire and police personnel that was not budgeted as part of this year's fiscal budget. The total cost of the additional equipment is $27,750, of which $12,000 will be utilized by the Fire Department and $15,750 will be utilized by the Police Department. 50 e e e e e Council Member Keziah moved to approve Budget Amendment BA-2001-19 to transfer and appropriate funds rrom the General Fund fund balance to the Public Safety Expenditures account: BUDGET AMENDMENT BA-2001-19 1. Amendment necessary to appropriate funds from General Fund - Fund Balance to purchase Public Safety Equipment: From: General Fund - Fund Balance $ 27,750.00 To: Public Safety Expenditures $ 27,750.00 ADOPTED this the 16th day of October, 2001. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.3. Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements. Water Resources Director Colbath advised by memorandum that in March, 2001, City Council approved the delay of the planned City of Monroe Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion. As a result, several important maintenance repairs were needed to extend the life of the existing plant. City staff, in conjunction with Hazen and Sawyer engineers, prepared contract documents to address these needs. The current improvement project includes the replacement of four clarifier mechanisms, roof and HV AC repairs, and the re-Iaying of a 48 inch filter effluent line. The engineer's construction cost estimate for these improvements was $755,000. The contract stipulates a contract time of 365 calendar days. Formal bids were received rrom licensed contractors for the installation of said Wastewater Plant improvements and were reviewed for proper form and responsiveness. The bid results were as follows: CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BASE BID ADDITIVE BID TOTAL Brown Utility Co. 15844 $619,000 $60,000 $679,000 Terry & Terry Contractors 47068 $688,900 $92,000 $780,900 Dellinger, Inc. 5992 $703,790 $92,132 $795,922 Crowder Construction 2104 $777,700 $44,000 $821,700 Buckeye Construction 23096 $817,000 $100,000 $917,000 Crain and Denbo 1595 $939,100 $76,000 $1,015,100 State Utility Contractor 17793 $985,000 $120,000 $1,105,000 51 e e e e e Water Resources Director Colbath noted that the low bidder, Brown Utility Company, failed to acknowledge the addenda and equipment suppliers on their bid proposal. However, staff has received a notarized statement from Brown Utility Company stating that they were aware of the addenda and included all items in their bid price. Additionally, the contract documents specifically gave the City the right to "waive any minor defect or infonnalities at its discretion" related to the bid proposals. The contract documents also made the addenda a binding part of the contract whether acknowledged by a bidder or not. Accordingly, staff and the City Attorney have reviewed all factors and considered these issues to be "minor" defects of Brown Utility Company's proposal. Funding for this project includes $400,000 appropriated in previous years' annual budgets and $300,000 in this year's approved budget. Additionally, there is $150,000 in the fiscal year 2003 Capital Improvement Plan that staff is recommending to be funded now. This will allow achieving economy related to contractor mobilization by completing all clarifier replacements with this contract. Through their contractual obligations, Union County will be paying for 21.6% of the total project cost. Staff recommended that Council award the contract for Wastewater Treatment Plant improvements to Brown Utility Company in the amount of $679,000. Staff further recommended that Council authorize a 10percent contingency allowance for this project and authorize City Manager Spell to make contract changes up to this amount if needed. A. Bud2et Ordinance Amendment. Council Member Keziah moved to adopt Budget Ordinance BO-2001-12: CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET ORDINANCE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS BO-2001-12 WHEREAS, the Monroe City Council approved a delay of the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion in March, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide reliable, quality wastewater service to the citizens of Monroe; WHEREAS, certain repairs and improvements are needed at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Monroe establishes a capital project entitled "Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements" and appropriates the following revenues and expenses: Revenue: Transfer From Water and Sewer Fund Transfer From Water & Sewer Capital Reserve Fund $550,000 300,000 Expense: Project Costs $850,000 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an amendment to the Water and Sewer Fund budget for FY 2001-2002 is approved to appropriate fund balance to transfer $150,000 to the Wastewater Treatment Plant 52 e e e e e Improvement Capital Project Fund for the amount included in the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2002- 2003 and the reclassification as Transfer to Capital Project Funds of $150,000 included in FY 2001-2002 Annual Budget as Capital Outlay. ADOPTED this the 16th day of October, 2001. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: B. Award of Bid. Council Member Keziah moved to award the contract for Wastewater Treatment Plant improvements to Brown Utility Company in the amount of $679,000. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.4. Notification of Award of Bid - Street Flusher. Administrative Services Manager Mike Keziah advised by memorandum that on October 1, 2001, staff received bids for a street flusher truck for the Water Resources Department - Construction Division. Pursuant to City of Monroe Ordinance 0-1999-11, the Purchasing Division infonned Council of the bid tabulations as follows: COST $83,669.00 $76,816.00 No Bid DELIVERY 120 da s 90 da s Administrative Services Manager Mike Keziah advised that there are sufficient funds budgeted for this item. Council Member Keziah moved to award the bid to Hydroforce, Inc. for the sum of $76,816.00 Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.5. Monroe Housin2 Authority Contract. Police Chief Haulk reported by memorandum that this contract is a renewal of the program that has been in place for several years. It allows the Monroe Housing Authority to pay from a Federal Drug Grant for a full-time Police Officer that is primarily responsible for policing Housing property in the City of Monroe. 53 e e e e e This year, the contract allows for the City to be paid $23,000 in monthly installments from October 1,2001 until September 30,2002. Council Member Keziah moved to approve the contract agreement. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.6. Summary of Contracts Awarded Pursuant to 0-2001-17 and Chan2e Orders Executed Pursuant to R-2000;. 76. City Manager Spell infonned City Council by memorandum of the award of contracts pursuant to Ordinance 0-2001-17: Date Name Purpose Amount 10-2-01 Compact II, Inc. To develop a web site for Economic Development $4,975* Dept. 10-01-01 Hobbs Upchurch & To develop a Sewer Master Plan for future $94,720 Associates, Inc. infrastructure improvements in the City's sanitary sewer svstem * Approved by Department Director No Change Orders have been approved recently under authority of R-2000-76. Summary of contracts and change orders were received as infonnation of Council only and no action was required. REGULAR AGENDA Item No.7. Public Hearin2s. . A. Proiect # 01-100-00014 - Conditional Use Permit Request - New Walter Bickett Elementary School - Lancaster Avenue between Kin2swood and Oak Hill Drive - 24.89 Acres - Union County Public Schools - Tax ID # 09-279-043 & 044. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised quasi-judicial public hearing and swore in the following individuals who planned to give testimony: Wayne Herron, Jim Loyd, David Fencl, David Lee, David Burnett, Chris Bragg, Roger Leeson, Jerry Thomas, Rob Morrison, Eddie MacEldowney and others. Planning Director Herron advised Council that this Conditional Use Pennit request was made by Union County Public Schools to construct a new 80,785-square foot elementary school to be built on Lancaster Avenue between Kingswood Drive and Oak Hill Drive. For many years, the City of Monroe Zoning Ordinance has allowed schools as pennitted uses within all zoning districts. In the year 2000, a text amendment was adopted by the City Council which changed schools from a pennitted use to a conditional use. This meant that schools were still allowed in all districts; however, in order to receive a Building Pennit, they must first go through a conditional use process where Council would evaluate the location and detennine what conditions need to be applied to allow that school to be built in that location and mitigate any 54 e e e e e negative factors that may exist on that site due to environmental conditions or compatibility with surrounding uses. Planning Director Herron reported that this item was presented to the City of Monroe Planning Board on August 8, 2001. After the staff presentation, Facilities Planner David Burnett, a representative of the Union County Public Schools Board, appeared before the Planning Board and requested relief from four areas: 1) drainage study (which the school system has provided to the City), 2) traffic study (which has been provided to the City), 3) number of parking spaces, and 4) on and off-site sidewalk improvements. Several concerns were discussed by both Board members and others present which included neighborhood compatibility, on, and off-site stormwater control, traffic impacts on Lancaster Avenue, and sidewalk and safety issues. A motion was made by the Board to deny this request. The motion failed 3 to 4. A second motion was made to approve this request with all staff recommended conditions. The motion passed 4 to 3. Planning Director Herron further noted that the City Council chose not to call for a public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit application on August 21,2001. The applicant was asked to provide drainage and traffic studies to the City of Monroe Engineering Department. Mr. David Fencl utilized a map to familiarize Council with the exact location of the proposed site. Planning Director Herron noted that the property is zoned R-20 and is located on Lancaster Avenue. The site is bounded by two established neighborhoods on Kingswood Drive and Oak Hill Drive. The site is also surrounded by Robin Drive to the south. In addition, there is a cemetery located on the far western side, and South Piedmont Community College and the Career Center are located across from the site on Lancaster Avenue. Planning Director Herron pointed to the zoned R-20 area to the west and the R-10 neighborhood areas to the east. Mr. Fencl identified the current site of Walter Bickett Elementary School and compared it to the proposed location for the new Walter Bickett Elementary School. Planning Director Herron briefed Council regarding the specific site plan. Planning Director Herron highlighted the purple areas on Lancaster Avenue that depicted all improvements noted in the Traffic Impact Study, including the turn lane and traffic taper. There is one driveway proposed to enter the site from Lancaster Avenue. As one enters the site it is bounded on the right by a soccer field. Further into the site there is a creek that crosses and splits the property. There is also a playground area, and the orange area indicated a trail to be used for crossing the creek from the school to the soccer field area. The yellow area depicted the parking area surrounding the school and the red areas indicated the new buildings for the new elementary school. The blue areas on the map indicated the creek and stormwater detention facility on the rear part of the property. Planning Director Herron reported the relevant Land Development Plan elements that pertained to this project. The petitioner's property is located in an urban residential area, which includes mature neighborhoods where most development is considered infill in nature. One of the primary objectives for the development in all residential areas is to protect the integrity of established residential neighborhoods. Other Land Development Plan strategies that were relevant to this case included the following: 55 e e e e e Strategy-l f Require all institutional uses in residential areas to be designed to mInImIZe adverse impacts on adjacent residential properties. Strategy-l p Prohibit the encroachment of incompatible, non-residential uses in established neighborhoods - Section 157.01(B)(16). Planning Director Herron advised that parking and buffer requirements could be met with the site as designed. The site does lie within the protected WS-IV watershed district. The project engineer has calculated an impervious coverage of 22 percent, which is under the 24 percent impervious coverage allowed by the low-density option of the City of Monroe Watershed Ordinance. An intermittent stream runs northwest through the property; and the petitioners have proposed to provide a 50-foot undisturbed buffer measured from both sides of the bank along this stream. The City of Monroe Water Resources Department requested several profile views of the locations of water and sewer mains in relation to storm drainage pipe crossings. The relocation of the existing sanitary sewer main near the south side of the property would require a permit from the NCDENR - Division of Water Quality. The petitioner must also submit plans, applicable fees and receive approval of the proposed relocation prior to beginning construction of the proposed sanitary sewer main. It was also recommended that the existing water main near the south side of the property be relocated. The site plan indicated a storm drainage structure in the parking lot that would be installed on top of the existing sanitary sewer main in this area. The Water Resources Department requested that the structure be removed to provide adequate space for maintenance of the sanitary sewer main. Planning Director Herron further stated that consultants for Union County Public Schools have submitted traffic and drainage studies; and the City of Monroe Engineering Department reviewed these reports. A copy of the Conditional Use Permit was included in the Council Agenda Packets; and the permit noted conditions and analysis from the Engineering and Planning Departments. Planning Director Herron reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic study was prepared by Kublins Transportation Group, Inc. of Greensboro, North Carolina. The study, prepared and sealed by John M. Davenport, registered engineer, was received from Union County Public Schools on September 18, 2001. (Exhibit A located in the Conditional Use Permit file.) On October 8, 2001, Engineering Director Loyd met with Ritchie Hearne of the North Carolina Department of Transportation to review the planned improvements in the field. A copy of Mr. Hearne's correspondence to Facilities Planner Burnett was included in the Agenda Packets. (Exhibit B located in the Conditional Use Permit file.) Mr. Hearne concurred with the findings of Kublins Transportation Group, Inc., which included relocating the proposed driveway further to the south, approximately 500 feet south of Oak Hill Drive. Mr. Hearne was in