HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-04-2017 - 8-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 4, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
(Under Separate Cover) Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
Draft Minutes (919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
November 14, 2017 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
November 20, 2017 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 November 14, 2017
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Tuesday,
10 November 14, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Mark Dorosin and Commissioners Mia
13 Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board
17 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
20
21 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
22
23 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
24
25 Chair Dorosin read the charge below:
26 The Board of Commissioners pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect.
27 The Board asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with
28 the Board and with fellow residents. At any time should any member of the Board or any
29 resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the
30 meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the
31 Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is
32 observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be
33 turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
34
35 C. PUBLIC HEARING — QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS
36 NONE
37
38 D. PUBLIC HEARING — LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
39
40 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment -To review an application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan
41 Development Conditional Zoning) district. The proposed project encompasses 195
42 acres in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40
43 on both sides of Old Highway 86.
44
45 BACKGROUND:
46 The modified request seeks to rezone approximately 195 acres of property:
47
48 From: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2); Economic Development
49 Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4); Economic Development Hillsborough Research and
50 Manufacturing (EDH-5); Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District; Major
51 Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
52
53 To: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Special Flood
54 Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
2
1
2 for the purpose of developing Settlers Point, a mixed use development proposing two
3 development areas further identified as follows:
4
5 • District 1: industrial/manufacturing/research land uses, and
6 • District 2: office/retail/commercial land uses.
7
8 The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows:
9
10 Applicant(s): Old NC 86 Partners LLC
11 504 Meadowlands Drive
12 Hillsborough, NC 27278
13
14 Agent(s): Summit Design and AECOM
15 Engineering Services 701 Corporate Center Drive
16 504 Meadowlands Drive Suite 475
17 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Raleigh, NC 27607
18
19 Location: South of Interstate 40 and adjacent to Old NC Highway 86. Please refer
20 to the project vicinity map contained within Attachment 2 for additional
21 detail.
22
23 Conditional Zoning (CZ) Process: The process involves the approval of a rezoning petition and
24 a master development plan allowing for the development of a specific land use(s) on
25 approximately 20 parcels of property. Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e.
26 does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the BOCC's
27 determination that the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive
28 Plan.
29
30 Proposal: The project involves the creation of two development districts, specifically: 1. District 1
31 Light Industrial/Manufacturing and Research —Located west of Old NC 86 accessed via Service
32 Road and south of Interstate 40 intended to provide for light industrial/manufacturing and
33 research operations. The District is approximately 148 acres in area involving 2 parcels of
34 property (PI Ns 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573) and is depicted within the submitted
35 application narrative.
36
37 2. District 2 Commercial —Located east of Old NC Highway 86 and south of Interstate 40
38 intended to provide for high intensity office uses, retail, and services. The District is
39 approximately 47 acres in area involving 8 parcels of property
40
41 Michael Harvey, Current Planning, said there are hard copies of the PowerPoint at the
42 Commissioners places, and an email from the NCDOT concerning this project, which staff has
43 not had time to sufficiently digest this information. He made the following PowerPoint
44 presentation:
45
46 PUBLIC HEARING:
47 Zoning Atlas Amendment—Settlers Point Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning
48 (MPD-CZ) District
49 Orange County Board of Commissioners
50 November 14, 2017
51
52 Modification of Proposal:
53 • At October 4, 2017 Planning Board meeting applicant requested project be revised to
54 exclude 10 parcels, totaling 76 acres of land area, comprising District 3.
3
1 • Applicant requested action on District 3 be deferred to address concerns from Town of
2 Hillsborough on providing utility services to a residential development (i.e. age restricted
3 housing) south of Interstate 40.
4 • Applicant requested proposal to rezone 10 parcels (Districts 1 and 2) to move forward.
5
6 Proposal:
7 • Rezone Subject Properties:
8 — From:
9 • Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2);
10 • Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4);
11 • Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5);
12 • Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District;
13 • Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
14
15 — To:
16 • Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point ;
17 • Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District ;
18 • Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
19
20 Conditional Zoning Process
21 • Involves the approval of a rezoning petition and a master development plan allowing for
22 the development of specific land use(s).
23 o S"11r III°°'IIPF°' Co uNillNillIIIIIIIIII.III' T: Action does not involve approval of site specific
24 development plan(s).
25 • Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn testimony
26 or competent material evidence).
27 • Decisions are based on the BOCC's determination that the project is consistent with the
28 purpose/intent of Comprehensive Plan.
29 • Schedule, and Action:
30 o First Action — Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting
31 (NIM).
32 — C::'.OINIE„ II/ ccthi, vvas IheOd on September 14„ 2017.
33 o Second Action —The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting
34 and makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
35 — C::'.OINIE„ Rev0ewed at October „ 2C)1. ILJOaIT meetlin�.
36 Recommended for Ip 1 V ll.
37 o Third Action —The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and
38 makes a decision at a previously advertised public hearing.
39 • Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed
40 as part this process only if they address:
41 o The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property,
42 o Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian
43 and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or
44 o All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose.
45 • If approved, Zoning Atlas amended and property shall be changed to MPD-CZ (Settlers
46 Point).
47
48 Future Development
49 • Development of individual land uses shall be in accordance with the newly created
50 zoning district, including imposed conditions.
51 • Development shall only be permitted through the review and approval of site plan
52 application(s) in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO.
53 — No add0t0ona0 Board uITevlic (li.c. IC:,II nnlin Board / BOCC) be requ„ilired„
54
4
1 SETTLERS POINT PROJECT:
2 • 10 parcels of property,
3 • 195 acres of land south of Interstate 40,
4 • FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Economic Development Transition,
5 • GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Urban Designated
6 Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Joint Planning Land Use Plan Designates the area:
7 • Employment: Light/general industrial, office, research/development, support services
8 uses including restaurants, retail, etc.
9 • Neighborhood: Retail (goods and services), high density residential, etc.
10 • Suburban Office: Office /employment (do not necessarily rely on walk-in customers),
11 etc.
12
13 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT(S):
14 • District 1 - Industrial/Manufacturing and Research,
15 • Located west of Old NC 86 and south of Interstate 40 ,
16 • Accessed via an existing road named Service Road
17 • Intended to provide for light industrial/manufacturing and research operations.
18 • Properties comprising district are Located in an Economic Development Transition land
19 use category.
20 • District 2 - Commercial,
21 • Located east of Old NC Highway 86 and south of Interstate 40,
22 • Accessed via Old NC Highway 86,
23 • Intended to provide for light office, retail, service operations (i.e. hotel, restaurant, etc.)
24 • Properties comprising district are located in an Economic Development Transition land
25 use category.
26
27 Conditions:
28 • Applicant has recommended the imposition of several conditions controlling
29 development within project;
30 • Must be mutually agreed to by Applicant and Elected officials (as previously detailed).
31 • Staff and Planning Board have recommended imposition of additional conditions on the
32 project.
33 o NOTE„ ApplIk2nt NC) has a f feed to m jj unity of ul lit ons„ Has dentfed
34 some concerns and requested m dlifli ton. Refer to Attachment 5.
35
36 Conditions— Examples:
37 • Approval of the Project does not constitute a guarantee utility services (i.e. water and
38 sewer) shall be provided and/or extended by the Town of Hillsborough.
39 • UTILITIES:
40 o Comply with Section 6.20 of the UDO,
41 o Development within the Project shall only be served by public water and
42 sewer,
43 o Utility connection(s) shall comply with applicable Town of Hillsborough
44 standards.
45 o Extension of utilities to District 2 shall be reviewed and approved by the
46 Town of Hillsborough prior to development.
47 • Site Plan(s)
48 o Site Plan Review per Section 2.5 of the UDO required for all projects,
49 o All submittals will require completion of an Environmental Assessment
50 and a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA),
51 o All submittals required to document existing and proposed impervious
52 surface area as well as building/open space ratios within the Project.
5
1 o Documentation denoting anticipated daily water and sewer needs for
2 proposed land uses.
3 o Landscape plans are required to detail how vegetation will be cared for.
4 • Landscaping:
5 o District 1 has to maintain a 100 ft. buffer along western and southern
6 property lines,
7 o A 50 ft. buffer is proposed for Old NC Highway 86
8 STAFF COMMENT will be allowed with a requirement
:::: ...... thinning
9 for.replanting.
10 o Major Transportation Corridor(MTC) Overlay preserved along the
11 Interstate (i.e. 100 ft. buffer)
12 — STAFF COMMENT...... thinning and breaks in this vegetation has
13 been requested to allow for.utility, stogy m water and parking
14 develops ent. After conferring with the NireQ::toi staff believes the
15 request is reasonable as there is a replanting requires ent
16 associated with this provision.
17 o Interior buffers proposed for parking lots, in front of buildings, etc.
18 • Standards proposed for building architecture (i.e. materials buildings can be constructed
19 of) including: Hardi-plank, Brick/Stucco, Concrete, etc.
20 • Transportation:
21 o Project shall comply with Section 6.10 Roadway Improvements and Multi-
22 modal Transportation of the UDO.
23 o External roadway improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
24 NC Department of Transportation requirements.
25 o Internal roads will be public roads.
26 o Sidewalks and bicycle lanes will be developed.
27 o Four(4) bus pullouts/transit shelters shall be constructed.
28 • Land Uses:
29 o District 1 includes manufacturing and research land uses (i.e.
30 computers/electronics, pharmaceutical, metal products, furniture,
31 food/beverage manufacturing, research facilities, etc.)
32 o District 2 includes commercial/service uses (i.e. retail, professional
33 offices, restaurants, recreational land uses, heath services such as
34 doctors'offices, hotel/motel, motor vehicle service station—gas station,
35 etc.)
36 • Signage:
37 o Architectural Landmark— Providing the visual identifier for the
38 development. The primary location will take advantage of the topography
39 to give visual guidance for motorist along the interstate. This would
40 appear to be more of an architectural feature than a sign.
41 STAFF COA/IME"NT: Staff and Planning Board have requested
42 an exar ple. Proposal calls for 50 ft, tall structure with
43 appr. y 400 sq. t, of sign area
cx�a' �t�l, ", sign
o Entry Portal Marker—providing the name of the development and
45 identifying the names of major tenants. These signs are primarily
46 intended for location at the main entrances to the project.
47 STAFF COA/IME"NT: Staff and Planning Board have requested
48 an exar ple. Proposal calls for.8 signs with 300 sq.f`. of sign
49 area
50
51 Staff Comments:
52 • The application deemed complete.
53 • Proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive
54 Plan.
6
1 • Applicant provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has
2 reviewed and determined there ought to be no significant environmental impact(s) from
3 this project.
4 0 Buff recommended condlltllon form all envllronuincni ll liuinpaci statement (IC: II ( Il be
5 prepared f r II II t311i i u h II n t3 us R uin li t II t3„
6 • Proposed development is consistent with existing and anticipated development within
7 the area.
8 • Land uses are compatible.
9
10 Planning Board Comment(s):
11 • Reviewed item at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting,
12 • Voted to recommend approval with the imposition of conditions as recommended by the
13 applicant, staff, and Board members,
14 • Recommended conditions are contained in Attachment 11.
15
16 Recommendation:
17 The Administration recommends the Board:
18 1. Receive the proposal.
19 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comments.
20 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
21 comments at a later date are permitted).
22 4. Decide on one of the following options:
23 a. Adopt Statement of Consistency (Attachment 10), Ordinance amending
24 the Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11);
25 b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date;
26 INKYTIE.: 11-11 1) tlh e uin St h u°usduu"t us rsu of actllon to dd u����r
27 modfficatllon of condlltllons to ddre S ApplIlleant uinuinuni siconcern s„
28 or to uITe :t: new ndlltllons as recommended by the I130CC„
29 a. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or
30 b. Deny the proposed amendments.
31
32 Commissioner McKee made a statement to the Board of County Commissioners as
33 related to his current employment with Summit Engineering. He said he sought direction from
34 the County Attorney as whether he should recuse himself from this item, and received the
35 following legal opinion below. He read North Carolina General Statute 153A-340(g), and said
36 the Attorney concluded that he may not recuse himself from this matter.
37
38 Commissioner McKee-
39 You asked for an opinion on whether you need to recuse yourself from voting on this issue due
40 to the fact that you work for Summit Engineering. You informed me you don't have an interest
41 in the properties underlying the Settler's Point project, that in your employment you have not
42 worked on or had involvement with the project, that your compensation from Summit is not
43 related to or dependent on this project, that you will receive no bonuses related to this project,
44 and that your employment is not dependent on or at risk from the fact that you may or may not
45 vote on the project. Given these facts my analysis is as follows.
46
47 The default position for determining whether you must vote on a particular agenda item is that
48 you as a county commissioner have a duty to vote pursuant to G.S. 153A-44 which provides
49 that the board may excuse a member from voting "only upon questions involving the member's
50 own financial interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from
51 voting under G.S. 14-234, 153A-340(g)..." This item is not a matter of your official conduct and
52 G.S. 14-234, which deals with contracts, is not applicable. The remaining consideration, that of
53 your financial interest or G.S. 153A-340(g) is what must be analyzed. In this situation the
54 question of your financial interest, which otherwise is a separate consideration, is directly
7
1 addressed by G.S. 153A-340(g) and so there is only analysis to be made, whether you may be
2 excused pursuant to G.S. 153A-340(g).
3
4 153A-340(g) states "A member of the board of county commissioners shall not vote on any
5 zoning map or text amendment where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably
6 likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member"
7 (emphasis added). Assuming the facts above to be true:
8
9 • There appears to be no direct financial impact because you have had no involvement in
10 this project through your employment with Summit and will experience neither a
11 financial benefit or detriment regardless of the outcome of the vote on the project;
12 • Even if there is an indirect financial impact to you from some positive or negative
13 outcome experienced by Summit as a business this indirect impact is not at this time
14 quantifiable and is certainly not so substantial that it is apparent to a neutral observer,
15 so this may not be considered for purposes of whether you may be excused from
16 voting;
17 • Neither your compensation nor your continued employment are related in any way to this
18 project and so I also cannot determine that there is a readily identifiable financial impact
19 to you from the project.
20
21 There is a North Carolina case that, although not directly on point, provides guidance in this
22 situation on the question of what constitutes direct and substantial impact. City of Albemarle v.
23 Security Bank & Trust Co., involved a council vote on the condemnation of property owned by
24 Security Bank & Trust Co. Three members of the council voted on the condemnation, which
25 directly impacted the bank's business and property. The three were employed by another bank
26 that was in direct competition with Security Bank & Trust Co. They held positions of Director,
27 Assistant Vice President, and Branch Manager. The Court held that even though they may
28 experience some indirect impact to their financial interest from something negative happening to
29 Security Bank & Trust Co., the impact was "too remote and infinitesimal to give rise to a conflict
30 of interest." Similarly, you could have some positive or negative experience if the company that
31 employs you has a positive or negative impact from the Board's vote on the project, but your
32 personal experience will not, pursuant to the facts you've provided, be direct, substantial, or
33 readily identifiable.
34
35 There is no provision in the law as it relates to county boards of commissioners that allows
36 commissioners to recuse themselves from voting. The board itself must excuse, by vote, a
37 member from voting and then only in the stated circumstances. The mere appearance of
38 impropriety or appearance of a conflict of interest is not sufficient to warrant an excusal. To a
39 person unfamiliar with the voting statutes it may appear that impropriety or a conflict exists
40 based on your employment with Summit, however, the facts you've related to me suggest no
41 actual impropriety or conflict of interest exists.
42
43 My conclusion is that you may not be excused by the Board from votinci and have a
44 statutory duty to vote on this item. James Bryan will be at tonight's quarterly public hearing
45 and I've discussed this issue with him. I've also copied the Board and as you requested the
46 manager and planning director.
47
48 Let me know if you have any questions.
49
50 John L. Roberts
51 Orange County Attorney
52
8
1 Commissioner Marcoplos said he noticed that schools are an allowable land use, and
2 clarified that a school can be sited there, but there is no land designated for a school in this
3 area.
4 Michael Harvey said yes, there is no designated area. He said the Applicant did request
5 that a school be an allowed use, but noted that staff's recommendation is that any school
6 developed in this project only be allowed subject to the review and approval of a class A Special
7 Use Permit (SUP) by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), which is consistent with the
8 current standards of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
9 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is currently a need for a school on this land.
10 Michael Harvey said that is his understanding.
11 Commissioner Marcoplos said asked if it is likely that the district could fill up with other
12 commercial projects, and there would be no room for schools.
13 Michael Harvey said yes.
14 Commissioner Price referred to the water and sewer agreement with the Town of
15 Hillsborough, and asked if the Town would be providing water and sewer at its discretion,
16 regardless of the wishes of the BOCC. She asked if the Town has control.
17 Michael Harvey said Craig Benedict, Planning Director, may be better able to answer
18 that question. He referred to page 96 of the abstract packet, and said the first recommended
19 condition is that approval of the project does not constitute the guarantee that utility services
20 shall be provided and/or extended by the Town of Hillsborough. He reminded the BOCC that
21 the County is involved in extending a sewer line under the interstate that could possibly serve
22 District I, but with no guarantee to service District II. He said it is regularly repeated that any an
23 all utility hook-ups have to be approved by the Town of Hillsborough for a project that is
24 developed as a part of this overall project. He said it is conceivable the Town could say there is
25 no capacity, and could not sign off on a particular site plan being approved allowing for
26 connection to the system, and thus the County could not approve the site plan based on the
27 conditions associated with this project.
28 Craig Benedict said Michael Harvey is correct, with one clarification. He said there are
29 two districts. He said District I is the SW corner, and the interlocal agreement with Hillsborough
30 is just focused on this quadrant. He said anything that is within 108,000 gallons per day usage,
31 consistent with the joint land use plan, would be consistent with Hillsborough signing a
32 developer's agreement for that quadrant. He said the same assurances do not exist in the SE
33 quadrant, the retail area. He said this area is not part of the interlocal agreement, and the
34 developer would have to independently get a utility extension agreement. He said this is the
35 area where Hillsborough does have more authority.
36 Commissioner Price asked if the Development Advisory Committee could be defined.
37 Michael Harvey said this is an in-house staff committee that reviews site plans.
38 Commissioner Price asked if the tax benefits of this project, to Orange County, could be
39 identified.
40 Michael Harvey said the applicant would be better to answer that question, and it is
41 included in the application.
42 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the school site, and said any information pertaining to
43 this topic should be communicated to the Orange County Schools (OCS) system, and ask OCS
44 to respond in writing regarding the need for schools. He said it is important to envelope OCS
45 into this development process.
46 Michael Harvey said it is denoted in the abstract that staff has concerns about a school
47 in this project, but the Applicant has the ability to petition this as part of his application.
