Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-27-2006-9eORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: .June 27, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. 9 - e. SUBJECT: Proposed Final Draft Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning Department PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) NO ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Adoption 2, Draft June 7 PB Minutes 3, Proposed Final Draft of the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan (under separate cover) INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2592 Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Planner, (919)245-2611 PURPOSE: To consider adoption of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan, BACKGROUND: At the May 22, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing, the BOCC and Planning Board heard a staff presentation on the draft EMSAP, Several EMSAP Task Force members were in attendance, No public comments regarding the EMSAP were presented at the Quarterly Public Hearing, The BOCC moved to refer the EMSAP to the Planning Board for its review and comment at the June 7, 2006 regular meeting with the intent of placing the draft plan on the June 27, 2006 BOCC agenda far adoption consideration. The Planning Board considered the draft EMSAP at their regular meeting on June 7, 2006. The Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the draft plan with the following comments: 1. Particular attention should be paid to water and sewer issues. (Staff Note: the context of this comment was that economic development activities should be a priority, especially in areas designated EDD [Economic Development District]), 2, In the Executive Summary, the second bullet item under "Housing" related to designating the planning area as a passible TDR Receiving Area should be removed, The draft plan contains numerous recommendations in the following topic areas: Water and Sewer Land Use/ Community Character/Design • Transportation • Housing • Parks, Recreation and Open Space Communications Intergovernmental Issues Other Recommendations, including: o Potential Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program o Emergency Shelters o Impact Fees o Historic Preservation o Incorporation o Plan Updates o Implementation An Executive Summary containing a synopsis of the most significant recommendations made in the plan is included in the draft plan immediately fallowing the Table of Contents. While the Executive Summary gives a brief summary of the most significant recommendations, amore substantial understanding of the recommendations can be gained by reading the Recommendations section which begins on page 63 and concludes on page 83. Implementation of many of the recommendations contained in this plan will require revisions to adopted County policies and regulations. Examples of these policies and regulations include, but are not limited to: • Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan o Text o Map • Subdivision Regulations • Zoning Ordinance o Text o Map Amendments o Permitted Use Tables o Overlay/Design Guidelines • Water and Sewer Policy • Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement County Departments and Advisory Boards other than the Planning Department and Planning Board have interests in or jurisdiction aver some of the recommendation topics. These other departments and advisory boards will need to be part of the implementation process. At the May 22, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing, the BOCC indicated that implementing regulations should be brotaght forward no sooner than the November 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing, presuming the draft plan is adopted before then, The BOCC may desire to appoint a small Focus Group to assist Staff in coordinating implementation of the Plan. Possible representation of the Focus Group includes: • Planning Board - 1 or 2 Members • Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Task Force - 2 or 3 Members • Economic Development Commission - 1 Member • General Appointees - 2 or 3 Members FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact involved with adopting the plan. However, implementation of many of the recommendations contained in the plan will have costs associated with them, potentially into the millions of dollars. The potential source of funds for implementing the recommendations have not been specifically identified at this point but is expected to include bath public and private monies.. Public monies could be in the farm of Federal, State, ar local funds, 3 RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board: 1. Adopt the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan in accordance with attached resolution; and 2. Consider Forming a Forus Group to assist Staff with implementation action strategies. ~" A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EFLAND-MEBANE SMALL AREA PLAN WHEREAS, Orange County Board of Commissioners appointed a citizen Task Force in December 2004 to work with Planning