Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080519 APPROVED 8/19/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the.F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Craufurd Goodwin, Renee Price, Judith Wegner, Michelle Kempinski, Bernadette Pelissier, and Larry Wright PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeffrey Schmitt, Joel Knight, and Brian Crawford The meeting was called to order at 7:37 pm. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS - Barry Jacobs and PB Chair Jay Bryan Jay Bryan welcomed everyone. Chair Jacobs made reference to the special use permit. Jay Bryan said that, due to an oversight regarding a notice, which is a legal requirement for such matters, the special use permit will be postponed to a later meeting for a public hearing. Geof Gledhill said that the County Commissioners would reschedule this public hearing and there would,be proper notice given far enough in advance. Chair Jacobs said that if residents live within the area, they will get a written, official notice from the County. If any residents are concerned that they might not get a notice, then they should give their contact information to the Clerk. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Eno Small Area Plan: An appointed citizen Task Force has been working with Orange County Staff to develop a Small Area Plan for the Eno EDD (Economic Development District)Area since June 2006. The draft of the plan is now complete and contains Recommendations in the following topic areas: • Water and Sewer • Land Use and Zoning • Transportation • Housing • Parks, Recreation and Open Space • Communications • Intergovernmental Issues • Other Recommendations, including: o Potential Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation (SGRC Program) o Plan Updates o Implementation The draft Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan is available on the Orange County Panning Department website at http://vvvvvv.co.orange.nc.us/planning/index.htm. Purpose: To receive public comment on the data, assumptions, and recommendations contained in the Draft Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan and receive direction from the Board of Commissioners as to subsequent steps. Planner Perdita Holtz introduced this item. This planning effort began in late 2005 and the task force is made up of eight citizens, a City of Durham representative, and a BOCC liaison (Commissioner Foushee). The small area plan boundary is in the eastern portion of the County around 1-85 and US 70. The focus area boundary was designated as the Eno Economic Development District and the commercial node that exists off of that district. The reserve area (red outline) was added late last year for future utility planning purposes only. There are not any recommendations made for this area other than for future water and sewer purposes. Most of the area is within the Orange County primary service area of the Water and Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement. The small area plan contains four sections and two appendices. The current major issues are on pages 48-58. The synopsis of recommendations is,in the Executive Summary. The task force spent the most time talking about water and sewer issues and land use and zoning issues. She said that the implementation measures that would implement the small area plan would be brought forth after adoption of the plan. Water and Sewer: The most important aspect of the plan is water and sewer, as an infrastructure is needed if the area is to develop more intensely. One of the most important recommendations is the negotiation of the interlocal agreement with the City of Durham to serve the area with public water and sewer. This agreement would be the first thing to be done if the plan is adopted. This would involve elected officials and municipal representatives. Land Use and Zoning: Regarding land use and zoning, Perdita Holtz said that the recommendation is to change the existing future land use classifications from Economic Development and Commercial Node to Economic Development (north of US 70) and Eno Mixed Use (south of 70). She made reference to the map and said that the darker purple would remain as an Economic Development designation and the lighter purple would become Eno Mixed Use. The Economic Development area would have more intense land uses such as manufacturing, industrial, and warehousing uses. The Eno Mixed Use area would include retail/office/service and some residential. It is recommended to revise the Zoning Ordinance text to be consistent with the construct outlined in Appendix A (pp. 59-60). Smaller scale projects would be permitted through a staff administrative review and larger scale projects would require a special use permit. The current designations of Economic Development District Primary and Secondary would no longer be used, and properties would remain zoned as they are currently. Those properties zoned Economic Development (new designation) would look to the land use classifications to determine the permitted uses and approval procedures. There would likely be some sort of annexation agreement reached with Durham. Coordination with the City of Durham would be necessary for the zoning text changes. Transportation: There is a recommendation to approve an access management plan for the area. The concept is on page 54. Any future implementation measures and approvals need to recognize the anticipated redesign of the 1-85 and US 70 interchange, which is in the State TIP but is not funded yet. Housing: The plan is to make sure that future zoning text changes do not make existing conforming residential uses in the EDD area non-conforming. In the mixed use, there would be greater density as the distance from existing single-family houses or uses increase. The intent of the mixed use area is for some residential, but mostly non-residential. The recommendation in the plan is that future implementation measures should limit the amount of residential in that mixed use area. Perdita Holtz said that last Tuesday there was an open house style public information meeting and 13 people attended. The recommendation is for the plan to go to the regular Planning Board meeting on June 4th for review and comment to be brought back to the regular Board of County Commissioners' meeting on June 24th for adoption consideration. She read the Manager's recommendation. Chair Jacobs asked if Durham's Urban Growth area conformed to the reserve area. Perdita Holtz said that the reserve area is much larger than Durham's Urban Growth Boundary within Orange County, except that the Urban Growth Boundary extends a little bit further west than where the Eno EDD line and small area plan line was drawn. The map is on page 45. Renee Price asked how much the County was going to continue offering to other counties. She said that it seems that this is giving away potential tax base. Chair Jacobs said that the simple answer is that it is still in Orange County, so the taxes are still captured. Michelle Kempinski asked about Durham's Urban Growth Boundary and the intention of Durham to extend into Orange County. She asked if there was any interlocal agreement between Orange County and Durham. Perdita Holtz said that there is not an agreement for that issue yet, but there is a Courtesy Review Agreement for projects within this area. One of the recommendations of the plan is to establish an interlocal agreement. Public Comment: Joe Griffin has lived in Eno Township all of his life. He is really concerned about the annexation into Durham. He said that it seems like this has been set up to be annexed in this process. He said that in the legislature this year, there is supposed to be a proposal to limit municipalities' ability to annex. He asked the County Commissioners to support this legislation. David Wolberg lives in Whispering Pines subdivision. He said that he appreciates the attention that has been given to Whispering Pines and preserving this as a residential neighborhood. He also appreciates that the land use plan keeps the commercial development north of US 70 and has mixed use south of US 70. He is concerned that, given that much of the land south of US 70 is already zoned commercial and is going to remain zoned commercial, and given that annexation by Durham is likely, he is not convinced that the land use plan has much in the way of teeth. Also, given what exists on Hillsborough Road/US 70 into Durham, he is not really impressed with this kind of development continuing out into his backyard. He has nothing against Durham, but he chose to buy land in Orange County. He has backyard poultry and this would not be permitted under Durham ordinances. He sees an extra layer of government and higher taxes if this is annexed. He has no objection to land being developed in this area, but he is not in favor of annexation. Chair Jacobs requested that staff provide a plain, simple map of the Durham Urban Growth Boundary, the Eno EDD with the reserve area, the roads, and the streams. Chair Jacobs commended the staff, citizens, and Commissioner Foushee for working on this plan. When this began in December 2005, people who owned property in the Eno EDD expressed their frustration that Orange County had done nothing for years. It is an achievement that the plan has come this far. Regarding Durham's annexation policy, he said that there should be something clearly written about this in the table of contents so that someone could turn right to it. He suggested that the Board of County Commissioners sit down with the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, the new Manager, and the Planning Director of the City of Durham to discuss the annexation policy, water and sewer boundary interlocal agreement, etc. He said that it is a fact that, since the County does not provide water and sewer, the municipalities that do provide water and sewer have their own rules about how they provide it, and Orange County will have to abide by those rules. It is a concern in looking at the rates, but it needs to be discussed. Chair Jacobs made reference to the mixed use and asked if someone could come in with a very large retail space with residential upstairs for the dark purple portion. Perdita Holtz said that the recommendation is that no new residential would be permitted in that area and that retail/trade would require a Planned Development. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that in the light purple area, the mixed use area would allow retail/office/service and residential. Chair Jacobs said that there are very few areas within Orange County's planning jurisdiction where there can be high-density residential. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 53 and the improvements to 1-85. He said that there are recommendations every year in the TIP about how Orange County wants this improvement to take place in regard to an underpass on New Hope Creek. He thinks that those improvements that are requested every year should be incorporated in this document. Also, on page 56, under item E-1 and the second bullet, he suggested taking out the word "small." He made reference to Appendix A and the uses and asked where he would find an asphalt plant. Perdita Holtz said that this table was not complete and this exact table would not be adopted. Commissioner Foushee said that for those persons involved in the permitted use table, most of the efforts were geared to ensuring that what was permitted now would not become non-conforming if the City of Durham were to annex the area. Also, the focus was economic development and not necessarily residential development. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 66 and asked why amusement parks and arcades were not allowed. He said that there is a golf driving range right up the road. He asked if there was some reason why people did not want this. Commissioner Foushee did not recall this conversation. Craig Benedict said that Durham's code does not allow this, so the recommendation was consistent with Durham's code. Staff will research this. Perdita Holtz made reference to the currently adopted future land use map and the area south of US 70, which has some economic development district parcels. This would be in a mixed use area, so it would allow residential. Michelle Kempinski requested that for the June 4th Planning Board meeting, she would like to invite any of the task force members and the community members. She would also like for staff to provide a short summary of how this new plan would interact with the existing EDD Design Manual. Renee Price asked about the industrial uses that are anticipated. Perdita Holtz said that zoning would govern the specific uses in that industrial area. There is no specific zoning amendment at this time, but the chart on pp. 61-67 shows the uses that the task force was anticipating. Commissioner Nelson asked at what point the County would take the necessary step to create an Economic Development plan. For example, there could be a focus here on IT or research, such as a spin-off of RTP. He said that these conversations should have already taken place. Commissioner Gordon agreed with Commissioner Nelson's point and said that it is imperative that a list of target industries be developed. Commissioner Nelson said that this conversation can begin now that there is a new Economic Development Director. Economic Development Director Brad Broadwell started work for Orange County today. He said that he read through the plan today and he has a good feel for the intention of the County and the intention of the people involved in these serious issues. He said that, from an economic development standpoint, the County has assets, and one of them is the Research Triangle Park. He said that this EDD is a natural extension of RTP. He said that this location should be marketed to those tenants in RTP. He does envision a technology base here. Jay Bryan said that he hoped that those involved in the task force would be able to participate in the next step. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to acknowledge that the public hearing will remain open until the Planning Board review and comment at which time the public hearing is closed; refer the item to the Planning Board for review and comment to be returned no later than June 9, 2008; and direct staff to place the draft plan on the June 24, 2008 BOCC regular meeting agenda for adoption consideration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. SUP-A-2-08 Farm Montessori School: REVIEW of a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter 'SUP) application proposing the development of a private, Montessori, school facility at 711 Terry Road (SR 1573) (TMBL 5.10..22 / PIN 0806-76-4683). The property in question is located within the ENO Township, is approximately fourteen and a half (14 1/2) acres in area, and is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) Lower Eno Protected Watershed Overlay. The applicant, Montessori Farm School, is seeking a SUP in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) and Section 8.8.30 to develop a private school based on the Montessori curriculum. The applicant intends to develop their school with a major emphasis on providing a farm/agricultural and science emphasis including: a. Farm and crop production, b. Animal care, c. Recycling, composting, and water conservation activities/projects. Purpose: To receive public comment on the Farm Montessori School Class A Special Use Permit THIS ITEM WILL BE RESCHEDULED 3. Comprehensive Plan Update Phase II: The Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that includes analysis of existing and predicted conditions and provides guidance for future legal and policy decisions, as determined by Orange County. The updated Plan will serve to guide development and the preservation of resources within the unincorporated areas of the County, by addressing a multitude of issues. The adopted Plan also serves as the statutory basis for many of Orange County's land use regulations as well as the application of zoning districts, as zoning must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan. On October 3, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved a process for updating the County's Comprehensive Plan in two phases as follows: Phase I, to include the development of Comprehensive Plan goals and County Profile Element; and Phase II, to include the remaining seven (7) Elements of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Phase I was completed by the County in September 2007 and Phase II was initiated immediately thereafter. During October 2007-April 2008, a Planning Consultant, County staff and the following County advisory boards have worked together to develop the draft Comprehensive Plan: Affordable Housing Advisory Board, Agricultural Preservation Board, Commission for the Environment, Economic Development Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Orange Unified Transportation Board, Planning Board, and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council. The Comprehensive Plan includes the following eight Elements: 1) County Profile; 2) Economic Development; 3) Housing; 4) Land Use; 5) Natural and Cultural Systems; 6) Parks and Recreation; 7) Services (Utilities) and Community Facilities; and 8) Transportation. Recommendations are also provided in the draft Comprehensive Plan that addresses the administration, implementation, and monitoring of the Plan that will need to take place following its adoption. In addition to numerous citizen comprised County advisory board meetings, during Phase II of the update process, the County conducted public input meetings on January 28th, April 3rd, April 9th and April 23rd. The draft Comprehensive Plan is available on the Orange County Planning Department website at http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/compre_cpupdate.asp. Purpose: To receive public comment on the updated Comprehensive Plan in its entirety and receive direction from the Board of Commissioners as to subsequent steps. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri reviewed the attached items. He made a PowerPoint presentation. Public Hearing Purposes - Receive formal public comment on the draft Comprehensive Plan and receive direction from County Commissioners. - Attendees hear in general what is in the draft Comprehensive Plan and how it was generated. Presentation Overview - Purpose and Scope of Draft Plan - Process and Timetable - Opportunities for citizen access and input - Availability of Draft Plan - Roles/Who has been involved - Submittal of written comments - County Administration's recommendation - Consultant's general tasks - Overview of Draft Plan Comprehensive Plan Purposes, Scope and Process Purpose: - Framework for long-range decision making - Guides growth and development - Sets goals/objectives to guide policy decisions - Serves as statutory basis for land use regulations Scope: - Planning period, 20+ years. - Planning for Orange County's planning jurisdiction - Covers 8 major areas, known as Elements - Based on BOCC Guiding Principles - Includes Goals and Objectives to guide County policies and implementation action strategies Update Process and Timetable Phase I (Oct. '06—Sept. '07): - Goals (38 in total) • - County Profile (data) Element - Public Hearing (August 27th) Phase II (Oct. '07 —August '08): - Development of Comprehensive Plan o Text for remaining 7 elements o Objectives o Public Hearing (May '08) BOCC Guiding Principles 1. Efficient and fiscally responsible provision of Public Facilities and Services 2. Encouraging sustainable growth and development 3. Encouraging energy efficiency, lower energy consumption, and the use of non-polluting renewable energy resources while promoting both air quality protection and the development of an effective transportation system 4. Natural area resource preservation 5. Preservation of rural land use patterns 6. Water resource preservation 7. Promotion of economic prosperity and diversity 8. Preservation of community character Roles in General - BOCC —set