48 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the Applicant was proposing a school in a specific
49 District.
50 Michael Harvey said District I.
51 Commissioner Burroughs agreed with Commissioner Jacobs to engage the OCS to
52 comment on this issue, but noted there is the SAPFO process in place.
53 Commissioner Rich referred to the water situation, and asked if District II has an
54 interlocal agreement.
9
1 Michael Harvey said there is no agreement in District II, and the Town has not been
2 asked to extend water and sewer to District II.
3 Commissioner Rich asked if water and sewer would be needed in District II in order to
4 have commercial property.
5 Michael Harvey said that is the Applicant's wish.
6 Commissioner Rich asked if there is any other example in Orange County where a
7 developer has had to work directly with the utility to get an agreement.
8 Michael Harvey said in the Buckhorn area, Ashwick subdivision, Durham Economic
9 Development District (EDD).
10 Commissioner Rich said she those are all projects on which the County is working. She
11 said she is asking for examples where the Developer actually has to work directly with the
12 Town.
13 Craig Benedict said Mebane and Durham have agreed to provide service to uses
14 consistent with the coordinated plan. He said in Hillsborough the only agreement is on the SW
15 quadrant. He said a larger zone has not been identified, with which Hillsborough has been in
16 agreement. He said in the other two districts, there is a utilities service map, and both Mebane
17 and Durham have agreed to serve and maintain water and sewer utilities if the projects come
18 forward.
19 Chair Dorosin said asked to be shown where the access road is on the map, which
20 Michael Harvey provided.
21 Chair Dorosin asked what would happen, if there were future interest in developing
22 District 3. He asked if this would have to start from scratch.
23 Michael Harvey said the Applicant would bring it back, conduct another neighborhood
24 meeting, and another public hearing.
25 Chair Dorosin asked if such a proposal would be subject to a whole new set of
26 conditions and review.
27 Michael Harvey said that is correct, and none of the conditions contained in attachment
28 11 deal with District III.
29 Chair Dorosin said for the purposes of this discussion, it is as though District III is
30 severed.
31 Michael Harvey said yes.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
34 open the public hearing.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 PUBLIC COMMENT:
39 Mayor Tom Stevens said he is here with the perspective of the Board of the Town of
40 Hillsborough, who adopted a vision and comprehensive plan as a guide for development about
41 ten years ago. He said this plan has developed with input of citizens and County government,
42 and recognizes increasing development pressure, and the constraints due to water and sewer.
43 He said the plan can be summarized as avoiding sprawl in to the countryside; by making the
44 best use of road infrastructure; and steering development towards live/work/play communities
45 between the Eno River and Interstate 40. He said there are three important themes that
46 continue to run through the development plan:
47 • Retaining 40% commercial tax base
48 • Emphasizing a built environment that is town-like
49 • Emphasizing high levels of connectivity
50 He said his desire tonight is to show how that plan reflects on this project. He said the
51 Town fully supports the commercial development of the EDD; the Town is opposed to any
52 residential development in this area; and the type of commercial use in the EDD matters, and
53 how it gets approved matters. He said much of what is proposed in this application is in
54 agreement with the Town's coordinated area plan, but there are some significant parts that are
10
1 not. He said the plan calls for employment uses on the west side of Old 86, and mixed use and
2 suburban office on the east side. He said in Hillsborough's definitions, the opportunity for retail
3 is limited and somewhat small. He said District I is completely consistent with the Town's
4 coordinated area plan, but District I I contains some items that are inconsistent with this plan.
5 He said the retail component is much larger than the Town would envision, and the Town is
6 concerned that the quick and easy green space for an extended amount of retail could damage
7 the overall retail viability of other areas of Hillsborough.
8 Janet Marks lives in New Hope Springs off of Davis Road, and she has heard nothing of
9 economic development over the years. She said she knows she cannot prevent the
10 development. She said there will be little buffering to prevent light pollution, and asked if the
11 Board would look at this issue closely. She asked the BOCC if it would look at the installation of
12 water pipes in the District II area that is supposed to be for District I.
13 Joan Kalnitsky said she is concerned with what will go into District 1. She said she
14 hoped that the BOCC would wait until it is clear what is going to be in District I before voting on
15 this project, and she has a signed petition supporting this concern.
16 Matt Kostura reviewed the following comments:
17
18 To the Orange County Board of Commissioners:
19 I am writing to register my deep reservations regarding the planned development of the
20 Settler's Point Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPC-CZ) application
21 My review of the narrative for the development and my concerns are based on three
22 straightforward assertions:
23 1. The entire development is predicated on access to Interstate 40 with little integration into
24 the surrounding community and because of that...
25 2. The rural residential look and feel of the area will be greatly compromised by certain
26 types of development that are allowed by the current zoning permits and therefore....
27 3. Inappropriate development will have a material impact on many more residents than
28 those abutting the property and within the 1000 ft. spec for notification.
29
30 Based on the narrative, District 1 will be the first tract developed for so-called light industrial,
31 research or warehouse use. Of the three uses I list here I would hope that the county could
32 concede the point that warehousing would be inappropriate. Certainly a light manufacturing
33 facility; e.g.: the Morinaga facility or perhaps a local microbrewery or distillery that could use
34 expansion. Even a food preparation facility to allow local farmers to process foods for local
35 restaurants would be better than the standard warehouse.
36
37 District 2 is yet another cookie cutter hotel, chain restaurants and high intensity retail/office
38 complex. Perhaps there might be demand for a hotel in the area, but does the county want to
39 become saddled with idle restaurant property in the near future? Casual dining as a category is
40 doing poorly, with a change in drinking and eating habits. Local pubs with microbrews and
41 restaurants with locally authentic food are in and corporate fast food is out. And frankly
42 Hillsborough itself is establishing itself as something of a destination for both so would it not be
43 reasonable to attract those types of clients or better still attempt to get some of the transit traffic
44 on 40 into those same local restaurants?
45
46 District 3 requires a rezoning of R1 land. The Settlers Ridge Properties have never sold and for
47 good reason; they are too close to the highway and the noise in that area is fairly high. No one
48 wants to build a $400K home next to a highway. So instead, a mixed use office high density
49 housing complex (read apartments) and a lower density senior living complex are planned.
50 I can see four major problems with this development that if not appropriately configured will
51 absolutely wreck the surrounding area which is entirely rural residential in character. The
52 concerns really come down to traffic, lights, noise and visual aesthetic.
53 1. Traffic would be a major problem on Old 86 and likely back on to Davis Rd, which would
54 ultimately have a cut through to allow alternate access to the parcels.
11
1 2. Lighting is a concern with many homeowners in the area that appreciate dark skies.
2 That is a quintessential part of the character of the area. Again, some types of
3 developments (eg office or research) can mitigate these problems but others virtually
4 demand intrusive lighting (gas stations, restaurants, warehousing). Standing lights are a
5 concern.
6 3. Noise. More traffic, more noise and not much more needs to be said in that regard. Also
7 the wooded areas provide a near complete buffer for traffic noise from Interstate 40 for
8 nearly all parcels on Davis Rd. Removal of that buffer will degrade the homeowner
9 experience.
10 4. Visual aesthetic. The good news here is that most of this is completely under control of
11 the developer and the county. But I would hope that the design criteria would strike the
12 use of a 50ft 20x20 sign for District 2. Again, that would be wholly inappropriate for the
13 area. Old 86 is a scenic drive and the northern most part of that highway should have
14 as much protection as is possible from an aesthetic point of view. Likewise, Interstate
15 40 has a very clear and clean visual aesthetic. Driving east from Efland where Interstate
16 40 splits from Interstate 85, there is no signage of that size on the road until one arrives
17 in Wake County. Much care has been taken to remove standing billboards of any type
18 from intruding on the visual experience of the highway. The Interstate 40 corridor is,
19 visually, one of the nicest highways in state in this regard. In Orange County it has
20 many aspects of a boulevard and it should be kept that way.
21 I think that it is fair to say that most homeowners on Davis Rd, and in this area of the county,
22 view the exit at Interstate 40 and Old 86 as their entranceway to their homes. At present that
23 entrance way is rural and quiet. The county now wants to allow the placement of three large
24 developments literally right on our front steps. I cannot argue against development, but I would
25 hope that the county and the developers respect the character of the area. One only has to
26 drive west into Alamance County to visualize what I am most concerned with: another highway
27 exit built to satisfy transit economics but completely disrupting the character of the surrounding
28 local area.
29
30 Best regards
31 Matthew Kostura
32 4201 New Hope Springs Dr
33 Hillsborough, NC 27278
34
35 Ronald Siebar reviewed the following comments:
36
37 Dear County Commissioners:
38 I strongly disagree with the actions taken so far in regard to the three parcels that make up the
39 proposed Settlers Point Development.
40 1. I find it appalling that not all of the members of the Planning Board had adequate time
41 to read the comprehensive proposal for this huge development before sending a
42 recommendation to the County Commissioners. This appears to be a "rush job" and to
43 whose benefit?
44 2. I object to any approval of District I tenants in the "warehouse district"
45 until ALL members of both commissions have been able to read the report and vote
46 on the proposed development. It doesn't make sense on such a big project to do
47 otherwise.
48 3. I object to the proposed rezoning of Districts II and III because the described districts
49 do not disclose what tenants or tenant mix is going to be present, nor do they
50 adequately take into account the water resources that Hillsborough will be asked to
51 supply. I understand that District III has been delayed until a later date; we need to
52 delay the up-zoning for properties in the proposed District II as well.
53 4. The proposed development of the districts does not adequately anticipate, and
54 therefore does not protect against, the adverse visual and aural impact of such a
12
1 development on the rural and residential neighborhoods that immediately surround it.
2 At the very least, the law of unintended (or overlooked) consequences will very likely
3 change the ambiance of this semi-rural community. Drastically.
4 The proposed development of District I will have a tremendously negative impact on the tree
5 buffer that now exists for the benefit of rural and residential properties along Davis Dr. to the
6 west of Old NC 86 because the proposed development abuts these properties. Clearing the tree
7 buffer will assault these residents with noise from the 1-40 corridor that this district will flank. A
8 vegetative buffer of bushes intermixed with trees (as proposed) may lessen the daytime visual
9 impact of warehouses, but what about nighttime light pollution? In addition, a short vegetative
10 buffer will in no way lessen the aural impact that this development and the now-exposed
11 highway will have on these residents. In sum, it will permanently diminish the quality of life that
12 our community currently enjoys.
13
14 The proposed development of Districts II and III (albeit III has been delayed) will also assault
15 the senses with a landscape stripped of trees and thus will increase the visual and aural
16 pollution that will result from doing so. As previously mentioned, vegetative buffers do not a
17 "sound-blocking forest" make, nor will they acceptably mitigate the unwanted sights and sounds
18 from 1-40 that will result from these actions.
19
20 The proposals for Districts !! and III make no mention of the privately-owned properties that
21 have not yet been purchased by the proposed development. These properties, which can be
22 clearly identified on the development maps, will become completely isolated, and they will either
23 be orphaned as their surroundings are up-zoned and developed beyond recognition, or their
24 owners will be forced to sell their homes and find residence elsewhere. Again, we have people
25 whose lives are likely to be permanently changed for the sake of a developer's anticipated profit.
26
27 The developers have not specified what exactly they will be bringing to our community. To me,
28 professional offices that serve the nearby hospital and thus the town of Hillsborough
29 complement our future needs. However, once the properties have been up-zoned, the
30 possibilities are endless and not all positive.
31
32 The town does not need more fast-food restaurants or businesses that serve only transient 1-40
33 traffic. Hillsborough already has a corridor full of such businesses. And a large-capacity hotel to
34 be placed in the middle of a rural buffer? These types of development provide only low-end jobs
35 and big profits to the franchises that will swarm these properties if given the chance, as well as
36 increased profit for the developers who will no doubt be tempted by them. This type of lease-out
37 will not serve the immediate community and only harm its current ambiance.
38
39 The commissioners have not fully determined what would be "defined and specific uses" of this
40 proposed development. This seems to be the only way that our community can influence or
41 control what goes into the development as it is leased. Therefore, I urge the commissioners to
42 delay rezoning of Districts II and III until a comprehensive list of desired uses is completed and
43 made public so that our community can be properly informed.
44
45 The requested changes in zoning assume that adequate resources, specifically water, will be
46 made available for the development. Although Hillsborough currently has adequate water
47 resources for its residents and has made provisions for recently approved projects, how much
48 water is left to provide for this proposal?And will its water needs stymie other better-planned
49 needs for Hillsborough? We do not want to choke off wiser choices in development so that
50 another fast-food restaurant or three can be erected along 1-40.
51
52 Many of us who live in the immediate community understand that development is a part of our
53 future. However, we want wise development that will serve Hillsborough and enrich the quality
54 of life that we enjoy in Orange County, wise development that complements our anticipated
13
1 needs. I urge the commissioners to delay any further decisions concerning these properties until
2 all commissioners have had the time to read and deliberate on the impact of this proposal. I also
3 request that no action be taken regarding up-zoning of any property be made until more details
4 are shared about the intended uses of the development. Finally, I ask that the commissioners
5 respect the current quality of life that this community enjoys and seek no harm to befall it by
6 their actions.
7
8 Respectfully submitted,
9
10 Ronald D. Sieber, Ed.D.
11 4217 New Hope Springs Dr.
12 Hillsborough, NC 27278
13
14 Kathleen Ferguson, Hillsborough Town Council Member-Mayor Pro Tem, echoed Mayor
15 Stevens, and said if the Town requires and grants annexation, the development will need to
16 conform to Hillsborough ordinances, not what is included in the application. She said the Town
17 supports District I, but has strong reservations on District II. She said it is the Town's intent to
18 support Waterstone and Daniel Boone, and the retail component of this project may endanger
19 these two locations significantly.
20 Debra Markley said she is not supportive of this development. She said she is
21 concerned about water quality; lack of buffers; Davis Road becoming a thoroughfare; safety of
22 people of being able to walk around; effect on environment; traffic, etc. She noted there are
23 other proposed developments, and wonders why this development is needed. She submitted a
24 petition.
25 Dorothy Snyder lives in Hillsborough, and said she is here to express her solidarity with
26 her neighbors who live in the affected areas. She said she is concerned about pharmaceutical
27 industries and the environmental impact; bike paths and lanes and their connection to the
28 Town's; and minorities in this area that may be displaced.
29 Peter Leousis said he lives near this proposed development, and expressed the same
30 concerns as his neighbors. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to defer a decision
31 until a later date.
32 Bob Bundschuh reviewed the following comments:
33
34 I am writing with serious concern about the proposed Settlers Point Development up for
35 discussion this week.
36
37 As an Orange County resident, and living close to the proposed development, I have several
38 questions:
39
40 What criteria do you use when deciding approval or rejection of a proposed development?
41 How long have the members of the council had to review the proposal?
42 How do you take into consideration the effect on residents of Orange County in the area?
43 What limitations or controls are available to control what types of businesses can operate, if
44 approval is given? (which I hope it is not)
45
46 I am concerned and ask that you reject the current proposal for many reasons.
47
48 While I am not against growth, I am against growth that takes away from the area and growth
49 that is not well controlled. There are several areas in Orange county, including some in
50 Hillsborough, that have been cleared of trees, roads put in, etc. with no set plan or set tenants
51 that sit empty. My fear is another 'island' will be created at the Settlers Point site while a
52 speculative owner hopes that someone is interested. The area will be dramatically and
53 permanently changed on a gamble that tenants will come. In contrast, there have been several
54 stories lately of clear and well-planned developments in the Raleigh area where the known
14
1 tenants are already on board. i.e.: Ikea, Wegmans. I feel speculative development is not the
2 answer.
3
4 Secondly, I am worried that if this plan is approved (which I hope it is not) the county will have
5 little to no control over what tenants actually do move in. Light industrial could be a chicken
6 processing plant as long as all the business is enclosed. Warehouses, 24hr manufacturing
7 companies, etc. could be allowed to come in and affect the entire area with nothing to prevent
8 them if they are within the very broad boundaries of'light industrial'. Most of the residents in the
9 surrounding area are on well water, (myself included) what assurances are there that incoming
10 businesses do not foul the water? i.e.: GenX contamination around Fayetteville that was not
11 from dumping, but from leaching of the plant. If development does go forward, there must be
12 very strict limits as to what can be and cannot be allowed.
13
14 Lastly, the way that the zoning commission handles this project is most disturbing. One member
15 admitted she had not read the 274-page plan, credit to her for abstaining. One member said he
16 had received the plan only 8 days before. When asked to postpone the decision, the developer
17 claimed it would hurt their plan. What about the consideration for those in the area? Many
18 questions were raised, most did not have answers. A few stoplights are the only traffic
19 improvements? -for a plan that adds a hotel, retail, restaurants, AND businesses? This is all a
20 speculative gamble on almost 200 acres that borders miles of large lot residential, some going
21 back generations.
22
23 I ask that you reject this plan and take into consideration that this decision will forever impact all
24 those who live close to this area. Once the approval is given, you can't take it back. Please
25 reject on behalf of all of us that have to directly live with your decision.
26
27 I appreciate your time on this issue and look forward to your response.
28
29 Sincerely,
30
31 Bob Bundschuh
32 Orange County
33
34 John Ackerley said he is a Hillsborough resident, and he signed the first petition due to
35 concerns about the speed of this process, and the lack of transparency. He said he is
36 concerned about toxic byproducts and run off if pharmaceutical development is established in
37 District I. He said his main concern is District 2, and he opposes it as a commercial hub. He
38 said the plan to build here would divert income from Hillsborough merchants, and deprive the
39 Town of tax revenue. He said the Town has gone to great expense to revitalize the Churton
40 Street downtown area, and permitting an alternate commercial hub would be a knife to the back
41 of the downtown merchants, and the commercial corridor of Churton Street.
42 Jeanette Vega said she lives in Northern Hillsborough, but commutes through this area
43 every day. She said she is against this proposed development, and asked the BOCC to reject
44 this project until it has more information, especially regarding traffic. She said she agreed with
45 other speakers about other issues.
46 Alyse Polly reviewed the following comments below:
47
48 My name is Alyse Polly, and I've been a resident of Orange County for 11 years, and a resident
49 of Cornwallis Hills in Hillsborough for nearly 8 months. I feel very lucky to live here—in Orange
50 County, and specifically in Hillsborough. It is a great place to live and a great place to raise a
51 family.
52
53 One of the things I've really been struck by since moving to Hillsborough and learning more
54 about this town is the amount of effort, thought, deliberation, and intention that the town has put
15
1 towards planning for the future. The town has a carefully drafted vision, and a strategy map that
2 directs the town towards this vision, and a very detailed Unified Development Ordinance that
3 aligns with these as well.
4
5 So, while development is coming—and we all know that it is—the town is trying to prepare for
6 this while holding on to what's special about Hillsborough.
