Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19980223APPROVED 5/19198 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 23, 1998 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a Joint Public Hearing on Monday, February 23, 1998 for the purpose of holding a Quarterly Public Hearing. This meeting was held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, and, members Moses Carey, Jr., William L. Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, AND Stephen H. Halkiotis. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows, and members Nell Andrews, S.A.M. Brooks, Paul Hoecke, Arnie Katz Howard McAdams, Jr., Renee A. Price, Libby Searles, James Selkirk, Robert Strayhorn, and Elizabeth Walters, PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Leo Allison. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Interim Planning Director Gene Bell and Planners Emily Cameron and Eddie Kirk. Other staff members present will be identified where appropriate. Chair Margaret Brown convened the meeting. She indicated that Item C. 2 - Zoning Atlas Amendment PD-2-98 and Item C.3 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment would be chaired by Planning Board Chairwoman Karen Barrows. She stated that she would Chair Items C.1 - Living Wage Ordinance and C.4 -Class A Special Use Permit. 0 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS This item was chaired by Commissioner Margaret Brown. 1. LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE This item was presented by Interim Economic Development Director Greg Payne in order to receive citizen comment regarding a draft Living Wage Ordinance for Orange County. The Draft Ordinance establishes a minimum wage level for certain firms doing business with County government. He mentioned that in May of 1997 the Board of Commissioners received a report detailing the history of living wage ordinances across the country. In the Fall of 1997 they defined which issues and situations should be covered in a Living Wage Ordinance for Orange County and directed the County Attorney to draft an ordinance. The draft Living Wage Ordinance would establish a minimum wage of $8.00 per hour for employees of service and construction firms contracting to do business with the County and for employees of firms receiving loans or grants through the Orange County Small Business Loan Pool or any economic development program. He mentioned that Federal Minimum Wage Law has not kept up with the financial needs of our citizens. Many cities across the nation have adopted Living Wage Ordinances. Durham has adopted such an Ordinance with a $7.50 minimum pay scale. He indicated that research has shown that in communities where this type of Ordinance has been in place for some time, it has not raised the cost of local government contracts. He commented that the biggest expense to local government could be the staff time required to monitor compliance. He distributed a graph and chart which tracked the annual earnings at minimum wage and the federal poverty level for a family of three. A copy of this handout is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS In response to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis, Greg Payne indicated that Orange 2 County has no full time employees earning less than $8.00 an hour. There are also many temporary employees starting at $8.00 or more, however some are paid between $6.50 and $8.00. Some of those temporaries are Recreation employees and others are working to cover for absences and illness of permanent employees. County Manager John Link also mentioned that there are several MPA Interns who are paid between $2,500 - $5,000 for a two to four month period of time. They are being paid while receiving work experience. Pam Jones, Director of the Purchasing Department, indicated that the Service Contract section applies to contracts for which the County is obligated to pay the service contractor $25,000 or more in a given year. It also applies to services that the County could provide for itself with its own employees, should it decide to do so. Examples of these service contracts would be grounds keeping and/or in-home care. A second category is construction contracts that fall between $25,000 to $100,000. Amounts aver $100,000 are covered by State bid guidelines. She mentioned that recipients of loan pool funds would also have to pay their employees a living wage. The Economic Development Commission endorsed this proposal by an 8 to 1 vote. The one member who voted against this was concerned with the cost to businesses starting up and to non-profits. Pam Jones mentioned that the non-profits are not included in this Ordinance. Also, County employees are covered under a parallel Ordinance. She mentioned that contractors would be required to submit affidavits proving compliance prior to the beginning of a project and again at the end. Also flyers will be posted where employees can see them. Finally, she mentioned that the Ordinance does not include an automatic pay escalation clause, however, it does include remedies to insure compliance. County Attorney Gledhill stated that each contract that is covered by this Ordinance would include the language on page 11 of the ordinance. That language makes the requirements of the Ordinance a part of the contract between the vendor and the County. It also provides for restitution to employees and the County and allows the County to enforce the Ordinance. It also includes a clause which forbids punishing of employees. The County Manager would be given the power to investigate and assure compliance. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD Planning Board Chair Barrows asked why the County would receive restitution along with the worker who was underpaid according to the standard set by this Ordinance. The County Attorney referred to Page 11. 3. b which explained that there are costs to the County associated with non- compliance of this Ordinance. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Michele Rivest, Executive Director of the Partnership for Young Children, commented that this Ordinance presents a dilemma. It is extremely important that parents be paid a living wage in order to be able to pay for the high cost of child care. However, this Ordinance will pose a hardship for owners of Child Care facilities and more than likely will cause them to raise the cost of child care. That cost will then be paid by the parents of those children. The people who will feel the impact of that increase the most are those parents at the lowest end of the pay scale. Those are the very parents who would more than likely be the beneficiaries of the Living Wage Ordinance. Sue Russell, Executive Director of Day Care Services Association, mentioned that many families receiving subsidies have their children enrolled in facilities whose employees are paid between $5.50 and $7.60 per hour. This would increase the cost of providing the child care and some of those facilities may chose not to participate in the subsidy program with the County. She mentioned the Child Care Wages Project which was created by the Partnership for Young Children. This project is a salary supplement which provides between $10 and $1.00 supplement. She asked the County to both increase the wages and increase the child care subsidy. In response to a question, the County Attorney indicated that for profit child care facilities would be covered and non-profit would be covered only if the County Commissioners decided that they were covered. 3 Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the 36% employee turnover rate for child care workers.. He asked if exit interviews had been done? Ms. Russell indicated that poor wages was the main reason for the high turnover. Bill Strom indicated that he was speaking on his own behalf, not as a member of the Economic Development Commission. He stated that this was initially received by the EDC members with some controversy. However, the Economic Development Commission came to see this as a logical and healthy step to take. Wages are the cornerstone of the economy. He encouraged the Commissioners to move forward with this Ordinance. He mentioned that he was in favor of the Ordinance as it is written, however, he would like to see it tied to the Economic Development fast tract component. He would also like to see the threshold on service contracts lowered. Alex Zaffron, member of the Economic Development Commission and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, indicated that he strongly supported the passage of this Ordinance. He feels that one of the most difficult challenges is to close the gap between the cost of living and the ability of local citizens to work and live in this community. Fritzie Ross, an Orange County citizen spoke in support of this Ordinance. She mentioned that the cost of low wages in the child care field is high turnover of employees and the quality of child care is greatly impacted by the high turnover rate. Mr. Ed King, an Orange County citizen, spoke in support of this Ordinance. He mentioned that he was employed for $7.50 an hour and that it was practically impossible to balance even an extremely conservative budget on that wage. There being no further comments the Public Hearing was closed. The Ordinance will be reviewed by staff for possible revision. The revised Ordinance will be returned to the Board of Commissioners as soon as possible. 2. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (A) PD-2--98 State Employees Credit Union The following citizens and staff were sworn in so that they could speak to this item: Planner Eddie Kirk, State of North Carolina Credit Union employee Robin Lewis, O'Brien/Atkins Associates, Inc. employees Jay Smith and Steve Russ, and Jack Alphin of Alphin Realty. This item was presented by Planner Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a Planned Development and Class A Special Use Permit for the State Employees Credit Union. The property is located on the southwest corner of Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough Road and Oakdale Drive in Hillsborough Township. It contains the two corner lots which total 2.07 acres in size. This property is in the Economic Development Zoning District as well as the property immediately south and the lot immediately west. The State Employees Credit Union is a permitted use in this district. The proposed design meets all of the requirements specified in the Design Manual except the requirement for a buffer around the perimeter of the property. The buffer could not be met due to the lot size, therefore the applicants are requesting a waiver of this requirement. The site plan indicates a proposed buffer of 59 feet next to Oakdale Drive, 52 ft 7 inches next to Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough Road, 40 feet next to the western property line and 24 feet 1 inch next to the southern property line. He indicated that in order to conform to this particular site, the parking has been moved to the rear of the proposed building. He indicated that staff has recommended four improvements to the plan in the event that the Board of Commissioners approve this request. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Halkiotis asked for clarification regarding whether or not there is a drive through. Mr. Kirk indicated that there was an ATM and a drive through. In response to a question by Commissioner Gordon, Eddie Kirk reviewed the surrounding uses which include a CITGO station, several residences which are located in the Economic Development Districts to the south and west. To the North is a residence in the Town of Hillsborough's jurisdiction. He also indicated that the sewer connection would either be at Flint Ridge or at the prison facility. 4 Chair Brown asked if there was a process in place whereby residents of the Economic Development District would be informed of the issues surrounding water and/or sewer services. Mr. Kirk replied that the Planning staff always recommends that as an option but it is not required. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Jay Smith, with O'Brien/Atkins Associates, Inc., indicated that this plan was first submitted in March of 1997 and they feel that this latest plan is the best possible use of this site. They have worked with Orange County Transportation Planner Slade McCalip to design the best circulation plan. The sewer lines have been moved in this latest design so that parking could be moved to the back of the building. Also, they have left the large trees and increased the buffers as much as possible. He also mentioned that this branch building will increase the tax base by 1 million dollars. They have made many changes but they cannot adhere to the 100 foot buffer requirement. Steve Russ, with O'Brien/Atkins, indicated that he was available to answer any questions. He mentioned that Slade McCalip felt that aligning with the CITGO Station would help with the traffic flow. Jack Alphin, of Alphin Realty, mentioned that he does not have a vested interest in this facility. He was asked to submit an opinion on behalf of the State Employees Credit Union. He referred to his letter dated December 17, 1997 a copy of which is located in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. He indicated that the Credit Union facility would