agreement that a minimum 225 feet of left turn lane storage and a right turn lane taper should be provided as requirements for access to Lancaster Avenue. If the drive cannot be relocated, the left turn lane should be extended north of Oak Hill Drive to provide 50 feet of storage for traffic turning left onto Oak Hill Drive. The field review also identified that a symmetrical widening of the roadway, six feet along each side of Lancaster Avenue, would impact the front yards of the residential homes across from the school site. To lessen the impact, Union County Public 56 e e e e e Schools and their consultant should consider using curb and gutter to facilitate the transition back to existing ground or consider completing an asymmetrical widening along the school property side (the east side) of Lancaster Avenue only. Union County Schools is also responsible for obtaining all right-of-way and construction easements required for the turn lane improvements. A copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis and transmittal letter by the applicant was included in the Agenda Packets. Recommendations by the Kublin Transportation Group, Inc. are found on page 11 ofthe study. The City of Monroe Engineering Department also would like Union County Public Schools to consider providing a traffic control officer during the school's peak hours. This is consistent with current practice at the existing school. Planning Director Herron further advised that the applicant should note that improvements required by the Conditional Use Permit must be completed prior to release of the Certificate of Occupancy, unless otherwise noted. The applicant has noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis that turn lane improvements will be provided only if funding exists. Staff has noted turn lane improvements as a proposed condition for approval, which would require their installation prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued. Planning Director Herron briefed Council regarding the findings of the Stormwater Study and Management Plan. The stormwater study was prepared by Davis, Martin, Powell & Associates, Inc. of High Point, North Carolina. The draft study, prepared and sealed by Resident Engineer Charles E. Powell, was received on September 11, 2001. The Engineering Department completed a review of the Stormwater Study and Management Plan with comments being returned on September 24, 2001. The consultant met with the Engineering Department on October 11,2001 to discuss the revised study and plan. Engineering Director Loyd provided further analysis of the Stormwater Study and Management Plan. Engineering Director Loyd advised that calculations for the revised Stormwater Study and Management Plan were submitted for review to the City's Engineering Department on October 15,2001, with plans being received on October 16,2001 for the proposed school site. (Exhibit C located in the Conditional Use Permit file.) The site is divided into two drainage areas, with runoff from the development being controlled by two dry detention ponds. A dry detention pond retains storm water on-site during a rainfall event and for some period after it stops raining. The rainfall is released at a controlled rate until all runoff is released downstream. At that point, it remains dry until the next rainfall. Engineering Director Loyd referred to the Site Development Plan and stated that Draining Area A is located near the rear of the site. This area discharges into an 18-inch pipe located at the rear of the property at 1108 Oak Hill Drive, which is the William Brevard Miller property. The 18-inch pipe then continues across the property to Oak Hill Drive before turning north to the 36-inch cross drain under Oak Hill Drive. The consultant proposes to construct a dry detention pond at the southeast corner of the school property to control the runoff from the school site and upstream properties. The release rate of the pond is to be controlled by an 18-inch pipe so that it equals the capacity of the existing downstream 18-inch storm drain pipe. Drainage Area B is located in the central portion of the school site. Storm water from the proposed dry detention pond at this location discharges into an open channel that continues onto the same 36-inch cross drain on Oak Hill Drive. The design at this location calls for a structure 57 e e e e e to be built at the inlet of the existing 36-inch pipe located underneath the school's private drive. This will control the runoff downstream and release the drainage at a controlled rate of flow. Engineering Director Loyd further reported that, due to the detention ponds, the two year pre- development combined flows of 100.5 cfs for both drainage areas is reduced by 37.7 cfs to 62.8 cfs. For the lO-year stonn, the pre-development flow of 138.6 cfs is reduced by 48.8 cfs to 91.8 cfs. This indicates that the construction of the detention ponds should improve drainage conditions downstream. The Engineering Department is presently working with the consultant to refine the stonn drainage study to allow for final approval. Prior to this approval, it is requested that the ability to construct the ponds serving Drainage Area A at the back of the property be addressed by the consultant of Union County Schools. The depth of the cut for the pond is approximately 23 feet, which means that rock will likely be encountered as they excavate for the pond area. Since rock may not be ripped, blasting would probably be required to achieve the construction. This is a concern due to the proximity ofthe adjacent residential properties. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore requested Engineering Director Loyd to restate the depth of the retention pond and asked what measures could be taken to assure that the construction could be done without blasting. Engineering Director Loyd replied, "One of the recommendations that we have is that before the petitioner is provided with the Building Pennit approval or starts grading the site, he must obtain final stonnwater approval. This would be contingent upon the petitioner proving that the detention pond can be constructed to the satisfaction of the City of Monroe Engineering Department. Borings, excavations or other similar means could be completed to detennine if the pond could be excavated without blasting. They would need to do borings or go out and start digging to see what kind of material they run into." Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore inquired if the proposed 23 feet of the pond was considered rather deep. Engineering Director Loyd responded that it was and that is the basis for the concern. Council Member Kilgore asked what the proximity of the pond would be to any particular residence. Engineer Director Loyd replied, "The contour lines grade right up to the property line. I'm not exactly sure how deep those lots are, but I would say 150 to 200 feet from residences." Council Member Kilgore stated that it was his understanding that there have been stonnwater runoff problems in the past at the proposed area. Council Member Kilgore therefore inquired if the stonnwater proposal would take care of this problem or add to it. Engineering Director Loyd responded, "This should improve the situation somewhat because it will reduce the pre- development flows. As designed, based on the engineer's calculations that have been provided, it will reduce the pre-development runoff flow." Attorney David Lee, representing a number of persons in opposition to the relocation, asked several questions of Engineering Director Loyd. Attorney Lee noted that he had two maps in his possession and requested verification that the map containing the above referenced deep detention pond was the one received on the day of the hearing, October 16,2001. Engineering Director Loyd confinned that the referenced map was the one received on October 16,2001, and advised that there should be a revision date on the drawing to further identify it for the record. Attorney Lee expressed his concern that the receipt date was October 16, 2001, and inquired if 58 e e e e e this date indicated the date when the City of Monroe received the drawing. Engineering Director Loyd affirmed the statement. Attorney Lee advised that prior to the day of the hearing, the plan reflected a different location where the deep, 23 foot dry detention pond would be located, which included the buffering of trees and other facility markings in the general area where the detention pond was now located. Attorney Lee stated, "The consequence of this is that you advised, after staff review, that the drainage study and proposal, as earlier submitted, would not accommodate the storm runoff from this site. Is that correct? You reviewed the coefficient of runoff factors, what you call the in- factor, that is the velocity with which the water would runoff, and determined that the study would not be sufficient in your opinion. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "The way the plan was designed, we did not feel the engineer on record could certify that he was not doing harm or damage to the properties downstream due to storm drainage design." Attorney Lee asked, "Where is downstream?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "The property along Oak Hill Drive and subsequent property as the water flows." Attorney Lee inquired, "As it goes downstream through what you have denoted as a 36-inch pipe, does it flow into another existing pond or area?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes, that is correct." Attorney Lee further asked, "Have you had some correspondence in the past with Ms. Lingle, who resides near and owns the property on which that pond is located?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "We have had some correspondence, but I do not recall it being in regards to the flooding. It was more in relation to sanitation ofthe pond." Attorney Lee further questioned Engineering Director Loyd by asking, "Does it remain the circumstance as reflected in your AprillO, 1997 letter (Exhibit D located in the Conditional Use Permit file.) to her that this pond receives the entire 185 acre basin drainage area?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes, there is a 185 acre basin identified in the letter." Attorney Lee inquired, "In addition to what already has been existing and was existing in 1997, there will be, by reason of making 22 percent of this 25 acres impervious, additional water flow off from that. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is being controlled by st9rmwater detention ponds." Attorney Lee advised, "But you have another 5Yz acres of property that is being completely covered by impervious surface that is either buildings, roadways or sidewalks. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is correct." Attorney Lee further stated, "And that water all eventually flows down to Ms. Lingle's pond. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct." Attorney Lee asked, "It also flows into our drinking water in Lake Lee. Does it not?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct." Attorney Lee further asked, "And including all of the runoff or drainage from the rooftops, streets and impervious areas that would be within this proposed site for the school?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes, that is correct." Attorney Lee stated, "This area happens to be the most critical water site in terms of how the State classifies sites where runoff may affect drinking water that we have in the City. Is it not?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "It is within the designated watershed." Attorney Lee further questioned, "Is it also not only within the watershed but the WS-N classification?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes." Attorney Lee subsequently questioned, "Is that the highest classification that you have within the City in terms of the affect of stormwater runoff on 59 e e e e e our drinking water?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes." Attorney Lee summarized, "So all that is coming off this 5~ acres will eventually flow into our drinking water. Will it not?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct." Attorney Lee further stated, "So what this 23 foot pond would do, if anything, is simply slow down the flow or the rate by which that would occur?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes, it will slow down the runoff rate." Attorney Lee responded, "Because it is intended, at least on this map that you have identified and marked on the board up here, to be a dry detention pond. That is, it won't continually have water standing in it. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct." Attorney Lee questioned, "What other changes, going back to Basin B, did you note on the map that you received today from the map as it originally came to you under date of June 28, 2001? What changes have been made to make this a dry basin?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "It was a dry basin from the very beginning." Attorney Lee stated, "So nothing has really changed there?" Engineering Director Loyd affinned this statement. Attorney Lee asked, "You have, coming through that area that is now identified on this latest map that you got today, what is designated as a dry basin area, but in fact on the June 28 map is an area through which wetlands and a wet water stream flow. Do they not?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes." Attorney Lee stated, "So all water from this direction will flow through an area that really hasn't been changed, it has simply been designated dry detention basin as well as the water from the 23 foot hole over here. It is all eventually going to flow into this 36 inch pipe. Is it not?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "The basin there is being changed by the fact that a structure is being added at the inlet through the existing 36 inch pipe on the private driveway to control your runoff." Attorney Lee stated, "All that is going to do is speed up the flow of the runoff isn't it?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "The structure will detain the runoff. That is the purpose of a dry detention pond, to detain runoff on-site and release it at a controlled rate so you don't overwhelm the downstream facilities." Attorney Lee asked, "What I'm asking is, in this area right here, will there be a hole dug or a change in the elevation from what we saw on the June 28, 2001 map?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "My understanding is that they are planning to use the contours shown on the maps, which are basically the same on both maps." Attorney Lee stated, "The only difference being Drainage Area A. You don't know yet whether the school or anyone on the school's behalf can satisfactorily dig and/or blast a 23 feet deep pond immediately behind the properties of Stacy and Griffin." Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes, that is the question I have identified." Attorney Lee further questioned, "Even if you were able to do that, wouldn't it destroy entirely the trees and the buffer all the way up to the existing property lines?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes, as designed it would." Attorney Lee stated, "Did the original map of June 28 reflect that there would be a 10 foot vegetated buffer and natural vegetation provided along that area? The lots that front on Oak Hill Drive?