7
8 Given all of this, I'm feeling concerned about the Settler's point proposal. The first thing I want to
9 talk to about is District 1. I know economic development is important jobs are good, tax
10 revenue is good, innovation is good. I know these things. Yet, I'm not sure what kind of
11 businesses would be in district 1. The zone is described as "light industrial, manufacturing, and
12 research"—this seems far too broad and could capture a huge range of businesses. So I ask
13 that you please wait until it's possible to get more detail about exactly what would be taking
14 residency in our town, right next to 1-40.
15
16 Second, let's talk about District 2.
17 As mentioned before, I've only lived in Hillsborough for 8 months. I have always liked
18 Hillsborough, I enjoy the sweet little downtown, and the parks, and of course Riverwalk. With
19 that said, since moving here, I have been surprised by how much I've grown to LOVE this town.
20 The people in Hillsborough are friendly-1 know a lot of my neighbors are here tonight and look
21 grumpy but don't let them fool you—they are usually incredibly friendly. There are a lot of artists
22 here, and a lot of art around town... a lot of open, beautiful natural spaces... a ton of history....
23 There is something special here, it's hard to put your finger on it—the town's vision has settled
24 on referring to this as Hillsborough's "unique heritage and small town character".
25
26 While there is so much I love about this town, there is one thing I really do not like... That is the
27 space on old 86, right off 85. Have any of you ever heard the term "food swamp"? the space off
28 85, on old 86 is the perfect example of a food swamp---an area overrun with unhealthy fast food
29 chain restaurants. Yesterday, I counted 15 just a mile down the road from proposed district 2.
30 Now, the public health girl in me wants to highlight the fact that increased easy access to
31 unhealthy foods, can increase consumption of unhealthy foods, which can contribute to an
32 increased incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic diseases
33
34 BUT
35 The Hillsborough-lover in me feels it's even more important to say to you, that this is not what !
36 want people's first impression to be of my town, and of my county.
37
38 Imagine with me for a moment that someone has never been to Hillsborough and, even better,
39 has never been to Orange County. They're driving up 40, preparing to exit on old 86 and they
40 see a water tower—either a blue one on the right, or a white one on the left and they think
41 "oh, this is Orange County, NC... it's cute" and then they see it.... A food swamp. Right off the
42 exit. Then they exit 40, drive north and a mile later they run into a second food swamp. Is this
43 how we want people to experience Hillsborough? Is this how we want people to experience
44 Orange County?
45
46 We are sitting here today in a county building in Hillsborough. Most people who need to visit
47 these county offices will be exiting on the very 1-40 exit we're speaking about, and be
48 immediately greeted with the result of the decisions you make about this land. Do you want a
49 food swamp to be people's first impression of Orange County? I certainly don't. Unfortunate
50 decisions were made in the past that resulted in one food swamp off of 85.... Let's not allow that
51 to happen again off of 1-40.
52
53 Imagine with me for a moment that someone has never been to Hillsborough and, perhaps
54 better, has never been to Orange County. They're driving up 40, preparing to exit on old 86 and
16
1 they see a water tower—either a blue one on the right, or a white one on the left..... and they
2 think "oh, this is Orange County, NC... it's cute" and then they see it.... A food swamp right off
3 the exit. Then they exit 40, drive north and a mile later they run into a second food swamp. Is
4 this how we want people to experience Hillsborough? Is this how we want people to experience
5 Orange County?
6
7 We are sitting here today in a county building in Hillsborough. Most people who need to visit
8 these county offices where you spend so much time will be exiting on the very 1-40 exit we're
9 speaking about, and will be immediately greeted by the result of the decisions you make about
10 this land. Do you want a food swamp to be people's first impression of Orange County? !
11 certainly don't. Unfortunate decisions were made in the past that resulted in one food swamp off
12 of 85.... Let's not allow that to happen again off of 1-40.
13 Thank you.
14
15 Franklin Garland said he has the largest truffle orchard in the country, and his property is
16 adjacent to District 1, which will directly impact his business. He said his business brings a
17 great deal of agritourism to the County. He said he received two different conflicting notices
18 from the planning department; one stating he is impacted by the development, and the other
19 stating he is not. He said this is a poor location, and he is against this project.
20 Sherry Appel said she formerly worked on planning issues in Maryland. She said if done
21 right, this may work; but if not, it may be a potential development disaster. She said it would be
22 a far better project if the tenants were known, and piecemeal development is not a good idea.
23 Simona Dunn said she is not supportive of any development at this time with this project,
24 and agreed with many of the other speakers.
25 Kevin Nicholson said he is against this project because it is within a mile of his family
26 farm, and he is concerned how it will affect his farm status and his neighborhood.
27 Bud Shelton said he served in the Navy in the 1950s, and moved to North Carolina
28 thereafter. He said it is important to consider the pristine area in which we live, but to also
29 consider the employment needs of future generations. He said to carve out the good and
30 eliminate the bad.
31 Dave Skanga said he is a homeowner in the Cornwallis Hills neighborhood. He said it is
32 understood that development of some sort is going to happen, but this proposed project is a raw
33 deal. He said he is against the project, and asked the BOCC not to act hastily.
34 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the digging of the water and sewer at end of Davis
35 Road.
36 Michael Harvey said that is an emergency water line, and is independent of this project.
37 Jim Parker, Developer, said he is representing Old 86 Partners, and he has heard from
38 residents tonight, and at other meetings, about their concerns. He said he has lived in this area
39 for 35 years, and has supported the desires and direction of both the Town and the County. He
40 said they are here because of 1-40, and because the County adopted the three EDDs years ago
41 when this road was created. He commended the Planning Department for its thorough, fair and
42 neutral efforts.
43 Jim Parker said they have responded to what the EDD asked for, which are the same
44 uses that were in the land use plan to begin with, or were added by the elected bodies. He said
45 this is not a rushed project. His company became aware of one parcel of land four years ago,
46 and since that time they have been working with landowners to assemble the 274 acres. He
47 said they have put together the third part of the puzzle, which is site ready development. He
48 said site ready development requires good transportation; utilities; and a mass of property that
49 will attract tenants.
50 Jim Parker said, if approved, this opportunity could attract some large economic
51 development users, with an optimistic $6 million tax benefit to the County. He said $3 million
52 would not be bad either, and property taxes may not go down, but would likely level out. He
53 said there is no desire to compete with Daniel Boone or downtown Hillsborough. He said this is
54 an interstate development.
17
1 Jim Parker referred to the concerns about the buffer, and offered to mitigate their
2 request specifically for the District 2 area along 1-40, from the termini of the ramp up until the
3 mid way point, which is about 1200 feet. He said there is over 4000 feet of MTC buffer in the
4 proposed development. He said they do not need to thin on light industrial property on the west
5 side. He said they do not intend for thinning in the southern part of the buffer either.
6 He referred to the bike lanes, and connectivity. He said there is very little room on 86, under the
7 1-40 bridges. He said in the near future, 3-5 years, 1-40 will be widened, which will provide
8 opportunity to work with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide some additional
9 clearance under the bridges, and they would work towards making this happen. He said there
10 are extensive traffic improvements that have not been specifically reviewed this evening, but
11 have been communicated to the BOCC via email.
12 Jim Parker said he does not know how do insure that this does not end up as Oakdale or
13 the area across from Wal-Mart. He said they will continue to work with the Town of
14 Hillsborough, and the process does not end with BOCC approval. He said BOCC approval
15 would, however, provide something to attract tenants.
16 Commissioner Burroughs asked if he would address the flood plain issues.
17 Jim Parker said there are flood plain issues in both districts, which cannot be developed.
18 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the flood plains were removed, what would be the
19 developable acreage.
20 Jim Parker said 20% are flood plains.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said about a year ago, staff and the BOCC reviewed an extensive
22 list of permitted and unpermitted uses in the EDDs. He asked staff if there is an update on this
23 list.
24 Michael Harvey said staff and the County Attorney's office are still working on this
25 project. He said the Applicant used the Board's comments on these uses, and incorporated
26 only those uses that were identified as being plausible. He reminded the BOCC that the
27 Applicant provided a detailed listing of land uses that would be proposed for District ! and II,
28 which can be found on page 103 of the packet.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said he appreciates the inclusion of these concerns, but doubts
30 that the BOCC raised all possible concerns at that time, and he assumes the residents may
31 have some concerns about some of those uses, not knowing what they are. He asked if there is
32 a timeline for this to come back to the BOCC.
33 Michael Harvey said probably in January or February 2018.
34 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the BOCC approves a plan for this area, could
35 annexation by Hillsborough result in a change of the uses.
36 Michael Harvey said yes, and annexation will be subject to compliance with the
37 applicable Town zoning, as establish as part of that process.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is possible to assure the community that what is
39 approved by Orange County will be what is actually developed.
40 Michael Harvey said he the County works closely with the Town Planning department,
41 but he cannot offer any guarantees. He said the Town would take up the zoning of property
42 consistent with its existing land use plan and Town code.
43 Michael Harvey referred to questions about the flood plain concerns, and said the
44 County has a fairly extensive flood plain management program. He said the County prohibits
45 development in flood plains, and requires buffers. He said the Applicant would have to abide by
46 those standards. He said the Applicant does not wish to deviate from the County's stormwater
47 or erosion control standards, and that is in addition to doing an environmental assessment on
48 every site plan that is submitted.
49 Chair Dorosin asked if this could be clarified, and if each structure has its own site plan.
50 Michael Harvey said each individual structure will be subject to an individual site plan
51 review and approval by County staff, consistent with the applicable provisions of the UDO, as
52 well as any specified standards as detailed within this resolution of approval.
18
1 Commissioner McKee said he heard that the entire site would be clear-cut and stripped,
2 which he knew was inaccurate. He asked Michael Harvey if he would clarify the boundaries of
3 clearing on a site with flood plains.
4 Michael Harvey referred to a map, and said there will be a 100-foot buffer on the western
5 and southern property that is required by the UDO, and the Applicant will honor this. He pointed
6 out the stream and flood plain, both of which must have a 65-foot undisturbed, natural area
7 buffer on each side. He said there are wetland pockets and other streams that will have to be
8 buffered, and are not developable. He said there are utility lines in this area, which are not
9 developable.
10 Commissioner Rich asked if it is known who would provide emergency services to this
11 area until annexation.
12 Michael Harvey said Orange County would offer Sheriff and EMS, with mutual aid
13 agreements with the Town. He said there would be fire hydrants.
14 Commissioner Rich referred to the bike lanes, and said the OUTBoard Chair expressed
15 concerns about leaving enough easements on Old 86 frontage going forward. She suggested
16 including this topic if this project moves forward.
17 Commissioner Rich asked Michael Harvey if he could explain the Planning Board
18 process, and whether the Planning Board had enough time to thoroughly review this item.
19 Michael Harvey said the Planning Board gets its agenda one week in advance of a
20 meeting, in accordance with its policies; and there were three neighborhood meetings.
21 Jim Parker said the first neighborhood meeting was held in September 2016, with two
22 more in August 2017, and in September 2017.
23 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the lighting plans for this project could be explained,
24 and if they are low casting lighting.
25 Michael Harvey said the lighting will have to comply with the County's current lighting
26 code, which requires fully shielded lights.
27 Commissioner Marcoplos asked to what extent energy and water efficiency can be
28 controlled. He asked if incentives or requirements could be put in place.
29 Jim Parker said the application did not have anything additional built in, but rather
30 followed the requirements of building codes. He said they would consider any suggested
31 additional provisions.
32 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if they would entertain a suggestion to add a line of
33 dense vegetative wall to help with sound and light in the south side of District I.
34 Jim Parker said this can be added to their landscaping buffer, and would work with staff
35 to create this.
36 Commissioner Price referred to the west side of District I, and asked if there is an
37 expected impact on the waters there, and all the other farmland.
38 Jim Parker said the map shows blue water bodies, which represent storm water controls.
39 He said these are non-specific, and meant as a placeholder. He said they may never exist. He
40 said the area to the west is existing floodplain.
41 Michael Harvey said these areas will have to be buffered and preserved, as required by
42 the current code, and cannot be disturbed.
43 Commissioner Price said she does not like the piecemeal approval process for these
44 different zoning districts. She asked if a true, comprehensive master plan could be created to
45 provide the BOCC and the community a fuller picture of information.
46 Michael Harvey said the BOCC has that, as consistent with the ordinances currently
47 adopted.
48 Commissioner Price said she would like a diagram.
49 Michael Harvey said the BOCC would have to revise the ordinance to require a site-
50 specific development plan.
51 Commissioner Price asked if is there any way to have a comprehensive plan to give a
52 better sense of what is going to go in, and where.
53 Michael Harvey said not under the way the ordinance is currently written.
19
1 Michael Harvey said the staff will review a site specific development plan, which will not
2 come before the BOCC.
3 Commissioner Price said staff will review this in pieces.
4 Michael Harvey said staff will review sites as they are developed.
5 Commissioner Burroughs asked which EDD is largest, in terms of the tracts of land.
6 Craig Benedict said under single ownership it is the 138 acres at the flea market site.
7 He said inquiries often seek site ready sites, of which there are few. He said this project would
8 become the largest site that the EDDs would be able to offer.
9 Chair Dorosin clarified that the County owns none of this land, and a developer has to
10 negotiate with a private landowner to purchase land.
11 Craig Benedict said yes.
12 Commissioner Burroughs asked if it is known when the District I extension of water and
13 sewer be completed.
14 Craig Benedict said probably the middle of 2018.
15 Commissioner Jacobs referred to signage, and said they are stipulated as being
16 externally illuminated rather than internally illuminated in District II. He asked if there is a
17 reason why this is preferable.
18 Michael Harvey said he may have to gather that information, and answer this question
19 later.
20 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the issue of trees, and asked if there is any kind of tree
21 preservation plan for the interior of these sites.
22 Michael Harvey said there is no tree survey, but there are mandatory buffers, and the
23 developer plans to preserve existing foliage within those buffers.
24 Michael Harvey referred to page 110, which states, "unless otherwise specified herein,
25 signs shall be composed of internally lit letters." He said he will review all documents to make
26 sure internally lit lights are included, as opposed to externally lit.
27 Commissioner Jacobs asked if it can be required that sign lighting be extinguished when
28 businesses closed.
29 Michael Harvey said this question can be posed to the Applicant.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to have a conversation about a tree survey for
31 this project.
32 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the buffers, and said it appears that thinning could
33 leave 54 trees per acre.
34 Michael Harvey said that is the Developer's proposal to encourage the BOCC to approve
35 thinning, but what he is hearing is that Jim Parker would like to revise this to address concerns
36 raised by the community about clearing.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said this is true except in one area, District III, and he would like
38 to address this area too. He said the 54-tree per acre proposal only leads to one tree per 741
39 square feet.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said he has concerns about the traffic plan, as there is no clarity
41 about any internal circulation plans in either District I or II. He said this would be useful
42 information for the BOCC to have before giving its approval, as it will have an effect on how Old
43 86 will operate.
44 Michael Harvey said part of the confusion is that the TIA still references District III as
45 being developed. He said right now, there is one central entrance proposed into District II, and
46 District I would get access from the existing service road.
47 Commissioner Jacobs asked if a light would not be proposed at Davis Road if there is no
48 residential.
49 Jim Parker said that is correct. He said the light at Davis Road would be specifically for
50 District III.
51 Commissioner Jacobs said Davis Road will become a de facto thoroughfare. He said
52 whether a light is needed will not be determined by residential development, but by the change
53 in traffic patterns.
54 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Hillsborough has a water reuse system.
20
1 Michael Harvey said he did not know.
2 Commissioner Jacobs said he does not think Hillsborough has one, and suggested
3 asking the Developer to have a rain collection system, as a way to do irrigation.
4 Jim Parker said with the stormwater requirements, there is available water that can be
5 used for the landscape irrigation. He said there are also drought resistant requirements for
6 landscaping.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said to see if there is adequate water from the storm water
8 collection, which can dry up, or some kind of rain collection system.
9 Commissioner Jacobs referred to District II, which is noted to be "neighborhood, mixed
10 use, future land use."
11 Michael Harvey said that is per the Town of Hillsborough-Orange County joint planning
12 land use plan.
13 Commissioner Jacobs asked Jim Parker if there was ever any consideration made to
14 have this area contain residential units above the commercial units.
15 Jim Parker said they are not opposed to this, but it would be determined by what the
16 market would bare. He said the commercial area in District II is likely to be an interstate
17 transportation market, catering to those who are passing through rather than residents of
18 Hillsborough.
19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is viable to ask the Developer to separate the two
20 districts, and proceed with the western district first because it is less complicated.
21 Jim Parker said that is not what they would like, and they believe that both districts go
22 hand-in-hand. He said the light industrial and employment centers, which may go in District I,
23 are going to want to see something adjacent to them in the way of services, food, hotels, etc.
24 Jim Parker referred to the traffic improvements, and said there are a lot of lights along
25 that section, but two of the lights were a part of the TIA that was prepared for Waterstone, and
26 that requirement got left out. He said those signals are being put in to do the right thing. He
27 said most of the trips in the traffic are generated by District I. He said the proximity of the
28 service road to the ramps is not good.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said DOT only recommends a stop sign for the service road,
30 which he finds preposterous.
31 Jim Parker said one would not be able to turn left out.
32 Commissioner McKee referred to oil and water contaminants on this property, and said
33 Orange County requirements exceed the State's requirements much of the time.
34 Michael Harvey agreed.
35 Commissioner McKee asked if the number of buildable acres in this project is known.
36 Jim Parker said 30% open space is required, so about 65-70% of 190 acres is buildable,
37 including roads, buildings, etc.
38 Commissioner McKee said one of the proposed uses was light manufacturing, and
39 asked if the Morinaga candy factory is considered to be light manufacturing.
40 Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, said yes.
41 Commissioner McKee asked if it is known on how many acres Morinaga sits.
42 Steve Brantley said the company purchased a 21-acre site, and built on one third of the
43 property.
44 Commissioner McKee asked if the number of employees at Morinaga is known.
45 Steve Brantley said approximately 100 full time employees with benefits, and salaries
46 well above the living wage and beyond.
47 Commissioner McKee said while the exact tenants for this project are not known, it can
48 be expected that jobs will be created by this proposed project.
49 Steve Brantley said yes. He said the asking price for this property is quite high, but not
50 as high as the remaining properties at the Waterstone development. He said the Waterstone
51 properties are priced at$250,000 per acre, and there is no industry that will pay this price. He
52 said the probable asking price for Settlers' Point would indicate that the type of buyer would be
53 a higher caliber business.
21
1 Commissioner McKee said a more focused enterprise would be attracted to this
2 property.
3 Steve Brantley said the Waterstone development has set a tone with its tenants, signage
4 and landscaping, and the development and asking price at Settlers' Point would indicate a
5 continuation of this higher caliber tone.
