Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20020417APPROVED 6!18102 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL April 17, 2002 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Chapel Hill Town Council on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the board room of the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina far the purpose of holding a Joint Planning Area Public Hearing. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon and Stephen Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin C. Foy and Council Members Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith M. Wiggins CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Michael R. Nelson and Aldermen Mark Dorosin, Jacquelyn Gist, John Herrera, Diana McDuffee, Alex Zaffron, and Joal Hall Broun NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Jacobs welcomed everyone to the meeting. He said that there would probably be more joint meetings like this in the future with the implementation of the new County's comprehensive plan. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the public charge. Commissioner Brown arrived at 7:45 p.m. C. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 1. Joint Planning Agreement Amendment 1JPA-1-02] Planning Director Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that this is a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement to provide linkage with the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement. He showed the water and sewer service areas on a map. He made reference to the replacement pages for pages 12-13 (blue paper}, which added some clarification to the language. He read the new language. He said that the staff tried to leave the existing Jaint Planning Area Agreement intact and just provide the linkage language that would link it to the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement. In answer to a question about the area east of Hillsborough, Craig Benedict said that this area was designated as the Orange County Primary Interest Area, and the decision an how water and sewer is provided would be made by Orange County. At this time, there is an emergency interconnect feed in Hillsborough and Durham in this area. Barry Katz said that the current rural buffer is in the OWASA long-term interest area and he asked for comment from OWASA and Orange County on why the rural buffer is not in the Orange County D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Joint Planning Agreement Timeline NOTE: This item was to discuss whether or not it would be desirable to initiate a time extension of the annexation provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement. Chapel Hill Planning staff member Chris Berndt quickly reviewed this information. There are two issues. The annexation provisions have a time limit of 20 years and the agreement itself does remain in effect until it is terminated and does not have a time limit. The staff is suggesting that the boards discuss whether the staff should proceed with the process to initiate amendments to the agreement to extend the 20-year period. If so, a fall, 2002 joint public hearing could be scheduled. The annexation provisions are that we agreed not to annex into each other's jurisdictions and also not into the rural buffer. A motion was made by Bill Strom, seconded by Mayor Nelson to refer this to the Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro Managers and staff to bring back an amendment for consideration at the next JPA meeting in fall 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance NOTE: This item was to discuss decision options an the seven issues to be decided before the Schools APFO ordinance can go into effect. In addition, to discuss guidance regarding who will be responsible and when the seven key issues can be organized and recommended (see agenda abstract} Craig Benedict said that many of the jurisdictions have discussed this item extensively. The Town of Chapel Hill has approved the memorandum of understanding, which includes a model APFO. There are issues within the APFO that will be addressed in some manner before it is implemented. He listed the seven issues that have been discussed at various times. 1) Level of service limits at each school level (MOU Section 1) -level of service means what percentage of the capacity of the school is reasonable for children to attend. The first sat of numbers discussed with the various boards has been 105°~ for elementary, 107% for middle, and 110°~ for high school. All parties must agree to the percentages before they are implemented. 2) Membership determination date (MOU Section 1 a) -historical membership dates could be used for school projection into the future. 3) Building capacity (MOU Section 1 b} -building capacity should be standardized as much as possible. 4) Capital Improvement Plan (MOU Section 1c[i)) -the capital improvement plan needs to support the student projections. The Capital Improvement Plan will be used as the basis for when capacity is added into the APFO model in future years. 