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes, the map does show that." Attorney Lee reported, "The map that you received today, does it completely eliminate that?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "It does eliminate that. I did discuss this with either David Fencl or Wayne Herron, and it is my understanding that they could satisfy the 10 foot buffer requirement by putting a fence along that area." Attorney Lee inquired, "What type of fence? Do you know?" Engineering Director Loyd stated, "Some type of decorative fence. I will let them address that." Attorney Lee asked, "Is that shown on any plan that has been submitted before tonight?" Engineering Director Loyd advised, "We just 60 e e e e e received these plans today." Attorney Lee replied, "So your answer IS that it IS not?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "It is not." Attorney Lee asked questions regarding the change in the driveway. Attorney Lee inquired, "Do I understand that the study that the Planning Board had requested made a suggestion that the entrance from Lancaster Avenue be moved south some distance?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Did you say the traffic study or the Planning Board recommended?" Attorney Lee replied, "Did the Planning Board ask that a traffic study be done, I believe that has already been indicated?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes". Attorney Lee asked, "The traffic study-did it make a recommendation that the drive be moved in a southerly direction some 300 feet from Oak Hill Drive?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes, that is part of the recommendation that you will find in the traffic impact statement that was submitted." Attorney Lee continued, "Has that recommendation been followed on the plan that we now have before us? Is the relocation of that drive consistent with the School Board's own traffic study?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "No it is not, but if you will read the Traffic Impact Analysis further, its alternative if they choose not to relocate the drive entrance, is to extend the turning lane at least 50 feet past Oak Hill Drive." Attorney Lee asked, "Has there been a submittal now by the School Board that would extend that turn lane?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes, the one that is dated October 16 shows that." Attorney Lee stated, "After receiving the plan from the traffic study, did you submit that plan to the North Carolina Department of Transportation?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "To my knowledge, I do not believe these plans have been submitted to the State yet. Submittal will be required prior to DOT approva1." Attorney Lee questioned, "Has there been a request for access onto Highway 200 made to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, to your knowledge?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is my understanding from the conversations with Ritchie Hearne, the District Engineer from the DOT." Attorney Lee questioned, "Do you know what Mr. Hearne's position is with the North Carolina Department of Transportation?" Engineering Director Loyd stated, "He's the District Engineer." Attorney Lee asked, "Is that District Engineer inclusive of all of Union County?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Union County, and I think: he also has Anson County within his jurisdiction." Attorney Lee stated, "He suggested and recommended, did he not, that the drive be moved even further south than the earlier traffic study? That is approximately 500 feet south of Oak Hill Drive. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes, that is correct. He did make that statement in his letter, but he also indicated that it may not be possible because of the location of the soccer fields that would require students to cross a private drive to reach the soccer fields. So, it may not be plausible to relocate the drive entrance as recommended. He also concurred with extending the turn lane an additional 50 feet past Oak Hill Drive." Attorney Lee reported, "The School Board neither followed its own traffic study recommendation nor the recommendations of District Engineer Hearne with the Department of Transportation with respect to relocating the drive did they?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "No." Attorney Lee stated, "They have left it where they had it since June 28. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is correct." Attorney Lee subsequently stated, "Is that the one and only access or entrance for the facility?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is correct. That would be made a part of the Conditional Use Permit process 61 e e e e . recommendations." Attorney Lee questioned, "So there is no other emergency access or exit or any other method of getting to or from the school facilities other than on that one road. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is correct." Attorney Lee inquired, "That one road would handle both bus and passenger vehicular traffic?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes, that is correct." Attorney Lee continued questioning by stating, "Do you know whether the June, 2001 map was the basis for Mr. Morrison to use in his Impact Study as required by the Ordinance, that is, an Impact Study for this area?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "I have not had any conversations with Mr. Morrison, so I do not know what map he used in this evaluation." Attorney Lee stated, "It would be fair to assume that he did not use the one you just received today?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "I would definitely say so." Attorney Lee stated, "To your knowledge, did any other map exist, other than the map of June 28, before today?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "It is very hard for me to say. It has been submitted to me for review." Attorney Lee questioned, "Did you get a copy of the letter from Mr. Hearne addressed to Facilities Planner Burnett with the School Board?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct." Attorney Lee stated, "Did you receive copies of the studies that have been referred to?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes." Attorney Lee inquired, "Have you been out to the site?" Engineering Director Loyd stated that he had been to the site. Attorney Lee presented photographs to Council and offered them into evidence. After review of the photographs, Attorney Lee asked, "Does the first photograph shown fairly and accurately depict the Lingle Pond, in which we made reference to earlier, at a time when it is not flooding?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes." Attorney Lee stated, "And there is a little bridge across there?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes, that is correct." Attorney Lee further questioned, "Is this the area in which you had correspondence with Ms. Lingle back in 1997?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes." Attorney Lee presented an additional photograph for review. Attorney Lee then asked, "Does that appear to be the same bridge?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "It looks pretty much so." Attorney Lee questioned, "Does that appear to be during a time of flooding?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes". After presenting another photograph of the area, Attorney Lee asked, "Do you recognize that as being an area at or near the Lingle Pond at a time during which it was flooding?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes, I believe it is the property on Oak Hill Drive." Attorney Lee inquired, "Does the next photograph also show flooding on Oak Hill Drive?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes, I believe the trees have been removed now, if that is the location that I am thinking of." Attorney Lee stated, "Finally, does this appear to be an area that is inclusive of Ms. Lingle's driveway and the pond as it existed at some point before today during a time of flooding?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is correct." Attorney Lee stated, "The pictures were depictions of flooding at some point in the past, at a time when there had been no disturbing of property or any construction out there to your knowledge. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is correct." Attorney Lee reported, "I believe you indicated in your letter back in 1997 to Ms. Lingle that no construction activity in that area was then ongoing?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Erosions and natural causes, whenever 62 e . e . - it rains, the stream channels erode, and there is settlement produced downstream. That is just a natural occurring event." Attorney Lee submitted the photographs to Council to be entered into evidence, (Exhibit E located in the Conditional Use Permit file.). Attorney Lee questioned, "What is your understanding about the number of students that are to attend this school?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "I would have to look in the traffic study. I do not recalL" Attorney Lee stated, "Are there depictions on the map, as now have been submitted on behalf of the School Board, of the sidewalk areas to be included?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "I do not believe they show the sidewalk." Attorney Lee then stated, "Is there a requirement of the City that there be a sidewalk along Lancaster Avenue?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is a requirement of the City of Monroe Standard Specifications and Detail Manual that sidewalks be provided along major thoroughfares." Attorney Lee asked, "Was that a condition from the Planning Board as to the recommended Conditional Use Permit for this site?" Engineering Director Loyd stated, "Yes, it is my understanding that that was the recommendation." Attorney Lee questioned, "Are there other sidewalks depicted on that map that go back into the site?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "There is one from the soccer field, but we also recommended installation of a sidewalk along the private drive entrance that is not shown." Attorney Lee stated, "So the School Board has chosen not to include either a sidewalk along Lancaster Avenue or along the proposed driveway. They have refused or neglected to move despite the traffic study and the DOT recommendations. Is that right?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct. They have indicated their desire not to install that sidewalk." Attorney Lee inquired, "And when that sidewalk that exists from the ball field or playground area crosses that stream where this dry detention pond area is, does it not go right through the dry detention pond area?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "There is an existing pipe there that would end over the crossing." Attorney Lee stated, "So they would cross the stream, but then would they go through the "B" dry detention pond mentioned earlier?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Through the upper end of it." Attorney Lee stated, "So they wouldn't be able to do that if it was not dry, would they?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "I would have to let the consultant address that. I don't recall looking at those elevations. During a flooding event, the kids would probably not even be in the area because there would not be any play during a rainfalL" Attorney Lee advised, "If you get across that stream and you manage to get across that dry detention area, doesn't that sidewalk run right into the parking lot?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is correct." Attorney Lee subsequently questioned, "The one and only sidewalk that is depicted on the School Board's proposed plan takes the K-5 students directly into the main parking lot area, which is where both buses and vehicular passenger traffic passes?" Engineering Director Loyd clarified, "That is the passenger vehicle area." Attorney Lee stated, "The buses go to the left down there then. So whatever time of the day that someone in a passenger vehicle may come in, they are subject to coming upon the area where the driveway leads into the parking lot. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct." Attorney Lee reported, "It was mentioned earlier that there is a requirement that there not be more than 24 percent impervious surface on the site. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is by the Watershed Ordinance." Attorney Lee questioned, "That is because 63 · e e e e we are trying to protect our drinking water?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct. That is the cutoff. After you exceed 24 percent, then you must employ stormwater management techniques." Attorney Lee questioned, "You are 22 percent now. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd stated, "I believe that is what is shown." Attorney Lee advised, "If there is at any time in the future as much as another half acre covered out there by virtue of additional sidewalks on Lancaster Avenue or anywhere else along that site and if there is a mobile classroom unit added to that site that exceeds in the aggregate half acre, then aren't you then in violation of the City's Watershed Ordinance?" Engineering Director Loyd stated, "Roadway improvements within the right-of-way would not be a part of the Watershed Ordinance. The modular classrooms units, when they come into play, then of course would need to be looked at for compliance with the Watershed Ordinance." Attorney Lee stated, "If they cover up at least a half acre in the aggregate, then they along with the sidewalks are going to preclude any expansion at this site whatsoever." Engineering Director Loyd replied, "They would need to address the Watershed Ordinance if they exceed the 24 percent." Attorney Lee advised, "They being out of compliance would be in violation of the Ordinance, wouldn't they?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "If they exceed that 24 percent, yes they would." Attorney Lee continued questioning by stating, "Your understanding now is that there is supposed to be some further consultation and inquiry made about this 23 foot deep hole?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That would be one of our recommendations if Council chose to go ahead and approve the Conditional Use Permit." Attorney Lee asked, "Do you know whether, in the approval of that, could that be conditioned upon that actually being in place on the site, that 23 foot pond or hole?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "The recommendation, as I have written it, would require that they prove they could build the pond before they were issued a Building Permit or started grading." Attorney Lee asked, "Do you know if there has been any sort of geological study or examination of the rock or soil in that area?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "I have not been given that information." Attorney Lee questioned, "In your opinion, if there is rock, would that have to be blasted?