6 Commissioner McKee said the BOCC is committed to attracting lower impact
7 businesses that do not require excessive amounts of water, and are in line with Orange County
8 values. He said Orange County has one of the highest tax rates in the state, and it is unclear
9 how much this project will generate in taxes; but if it could generate $4 million, that is 2% of the
10 County's budget. He said that is a significant shift in the industrial-residential tax base. He
11 asked if the County is still at 20% on its business tax base.
12 Steve Brantley said the recent revaluation has changed these numbers a bit, but
13 historically this is accurate. He said projects like this can help shift that dynamic.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if the type of developments that will go into Waterstone and
15 Daniel Boone area are known.
16 Steve Brantley said he thought Waterstone was going to be a large science park, lined
17 with white-collar operations, but in reality he found most of it is residential. He said the few
18 remaining sites at Waterstone are too small. He said Hillsborough has no large tracts of land
19 that could accommodate a corporate presence. He said the Settlers' Point project could tie in
20 well with the tone of Waterstone, attracting professional offices.
21 Commissioner Marcoplos said he is trying to get a sense of how many jobs may be
22 created by this project.
23 Steve Brantley reviewed several potential tenants and the numbers of people they could
24 employ, from a call canter to a warehouse, which are lower paying jobs. He said an automotive
25 park facility would maximize the tax value, and provide higher paying jobs. He said life science
26 companies are an option as well, which can have very high salaries.
27 Chair Dorosin said it looks as if the Board of County Commissioners is going to defer
28 this item to a later meeting.
29 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 110, which states, "external illumination shall be
30 permitted...". He asked Michael Harvey if he would clarify internal and external illumination in a
31 future discussion.
32 Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC planned Watersone with Hillsborough, and it was
33 the ideal economic development site in the County. He said Hillsborough changed some of the
34 plans to make it more residential, and removed an agreed upon Senior Center. He said given
35 that Hillsborough is asking the BOCC to do what it considers important for Hillsborough, he
36 would like to ask the Town Board to write a letter to the BOCC stating its willingness to abide, to
37 the best of its ability, by what the BOCC decides; as opposed to using water and sewer to
38 prevent BOCC approved plans from happening.
39 Commissioner Burroughs said given the limited amount of land for economic
40 development in Orange County, she would strongly suggest that this site should be used just for
41 economic development. She said it should not be used for a school,jail or waste transfer
42 station.
43 Chair Dorosin summarized the concerns.
44 Commissioner McKee said if this item is delayed, he would like to know how long staff
45 will need to get the necessary information, and to set a specific time to bring it back.
46 Michael Harvey said a specific time frame will be needed. He said staff has a laundry
47 list of comments from the BOCC and the Applicant, to which responses are needed. He said he
48 anticipates modifications of existing or recommended conditions.
49 Commissioner McKee said he would like to know if this can come back for a December
50 meeting.
51 Michael Harvey said if the BOCC votes to bring this item back in December, staff will be
52 ready.
53 Commissioner Price asked if this item will need to go back to the Planning Board.
22
1 Michael Harvey said the BOCC has that option, but staff cannot accommodate bringing it
2 back in December if it goes back to the Planning Board.
3 Chair Dorosin said this item might need to come back in January, in which case the
4 Planning Board could weigh in on that which was discussed today.
5 Commissioner McKee reminded the BOCC that it does not meet until the very end of
6 January.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer
9 this item back to the Planning Board for discussion at its December regular meeting, so that
10 staff, the Applicant and the Planning Board can finesse the conditions that have been
11 discussed; with the public hearing to be adjourned to the BOCC regular meeting on January 23,
12 2018.
13
14 Chair Dorosin thanked the public and colleagues from Hillsborough for attending, and
15 said all are acting in good faith and the BOCC will take all comments into account.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19
20 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments and Zoning Atlas
21 Amendments -To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO
22 pertaining to flood regulations and to remove the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
23 from the Zoning Atlas.
24
25 BACKGROUND:
26 Orange County has been a member of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since
27 approximately 1976. The NFIP offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters, and business
28 owners if their community participates, specifically through the adoption and enforcement of
29 regulations designed to mitigate/reduce flood risk, in the program including adoption of flood
30 maps denoting areas where flooding is a possibility. For more background information please
31 refer to Attachment 1. 117 Recent changes by the State and Federal government in flood
32 damage prevention standards, including development of new flood maps, require the County to
33 modify existing regulation(s) in order to continue to be eligible for participation within the NFIP.
34
35 On direction from the County's Attorney in 2007, staff incorporated available flood mapping data
36 directly onto the County Zoning Atlas creating the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) overlay
37 district. As there are modifications/updates to FEMA flood map data, the County is required to
38 initiate a Zoning Atlas amendment incorporating same. This requires the holding and advertising
39 of both a Planning Board meeting and a BOCC public hearing where the maps amendment(s)
40 are being reviewed (i.e. notification of impacted property owners, notification of property owners
41 within 1,000 ft. of the zoning change, posting of impacted properties with signs advertising the
42 meetings, and legal advertisements). Depending on the scope and timing of FEMA map
43 change(s) there may be significant and unplanned budgetary impacts, as well as significant time
44 commitments, to incorporate said modifications.
45
46 In consultation with current Attorney's staff, Planning staff is recommending the elimination of
47 the SFHA overlay district and adoption of the flood maps by reference in the UDO. As there are
48 future changes/updates in flood mapping data, staff would complete a UDO text amendment
49 incorporating reference to this new data, but would not have to complete a corresponding
50 zoning atlas amendment. The move would reduce required budgetary outlays to cover
51 notification of an atlas amendment to affected, and adjacent (i.e. those within 1,000 ft.), property
52 owners.
53
23
1 Please note as part of our floodplain management program, the Planning Department engages
2 in a public awareness campaign keeping local property owners informed of flood issues as well
3 as the various services offered by the County. This includes an annual letter sent to
4 approximately 1,900 property owners whose property is encumbered by floodplain. This is part
5 of our comprehensive floodplain management outreach program for which the County receives
6 credit under the Community Rating System (CRS) resulting in a reduction in flood insurance
7 premiums for local property owners. The elimination of the SFHA overlay district will not impact
8 or alter existing outreach efforts conducted by the Department to keep property owners aware of
9 flood issues and the various services offered to address compliance with flood regulations.
10
11 Michael Harvey made the following PowerPoint presentation:
12
13 PUBLIC HEARING
14 Zoning Atlas and UDO Text Amendments —Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District
15 Board of County Commissioners Public Hearinci
16 November 14, 2017
17
18 Backciround
19 • In 1968 Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
20 —
21 • Program provides means for property owners to financially protect themselves from the
22 possible damage of structures resulting from flood events.
23 • Supplements typical homeowner insurance policies, which do not cover damage to
24 structures resulting from a flood.
25 • Flood insurance available in participating communities.
26 • Participation involves adoption/enforcement of regulations designed to mitigate/reduce
27 flood risk.
28 • Includes adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) denoting areas susceptible to
29 flooding. Used to verify the anticipated `elevation' of flood waters during storm event.
30 • Staff works with property owners to ensure development is not located in flood areas.
31 • FIRMs are modified over time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
32 to reflect changes, both increases and decreases, in anticipated flood levels.
33 — S-11""' Co 111 111 III'iiiiiii�.11l' ..111."": ll....ocoIII coui°cuff°ccuir Iii Ii
II III' III'
t os ��o not ur.nauintouiun or �oovo oIII ... s
34 — .110..111 cy are ur.nolllI tallI ioo,o al11111,11 ur.noo,ollI ieo,o Illy IIC°°'III'; .1111
35 • Participating communities are required to adopt new maps once they are certified to
36 continue to be eligible for participation.
37 — ..I1C"" III III'°"" IIIIIIIIIIII III' ""'III""' Iii°t now maps are not o�ooIII 'tc�o o Illocolll oour.nur.ncnliity can no
38 Illongeor Ipartliicliffpa'te Iiin the program moanIiintt fl000,o IiiurnsuUranco wIiiIII111 not be
39 avoliilllIal 1110
40
41 Why Are We Here:
42 • FEMA has
43 — Approved new FIRMs (i.e. flood maps).
44 — Modified its model floodplain management ordinance establishing/updating
45 definitions and regulatory components.
46 0 range County Ills olbIllIllgateo,o to ao,00pt the new maps ano,o rovliiso oxliistliiur p reguulllotliions to be
47 cons t wlint111 III1":111'iiii,1111 uuulmuIIIos oui c preserve memlberslhIllp wIlltlh 1111 e IN III':""'I11111':)
48
49 What is Beinci Proposed:
50 • Adopt the new FIRM data,
51 • Amend the Zoning Atlas to eliminate the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay
52 District
53 — C.11.'C11:""'111' Ci(„„„)11"711"7EE.IP -111..: SII"""'11-11A llImplllcuincnted lIln 2007 on vyvlicc from the Cousnty'u�:
54 Attorney ottiico.
24
1 — D strict liulcou°h or icd tnoodh ll lin data onto the 2`bnliulp Atll s.
2 — Created conta.uu:lion and unnecessary u a.ulpllllic ilion of cttort(u:).
3 • Update/revise existing regulations.
4 — STAFF COMMENT: Amendments include:
5 • Eliminate existing procedures allowing County to issue `waivers' allowing
6 for solid waste facilities, hazardous waste management facilities, salvage
7 yards, and chemical storage facilities to locate in flood areas,
8 • Update existing standards to reference compliance with State law.
9 • Update existing regulations and definitions consistent with FEMA
10 recommendations.
11
12 Impacts:
13 • New flood maps/elevations will be enforced
14 — STAFF COMMENT: There are areas of the County where the mapped floodplain
15 is increasing, impacting more property than previously identified.
16 o uI u u ou u to Iii ui liitlii oto
17 actlllon to occuuoss liissuos once ui° ow maps are ocolll toc.
18 • ""II ll o County col11 111 of coui"oIll oIII III uluuuclhoso of fIlllooc Iiiui° suluuuoui co
19 • Existing regulations will be updated to ensure consistency with FEMA
20 minimum standards.
21
22 Why Did I Get Notified?
23 — Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires staff to send property owners a
24 certified letter if their property is being impacted by a Zoning Atlas Amendment
25 initialed by the County.
26 — STAFF COMMENT: Zoning Atlas is being amended to eliminate
27 Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay district which is why
28 you were sent a letter.
29 — UDO requires property owners within 1,000 ft. of the proposed zoning atlas
30 amendments to be notified of meetings as well via first class mail.
31
32 More Information:
33 — Amendment fact sheet can be viewed at:
34 http://www.orangecountync.qov/FactSheetOnNewFlRMmapAdoption.pdf
35 • State of North Carolina website called Flood Risk Information System (FRIS)
36 denoting the proposed new FIRM data for property in Orange County at:
37 http://fris.nc.gov/fris/Home.aspx?ST=NC
38 • County webpage outlining services can be viewed at:
39 http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning and inspections/floodplain information.p
40 hp
41
42 Recommendations:
43 • Planning Board: At its October 4, 2017 meeting the Board voted unanimously to
44 recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas and UDO Text Amendments as recommended
45 by staff.
46 • Planning Director recommends approval of the Statements of Consistency and
47 Amendments modifying the Zoning Atlas and the UDO.
48
49 The Administration recommends the Board:
50 1. Receive the proposed amendments.
51 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comments.
52 3. Close the public hearing.
53 4. Decide on one of the following options:
25
1 5. Adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s)
2 (Attachment 5), the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 6), the
3 Statement of Consistency for proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 7),
4 and Proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 8) as recommended by the
5 Planning Board and staff;
6 6. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date;
7 7. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or
8 8. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on
9 Subsequent Applications of the UDO states that no application for the same or
10 similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year
11 period begins on the date of denial.)
12
13 Commissioner McKee asked Michael Harvey to detail the effect of not making the
14 deadline or denying the change.
15 Michael Harvey said if the deadline is missed, or the change denied, the County will be
16 suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program, which means local residents will not be
17 able to purchase flood insurance.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
20 open the public hearing.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT:
25 Bruce Lucas spoke about his land, and is need of help so that water will not stand on his
26 land. He said he is in a flood plain.
27 Commissioner McKee asked if this is a private road.
28 Bruce Lucas said yes, it was established in 1954.
29 Chair Dorosin asked if staff could provide some follow up to Mr. Lucas about his
30 situation.
31 Michael Harvey said he has spoken with Mr. Lucas, and a meeting can be set up to
32 discuss further.
33 June McWhorter said trees absorb a large amount of water, and cutting them down has
34 significant impact. She said the onus should be on the County to notify new landowners not to
35 cut trees within the buffer of streams/flood plains, and not leave it up to the realtors.
36 Bud Shelton said his farm has some river frontage. He said the changes in the maps
37 could impact him, and if he is required to buy flood insurance his property value may decrease.
38 He said the information sent out by the County was very wordy, and beyond his understanding.
39 He wants to make sure he is doing the right thing for his family and his property.
40 Michael Harvey suggested that Mr. Shelton come by his office to discuss this further. He
41 said the County cannot compel anyone to buy this insurance, but it is strongly suggestion.
42 Jack Pless said he lives in a flood plain, and did not receive any letters from the
43 Planning staff. He said he learned of the issue from a temporary road sign, which was very
44 difficult to read. He encouraged staff to revise the signage about this topic.
45 Franklin Garland said he did receive the notification, and assumes the included maps
46 are the ones that will be adopted. He said flood plains have been increased in District 1 with the
47 newly proposed maps.
48 Michael Harvey said the County has to go by the new maps.
49 Joyce Briggs said she received notification about her land being put in a flood zone,
50 which it never has been before. Her family has lived on her property for three generations, and
51 she is concerned that this will affect their property values.
52 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a process to contact new landowners about tree
53 cutting.
26
1 Michael Harvey said no, and there is some responsibility on the part of the purchaser to
2 inquire about any opportunities and constraints that may apply to their property.
3 Commissioner Burroughs asked if a seller must disclose if a property is in a FEMA flood
4 plain.
5 Michael Harvey said yes.
6 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the tax office takes a flood plain designation into
7 consideration during a valuation.
8 Michael Harvey said he would have to research this question.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said an additional issue of notification arises when one purchases
10 land next to an EDD. He said these types of issues should be discussed at some future point.
11 Chair Dorosin said this is a worthy suggestion to pursue, and he said to consider this as
12 a petition to add to an agenda at a later date.
13 Lyndon Whitfield said his concern is whether the flood plain designation would devalue
14 properties, and asked if a review is done of the maps.
15 Chair Dorosin said the federal government draws these maps, and the maps are mainly
16 used to determine who is eligible for flood insurance. He said he is unsure if there is an appeal
17 process.
18 Michael Harvey said staff has written letters, per the request of property owners, as to
19 what the impacts of the flood plain and the flood buffer are on a property. He said he does not
20 know if this has helped with anyone's appeal to the tax office, but the letters were written.
21 Chair Dorosin said the Planning Department is at the ready to answer any questions,
22 and this change will allow those, who wish to buy flood insurance, to be able to do so.
23 Commissioner Rich asked if it is known how often the maps are redrawn.
24 Michael Harvey said typically every five years.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
27 close the public hearing.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
32 adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s) (Attachment 5),
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
37 approve the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 6), the Statement of
38 Consistency for proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 7), and Proposed UDO Text
39 Amendment(s) (Attachment 8) as recommended by the Planning Board and staff.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments -To review government-
44 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO pertaining to public hearings.
45
46 BACKGROUND:
47 As a result of discussion at the September 7, 2017 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
48 Work Session, an text amendment to consider revisions to the existing public hearing process is
49 currently being prepared by County staff for the November Quarterly Public Hearing. The
50 proposed amendment will allow land use hearings to occur at any regular BOCC meeting
51 instead of current standards which allow these items to be presented on a quarterly basis.
52 Allowing these items to be heard at all regular BOCC meeting shall expedite the development
53 review process and encourage a planning process which is efficient and responsive to Orange
54 County property owners, residents, and developers. No other changes to the public hearing
27
1 processes are being proposed. In addition, all items requiring a public hearing will still allow for
2 review and recommendation from the Planning Board prior to the public hearing.
3
4 Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this amendment. Proposed
5 text amendment language can be found in Attachment 3 within a "track changes" format.
6 Additionally, amendments to the Planning Board's Policies and Procedures document are
7 necessary and these revisions are also part of Attachment 3.
8
9 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
10 Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
11 contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3. 347
12 Planning Board Recommendation: At its October 4, 2017 meeting, the Board voted unanimously
13 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and UDO amendment package. The
14 proposed amendment, as deemed legally sufficient by the County's Attorney office and as
15 recommended for approval by the Planning Board, is contained in Attachment 3. The Planning
16 Board considered the proposed amendments to its Polices and Procedures document on
17 November 1, 2017 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendments to this
18 document.
19
20 Craig Benedict made the following PowerPoint presentation:
21
22 Unified Development Ordinance
23 Text Amendment
24 Revisions to the Public Hearinci Process
25 Quarterly Public Hearinci
26 November 14, 2017
27 Item D.3
28
29 Purpose
30 • To hold a public hearing
31 • BOCC initiated text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
32 regarding revisions to the public hearing process
33
34 Proposal
35 • Delete quarterly public hearings and allow planning items to be placed on BOCC regular
36 meeting agendas
37 • This would create more opportunities for review and action
38
39 Proposal Amendments
40 • Proposed revisions to the UDO:
41 • Section 1.6, Planning Board
42 • Section 2.3, Comprehensive Plan Amendments
43 • Section 2.7, Special Use Permits
44 • Section 2.8, Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments
45 • Section 5.10, Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
46 • Section 10.1, Definitions
47 • Proposed revisions to Planning Board Policies and Procedures
48 • Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format
49 • Allow land use hearings to occur at any regular BOCC meeting
50 • Allow the BOCC Chair to request the Planning Board Chair or Vice Chair to attend public
51 hearings, as needed
52 • Encourage Planning Board members attendance at public hearings for items the
53 Planning Board has reviewed
28
1 • Continue to allow for Planning Board's review and recommendation prior to the public
2 hearing.
3 • Continue same or higher level of public input
4
5 Public Notification
6 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
7 • Newspaper legal ads for two successive weeks
8 Planning Board Recommendation
9 • October 4, 2017 — Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
10 Statement of Consistency and UDO amendment package
11 • November 1, 2017— Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
12 Policies and Procedures amendments.
13
14 Recommendation
15 The Administration recommends the Board:
16 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and
17 attachments
18 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments
19 3. Close the public hearing
20 4. Decide on one of the following options:
21 a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving:
22 i. Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and
23 ii. Ordinance (Attachment 3)
24 b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date
25 c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose
26 d. Deny the proposed amendments
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to open
29 the Public hearing.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 NO PUBLIC COMMENT
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the
36 Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
37 comments at a later date are permitted)
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
42 adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2).
