Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19931211a , 1 APPROVED 4J4/94 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD RETREAT DECEMBER 11, 1993 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on December 11, 1993 at 8:30 a.m. at the Homestead Community Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina for the purpose of holding their annual Goals and Objectives Retreat. COIINTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COIINTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Albert Kittrell, Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Budget Director Sally Kost, Director of the Department on Aging Jerry Passmore, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve, Health Director Dan Reimer, Management Analyst Sharron Siler, and County Engineer Paul Thames ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Chair Carey added to the agenda a discussion on the proposed watershed regulations. He would like the Board to come to some conclusions so this item will take less time at the next regular meeting. Chair Carey stated that the focus for this meeting is for the County Commissioners to discuss those issues on the printed agenda. Staff will be called upon for additional information. Commissioner Insko said she would like for the Board to discuss how issues are addressed and how these issues impact on the goals which have been agreed upon. While she supports most of the goals listed, she is not sure if all Board members feel the same. Commissioner Gordon said she is not sure if it has been determined how to implement these goals. She would like for the Board to be consistent in their fiscal responsibility and consider the taxpayer when implementing these goals, especially when dealing with the proposed Economic Development Districts. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Commissioner Willhoit said he would like to start with the discussion of the Economic Development Districts (EDDs) and see how the creation of EDDs promote the Commissioners' goals for high paying jobs within the County. He feels the EDDs promote the overall goals they have worked on for a long time. He suggested adjusting the Permitted Use Table to eliminate those categories that do not promote what they want in the EDDs. At the I- 40, Old 86 interchange, he sees no need for fast food restaurants, gas stations, storage areas, etc. The Permitted Use Table would list those uses they want to encourage in these nodes that would meet their goals. Commissioner Insko made reference to page 34 and stated that goals need to have reasons articulated. Chair Carey stated that there is a need to diversify the tax base with ~ a 2 a mix of residential and commercial development. What he has heard is that the process for locating in this-area takes too long. That is the reason to create EDDs -- to shorten the process but maintain the controls which would give a quality end product. The County needs to have a clear process for businesses to follow. Commissioner Gordon stressed that a cost benefit analysis needs to be done for the EDDs. She agrees that it is advanta eous to have stability in a process to locate and that the Permitted Use Tae should be reviewed. Marvin Collins explained that approving the EDDs would mean for someone who wants to locate in this district a process of submitting a site plan and if it conforms with the Design Standards, they can start building. If the plan does not conform with the Design Standards, they have the option of following the current policy. The Board discussed the I-40, Old 86 node. It was decided that they need to meet with the Town of Hillsborough to ascertain what they expect to happen in this area. Commissioner Halkiotis asked for information about the Efland Interchange location and what will be permitted in this water quality critical area. In response to a comment made by Commissioner Halkiotis about providing jobs for kids coming out of college or technical schools, Chair Carey stated that providing quality jobs with a livable wage can only be achieved through the Permitted Use Table and this will not guarantee that the jobs will be filled by people who live in Orange County. One thing the County Commissioners can control is the training that Orange County residents can receive. It was decided that one of the goals is to provide jobs fors_people in Orange County. Commissioner Willhoit said that with regard to underemployment, quality jobs and specific training programs would provide upward mobility for the underemployed. John Link noted that there is a need to improve the training opportunities for those who live in the County. If the County built a training facility, there would be all kinds of opportunities for retraining and educating the citizens. This is one thing the County can do to reduce the poverty level. Everything is driven by whether or not a person has a job. He feels that the EDDs will produce better jobs and help reduce the poverty level. Ted Abernathy noted that "those people who need jobs live primarily in west Chapel Hill, East Carrboro and the area along I-85 west of Hillsborough. In answer to a question about transportation, he noted that the Buckhorn node and the Hillsborough node will be on the rail line going through that area. Carrboro and Chapel Hill are studying areas for commercial development. It was decided that staff would work on tailoring the Permitted Use Table for each node. Also, the cost benefit analysis will be done using assumptions on how each district will be developed. The Board continued discussing the type of growth that may be generated by the EDDs. Chair Carey asked that the Board focus on those things they can control. He feels there is going to be growth pressure no matter what they do and the important thing is to concentrate the commercial and residential development in specific areas and decide how they want this growth to occur. 