stage; provide direction to advisory boards and staff; hear and consider public comments; adopt plan - Advisory Boards—direction to staff and consultants; provide input and feedback - Consultants—Meeting facilitation; partner with staff and advisory boards to complete draft plan - County Staff—partner with consultants; support boards - Public—attend meetings and hearings; provide input and feedback Opportunities for Citizen Knowledge, Access, and Input Meetings: - Meetings of 8 Element Lead Advisory Boards - Countywide Meetings (4) - Open Houses (2) - Public Hearings (2) Accessing Information: - Meetings, staff, advisory board members, Internet, mailing lists, County libraries, and press releases Availability of Draft Plan - Online at: www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/compre cpupdate.asp - Public libraries: Carrboro, Cedar Grove, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough - Planning and Inspections Department Submittal of Written Comments - Guaranteed that written comments submitted on or before June 4th will be considered during development of Planning Board's recommendation to the BOCC. - All comments received will accompany the Planning Board's recommendation to the BOCC. • - Submit comments directly to Planning Board at their June 4th meeting or in advance to: CompPlanUpdateco.orange.nc.us OR Orange County Planning Board Attn: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 306-F Revere Rd., P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Administration's Recommendation In accordance with the BOCC approved timetable, County Administration recommends referral of the Draft Plan to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC August 19, 2008. Clarion's General Tasks — Roger Waldon, Principal, Clarion Associates Assistance During! Phase II 1. Data and information collection 2. Meetings with Advisory Boards and staff 3. Advisory Board, staff and public input 4. Prepared 1st draft of Comprehensive Plan 5. Advisory Board and staff comments on draft 6. Developed a 2nd draft for public hearing General Comments on Draft Plan - Reflects no major changes to existing/current policy directions. - Does not include specific implementation recommendations; work on those to start after Plan adoption - Draft Plan designed to: o Establish a common data base; o Pull together ideas and information heretofore scattered; o Set the stage for subsequent community discussions about implementation strategies Comprehensive Plan Chapters 1. Plan Overview 2. BOCC Planning Principles 3. Economic Development Element 4. Housing Element 5. Land Use Element 6. Natural and Cultural Systems Element 7. Parks and Recreation Element 8. Services and Facilities Element 9. Transportation Element 10. Toward a Sustainable Future Common Components of Elements - Summary and overview •- Purpose of plan element - Historic/current data and evaluation of trends - Needs - Goals and objectives - Linkages to other elements - Key documents - Intergovernmental coordination Chapter Highlights Chapter 1. Plan Overview - Background information and plan organization - Sustainability - Administration and implementation guidelines - Monitoring and evaluation procedures - Amendments Chapter 2. BOCC Planning Principles - Representative of the Board's values Chapter 3. Economic Development Element - Economy anchored by institutional uses, RTP - Importance of Agriculture to economy - Need to encourage non-residential development - Need to encourage development in targeted areas - Focus on Economic Development Districts Chapter 4. Housing Element: - Need more housing for future residents - Affordability and "workforce" housing - Wide-range of new housing in the right places - Network of non-profit housing organizations Chapter 5. Land Use Element: - Coordination with municipalities - Promote mixed-use development - Promote development in targeted areas - Protect environmentally sensitive land - Preserve open space and agriculture - Implementation will need to include amendments to land use plan and ordinances Chapter 6. Natural/Cultural Systems Element: - Agricultural Resources - Air and Energy Resources - Cultural Resources - Historic Preservation - Natural Areas - Water Resources - Strategies to preserve and be good stewards Chapter 7. Parks and Recreation Element: - Summarizes existing and planned facilities - Recognizes a growing population - Identifies need for countywide assessment of recreation and parks facilities, programs, and resources - Emphasizes coordination with municipalities and school districts Chapter 8. Services and Facilities Element: - School facilities - Solid waste management - Stormwater/erosion control - Libraries - Public Safety and Emergency Management - Public water/wastewater systems and coordination Chapter 9. Transportation Element: - Emphases on multi-modal transportation - Regional authorities for recommendations - Three bus systems (Orange, Chapel Hill, Triangle Transit) - Transportation and development closely linked - County is within a non-attainment area for air quality and daily travel is increasing. Appendices - County Profile (Data) Element - Glossary of terms - Additional data and information NEXT STEPS - Receive public comment - Referral to Planning Board - Return to BOCC for action Public Comment: Allen Rosen read a prepared statement: "Members of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition want the updated plan to declare a preference for compact, walkable, mixed-use, and transit-supportive developments within the County's planning jurisdiction. This development pattern is vital to achieving many key components of sustainability including affordable housing, an increase in the commercial tax base, reduced vehicle miles traveled, and improved prospects for local and regional public transportation. We are pleased that language throughout the plan emphasizes this preference. Overall, the plan is a big step in the right direction, but there is still much room for improvement. In order for compact, mixed-use developments to become the preferred mode of new development, the planning elements of the updated comprehensive plan must complement each other and sensible implementing ordinances need to be adopted. Coalition members prepared comments on the goals and objectives from the first draft for the Land Use, Transportation, Economic Development, and Housing elements. Since the language of the Public Hearing draft is virtually the same, the comments are still current. These recommendations (found on pages 38-47 of the agenda packet) provide examples of how the current goals and objectives can be improved and how the linkages between the elements enhanced. The viability of