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
47 approve the Ordinance (Attachment 3).
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
51 E. ADJOURNMENT
52
53 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn
54 the meeting at 10:41 p.m.
29
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 Mark Dorosin, Chair
5
6
7 Donna Baker
8 Clerk to the Board
9
10
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 November 20, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, November 20,
10 2017 at 7:00p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board
17 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
20
21 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
22 Chair Dorosoin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
23 - Green sheet: proposed Medicaid Resolution from Commissioner Rich
24 - White sheet: PowerPoint for item 6-c
25
26 PUBLIC CHARGE
27 Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
28
29 2. Public Comments
30
31 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
32 None
33
34 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
35 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
36 below.)
37
38 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
39 Chair Dorosin recognized Bonnie Hammersley, who presented a novelty check to the
40 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for the refinancing amount the Board will save over
41 the term. She said this is a $2 million reduction, which the Board will pay toward debt financing.
42 Commissioner Jacobs reminded the Board that Congressman David Price is hosting a
43 breakfast to discuss the Farm Bill, on December 4 at the Whitted Building. He said this event is
44 open to the public.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board sent out a reminder about GAP (Good Agricultural
46 Practices) certification, and to apply for funding. He said this is based on the Board's desire to
47 get local foods into the two school districts.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said the Soil and Water Conservation Department hosted the
49 BOCC for breakfast, and a tour of a local farm. He said many departments do so much in the
50 community that receive both federal and state funding.
2
1 Commissioner Jacobs said there was a meeting today between the County, the Town of
2 Chapel Hill, and GoTriangle on the Orange County transit plan, which focuses mostly on bus
3 service. He said he hopes to get back some suggestions about the implementation plan,
4 including updates.
5 Commissioner Jacobs represented Orange County at a meeting last week on Lake
6 Jordan watershed, and Pam Hemminger invited him and other elected officials. He said there
7 may be a possibility for this group to do something without the state.
8 Commissioner Jacobs found one good thing proposed by the President, which is raising
9 the federal gasoline tax by $0.07 for better infrastructure.
10 Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
11 Commissioner Rich said there is a resolution in front of the Board from the State of
12 Maine, regarding Medicaid expansion.
13 Commissioner Rich said there was a follow up meeting at the VB (Visitors Bureau) to try
14 and find some more demand generators for Orange County. She said the discussion focused
15 on club sports.
16 Commissioner Marcoplos said there is a copy of the North Carolina Clean Path 2025 at
17 their places, which lays out a plan to generate half of their power from renewables with battery
18 backup by 2025.
19 Commissioner Price thanked staff at Soil and Water Conservation Department for the
20 breakfast.
21 Commissioner Price attended the two-day Human Trafficking Symposium, and she
22 advocated support of law enforcement and social services in this area.
23 Commissioner Price said she sent out the GAP funding information to a few farmers,
24 and received one response that this process may not be totally farmer friendly. She asked if
25 staff would look at this issue, and speak to some farmers to see how the process could be
26 improved.
27 Commissioner McKee had no comments.
28 Chair Dorosin said he forwarded an email to the Board that he received from a group of
29 attorneys who are getting involved in litigation in suing pharmaceutical companies over opioid
30 distribution. He said this group has asked to be able to make a presentation to the Orange
31 County Board of County Commissioners.
32 John Roberts said he attended a meeting last week where these groups made their
33 presentations, and there are two different groups: one suing marketers and distributors, and
34 one is suing manufacturers. He said there are two different causes of actions, with different
35 claims, and different legal grounds. He said he is gathering information from the Department of
36 Social Services (DSS), Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the Sheriff's office and the
37 impacts to Orange County. He said the attorney that has been contacting Orange County has
38 an affective process, and it is worth hearing the presentation.
39
40 The Board agreed to hear this presentation.
41
42 Commissioner Price said one of the issues of note, is whether this becomes a class
43 action suit; and if this case is similar to the tobacco pay out, it could lead to some damage to
44 certain areas, which should be avoided if possible.
45 Chair Dorosin said he will work with John Roberts.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said to place a time limit on the length of the presentation.
47 Chair Dorosin said he sent an email to the Board of County Commissioners about an
48 article in the News & Observer. He said the Board's peers in Montgomery County are dealing
49 with a volunteer department that displays the confederate flag, and he would like to send a
3
1 letter or resolution indicating Orange County's support for their stance against the display of the
2 flag on a County building.
3 Commissioner McKee said he supported such a resolution, since volunteer departments
4 get County tax funding.
5 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if residents would still receive fire services should
6 funding be cut off to this fire department. He said he supports the removal of the flag, but does
7 not want to see citizens harmed by their action.
8 Commissioner McKee said the equipment is county-owned, and Montgomery County
9 can take over the responsibility of a fire department if there are mutual aid contracts in place.
10 He said there should be no adverse affect on the service to residents.
11 The Board agreed by consensus for Chair Dorosin to draft a letter, and circulate to the
12 Board for review.
13
14 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
15 NONE
16
17 5. Public Hearings
18 NONE
19
20 6. Regular Agenda
21
22 a. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Bond Project Update
23 The Board received an update from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools ("CHCCS")
24 regarding its General Obligation bond referendum funded capital projects and provide feedback
25 to CHCCS.
26
27 CHCCS School Board members present: Chair James Barrett, Rani Dasi, Margaret
28 Samuels, Pat Heinrich, Joal Broun, and Superintendent Pamela Baldwin
29 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the information below:
30
31 BACKGROUND:
32 On November 8, 2016 voters approved $120 million in School Bonds of which the CHCCS bond
33 allocation is $72.1 million based on Average Daily Membership. The CHCCS allocation was
34 earmarked for two projects; 1) Lincoln Center and 2) Chapel Hill High School. The Lincoln
35 Center project was originally estimated at $21 million and Chapel Hill High School at $51
36 million.
37
38 On March 21, 2017, the CHCCS staff updated the Lincoln Center estimate to $25 million and
39 decreased the Chapel Hill High School project from $51 million to $47.1 million (Attachment 2).
40 The updated Lincoln Center project budget of$25 million included both design and construction
41 estimates. The CHCCS staff attributed the Lincoln Center increase to construction cost
42 increases of 5% annually.
43
44 On October 17, 2017, CHCCS staff updated the Board of Orange County Commissioners
45 (BOCC) regarding its September 2017 bids for the Lincoln Center project. That CHCCS update
46 indicated four base bids and the lowest responsive and responsible bid was significantly over
47 budget. The four base bids for the Lincoln Center ranged from $35.3 million to $35.8 million
48 which exceeds the County's CIP Funding and Debt Affordability parameters.
49
4
1 Following the CHCCS staff update on November 2, 2017, the BOCC approved an initial
2 CHCCS bond amount of$5 million to reimburse CHCCS for design expenditures to date on the
3 Lincoln Center and Chapel Hill High School and meet remaining cash flow requirements for
4 design expenditures through the Chapel Hill High School bid openings in April/May 2018. This 1
5 additional time allows CHCCS to determine a definitive funding plan for both bond projects.
6 County staff would then present a revised funding application and recommendation of issuing
7 remaining first tranche bonds for CHCCS in March/April 2018 to the Local Government
8 Commission.
9
10 The CHCCS Administration is presenting the following two options:
11
12 Option 1: Proceed with the Lincoln Center Redevelopment project
13 Sources
14 Bond Proceeds $28,845,900
15 CHCCS Fund Balance $5,576,000
16 CIP Reprioritization $2,400,000
17 Total $36,821,900
18
19 Uses
20 Construction $32,771,900
21 Professional Fees $1,900,000
22 Furniture/Equipment $1,000,000
23 Contingency-3.5% $1,150,000
24 Total $36,821,900
25 A) CHCCS revised construction estimate includes deferment of gymnasium
26 improvements, $1.2 million in Value Engineering reductions, $500,000 decrease
27 due to a projected Town of Chapel Hill reimbursement for off-site work, and
28 $97,000 increase for energy management controls.
29
30 Option 2: Defer decision on Lincoln Center Redevelopment project until Chapel Hill High
31 School construction bids are opened in March/April 2018 timeframe
32
33 Benefits
34 Provides certainty regarding cost of both projects and aligns with the Local Government
35 Commission policy for bond financing projects.
36
37 Challenges
38 Proceeding with only Chapel Hill High School means centralizing Pre-K and expansion of
39 Phoenix Academy not realized.
40
41 Todd LoFrese, CHCCS Assistant Superintendent, made the following PowerPoint
42 presentation:
43
44 Bond Project Update and Capital Funding Needs
45 November 20, 2017
46
47 The Why
48 • 2010-2012 Study of our 10 Oldest Facilities
49 0 Address health, safety, and security
50 0 Increase capacity
5
1 0 Provide a long term (50 year) solution for facilities in disrepair
2 0 Address handicap access limitations
3 0 Correct traffic and pedestrian access
4 0 Bring facilities to Orange County Standards
5 • Recommendations Older Schools
6 0 Major renovations, building replacements (when needed), and additions to
7 increase capacity and delay the need for new schools
8 0 Complete over 10-15 years in 3 phases
9 0 Provide a long term solution and allow us to focus on newer (soon to be old)
10 facilities
11
12 Phase 1 Projects
13 • Address facilities with most significant disrepair
14 • Increase capacity to the greatest extent
15 • Address health and safety
16 • Provide swing space for remaining Phase 2 and 3 projects.
17 • Glenwood:
18 0 Small addition to address security
19 0 ADA access corrections
20 ) Renovated staff workroom and restrooms
21 0 General building waterproofing
22 0 Funding Source: $1.2 million CHCCS Fund Balance
23 • Lincoln Center Campus
24 0 Pre-K center for better service delivery
25 0 Improved safe facility for our youngest students
26 ) Greatest increase of elementary capacity: 189 additional elementary seats
27 0 Expanded Phoenix Capacity: 90 additional high school seats
28 0 Less costly, 2nd floor, open office admin space
29 0 Facilitates swing space for Phase 2 and 3
30 0 Funding Source: 2016 Bond Funds
31
32 NC K-3 class size reductions
33 • 2016-17 Capacity (K-3 @ 21): 5,829
34 • 2017-18 Capacity (K-3 @ 20): 5,664
35 • 2018-19 Capacity (K-3 @ 17): 5,169
36 • Current enrollment: 5,522
37 • SAPFO Threshold (2018-19):5,427
38 • LC Project creates 189 additional seats
39
40 Phase 1 Projects
41 • Chapel Hill High School
42 0 New academic building and renovated auditorium, gymnasium/locker rooms,
43 cafeteria
44 0 New traffic flow for vehicle and pedestrian safety
45 0 Completely contained facility to address safety and security
46 0 Addresses significant facility disrepair
47 0 Corrects flooding and indoor air quality issues
48 0 Corrects handicap access issues
49 0 Increases capacity by 105 seats
50 0 Funding Source: 2016 Bond Funds
6
1
2 Chapel Hill High School Building Replacements (photographs)
3
4 Chapel Hill High Renovations (photographs)
5
6 Progress thus far
7 • Lincoln Center
8 0 Designed and bid
9 0 Bids were $10 million over budget
10 • CHHS
11 0 Design underway
12 0 March 2018 target special use permit
13 0 March/April 2018 project bidding
14
15 DPI Cost of School Projects
16 Analysis of 19 schools built in Triangle area from 2013 through 2017:
17 2013 average cost per sf - $ 156.18
18 2017 average cost per sf - $ 248.18
19 (through March)
20 59% increase
21
22 Lincoln Center Campus
23 Proiect Budget Post Bid Proiect Cost
24 Construction 24,248,072 34,471,900
25 Professional Fees 1,900,000 1,900,000
26 Furniture/Equip. 1,000,000 1,000,000
27 Contingency (2%) 493,054 (3.5%) 1,142,000
28 PROJECT TOTAL $28,045,746 $38,513,900
29
30 Chapel Hill High School
31
32 Budget Revised Estimate
33 New Construction 34,220,000 = 217sf 45,504,000 = 288 sf
34 Renovation 5,280,000 = 55 sf 9,120,000 = 95 sf
35 Sub-total 39,500,000 54,624,000
36
37 Professional Fees 3,950,000 3,950,000
38 Furniture/Equip. 2,150,000 2,150,000
39 Technology (est.) 1,000,000 1,000,000
40 Contingency (3.5%) 1,400,000 1,900,000
41
42 PROJECT TOTAL 48,000,000 63,624,000
43
44 District Funding Assistance
45 2016-17 Unassigned Fund Balance $7,180,587
46 Reduction for Capital Projects $3,500,000
47 Balance of Unassigned Fund Balance (5.03%) $3,680,587
48 CIP Additional 5 year funding $2,400,000
49
50 Recurring Capital Fund Balance:
7
1 2016-17 Unassigned Fund Balance $976,000
2 2017-18 Unobligated Balance of Non-recurring $1.2M $700,000
3
4 Fund 6 Cash Balances (unobligated): $400,000
5 GRAND TOTAL FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $7,976,000
6
7 Financial Summary Both Projects
8 Lincoln Center Campus $38,513,900
9 Chapel Hill High School — est. $63,624,000
10 Total $102,137,900
11 Bond Funding $72,100,000
12 Shortfall $30,037,900
13
14 Less:
15 Value Engineering Lincoln Center $1,200,000
16 TOCH (2 projects) $1,643,000
17 District Funding $7,976,000
18 Remaining Shortfall $19,218,900
19
20 Compromises and Trade Offs
21 • Moving forward with LC without additional funding jeopardizes the integrity of the CHHS
22 project
23 • Not moving forward with LC results in rebidding, possible increased costs, and delays
24 capacity increases
25
26 Value Engineering and Communication between Staff
27 • Identified $1.2 million in potential LC reductions
28 • Complete the CHHS design focusing to reduce costs
29 • Exploring other strategies with the County Director of Asset Management Services
30
31 Immediate Needs and Next Steps
32 • Lincoln Center Project Bid Expires 12/26/2017
33 • How to best navigate our 2 projects and the current reality?
34 • Continue discussions for options and cost reductions with the Director of Asset
35 Management Services
36 • Encourage State School Bond
37
38 Future Discussion
39 • What is feasible with the remaining 7 projects?
40 0 Will there be additional $?
41 0 Target date for additional funding?
42 0 Focus only on broken infrastructure?
43 0 Build new schools? Requires $ But where?
44 • Implement a plan to "escape" the perfect storm
45 0 Older facilities in disrepair
46 0 Newer facilities that have become older
47 0 Continued enrollment growth
48 0 Few school sites remaining
49
50
8
1
2
3
4 Superintendent Baldwin presented this slide:
5
6 CHCCS Requests Assistance
7 • Provide ideas and guidance for the options presented
8 • Continue to work with County Director of Asset Management Services
9 • Create a small work group, to include Orange County staff, CHCCS staff, Town of
10 Chapel Hill staff, and others to continue to brainstorm cost reduction and to provide
11 thoughts and guidance towards options moving forward
12
13 Commissioner Price asked if Todd LoFrese had figures showing that the trend is leaning
14 towards more students at this younger age.
15 Todd LoFrese said the district has been growing on average for 10 years at a rate of
16 about 1-1.5%
17 Pam Baldwin said the timeline is complicating their process, and their desire to delay a
18 new elementary school. She said they have multiple concerns moving forward. She reviewed
19 the following slide again:
20
21 CHCCS Requests Assistance
22 • Provide ideas and guidance for the options presented
23 • Continue to work with County Director of Asset Management Services
24 • Create a small work group, to include Orange County staff, CHCCS staff, Town of
25 Chapel Hill staff, and others to continue to brainstorm cost reduction and to provide
26 thoughts and guidance towards options moving forward
27
28 Pam Baldwin said CHCCS needs a decision regarding the Lincoln Center project by
29 mid-December. She stressed a desire and intent for the schools to work in partnership with the
30 County.
31 Commissioner Price clarified that the manager is recommending deferring any decision
32 until the BOCC meets for its retreat in January, and how this plays into CHCCS needing a
33 decision by mid-December.
34 Bonnie Hammersley said her recommendation is based on resources. She said the
35 consultants who are doing the County's 5-year forecast will be at the BOCC retreat, and will
36 present an outlook on the County's available resources. She said at this time, the amount
37 allocated in the Capital Investment Plan (CI P) with the bonds are at the debt affordability
38 ceiling, so she does not know of any additional resources.
39 Commissioner Price said she can see the wisdom in that recommendation, but wonders
40 how the School Board feels.
41 James Barrett said there are two projects, two with bids, and if the School Board does
42 not execute on these bids by 12/16 then the bids expire. He said if they go out for bids again,
43 costs will be higher. He said time is of the essence for the Lincoln Center project.
44 Chair Dorosin asked if CHCCS could just do the Pre-K project, and leave off the
45 Phoenix Center and the Administration center at Lincoln Center.
46 Todd LoFrese said scaling back projects with the contractor may result in not getting the
47 dollar for dollar give back. He said the larger issue is that the Lincoln Center building needs to
48 be deconstructed to provide available space for parking, egresses in and out of the site, and
49 playground areas. He said the project does not facilitate leaving the Lincoln Center Building in
50 place.
9
1 Chair Dorosin said he understands the parameters, but asked if the December 26
2 deadline only allows for the plan as it currently exists; can changes be made; or would entirely
3 new bids be required.
4 Todd LoFrese said CHCCS could negotiate this with the contractor. He said renting
5 space for administration would require 30,000 square feet x $20/foot = $600,000, etc.
6 Commissioner Rich said the project came in 40% over budget, and asked if the project
7 can be redesigned to live more within their means.
8 Todd LoFrese said a re-design would be costly and time consuming, and waste the
9 efforts made to this point. He said construction costs will only continue to increase, and
10 redesign is not a viable option or close to their vision.
11 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if anything is known about the rate of increased costs.
12 Todd LoFrese said there are a variety of issues: slow labor market, disasters elsewhere
13 attracting contractors, etc.
14 Commissioner Jacobs asked to return to the following slide:
15
16 District Funding Assistance
17 2016-17 Unassigned Fund Balance $7,180,587
18 Reduction for Capital Projects $3,500,000
19 Balance of Unassigned Fund Balance (5.03%) $3,680,587
20 CIP Additional 5 year funding $2,400,000
21
22 Recurring Capital Fund Balance:
23 2016-17 Unassigned Fund Balance $976,000
24 2017-18 Unobligated Balance of Non-recurring $1.2M $700,000
25
26 Fund 6 Cash Balances (unobligated): $400,000
27 GRAND TOTAL FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $7,976,000
28
29 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the unassigned fund balance, and asked if this
30 includes the fund balance that CHCCS are required to hold, according to its agreement with
31 Orange County.
32 Todd LoFrese said the target is 5.5%, so this number is below target at 5.03%.
33 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the CIP Additional 5 year Funding could be clarified.