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Based upon developments I have seen in the area, that is a strong possibility. This is Union County, and we are known for our rock." Attorney Lee reported, "As a part of the application process, which I understood from Mr. Herron started back in August, one of the several procedural requirements to submit an application for a conditional use request is an approved driveway permit from NCDOT for developments that access State maintained roads and streets." Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct." Attorney Lee subsequently asked, "Do you have an approved driveway permit from NCDOT for this particular site?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "We do not have at this time." Attorney Lee therefore stated, "In fact, the recommendations you have from the Department of Transportation regarding the further relocation of that driveway are directly contradictory in terms of traffic flow on Lancaster Avenue and the public right-of-way from what we see on the plat that has been submitted on behalf of the school. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd stated, "That is correct, and he also goes on in Item #3 to indicate that yes, if the school system decided to use the present driveway location to lengthen the storage by 50 feet for traffic turning left onto Oak Hill Drive in conformance with the consultant's recommendations. So there is a number of different recommendations in this letter from Ritchie Hearne." Attorney Lee stated, "Does he also suggest that if you proceed with a revised traffic pattern on Lancaster Avenue with access lanes and turn lanes as the school has suggested, that that would require construction of a left- 64 e e e e e turn lane and the widening of the road on each side?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct on the plans that we were looking at on that day. They have since revised the drawings to show the widening on one side only." Attorney Lee asked, "Would the widening on one side only require that the School Board or some public entity condemn property on one side of North Carolina 200 or Lancaster Avenue for the widening of that roadway?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "I have not seen any right-of-way acquisition plans, so I cannot address that comment." Attorney Lee inquired, "Did District Engineer Hearne indicate that if you widen the road six feet on each side, or now you are saying 12 feet on one side, you would definitely impact front yards of several homes on NC 200 across from the school site?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "In that letter, yes he did." Attorney Lee reported, "Some of the homes would have relatively steep back slopes if you use a shoulder section. I think those homeowners would not be particularly agreeable." Engineering Director Loyd responded, "The consultant is here, and I wi111et him address any problems that they see with widening along one side. " Council Member Keziah asked how it would handle in a 100 years rain. Engineering Director Loyd responded, "It would-what is going to equal post-development would approximately equal pre-development conditions on the 100 years rain." Council Member Keziah inquired that if you add more volume and come over the top of it, would there be more pressure added downstream. Engineering Director Loyd rëplied, "At some point, it would just overflow the pond and float on downstream." Facilities Planner Burnett questioned Engineering Director Loyd. Facilities Planner Burnett asked, "The design criteria for the Conditional Use Pennit, was that a two and a 10-year stonn?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That was our recommendation." Facilities Planner Burnett reported, "I think those pictures were from 1997, and is that the year we had the 100-years stonn or the train trestle collapse in Charlotte?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "I have no idea when that took place. 1 was not made aware of that stonn event." Facilities Planner Burnett noted, "From the resubmitted plans, are the plans going to detract or hurt the existing conditions on the drainage study?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "It would be my professional opinion that it would enhance the downstream conditions." Facilities Planner Burnett stated, "Then it would improve it." Facilities Planner Burnett questioned, "Have you had any correspondence with the consultant between the time of the original submission and the plan today?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes, that is correct." Facilities Planner Burnett therefore asked, "Have many of the changes that have happened on this plan that was submitted today been in response to concerns from staff?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "That is correct." Facilities Planner Burnett reported, "The traffic study and DOT listed the alternate location of the drive plan to extend the left-turn lane. Did Union County Public Schools incorporate that alternate?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "That is correct, on the revised plans." Facilities Planner Burnett asked, "With regard to the drainage study, this proposed plan is not detracting, I think you said it is enhancing, the existing conditions?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "Yes, that was my opinion on the drainage that it would enhance the conditions downstream if the ponds could be built according to the proposed plan and calculations." Facilities Planner Burnett advised, "A mobile classroom is 800 square feet. How many square feet are in a half acre?" Engineering Director Loyd replied, "My mind does not work that quick." Facilities Planner Burnett therefore replied, "I'd say over 20,000 square feet. How 65 e e 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. e 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. e 13. 14. 15. many mobile classrooms at 800 square feet can we put in a half-acre?" Engineering Director Loyd responded, "1'11 let you finish that calculation. I've learned not to complete calculations when I am being questioned." Facilities Planner Burnett stated, "It's a lot." Council Member Smith advised that a half-acre is 21,780 square feet. Planning Director Herron advised Council of staffs recommendations for the record. If the City Council chooses to approve this request, staff recommended the following conditions: 1. The development of the tract shall proceed in confonnity to all development plans and design features submitted as part of the Conditional Use Pennit Application and kept on file by the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development, except that the City of Monroe Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes to such plans as required by field conditions as defined in Section 156. 185(D)(2); and The petitioner shall comply with all zoning and watershed regulations as specified in Chapters 155 and 156 of the City of Monroe Code of Ordinances before a Certificate of Occupancy can be obtained; and Protective tree fencing shall be installed and inspected by the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development along the proposed tree line prior to any land disturbance activity; and Additional screening materials shall be installed and inspected around the perimeter of the site to meet the intent of Section 156.060 of the City of Monroe Zoning Ordinance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; and The petitioners shall provide a copy of the approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan from the Mooresville regional office of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources prior to commencing with any land disturbing activity; and. Sidewalk shall be provided along the property frontage along Lancaster Avenue in accordance with the City of Monroe Standard Specifications and Detail Manual; and Access to the site shall be limited to Lancaster Avenue. Drive connections to Oak Hill Drive and Ann Street shall not be permitted; and Sidewalk shall be provided on one side of the private drive for pedestrian travel; and A right turn taper shall be provided; and A 225-foot minimum left turn lane on Lancaster Avenue shall be provided at the proposed driveway. If it is not possible to relocate the driveway, the storage shall be increased to provide 50 feet of storage for traffic turning left onto Oak Hill Drive; and All tapers and transitions shall be built to NCDOT standards with a 45-mph design speed and cross- sections shall be provided along the widening to identifY impacts to adjacent properties; and The petitioner shall obtain driveway and encroachment pennits from the North Carolina Department of Transportation for off-site roadway improvements on Lancaster Avenue, including the proposed left turn lane, and sidewalk construction within the right-o.fway; and On-site sidewalk improvements and off-site transportation improvements shall be constructed and approved by the City of Monroe Engineering Department and the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to release of the Certificate of Occupancy; and A registered professional engineer in the State of North Carolina shall provide a certification that said development will not cause increased off-site flooding, drainage, or erosion problems; and The Site Development Plan indicates that 22 percent of the site is proposed for impervious coverage. If development of the site exceeds 24 percent impervious coverage, water quality management techniques shall be provided in accordance with the Monroe Watershed Ordinance Engineering Director Loyd presented the final four recommendations based on his review of the stormwater plans. Staff recommendations were as follows: e 16. The petitioner shall obtain final storm water approval from the City of Monroe Engineering Department prior to Building Permit approval and grading of the site; and 66 Mayor Davis: Mr. Burnett: e Mayor Davis: Mr. Burnett: Mayor Davis: Mr. Burnett: Mayor Davis: e Mr. Burnett: e e e 17. The petitioner shall prove that the detention ponds serving Drainage Area A can be constructed to the satisfaction of the City of Monroe Engineering Department. Borings, excavations, or other similar means shall be completed within the area for this purpose; and 18. The petitioner shall provide a chain-link fence around the ponds serving Drainage Area A to secure it from unwanted entry; and 19. The petitioner shall actively maintain and inspect both detention areas to ensure that they function properly. Mr. Chris Bragg, a resident of Oak Hill Drive, asked if blasting to get the 23 foot deep hole would enhance or detract existing conditions on Oak Hill Drive. Engineering Director Loyd replied, "I am not well versed in blasting techniques, but I do know that when blasting does occur near residential homes, that they do monitor to make sure that there is not any undue vibrations. There is some liability involved with doing stuff of that nature." Mr. Bragg responded, "The 23 foot deep hole is right adjacent to the property line at 1108. Is that correct?" Engineering Director Loyd confinned that this was a true statement. Mayor Davis inquired as to whom was going to represent Union County Public Schools in the findings of fact. Union County Public Schools' Superintendent Jerry Thomas replied that Facilities Planner Burnett would address the findings. In keeping with the required findings of fact for a Conditional Use Pennit, Mayor Davis asked the following questions of Facilities Planner Burnett: Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety iflocated where proposed and developed according to plan? Mr. Burnett: That is correct. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use meets all required conditions and specifications? Mr. Burnett: That is correct. Is it your opinion that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property? That is correct. Is it your opinion that the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and will be in general conformity with the Monroe Land Development Plan? That is correct. Is it your opinion that the proposed use will be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is to be located with respect to the location of the structures, and the location and design of parking and service areas? That is correct. Is it your opinion that the streets and driveways as proposed provide adequate circulation for on-site and off-site circulation for vehicular and pedestrian movement consistent with the safety of the students and staff? That is correct. 67 e e e e e Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the existing inftastructure, including but not limited to streets, water, and sewer, is adequate to serve the site and will not be adversely impacted by the proposed use? Mr. Burnett: That is correct. Facilities Planner Burnett introduced Project Architect Roger Leeson, with Boney Architects, who provided a presentation in favor of the request. Project Architect Leeson stated, "I hope some of you have seen the Fairview Elementary School because this is actually a Union County prototype design, so the design is based largely on that school with a few modifications. 1 will speak to the appearance first since you are familiar with the site. This is a part that is rendering of the Walter Bickett Elementary School as it would appear, based on the Fairview design. The entrance is under a pitched roof in the center, and the classroom wings behind the main spaces of the building are under pitched roofs as well, so they have a residential scale. The eave height is just over 10 feet, and the windows are fairly residential in nature. So this is a very small scale building in its impact on the site. It is also zoned to separate the vehicular and the bus traffic to the front, with the playfields and the small kids' playgrounds and the classroom wings to the back ofthe building." Project Architect Leeson referred to a drawing to familiarize Council with the location. Project Architect Leeson highlighted the location of Lancaster Highway and noted the direction of Monroe. In addition, Project Architect Leeson illustrated the highway improvements on the map. Project Architect Leeson further stated, "The reason that the drawing is in this configuration is this water feature that cuts the site and also an identified wetland area here. The front of the site is largely preserved in its existing condition, with the addition of the playfield and driveway. The stream we are using is in its existing condition because there are two existing crossings. 