at the very east maintain the area and would probably likely enhance the ambiance and values of adjacent and area properties. Robin Lewis, Manager of the Credit Union, indicated that she would be happy to answer any questions. She agreed that the current plan appears to be the best use of the site. Members of her staff are committed to providing a needed service to the citizens of Northern Orange County. In response to a question, she mentioned that they rarely require a Sheriff's Deputy to provide an escort while Credit Union employees transfer money. A letter from James C. Blaine, President, State Employees Credit Union, was distributed and is included herein by reference. He stated that the Credit Union has made attempts to address each concern that was mentioned in his earlier discussion with John Link. His comments in their entirety are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office A motion was made by Chairwoman Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 7, 1998 VOTE- UNANIMOUS 2. ZONING ORDINANCE TEST AMENDMENT (a) Floor Area For Existing Non-residential Uses in Residential Districts Article 5.1.2 Schedule for Non-residential Development This item was presented by Orange County Planner Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum floor area allowed existing non-residential uses permitted in the AR, RB, R-1, 4-2, 4-3 and R-4 zoning districts. She stated that institutional uses such as schools, government buildings, and places of worship are permitted in all residential zoning districts with site plan approval by the Planning Department. In 1989 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to increase the floor area allowed for non- residential uses in residential districts (RB, AR, R-1 & R-2) from 5.8 percent to 8.8 percent limit on floor area, which might preclude any significant future additions to those buildings. The proposed amendment would increase the maximum floor area allowed for non-residential uses legally existing as of 5/6/98 in the RB, AR, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 residential districts from 8.8 percent (10 percent in planned developments, 12.3 percent in R-4) to 14.1 percent. The proposed standard is equal to the current limit on floor area in PD-R-4 district and is consistent with actual floor area of existing facilities. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None 5 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Reverend Earl Echols, Jr., with the Ebenezer Baptist Church, spoke in support of this Text Amendment.. He commented that their current facility is too small to accommodate the size of their congregation. He mentioned the number of children that they are currently serving and that it is important to them to increase the size of their Church. They currently have 75-100 children in their congregation each Sunday and they need to provide a facility that is conducive to worship. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 6, 1998. VOTE: UNANIMOUS This item was chaired by Chair Margaret Brown. She asked everyone who wished to speak to come forward and be sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. 4. CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PD-1-98 Carolina Friends School The following citizens and staff were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk so that they could speak to this item: Orange County Planner Emily Cameron, John Baird, Principal, Carolina Friends School and Ellen Wentz. This item was presented by Planner Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School to accommodate a ten-year master plan for expansion of the existing private school approved as a planned development in 1990 and modified in 1992, 1996, and 1997. Carolina Friends school is an existing private school located on the west side of Friends School Road (SR 1719). The property contains 38.62 acres and is zoned PD-RB, Planned Development - Rural Buffer. In August of 1990 a Class A Special Use Permit was issued for Carolina Friends School to allow the use of the school's wastewater disposal system in the Rural Buffer. A planned development is also required where there are multiple principal structures on a non-residential lot greater than two acres in size. This Special Use Permit was modified in 1992 and 1996. In 1997 the School swapped land with Duke University to acquire acreage between the existing school and Friends School Road. The current request is to accommodate a ten-year master plan to expand the school into the acreage acquired in 1997. Student enrollment is proposed to increase by five for a total of 422 students. The staff will increase by one for a total of 62 staff members. The proposal includes a new entrance to the school site south of the existing entrance on Friends School Road. The new entrance will have better sight distance than the existing entrance. The existing entrance will continue to access a portion of the campus, but will not connect to the proposed system of driveways. Five new buildings are proposed (37,750 sq. ft): a multi-purpose center (gymnasium), a meeting house, a new Early School building, an athletic field house, and a covered service area. Several additions to existing structures are proposed totaling 14,700 square feet. The expansion also involves a baseball field, two soccer fields, and an outdoor amphitheater. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on why the space is being increased but the student population is only being increased by 5 students. John Baird, Principal, Carolina Friends School, replied that the long-term vision for the school calls for an increase in facilities but not for a significant increase in enrollment. The current size of the school in terms of enrollment is aligned with their vision of the size of the school. A letter from John Baird, dated February 19, 1998, was distributed and is incorporated herein by reference. A copy of this letter is in the permanent agenda file in the clerk's office. In response to a question from Commissioner Crowther, Mr. Baird indicated that the land swap with Duke University had a positive impact on the school. If the Special Use Permit is approved, they will begin this project with the new soccer field. The current field will be returned to forest land by Duke University. 6 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: None A motion was made by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 6, 1998. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners will be held on Wednesday, March 4, 1998 in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, NC. Margaret W. Brown, Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk