Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20071119APPROVED 1 11 512 0 0 8 Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Economic Development Commission (EDC) JOINT WORK SESSION Monday, November 19, 2007 5:30 pm (Dinner) 6:00 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Work Session with the Orange County Economic Development Commission {EDC) an Monday, November 19, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Brian Ferrell COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker {All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) EDC MEMBERS PRESENT: Bryant Colson, Chair and members Chris Hogan, Kathleen Yarborough, Tony McKnight ,Robert Ward, Jim Evans, Anita Badrock, Mark Crowell EDC BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Brantley, Lauri Michel, Dan Coleman, Bill Strom, Lilyn Hester, Eric Hallman EDC STAFF PRESENT: Yvonne Scarlett NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE Welcome and Introductions Chair Carey said that Commissioner Jacobs would not be here tonight and Commissioner Nelson would be late. Introductions were made. Overview of EDC Retreat Economic Development in Orange County Economic Development Director Bryant Colson said that the objective is to engage in informal discussion of the state of economic development in Orange County to make sure everyone is on the same page. He said that before the Economic Development Director left Orange County, the EDC felt that there was same momentum towards accomplishing the goals in the strategic plan. The EDC would like to keep the momentum going. An Economic Development Director is needed to keep this momentum going. He made reference to the handout that lists desired characteristics of an Economic Development Director. Bryant Colson said that the EDC is in the process of gathering the current status for the consultants far the Comprehensive Plan Update. Bob Ward asked about the process for recruiting for this position. Laura Blackmon said that the County has not advertised for this position yet but staff and the Board of County Commissioners have discussed it at a work session. She said that a focus is needed for the position first. The plan was for the EDC to give same direction on the focus of the position. Commissioner Foushee said that the EDC felt it had gained momentum with Dianne Reid, but with her leaving, she senses that the momentum has decreased. She said that there needs to be discussion about where the EDC wants to go and what has halted since Dianne Reid's departure and what is mast needed at this point. She said that the attributes the EDC has proposed are broad in the sense that they do not reflect what she believes is the philosophy of Orange County for economic development. Anita Badrock said that one of the things the EDC worked with was the strategic plan, and in this plan they identified some industries that they liked and disliked. She said that you have to start where projects are and how they are moving forward. Dianne Reid was good as a point person, which is important for those wanting to learn development in the county. She said that whoever is hired has got to be someone who will keep the wheels turning, and the EDC has faltered on this since Dianne Reid left. Mark Crowell said that he is the Associate Vice Chancellor far Economic Development and Technology Transfer at UNC-CH, and he is also the EDC's representative on the RTRP Board. He said that since Dianne Reid left, they are missing a strategic paint person and a person that the EDC could bounce ideas off of. He said that he received a good foundation from Dianne Reid about regional happenings. A vision person adds guidance and Dianne Reid advocated far the County. Bob Ward said that he believes that whoever comes into this job needs to help them to overcame the perception that Orange County is not open to development. Chris Hogan said that the main issue is that the County needs direction on economic development. He said that he does not want to be on the defensive with prospective clients. He said that the EDC does look to the Board of County Commissioners for direction. He said that his perception is that people are very interested in economic development and Orange County needs to jump an board. Orange County is in the middle of the state and two major corridors. He said that there is no direction at this point and the County is at a critical point. There are opportunities to take advantage of. He thinks that there is a better balance than the one that exists naW. Kathleen Yarborough said that the EDC discussed that they are tired of seeing growth and development all around Orange County but not in Orange County. She said that she lives in Orange County, but she does not shop or work in Orange County. She said that this is a disservice to Orange County. She said that the Economic Development Director should be one that will go out and recruit businesses in a strategic manner. Bryant Colson said that he thinks that there is agreement about strategic, controlled growth, but the dilemma is the vagueness of the direction since there is no director at this time. He said that the EDC does not know what type of growth is ok with the Board of County Commissioners. He said that there is something out there for Orange County that will provide a happy medium between strategic growth, green space, and the ability to pay the bills. He asked what kind of development was okay with the County Commissioners. Chair Carey said that all are correct to some extent, that the 88(14 ratio tells them that people like to live here and will continue to live here. He said that there are strategic plan, but he wants to keep an eye an the main goals in the plan. He said that the Board of County Commissioners wants the advice of the EDC on