34 Todd LoFrese said the Board of County Commissioners made a change to bond
35 distribution from $125 million to $120 million for schools, and the County committed to dividing
36 $1 million between the two school systems for 5 years. He said one year has been spent on
37 design, and there has been discussion with Orange County Schools (OCS) on a joint
38 transportation center, which is likely further out in OCS's timing plan and ultimately too costly.
39 He said the remaining 4 years of that distribution would be earmarked and steered towards the
40 capital needs.
41 Commissioner Jacobs asked if CHCCS would do that over the next 4 years.
42 Todd LoFrese said yes.
43 Commissioner Rich referred to value engineering, and asked if it was possible to value
44 engineer one's way out of a project that is 40% over budget. She referred to the Eubanks Road
45 recycling project, which had to go back to the drawing board due to being over budget. She
46 said it was revised and completed in a manner in which the County could stay within its means.
47 She said this likely needs to happen with this project.
48 Todd LoFrese said reducing the Lincoln center by $10 million would lop off a huge piece
49 of the project, which would result in the project being scrapped and needing to start over. He
50 said the pre-K project addresses the issue of capacity.
10
1 Commissioner Rich said everyone is thinking about capacity, but this is an enormous
2 amount of money to try and make up.
3 Commissioner Price said the abstract mentions $5 million to reimburse CHCCS for its
4 design expenditures. She asked if this money has been used.
5 Todd LoFrese said this money will be completely used up by the time the Chapel Hill
6 High School (CHHS) project goes out to bid in March.
7 Commissioner Price asked if the remaining amount is reflected on the slide.
8 Todd LoFrese said he would have to get the exact numbers for the BOCC.
9 Commissioner Price asked if the rest of the funds would be used up if CHCSS had to re-
10 design.
11 Todd LoFrese said yes and possibly more.
12 Commissioner McKee said Pre-K holds a special place in his heart, but he does not
13 know how both of these projects can move forward. He said because the Lincoln Center came
14 in over budget, he would expect the same of CHHS. He said completing one project at the over
15 budgeted prices cripples the other project. He senses a preference for moving ahead with
16 Lincoln, but he is unsure if this is wise before knowing the bids for CHHS, and having no plan B.
17 He said CHHS has some serious needs.
18 Commissioner Burroughs said she looked at the 20th day numbers, and the elementary
19 level has not grown for the last two to three years. She said birth rates are also remaining at
20 unusually low levels. She said she is now unsure that capacity is as big of a need as she once
21 thought.
22 Commissioner Burroughs said Orange County does not have additional debt capacity,
23 and no impact fees. She said this breaks her heart, but the County does not have any extra
24 funding. She said CHCCS needs to look at its population growth, and there is no source of
25 money at this time from Orange County without a major change in Raleigh.
26 James Barrett said population growth is not the driver of reaching SAPFO in 2020, but
27 rather it is the state-mandated changes in class size. He said it is not that there will be more
28 children, but that less children will be able to go in each classroom, and thus more classrooms
29 will be needed to meet the legislative mandate.
30 Commissioner Burroughs said on the face of it that is the problem. She said pressure
31 needs to be put on the General Assembly about the classroom issue, but regardless of that the
32 County still does not have additional funds.
33 Chair Dorosin said building more schools in not the only choice. He said Wake County
34 is considering making larger classes in 4th and 5th grades.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said this is an opportunity to change the way they look at these
36 projects and how they are planned. He said coming in at the eleventh hour and 55th minute is a
37 little late. He said they should have all been working together on this from the beginning as no
38 one entity has all the answers. He said if this is not going to work, then how flexible and
39 creative can they be with other solutions. He said not to look at the December bid as the
40 deadline, but rather to truly brainstorm. He said to him this is a chance to think differently and
41 maybe phase the Chapel Hill High project. He said to set aside their assumptions and come up
42 with some options together and forget about getting it done in 3 weeks. He said sometimes
43 one has to spend money to save money.
44 Chair Dorosin asked if the following slide would be put up, and asked if School Board
45 members had comments:
46
47 CHCCS Requests Assistance
48 • Provide ideas and guidance for the options presented
49 • Continue to work with County Director of Asset Management Services
11
1 • Create a small work group, to include Orange County staff, CHCCS staff, Town of
2 Chapel Hill staff, and others to continue to brainstorm cost reduction and to provide
3 thoughts and guidance towards options moving forward
4
5 School Board member comments:
6 Rani Dasi said this is a hard conversation, and it feels as some of the ideas are abstract.
7 She said all of these suggestions affect other costs, and how the children are educated. She
8 said she does not feel that there is an appreciation of how much work has gone into this
9 process thus far. She said there are other options, none of which are ideal. She said delaying
10 will not lead to cost savings, but rather it is a kicking of the can down the road, the practice of
11 which has lead to all these pressing needs being here in the first place. She said she
12 understands that the County has limited resources, but the schools have increasing needs and
13 she is unsure of the answer.
14 Commissioner Price said she is interested in the third option of creating a small work
15 group, and asked if there would still be a need to have a decision by December.
16 Pam Baldwin said the December date is for the current bid, and it seems that this
17 discussion is not on the table. She said the third bullet is simply stating the need for discussion
18 about all of the projects moving forward, which is very important. She said the needs are real,
19 and there must be a plan in place.
20 Commissioner Price asked if it would be less agonizing to put the December deadline
21 aside, and have a work group meet and start planning.
22 Superintendent Baldwin said no matter what, CHCCS will leave tonight and work on how
23 to meet legislative demands within the County's means. She said the agony will continue, but
24 CHCCS would like to work in partnership with the County, as these issues will not go away.
25 Commissioner Price asked if moving forward with option three would set aside the
26 December date, and let the Board of County Commissioners meet in January to better assess
27 resources, all the while working in a small group.
28 Pam Baldwin said bullet three has the understanding of working towards the December
29 deadline, while meeting in a small group to figure out next steps.
30 Chair Dorosin asked if CHCCS has a preferred plan of attack: go with the Lincoln
31 Center as bid, finding the additional funds.
32 James Barrett said if CHCCS had a better answer, it would have provided it. He said
33 the plans to address capacity and school construction standards are what the schools are
34 working within. He said the BOCC wanted to expand capacity without building new schools,
35 and this is the approach CHCCS has taken. He said cost escalation is beyond anyone's
36 control, and CHCCS is asking for help. He said the current plans best meet all the agreements
37 that are in place between the CHCCS and the County.
38 Chair Dorosin said they cannot get everything they want, and they need to determine
39 the highest priority. He said it seems that capacity is the highest priority, and he suggested
40 building the pre-K center and waiting on the other parts of the Lincoln Center. He said if that is
41 not possible, then a new plan needs to be developed, whatever that may be. He asked if
42 CHCCS has a top priority.
43 James Barrett said capacity is foremost in their minds, as the deadline must be met; but
44 also the idea of splitting up the project is not good either. He said Phoenix Academy does great
45 work and should not be disrupted, but the administrative office space is needed too.
46 Rani Dasi said her preference would be the Lincoln Center project, with more time to re-
47 visit Chapel Hill High. She said she is not in favor of breaking apart the Lincoln project.
48 Margaret Samuels said she agreed with Rani Dasi and James Barrett. She said it is
49 often difficult to spend money on administrative space, but it is good to have these offices
50 located near to pre-K and Phoenix Academy. She said the administration is quite diverse, and
12
1 this sets a good example to these two groups of students. She said the School Board is
2 invested in both of these projects, and a smaller work group would be helpful. She said there is
3 not enough money, and conversations should have begun earlier between the schools and the
4 County.
5 Pat Heinrich said he agreed with the prioritizing the Lincoln Center project. He wants to
6 move forward wisely, but wants to move as quickly as possible before costs rise any further.
7 Joal Broun said she agreed with her colleagues about the priorities, but there are other
8 school buildings, like Chapel Hill High, that need to be renovated. She said the time will come
9 when it will no longer be possible to kick the can down the road.
10 Commissioner Burroughs said this is a bind, and as the County gets its financial
11 forecast in January it will be able to plan out further. She said there are significant needs in all
12 of the schools, and it is good to have this discussion.
13 Commissioner Marcoplos said everyone felt these projects had been accomplished, but
14 then realities set it. He said he took a tour of Chapel Hill High School, and it does need a lot of
15 work. He asked what happens to Chapel Hill High if all of the money goes to Lincoln Center,
16 and said it may be helpful to get the bidders to do a three part break out of the Lincoln Center
17 Project just to have the information.
18 Commissioner Rich said 2/3 of the students in CHCCS go to new high schools, and 1/3
19 of students go to Chapel Hill High that is falling apart. She asked if CHCCS knows what it will
20 say to the parents at Chapel Hill High School, if they prioritize Lincoln Center. She said as a
21 parent, she sees Chapel Hill High School as the priority.
22 Commissioner Rich said there are so many variables at play, and a lot is being asked of
23 everyone. She appreciates the cooperative spirit that the schools are putting forward this
24 evening.
25 Rani Dasi said she is also a parent of students at Chapel Hill High School, and for her
26 own children she would like CHHS finished today, but it is important to think of the district as a
27 whole. She said there is no other way to solve capacity at the elementary level, and the highest
28 priority has to be on closing the early gaps. She said the small group discussion is a good idea,
29 but she expects it will reach the same conclusion.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said this reminds him of the operating budget process, in that the
31 BOCC does not tell the schools how to spend its money, despite having the legal authority to do
32 so. He said ultimately the BOCC will defer to the schools in making its own priorities, but if the
33 County and the schools plan to work together, feelings will occasionally get hurt. He said if
34 Lincoln Center is completed, the schools will have to make do with what is left to accomplish
35 work at CHHS. He said there are no additional monies, and it is important to be realistic.
36 Commissioner McKee thanked Rani Dasi for speaking plainly, and he said he believes
37 the Lincoln Center project is the top priority. He said he is a bit disappointed that the evening
38 did not begin with a clear opinion from the School Board. He said if the Lincoln Center project
39 proceeds, he sees no point in not doing it completely. He said he will not vote for any further
40 increase in taxes, and the best hope he can see for CHHS is a renovation.
41 Commissioner Price said she agreed with Commissioner McKee, and she asked if it is
42 possible to phase the projects at CHHS.
43 Rani Dasi said that is something the School Board can look at, and with that project they
44 will have more time.
45 Rani Dasi asked if there is a way for the School Board to think about long-term facility
46 needs, if Orange County has no more funding.
47 Chair Dorosin said those would be questions for the small work group. He said there is
48 general consensus to create a small work group, and keep the 12/26 deadline as of now. He
49 said this group can review all options, and set both a short-term and long-term agenda. He
50 said there will be many tough conversations ahead, but all can work together.
13
1 Bonnie Hammersley said she and the two superintendents meet regularly to discuss the
2 capital needs. She said if the Lincoln Center project is the priority, the County will need to
3 amend its CIP since the first draw from the bonds will not be enough to cover this project. She
4 said more will have to be brought in from the second draw, which will the County's affordability
5 debt.
6 Chair Dorosin said to make sure a member of the County finance department is in this
7 work group.
8 Commissioner Jacobs asked if more information could be provided about the impact on
9 debt capacity.
10 Bonnie Hammersley said the financial planner looked at the County's affordability over
11 five years. She said this is over a seven-year period, and the placement of County and school
12 projects determined where the County stood. She said as school projects are moved around,
13 County projects may have to be reprioritized as a result. She said staff can be work on this
14 quickly.
15 Chair Dorosin asked if Pam Baldwin has an idea of who should be in this small work
16 group, and if she envisions a Commissioner being in the group.
17 Pam Baldwin said County staff should be involved, as well as a Commissioner.
18 Commissioner Rich asked if the Town of Chapel Hill has been approached.
19 Pam Baldwin said yes, and the Town has identified a staff member to participate.
20 Joal Broun suggested that the Town of Carrboro should also be included.
21 Chair Dorosin volunteered, and the Board agreed by consensus for Chair Dorosin to
22 serve on this work group.
23
24 b. Presentation of the Mobile Home Park Survey Report and Recommendations
25 The Board received a report from the Mobile Home Park Work Group and considered
26 endorsing the group recommendations.
27
28 BACKGROUND:
29 For many years, there has been interest in addressing the vulnerability of residents living in
30 mobile home parks in Orange County. The Orange County Board of Commissioners allocated
31 $1 million in the FY2015-16 budget process to address preservation and retention of
32 manufactured homes parks and/or to assist in the acquisition of property and land banking for
33 future residential development as an affordable housing alternative. During the FY2016-17
34 budget process, the BOCC allocated another $1 million to the land banking program.
35
36 Mobile Home Park Work Group
37 Following the establishment of the land banking program and designated funding from Orange
38 County, local housing partners began to discuss and evaluate the opportunities and obstacles
39 in redeveloping an existing mobile home park or developing new affordable housing addressing
40 the needs of mobile home park residents at risk. Orange County Habitat for Humanity invited
41 interested, local individuals to form an informal ad hoc committee that became known as the
42 Mobile Home Park Work Group. The Work Group consisted of local government staff, for-profit
43 developers, and non-profit housing staff and continues to meet as facilitated by County staff.
44
45 Over the course of several months, the Work Group reviewed and discussed several issues
46 facing mobile home park residents and owners. The main issue identified by the Work Group
47 was that mobile home park residents, specifically in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, were faced with
48 losing their homes thereby resulting in displacement as a result of redevelopment of the existing
49 parks. In addition, these residents faced limited affordable housing options due to a lack of
14
1 available mobile homes and/or mobile home spaces elsewhere and increasing housing costs in
2 the Towns.
3
4 After identifying the main issues that may be unfolding in the immediate future, the Work Group
5 set out to identify goals, explore options, and consider strategies that would assist in developing
6 effective recommendations to address the mobile home park issue in Orange County.
7 Additional information regarding the Mobile Home Park Work Group is included in Attachment
8 1.
9
10 Mobile Home Park Survey Report
11 Throughout the process, the Mobile Home Park Work Group stressed the need to learn more
12 about the mobile home park residents. In order to develop an effective strategy to deal with the
13 potential conversion of mobile home parks, the Work Group recognized it was imperative to
14 learn about the needs and obstacles current mobile home park residents are facing. In addition,
15 the group identified the importance to collect information regarding residents' social and
16 economic needs in order to create successful recommendations in the future. In order to gather
17 input and data on existing residents, the Orange County Family Success Alliance initiated a
18 survey campaign in August which included the completion of 100 surveys from eight (8) mobile
19 home parks in Orange County. The Mobile Home Park Survey Report is included in Attachment
20 2. Information collected from this survey was utilized to develop the proposed mobile home park
21 recommendations.
22
23 Best Practices See Attachment 3 —Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions
24
25 Sherrill Hampton, Director for Housing, Human Rights and Community Development,
26 made the following PowerPoint presentation:
27
28 Mobile Home Park Survey Report and Recommendations
29 November 20, 2017
30 Item 6-b
31
32 Purpose
33 • Overview
34 • Mobile Home Park Survey Report
35 • Summary of Tools Used in Other Jurisdictions
36 • Mobile Home Park Recommendations
37
38 Overview
39 • The rise of mobile home park closures and subsequent eviction of residents has become a
40 growing concern for the affordable housing arena across the United States in recent years.
41 • Mobile home parks are the largest segment of non-subsidized affordable housing in the
42 country.
43 • Approximately seven percent (7.4%) of Orange County's total housing units (56,297) are
44 mobile homes. [Data comes from the US Census Bureau and the American Community
45 Survey 5-year Estimates (2011-2015)]
46 • Like Orange County, many jurisdictions, including those in Colorado, Texas, Florida,
47 Louisiana, California and even New York, as well as Cleveland and Seattle have seen a rise
48 in mobile home park closures that leave low income individuals and families struggling to
49 find affordable housing in an already strained market where supply of such housing is
50 limited.
15
1
2 Mobile Home Park Work Group
3 The Work Group consisted of local government staff, for-profit developers, and non-profit
4 housing staff including:
5
6 • Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity
7 • Robert Dowling, Community Home Trust
8 • Jess Brandes, CASA
9 • Travis Myren, Orange County
10 • Sherrill Hampton, Orange County
11 • Craig Benedict, Orange County
12 • Ashley Moncado, Orange County
13 • Coby Austin, Family Success Alliance
14 • Judy Johnson, Town of Chapel Hill
15 • Edward Barberio, Town of Chapel Hill
16 • Eric Chupp, Capkov Ventures, Inc.
17 • Elam Hall, HHHunt Homes
18 • David Beck, Self Help
19
20 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
21
22 Mobile Home Park Evaluation
23 • 100 existing mobile home parks in County
24 - Estimated total number of mobile homes in mobile home parks 2,017
25 - Total number of mobile homes 4,165
26 • 21 mobile home parks identified for further evaluation
27 • Selection and evaluation based on:
28 - Access to transportation, water and sewer infrastructure, employment, health
29 services, education, and shopping
30 - Condition of the mobile home park, homes, infrastructure, and amenities
31 - Vacancy rate
32 - Future expansion and redevelopment opportunities
33 o Estimated infrastructure cost
34 o Land use and zoning, including surrounding parcels
35 o Potential acquisition costs
36 - Current and future ownership, partnership, and management opportunities
37 • 8 mobile home parks selected for surveying
38
39 Chair Dorosin asked if there is a minimum size requirement in order to be designated a
40 mobile home park.
41 Craig Benedict said a park is any place where there are five mobile homes or more. He
42 said no new mobile home parks have been created since 1987.
43 Juliet Sheridan, Family Success Alliance and Health Department, presented this portion
44 of the PowerPoint:
45
46 Mobile Home Park Survey
47 • 8 mobile home parks identified by Mobile Home Park Work Group
48 - At high risk for displacement (5)
49 - Needed more information (3)
50 • 96 surveys conducted in four weeks
16
1 • Approximately one-third of the residents were sampled
2
3 Who Are These Families?
4 • 89% of families are Hispanic with around 4.1 members/household
5 • Low-income
6 - 40% make less than $15,000/year
7 - 85% make less than $30,000/year
8 • Home owners of old houses (pre-2002)
9 • Pay on average $563/month
10 • Don't want to move (85%)
11 • Half couldn't move their homes in Chapel Hill/Carrboro, 65% couldn't move outside of
12 Chapel Hill/Carrboro
13
14 Current Park Information
15 • Repairs and infrastructure improvements
16 • Public transit usage
17 • Proximity to services
18 • Internet connectivity
19 • School districts
20
21 What do Mobile Home Parks Bring to the Table?
22 • Skilled residents
23 - Carpenters, electricians, landscaping, etc.