3 PPP COUNTYWIDE VISION DEVELOPMENT DEGROVE COUNTYWIDE VISION DEVELOPMENT Commissioner Gordon made reference to the report from Joyce Brown, Chair of the Shaping Orange County's Growth Steering Committee and asked the Board for feedback on whether they are going in the right direction. She feels this is one way to look at the big picture. Commissioner Gordon said that the PPP is using an intern to look at the regulations from the various jurisdictions in Orange County. Chair Carey noted that he does not feel it is productive to have two committees working on the same issue. The Board agreed that there should be one effort. Commissioner Willhoit feels this is at least a 15 to 20 year project. With regard to the issue dealing with building a sense of community, he does not feel this can be done in the area of land use. However, a sense of community could be built on other issues like crime, youth activities, etc. He feels these groups can be brought together by involving the churches, civic clubs and others. He suggested that there be a Countywide Planning Board since a lot of the pressure created by municipalities have an impact on the County. Commissioner Insko does not want to wait until the report is finished before implementation. The report will be evolving and .they could lose everything if they don't start implementation as soon as possible. She feels they can build community consensus along planning issues, open space and quality growth. Commissioner Gordon agreed. It was decided the Board would indicate to the Steering Committee that (1) the PPP Countywide Vision Development and the DeGrove Countywide Vision Development should be one effort, (2) that in this development, grassroots input should be considered as well as the Township Advisory Councils' involvement, (3) that a common planning board for the County should be considered, and (4) that the study be all inclusive because of pressures created by municipalities that impact the County. BI-MONTHLY WORK SESSION The Board decided to have bi-monthly work sessions to discuss specific issues. Possible topics and dates will be formulated and distributed for Board consideration. COOPERATIVE PLANNING WITH HILLSBOROUGH Chair Carey indicated a need to address "commitment" to the cooperative planning process and the goals it was designed to achieve by Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. It was decided they would discuss at their work session with the Town of Hillsborough scheduled for December 16, 1993 the following items: (1) commitment to cooperative planning, (2) options for University Station development in the context of the Cooperative Planning Agreement, and (3) a process for dealing with emergency tap-ons in the Rural Buffer. Commissioner Willhoit made reference to a book entitled Getting to Yes. He is interested in discussing the process of working with the Town of Hillsborough. He suggested listing the issues, determining the interest in these issues and approach it in a problem solving mode. He wants to wipe the slate clean and start out with identifying their interest in these issues and then see if the County and Hillsborough can negotiate a common 4 statement of purpose. Chair Carey said he feels it important to find out the level of commitment from Hillsborough and articulate the issues around that Cooperative Planning Agreement. Commissioner Gordon asked that the vision document from Hillsborough be distributed to the Board. Commissioner Willhoit feels it appropriate for the County Commissioners to list issues and interests as well as asking the same of Hillsborough. Chair Carey pointed out that the interests are different because of revenues. Commissioner Gordon added to the list of issues "fiscally responsible development" and noted that the second issue should be "preservation of protected watersheds and groundwater." Chair Carey said he wants to start with a commitment to the Cooperative Planning Agreement (CPA). Making a commitment indicates they buy into the process. Then interests can be listed and an approach on how these interests can be reached can be mutually agreed upon. These issues will remain active until they are addressed through annexation or another means. Commissioner Gordon suggested that creating a development like University Station was the equivalent of creating a new town. The County is not set up to provide the urban level