compact, mixed-use developments depends on the availability of public infrastructure, including water and sewer. Thus, the coalition recommends that the planning document make affirmative and unequivocal commitments to providing the necessary public infrastructure in a timely manner. Work remains to be done in this regard also. I recommend a section of the plan be dedicated exclusively to the goal statements and objectives that address both zoning for compact, mixed-use developments and planning for the requisite public infrastructure. This section should assure the reader that work on these critical objectives is coordinated and finished such that the infrastructure will begin to come on line within the next 3-5 years, if not sooner. As it stands now, it's not clear when and how this will happen. Personally, I support the emphasis on oompaot, mixed-use developments not only because it's a good conservation strategy, but because this is the best strategy for significantly increasing the supply of housing affordable to working and middle class households. To put it another way, if the plan's implementation does not result in an increased supply of less expensive land — on a per lot basis—for residential development than currently available, then the comprehensive plan update will have little or no impact on reducing the shortage of workforce housing in the county. This points to the main flaw with the plan's housing element. It almost exclusively focuses on issues related to affordable and special needs housing; albeit an area of concern which I fully support. However, the housing element should also address the systemic problems which cause the county's housing market to skew towards upper-income housing and recommend actions for bringing the market into a more equitable balance. Finally, I encourage the Commissioners to ask themselves if they've heard from as many stakeholders as they feel is appropriate for a policy document of this significance before voting on the plan later this summer. I believe the compressed time schedule put a strain on the planning advisory boards and diminished the opportunity—especially during Phase II —for widespread and continuous community input. As such, I encourage the Commissioners to immediately solicit the written comments of each lead advisory board so that their comments can be utilized by the Planning Board as they continue to refine the plan this summer. |ndoed, one or more joint advisory board meetings at this stage would be useful in assessing community support for the proposal, as well as gathering constructive recommendations for final improvements." Holly Reid read a prepared statement: "My name is Holly Reid and I am a co-founder of the Walkable Hillsborough Coalition, a group of community volunteers who have worked the past seven years to advocate for pedestrian and bike ways for Hillsborough, surrounding communities, and Orange County. I have been involved in the exploring the possibility of reopening a train station in Hillsborough. I am also one of the twenty-nine members of the Special Transit Advisory Commission, whose charge was to recommend a regional transit system for the Triangle region to our joint Metropolitan Planning Organization representatives. Our final report will be presented to the MPO's this Wednesday, May 21, in Raleigh. Over the years and especially through my involvement on the STAC, I have learned that the Triangle area is one of the most sprawled regions in the country and that we expect a million more people to Wake, Durham, and Orange Counties in the next 20 years. I have learned that we are off-the-scale auto centric in our country, and that we are realizing the great costs of this choice every day: poor health, poor community connections, dangerous and unattractive alternative modes of getting around, disenfranchised young and old, loss of commerce in our doxvntovvns, and an irresponsible carbon footprint, to name a few. I believe our Unified Transportation Board recognizes these huge community costs. They have listed many of these as key issues in a future Comprehensive Transportation Plan that is recommended in Objective T-3.2, and they see this plan as addressing strategies for all transportation modes, including bike, pedestrian, rail and all other critical transit facilities. What is absolutely critical to righting our heavily over-weighted single modal car culture is a new multi-modal transportation system that is well emphasized in Goal 3. What needs just as much emphasis in Goal 3 is future development that is compact, walkable and in mixed-use neighborhoods along transit corridors supported by transit. Transit and pedestrian-oriented development is the critical nexus of transportation and land use and it needs to be highly emphasized and cross-referenced frequently in our Comprehensive Plan. In my view and the Coalition's view, this needs to be written right into the Overarching Goal as the most important change in transportation and land use, a game-changer for our future. I am also going to emphasize a couple of other objectives that our Coalition recommends to be added to the Comprehensive Plan. We recommend a new Objective T-4.4 to implement the Special Transit Advisory Commission's recommendations for regional transit (including light rail, passenger/commuter rail, expanded bus and transit-oriented development at a future Orange County train station in Hillsborough). Being very involved in Safe Routes to School Initiatives I am also very interested in our Coalition's recommendation to add Objective T-1.8 to coordinate with Orange County Schools to provide safe walking and biking routes within 1.5 miles of all schools for children during school hours and residents after hours. Connectivity for our communities between key public institutions, commercial areas and neighborhoods will bring the vitality and foot traffic back to our community lives that we have lost over years of exclusively accommodating King Car. Our County's Comprehensive Plan is our way to receive gratitude instead of disdain from the next generations for our foresight. Let's make a difference now. Thank you." Adam Klein read a prepared statement: "My name is Adam Klein, I am the Director Government Relations and Economic Development at the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce and member of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition. I am here to offer a few brief remarks on the second draft of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the economic development section. In my professional opinion and the opinion of our Coalition members, the economic development section is missing a major strategy— namely working with UNC-Chapel Hill to