economic development. Jim Evans asked about the process for hiring the new director. Laura Blackmon said that the process she has used before has included using the advisory boards and staff. She has a job description for the position and she distributed this. Mark Crowell said that there is a University Economic Development Association that is starting to get more active in North Carolina. Commissioner Gordon asked if the EDC supports the strategic plan and all agreed. Commissioner Foushee said that it was interesting to her that the EDC had discussed incentives. She said that incentives come in all kinds of packages and Orange County has missed opportunities and she does not want to continue this legacy. It has been helpful to her to hear that there have been discussions about incentives. Chair Carey suggested that the EDC put thoughts on paper for the Board about incentives and other ideas. Laura Blackmon said that there needs to be a policy for Board of County Commissioners adoption with regard to incentives, etc. Jim Evans said that the issue of incentives is a complicated subject but there is a need for an Economic Development Director to lead the charge to learn best practices. He said that the EDC cannot do this with an advisory board meeting once a month, without a point person. Bryant Colson thanked the Board for meeting with the EDC. Bab Ward said that he has been on the EDC far five years and this is the first time they have met face to face with the Board of County Commissioners. He said that this was a long time coming and needed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board APPROVED 1 11 512 0 0 8 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION November 19, 2007 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Monday, November 19, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioner; Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Baard Danna 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. Introductions were made. 1. Presentation and Discussion: 2006 Fire Rescue Study iThe Sage Group Report) Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that this is a revisit of the Fire Rescue Study done by The Sage Group in 2006. The report was reviewed by stakeholders, including the Department of Emergency Services and the Fire Chief Councils. It was determined that the School of Government would look at the working draft of the Sage report. This overview was included in the packet as well as the working draft from The Sage Group and notes and comments collected from the Fire Chief's Council. Maureen Berner from the UNC Schaal of Government said that ane of the issues was having a general understanding of fire services in Orange County. A graduate student was very interested in this and offered to prepare a primer working with the lawyers on the faculty. The primer was done through interviews and documents prepared in other counties for comparison. Commissioner Gordan said that there is a part of southern Orange County that is serviced by North Chatham Fire Department, and this report does not cover that. She lives in this area. Laura Blackmon said that the report talked about the means by which counties across lines could assist one another. Commissioner Gordon said that if there is a comprehensive assessment, then the area served by the North Chatham Fire Department needs to be addressed. She said that people in Orange County do pay to this fire department. Maureen Berner said that as they move forward in the comprehensive planning process, then all of Orange County should be addressed. There could be interlocal agreements between counties and municipalities. Commissioner Gordon would like to see the next steps. Chair Carey said that there is a lot of information here, but he is interested in the things that are not addressed in the Sage Report. He was hoping to reach recommendations for a comprehensive plan for fire services. Council what they need to help clarify what they require to move forward. He said that there are needs that have to be addressed now. Commissioner Gordon asked about the six-mile service district and Mike Tapp said that this is one of the short-term goals. Chair Carey said that the short-term and long-term goals need to be developed and addressed. He suggested putting this in writing for the Board of County Commissioners with a timeframe for the skeletal plan. Commissioner Gordon said that it is important to get the Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief's Council involved in this process. The goals need to be prioritized. Commissioner Nelson suggested doing a strategic plan first. 2. Planned Development Zoning and Conditional Zoning District Discussion Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael Harvey made this presentation. He said that counties have numerous development tools available to them. He will be talking about conditional use districts and conditional zoning. This discussion came about during the summer as Planning staff began to focus on implementation methodology of trying to address the Ag Service Enterprises construct as well as the rural economic development initiative that was approved as part of the NC 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan. At that time, staff determined that an opportunity existed far the conditional use district zoning process. In late July, staff received a memo from the County Attorney indicating that the existing planned development standards contained in Article 7 constituted a conditional use district process. He explained the two different zoning districts, as shown below: Conditional Zoning Districts (CZD): The CZD process allows for the establishment of certain uses, which, because of their nature or scale have particular impacts on bath the immediate area