MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1999, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the hearing to order at 7:15 p.m., noting that a meeting with the Comprehensive Plan Work Group had just concluded at 7:06 p.m.
Council Members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie McClintock, Lee Pavăo, and Edith Wiggins. Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Mayor Waldorf announced that on February 23, 1999, at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, the consultant for the University of North Carolina’s Master Plan would discuss its work to date, and invited the public to attend.
Regarding Addition of Fifth Finding to the Development Ordinance
Procedures for Review of Special Use Permit Applications
J.B. Culpepper stated the Public Hearing had been called to consider the addition of a fifth finding to the Development Ordinance procedures for review of Special Use Permit (SUP) applications. She noted that the Development Ordinance currently required four findings for a Special Use Permit application. Ms. Culpepper said the fifth finding under consideration was: that the applicant had specifically mitigated the auto-related impacts of the development, both on-site and in the region that the proposed area affects. She said that the staff offered arguments both in support of and in opposition to adding a fifth finding to the Special Use Permit process, noting that the preliminary recommendation from the staff was that the Council not take any action. Ms. Culpepper said that traffic impacts were already covered in the other SUP findings. She said the staff had included a draft Ordinance in the Council’s materials and recommended that, if the Council adopted a fifth finding, then a similar finding should be incorporated into the Master Land Use Plan. Ms. Culpepper said that if the Council does recommend a fifth finding, then the staff suggested two items for consideration: (1) that the finding should also be added to the Master Land Use Plan, which currently had three findings; and (2) that the fifth finding not be applicable to projects already covered by approval under the Master Plan. She said the staff recommended returning to the Council on March 22nd with response to any questions the Council might have.
Mr. John Hawkins, Chair of the Planning Board, reported that the Planning Board voted 5-2 to recommend that the Council not adopt the ordinance. He noted that their major concern was the definition of the terms “region” and “mitigate.” Mr. Hawkins said the Board felt that the proposal might not be the right mechanism to address these concerns, since the opportunity already existed in two of the other four findings to deal with the impact of the development of traffic in nearby and surrounding areas. He noted that a report was due this month on the possible enactment of a Public Facilities Ordinance, which might have an impact on the findings. Mr. Hawkins said the dissenting members supported a recommendation to the Council that would have indicated that the Planning Board wanted the Council to address transportation-related concerns, but not in this manner.
Madeline Jefferson, a member of the Planning Board but speaking as a citizen, said that she felt that traffic should be emphasized more directly by adding a fifth finding. She urged the Council to add the finding.
Aaron Nelson asked how this finding would affect the building of multi-family projects, which he felt were necessary to the Town, but would impact traffic.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Hawkins what the rationale was behind the idea to expand the “health, safety and welfare” finding. Mr. Hawkins said that the point was made by one of the Planning Board members, but there had been no further discussion.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the automobile impact had become increasingly more important and needed to be addressed, and that he would like to see it addressed in a formal way, rather than in two of the other findings. He also said that he felt the old Master Plans needed to be re-addressed. Mayor pro tem Capowski said that changes had occurred as far as the environmental impact studies were concerned and that a termination date should be considered, adding that he felt that a two-year-old Master Plan was far different than a ten-year-old one.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Horton if Master Plans had termination dates. Mr. Horton said that most of those listed in the staff memorandum did have a termination date.
Council Member Foy asked the Attorney if he could tell the Council to what extent the addition of the fifth finding would expand the scope of the Council’s authority, and to point out whether adding the fifth finding would be useful in adding authority.
Mayor Waldorf felt that the language in the fifth finding was unclear and asked what should be looked at in the ordinance to make or not make a finding. Mr. Horton answered that the staff would consider the questions that developed out of the Traffic Impact Analyses and look at the mitigation suggested to deal with those, and look at any other evidence in the record.
Council Member Evans asked what kind of things would define mitigation to auto-related impact, and what kind of impact this finding would have on the Downtown. She also asked how auto-related impact would be measured.
