Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20041021APPROVED 12!612004 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION OCTOBER 21, 2004 7:30 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Thursday, October 21, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret Brown, Alice M. Gordan, and Stephen Halkiotis COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill, Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Jahn M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below} NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK°S OFFICE Craig Benedict said that he distributed a memo in reference to the proposed Oakdale Village and would like for that to be added to the agenda. Commissioner Brown said that today she attended a subcommittee meeting of the Intergovernmental Parks Warkgroup and they discussed the expenditure of funds to transfer $75,000 to Chapel Hill for the greenway system-engineering piece. There are four engineering firms that are interested. The choice will be made at the next meeting. This is far the greenway from Airport Road to Umstead Road. 1a. Triangle SportsPlex John Link said that there are two major projects that the Board of Commissioners will need to make a decision on within the course of the next few months. One is locating and planning the Central Orange County Senior Center. The other is the Triangle 5portsplex. The County's obligation in terms of appropriating funding will end this fiscal year unless the Board chooses to re-engage in some cooperative agreement after March. In June, the staff briefly presented the concept of haw the senior center and the Spartsplex could be co-located and that there would be synergy between the two projects. Since that time, they have been working with Jeff Thompson and Whit Morrow. The staff would like to present this as a possibility. If the Board would like to move forward with the concept, then the staff could come back with a more detailed plan in December. Rod Visser said that the Board's direction in June was to have the staff to continue to flesh out the proposal. The staff has worked on it, specifically as it relates to regulatory issues and the Town of Hillsborough (i.e., impervious surface, parking, etc.). The good news is that they have not run into anything that would hinder this project. The concept is that there may be synergies or cost savings associated with the County pursuing the co-location of the Sportsplex and the senior center. The agreement with the Sportsplex, which the County has been in for ten years, is that the County pays the Sportsplex $400,00 a year, and in return the Sportsplex makes sure that the amenities are made available to citizens of Orange County at a reasonable cost. There are some indications that there may be cost savings with the co-location concept. Rod Visser introduced Whit Morrow, an Orange County resident and a member of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council. He also works with Lincoln Harris, which is a real estate development and property management firm which is trying to sell the Sportsplex property. Jeff Thompson is the Executive Director of LEDAHF (Linked Economic Development and Affordable Housing Foundation). Chair Jacobs recognized members of the Friends of the Orange County Central Senior Center and also said that Commissioner Carey is not here this evening because he is in Florida with his mother, who has been ill. Jeff Thompson said that LEDAHF was founded in 1994 in Lowden County, Virginia as a substitute for a housing authority to allow people to have affordable housing. Since that time, it has expanded into commercial development and community facility development. It has three primary focuses: One is to affect and promote economic development in the markets; second is to promote and affect affordable housing; and third is to relieve the burden of government. They try to use as much of the public sector facilities as possible to bring together programs that may solve problems. He said that he was introduced to this project by John Stock with Ice Ventures, who runs about 80°~ of all the ice facilities in the Carolinas. He said that he is very interested in this. He said that there is a land plan that has problems with operations, but also has a significant opportunity for other uses such as affordable housing, senior housing, and other public uses. Jeff Thompson showed a slide presentation. Concept Review October 21, 2004 Jeff Thompson, LEDAHF, Inc Senior Center/Sportsplex Objectives: SportsplexlSenior Center Integration • Concept Approval • Authorization to Move Toward Proposal • Review and Educate Benefits of Concept Components • G2&A Overview: Integrate Central Orange Senior Center into Sportsplex • Appr. 8500 SF of New Construction, Provide 15K SF of Dedicated Senior Center Space • Purchase Existing Facility From Eaton Vance • Apply Favorable Financing Programs For Purchase and Operation • Achieve Higher Operations Efficiencies • Superior Facilities to Seniors and Sportsplex Users Orange County Obligation for Sportsplex • Subsidy with No Ownership Benefits • Not in Control of Facility • Owner (Eaton Vance) Actively Marketing Property • Desire to Continue Pool Availability to All Citizens Existina Operatina Condition for Sportsplex • General Overhead Too Expensive • Absentee Management • Site Plan Not Efficient (Excess Space) • Excess Real Estate Around Building Underutilized • Ice and Fitness Profits Help Subsidize Aquatic Center Costs Standalone Senior Center Plans • Adequate Space (app. 15K SF) • Adequate Programming • Significant Operations Subsidy A Joint Use Site Could Allow the County To: - Spend Considerably Less in Overall Subsidies - Create A Model Senior Center - Control the