and the community as a whole. Through this process, a landowner presents asite-specific development plan for the County for review and requests that a specific parcel of property be rezoned to allow for the development of the proposed use. CZD involves the creation of `floating' zoning districts that can be applied in specific areas of the County based on findings, referenced approved planning studies, Small Area Plans, or the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The major difference between the CUD and the CZD process is that the CZD process does not require the issuance of a permit by the governing body, as is normally required under the PD process. The implementation of the CZD process provides an opportunity for the County to consider providing asingle-step legislative rezoning process when an applicant requests a rezoning of a particular parcel to a `floating' conditional use district. Planned DevelopmentlConditional Use Districts (CUD}: As previously indicated, the County currently employs a variation of the CUD permitting process within the Planned Development (PD) process contained within Article Seven {7) of the Zoning Ordinance. Through this process, a property owner requests the development of a specific use, currently listed as a permitted or special use of property within the Table of Permitted Uses of the Zoning Ordinance, on a specific parcel of property. This process requires a two (2) step approval process, specifically: a legislative rezoning approval and a quasi-judicial permit approval. concerned about floating districts. She wants it to be clear about how this is different from spot zoning. Michael Harvey said that staff knows that the Board of County Commissioners needs time to review this. It is the goal to get it to the Board of County Commissioners as soon as possible. He said that he could accommodate the concern about the process. The process will be fairly consistent with the existing Class A Special Use Permit review process. Chair Carey asked when language would be available to the County Commissioners and Michael Harvey said by the first of December. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the reason they are proceeding with conditional uses is that when the rezoning occurs it is talking about an exact proposal for a piece of property, versus a general use that could have 50 different uses. Conditional Use Districts are very specific to the parcel and what will be put there. 3. Economic Development Districts Orange County Zoning Ordinance Section 6.29 Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. He said that over the last two or three years, the County has had to help Hillsborough out in the joint areas to move forward with Hillsborough's Strategic Growth Plan. The Waterstone project was the product of two years of work with two County Commissioners and two Tawn Commissioners and modifying the existing economic development district booklet to make it mare user-friendly. The County has proceeded on an as-needed basis to modify the EDD. Presently, the County is working in Durham with the Eno EDD. It is time to look at all three EDDs together and try to make them somewhat consistent. He then made the pawerpoint presentation given below. Economic Development Districts (EDDY Possible Amendments to Zoning Code Section 6.29 EDD Design Manual ^ EDD Intent - (By Area Zone) ^ Development Approval System ^ Permitted Use Table (Future Work) and Associated Approval Processes ^ Design and _~pplication Standards EDD DISTRICTS {map) ^ Enclosed Mall ^ Drive-thru Restrictions IndustriallManufacturing/ Wholesale TransportationlUtilities ^ High truck traffic ^ Rail Access ^ High Power Transmission Lines ^ Better access to US Hwy 70 Corridor or Interstate ^ Non-Peak Activity Traffic ^ Large Building Footprint Industrial, Manufacturing, Wholesaling, Distribution Intensity Levels PRIMARY LEVEL SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL ^ E D 5 < 50, 000 sf ^ ED 6 50,000 - 100,000 sf ^ ED 7 > 100,000 sf Mixed Use ^ New Topic -More Discussion Necessary ^ Placeholder ^ Could include medium-high density residential and low-medium non-residential. (Co- mingled in structure or separate development parcels) Development Approval System X - Multi-Departmental EDD Staff Advisory Committee Employing Elements of Central Permitting Syste m i.e. Permitted by Right staff B - Class B Special Use Permit (SUP} BOA A - Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) Planning BoardIBOCC Development Approval System PD - Step ~-Planned Development / Planning BoardIBOCC Conditional District Zoning (CDZ} Legislative Rezoning {Article 7B) Step 2-Special Use Permit Class A Quasi-Judicial Concurrent CUD - Conditional Use District Rezoning Planning Board/BOCC Site & Use Specific Plan {Article 7A) Legislative Conditional Use Permit staff Craig Benedict agreed and said that the EDC is ready to move forward with making minor comprehensive and cohesive revisions by February, and anything else will be put in a report for some later date. 4. Report on Courtesy Review Craig Benedict said that this was requested by Jay Bryan of the Planning Board regarding how the courtesy review process is working with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. If there is an opportunity to have a more elaborate agreement with Hillsborough, then there is a question of what gaps can be closed. Planner Gene Bell showed a map that highlighted the courtesy review areas present with Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Durham. He presented relevant sections of the Joint Planning Agreement, as shown below. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT (Excerpts pertaining to Courtesy Review- other sections omitted} Section 1.2 Definitions A. Joint Planning Area. The area within the Rural Buffer and Transition Areas designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map lying outside the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. F. Joint Courtesy Review Area. A portion of the northern Rural Buffer Area bounded on the east by I-40 and shown as such on Exhibit A. I. Development Permit. Major subdivision preliminary plat approval and any discretionary permit (whether called conditional or special use permit or some other term) issued by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Town Council, or the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. Section 2.3 Permit Administration Within the Transition Area B. Whenever Chapel Hill or Carrboro receives an application for a development permit as defined in this Agreement relating to land within their respective portions of the Transition area, it shall forward copies of the application to Orange County for review. The towns shall establish timetables to insure that Orange County has an opportunity to make recommendations regarding such applications within the framework of the County's regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetables of the County and the towns shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however, the towns may not vote to issue or deny a permit until they have received the recommendations of Orange County or until the expiration of forty-five (45} days after Orange County has received the application, whichever comes first. Section 2.4 Permit Administration in the Rural Buffer B. Whenever Orange County receives an application for a development permit relating to land located within the CHJDA Rural Buffer or the Joint Courtesy Review Area, it shall forward copies of the application to Chapel Hill for review. Similarly, whenever Orange County receives an application for a development permit relating to land located within the CJDA Rural Buffer or the Joint Courtesy Review Area, it shall forward copies of the application to Carrboro for review. The County shall establish timetables to insure that the towns have an opportunity to make recommendations regarding such applications within the framework of their respective regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetables of the respective towns and the County shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however, Orange County may not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received the recommendations of the respective Towns or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after the respective towns have received the application, whichever occurs first. Section 2.6 Text and Map Amendments B. Except as provided herein, proposed amendments to the text of the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances that are applicable within the Rural Buffer as well as proposed changes in zoning district classifications (i.e., zoning map changes} that affect property within the Rural Buffer shall be initiated and adopted in accordance with the procedures set forth in those County ordinances. All such proposals that affect the CHJDA shall be referred to Chapel Hill for review and recommendation, and all such proposed amendments that affect the CJDA shall be referred to Carrboro for review and recommendation. Orange County may not adopt such proposed amendments until the respective Towns have made their recommendations, or until the expiration of thirty (30} days following such referral, whichever occurs first. C. Whenever Chapel Hill proposes to amend the text of its Land Development Ordinance, and whenever Carrboro proposes to amend the text of its Land Use Ordinance, the respective towns shall deliver a copy of the full text of the proposed amendment to Orange County not later than thirty (30) days before the date of the public hearing on any such amendment. However, with the written consent of the Orange County Manager or his designate, this thirty (30) day period may be reduced to not less than ten {10) days. Unless Orange County files with the respective towns a written objection on or before the date of the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment, then adoption of the amendment by the respective town shall automatically effect a corresponding amendment to the applicable ordinance adopted by reference by Orange County as provided in Section 2.1 C. Any such objection shall be based on a determination by Orange County that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. If a town adopts an amendment despite Orange County's objection, then it shall refer such amendment to Orange County with a request that the County make corresponding changes as expeditiously as reasonably possible so that the town may continue to enforce within its portion of the Transition area the same standards that it enforces within its own planning jurisdiction. In the event of abjection by Orange County as provided herein, no such amendment shall be effective within the Joint Planning Area until it is adopted by Orange County. Gene Bell made reference to page 13 of the agenda, which had Points for Courtesy Review raised by Jay Bryan of the Planning Board. Staff would like to bring this back far additional discussion in 2008. Jay Bryan was unable to attend the meeting tonight. Commissioner Nelson said that when he was in Carrboro, things were sent to the County fora 45-day review and the process seemed to work well. He does not understand the problem here and what needs to be addressed. Craig Benedict said that it might have been prompted by the moratorium. He said that, overall, the sharing of information has worked with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. There was one project that was annexed by Carrboro prior to development, and that erased some of the review processes. Gene Bell