5) Student Growth Rate (MOU Section 1 c(ii)} -this number can be different in each school district because of changing growth trends. The PlannerslSchool Representatives Work Group could bring recommendations forward on this. 6) Student Projection Method (MOU Section 1 c(iii)} -there are many different methods for student projection. By standardizing the information in items 1-3, a model can be chosen that fits the information best. These issues can be reexamined each year. The PlannerslSchool Representatives Work Group could bring recommendations about this. 7) Student Generation Rate per Dwelling Unit {MOU Section 1c(iv)) -this rate is for new development dwelling units. The Planners/School Representatives Work Group could bring recommendations forward on this. The SAPFO formula is as follows: Available capacity =building capacity minus membership plus new development. of the MOU to it. He said that the concern is that there needs to be some sort of process to reach agreement on the changes. He does not agree that the numbers are going to be constant. Mayor Foy said that in his reading of section D, the clause that says, "The committee shall provide a copy of its recommendation to the governing boards of the other parties of this memorandum at the time that it provides such recommendatian to the Board of Commissioners," what would likely happen in Chapel Hill is that there would be a public hearing. The Tawn Council would then forward its comments to the County Commissioners. He assumes that the County Commissioners would take that into consideration as part of their determination. He thinks that it is important that there be one body making these decisions because they need to be made annually. He agrees that it should be the County Commissioners and he is comfortable with that. Jaal Braun said that she thinks that the language speaks far itself. All boards have to agree initially, and then if any board does not agree in subsequent years, then that board would no longer be included in the agreement. She does not have a problem with this. She thinks that each member of each elected board needs to understand this and have faith that the Board of County Commissioners will make the right decision. She thinks we should move on and implement the SAPFO. Flicka Bateman agreed with Joal Broun. She wants to see this happen expeditiously. Edith Wiggins said that most of the people an elected boards da not have the expertise to work an these figures. The representatives from the schools and the planning directors are able to look at what has happened with the numbers and if they are working. She said that the concepts would not change, only the technical part that makes it work. Jim Ward made reference to the language, "The Commissioners shall inform the parties," and said that it does not sound all that inclusive. However, he is ak that the committee will be providing information to all of the governing boards. He said that it is in everybody's interest that no one body does ar appears to be acting alone, because it would fall apart. Mayor Nelson said that his recommendation is to refer items 5, 6, and 7 back to the Schools and Land Use Council and make a recommendation back to all of the elected bodies. Pat Evans said that it is her understanding that although the communities have grown at about 2%, the school population has grown at 6%. She asked if this means that the projections for children per dwelling unit in new housing will be three times as much as existing housing. Craig Benedict said that the student generation study that was done only took into consideration new development, or development over the last ten years. This ordinance would only be regulating new development. Flicka Bateman asked if it would be possible for a SAPFO to apply to the development in one of the school districts and the municipalities that feed that school district and not the other, if one opted not to da it and the other did. Craig Benedict said that there would be two agreements far Orange County -Orange County/Hillsborough and Orange County School district and Chapel Hill-Carrbora City School district and Orange County. He said that typical Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances are as comprehensive as passible. They can be separated, but it would not be the best situation for either party. Diana McDuffee said that she heard concerns in the newspaper about the service limits at each school level and whether they are set too law in terms of requiring new schools at a faster pace than necessary. She said that she could not remember where we gat those school service levels. She asked Craig Benedict how these levels were determined and how they compared with others around the country. Craig Benedict said that the levels do vary from a low of 105% to a high of 175%. Diana McDuffee pointed out that we were on the extreme low end of levels of service. Craig Benedict said that the median was approximately 115%. He said that each school could have a different level of service. He said that the 105°~ took into consideration a lot of factors (the facilities at the school, etc.). A motion was made by Mayor Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer items 5, 6, and 7 back to the Schools and Land Use Council to make a recommendatian back to all of the elected bodies. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Land Use Element-_ Oran a County Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Carey left at 9:22 (not feeling well). long-term interest area. Craig Benedict said that we have looked at what areas and what watersheds can be most easily served by a utility authority. In this case, the area is presently served in part by OWASA. For fiscal efficiency, it was best that OWASA would be the best entity to continue services to this area. He will provide a copy of this agreement to Mr. Katz. Commissioner Gordon said that her recollection is the same in that the idea was to have the long-term service area be the nearest utility provider. Chair Jacobs said that since the County is not in the water business, the County yields to the water utilities. That is the simplest way. Commissioner Brown made reference to the urban services boundary and said that it has an aspect that the utilities were possibly in a position of creating the future for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County by extending water and sewer. This water and sewer boundary agreement puts the responsibility on the elected boards to create the future in terms of land planning, etc. Craig Benedict said that the JPA agreement is a land use