1 believe when these neighborhoods were developed, there were crossings put in anticipating future development, and those have actually been incorporated into the plans as was previously discussed, so there is not really anything changing in terms of the way we are crossing the stream. A tremendous amount of the woods that exist are preserved at the front, there are also existing woods at the back. Then we would comply with the buffer requirements of the zoning, which is 10 feet of additional buffer plantings or perhaps a fence, as mentioned earlier. Then sidewalks will be added, which are not reflected on this plan, but would be per your basic requirements. You can see that the parking is largely in the center of the site, with the buffer between the large-scale pieces of the building in the center, and these are the smaller scale wings at the back. I think it turns a fairly friendly scale to the adjacent property the way the building is sited." Council Member Hargett asked Project Architect Leeson to respond to the new plan with the retention pond and how it would be buffered from the neighborhood. Project Architect Leeson replied, "The pond, people say 20 feet and that sounds like a lot, but in terms of site grading, that is not a tremendous amount. The material, although hard, blasting is not a foregone conclusion here. There is hard material in Union County and we have dealt with it for years. We have actually designed four school buildings for Union County and we have not had to blast yet. We could potentially excavate this without blasting. The buffer requirements-there are existing trees-we are grading right to the property lines, and we would deal with that by adding additional buffer plantings or a fence as required." Attorney Lee stated that he had an uncolored version of the illustration. Attorney Lee asked, "Where you have plantings and trees along this 68 e e e e e detention area as a buffer to these lots, you don't really have that at all, do you, because in the uncolored version that detention pond comes exactly to the property line. In fact, it almost covers that property line." Project Architect Leeson responded, "This is not a landscape plan, so in the rendered version we are selling the buffered plantings. We do not have a landscape plan available today." Attorney Lee asked what his proposal would then be. Project Architect Leeson replied, "To add buffer plantings per the requirements." Attorney Lee stated, "Are you going to plant buffer trees in the pond?" Project Architect Leeson responded, "On the bank, above the pond. It is not a pond, but a dry detention basin. It is dry most of the time until it rains." Attorney Lee asked if the pond would only be needed when it rains. Project Architect Leeson replied that some of Attorney Lee's photographs showed trees with water around their bases. Attorney Lee inquired, "And you are covering there, according to your plan, another 5Y2 acres. of property?" Project Architect Leeson asked for clarification regarding the question presented. Attorney Lee responded, "The impervious area that you are covering, according to your calculations, is another 5Y2 acres of property. Is this correct?" Project Architect Leeson stated that he did not know, but his civil engineer could probably answer that question. Attorney Lee reported, "The front part of that property, as you reported, about two-thirds of it, is left as you have indicated in its natural state and basically untouched except for running the street across there. Is this correct?" Proj ect Architect Leeson stated that he did not understand the question. Attorney Lee clarified, "The building is going to be all the way shoe-homed at the very back ofthat property, is it not?" Project Architect Leeson replied, "I would not use the tenn shoe-homed." Attorney Lee stated, "What tenn would you use?" Project Architect Leeson responded, "The building is located at the back of the property." Attorney Lee asked, "Would you say it is fair to say the back one-third of the property?" Project Architect Leeson replied, "About one-half of the property." Attorney Lee subsequently stated, "So the back half of the property is where all the roofs, streets, parking lots, and the runoff will come from primarily, is it not? You are not disturbing anything else, are you?" Project Architect Leeson replied, "That is right, I guess." Attorney Lee further questioned, "You don't know about stonn runoff and how that operates?" Project Architect Leeson replied, "I know what impervious surface is, and if the question is whether the impervious surface is in the back half of the property, then the answer is yes." Attorney Lee stated, "It is that water that is going to be flowing into our critical water WS- IV area." Project Architect Leeson replied, "It is the detention basin that improves the situation." Attorney Lee inquired, "But the runoff is not going to be unifonn across the 25 acres that was used to compute that 22 percent impervious area, is it?" Project Architect Leeson responded, "I don't know if that is significant." Project Architect Leeson introduced Civil Engineer Eddie MacEldowney, with Davis-Martin- Powell & Associates. Project Architect Leeson noted that Civil Engineer MacEldowney did not get to see what was being pointed to but stated, "Not all of the drainage is going here. It is going some over here and some over there." Engineering Director Loyd stated, "It all ends up in the 36 inch pipe and ultimately ends up in Ms. Lingle's pond, is that correct?" Project Architect Leeson replied that this was correct. Attorney Lee asked, "Were you familiar with the flooding or drainage problems suffered in this area, in particular by Ms. Lingle, prior to tonight?" Civil Engineer MacEldowney responded, "I don't know the details of it, but I've heard mention of it." Attorney Lee questioned, "If you cover 5Y2 acres with impervious surface and it rains, that is 69 e e e e e additional water that is not going to be naturally absorbed or slowed in the process, is it?" Civil Engineer MacEldowney replied, "That is correct, but the stonnwater ponds are designed to allow the water to rise in those ponds and discharge at a slower rate than occurring in effect of pervious surfaces." Attorney Lee questioned, "Do I understand that there is going to be 23 feet of depth to that pond?" Civil Engineer MacEldowney responded, "No, the slope to get to the bottom of the pond would be 23 feet, but the maximum water level in that pond may be only six or seven feet during a large stonn. It is just that we have to get down to an elevation so that it will work with the water we are picking up with the pipes from off-site." Attorney Lee inquired, "So if we get it to about seven feet, is it my understanding that at that point the flood gates would open and all the water goes into the 36 inch pipe?" Civil Engineer MacEldowney replied, "I don't really remember the exact elevations of the structures, but there is a temporary spillway, there is a primary spillway, which is the 18 inch pipe, and it handles a 10 year stonn. It will, anything above a 10 year stonn, start to overflow in emergency spillway. That is a standard stonnwater detention design. From what I remember, it is four or five feet to the top of that primary spillway and then another couple more feet to the emergency spillway." Attorney Lee stated, "In times of rain, you are going to have about a seven foot deep pond immediately adjacent to the school bus parking area." Civil Engineer MacEldowney responded, "It depends on the intensity of the rain and there are a lot of factors." Attorney Lee questioned, "The more intense it is, then the more it is eventually going to have to go south into the WS-N basin. Is that right?" Civil Engineer MacEldowney responded, "Yes, it is just going to fill up the pond. The pond is designed to slow the water down; it is designed to fluctuate." Attorney Lee inquired, "If your home was located where the John and Eugene Stacy property is located, do you have an opinion as to whether, as opposed to having trees and a large buffered area as depicted on the June map, you had rather a 23 foot deep detention pond immediately to your property line that would have the effect of adversely affecting your property value?" Civil Engineer MacEldowney responded, "I don't feel that. We can plant materials all along that slope or put a fence along the pond." Council Member Kilgore asked, "I heard him say that the deepest part would be 23 feet, and are you saying the deepest the water is going to get would be seven feet?" Civil Engineer MacEldowney responded, "The primary reason for the depth of this area is for their accommodations." Council Member Kilgore asked if it was possible for the water to be as much as 23 feet deep at anyone time. Civil Engineer MacEldowney replied, "If there is a huge stonn, the water is going to seek its level. There are overflows and emergency overflows. If this building isn't here and if you have that kind of a stonn, the neighborhoods downstream have nothing to help them." Council Member Kilgore clarified that if you have a pond that is 23 feet deep, could the pond be 23 feet deep during a heavy rain stonn. Civil Engineer MacEldowney replied, "I just checked my calculations and the bottom of that pond is about 596 and during a 10 year stonn event, it would be up about 607. So it would be 11 feet, and during a 100 years stonn, it would rise another 1 ~ feet above that." Project Architect Leeson explained that if the water in the pond rises seven feet, then it goes into the pipe and rises another three feet. It is still in the pipe, and it starts to fill up more. Council Member Kilgore inquired about the diameter of the 23-foot pond. Civil Engineer MacEldowney responded, "It is about 120 x 40 or 50 feet wide, roughly." 70 e e e e e Attorney Lee questioned, "If in fact the lots abutting are 140 feet wide, then that would make that detention pond about 280 feet long. Would it not?" Project Architect Leeson responded that it was two lots long. Attorney Lee further asked, "Do you know whether Mr. Morrison benefited from any of the information you just reviewed at the time that he did the required Impact Study for this property back in July of this year?" Facilities Planner Burnett replied, "The plan that Mr. Morrison referred to was the original plan, and all the changes made since then have been in response to City staff. The recent plan has been with lots of correspondence with the City, going back and forth for interpretations, preferences and things like that." Attorney Lee asked, "There has been no further Impact Study other than the one study done back in July before all of these proposed changes were made. Is that right?" Facilities Planner Burnett responded, "No, we know of no requirement to resubmit all of our information every time there is a resubmittal." Attorney Lee further questioned, "In answering my question, has there been any Impact Study since these revisions have been made?" Facilities Planner Burnett replied, "The original Impact Study stands." Attorney Lee questioned, "In answering my question, has there been any other study, to your knowledge, other than the Impact Study of July of this year?" Facilities Planner Burnett replied, "There is no reason for another study." Attorney Lee advised Council of the importance of Facilities Planner Burnett's response. Union County Public Schools' Superintendent Jerry Thomas spoke in favor of the request. Superintendent Thomas advised that he was speaking on behalf of education and specifically the children who attend Walter Bickett Elementary School. Superintendent Thomas reported, "This new school that we are proposing to build replaces an old and inadequate facility. Those that have visited that school know what I am talking about. We can deliver a better educational program in an up-to-date new facility than we can at the existing site. The children's needs, I believe, should be paramount in this regard. We have a number of people here tonight, mostly the staff from Walter Bickett Elementary School, to see how this Council is going to react to the needs of the students, they serve. They are not here to speak nor did we petition a group to come and speak to this Council. We believe that the information we provided meets the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit that the City is requiring, and we are going to stand on the evidence as presented. Again, we believe that in this case, what is best for the children is what should guide the decision made by this CounciL" Mayor Davis expressed appreciation for Superintendent Thomas' comments and advised that Council loves the children and is on record as favoring education as well; however, the Council must address the findings of fact prior to issuing the Conditional Use Permit. Facilities Planner Burnett stated that there would be no further speakers but wanted to make everyone aware that the Community College and Union County Public School Career Center are located across North Carolina 200, and the existing Walter Bickett Elementary School and Wolfe Developmental Center are located in close proximity to the proposed site. This illustrated the compatibility of the proposed site with other educational institutions located in the neighborhood. Facilities Planner Burnett advised that almost every school in Union County is undergoing construction, and there have been no instances where blasting has been necessary. Attorney Lee requested to question Mr. Rob Morrison and asked if he was the author of the Impact Study (Land Utilization Study - Exhibit F located in the Conditional Use Permit file.) 71 e e e e e submitted in support of this Conditional Use Permit application. Mr. Morrison answered in the affirmative. Attorney Lee asked, "Did you submit a written report of your findings?" Mr. Morrison replied, "I did." Attorney Lee subsequently asked, "Is that contained in a type of writing that is 14 pages with a number of maps and appendices that follow it?" Mr. Morrison answered in the affirmative. Attorney Lee questioned, "Was that report following and as of July 12, 2001?" Mr. Morrison stated that this was also correct. Attorney Lee reported, "There are a number of properties referred to on this report as being properties used for comparison purposes to determine whether there had been any impact on surrounding property. Is that correct?" Mr. Morrison replied that this was a correct statement. Attorney Lee asked, "With respect to the properties that exist around this site, did you find that generally they were single-family dwellings in the Kingswood-Southwood Estates and the Wellington Subdivisions?" Mr. Morrison stated that this was correct. Attorney Lee further questioned, "And the properties ranging from five to forty years in age?" Mr. Morrison answered in the affirmative. Attorney Lee asked, "And those properties are generally in the 2000 square foot range. Is that fair?" Mr. Morrison responded, "Yes, probably the average size would be fair." Attorney Lee questioned, "As to the parcels that you used for comparison purposes, like the Benton Heights Elementary site, I ask you if the very first property that you used as a comparison was the property on Concord Avenue built in 1920 and containing about 1,430 square feet. Is this an accurate depiction of that property?" Mr. Morrison responded that this statement was correct. Attorney Lee further asked, "Is the next property mentioned in your report at 201 Pedro Street, and if that property was built in about 1964 and about 1189 square feet. That is tax parcel 047." Mr. Morrison agreed with the statement. Attorney Lee asked if all the photographs fairly and accurately depict the property used by Mr. Morrison in his comparison. Mr. Morrison stated that they were a fair and accurate depiction. Attorney Lee stated, "Some of the properties were built as far back as 1924. Were they not?" Mr. Morrison answered in the affirmative. Attorney Lee continued, "Most of these properties contained square footage and areas much smaller than the surrounding residences in Kingswood and these other areas, do they not?" Mr. Morrison replied, "It was various sized properties." Attorney Lee noted, "There is one that is 672 square feet on Parker Street, 9- 235-093." Mr. Morrison replied, "I don't think Parker Street is right." Attorney