retain many of the businesses created at the University. UNC in many ways is our business incubator. In the words of Chancellor-elect Holden Thorp, UNC's challenges in the coming years will be to "Cure diseases....find and invent clean energy...feed seven billion people" to name a few. As UNC strives to tackle these issues, researchers are generating cutting edge products and devices that are spinning off into new businesses. These businesses are based on innovation, pay good wages, and have little environmental impact—in a nutshell businesses we want in Orange County. Yet, out of 29 UNC businesses spawned since the year 2000, only 3 are located here. The majority go to RTP because they can find readily available office and lab space and a welcoming business environment. We can do much better than this and it can start with our Comprehensive Plan. I ask that you consider including a new objective of"working closely with UNC's Office of Technology Development to identify commercial space needs of businesses created by UNC research, promote development of such space within the County, and actively encourage UNC businesses to stay in Orange County after leaving the University." This should be one of our primary strategies for economic development. Lastly, in order for the County's commercial tax base to expand and for more businesses to locate in Orange County, it is paramount that water and sewer be extended to all of the Economic Development Districts. In the current Comprehensive Plan draft, extending water and sewer to these districts is listed as a long-term goal. The Coalition strongly urges that this objective be reprioritized as a short-term goal as so much of the other objectives within the Economic Development element hinges on having the necessary infrastructure in place to allow commercial and light industrial development. Please consider these changes as you review and edit the Comprehensive Plan. I thank you for your time and for the opportunity to give comment on this important document." Rev. Robert Campbell said that the members of the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism would like to bring attention to a paper written by Allen Bernard of the Cedar Grove Institution of Sustainable Communities on racial segregation in residential neighborhoods. Racial residential segregation remains a fact of life in the south as well as in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood. Political exclusion, which it is labeled, occurs when Afro-American neighborhoods are kept just outside of a town's boundaries, resulting in a low level of service, reduced access to infrastructure, and limited or no political voice in land use and committee decisions. He said that they are requesting that their recommendation from the Rogers Road Enhancement Task Force be included in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and that the plan include specific recommendations and actions to: 1. End the 35-year burden of solid waste facilities in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood and the Rogers Road historic area; 2. Provide public funding for provision of safe drinking water and sewer service to all households in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood and the Rogers Road historic area; 3. Provide funding for other basic municipal service to residents of the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood and Rogers Road historic area, including, but not limited to paved roads, paved sidewalks, storm drains, street lights, public bus service (including covered bus stops), and emergency protection service (such as fire, police protection, ambulatory, and rescue squad). He said that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan and the inter-territorial jurisdiction plan, the plan that was implemented in the 1800's specifically has a boundary between the neighborhoods. He said that this plan excluded water from coming into the historic area. He encouraged the County Commissioners to look at these papers. Fred Black chairs the Community Action Network and also participates with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition. He said that this has been an amazing process but also a very difficult process. He said that since the second draft on May 2nd, it has been hard work to delve into it. One of the goals has been to help the coalition educate itself so that it could educate the community and encourage them to participate in this process. He has concerns that enough time has not been built into the schedule to allow the thorough review, study, and evaluation that a plan of this magnitude requires. He asked the Board to consider how else to receive input from people who are going to be hard pressed in the summer to pay attention to this plan. Ruby Sinreich said that she is still trying to learn about the plan. She agrees with all of the other comments before her. She has two main concerns. One is about intergovernmental cooperation. She does not see any evidence of this in the creation of the plan. She was the Chair of the Chapel Hill Planning Board until about a year ago, and she did not even know about this plan. She said that if the plan proposes doing intergovernmental cooperation, it needs to model that in the creation of the plan. In addition, planning in a vacuum is not useful when the borders are obviously contiguous. Her other concern is land use. She said that we have to envision a future where gas is not cheap. She is very concerned when she sees disconnected areas of development such as the economic development districts. This is not how communities grow and it does not reinforce the support of land use. She is concerned that the EDDs will encourage more sprawl. She would like to see how transportation and other infrastructure will support economic development districts and wherever there will be growth and activity. Robbin Taylor-Hall read an email from the Simpson Efland Heirs: "The late Simpson Efland left six heirs. Siblings Ann E. Gandy and Mack P. Efland, Jr., were his Administrators. Both have power of attorney to dispose of the land. Mack Efland and I hereby request, representing the heirs, that water critical be removed from this property and that water and sewer be brought to land in the Efland Small Area Plan. It is the intention of the heirs to effect an orderly disposition of the land holdings. We have the properties listed with Taylor-Hall Properties of Hillsborough. Ms. Robbin Taylor-Hall is our agent, and is authorized to speak to you on our behalf. This letter has been approved by Mack Efland. Thank you for your consideration. Ann E. Gandy, PA Simpson Efland Heirs" Ben Lloyd said that 25 years ago the North Carolina