Staff in developing a Small Area Plan for the defined Efland-Mebane area; and WHEREAS, the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Task Farce met twelve (12) times throughout 2005 and early 2006 to develop the Small Area Plan; and WHEREAS, a Community Meeting to obtain citizen comments regarding the plan was held in March 2006; and WHEREAS, the Draft Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (EMSAP) was heard at the May 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Board has reviewed and commented on the Draft EMSAP; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby resolves that the Final Draft of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan be adopted to guide future decisions regarding those issues addressed in the EMSAP. Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2006, I, Donna S. Baker, Glerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2006 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No, of the minutes of said Board, WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2006. Clerk to the Board of Commissioners DRAFT MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JUNE 7, 2006 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township Representative; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; .Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Sandra Quinn, Eno Representative; Renee Price- Saunders, Hillsborough Representative (Vice-Chair); .Jeff Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At- Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Representative; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large OTxERS PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor, Eddie Kirk, Planner II, Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, Planner II, Leigh Jones, Intern, Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant II, Tom Heffner, developer, Jack Smyre, developer, Leo Allison, Vivian Phillips, Kip Weinert, Robin Taylor-Hall AGENDA ITEM #8: EFLAND-MEBANE SMALL AREA PLAN TASK FORCE REPORT Perdita Holtz: This Small Area Plan was presented at the May 22, 2006 Public Hearing, There were no public comments, and the BOCC referred the Plan back to the Planning Board for' its review and comment before their approval. As shown in the abstract, Staff is asking For a Planning Board recommendation to the BOCC no later than June 20, so that it can be on their June 27 action agenda, As shown in the Executive Summary of the report, the next step is to form a subgroup to develop implementation action strategies, which would be presented no earlier than the November 2006 public hearing. There was a discussion about how soon implementation measures might come before the Commissioners, and November is the target date.: Sam Lasris: Does this suggest that the actual commercial area will be more westerly than is currently recognized, such as the current Post Office location? Perdita Holtz: The recommendation in the plan is that non-residential use be allowed along US 70 with design guidelines to be developed, It is not a commercial district per se, but appropriate commercial and non-residential uses, It is also allowed in the EDD areas. Sam Lasris: So development will be along 70, and not branching outwards of 70? Perdita Holtz: Non-residential will be contained along US 70. Jeff Schmitt: How does this relate to the County's Economic Development plan? Perdita Holtz: The current EDD will stay the same, with a slight expansion. DRAFT Craig Benedict: The EDD areas could also allow a mixed use component to promote higher density residential. So, the expansion of the EDD area is also promoting residential and mixed use. Sam Lasris: Could a school go in this area? Craig Benedict: There is actually one under construction now, Perdita Holtz: Current regulations allow schools in these areas. Renee Price-Saunders: At the Public Hearing, there was a discussion of the realignment of Efland-Cedar Grove Road. 6 Craig Benedict: There are two options for realignment; either using realignment to connect to Mt, Willing Road, which would require a different rail crossing which would be problematic, or the I-85/70 connector with a right turn to go south. If the plan is approved, DOT will decide on the more feasible approach. Renee Price-Saunders: How much traffic is in the area, and what type of traffic is it? Sam Lasris: It is heavily trafficked now. Efland-Cedar Grove Road is essentially a bypass around Hillsborough to northbound traffic, due to the direct access from the Interstate. Semi's have to take 70. A lot of farmers also use Efland-Cedar Grove Road. Michelle Kempinski: and logging trucks. Brian Dobyns: I spoke with the Planning Director of Caswell County, and he suggested afour- lane road for Efland-Cedar Grove road jokingly. Sam Lasris: That route is very well known. It's a direct route to Danville, VA. Brian Dobyns: In the Executive Summary, number 4, originally we were looking at an underpass for the railroad, but DOT requires a new railroad be used while the underpass is being constructed, which isn't feasible. More