Lee asked, "This 9-235-117, that is a duplex, is it not? 106 and 108 Griffith Road." Mr. Morrison responded, "I would have to check the map. I do not remember the duplex." Attorney Lee continued by asking, "Did you personally go to the Courthouse and pull the records and make the analysis that is included within this report." Mr. Morrison responded in the affinnative. Attorney Lee questioned whether anyone assisted him in this regard. Mr. Morrison replied, "As far as clerical? Nathan Harper gathered some infonnation for me." Attorney Lee stated, "Is the analysis here your own analysis?" Mr. Morrison stated that it was his analysis. Attorney Lee questioned, "Were you aware before today that there had been significant changes with respect to a 23 foot stonnwater detention pond and other changes from the map of June, 2001?" Mr. Morrison replied that he was not aware of the noted changes. Attorney Lee asked, "Did you, in fact, conduct your Impact Study based on the map dated June 28, 2001, about two weeks before the date of your study?" Mr. Morrison responded that this was correct. Attorney Lee further questioned, "Is it fair to say that if those persons who have properties that are immediately abutting what is now shown to be a rather large stonn drainage area, about 280 feet 72 e e e e e in length and about 23-feet deep, that that would have an adverse impact on the immediately adjacent properties?" Mr. Morrison responded that he had not had an opportunity to review this information. Attorney Lee asked, "So you can offer no opinion tonight about whether the plans presently submitted by the School Board would adversely impact the adjacent property owners. Is that correct?" Mr. Morrison replied, "Like I said, I have not seen that before tonight." Attorney Lee stated, "Without having seen that before tonight and not having an opportunity to make your analysis, you cannot now offer an opinion, can you Mr. Morrison, that there would be no adverse impact on surrounding property values if in fact a Conditional Use Permit is issued consistent with what the School Board has presented. Is that correct?" Mr. Morrison replied, "Basically, I have not studied the map before tonight and changes were made. I have not had a chance to look at them, so it is real hard to say whether or not my opinion toward the impact would change or not." Attorney Lee asked, "So what you had earlier and what you submitted in your report was based on a map that is materially different in a number of respects than the map that you seen tonight. Is that right?" Mr. Morrison replied, "The main change would be the location of the retention pond in the back." Attorney Lee questioned, "Had you seen that at all before tonight?" Mr. Morrison replied that he had not. Attorney Lee submitted the photographs as evidence (The photographs with street numbers on the back - Exhibit G located in the Conditional Use Permit file.). Facilities Planner Burnett questioned Mr. Morrison by asking, "Did you observe an adverse impact on properties located close to or adjacent to schools in your study of Benton Heights, Weddington Elementary, Walter Bickett versus those that were located further away?" Mr. Morrison stated that he did not observe an adverse impact. Facilities Planner Burnett advised that City staff responded to a previous question that they did know that changes were occurring to the storm drainage plan. Therefore, Facilities Planner Burnett asked if the City required a new appraisal. Planning Director Herron stated that the City did not require a new appraisal.' Attorney Lee inquired, "In regard to surrounding homes at Benton Heights and Walter Bickett, to your knowledge, do either of those sites have on or near them a 23 foot deep detention pond?" Mr. Morrison responded that they do not have a detention pond. Council Member Kilgore asked Mr. Morrison if he knew that the detention pond was included on the plan before the study. Mr. Morrison stated, "The site plan has changed from the original plan." Council Member Kilgore requested clarification as to whether Mr. Morrison knew of the location of the detention pond prior to the study. Mr. Morrison responded that he did not know of its location. Council Member Kilgore further questioned if it would have changed Mr. Morrison's outlook or letter in any way. Mr. Morrison replied, "As far as property values in general with schools, it probably would not. As far as what Council is to require for the retention pond, it could be a possibility. I do not know what you are going to require or what they are going to do. I have seen this before, and the schools that I have looked at do not have a retention pond on the property line. So it is a question I cannot answer." Council Member Kilgore further inquired, "Had you known about the retention pond, at the time you had written the letter stating that it was okay, would it had changed your outlook on the letter or your feelings?" Mr. 73 e e e e e Morrison responded, "It is hard to say without being able to study what is there now, without seeing it before. I really can't say one way or the other how it is going to affect." Council Member Keziah asked how a 670-square foot house fit into Oak Hill Drive and Kingswood. Mr. Morrison responded, "What I was looking at was all the sales in several areas. I looked at sales in Weddington that had houses that were much higher than Oak Hill or anywhere else. In Weddington Hills, I have sales there that join the property that range from $360,000 to $720,000. What we are comparing is does the property that is located next to the school sell for less than a property in the same subdivision that is not next to the school. I am not comparing comparable houses. Weare comparing what the impact has on the properties located next to the school. If you go into Weddington Hills where I looked at those lots, you have those lots that are right along the school property, and then you look in the same subdivision that were on the other road." Council Member Keziah questioned the location of the Weddington Hills subdivision. Mr. Morrison responded, "Weddington Hills is surrounded by Weddington Elementary, High School, and Middle SchooL" Facilities Planner Burnett commented that Union County Schools feels that they have met the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit. In addition, Facilities Planner Burnett advised that they have worked with staff and made them knowledgeable of changes that have been occurring. Facilities Planner Burnett reiterated that Union County Public Schools has not had additional requirements placed on them, therefore, they have met all the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore requested that Facilities Planner Burnett address the sidewalk issue. Mr. Morrison replied, "The sidewalks did not show on the drawing. It is a requirement that is in the paperwork, and we did not purposely not show it because we weren't going to do it. We are planning to comply with the Conditional Use Permit requirements." Council Member Keziah asked what the plans were to get the kids to the school, specifically walking on the road or through people's yards. Facilities Planner Burnett responded, "It is a City requirement to put the sidewalk at the frontage and is one that we had reservations about, and we expressed those reservations during the Planning Board meeting. Our concern is that we don't want to promote walking from the school if the support network is not there. If there are not sidewalks that they are going to be then going onto once they leave the property, but if that's the City's requirement, then we have to comply with it." Council Member Hargett expressed a concern regarding the right-of-way and putting all the turn lanes on one side of the street versus both sides. Council Member Hargett further noted his concern for the property owners that might be affected on the right side of Lancaster Avenue going south if you move everything to the right in order to incorporate the turn lane. Facilities Planner Burnett responded, "I believe we did show an asymmetrical expansion." Attorney Lee distributed a handout containing signatures of property owners on Oak Hill and in the vicinity that signed a petition in opposition. (Exhibit H located in Conditional Use Permit file.) 74 e e e e e Attorney Lee expressed a desire to ensure that the documents mentioned earlier, including the April 10, 1997 letter from Engineering Director Loyd to Ms. Lingle were to be included in the record. Attorney Lee stated that he wanted to ensure that the Packet or existing record included the Morrison Appraisal Impact Study, both traffic studies, Engineering Director Loyd's response to the Traffic Study, Mr. Ritchie Hearne's DOT response, and all photographs distributed. City Attorney Milliken advised that all items would be included in the record. Attorney Lee reported, "With respect to the issues that you are to decide, indeed there are seven, I would point out before you even get to that process, the conditions precedent to the submission of an application. The approved driveway permit from DOT has not been submitted. You violate your own Ordinance if you consider a favorable recommendation on this without that. We have heard recommendations all the way from that drive being where it is, to moving it down 300 feet, to Mr. Hearne saying move it down 500 feet. I submit that the application is simply inadequate in that point. Further, the application as submitted is totally out of character with what the School Board has submitted this evening. If we look at what has been submitted then you have to draw the inference that they intend to go forward on what they have most lately presented with the 23 foot detention pond, if that can be done. It is obvious in answering the issues that you must answer, by law, that they cannot meet the requirements; for instance, the requirement that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. That is a special, additional finding of fact required that the proposed use will not substantially injure the value of the adjoining properties. The only evidence in that regard since July is the report of Rob Morrison who tells you tonight that that report was based on the earlier map and he has no opinion nor can he express an opinion about that. He must, or at least the School Board must, at this hearing, offer to you sufficient evidence such that you can base a finding of fact that the proposed use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property. They have completely and entirely failed in that regard. There is nothing that can be done to rectify that. Mr. Morrison was the gentlemen to whom they relied, and even though I think there are some questions about that report even as the plans stood back in July, certainly he has told you very candidly that he cannot offer an opinion about substantial injury to the value of adjoining properties. That is the burden that is with the School Board. It is not our burden to disprove that. You must make an affirmative finding of fact in that regard, which you cannot do on this record I submit as a matter of law. The streets and driveway issues run the gambit. If you see what is there, you see that they, if they follow your Ordinance, are required to put a sidewalk on Lancaster Avenue. There is no indication as to where that sidewalk might run on either side, and there is no indication of any way to change or rectify the fact that you have got the sidewalk going directly into the parking lot-the one sidewalk from the playground. Obviously, the findings that you must make have to include findings, and particularly, I couldn't agree more with Dr. Thomas; we have got to do what is in the best interest of the children. Public health and safety is a key finding of fact that you must make, and what you have before you is a single sidewalk from the playground into the parking lot. What you have before you is a 23 foot deep pond, if indeed it can be built, that will abut immediately on the adjacent properties and will be right there on the site. This area is residential property, developed according to your plan as such. I submit that the infrastructure necessary to try to make this piece of property work does violence to your Watershed Ordinance and puts you right on the line, even according to their own calculations, to what can be done with respect to impervious surfaces and puts you on that 75 e e e e e line in a WS-IV watershed area, which is as I understand, the most critical watershed area that you have because that is very close to where we get our drinking water. The conditions on Lancaster Avenue are such that we do not believe, even with' the turn lanes suggestions being made, that there has been a showing that public safety or public convenience will in any way be advanced. I would say to you, first and foremost, that on the record that is before you, as a matter of law, that they have not met their burden with respect to the impact of surrounding property owners. It is their burden, as the law says, not only by a greater weight of the evidence but by clear, competent, and substantial evidence, which is simply missing in this instance. I just respectfully ask that you deny this request. I know that it is important that we educate our children, but we have got to do that in a safe and consistent way that is consistent with the neighborhood and all the findings that you are required to make under your own Ordinance." Council Member Smith requested that Facilities Planner Burnett clarify his statement about the sidewalk in front of the elementary school and whether the children would not be pennitted to walk to and from the school from there. Facilities Planner Burnett advised that he did not say that. Council Member Smith questioned Engineering Director Loyd about what the cost would be to the City to provide a sidewalk from the school to the existing sidewalk on Lancaster Avenue, which is approximately in front of the Palace Restaurant. The relevance of the question was discussed, and City Attorney Milliken advised that it was pennissible to answer the question. Engineering Director Loyd responded, "Yes, I prepared an estimate for adding sidewalk on the school side of Lancaster Avenue, and the estimate to join that is $142,000." Council Member Smith subsequently asked what the additional cost would be if there were problems encountered with banks and driveways. Engineering Director Loyd responded, "As part of the estimate, we estimated the right-of-way acquisition at a minimum cost of $5,000. Of course, should there be opposition, it could drive it up to maybe $50,000. The project could really cost between $142,000 up to $200,000." City Attorney Milliken inquired if this cost would be paid by the school. Engineering Director Loyd advised that it would be the cost for the City to connect the sidewalk to the new school site. City Attorney Milliken therefore replied that the City's costs would not have any bearing on this Conditional Use Pennit. Council Member Smith stated that his intent was for Facilities Planner Burnett to respond to whether the children would or would not be allowed to walk to school. Mayor Davis advised that Council does not need to consider the cost to the City, but did need to consider whether the students would be allowed to walk on the sidewalk to school. Attorney Lee questioned, "If there are sidewalks that are constructed beyond, and even on, the site in front of Lancaster Avenue, are we looking at only sidewalks or are we looking at some sort of pedestrian barrier for children separating the sidewalk from traffic? Does the Ordinance require that?" Council Member Smith replied that he was not aware of that requirement. Engineering Director Loyd advised, "It would be of similar-type construction as on Sunset Drive and Walkup Avenue, which is a meandering-type sidewalk." 