Department of Commerce identified the US 70/Southern RR/I-85 corridor through Orange County as the most potential area in the state for good, clean, high-paying, low water using economic growth. As of today, not one brick has been laid. Fourteen years ago, Orange County created three economic development districts, and as of today there is no activity in any of them. In 2005, the County Commissioners committed to creating 5,000 new commercial jobs and $125 million of new commercial tax base in Orange County by 2010. Three years have gone by and nothing has happened. Today, there is nearly 19,000 acres of Orange County land in the Water Quality Critical Area where no sewage, commercial or industrial activity is allowed. He recommended that this water critical area stigma should be removed so that some of the potential area can be utilized to provide jobs for people in Orange County. He said that the Comprehensive Plan will determine the future for a lot of Orange County citizens. People need jobs and the County needs money. He said that this is a lot of information and he suggested that the Board go slow. Jay Bryan read a prepared statement: "At the previous public hearing on the update to the Comprehensive Plan, I requested the Board of Commissioners to explore the idea of establishing another Element in the Comprehensive Plan to addressing Planning Principle No. 8, Preservation of Community Character. My proposed Element read: Maintenance of Community and Preservation of Community Character This request was forwarded to the Planning Board. In the fall of 2007, the Board formed a subcommittee consisting of members Renee Price, Judith Wegner, Bernadette Pelissier, and myself to examine the idea that had been proposed. In March of 2008, the Subcommittee submitted a report to the Planning Board. The report consisted of a history of community building efforts in the County, including a detailed discussion of the report of Shaping Orange County's Future Task force, and the subcommittee's recommendations concerning the establishment of a new Element and attending goals and objectives. The Planning Board discussed the report briefly at its monthly meeting in March. There was no consensus or vote on the recommendations although there was some concern expressed about how such an idea might slow down the overall process for updating the Plan. Tonight, on my own, I am asking that instead of establishing a new Element for community building and maintenance, certain Objectives be included in the Land Use Element. These Objectives are attached to your copy of my remarks as Exhibit A. Also attached is a copy of most of the recommendations of the Shaping Orange's Future Task Force regarding Community Building. Goal 6 of the proposed Land Use Element entitled, "A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive," would be one possible location for some or all of these objectives. I believe there are also other goals under which these objectives may fit. In summary, I strongly believe that the ten principles of community building listed in the Task Force's final report provide the glue and accountability that bind together each of the Comprehensive Plan's Elements and their goals and objectives. The Task Force's overarching goal of community-building connects the Comprehensive Plan's individual Elements to each other to create interdependency. This goal, coupled with the attached Objectives, also transcends each Element and serves as a broad-spectrum vision by which the goals and objectives of the Elements, as well as those of the social, economic and environmental sectors of the County, can be better accomplished. Thank you." EXHIBIT A OBJECTIVES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S LAND USE ELEMENT a. Develop a process for using principles of community building (See p. 2, Report of Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force) as a checklist for evaluating the extent to which long and short-term planning and development builds and maintain community in Orange County. b. Establish the use of mediation, conflict resolution, public participation and facilitation practices among Orange County and municipal boards, elected and appointed (p. 25, Report of Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force). c. Establish collaborative initiatives with municipalities within the County to work together on a plan for community building and maintenance and how to implement community-building strategies into their policies and procedures (p. 25, Report of Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force). d. Create a community-building roundtable of County citizens to meet periodically and discuss/evaluate the County's progress in building and maintaining community. e. Create ways for fostering collaboration toward community building and maintenance between County government and for-profit and non-profit sector leadership and members. f. Develop opportunities for younger citizens to participate in the community building and maintenance plan for future development of the County and State's leadership. g. Explore the idea of a position of an "extension" agent for community building and maintenance. h. Create a database of community events and celebrations, both within the county and regionally, that builds community and preserve community character. i. Establish an annual day to celebrate the County and its citizens and their efforts and initiatives to build and maintain community. j. Evaluate the recommendations of the Shaping Orange County's Future's Task Force regarding "Put Community Building First" (other than any that already stated in Objectives) for implementation. k. Determine where principles of community building should be incorporated into other Elements of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Foushee said that there is only one public hearing scheduled, and there needs to be at least one more public hearing. Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Foushee. He said that Ruby Sinreich makes an excellent point and that the County should model the behavior that it wishes to support and should provide opportunities for all municipal boards to comment on the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Jacobs thanked everyone involved in the creation of this document. He suggested that the document say that it is printed on recycled paper. He also suggested putting the document on a CD so that searching within it would be really simple. Regarding word usage, he suggested that someone look at the difference between "more than" and "over" and "less" and "fewer" in dealing with quantities, because they are not interchangeable. Also, the City of Durham is "it" and not"who." Also, Durham Technical Community College prefers to be called Durham Technical Community College; and interchanging "manufactured housing community" and "mobile home parks" would be easier. Commissioner Gordon agreed with having more time to digest this. She suggested working with the Planning Board and staff to adjust the timeline rather than trying to craft it tonight. Jay Bryan said that, on behalf of the Planning Board, it is ready to hear from the County Commissioners about their thoughts. He suggested that the Commissioners should have a work session or two before there is more public comment. Chair Jacobs said that the County Commissioners break on June 24th, and they could consider two weeks in June where there are not two meetings. A work session could be scheduled during one of those two weeks. Commissioner Nelson suggested that it would probably take two work sessions, one in June and one after the second public hearing. Judith Wegner said that the Planning Board has been having almost weekly meetings and the reality is that the Planning Board will change significantly soon. Michelle Kempinski echoed Judith Wegner's comments and said that the Planning Board has been having many meetings. Renee Price said that she would like instructions and direction from the Commissioners as to the revisions that are going to be made. There have been goal changes suggested by the public, and she would like direction on whether the goals will be changed. Larry Wright said that the transportation objectives are not in the current draft. Tom Altieri said that they are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan and are included in the appendices. Geof Gledhill suggested that the Board adjourn this public hearing to the next public hearing on August 25th and keep the public hearing open. The County Commissioners can hold work sessions in the interim and invite the Planning Board to participate. Chair Jacobs suggested that the Board make it a point to finish the business in one work session. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the public hearing to be reconvened at the next Quarterly Public Hearing on August 25, 2008. Commissioner Gordon added a friendly amendment to the motion to instruct staff to work with the Planning Board and others to develop a new timeline and also that the public be notified of the BOCC Work Session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: REVIEW of a proposed ordinance amendment to Article Six (6) Section 6.20.1 Large Ground Absorption System (3,000 gallons per day) and Package Treatment Plants Prohibited in AR Districts and Rural Buffer Districts clarifying the type of projects that are required to obtain a Special Use Permit or Planned Development approval for a proposed ground absorption system that has a design capacity over 3,000 gallons per day of sanitary sewage disposal. Purpose: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Michael Harvey said that staff was reviewing several different projects, one of which was proposing a large ground absorption system over 3,000 gallons per day. One of the concerns was that the existing ordinance was too vague. The County Attorney was also concerned that there was a compliance issue because the County cannot issue itself an SUP. The purpose of this amendment is to add language specifically referencing the section that the County will have to adhere to. Also, the amendment will spell out that this requirement does not cover County projects. Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about the language, which were answered by Michael Harvey. Jay Bryan asked if there was any opportunity for public comment. Michael. Harvey said that through the site plan review process, public comment will be accepted. Commissioner Gordon made reference to 6.20.1 and said that the third line should say "Orange County Government" instead of just"government." She also urged the Planning Board to track all of this through to see if what is in section 8.8.3 is adequate to substitute for the special use process. No public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request that a recommendation be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners no later than August 19, 2008. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Sign Ordinance: REVIEW of a proposed ordinance amendment(s) seeking to establish specific criteria governing the size, location, and number of permitted signs that can be located within: a. Parks, Public and Non-Profit (P14); b. Recreational Facilities, Non-Profit (S34); c. Recreational Facilities, Golf Course (S35); and d. Recreational Facilities, Profit (36) land uses per Article 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Purpose: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Michael Harvey said that staff has been working with Orange County Parks and Recreation to address sign needs. Given the fact that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, especially in residential districts, establishes a four square foot limitation on all signage, as part of the comprehensive sign package, staff had proposed an overhaul to the existing regulations to establish specific sign standards to govern the development and location of signs within Parks and Recreation facilities. The biggest distinction between the two proposals (Article 9 and the Economic Development District Design Manual) is that Article 9 still proposes to maintain a limit on free- standing pole-mounted signs at 20 square feet. In the EDD Design Manual, there is no limitation technically on the square footage of a free-standing or a pole-mounted sign, which they are recommending to be 32 square feet. The plan is to recommend 32 square feet when there is a comprehensive amendment to the sign ordinance. This proposal will allow enough flexibility to afford the developer of a park or recreation facility the necessary sign space to provide enough detailed information. Chair Jacobs made reference to 2.1 and said that a set-back is a noun, and setting something back is an action. He said that "set back" should be two words. He made several other language changes, which were noted by staff. Chair Jacobs said that if it is an Orange County park sign, it does not need a light. If there will be signs that have lights on County facilities, then he would like the lights to be solar-powered. No public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request that a recommendation be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners no later than August 19, 2008. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING With no further items to address, the meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board