24 • Community support networks
25 - More than half go to neighbors for childcare
26 - Some parks have community potlucks
27
28 Erika Cervantes Munoz's story
29 • Born in Guanajuato, Mexico; raised in Chapel Hill
30 • Currently living in Tar Heel Mobile Home Park with my parents, siblings, and son
31 • Family Success Alliance (FSA) Zone 6 Navigator since August 2017
32
33 Why is a Mobile Home a Viable Option for Housing?
34 • Moved from Royal Park Apartments to Tar Heel Mobile Home Park in 2004 due to
35 affordability and space issues
36 • Mobile home built in 1998
37 • All of my extended family members who live in the County followed this trend
38 • A mobile home is the more affordable option
39
40 Pros
41 • Kids are zoned for great schools (Estes Hills Elementary, Smith Middle School, and East
42 Chapel Hill High)
43 • Timberlyne Shopping Center is within walking distance (Food Lion, Walgreens, and
44 restaurants)
45 • Sense of community (walking group, kids biking, and engaging in sports)
46
47 Cons
48 • Infrastructure:
49 - Lack of lighting at night
50 - No playground for kids
17
1 — Since we own the home, we are responsible for all maintenance
2
3 Impact of Relocation
4 • Unable to move mobile home to another property due to age and condition
5 • Would have to move in with extended family because an apartment is not an immediate
6 option
7 • Kids would have to relocate schools
8 • My parents would lose their most valuable asset
9
10 Commissioner Rich asked who is responsible to take care of the park.
11 Juliette Sheridan said the owner of the park would take of potholes, etc.
12 Commissioner Rich asked if maintenance costs are then assessed to the residents.
13 Sherrill Hampton said, in many cases, yes.
14
15 Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions - graph
16 Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions - graph
17 Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions - graph
18 Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions - graph
19
20 Sherrill Hampton presented the first two recommendations:
21 Mobile Home Park Recommendations
22 Recommendation 1: Mobile Home Park Improvement and Expansion Program (Short
23 Term)
24 • Orange County establishes a loan program for mobile home park owners to improve
25 and/or expand their existing park.
26 • Strategy would be part of an overall Rental Rehabilitation Initiative for Investor-
27 Owners.
28 • Recommended that up to $500,000 from the $2M Affordable Housing/Land Bank
29 Set-aside in the approved Capital Investment Plan be used to initially fund this
30 Initiative.
31 • Mobile Home Park Recommendations
32
33 Recommendation 2: Repair and/or Replacement Program Component (Short Term)
34 • Orange County establishes, with local funds, a repair and/or replacement program
35 component for residents living in a mobile home, whether rental or owner-occupied.
36 • Program capitalization using local funds
37 • Urgent Repair Program
38 • Single-Family Housing Rehabilitation Program
39 • Mobile Home Park Recommendations
40
41 Craig Benedict presented the final two recommendations:
42 Recommendation 3: Mobile Home Park Development (Long Term)
43 • Orange County uses designated funds to pursue the development of a mobile home
44 park and/or mixed housing development on an undeveloped parcel.
45 • May be pursued in the northern portion of the County, specifically the Eno and
46 Efland areas, with access to transportation, goods, services, employment, and
47 public water and wastewater infrastructure.
48 • Allow for the County to work with an existing mobile home park owner to expand
49 their existing mobile home park.
50 • May require the County to initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
18
1 • Mobile Home Park Recommendations
2
3 Recommendation 4: Greene Tract (Long Term)
4 • Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro elected officials and
5 staff continue to explore affordable housing opportunities on the Greene Tract, with a
6 focus on alternatives for displaced mobile home park residents and utilization of a
7 portion of the Greene Tract.
8 • If this process is pursued, County funds allocated for mobile home parks may be
9 put towards infrastructure improvements, site preparation, construction, and/or
10 housing.
11 • May require the County to initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, similar
12 to the RFPs initiated for the 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Funds.
13
14 Recommendations:
15 The Manager recommends that the Board:
16 1. Receive the presentation;
17 2. Discuss as appropriate; and
18 3. Endorse the recommendations contained in Attachment 4.
19
20 Commissioner Price said she hoped the County would work together with the Towns.
21 Craig Benedict said the Town of Chapel Hill is participating.
22 Bonnie Hammersley said the Towns are very interested in this strategy, and asked that
23 this presentation be made at a future affordable housing meeting.
24 Commissioner Jacobs said #3 should be called, "Manufactured Housing Community
25 Development," as mobile home is a stigmatized phrase.
26 Commissioner Marcoplos said he likes the idea of a new name, and said he is a big fan
27 of site built homes due to the employment opportunities.
28 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the community in Charlottesville, and said this is an
29 incredible idea.
30 Chair Dorosin said developers have no incentive to build affordable housing in mobile
31 home parks, as the land is so valuable. He said the surveys contain important information,
32 especially regarding residents desire to stay in their mobile homes. He said he likes the short-
33 term and long-term recommendations, but one piece is missing: if one of these parks is sold, it
34 will happen very quickly, and there needs to be some type of emergency re-location plan.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Sherrill Hampton came across the survey that was done
36 in the early 2000s of mobile home parks.
37 Craig Benedict said there was an inventory done about 15 years ago, which was
38 included in this current survey process.
39 Sherrill Hampton said recommendation #1 would allow mobile home park owners to
40 apply for funding to fix issues such as wells and septic tanks.
41 Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff can they track what has changed in 15 years. He
42 said Orange County is one of the most liberal counties in the state in that it allows
43 manufactured housing in most zoning areas.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said if the County is going to loan money to a community
45 operator, then the County should specify their standards, which the community will be expected
46 to meet. He said if the County is going to invest funding, the park owner cannot pass any costs
47 along to the tenants, as the owner has not incurred the cost.
48 Sherrill Hampton said that would be in the agreements, and this can be brought back to
49 the Board of County Commissioners for review.
19
1 Commissioner Price said she would like there to be a requirement for park owners to
2 pay money back, if they fail to live up to the required standards.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said they have been working on this for years, and they know
4 there will be a crisis at some point, and having a rapid response is a great addition to the plan.
5 He said the Commissioners tried to create retrofitted standards in the late 1980s, which failed.
6 He said if more parks are not being created, he does not want standards to be cost prohibitive
7 deterrents.
8 Commissioner Rich asked if Chapel Hill or Carrboro have funds that help out with parks.
9 Sherrill Hampton said this question has been asked, but no response has been
10 received.
11 Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity, thanked the Board of County Commissioners and
12 staff for bringing this work group's recommendations forward.
13
14 Mobile Home Park Work Group Recommendations:
15
16 1. Mobile Home Park Improvement and Expansion Program (Short Term) Orange County
17 establishes a loan program for mobile home park owners to improve and/or expand their
18 existing park. This strategy would be part of an overall Rental Rehabilitation Initiative for
19 Investor-Owners with 25 or less properties. In addition, it is also recommended that up
20 to $500,000 from the $2M Affordable Housing/Land Bank Set-aside in the approved
21 Capital Investment Plan be used to initially fund this Initiative. Currently, the remaining
22 balance in the Affordable Housing/Land Bank Set-aside is $1,706,600.
23
24 2. Repair and/or Replacement Program Component (Short Term) Orange County
25 establishes, with local funds, a repair and/or replacement program component for
26 residents living in a mobile home, whether rental or owner-occupied. This strategy would
27 be part of the County's existing Single-Family Housing Rehabilitation and Urgent Repair
28 Programs. Presently, assistance for mobile home repair is only available under the
29 County's Urgent Repair Program and applicants must own the land, as well as the
30 mobile home. If the recommendation is approved, it would allow for the inclusion of
31 residents who do not meet the aforementioned ownership requirements but either have
32 the owner's written approval for proceeding with the repairs and/or replacement or own
33 the mobile home but not the land. In addition, it would allow for mobile home repair
34 and/or replacement under the County's Single-Family Rehabilitation Program. Currently,
35 there is a combined total of$455,468 available for these programs.
36
37 3. Mobile Home Park (Manufactured Housing) Development (Long Term) Orange County
38 uses designated funds to pursue the development of a mobile home park and/or mixed
39 housing development on an undeveloped parcel with access to transportation, goods,
40 services, employment, and public water and wastewater infrastructure in the County.
41
42 4. Greene Tract (Long Term) Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of
43 Carrboro elected officials and staff continue to explore affordable housing opportunities
44 on the Greene Tract, with a focus on alternatives for displaced mobile home park
45 residents and utilization of a portion of the Greene Tract.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
48 endorse the recommendations contained in Attachment 4, with the noted changes to establish
49 an emergency protocol; a name change to "Manufactured Housing Community Development"
20
1 on #1; language in agreement about costs cannot be passed onto tenants, etc., and to work
2 with the Towns specifically on recommendation #3.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Commissioner Burroughs recognized Dorothy Cilenti, who has been serving as Interim
7 Health Director.
8
9 c. Request for Proposal Award of Surplus Property
10 The Board considered awarding the Request for Proposal ("RFP") #5229 for County
11 Surplus Properties and authorizing the County Manager to sign.
12 Sherrill Hampton presented this item, which contained maps.
13
14 BACKGROUND:
15 In February 2017, Orange County released an RFP as it relates to ten (10) designated parcels
16 available for affordable housing development. The deadline for submitting a proposal for the
17 surplus properties was May 31, 2017. Any parcel(s) not selected under this RFP would be
18 available in the 2018 RFP cycle for Surplus Properties and/or Affordable Housing Bond funds.
19
20 Center for Homeownership (Application Withdrawn)
21
22 Habitat of Orange County
23
24 RTA-Triad (Application Deemed Non-Responsive to the RFP)
25
26 An Application Review Committee consisting of the Deputy County Manager, Asset
27 Management Director, Planning and Inspections Director, Housing, Human Rights and
28 Community Development Director, and one member each from the Affordable Housing
29 Advisory Board and Orange County Housing Authority reviewed the applications using the
30 criteria approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Application Review Committee
31 had additional questions and sent each of the responsive respondents an email detailing those
32 questions. It was during this segment of the review process that the Center for Homeownership
33 chose to withdraw its application. The Application Review Committee recommended the
34 following entity be awarded the requested parcel as identified below:
35
36 RESPONDENT PARCEL: Habitat of Orange County 09865516149
37
38 The County acquired the parcel at public auction in April 1977 with the formal transfer and deed
39 being recorded in May 1977. The parcel is .95 of an acre - see Attachment 2. In addition, the
40 Application Review Committee recommends, in light of the need in the community for overall
41 revitalization, as well as the respondent's need for leveraged monetary assistance to install the
42 needed infrastructure, that the Board of County Commissioners approve the additional request
43 of$90,000 contingent upon submittal and County staff's approval of Habitat's detailed plan and
44 final cost estimate and that funding, if approved, be paid in incremental draws after Habitat
45 utilizes its identified available funds on hand. If approved, the funds would be paid from the $2
46 million Affordable Housing/Land Bank Set-Aside in the Capital Investment Plan. If this request
47 for proposal award is approved, the remaining nine (9) parcels of surplus property will be
48 available for the 2018 RFP cycle.
49
50 FINANCIAL IMPACT:
21
1 No negative financial impact is associated with the awarding of the surplus property. However,
2 if the Board of County Commissioners approves the request for additional leveraged financial
3 resources, there would be an outlay of$90,000 or less depending on the final detailed plan and
4 cost estimate for the installation of needed infrastructure.
5
6 Commissioner Price asked who will maintain the street.
7 Susan Levy said the Town of Hillsborough.
8 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the number of houses has been determined.
9 Sherrill Hampton said it has yet to be determined, but one contingency that has been
10 requested would allow the staff to work with Habitat for Humanity to maximize the number of
11 units.
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
14 for the Board to:
15
16 (1) accept the award recommendation of the Application Review Committee and authorize
17 the County Manager to sign all necessary legal documents associated with transferring
18 the surplus property (Parcel 09865516149) following approval by the County Attorney's
19 Office; and
20 (2) approve the request for $90,000 in leveraged financial resources for installation of
21 infrastructure contingent upon submittal and County staff's approval of Habitat's final
22 detailed plans and cost estimate. If approved, payment is to be made in incremental
23 draws after Habitat utilizes its leveraged funds on hand.
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 d. Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2045
28 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Preferred Option — Public Comment Period
29 The Board received a presentation on the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
30 Preferred Option presentation from Orange County Transportation Planning staff and offer any
31 comments in conjunction with the OUTBoard's November 15, 2017 comments.
32
33 BACKGROUND:
34 The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, (DCHC MPO) which is
35 responsible for long range transportation planning for Durham County and parts of Orange and
36 Chatham Counties, is updating its MTP. The 2045 MTP is a federally required, financially
37 constrained, plan that recommends major transportation projects, policies and strategies
38 designed to maintain existing transportation systems and address the region's future travel
39 needs.
40
41 Projects must be in the 2045 MTP to receive any state and federal transportation funding
42 through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The Board of County
43 Commissioners (BOCC) did not receive a presentation from Orange County Transportation
44 Planning staff at this stage of the 2040 MTP planning process. Staff is providing this
45 presentation now primarily as information but also to find opportunity for Board comments. Any
46 comments received will be communicated to the MPO Board for its consideration.
47 Commissioner Barry Jacobs is Orange County's representative on the MPO Board with
48 Commissioner Penny Rich as the alternate.
49
22
1 On October 3, 2017 the BOCC endorsed the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
2 comments on the Alternatives Analysis and submitted to the DCHC MPO Board. The MPO
3 included these comments along with others and drafted the Preferred Option. The MPO
4 Technical Committee released the 2045 MTP Preferred Option for a 42-day public comment
5 period on October 25, 2017. The MPO Board also conducted a public hearing on the preferred
6 option on November 8, 2017.
7
8 The preferred option is a 35 page document (Attachment 4). Orange County Transportation
9 Planning Staff has reviewed the Preferred Option and has provided Attachment 2 as a
10 summary of key Orange County information. 1 The OUTBoard provided the following
11 comments (Attachment 3) at its November 15 meeting: 1. The LRT extension from Chapel Hill
12 to Carrboro would better be served if it went along Main Street and into downtown rather than
13 Cameron Avenue. 2. We would like to see a bike and pedestrian path between Hillsborough
14 and Carrboro. 3. Hillsborough station is great and should be used often. Amtrak may provide
15 only two stops a day so it will need to be planned for more frequent use. Next Steps •
16 December 13 — DCHC MPO Board to approve the Preferred Option and release full 2045 MTP
17 report and final Goals/Objectives/Targeted Performance Measures for public comment. •
18 January 10 — DCHC MPO Board to adopt by resolution the 2045 MTP and report.
19
20 Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
21
22 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Preferred Option
23 11/20/2017
24
25 Outline
26 ❖ Background
27 o DCHC MPO role and responsibility
28 o 2045 MTP Process
29 ❖ Key Aspects of 2045 MTP Preferred Option
30 o Goals and Objectives
31 o AIM High Model Results
32 o Projects
33 o Financial Plan
34 ❖ Conclusion
35 o DCHC MPO 2045 MTP Update Schedule
36 ❖ Managers Recommendations
37
38 Background
39
40 DCHC MPO Role and Responsibility
41 Durham-Chapel Hill Carrboro
42 Metropolitan Planning Organization
43 • Responsible for long range transportation planning in
44 o Durham City and County, and
45 o Parts of Orange County and Chatham County.
46 • Federal mandate— MPO must plan and approve use of federal transportation funding
47 • Policy Board -- Composed mostly of local elected officials from member jurisdictions and
48 counties.
49 What is the 2045 MTP Process
50 Durham-Chapel Hill Carrboro
23
1 Metropolitan Planning Organization
2 • Responsible for long range transportation planning in
3 • Durham City and County, and
4 • Parts of Orange County and Chatham County.
5 • Federal mandate— MPO must plan and approve use of federal transportation
6 funding
7 • Policy Board -- Composed mostly of local elected officials from member
8 jurisdictions and counties.
9
10 Transportation Planning Framework (chart)
11
12 What is the 2045 Process (chart)
13
14 Key Aspects of 2045 MTP Preferred Option
15
16 Goals and Objectives (chart)
17
18 Goals and Objectives (chart)
19
20 Population Projection-graph Craig Benedict
21
22 Employment Projection-graph
23
24 Scenario Planning
25 The 2045 MTP uses Connect 2045 Triangle model called Community Visualization (CommViz),
26 two land use scenarios were generated based on the above population and employment guide
27 totals.
28 • Community Plan — based on local comprehensive plans and land use policies.
29 • AIM-High —This scenario uses the Community Plan scenarios as a base but
30 increases the land use density and mix around the future light rail. It is based on
31 draft data from an ongoing regional study on rail station development potential, and
32 though it pushes the limits it is still market possible.
33
34 Household Distribution
35 • Hillsborough and South of Chapel Hill
36 • West Orange County north of 1-85/1-40
37 • Between Hillsborough and NC-54
38 • Between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill/Carrboro
39
40 Employment Distribution
41 • East of Mebane along 1-85/1-40
42 • West of Durham along 1-85
43 • North of Hillsborough, along NC-57
44 • Along MLK Blvd in Chapel Hill
45
46 Highway Projects
47 2045 - 8 Orange County Projects
48 • 2025 — 10 projects
49 • 2035 —22 projects
50 • STI Bike-Ped and Transit funding restrictions
24
1 • Federally mandated Financially Constrained MTP
2
3 Transit Projects-graph
4
5 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Multiuse Projects
6 • CTP Web site: http://bit.ly/DCHCMPO-Adopted-CTP (IC: f r9f cs Oran lo County
7 C 11r,yr,Oo IFO n)
8 • Carrboro Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan (2009) -- http://bit.ly/1 PeRnsl
9 • Chapel Hill Bike Plan (2014) -- http://bit.ly/1 uGbDZ5
10 • Chatham County Bicycle Plan (2011) -- http://bit.ly/1 TSdIUv
11 • Durham City and County Comprehensive Bicycle Plan (2006) -- http://bit.ly/1 UCSIDz
12 • Hillsborough Community Connectivity Plan (2009) -- http://bit.ly/1 Uan3VO
13 • Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan (2004) -- http://bit.ly/28gbvgi
14 • Durham Walks! Pedestrian Plan (2006) -- http://bit.ly/1Y66mfG
15 • Durham Bike+Walk Implementation Plan (2017) -- http://bit.lv/2p2vHJS
16 • Hillsborough Community Connectivity Plan (2009) -- http://bit.ly/1 Uan3VO
17
18 Financial Plan — Revenue- graph
19
20 Financial Plan —Costs-graph
21
22 Financial Plan — Investment by Mode-graph
23
24 2045 MTP Schedule-graph
25
26 Questions &Answers
27
28 Commissioner Jacobs said the MPO member re-did the goals and objectives this year,
29 to make it more in line with the vision of the elected officials, as to what they hope to
30 accomplish within the federal law. He said most goals and objectives are not written this way
31 by other jurisdictions. He said there is a strong preference on the Board to challenge the
32 limitation on bike and pedestrian projects. He said the OUTBoard mentions the train station on
33 the second page, and it is fully funded. He said Jeff Mann, GoTriangle General Manager,
34 reports a tug of war between Norfolk Southern and the North Carolina Railroad, as to who is
35 going to do the planning related to the train station. He said that is the reason for the delay in
36 the train station.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board has not discussed the route in Carrboro, and he
38 would like more information on this prior to a vote. He said he would like to see a new bike plan
39 for Orange County. He said he agreed with #3.