Council Member McClintock asked if adding the fifth finding would give the Council more authority to ask for other things. She also asked how it would need to be worded so the Council could establish what impact the development was causing.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that auto-related impact was not just counting cars on the road, but the infrastructure needed to support the automobiles.
Mr. Horton asked to change the date offered by Ms. Culpepper earlier, to report back to the Council on April 26th, considering the questions that the Council wished to have answered.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Horton when the Transportation consultant would meet with the Council. She thought that this would be helpful to this discussion. Mr. Horton answered probably during the last two weeks in March.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO REFER THE FIFTH FINDING PROPOSAL BACK TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND ATTORNEY FOR A FOLLOW-UP REPORT AT THE COUNCIL’S APRIL 26TH MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Regarding Parking Requirements to Limit Initial Paving of Required
Parking Areas
J.B. Culpepper stated the Public Hearing was called to consider amending the Development Ordinance parking requirements to limit initial paving of required parking areas. She said that the staff, after consideration of the Council’s resolution, felt that there were two questions for the Council to consider: 1) if the concept’s potential advantages outweighed the potential difficulties; and, 2) in consideration of the specific provisions of an ordinance, how the new mechanism might be designed. Ms. Culpepper said the staff developed a series of questions and asked the Council to give them some advice and counsel. She said the staff recommended that the proposal be returned to the Planning Board and the Transportation Board, with another Public Hearing on April 19, 1999, for consideration of a very specific text amendment proposal.
John Hawkins, Chair of the Planning Board, reported that at its February 2, 1999 meeting, they voted to submit their own version of the Text Amendment, recommending that no more than the minimum number of surfaced parking spaces specified at the time of initial approval be constructed, with additional approval of surfaced parking later if there was a demonstrated need. He said that initially, additional approved parking might be graded and surfaced with either grass or other pervious surfaces for overflow parking needs. Mr. Hawkins said that the Board would like another look at the Text Amendment after it was returned from the staff. He said that the Board felt there was merit in the proposal, and asked that it be allowed to be developed and explored properly.
Dave Davis, an architect in Chapel Hill and a trustee of Orange United Methodist Church, said that his church had a parking area similar to what was being discussed. He said that the Church had a gravel parking area, which was the minimum allowed and there was also a ball field and a park for overflow parking on Sundays. Mr. Davis said that grass was not a particularly good surface for a parking lot, as it got muddy during rainy spells, and also needed maintenance. He noted that public transit was not available on Sundays. Mr. Davis said that he felt that many developers would ask for approval of more space than was actually needed, so that they could get what they required. He said that he did not think that the ordinance was a good idea, and that it could become unwieldy.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Davis what type of surface would he choose if he could have any choice. Mr. Davis said gravel would be his choice.
Jim Protzman asked the Council to be experimental and create incentives to try other alternatives before making a final ruling. He felt the Council should take the time to reach a thoughtful solution.
Bob Reda, a member of the Planning Board, said that he felt the key was to have flexibility. He asked if the developer kept paved parking to the minimum, what would happen to the remaining area, if it could be landscaped or graveled over. Mr. Reda said that the Planning Board would like to have another look at the proposal.
Council Member McClintock asked if there was an example of a development where all the land requested was not used. She wondered if there were other avenues that the Council could pursue to reduce the amount of impervious surface in Town.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the Lowes parking lot was a perfect example as there was 700 marginally-used paved parking spaces. He said this was a real tragedy and asked if the Planning Board could look at the difference between grading and replanting versus not grading a portion of the property at the beginning of development.