Management and Direction of the Sportsplex & Senior Center - Eventually "Own" The Sportsplex & Senior Center - Facilitate Development of Onsite or Adjacent Senior Housing Units Schematic of Senior Center Inclusion Economics: Is a Combined Facility Economical? • Allocating Fixed Costs Over More Activities Lowers Costs • 20 % Savings Estimate Fram Professional Management Financing Structure: • Favorably Purchase Sportsplex from Eaton Vance • Use Favorable Debt Facility Guaranty Backed by USDA Community Facilities Program • Cooperation from Eaton Vance on Financing • Continued County Subsidy for Combined Operations Ownership: • USDA Loan Guaranty Eligible for Municipalities and Not-Far-Profits • Flexible, At the Discretion of County • Can Be County Controlled Site and Usage Compliance: • Impervious Surface Requirements • Watershed Requirements • Parking • All Identified issues Manageable with Town of Nillsbarough and County Planning Department • Est. 15K Square Foot Facility Planned • "One Stop Resource" Servicing: - Information and Assistance - Fitness and Wellness Programs - Eldercare and Special Needs - Emergency Shelter Needs - Large Group Event Programming Needs Senior Center Highlights: • Combined Center Sketch Plan Provides 14-15K SF Dedicated Senior Center Space • Plus, The Shared Use of Sportsplex Amenities, Lobby, Snack Bar, Aerobics, and Lockers • Proximity to Potential Senior Housing • All Senior Center Report Needs Are Met (see handout) Programming Coordination: • Senior Center Programming By Seniors • Sportsplex Scheduling (Pool, Exercise, Common Areas) Coordinated With Seniors Future Benefits: On Site or Adjacent Uses • Housing (Affordable, Senior, Supportive) • Office (Medical, Government, County Services) • Other Public Use (Library, Wellness, Walking Trails) Summary: • Concept Assures Continued Access to Aquatic Center • Provides Superior Northern Orange Senior Center Naw • Keeps Seniors and Other Age Groups Together • County Control, Fiscally Efficient • Favorable Financing Structure • Provides Nucleus for Future Senior Oriented Land Use Commissioner Brown asked about ownership of the facility and Jeff Thompson said that, based on the requirements for USDA, the ownership could be by a municipality, a government entity (county}, an Indian tribe, or anot-for-profit. Commissioner Brown asked Jeff Thompson if he was interested in owning it and he said that he was interested in being on the board of directors if it is anon-profit. Rod Visser said that the 501 (c} 3non-profit could be an existing one or a new one that is created. It could be a County controlled non-profit. Commissioner Gordon asked about the USDA and the guarantee and what is involved. Jeff Thompson said that it is a guarantee of loss that USDA will support. The entity would apply for a loan at a lending institution, and then the lending institution will ask USDA to support it with the guarantee function. If the bank approves the economics of the deal, USDA will issue a contingent commitment that will be followed by a guarantee once the facility is occupied. This is a guarantee for as long as the debt is on the books. Rod Visser read from the USDA brochure, which is incorporated by reference. Commissioner Gordan asked about the County's contribution. Jeff Thompson said that they do not know yet. Currently, there is a $400,000 subsidy to the Sportsplex, and there is an estimated $357,000 subsidy to the stand-alone senior center. Rod Visser clarified that these subsidies are what it will cost to run a senior center. The total for both entities is $757,000 in operational costs. The staff is trying to come up with a proposal that would be less than this in terms of operational costs to the County. Commissioner Gordon asked for a more detailed analysis of figures. She would like for an independent agency to look at what it is going to cost the County. Jeff Thompson agreed. Commissioner Gordan asked how they knew they would get a favorable estimate from Eaton Vance and Whit Morrow answered that Eaton Vance does not want to operate this facility, but they want to sell it. He thinks that they can come up with a fair proposal for this entity to purchase it. Commissioner Gordan said that it is important to realize that this is a ten-year old facility and that investors, not Eaton Vance, were the ones who lost money on this facility. This facility was supposed to cost $10.6 million, and they took a paper value of $6 million several years ago. She is not at all interested in paying $6 million far the Sportsplex. Commissioner Halkiotis said that there was old data showing haw the Tawn of Chapel Hill was subsidizing the aquatic center on Estes Drive and what may be the anticipated subsidy for the new aquatic center, which he is sure is going to be more. Some of the design work has had to be scaled back because of rising construction costs. He thinks it would be appropriate to ask surrounding jurisdictions, including Durham, Wake, and Guilford Counties what the costs are for water opportunities. He believes that the Sportsplex brought a quality of life to central and northern Orange by giving people year-round opportunities for fitness. He thinks the $400,000 was a bargain because a facility could not have been built and maintained for this price. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to USDA and said that he had a discussion about a year ago with Peter Morcombe, who was instrumental in getting Orange Charter School started. Mr. Morcombe told him that they got a USDA loan guaranteed to build Orange Charter School, which is located opposite the Sportsplex. He asked staff to investigate this situation. He said that if this is true, then there is an example for the County to look at. He does know that a federal agency guaranteed their loan. Commissioner Halkiotis said that central and northern Orange are not southern Orange. He used to live in southern Orange and he went to graduate school in southern Orange. He said that there are no Manley estates in central and northern Orange, there is no Carol Woods, and there is no really nice facility that would welcome seniors. He thinks that there are some opportunities at the Spartsplex and he does not have a problem with something being guaranteed by a federal agency. He would like to move ahead with the senior center in this area to show people that they care about seniors in the northern and central end of the County just as much as they do in the southern end. Commissioner Brown said that eight years ago the Board started negotiating with Eaton Vance on this, and it has been a long road. The one issue that was always in the press was haw this complex got built and who was responsible and who made money. She said that it needs to be transparent to the public who is making the money and who is in charge. Commissioner Brown asked if this would be a permanent community use and Craig Benedict said yes, community uses are allowed, but affordable housing would have to go through the zoning process Chair Jacobs said that he thinks this is a great opportunity to be creative about using public resources to do some multi-tasking to meet the needs of the community. He agrees with Commissioner Halkiotis about moving ahead with the senior center in this area. He thinks this proposal makes the Central Orange Senior Center a much more vibrant and interesting connection to a larger community than can be done with a freestanding senior center. He thinks it will be different in good ways. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to: 1) approve in concept that the staff proceed with LEDAHF to develop a proposal to purchase the Sportsplex and co-locate it with the Central Orange Senior Center; 2) that staff bring back to the Board for approval an independent financial consultant who would review the soundness and feasibility of the proposal; and 3) report back to the County Commissioners on the progress that has been made on developing this proposal for the Board's consideration by the second meeting in December. Commissioner Brown said that Chair Jacobs did not mention affordable housing and Chair Jacobs said that he would like to see if this works first. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested weaving in affordable housing to help eliminate any obstacles. Commissioner Brown said that she heard that there might be a separation of what Eaton Vance would sell the facility for and the other acreage. She thinks it should be part of this proposal. Chair Jacobs added a fourth item to the motion: 4) to investigate the potential to develop affordable housing an other parts of this parcel that might be acquired by purchasing the Sportsplex. Commissioner Halkiotis said that there are people in central and northern Orange that might not be able to afford some of the retirement communities in the southern end of the County. Commissioner Brown pointed out that this affordable housing should be by the County's standards - in perpetuity and under a specific income bracket that is not being served by the public sector. The Board agreed to add this to the motion. The motion, in full, is as follows: 1} to approve in concept, for the staff to proceed with LEDAHF {Linked Economic Development & Affordable Housing Foundation) to develop a proposal to purchase the Sportsplex and to co-locate the Central Orange Senior Center; 2) have staff bring back to the Board for their approval, an independent financial consultant who will review the soundness and the feasibility of the proposal; 3) to report back to the Board the progress that is made an the development of this proposal for the Board's consideration by the second meeting in December; and 4} to investigate the potential to develop affordable housing, according to Orange County's definition of affordable housing, on available acreage that would be part of any purchase of the Spartsplex. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1 b. Facilities Needs Reorientation Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones said that the space needs report was issued in March 2001, but it was never adopted. The departmental space needs are still what they were in 2001 and even worse. The goal of this item is to provide the Board a snapshot of the items in the space study, to identify any changes, and to ask the Board to assist in listing projects. She gave a PawerPoint presentation as shown below. Facilities Study Reorientation October 21, 2004 Background • Report first presented March 2001 • Subsequent discussions project oriented o Justice Facilities o Southern Orange Senior Center • Report never adapted • Departmental space needs still unmet Presentation Goal • Provide project snapshot • Identify any changes • Receive BOCC comments about project direction • Suggest a process to move forward Level One Projects • Government Services Center (GSC} Expansion • Planning and Ag Building RenovationslFarmers Market • Justice Facilities--Phase I • Conversion of SHSC Residence to Conference Center Government Services Center • Changes o Pursue no addition to existing building o Leave Government Services Center-Annex in place • Impacts Planning/Ag Building project Planning and AG Building Renovations • Changes: o Farmer's Market to be located downtown o Planning and Environmental Health not relocated to GSC. • Impacts Government Services Center Project Justice Facilities-Phase I • Changes: o No parking deck should be built o No additional expansion of courthouse beyond Phase o Existing Sheriff's