said that he would allow Jay Bryan to make his own presentation about the concerns. Orange County Economic Development Commission Retreat 11-8-07 Attributes 1 Skills - of new Director, for discussion 1 BOCC consideration Weight Attribute /Skill 18 People Skills (facilitator, collaborator, interpersonal} 9 Able to span wide socia-economic continuum 7 Knowledge of difference methodologies for identifying, attracting, engaging, supporting businesses 6 Experience with creative class !entrepreneurial climate 6 Brings a wide network to the position, and able to da networking 5 Open-minded 3 Skilled in workforce development 2 Non-political Strong backbone Knowledge of incentives to provide businesses Analytical Creative Moderate risk taker OTHER ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR DISCUSSION /CONSIDERATION: Residency requirement for this Orange County position Available salary VERSUS cost of living here Formal credentials such a CED certification or Masters Public Administration VERSUS having considerable experience and ability Chair Carey said that he agrees with everything the EDC has shared thus far. He said that it is important to recruit the right person for this position so that mixed messages are not sent to the constituents and to the public. He said that the Board was waiting on this type of discussion to help design the job description. He asked about the progress on the strategic plan. some job sectors identified in the strategic plan that are suitable for Orange County, but the EDC was appointed to advise the Board of County Cammissianers. His opinion is that there are very little incentives to change the status quo. Commissioner Foushee said that if the strategic plan does not address what the EDC feels is the direction the County should be going, then it needs to be reevaluated. She said that the direction has been given, but the question is how to go about acquiring the businesses. If the strategic plan is no longer the map, then it must be changed. Mark Crowell asked Laura Blackman and Willie Best to give a thumbnail of the strategic plan so that all are on the same page. Laura Blackmon suggested making copies for everyone. Commissioner Gordon asked if the EDC supported the strategic plan. Anita Badrock said that she thinks they should start at a point of intersection, which is the EDD's. Perhaps a new Economic Development Director could look and see if the EDD's are still in the right place. Nothing will happen in these EDD's unless the County takes a risk. Also, she thinks that the County needs a predictable development process. She would like to say to a potential preferred business that the project could be put an a fast track for approval. She thinks that the strategic plan targeted the preferred businesses pretty well. Commissioner Nelson arrived at 6:50 p. m. Chair Carey said that the County needs an Economic Development Director who can do the equation to focus on the lost opportunity costs as well as the incremental costs of economic development. There are questions of whether or not to recruit businesses, how aggressive to be, and whether there should be incentives. Tony McKnight said that the EDC needed understanding from the Board of County Cammissianers and they did not knave the Board's perspective. He said that it was goad that the Board wanted to hear from the EDC. He said that one of his big issues is that jobs need to be created so that people can live and work in Orange County. Jim Evans said that the EDC talked extensively at its retreat about the differences between economic development in Orange County and other parts of the state. In other rural counties, there is one point person for all things regarding economic development, but in Orange County, there is an Economic Development Director in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, the Chamber of Commerce, and the University. He said that whoever comes in for Orange County will have to work in tandem with the other economic development directors and make sure that there is no competition. He said that the Orange County Director will have a broader perspective. The director can provide feedback and talk to prospective businesses about why they chose or did not choose Orange County. Chair Carey filled Commissioner Nelson in about the discussion. Mark Crowell said that when he travels in his University role and sees universities in regions that are doing well, they usually talk about recruiting, retaining, and growing companies. He thinks that this would be a good focus for Orange County. He thinks that the new director should understand the "growing" part. Anita Badrock said that the EDC has discussed incentives as a group, but they do not want to throw good money after bad. At the same time, it is a very competitive environment. She said that there are creative ways to develop incentive packages. She said that one of the perceptions of Orange County is that it will not discuss incentives and people shut the door without even trying. The new Economic Development Director needs leeway in this area. Chair Carey said that the EDC does know what Orange County needs and can do based on the strengths. He said that there is not time tonight to ga through the Maureen Berner said that this is the background document. The other report was more of a thorough report. The 5choal of Government was asked to assess this and they were not in a position to verify all of the information, sa they reviewed the original RFP and what Sage provided and the gaps. This overview was not providing any new information, but just organizing the gaps. This might help determine how to mane forward and what is still needed. She recommended revisiting the decision about long-term planning with fire and EMS and what information would be helpful