Mayor Waldorf wondered if it would have been possible to address the Lowes parking permit in two phases, rather than in one Special Use Permit, which was for two buildings. Mr. Horton said that it would have been possible.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT—PARKING LOT PAVING—AND COMMENTS MADE BY CITIZENS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR CREATIVE WAYS TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES IN TOWN TO THE PLANNING BOARD, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION, THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION, THE PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION, THE GREENWAYS COMMISSION, THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, THE WALKS AND BIKEWAYS COMMISSION, THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD, THE HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD AND THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
Council Member Evans said that another example of the parking lot usage was the Sheraton Hotel where there was a gravel lot used for overflow parking. She pointed out that the ordinance could be used as a way for an applicant to save money, by only using a minimum amount of the paved parking requirement and then spilling over into the neighborhoods. Council Member Evans also noted the benefits of a park and ride paved area. She said she liked the flexibility of the proposal but feared there could be some charges of unfairness. Council Member Evans pointed out that some commercial usage experiences change, such as the Eastgate parking area, and a need for more space may occur. She asked the staff to address this question.
Council Member Wiggins suggested that the staff look into the possibility of sharing parking areas, such as churches do with neighboring parking areas on Sundays. She felt that the Lowes parking area would be a good place for a park and ride lot.
Council Member Foy restated the question for the boards and commissions was how to reduce impervious surfaces.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council wanted the proposal to go back to the staff first or to the various boards. Mr. Horton said that he felt it should go to the boards first.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that the Council had previous discussions about a park and ride lot on U.S. 15-501. He asked if the Town had discussed it with the management of Lowes. Mr. Horton responded only in conjunction with a church that asked to use the lot for additional parking. He noted that the suggestion was declined by Lowes and that Lowes had said they would pave over the concrete slab intended for the second building to be used as parking.
Mayor pro tem Capowski suggested sending a delegation of Council Members to talk to the management of Lowes about a park and ride lot.
Council Member McClintock asked if this was an offer for purchase or a loan.
Mayor pro tem Capowski responded that he had not thought that far ahead but pointed out the issue was that Lowes had the unused parking space needed by the Town for a park and ride lot.
Council Member McClintock said that she agreed.
Council Member Evans noted that a dialogue between the Town and the Chapel Hill Bible Church about a park and ride lot there was progressing.
Council Member Foy suggested that BlueCross Blue Shield should be approached as well, as they owned the Eastowne parking lot that was frequently fairly empty.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the discussion should be initiated by a Council committee or by the Manager. She also asked if they had been approached on this matter before. Mr. Horton responded they had not.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ASK THE STAFF TO BEGIN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNERS OF LOWES AND THE BLUE CROSS-BLUE SHIELD PARKING LOTS IN EASTOWNE, TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF USING ONE OR MORE OF THESE PROPERTIES AS A PARK AND RIDE LOT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf presented a resolution, stating the need for integrated regional transportation funding.
Council Member Brown submitted some amendments to this resolution.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2, AS AMENDED.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ADDING THE NAMES OF THE FOUR STATE-ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THE TWO UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FIRST “WHEREAS”. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN ACCEPTED THIS AMENDMENT.
MAYOR WALDORF SUGGESTED AN AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE FIRST, “NOW, THEREFORE,” FROM RESOLUTION 2.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT THE WHOLE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED AS ORIGINALLY AMENDED.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED REPLACING THE “NOW, THEREFORE,” WITH A “WHEREAS” CLAUSE.
Council Member Evans, a member of the Regional Transportation Alliance, requested that the Council defer action on the resolution until February 22, 1999, after the Alliance met on February 16th. She said that she felt the Alliance had not had an opportunity to raise other issues, except those three raised by Jim Richey, which she read to the Council. Council Member Evans asked that the Council wait until she could report back from the February 16th meeting, and that perhaps the Council could adopt a more supportive resolution. She said that she felt the concerns expressed in the resolution were premature and that the Alliance would feel it was being criticized before there had been a chance for discussion.
Council Member Brown said that she wanted to go ahead and pass the resolution which reiterated the Council’s concerns.
Council Member Bateman asked Council Member Evans to explain her concerns.
Council Member Evans said that she felt that the Alliance would feel it was being criticized by the Chapel Hill Town Council, before it had a chance to discuss the issues. She was concerned that later the concerns might not be heard.