than likely, we're looking at an overpass. Renee Price-Saunders: What if DOT recommends afour-lane road to Caswell County? What will that do to the quality of life for the Efland area? Michelle Kempinski: That's the real problem. It would seriously impact the area because they would have to take out houses that are along the road. Renee Price-Saunders: What is the Feeling of the community? DRAFT Brian Dobyns: There is not one voice, but everyone's concerned about the commercial area being divided in half They want continuity of'the roads. DOT will look at all of the options, and it will need to be addressed. Renee Price-Saunders: So, the Et7and Small Area plan will only be part of their consideration. Michelle Kempinski: There are concerns along 70 with a 45 mph speed limit, and speed is frequently a problem, The next step is to balance the issues. Craig Benedict: We met with DOT officials and both staffs to address the economic development of Caswell and Person County, which is contingent upon better access to I-85. They suggested Hwy 119 as an alternative. Those are things that need to be monitored. Sam Lasris: It's interesting that Caswell County used to balk on the 4-lane road idea.. Jeff Schmitt: If the plan is implemented, does it enhance the Orange County Economic Development plan along the corridor? Will the County realize more commercial development sooner with this plan? Perdita Holtz: It does not negatively affect the EDD area. If nothing else, it reinforces it. Craig Benedict: Mixed-use opportunities would create an opportunity for the development of businesses, and would be attractive to new businesses.. Jeff Schmitt: So if the plan is approved, we could begin to market this segment of the County more aggressively. Craig Benedict: Yes. We have a current agreement with Mebane to service with water and sewer, which took about three years to accomplish. There will be a new lift station near the new Middle School that will have the capacity to service the EDD area. This was also recommended to addresses the Orange Alamance Water System to improve the water integrity of their water system, and their concerns about fire suppression. Jeff Schmitt: So, how does the population feel about this? Brian Dobyns: More of the issue is that the portion of mixed-use will be the main commercial node, and there is a very small area that is currently served by sewer, The current plan only calls for a small addition to the area, so there are a lot of opportunities. The Master Sewer Plan for the Orange County Schools will help to determine the amount of commercial development levels that could be served. The residents are fne with this, but the sewer plans are still not done. Brian Dobyns (to Perdita Holtz): With regard to housing, I don't think we said that this area should be designated as a TDR receiving area. I recall the group saying that TDR might be coming, but we need more information. The group never heard the full TDR presentation,,just an initial introduction to the program. DxArT Renee Price-Saunders: The TDR program hasn't come up with specific receiving areas at this point, We've only looked at possible areas for sending and receiving areas. Jay Bryan: Does this area have a name? Perdita Holtz: Not really. We refer to the area as the Efland-Mebane area.. The boundaries are shown on page 3, Jay Bryan: Has there been any discussion of advisory committees for this area? Perdita Holtz: No. There has been a discussion about staff liaisons to the community to continue the discussions. Craig Benedict: Minimally, there will be annual meetings. .Jay Bryan: It seems that there is a lot going on here that could potentially affect the neighborhoods, Carrboro has an advisory committee to provide input and allow for citizen involvement in potential changes in the area. Where would the architectural design guidelines be utilized? Perdita Holtz: Along the US 70 corridor, between the Mebane ETJ to the Eno River, ,lay Bryan: What would define the limits of the area? Perdita Holtz: That will be defined by the BOCC. .Jay Bryan: What was the discussion about limiting design standards to a specific area, rather than al] of the mixed-use areas? Perdita Holtz: The mixed-use area is included. Craig Benedict: Some design standards are already provided in the EDD regulations Brian Dobyns: One of the challenges we face is the tremendous diversity of building types, and we don't want to say that everything needs to look the same, That needs to be considered. Jay Bryan: You could look at the proposed architectural standards in Carrboro, where we developed general standards to set a quality of design features, Jeff Schmitt: Is this the best chance for the County to get commercialhnixed-use development to defray tax increases? It seems to be a facilities issues that is long term to come to fruition. What is the estimated timeframe for this? When would sewer at the capacity level needed for commercial be ready? DRAFT Craig Benedict: In the area outlined in yellow, probably four months, when the school will be up and running.. Mebane needs