document and a coordination document. He said that what we are suggesting is to link these two existing agreements and make both of them stronger. There was no one from the public who wished to speak to this item. Pat Evans said that in the last year our nation, our state, and everyone else have seen changes. She suggested that we might want to think about an additional issue, which would come as an exception to this agreement. She is very supportive of urban boundaries because she thinks it is a way of controlling sprawl. At the Chapel Hill Town Council's last meeting they adopted the SAPFO memorandum of understanding. She said that our school district is greater than our municipality districts. She said that if we were to make an exception only on the basis of schools and make it with some restrictions, she thinks it would have several benefits. The land outside of an urban boundary is valued for what it can be used for. If the school system could purchase land outside of an urban boundary, the land would be cheaper. She does not feel it will cause sprawl. She feels there are going to be additional problems with trying to locate schools and parks together. There is a site being considered for a school that is now inside of the urban boundary. However, if this amendment is adopted, it will be outside of the urban boundary. Chair Jacobs responded by saying that several work groups have been set up with the two school boards. He said that the County Commissioners have the same concerns that the land acreage that is recommended by the state promotes sprawl and it pushes the schools to the edges of the urban service area because the land is cheaper. There will be conversations in the work groups about acreage requirements. He said that we could add to the discussion putting schools in the rural buffer. He pointed out that this is not the direction that the County Commissioners are going, but they are willing to discuss it. Joal Broun asked about the size of the high schools and if this was based on the number of students or the acreage. Chair Jacobs said that there would be a committee made up of the chairs and vice-chairs of the Board of County Commissioners and the two school boards. This committee is going to look at the assumptions about the projections, the type of facility (500, 700, 1500-student), and the acreage. Joal Broun asked at what time the public would be able to comment on the potential location, type, and size of high schools. Chair Jacobs said that a schedule would be developed to have the issues resolved by the end of this year. Commissioner Gordon said that she thought this high school group was going to try to make a recommendation before the end of June so that it could be included in the Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Chair Jacobs said that they will probably make a recommendation by the end of the year. He feels that there is a proposal that will be included in the CIP. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis ,seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro to refer this as appropriate under their land use regulations and to refer it to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Orange County Commissioners na sooner than June 4, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Craig Benedict said that the timeframe would came from the elected bodies. In summary, the SAPFO can give us another tool to put in our land development toolbox. This tool would be used when a new development comes forward to gauge the impacts of the development upon our schools. Chair Jacobs asked for clarification an what the staff is asking the boards to do. Craig Benedict said that the seven issues are elements of the memorandum of understanding distributed by the Schools and Land Use Council. Some of the issues will be decided by certain task forces. This item is for general information tonight. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that the level of service and the membership determination date were in the MOU right now. There would have to be some agreement to change this. Craig Benedict agreed that there were some items already in the MOU, but there are also some items yet to be decided. Mark Kleinschmidt asked for clarification on the jurisdictions, which will consider this ordinance. Craig Benedict said that items 5, 6, 7 could be considered by the Planning Directors of the jurisdictions. The Capital Improvement Plan would be considered by the County Commissioners only. Building Capacity and Membership Data is primarily a product of the school districts with some input by the County Commissioners. He said that every jurisdiction would have to be happy with each issue, or it will not be incorporated into the respective land development codes. Ultimately, all of the local governments and all of the school districts have to be in agreement on all seven issues for the SAPFO to function. In the process, there is some delegation of responsibility. Mark Kleinschmidt asked if every jurisdiction would be involved in the yearly evaluations. Craig Benedict said that if any of the parties are not happy with the formula after the first year, that entity could decide to opt out of the agreement. Mayor Foy said that what it says in the MOU is if any change is going to be made, then the County Commissioners will consider it and refer it to all parties. Jim Ward read from the agenda as follows: "The County Commissioners are in a position to modify all of the variables based an their judgment and anything that they do change, the County Commissioners shall inform the other parties to this memorandum prior to February 15t, in which such change is intended to become effective, and why it was necessary." He said that it does not say anything about a public process that would allow elected officials and the general public