of services (as for example police and fire protection) that is ordinarily expected in more densely populated areas. Furthermore, the provision of urban services is expensive. If a new town were created then the town would be responsible for providing their own services. The Board decided that when they meet with the Hillsborough Town Commissioners, they will first discuss cooperative planning and then use the approach of listing all the issues and the interest the County has in the issues and the interest that Hillsborough has in the issues. These will then be referred to staff and another meeting will then be scheduled with Hillsborough. The Board listed Orange County interests applicable to all projects as follows: a. Avoiding urban sprawl b. Preservation of Protected Watersheds and Ground Water c. Encouraging bicycle and mass transit transportation in and between urbanized areas d. Protection and preservation of farmland and open space e. Development of appropriate mix of residential and non- residential (including commercial) development f. Fiscally responsible development The Board listed some of their interests applicable to the CPZ as stated below: 1. Commitment to Cooperative Planning 2. University Station - that land be set aside for schools, convenience centers, recreational and library services, etc. 3. University Station - that sprawl does not occur along the way because of tap-ons 4. Preserving open space 5. Environmentally sound development 6. Protection of water resources 5 7. Community process - people who live in the area having input on proposed development 8. I-40/Old NC 86 Node - quality commercial development 9. Preservation of neighborhoods 10. Developing framework for an eventually public transportation system 11. Quality commercial/quality jobs 12. Entranceway into Hillsborough area 13. Preservation of existing communities 14. Preservation of the rural buffer Commissioner Gordon asked for the routes for transporting hazardous waste to and from the Chatham County border. WATERSHED PROTECTION (Reference material is from the 12/6/93 meeting which summarized some of the key watershed provisions as they apply to each watershed. These provisions include density, residential and non- residential impervious surface ratios, stream buffers, septic and building setbacks, wastewater disposal provisions and provisions related to sludge application, landfills, hazardous materials and sewer lines. The options recommended by the staff were indicated by a double asterisk. The options preferred by the Board of County Commissioners as a result of discussion are indicated in boldface type on pages 4-26 of the December 21, 1993 agenda.) The key points of the discussion by the County Commissioners are listed below. The changes actually made to the proposal are listed after the discussion. BOARD CONSENSIIS ON WATERSHED CHARTS UNIVERSITY WATERSHED It was the consensus of the Board to accept the staff recommendation and keep University Lake regulations the same as the current regulations. CANE CREEK The Board agreed with one lot per two acres. Marvin Collins clarified that existing development is not included in the state regulations. However, the recommendation does include existing lots which is the reason for the sliding scale for impervious surface ratios. There are 217 existing lots in the Cane Creek watershed. The sliding scale would be applied to those lots less than two acres. The Board decided to approve option #2, changing the BMPs to structural BMPs, and #2 on the setback for septic systems. Marvin Collins stated that the stream was removed from the setback because the stream buffer itself provides an adequate setback and no additional setback was necessary. LITTLE RIVER The Board decided that structural BMP's will be allowed in this watershed. Marvin Collins indicated that the Camp Dresser McKee study and the Rural Character strategies recommend two acre lots. It will be easier to implement the Rural Character strategies if this is approved for two acre lots. All Board members except Commissioner Gordon supported #2. Commissioner Gordon noted that the main goal is to protect the Little River watershed and she hopes that Orange County will work with Durham to do so. Commissioner Willhoit feels that the two acre lot size fits in better with the Rural Character strategy and also gives options for providing density bonuses. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Marvin Collins 6 noted that the impervious surface ratio will not be a burden because the sliding scale protects existing lots. It allows the developer the flexibility of shifting land from one lot to another. The Board decided that community disposal systems would be allowed. UPPER ENO, BACK CREEK, LOWER ENO, FLAT RIVER, SOUTH HYCO, HAW RIVER AND THE JORDAN LAKE WATERSHEDS The Board gave preliminary approval to the staff recommendation as listed on pages 16 through 27 of the December 6, 1993 agenda abstract. In summary, the major changes as recommended by the County Commissioners are listed below: The changes approved at this meeting are shown in bold face on the watershed charts of the December 21, 1993 abstract. 