40 Patrick McDonough, GoTriangle Manager of Planning and Transit Oriented
41 Development, said there is a way to have a positive impact on the discussion surrounding the
42 train station. He said Nina Schlossburg, DCHC MPO, was recently appointed to the North
43 Carolina Railroad Board of Directors, along with Bill Bell. He said this provides representation
44 at a level where there has previously been none.
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
47 endorse #3, and refer #1 and #2 to staff and the OUTBoard (attachment 3)
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
25
1 e. Board of Commissioners - BOCC Chair/Vice Chair Voting Process
2 The Board discussed a process for selecting the BOCC Chair and Vice Chair during the
3 Board's annual organizational meeting in December.
4
5 BACKGROUND:
6 The Board has historically utilized paper ballots for selecting the Board Chair and Vice Chair at
7 its annual organizational meeting in December. This process consists of the Clerk to the Board
8 distributing ballots to each Commissioner to complete and sign. The Clerk then collects the
9 ballots and reads out loud the selected nominee on each ballot. The ballots are a public record
10 and are kept in the Clerk's office in the permanent agenda files.
11
12 At the Board's November 9, 2017 work session, two options were proposed:
13
14 Option 1: To add an additional step to the current selection process which is to have the Clerk
15 to the Board, after collecting the ballots, to not only read the nominee's name on each ballot,
16 but also read the name of the signatory on each ballot so as to make the process transparent to
17 the public attending the meeting and also to those viewers watching on the web and/or
18 television.
19
20 Option 2: Utilize a selection process in which the current Chair requests nominations from
21 Board members for the position of Chair. The current Chair would close the nominations and
22 then solicit votes by show of hands for each nominee for Chair, with each Board member only
23 having one vote. The nominee receiving four or more votes would be elected to the position of
24 Chair. The newly-elected Chair would request nominations from Board members for the
25 position of Vice Chair. The newly-elected Chair would close the nominations and then solicit
26 votes by show of hands for each nominee, with each Board member only having one vote. The
27 nominee receiving four or more votes would be elected to the position of Vice Chair.
28
29 Commissioner Burroughs said option #2 makes more sense to her, and if the desire is
30 for greater transparency, then a ballot seems unnecessary.
31 Commissioner Rich said she prefers option 1.
32 Commissioner McKee said he prefers option 1.
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
35 approve Option 1 which is to add an additional step to the current selection process which is to
36 have the Clerk to the Board, after collecting the ballots, to not only read the nominee's name on
37 each ballot, but also read the name of the signatory on each ballot so as to make the process
38 transparent to the public attending the meeting and also to those viewers watching on the web
39 and/or television.
40
41 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Chair Dorosin dissenting)
42
43 7. Reports
44
45 a. GoTriangle Update on Transit Oriented Development Process and Potential Rail
46 Station Changes
47 The Board received information on the principles and activities associated with the
48 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Grant as well as an explanation of both the proposed
49 Gateway Station Shift and the proposed addition of a station at the Durham Performing Arts
26
1 Center. No cost increases can occur, and both the Gateway Station Shift and the Station
2 Addition will be accommodated within the current budget if approved.
3 Matthew Clark, GoTriangle Government Affairs Manager, reviewed the following
4 information:
5
6 BACKGROUND:
7 The first part of the presentation will update the Board of Commissioners on the activities
8 related to transit oriented development planning around the Durham-Orange Light Rail Stations.
9 GoTriangle received a $2.1 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to help
10 plan areas around the rail stations. This effort involves preparing appropriate land use plans
11 and development standards to maximize the benefits of new investments in transit service,
12 promote the development of walkable neighborhoods, and enhance existing communities. The
13 planning grant also included a market study that assessed the potential economic development
14 benefits of development or redevelopment that could occur around the rail stations.
15
16 On October 16, Chapel Hill staff and the Transit Oriented Development consultant team held a
17 meeting with members of the six Chapel Hill advisory boards and commissions to discuss the
18 process for developing zoning regulations for the station areas, the project schedule, and
19 community goals that should be prioritized. The current schedule would have a draft zoning
20 code available for discussion in January of 2018.
21
22 The second part of the presentation will be to update the Board of Commissioners on two
23 proposed rail station changes. The Orange County Transit Plan discussed the possibility of
24 shifting the Gateway station to the west in order to promote more economic development
25 opportunities, particularly in Orange County. The Transit Plan requires that GoTriangle seek
26 input from the Board of Commissioners on any change in station location, which will be
27 communicated to the GoTriangle Board before making a final decision.
28
29 The second proposed station change is to add a station at the Durham Performing Arts Center
30 (DPAC). The new station would be intended to provide better access to the Center and the
31 Durham Bulls Athletic Park. The Transit Plan requires that the addition of any station must be
32 approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Durham County Board of
33 Commissioners, and DCHC MPO Policy Board, and the GoTriangle Board. Go Triangle is
34 requesting formal Board consideration at its December 12, 2017 meeting.
35
36 The cost of the shift in the Gateway station is currently estimated to be $8 million, and the
37 estimated cost of the new DPAC station is $2.5 million. Since the total light rail project budget
38 was set when the project was approved to enter engineering, both of these changes would
39 have to be accommodated in the current budget if approved. The attached memoranda from
40 Go Triangle further describe these proposed changes.
41
42 Matthew Clark began the PowerPoint presentation:
43
44 Durham-Orange
45 Light Rail
46 Transit Project
47 Orange County Commissioners
48 November 20, 2017
49
50 Entry into Engineering
27
1 • Our region is on track for a federal investment of well over a billion dollars.
2 • Engineers will iron out the details of the Light Rail as they move it from around 30% to
3 nearly 100% design.
4 • FTA will invest in a stronger partnership with the Light Rail through the Project
5 Management Oversight Consultant.
6 • The budget for the Light Rail is set at around $2.47 billion.
7
8 Patrick McDonough presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
9
10 A Partnership for Transit-Supportive Walkable Places
11 • A partnership supporting walkable neighborhoods in anticipation of the Light Rail
12 • Continuing to engage the community to build on prior local planning
13 • Local land use planning led by Chapel Hill & Durham Planning Departments
14 • Durham and Orange County agree to pursue Strategic Economic Development
15 Partnerships
16
17 Station Planning: Steps Ahead- graph
18
19 Distance & Mode Share
20 Transit share decreases with distance
21 • First 600 feet really matters
22 • Office mode share drops about 1% every 100 feet
23 • 1/2 - mile residential share 300% higher than office
24
25 Principles for Walkable Places
26 1. Sustainable density
27 • A neighborhood average of 9 to 25 du/ac + to support LRT
28 • Distance to transit matters
29
30 2. Mix of Uses
31 • Vertical or Horizontal
32 • The Details matter
33 • Limit auto-oriented uses
34 • Housing for everyone
35 • Benefits
36 V More walking / less auto use
37 V Increased transit ridership
38 3. Compact pedestrian- oriented
39 • Block sizes for 5-minute walk
40 • Orient buildings to sidewalks
41 • Active street edges
42
43 4. Active Defined Center
44 • Up to 18 hours of activity with people living in the neighborhood
45 • Compact and more dense
46 • Employment closest to transit
47
48 5. Limited, managed parking
49 • Consider size, location, design, and management
28
1 • No minimum ratios, maximums
2 • Disconnect parking from buildings, manage by district
3
4 6. Public Leadership
5 • Focus on implementation
6 • Nurture progressive developers
7 • Plans + Capital Budgets align
8
9 Ben Hitchings, Chapel Hill Planning Director, presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
10
11 February 2017: Listening, Creating Concepts
12
13 June 2017: Check-In with Town Council
14 Key Questions:
15 • Was early work on the right track?
16 • Would Council support detailed work with advisory boards to move towards zoning
17 concepts?
18
19 July 2017: Market Study Deliverable Complete
20 Assesses Capacity of D-O LRT Corridor*
21 • Office — 10 to 15 million square feet
22 • Retail —3 to 4.5 million square feet
23 • Hotel — 5,100 to 7,800 rooms
24 • Residential —20,400 to 30,700 units
25
26 October 2017: Advisory Board Review
27
28 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan to keep Orange County informed at each of
29 these steps.
30 Bonnie Hammersley said there is a disconnect, and there should be a representative
31 from each funding source at every meeting. She said she will be talking with Jeff Mann
32 tomorrow.
33 Commissioner Rich said that sounds like a good idea.
34 Bonnie Hammersley said that representative will be responsible for keeping the Board
35 informed.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said he would hope that person would be a participant in the
37 meetings, and not just an observer. He said part of the negotiation with Durham was to move
38 the Gateway project further into Orange County, as well as building affordable housing near the
39 stations.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said he thought the consultants would come back to speak to all
41 elected officials in January, who could get some background materials ahead of time.
42 Patrick McDonough said he was unsure how much information to bring this evening, and
43 he is happy to provide more detail. He said it would be beneficial to have the elected officials
44 together in January. He said there is a tentative plan to have a day long summit about Durham
45 Orange Light Rail and station area neighborhood planning on February 6th
46 Commissioner McKee said he is an employee of Summit Engineering, who may be
47 working on this project at some future point. He said he and his division has no connection to
48 this project, but he wants to be clear and offer full disclosure.
49 Commissioner McKee asked to go back to the slide of the Gateway station. He said it
50 would be helpful to see the County line on the map, as it appears that only a sliver of this
29
1 proposed project will be in Orange County. He asked if the County line could be clearly
2 identified.
3 Patrick McDonough pointed out the County line, and discussed some of the details of
4 the area. He said his staff looked at the original station as well as the newly proposed one
5 today. He said within the quarter mile, it was originally 1.1 acres, and under the new location it
6 is 29.4 acres. He said at the half mile radius level, the old station was 107 acres, and the new
7 location is 182 acres.
8 Commissioner McKee asked if the amount of actual developable land in Orange County
9 is known.
10 Patrick McDonough said he would have to get this information, but the key is the
11 intensity with which the developable areas are developed.
12 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to Eastowne Office Park, and how the location of the
13 station will affect it.
14 Patrick McDonough said the consultants have envisioned some type of high quality
15 bicycle and pedestrian connection across from the new station location to Eastowne. He said
16 there is an OWASA pump station, an historic property, and an intermittent stream near the old
17 station location. He said the newer location is favorable.
18 Patrick McDonough resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
19
20 Tentative Timeline
21 January `18 — Draft code distributed for review
22 February —Council Meeting: Review draft and invite Boards
23 March —Joint Boards & Commission meeting to review draft
24 March — Public Information Meeting
25 April —Council Business Meeting
26 April — Planning Commission: Review draft#1
27 April — Planning Commission: Review draft#2
28 May— Council Public Hearing (Part 1)
29 May— Council Public Hearing (Part 2)
30 June —Council Public Hearing (Possible Action)
31
32 Station Planning: Potential County Roles - graph
33 Matthew Clark said he wanted to review GoTriangle's design change approval policy.
34 He said there are two categories: 2 and 1. He said category 2 contains changes like the
35 Gateway Station adjustment, where GoTriangle comes to the BOCC for its feedback. He asked
36 if Board of County Commissioners would submit changes for category 2 via Travis Myren. He
37 said Category 1 changes include addition or deletion of stations, and all entities have to vote for
38 category one changes. He said GoTriangle will return to the BOCC on December 12 for a vote
39 on the additional station at Blackwell and Mangum Streets in Durham.
40 Matthew Clark presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
41
42 Proposed Engineering Updates
43 • The estimated cost of the proposed Gateway station update is $8 million.
44 • The estimated cost of the proposed DPAC station addition is $2.5 million.
45 • The purpose of the Gateway station update is to provide more opportunity for economic
46 development in Orange County.
47 • The purpose of the DPAC station addition is to provide people in Orange and Durham
48 Counties with easy access to the DPAC, Durham Bulls Athletic Park, and other center
49 city destinations.
30
1 • Both Engineering updates are contained within the budget which is set at around $2.47
2 billion
3
4 Commissioner McKee asked if the $2.47 billion budget includes the long-term loans, as
5 he understood the total cost to be over $3 billion.
6 Matthew Clark said that is not correct, and the capital costs of the project are $2.47
7 billion. He said financing costs are not included in the capital costs.
8 Commissioner McKee said citizens are not being presented with an honest portrayal of
9 the total costs of the project.
10 Commissioner Jacobs asked if GoTriangle could provide the BOCC with a report about
11 how GoTriangle has engaged Durham Tech and the Orange County campus on providing jobs.
12 Matthew Clark said he is spearheading a workforce development partnership with
13 Durham Tech and several other partners.
14 Commissioner Jacobs asked if something could be brought in writing to the BOCC on
15 December 12th
16 Matthew Clark said yes.
17 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if transit oriented development will begin before the rail
18 line opens.
19 Patrick McDonough said yes, if GoTriangle is doing its job correctly.
20 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if it is known when transit oriented development will
21 begin.
22 Patrick McDonough said interest will spike when the Federal Government signs the full
23 funding grant agreement, but those communities that have prepared the development
24 ordinance for the areas of desired growth, and have well defined economic and community
25 goals will be engaged in discussion.
26 Ben Hitchings said when considering station area planning, it is the goal to pick
27 locations that are already natural centers, or have this potential. He said Gateway fits this bill,
28 and a new zoning framework may lead to development simply due to the existing advantages of
29 the location. He said the rail investment would only increase the appeal of this location.
30 Chair Dorosin said he heard that the developers of DPAC and American Tobacco are
31 putting money in, and asked if this is accurate. He also asked if the BOCC could receive an
32 update on the community group that planned to raise funds.
33
34 8. Consent Agenda
35 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
36
37 - Items e and f by Commissioner Jacobs.
38 - Item b by Commissioner Price
39
40 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
43 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda - Items a, c, d, and g.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
48
49 The Board discussed items e and f at the same time:
50
31
1 e. Resolution of Approval —Conservation Easement for Center Stream Farm
2 Addition; and Approval of Budget Amendment #3-A
3 The Board considered approving a resolution for the purchase of and acceptance by
4 Orange County of an agricultural conservation easement for the Center Stream Farm addition,
5 authorize the Chair to sign and approve Budget Amendment#3-A.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said he wanted to pull this item to salute to their commitment to
7 agricultural conservation easements.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
10 approve a resolution for the purchase of and acceptance by Orange County of an agricultural
11 conservation easement for the Center Stream Farm addition, authorize the Chair to sign and
12 approve Budget Amendment#3-A.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 f. Establishing a County Government Academy for Orange County Residents
17 The Board will consider approving the development of a County Government Academy
18 (CGA) as a series of classes held each spring and fall to educate residents about the many
19 services and responsibilities of Orange County Government and thereby benefit Orange County
20 by creating a pool of informed residents who would be more likely to serve on one of the many
21 Orange County volunteer boards and advisory committees.
22
23 Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Price both wanted to pull this item to
24 acknowledge this proposed academy. Commissioner Jacobs said the County used to have a
25 "County Day" in which students would come in and shadow department heads, hold mock
26 board meetings, etc. in order to learn how local government works. He said he would
27 encourage getting students involved again.
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
30 approve the development of a County Government Academy (CGA) as a series of classes held
31 each spring and fall to educate residents about the many services and responsibilities of
32 Orange County Government and thereby benefit Orange County by creating a pool of informed
33 residents who would be more likely to serve on one of the many Orange County volunteer
34 boards and advisory committees.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 b. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Amendment#3
39 The Board considered approving budget and school capital project ordinance
40 amendments for fiscal year 2017-18.
41
42 Commissioner Price said she had questions about the Food Council budget
43 amendment.
44 Bonnie Hammersley said the Food Council was going to make a presentation at the
45 Assemblies of Government (AOG) meeting, requesting to mirror the model of the Partnership to
46 End Homelessness, but the meeting was cancelled. She said these are monies to carry the
47 Food Council over to the end of the fiscal year and give them the opportunity to make their case
48 to the BOCC during the budget process.
49
32
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
2 approve the budget and school capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2017-18.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 a. Minutes
7 The Board approved the minutes from November 2 and 9, 2017 as submitted by the Clerk
8 to the Board.
9 b. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Amendment#3
10 The Board approved budget and school capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal
11 year 2017-18 to Department on Aging; Department of Social Services; Visitors Bureau;
12 Orange Public Transportation; School Capital Project Ordinances — Orange County
13 Schools; and Outside Agency—Orange County Food Council.
14 c. Marketing Communications Management Agreement with FleishmanHillard
15 The Board approved a professional services agreement for tourism marketing and
16 advertising with FleishmanHillard.
17 d. Termination of Lease and Joint Use Agreement with Orange County Schools
18 The Board approved the termination of a Lease and Joint Use Agreement with the Orange
19 County Board of Education for the use of tennis courts at Orange High School. This action
20 is designed to simplify the public usage of the courts, removing a reservation process that
21 has become unwieldy, and is based on mutual agreement with the Orange County Schools.
22 e. Resolution of Approval —Conservation Easement for Center Stream Farm Addition;
23 and Approval of Budget Amendment#3-A
24 The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, for the purchase of
25 and acceptance by Orange County of an agricultural conservation easement for the Center
26 Stream Farm addition, authorize the Chair to sign and approve Budget Amendment#3-A.
27 f. Establishing a County Government Academy for Orange County Residents
28 The Board approved the development of a County Government Academy (CGA) as a series
29 of classes held each spring and fall to educate residents about the many services and
30 responsibilities of Orange County Government and thereby benefit Orange County by
31 creating a pool of informed residents who would be more likely to serve on one of the many
32 Orange County volunteer boards and advisory committees.
33 g. Approval of NACo Rural Impact Community Challenge Resolution
34 The Board approved a NACo Rural Impact Community Challenge resolution in a national
35 effort to combat rural child poverty and authorize the Chair to sign.
36
37 9. County Manager's Report
38 NONE
39
40 10. County Attorney's Report
41 NONE
42
43 11. *Appointments
44 NONE
45
46 12. Information Items
47
48 • November 2, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
49 • Transmittal of the FY 2018-19 Human Services Funding Application
50 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
33
1
2 13. Closed Session
3 NONE
4
5 14. Adjournment
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
8 adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 Mark Dorosin, Chair
13
14
15 Donna Baker
16 Clerk to the Board
17