Mayor Waldorf said that she did not feel that the resolution cast any aspersions on the Regional Transportation Alliance, but did express the Council’s concerns about the emphasis on roads.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the resolution only reinforced the idea that the public had input into public policies. He said that public money should be spent with public input.
Council Member Foy called the question.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REGARDING CHAPEL HILL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PRIORITIES AND NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TRANSPORTATION FUNDING (99-2-15/R-2)
WHEREAS, a “Regional Transportation Alliance” has been recently formed, led by area Chambers of Commerce, and composed of 33 area business and university leaders, and including seven local government elected officials, four State elected officials and two US representatives; and
WHEREAS, this group plans to make recommendations to the 1999 N.C. General Assembly on transportation funding and policy; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Alliance’s first meetings, and first report received from its consultant, focused primarily on road-building as a solution to the region’s transportation problems; and
WHEREAS, Governor Hunt’s Transit 2001 Report recommends a level of transit funding from the State that has not been achieved, as well as suggestions for local transit funding options which have not yet been enacted; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Coalition for Public Transportation, composed of elected officials from member NC transit cities, has in past years and will again in 1999 actively seek adequate State funding for local transit systems, as well as a local menu of funding options for transit cities from the General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the Triangle Transit Authority is a duly constituted public body, created by the General Assembly, to provide regional transit service for the Triangle area, and does not yet have adequate revenue sources to complete its planned and much needed system for the Triangle area; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly authorized a 1998 Legislative Study Commission on Public Transit, chaired by Senator Wib Gulley and Representative Connie Wright, whose purpose, as charged by the General Assembly, was to investigate the State’s public transit needs and recommend legislation and funding priorities to the 1999 General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, Department of Transportation Secretary Norris Tolson on November 30, 1999, presented a Research Triangle Park Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes highway construction and improvements, congestion management measures, and public transportation improvements, and which has not been publicly debated, thoroughly evaluated or adopted; and
WHEREAS, Governor Hunt and Secretary Tolson outlined on January 11, 1999 an integrated Transportation Plan for North Carolina, a plan that explicitly stresses the need for much expanded and integrated public transit in our State; and
WHEREAS, in the past the State’s transportation funding priority has primarily been roads rather than public transportation systems, and both need to be adequately funded; and
WHEREAS, we have serious concerns about the heavy roads building and funding focus of the Alliance consultant’s first report as well as the media reported purpose of the formation of the Alliance being to ponder area road needs and lobby for those needs; and
WHEREAS, we believe that full public discourse is essential if the State considers new means to fund transportation improvements, such as toll roads, payroll taxes, local or regional sales taxes; and
WHEREAS, in North Carolina, the regional Transportation Advisory Committees are legally charged with developing and approving transportation planning and funding programs; and
WHEREAS, these Transportation Advisory Committees work in concert with the NC Department of Transportation, under supervision of federal transportation officials; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill’s transportation funding priorities in the past few years have been Chapel Hill’s transit system, sidewalks and bikeways; and
WHEREAS, in the past Chapel Hill has requested special enabling legislation for a local menu of options to supplement funding for our transit system; and
WHEREAS, Chapel Hill will meet with its North Carolina legislative delegation on Friday, February 26th; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s representative to our Transportation Advisory Committee raised these concerns at the February 10, 1999 Transportation Advisory Committee meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that this resolution be forwarded to Chapel Hill’s North Carolina legislative delegation as a reiteration of our transportation funding priorities, as well as a request once again for special enabling legislation for a local menu of options for transit funding as part of our discussion with our legislative delegation and request for our legislative delegation’s support for our funding priorities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be forwarded to members of the legislative delegations from Durham and Chatham Counties, the counties that constitute our Metropolitan Planning Organization, and chairs of elected boards in these counties; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be forwarded to the chairman of the Regional Transportation Alliance, with the request that it be distributed to the group’s members.
This the 15th day of February, 1999.
The public hearing adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
The minutes of February 15, 1999 were adopted on the 22nd
day of March, 1999.
__________________________________________
Joyce A. Smith, CMC
Town Clerk