1. The staff had recommended that septic system setbacks of 300 feet apply adjacent to reservoirs only. The Board indicated a preference of 300 foot setbacks adjacent to the reservoir as well as streams within the University-CA overlay and a septic setback of 100 feet from streams in the University-PW overlay. 2. The staff had recommended that building setbacks of 150 feet apply adjacent to reservoirs only. The Board indicated a preference of 150 foot setbacks adjacent to the reservoir as well as streams within the University-CA overlay and a building setback of 150 feet from streams in the University-PW overlay. 3. In watersheds classified at WS-2 where residential density is not allowed to exceed one unit per acre, the Board proposed 50~ impervious surface for all fire stations and solid waste convenient centers. It was originally presented by staff to allow 50$ impervious surface limit to apply to one fire station and one solid waste convenient center. 4. The Board of County Commissioners indicated a preference for two acre minimum lot size for the Little River WS. The staff recommendation included a two acre lot size east of NC57 and a .92 acre lot size west of NC57. 5. The Board indicated a preference for the prohibition of septic easements and community disposal systems within all protected watersheds except for easements for repair where needed. The staff recommendation had been to apply the septic easement and community disposal system prohibitions only to the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds and the Upper Eno critical area. 6. For watersheds designated at the work session, the Board of County Commissioners indicated a preference for 50$ impervious surface ratio for all fire stations and solid waste convenient centers, 12$ impervious surface ratio for all other non-residential uses, onsite infiltration the first inch of stormwater runoff and a limit of one percent of non-residential use throughout the watershed. The Planning Staff had recommended 70$ impervious surface ratio and 1$ for the Back Creek protected watershed, 163 acres with BMPs if the impervious surface ratio is greater than 12~. JOINT PLANNING FOR SERVICE DELIVERY WITH PUBLIC ANDjOR PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS Commissioner Gordon presented a proposal for joint planning of recreation, parks and library services. The Board agreed that a separate committee needs to be formed to address joint planning for these services. They also would like this committee to address youth services and senior services. This committee would only address specific issues. Commissioner Willhoit noted that with regard to the request from Chapel Hill to increase the County~s allocation for their new library, Chapel Hill made the decision independently to build a new library which will increase their operational budget by $200,000 to $300,000. Commissioner Halkiotis endorsed the idea of moving toward a shared level of service. His concern is that Hillsborough did not want to hire a fire inspector, yet they just hired a solid waste planner. He feels there could be savings for everyone if efforts were combined. Chair Carey said that he feels the Board needs to think about initiating a cooperative effort further before proceeding. BOARD POLICY ON CITIZEN COMMENTS ON DECISION ITEMS Discussion ensued on how and when public comments should be received on public hearing items that are placed on the agenda as a decision item and not a public hearing item. Commissioner Willhoit said he prefers following the ordinance where public comments are heard, the public hearing is closed for public comments and would appear on the agenda as a decision item. By keeping it open for additional information, citizens will always want to speak. Commissioner Gordon feels that when an issue is complicated, the Commissioners need to discuss it before the public hearing so they are informed and can make midcourse corrections if necessary. Each process needs to have a definite charge and interim steps. This could be accomplished at the bi-monthly work sessions. Commissioner Willhoit noted that if there is not enough time to hear all the citizens, the public hearing can be continued. John Link suggested that a policy be developed with a time frame. However, if that time frame cannot be met, build into the policy an extension of time. Chair Carey feels that it is very important for the staff to know midstream if they are going in the right direction on a project before it is finalized. He has no problem in receiving updates from time to time on projects. Commissioner Gordon asked that the County Commissioners be given time to consider, evaluate and provide feedback on projects which are complicated and have taken a long time to develop. It was agreed that the bi-monthly work sessions would be used to update the Board on such projects. ADJOURNMENT The Board decided that the remaining items on the agenda would be discussed at a later time. Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Tuesday, December 21, 1993 at the OWASA Community Center in Carrboro, North Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr., Chair