76 e e e e e Council Member Smith noted a problem with parents picking up and dropping off children at Benton Heights Elementary. Council Member Smith inquired if any study had been done to see if vehicular traffic would be able to exist going to and from the elementary school off Lancaster Avenue. Facilities Planner Burnett replied, "Yes, there has been a study that was included in the traffic study, and we have more than sufficient stacking for the site. This is probably the best stacking arrangement that you are going to have in an elementary school, simply from the configuration of the land." Council Member Smith asked if Facilities Planner Burnett was guaranteeing that people would not be left on Lancaster Avenue who were turning left onto the school during peak hours. Council Member Smith expressed a concern regarding traffic tie-ups on Lancaster Avenue during peak times since Lancaster Avenue is a very busy street for vehicular traffic. Facilities Planner Burnett replied, "We have a left-turn lane on Highway 200 to accommodate people turning left, and that is a requirement of the Conditional Use requirements from staff, and we are complying with that." Mayor Davis asked if Council was ready to close the public hearing. Mayor Davis and City Attorney Milliken conferred, and Mayor Davis then asked if Council had received substantial information in order to make a decision on this issue. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore expressed that he needed Mr. Morrison to take an additional look at the property. Regarding the retention pond, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore advised that he needed to know for certain whether the detention pond would require blasting or boring, or whether that could handled by the normal process. Furthermore, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore stated that he needed to know the impact of the detention pond on adjacent properties. Mayor Davis inquired if Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore was requesting that the public hearing remain open. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore advised that he would find it difficult to vote. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to obtain additional information as requested relating to the property value with the added change of the retention pond and information regarding whether or not that pond can be constructed without blasting. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore advised that he needed this information in order to vote intelligently. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to continue this public hearing until November 6, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: B. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised public hearing. Sergeant David Williams briefed Council and stated that the purpose of this public hearing was to answer any questions that the public may have concerning this grant. The total amount of this grant is $52,254, and the amount awarded from the Federal Government is $47,029. The City of Monroe's match will be 10 percent or $5,225. This grant will be used to 77 e e e e e purchase equipment for the Police Department. Some examples of the equipment to be purchased are in-car video cameras, laptop computers and two-way radios. There being no other speakers either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. C. Consideration of Closin2: an Unopened Street off Icemorlee Street. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised public hearing. Engineering Director Loyd briefed Council and stated that the City of Monroe received a request from Homer B. Love to formally close the unopened street located 360 feet east of Engleside Street and on the south side of Icemorlee Street. Said unopened street is approximately 180 feet in length and, if approved, no lots would be without road frontage by the closing of the unopened street. There are no utilities within the unopened street right-of-way; therefore, there was no need to reserve any easements as part of the street closing process. The Technical Review Committee and the Transportation Committee reviewed the request and recommended closing of the unopened street. City Council passed a Resolution of Intent to close said street on September 18,2001. The street closing signs have been posted and a legal notice has been published in The Enquirer Journal for four successive weeks as required by the NC General Statute 160A-299. Staff recommended that Council adopt a Resolution to close said unopened street off Icemorlee Street between Engleside Street and Guild Street. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore inquired if the City would maintain all the needed easements. Engineering Director Loyd responded that staff did not recommend retaining any easements on this unopened street. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. Item No.8. Action from Public Hearin2:s. A. Proiect # 01-100-00014 - Proposed Conditional Use Permit - New Walter Bickett Elementary School - Lancaster Avenue Between Kin2:swood and Oak Hill Drive - 24.89 Acres - Union County Public Schools - Tax ID # 09-279-043 & 044. No action taken as public hearing was continued until November 6,2001. B. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to accept the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: C. Resolution - Consideration of Closin2: an Unopened Street off Icemorlee Street. Council Member Smith moved to adopt Resolution R-2001-46: A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CLOSING OF 78 UNOPENED STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ICEMORLEE STREET R-2001-46 e WHEREAS, on the 18th day of September, 2001, the City Council of the City of Monroe directed the City Clerk to publish the Resolution of Intent of the City Council to consider closing the hereinafter described unopened street on the south side of Icemorlee Street between Engleside Street and Guild Street in the City of Monroe in a newspaper authorized to publish legal ads in the City of Monroe as required by statute, such resolution advising the public that a public hearing would be conducted on the question in the City of Monroe Council Chambers on October 16, 2001 at 6:30 p.m.: and, WHEREAS, the City Council on the 18th day of September, 2001, ordered the City Clerk to notify all persons owning property adjoining that unopened street on the south side of Icemorlee Street between Engleside Street and Guild Street, as shown on the county tax records, by registered or certified mail, enclosing with such notification a copy of the Resolution of Intent; and, e WHEREAS, the City Clerk has advised the City Council that she caused the Resolution of Intent to be published once a week for four successive weeks prior to the hearing and that she sent a letter to each adjoining property owner advising them of the day, time and place of the meeting, enclosing a copy of the Resolution of Intent, and advising said abutting property owners that the question as to closing that unopened street on the south side of Icemorlee Street between Engleside Street and Guild Street would be acted upon, said letters having been sent by registered or certified mail; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk has advised the City Council that adequate notices were posted in at least two places along on the applicable street as required by G.S. 160A-299; and, e WHEREAS, a full and complete consideration of the matter was given in the public hearing held on October 16, 2001 after having granted a full and complete opportunity for all interested persons to appear and register any objections that they might have; and, WHEREAS, it now appears to the satisfaction of the City Council that the closing of said street is not contrary to the public interest, and that no individual owning property, either adjoining the street or in the vicinity of said street or in the subdivision in which said street is located, will as a result of said closing be thereby deprived of a reasonable means of ingress and egress to his property. NOW, THEREFORE, that unopened street bounded on the north by the southern right-of-way of Icemorlee Street, said right-of-way being 35' in width; bounded on the east side by Tax Parcel 09-270-044; on the south side by Tax Parcel 09-270-037; on the west side by Tax Parcel 09-270-043, more particularly described as follows: e e Beginning at an iron set in southern right-of-way line of Icemorlee Street (35' R/W), the northeastern corner of Homer B. & Mary H. Love property Deed Book 350 Page 696, said point being located S 78° 56' 43" E 358.61' from centerline of intersection of Icemorlee Street and Engleside Street and running thence with the southern right-of-way of Icemorlee Street S 81 ° 17' 46" E 43.79' to an iron found, said iron being the northwest corner of Homer B. & Mary H. Love property Deed Book 413 Page 457; thence with his line S 08° 45' 00" W 180.00' to an axle found, said axle being the southwestern corner of Homer B. & Mary H. Love property Deed Book 413 Page 457, also being in the property line of the City of Monroe, Record Book 658 Page 136; thence with the City of Monroe property line N 81° 17' 46" W 43.79' to an axle found, said axle being the southeastern corner of Homer B. & Mary H. Love property Deed Book 350 Page 696; thence with his line N 08° 45' 00" E 180.00' to the point and place of Beginning containing 7,883 square feet (0.18 acre) as surveyed By Walter L. Gordon NCPLS #1372, Dated: June 8, 2001 and revised September 3, 2001 as shown on Exhibit ~'A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 79 e e e e e Hereby is ordered closed, pursuant to Section 299 of Chapter 160A of the General Statues of North Carolina, and all right, title, and interest that may be vested in the public to said area for street purposes is hereby terminated with title vesting as provided in 160A-299(c). The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Union County a certified copy of this resolution and order. Upon motion duly made by Council Member Bob Smith, duly seconded by Council member Bobby Kilgore, the above Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting held on the 16th day of October, 2001, in the City of Monroe Council Chambers. Upon call for a vote the following Council members voted in the affirmative: Mayor Judy L. Davis Mayor Pro Tern P. E. Bazemore Council Member Phil Hargett Council Member Lynn A. Keziah Council Member Bobby G. Kilgore Council Member Bob Smith And the following Council members voted in the negative: None This the 16th day of October, 2001, at 6:30 p.rn. Item No.9. Proiect # 01-100-00011 - Conditional Use Permit Request - Accessory Structure With a Home Occupation - 936 Secrest Hill Drive - .923 acres - James Marlow- Tax ID# 09-216-014. Council Member Keziah moved to postpone this request until the next City Council meeting on November 6, 2001. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore. Council Member Smith inquired about what additional information Council would receive on this issue. Mayor Davis responded that Mr. Marlow could not be present at the hearing due to the birth of their child. The motion passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No. 10. An Ordinance to Amend the Code of Ordinances - Chapter 38: Wrecker Service. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore requested an update on this issue. Police Chief Haulk stated that this is a problem that the Public Safety Committee has dealt with for the past several weeks. With the assistance of City Attorney Milliken, the Wrecker Ordinance has been updated due to complaints received pertaining to the operation of the rotation wrecker service. The complaints have centered around people getting different permits using the same one or two wreckers, switching magnetic signs and using the same wrecker for three or four different businesses. Police Chief Haulk advised that the proposed Ordinance would clean up this situation and allow a more fair representation of all the permit holders in the City who operate a rotation wrecker on the City's list. 80 e e e e e Council Member Kilgore inquired if anyone would be grand fathered in this situation. In addition, Council Member Kilgore stated that the people who have served the City for many years should not simply be dismissed because they are not in the City. Council Member Kilgore stated that what was presented in the Ordinance was good, but expressed his concern regarding the possibility for dismissing loyal wrecker services due to the new rules. Council Member Kilgore asked how many wrecker services would be affected by the new Ordinance. Police Chief Haulk reported that he did not believe there were any affected since they went to the ETJ and the only one affected was included. City Attorney Milliken advised that there were two things, the dispatch office and the storage facility, and the storage facility was within the ETJ. City Attorney Milliken responded to Council Member Kilgore's concerns and stated that there is no grandfathering because the original Ordinance provided that businesses be located in the City of Monroe. The Ordinance has never provided that people outside of the City could participate in the program. City Attorney Milliken reported that this was a City program, and it should be confined to City limit people. The Ordinance does not say that others cannot operate, but it states that they cannot participate in this particular program. City Attorney Milliken advised that there was an alternate Ordinance because Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore expressed a similar concern regarding the possibility of eliminating some people. The alternate Ordinance reflects that they can be within the City limits or within one mile thereof, which would probably cover everybody who had been participating in the program. City Attorney Milliken noted that there were people in the past who were taking cars as far out as Unionville, and that was an imposition to wait to clear wrecked vehicles. Council Member Kilgore advised that there were people in the City who could not get their car towed without great difficulty. Council Member Kilgore expressed his agreement that cars should not be pulled as far as Unionville, but further noted that the Ordinance does not say anything pertaining to the ETJ. Council Member Kilgore asked how this would be construed in the near or distant future. Police Chief Haulk referred to Mr. Dale Helms, wrecker expert, to respond to whether there would be any affected individuals outside the one-mile radius that was stated in the alternate Ordinance. Mr. Helms reported that City Tire has a City business license working out of his house on Long Hope Road with no storage lot, which is approximately four or five miles outside the City. Council Member Kilgore inquired why the City had been selling them a license. Mr. Helms responded that his license came from when he was operating City Tire on Morgan Mill Road. Mr. Helms further noted that there is another individual inside the City limits who operates out of his house with no storage lot on Icemorlee Street. Mayor Davis asked what is done about storage lots. Mr. Helms responded that he had tagged vehicles in the above-referenced yard as abandoned vehicles. Some of the vehicles are stored on Icemorlee and some are taken to Griffin Motor Company. 