to respond. Craig Benedict said that during the certification process of the new data, there would be discourse on any changes made. When the report comes back from the Planners/School Representatives work group, the information will be distributed to all parties, and if there is some difficulty, it can be expressed to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Gardon made reference to pages 25 and 26 of the agenda. The levels of service are already in the MOU. The membership date of November 15t" is also in the MOU. The building capacity is going to be determined by the school districts and by the County Commissioners. At the beginning, everyone must agree with the provisions of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. However, once the APFO is adopted, the Orange County Board of Commissioners may change the projected student membership growth rate, the methodology used to determine this rate, or the student generation rate if the Board concludes that such a change is necessary to predict growth mare accurately. Before doing this, the Board must consider the recommendations of the staff committee. The County Commissioners will have to inform everyone if they decide to make a change. She pointed out that everyone had to agree on the CIP in the initiating phase, but in the recurring phase, it is up to the County Commissioners to decide on the CIP. She spoke about the capacities as set in the MOU and said that the only concern is the high school in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schaols district. In her judgment, if the building capacities and membership numbers are correct, then we can start the SAPFO without having an immediate moratorium and issuing of CAPS. Alex Zaffran said that the language that Commissioner Gordon sited earlier in section D refers to the idea that the County Commissioners may change the methodology of the student membership growth rate. He said that being able to change the methodology unilaterally affects every portion of the formula. The concern that has been raised is that even after the lengthy review and the input from the staff members and the representatives from the other governing boards, the lack of an advice and consent clause in the MOU to undertake that action may have the effect of undermining the effectiveness Craig Benedict spoke about the GOOD plan, ar the Growth Optimum Overlay Design plan. This was put together in late 1999 by the Planning Department. This plan encourages development where there are services and discourages development in environmentally sensitive areas and areas without services at a reasonable cost. He introduced Tam Tempia, the new Comprehensive Planning Supervisor in the Planning Department who is working on the new comprehensive plan. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Tempia gave an overview of the new comprehensive plan. The staff has received authorization to proceed by the Board of County Commissioners. A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee will help to guide the process, but will not make any decisions about the comprehensive plan. There will also be small area plan committees and community outreach. There will then be public hearings and decision making. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee will have nine members consisting of two Board of County Commissioner representatives, two Planning Board representatives, representatives from other boards and committees, and staff support. Also, feedback from Shaping Orange County's Future will be used as part of this process. The ultimate goal of the comprehensive plan is to guide growth to the areas that can best accommodate it. Craig Benedict said that, in summary, they are trying to achieve a GOOD plan for growth, knowing that growth is going to come our way and we have to be able to put it in an area where public facilities can efficiently service those areas and try to remove it from the areas we want to protect. Alex Zaffron asked about the scope of the work of the Small Area Plan Committees. He made reference to the Northern Study Area for Carrboro's transition area, which resulted in a completed small area plan that was fairly recently adopted. This plan resulted in a number of joint planning agreement amendments. He asked if part of the scope of the work was to review and amend this small area plan. Craig Benedict said that the information from the adopted plans would be used. Edith Wiggins said that she feels it may be helpful, when doing the percentage increase in population, to disaggregate Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Chair Jacobs suggested having these numbers for the Assembly of Governments meeting on April 29tH Commissioner Gordon said that this comprehensive plan process is just a preliminary overview of what might be done. The only thing the County Commissioners have approved is this Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee. She emphasized that the County is not going to be planning anything within the boundaries of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Jim Ward said that he hopes that the County will fully take advantage of the information received from the Shaping Orange County's task force. One of the things that was difficult and never resolved was the conflict among some of the goals and objectives and the implementation of them. 4. Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Northwest Area b. Southern Portion of Chapel Hill Transition Area Within Joint Planning Area These items were postponed to April 29, 2002 far discussion at the Assembly of Governments meeting. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Mayor Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 22 at 7:30 p.m. at the Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Barry Jacobs, Chair Beverly A. Blythe