to make this decision. Chris Sherman from the School of Government made reference to pages 1 and 2 under recommendations as to what is covered in the report. There were five items on page 2 that were not addressed at all. Laura Blackmon said that when she came to Orange County, The Sage Group was working on this report, but there was frustration on the length of time it was taking to complete, etc. The County felt that there were many gaps in the report in comparison with the information requested in the RFP. The Board needs to know the legal guidelines in order to plan strategically and produce an effective plan. Commissioner Foushee said that her questions would refer to the data that is not included. There has not been an analysis of the data, but she asked where the data was. She said that before any recommendations ordiscussion about haw to move forward, there is critical data that is not in the report that is needed. Maureen Berner said that one of the questions about moving forward might be clarifying what data would be needed to formulate the ultimate recommendations. She said that it would be important to see what exactly the Board wants to know. Chair Carey asked some clarifying questions that were answered by the School of Government representatives. Laura Blackmon said that, in looking at the original RFP, the County wanted too much information and it would be easier to break this down into the information needed to address the immediate needs. The Fire Chief's Council has expressed interest in identifying issues. Chair Carey said that perhaps this is the next step, getting recommendations from the Council. Chris Sherman said that the report does not have effectiveness and appropriateness of services provided but at the School of Government, they da have staff that can assist with baseline statistics. Commissioner Gordon asked where South Orange fire district was in the report. Laura Blackmon said that South Orange is covered by the Town of Carrboro and it is not a department. Fire Marshall Mike Tapp said that this is an area outside of the Town of Carrboro that Carrboro covers. It is not a department, but it is funded through the County residents who live there. Commissioner Gordon suggested that every time something is listed that is not one of the Orange County departments, then the North Chatham service area in Orange County should also be listed so that it is not forgotten. Also, whatever is done for South Orange and Carrboro should be done for the North Chatham service area. Commissioner Foushee said that there is a lot of misinformation and gaps, and she does not know how much credence should be given to the Sage Report. Mike Tapp said that the Fire Chief's Council agreed that the Sage Report did not tell them anything that they did not already know, and they were disappointed that there were na long-term recommendations ar feedback. The Sage Report does not give much to work with. Gwen Harvey said that everyone needs to be on the same foot and establishing the same baseline. Chair Carey said that it sounds as if there is not sufficient information to mane this toward the long-range planning far fire and rescue services. They need to ask the Chief's The current process, however, is not completely consistent with the existing Conditional Use permitting process as outlined within the NCGS. North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS} require that, through either the CUD or CZD process, specific conditions may be suggested by the owner ar the government but that only those conditions mutually acceptable to both parties may be incorporated into the ordinance or individual permit involved. The NCGS also provide that any conditions or site-specific standards imposed are limited to those that address: The conformance of the development and use of the site to city or county ordinances and officially adopted plans, and The impacts reasonably expected to be generated from the development or use of the site. These provisions regarding conditions and standards apply to both conditional zoning and to special and conditional use district zoning. Recent work on planning studies, most notably the NC 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan and the Agricultural Support Services manual, has indicated to staff that it might be desirable to implement the CZD process within the County. Staff has also determined that there is a need to update the existing PD process in order to make it more consistent with existing State guidelines governing the use of CUD's. New Zoning Construct Organization: Staff is currently working on the following: 1. The revision of Article Seven {7) Planned Development Districts to incorporate recent changes to NCGS concerning the use of the CUD permitting process. This Article is currently proposed to be renamed `Article Seven-A (7-A) Conditional Use Districts'. 2. The creation of a new Article, Seven-B {7-B}, establishing the CZD process as outlined herein. Staff intends to have the proposed amendments for formal review at the February 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing. It should be noted that the County Attorney's office reviewed a preliminary draft of a proposal to develop a CUD process back in August of 2007, but staff has not forwarded to the County Attorney's Office the new proposed Articles as referenced herein for review or comment. Staff intends the documents to be submitted by the first week of December. Staff is requesting that the BOCC accept this update as an informational item. Commissioner Gordon said that before this goes to public hearing, she would like all of the County Commissioners to review this. She would also like to know what this is trying to accomplish. She said that people want to know the process that the staff is