81 e e e Council Member Kilgore stated that this should not be allowed, and this situation should have been stopped six months prior. Mayor Davis inquired if the one-mile radius would alleviate Council Member Kilgore's concern. Council Member Kilgore restated his desire not to eliminate current people serving on the wrecker service rotation who have been providing this service for years in accordance with the rules. Mr. Helms advised that there are companies who do not own a wrecker that have a slot on the rotation list. Police Chief Haulk noted that these are the reasons that the Ordinance has been rewritten. In response to Council Member Kilgore's comments, City Manager Spell advised that this service was not being coordinated internally, therefore, this Ordinance would allow for coordination between the privilege license being issued and police doing inspections prior to placement on the rotation list. Staff has requested that businesses be required to comply with this Ordinance within 30 days. At the time a company states that they are in compliance, staff would inspect to ensure that they meet all the requirements of the Ordinance. This Ordinance would allow for a cross-check internally to ensure that the operations are in place. Council Member Smith expressed his approval of the alternate Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to approve the alternate Ordinance 0-2001-34: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE III CHAPTER 38 OF THE CITY OF MONROE CODE OF ORDINANCES 0-2001-34 Preamble Pursuant to authority conferred by Articles 8 and 15 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes, as amended; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONROE THAT TITLE III CHAPTER 38 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: e TEXT AMENDMENT Section 1. Chapter 38 is amended to add the following preamble to appear immediately before § 38.01: e It is the intent of the City that the rotation list be administered fairly to the end that no one may secure an unfair advantage by permitting what is in fact one business to secure more than one place on the rotation list by applying for more than one privilege license in different names. Section 2. The existing § 38.02 (A) is rewritten as follows: § 38.02 (A) Painted signage on each door showing the name, address, phone number of the privilege license holder. No magnetic or stick-on signs shall be used. Section 3. The existing § 38.04 (A) is rewritten as follows: 82 e e e e e Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. § 38.04 (A) Storage lots must be secured lots located either within the corporate limits of the City of Monroe or within one mile thereof and in full compliance with the City's zoning ordinance. The title to § 38.05 is amended to read "Rotation System." The existing § 38.05 (B) is rewritten as follows: § 38.05 (B) A rotation list will be issued by the City Police Department. This list shall be composed from those privilege license holders appearing on the records of the City Tax Collector who certify in writing to the City Chief of Police: 1. That they have at least one wrecker vehicle meeting all safety laws and regulations of the state of North Carolina which said vehicle is titled in the name of the privilege license holder making the certification. The wrecker registration number, insurance company providing insurance as required by N.C.G.S. 20-309 (a), and insurance policy number and the named insured which must be the same as the privilege license holder making the certification. 2. That they have at least one dispatch office located either within the corporate city limits of the City of Monroe or within one mile thereof out of which the wrecker vehicle is dispatched. 3. That they will provide wrecker service on a 24-hour a day service, seven (7) days a week basis. 4. They do not have in common use with any other privilege license holder making a certification hereunder any of the following: 1. Telephone number 2. Dispatching office 3. Wrecker vehicle § 38.05 is amended by adding new subsection (E) as follows: (E) Any attempt to violate the provisions of this section could result in the privilege license holder's name being removed from the rotation list. The existing § 38.07 is rewritten as follows: § 38.07 Duties of City Tax Collector - The City Tax Collector shall certify to the Chief of Police on a monthly basis all wrecker service privilege license holders in good standing. Section 8. This ordinance shall be effective on the 17th day of November, 2001. ADOPTED this 16th day of October, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: 83 e e e e e AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No. 11. Amendments to Fire Tower Trainim! Ae:reement. Fire Chief Fowler briefed Council regarding a request from the Union County Fire Commission to amend the current Fire Training Tower Interlocal Agreement. The current agreement requires that there be an instructor certified by the North Carolina Fire and Rescue Commission on the grounds supervising all training that is being done at the facility. The volunteer fire departments of Union County have approached the Fire Commission to ask for this change on the basis that it poses a hardship on them because of their limited number of certified instructors that they have. Union County Fire Commission requested the following amendment, which has been approved by the Union County Board of Commissioners: The following types of training shall be conducted by instructors who are certified by the North Carolina Fire and Rescue Commission for the type of training being conducted: (i) Live Burn Training, Confined Space Rescue, and Rappelling. For all other types of training, the chief of the department conducting the training shall determine the qualifications, if any, required for instruction. Fire Chief Fowler advised that they are asking for a continuation of the use of certified instructors for the above-referenced three areas of training since these areas are considered higher-liability training. Furthermore, they are asking for continued use of certified instructors for any other training and for the Chief of that department to determine the qualifications of the instructor. Fire Chief Fowler noted that he supports the North Carolina Fire and Rescue Commission's Instructor Certification Program, and understands the position of the volunteer fire departments. For these reasons, Fire Chief Fowler recommended approval of this amendment. Council Member Keziah moved to approve the amendment to the Fire Training Tower Interlocal Agreement. Council Member Kilgore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No. 12. Other Business. A. Martha Charo Anneal. Council Member Smith advised that Mrs. Martha Charo had an appeal of a zoning officer's determination that paving was required for a proposed lot at 310 West Windsor Street. Council Member Smith moved that Council grant a waiver to Mrs. Charo, which would overturn the decision of the Board of Adjustment regarding the appeal. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion. 84 e e e e e City Attorney Milliken advised that this cannot be done, but Council could repeal the paving requirements. Council Member Smith reported that there are similar situations in the City of Monroe that are larger and expressed his concern that Mrs. Charo is being unduly penalized because of the particular situation. City Attorney Milliken stated that Mrs. Charo could go to the Superior Court to appeal their decision, but Council could not legally get involved. Council Member Smith noted that Council needs to review the City's Paving Ordinance. City Attorney Milliken advised that Council was allowed to change the Ordinance. B. Monroe-Union County CDC Grant. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore advised that the Monroe Union County CDC is in need of City support for their endeavor with the East Village Subdivision. They have applied for and been granted $100,000 from the North Carolina Community Development Initiative; however, the City must be supportive in order to do this. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore noted that the City had no obligation other than to show their support of the East Village Subdivision and the Monroe-Union County CDC. Mayor Davis inquired if they would need a letter as evidence of the City's support. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore affirmed this inquiry. Council Member Kilgore requested the location of the subdivision. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore responded that it was located on Pageland Highway. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to send a letter to the Monroe-Union County CDC in support of their endeavors with the East Village Subdivision. Council Member Kilgore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: C. Appointments - Monroe Union County Historic Properties Commission. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to reappoint Sis Dillon and John Dickerson to full terms. Council Member Keziah seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: D. Appointments - Firemen Relief Fund Board of Trustees. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to reappoint Wade Broome and Paul Mangum to full terms. Council Member Keziah seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: 85 E. Economic Development Commission. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to appoint Don Brown to a full tenn to replace David Kesiah. Council Member Keziah seconded the motion, e which passed unanimously with the following votes: e e e e AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: F. Board of Adjustment. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to appoint David Kesiah to a full tenn to replace Jane Hankins on the Board of Adjustment. Council Member Keziah seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: G. Plannin2 Board. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to appoint Nancy B. Massey to a full tenn to replace Don Polk. Council Member Keziah seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: H. ABC Board. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to reappoint Claudette Smith to a full tenn. Council Member Keziah seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: I. Proposed Landscapin!! Funds. Council Member Smith stated that Larry Helms infonned him that the City would be receiving $100,000 for landscaping at the intersection of Highways 601 and 74 and requested verification in regards to the accuracy of this infonnation. Mayor Davis advised that she had no knowledge of this, and City Manager Spell would provide infonnation should it become available. Item No. 13. Closed Session - Propertv Acquisition. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to go into Closed Session to discuss property acquisition. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: 86 Item No. 14. Resolution to Open a Portion of Old Closed Session Minutes. Upon return from Closed Session, Council Member Smith moved to adopt Resolution R-2001-51 to open a e portion of old Closed Session Minutes: e e e e RESOLUTION TO OPEN CLOSED SESSION MINUTES OR PORTIONS THEREOF R-2001-51 BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council opens the following Closed Session Minutes or portions thereof: Date of Closed Session Minutes Item Number Item Entitled March 20, 2001 1 Litigation (SMD Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Yellow Cab vs. City of Monroe). March 20, 2001 3 Approval of Minutes of Closed Sessions of February 6, 2001, February 21,2001 and March 6,2001. Approval of Closed Session Minutes of March 20,2001 and April4, 2001. Approval of Closed Session Minutes of April 17,2001. Property Acquisition Apri117,2001 1 May 1,2001 1 May 15, 2001 1 May 15, 2001 5 Approval of Closed Session Minutes of May 1, 2001. Consult with City Attorney. June 19,2001 3 August 7, 2001 1 Approval of Minutes of Closed Sessions of May 15, 2001, June 2, 2001, June 19, 2001 and June 29, 2001. Resolution to Open Prior Closed Session Minutes. Approval of Minutes of Closed Session of August 7, 2001. Approval of Minutes of Closed Session of August 21, 2001. August 7, 2001 2 August 21, 2001 1 September 18,2001 1 Adopted this 16th day of October 2001. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: 87 Item No 15. Property Acquisition for Airport Runwav Protection. City Manager Spell requested that Council appropriate funds and authorize acquisition of approximately 31 acres of eland off Runway 5. A. Bud2et Amendment. Council Member Hargett moved to adopt Budget Amendment BA- 2001-16: e e e e BUDGET AMENDMENT BA-2001-16 1. Amendment necessary to designate and appropriate funds for the acquisition of 32.029 acres within the approach to Runway 5. Airport Fund: Revenues: Transfer :trom Airport Capital Reserve Fund Expenditures: Land Acquisition $ 990,000 $ 990,000 Airport Capital Reserve Fund Revenues: Appropriation of Fund Balance Expenditures: Transfer to Airport Fund $ 990,000 $ 990,000 Adopted this 16th day of October, 2001 Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: B. Authorization to Acquire Property. Council Member Keziah moved to authorize staff to continue negotiations and acquire property subject to FAA approval. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No. 16. Library Funds. Mayor Davis advised that Council originally agreed to appropriate up to $60,000 for storm drainage work at the Library. On September 18, 2001, Council appropriated $13 ,400 for the material costs of the storm drainage improvements at the Library. The Library is presently in need of the additional funds for storm drainage and the County Commission has asked that the City contribute the full $60,000. Mayor Davis noted that contact with Derrick Hodge will be made to determine an on-site collection system. She 88 e e e e e requested that Council adopt a Budget Amendment to appropriate the additional funds up to $60,000. Council Member Keziah moved to adopt Budget Amendment BA-2001-20: BUDGET AMENDMENT BA-2001-20 1. Amendment necessary to designate and appropriate additional funds for the storm drainage improvements at the Union County Public Library: General Fund: Revenues: Appropriation of Fund Balance $46,600 Expenditures: Transportation $46,600 Adopted this 16th day of October, 2001. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: There being no further business, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to adjourn. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: 89 e e e e e The Regular City Council Meeting of October 16,2001 adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Attest: ~ )Iì1 ~~ eanne M. Deese, Cit Clerk Minutes prepared and transcribed by Donna Helms, Office Administration Contractor 10250102 90 /4~ Y L. Davis, Mayor