to have some infrastructure for that system, which will be about six months and money has been allocated. Brian Dobyns: We asked this question of the County Engineer, and he said not long, because the decisions don't take long. Designing the master plan is not difficult, but the actual plans take more time. The original system was designed to deal with failing systems. Craig Benedict: There is $1.5 million under contract in Efland Village available. That's not enough to do the entire area, but can meet the residential needs area.. Renee Price-Saunders: It can get political, Some areas have water but no sewer. Sam Lasris: Regarding the boundary lines on the northern side, there is concern about water and sewer and with the recommendation of the residential node, would the boundary lines change? Perdita Holtz: The land use classification of the node would change, but the boundary would not change. The BOCC chose the boundary for the small area plan in late 2004. Renee Price-Saunders: On page 85, it states to encourage more young people with affordable housing. Is there a concern about the aging population in the area? Perdita Holtz: This was part of the 1991 plan, It is not one of the current recommendations. Brian Dobyns: Housing doesn't need to be on the summary, because the statement is shown on page 77 as "other recommendations".. MOTION by Jeff Schmitt to approve the plan, with a special emphasis on having the long-range master sewer plans being brought to fruition sooner. Renee Price-Saunders: Are we trying to have the Commissioners set an implementation strategy for this? Ieff Schmitt: My concern is that this plan will be implemented at different paces based on someone else's concerns down the road, and I think the consensus of the group is that we want to highlight the piece of the sewer completion in a short time period. I don't want this piece to get lost. Brian Dobyns: Under the recommendations, there is one about setting up a subgroup to develop implementation action strategies. Are we doing that tonight? .Jeff Schmitt: If there is a subgroup that needs to be put together, that's fine, but I'm not sure what that does to enhance what has already been done over an extensive time period by this group. I think we need to highlight this piece that seems to have a lot of other elements hinging upon its completion in a short time period.. DRAFT 10 Michelle Kerpinski: I believe that the subgroup would be to look at the recommendations and implementation steps and to activate the plan, Brian Dobyns: The recommendation shows that the subgroup would present action strategies no later than Novernber 2006. AMENDED MOTION by .Jeff Schmitt, to recommend approval with particular attention being paid to the sewer and water' issues to be addressed by the new subgroup and it should be formed as soon as possible. Seconded by Renee Price-Saunders, Brian Dobyns: I recommend a friendly amendment to remove the TDR bullet regarding designated receiving areas, Jeff Schmitt: I concur. Renee Price-Saunders: I agree, VorE: Unanimous .lay Bryan: Is there a motion to form the subgroup to review and recommend implementation action strategies? Renee Price-Saunders: How big is the group supposed to be? Is it from the Planning Board, or will community members be included? Will the members need to be approved the by BOCC? Craig Benedict: There is no particular size of a subgroup recommended, and the members from the previous Task Force will be contacted to see if they want to be involved. If this Board has other ideas, let us know. Brian Dobyns: Many of the members of the Task Force have indicated interest, .Tay Bryan: Would any members of the Planning Board be interested in being on this cormittee? Brian Dobyns, Michelle Kempinski, Sam Lasris indicated interest. .Jay Brian: It would be helpful, Craig, if you could bring back to us an idea ofthe interested people for this subgroup.. Craig Benedict: They will probably be looking at 6-8 members maximum, If the plan is approved, we will notify the people previously involved. Jay Bryan: I would like to see the issue of an advisory committee for that area be considered by the subgroup, and I'm willing to speak with them about my experience with Carrboro's Transition Area group. Michelle Kempinski: I would like to see this proceed as quickly as possible. DRAFT 1 I Jay Bryan: I'd like to acknowledge the members of the Task Force who are here tonight, and thank you for your work.. Brian Dobyns: I would like to acknowledge the hard work by Staff in putting this together, especially Perdita. Craig Benedict: This is the first Small Area Plan the Board has done in seven years, To help our new members, I can explain the process at a later time, Jay Bryan: Perhaps something in writing would be helpful, Renee Price-Saunders: There seems to be a lot of subgroups, and last year we discussed Township Advisory Councils, It might be possible to couch this idea as a method for helping to keep the communities together, Brian Dobyns: There needs to be a continuity, and structure, Jay Bryan: It's an important piece.