proposing to introduce flexibility and how it protects the residents' interests. She said that when you introduce flexibility, you could introduce ambiguity. She would like to see the actual text. She is Outline of Discussion Page I. Strategic Development Area Focus- EDD Intent 4 A. Retail -Office -Service 1. Description 5 2. Intensity Level Categories 6&7 B. Industrial -Manufacturing -Wholesaling- Distribution 1. Description 8 2. Intensity Levels 9 C. Mixed Use 10 II. Development Approval System 11&12 III. Specific Permitted Use Table and Approval Processes n/a IV. Design and Application Standards 13&14 Strateaic Development Area Focus- EDD Intent ^ Focus certain development uses in areas best matched for its type attributes. ^ Focus means make process easier far a use in one area over another but allow in both if conditioned appropriately. ^ Target Preferred Businesses and Industries. ^ Examples: . Industrial near rail and high power transmission lines. . RetaillOffice near good customer and employee access and as a transition to lower intensity use. Retail-Office-Service ^ More Cars, Less Trucks ^ More Internal Traffic Capture ^ Support for Nearby Job Centers ^ Better Transition to Lower Density ^ Higher value office is invested in an area where there is less potential of industrial. ^ Peak and Non-Peak Traffic Primary ED Zoning Retail, Office, Service Category Systems (INTENSITY LEVEL THRESHOLDS) PRIMARY LEVELSQUARE FOOTAGE ^ ED 1 < 5,000 sf ^ ED 2 5,000 - 20,000 sf ^ ED 3 > 20,000 sf Retail, Office, Service EMPLOYMENT BASIS ^ < 200 employees ^ 200+ employees BUILDING TYPES ^ Freestanding Building Design and Application Standards A. Smart Growth Site Design Attributes B. Master Planned Program (Similar to Planned Development) 1. Roadway System 2. Infrastructure 3. Environmental 4. Flexibility (Removes need for stringent Building/Site/Landscape Volume Ratios) C. Architectural Design - Common Element D. Landscape Design - Xeriscaping, Buffering E. Circulation and parking - Shared Parking Systems F. Service and Storage - Access and Screening G. Signs and Lighting - Economically Competitive Chair Carey said that the Board is being asked to refer this to the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board before it goes any further. Commissioner Nelson asked what exactly staff is asking to be done. Laura Blackmon said that this design manual was written 13 years ago and needs to be revised based upon a mature and flexible model. She said that some development should not be encouraged. She said that there is some interest in development around Buckhorn and the County needs to be aware of this and be prepared far it. There must be some consistency in the EDDs. The Attorney's office has not reviewed this yet, but the staff wanted to discuss this on the same night that the Board met with the EDC. Commissioner Gordon asked about the direction that should be given to the Planning Board and EDC. Laura Blackmon said that this item was more to give the Board of County Commissioners a heads up and the advisory boards will advise the Board of County Commissioners on this. Commissioner Gordan said that it was not clear to her how this revision will be used to make the process harder or easier to do. She said that flexibility can lead to confusion. She asked what the Planning Board and EDC were supposed to do when they look at this. Craig Benedict said that there are a lot of good elements in the manual, but the goal is to make the process easier for businesses that want to came to Orange County. Discussion ensued on the task for the advisory boards. Craig Benedict said that the boards could tweak the goad parts and fill the gaps in the plan that were missing in the original plan. Commissioner Foushee said that the EDC will be able to ga through this and find what is useful in a shorter timeframe. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Board needs to ask both boards to specify by January an approach for an interim report to the Board of County Commissioners to see if this is on the right track. Commissioner Gordan said that she would like to take this under advisement. Commissioner Foushee asked if this came from the Planning Board Chair or the Planning Board. Gene Bell said that the Chair brought it forward, but the Planning Board did agree with bringing it before the County Commissioners. Laura Blackmon said that there was not a recommendation. Chair Carey said that Orange County has a different relationship with Chapel Hill and Carrboro than with the other municipalities and surrounding counties. He said that the Chatham officials also have interest in talking with Orange County about this. He remembers asking the staffs of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County, Chatham County, and Pittsboro to begin talking about some courtesy review recommendations. Commissioner Gordon noted the recent joint meetings of two Orange County Commissioners and other Orange County elected officials with Chatham County elected officials, and said that at the last Assembly of Governments meeting, it was requested that a process for formal meetings come back after one more meeting of the Orange/Chatham representatives. She said that joint meetings need to be noticed so that people will knave when they are and can attend. Laura Blackmon made reference to the meeting to discuss the firms on retainer with Solid Waste. The dates she suggested were before the December 3rd meeting, before the December 11t" meeting, or before the mini-retreat on December 7t". One Commissioner cannot attend early on the 7t" and one Commissioner cannot attend an the 11t" The Board agreed to meet at 11:30 a.m. on December 7t". Commissioner Nelson will rearrange his schedule for this. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board