office to be left intact • Impact o Possible new project: Sheriff's office upfit far alternative use • Funding: o Currently funded o Programming on-going Residence at Southern Human Services Center • Changes: o Study group may wish to consider expanding use of facility pursuant to a recently submitted staff proposal. • Funding: o Funds available through 213 Net Debt Bonds Level Two Projects • Animal ShelterlAnimal Control • Emergency Management Expansion • Public WorkslTransportation Expansion • 112 N. Churton Street and Court Street Annex, minor renovations Animal ShelterlAnimal Control • Changes: o Shelter now under County operation o Changes require major revamp of space study recommendations • Funding: o Project not currently funded Note: lease at current facility expires 12-31-06. Although UNC has indicated lease extension, dependent upon progress of Carolina North project, County is moving forward with exploration of new site. Emergency Management Expansion • Changes o Homeland Security requirements o Emergency transport now a County function {previously handled by Squads) Public WorkslTransportation Expansion • Changes: o OPT has moved to mobile unit, leased by State at Public Works site. 112 N. Churton Street • Changes: o None. Clerk of Court still plans to relocate the employees in this building back to courthouse when Phase I is completed. Level Three Projects • Whitted Building o Library Task Force Report considerations will help define direction at this site. • Southern Human Services Center o No changes from original discussions Homestead Road Campus • Changes: o Modify master plan to reflect protected hardwood area in southwest corner o More specifically define future projects that may need to be built in order to ensure site availability at the appropriate time Southern Orange Senior Center • Programming on-going with planning committee • Community Design Committee (CDC) review completed 10-20-04 • On track to be completed by June 30, 2006 Central Orange Senior Center • Changes o None from original study Northern Human Services Center • Changes o Include Task Force recommendations into the revised facilities plan. • Funding o Infrastructure development currently funded, with additional funds from 2/3 Net Debt Bonds forthcoming. Parks OperationslStorage Facility • Not included in original space study • Located at Public Works facility, Hwy86N • Project currently under design • Funding: o $675,000 in current CIP • Targeted completion by August 1,2005 Orange Enterprises • Nat included in space study • $525,000 currently funded to expand existing building Moving Forward • Convene reconstituted study group o Two (2) BOCC representatives o Small work group (DTCC staff work group suggested) • Involves all department heads and key staff • Concentrated timeline for revised study o Five major meetings o PRELIMINARY recommendations targeted for completion mid-January 2005 o Final report targeted for completion March 2005 Commissioner Halkiotis asked if there was anything in writing about the animal shelter lease and Chair Jacobs said that the County received a letter from the Chancellor, at his request to Tony Waldrop, that the County can stay indefinitely, because the University has na immediate plans. Commissioner Brown asked about the addition of EMS and what would happen to the pieces of property that are owned by the non-profits. Pam Jones said that there are still on- going operations. Jahn Link said that at the November 19th meeting there is an agenda item that speaks to the squad continuing to provide heavy rescue functions. Each rescue squad will still own their buildings. If at some point, a rescue squad goes totally out of business, he thinks the County has an expectation of being involved. Commissioner Halkiotis said that expectations are not strong enough. He wants to see something in writing that says there is a public purpose to the facilities. He would like to know the County's legal rights upfront. John Link agreed. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to the 911 center and suggested that someone look at the land owned by the school system next door and the land that will be owned by the 911 center. If there is some need to expand this center, there should be some cooperation between the two entities because the land ultimately belongs to the people of Orange County. Chair Jacobs made reference to the fax from John Link that the County hired a new Emergency Management Director today -Jack Ball. Continuation of presentation. Chair Jacobs said that he heard at the Transportation Services Board's recommendations regarding the transportation plan, that DOT may consolidate rural transportation systems. The possibility, if that took place, is that Orange County might well be the regional hub for the regional transit facility, which would bring State funds to address facility needs. There are 84 rural transportation entities in North Carolina and DOT is looking to cut that by 213. Only four of them involve multiple counties. Continuation of presentation. Pam Jones thanked Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Gordon for helping with the space needs study in their capacity as the Commissioner representatives on the study group. Commissioner Halkiotis volunteered to be a County Commissioner representative on the reconvened study group for the space needs study, and Commissioner Gordon and Chair Jacobs volunteered also. Commissioner Brown made reference to uncategorized projects on page six of the agenda materials- Solid Waste and Recycling Center, Master Plan. She would like to make sure this is reviewed because there has already been an architect hired and a proposed structure of close to $1 million. She thinks it has gotten way ahead. Rod Visser said that the Board of County Commissioners did approve a resolution in October 2001 approving the Eubanks Road Solid Waste Facilities Master Plan. Included in that master plan was a landfill administration building. The staff can bring this back for the Board. Commissioner Brown said that she was surprised about the plan for the administrative facility. She thought the site was still up in the air. Rod Visser said that part of what is driving it is that the current site will revert back to UNC in 2006. John Link said that he would be bringing this back to the Board to revisit, such as the rationale for the location and the scope of the building. Commissioner Brown would also like to know the rationale of why some of the other pieces are not being brought up at the same time. Pam Jones said that an abstract has been submitted for a recommendation, but an architect has not been hired. Chair Jacobs said to make note of Durham Technical Community College and the possibilities of co-location related to space needs. Commissioner Brown asked about the exact location of the farmers market. There is one included in the master plan for the justice facilities. Pam Janes said that the farmer's market is one component of the justice facilities project. Part of it is where it can best be placed on the site to not compete with the court facility. Chair Jacobs said that he hopes it is built before the justice facilities are completed. 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Update Craig Benedict said that the main issue is the reconfirmation goals. Commissioner Gordan distributed a document with her recommendation and said that her recommendation is very similar to the staff's recommendation. She said that she tried to make sure she understood the differences in the categories. Commissioner Gordan's document is shown below. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -LAND USE ELEMENT 2004 New Principles Principle A -Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services CPLUC 1. Efficient Provision of Public Services 6. Reduction of the Fiscal Impacts of Development Principle B -Water Resources Preservation 4. Protect Water Resources - Watershed and Groundwater 7. Hazard Mitigation - Reduction of Stormwater Runoff and Flooding Principle C -Air Quality Protection and an Effective Transportation System Principle D -Natural Area Resource Preservation Principle E -Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern 5. Traffic Reduction 9. Reduction of Air Pollution {cf 1981 Goal 12: An efficient and balanced transportation system) 8. Protection of Natural Areasl Wildlife Corridors 2. Protection of Rural Community Character 3. Preserve Farmland and Viable Farm Economy Note: Principle E is related to the rural areas and farm economy (and rural open space} Principle F -Sustainable Growth and Development 10. Development Location and Type {?) (cf 1981 Goal 5 -Management of growth so that it is directed to areas where growth is desirable and can be accommodated) Principle G -Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity 11. Economic Prosperity and Diversity 12. Affordable Housing Principle H -Preservation of Community 13. Preservation of Community Character Character -Neighborhoods and Historic/Cultural Features Note: Principle H is related to the built environment, including neighborhoods and the historic and cultural environment (Regional Cooperation and Planning can be an approach used in carrying out the comprehensive plan rather than a goal included in the text of the comprehensive plan.) Commissioner Cordon's comments are noted below: Principle A: she said that this principle was not related to transportation Principle B: same Principle C: she thought transportation should be included here Principle D: same Principle E: this principle deals with rural land use patterns. She noted that this principle is related to rural areas rather than the built environment Principle F: she thinks this principle was related to sustainable growth Principle G: added "promotion" to economic diversity Principle H: she thought this principle was related to the built environment Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Cordon's recommendation. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he never had a concern about what Orange County does, but when he sees Regional Cooperation and Planning, he is not sure there is significant understanding and willingness to understand what is happening with traffic congestion, air quality, and water resources. Same places seem to be building out of control. He is referring to places to the east of Orange County. He believes in regional cooperation and planning, but if people da not subscribe to the same set of values, he does not think it happens. Commissioner Brown said that the one major difference that Orange County has with surrounding areas is the sustainability piece and the preservation of resources. Craig Benedict then explained the document entitled "Orange County Planning Jurisdiction Projections," which is incorporated by reference (11x17 sheet). Craig Benedict made reference to the five-acre lot zoning, in which the first five lots can be two acres. Commissioner Brown said that her recollection was that when this was done it was a specific remedy for those property owners that wanted the option of taking the two-acre lots far whatever their family needed (children or grandchildren}. She does not recall it having anything to do with accommodating existing property owners that wanted to subdivide into smaller parcels. Her understanding was that it related to existing property owners at that time. Craig Benedict explained this (option 4} and then continued explaining the remaining options on the handout. Commissioner Brown clarified that if there is a higher density in the transition areas, and then there is no leverage in doing transfer of development rights because the density has already been given away. The transition areas should be very low density. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Craig Benedict said that in option 3, they were considering a hybrid with the three-acre density, and that the first five lots be two acres and subsequent lots would be three acres. In answer to a question, Craig Benedict painted out the reservoirs an the map. Craig Benedict said that the 11x17 document is also matched by attachment 5, which explains how many acres of land, would be in one density or another. Craig Benedict said that when this goes to public hearing, which would be anticipated next year, the State allows different advertising methods for land use and zoning changes that have not been incorporated in the existing code. These are noted on page three of the agenda packet. At this time, individual notices are sent out to people. The County may do four half- page newspaper ads for four consecutive weeks to show these options with understandable information. Anyone that lives out of the County would receive first class notices. He would like the Board to consider whether staff should proceed with an amendment to the advertising guidelines to allow this other option. This option could only be used if suggested or authorized by the Board. It is very expensive either way. Commissioner Gordon said that she is not interested in changing the advertising. Chair Jacobs agreed, but he would like to see the costs and Commissioner Halkiotis agreed. Commissioner Brown said that one of the issues that is coming up with the Planning Board's subcommittee on rural preservation is about development, but the Farmland Preservation Board is about preservation. She asked that Craig Benedict bring forward with his plan the rural clustering designs and figure out how it would go into the zoning piece. She made reference to a Randall Arendt design. Discussion ensued about the definition of "clustering". Commissioner Brown said that, to her, clustering means putting development on the property in appropriate places and not carving it all up. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the map and said that the colors and asterisks are very misleading. Chair Jacobs said that he has argued this ever since red was used, because it is a hot color and indicates more intensity to him. Commissioner Gordon is not sure this map should be taken to hearing without changing the colors. Chair Jacobs suggested involving the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Board to discuss the rural activity nodes. He also suggested that before this goes to public hearing that it be taken back to the township meetings to give people an opportunity to react. Commissioner Brown would like to see a concise description for each of these options. The public needs to see the entire range. Commissioner Halkiotis agreed about taking this back to the townships. Commissioner Gordon would like for it to came back to the Board of County Commissioners first and she would like to see the whole package before it goes out again. The Board agreed. Craig Benedict made reference to the "Speed Memo" about Oakdale Village. This is a project within Hillsborough's extraterritorial jurisdiction. The property is presently zoned for 10,000-square foot lots, and Hillsborough is suggesting that it be put in a special use district entranceway that includes a large pharmacy of 14,000 square feet with adrive-up window; 5,200 square feet of restaurant; and 11,040 square feet of retail space. There is also another 31,000 square feet in a later phase. Commissioner Halkiotis said that there is a huge water run-off crater on this property and when it rains a lot, it fills up. The traffic is already horrendous here. He thought that four lanes were supposed to be out here a long time ago. Craig Benedict said that the idea of four lanes is still the traffic build-out plan for Churton Street. They are dedicating the amount of right-of-way necessary and sidewalks are going to be built. Orange County Planning staff put together some comments regarding this proposal in reference to the economic development standards put together far the entire corridor south of I-$5 to I-40. Craig Benedict said that staff sent comments to the Hillsborough Planning staff that is being forwarded to the Planning Board. Chair Jacobs said that the Board asked him to give it directly to the elected officials and not the Planning staff. He asked the Clerk to forward it to the elected officials of Hillsborough. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he would like a copy of the original design because he thought there was a concrete island with tree plantings and two lanes on bath sides of the island and not the multi-purpose lanes that are shown. Chair Jacobs said that this should be right in and right out only and no left turns, especially if there are no traffic signals. Craig Benedict asked if the Board was interested in him representing their comments at a public hearing and the Board agreed. Chair Jacobs said that when Craig Benedict makes the paint about right in and right out, to point out that the County required the Credit Union to do this because DOT is going to tell Hillsborough that it is not necessary. There was also a requirement about existing structures. He suggested deconstructing some of it and then letting the fire department have the rest, like a modified deconstruction. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 10:13 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna 5. Baker Clerk to the Board