HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-03-2004-5a ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 3, 2004
Action Agenda
Item No. .cz.
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT (S): Under Separate Cover INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, ext 2130
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 245-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
September 29, 2004 Assembly of Governments Meeting
October 7, 2004 BOCC Work Session
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.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION (S): Approve minutes as presented or as amended.
I
1 DRAFT MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
4 SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
5 7:30 p.m.
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session for an Assembly of
8 Governments meeting on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., at the Southern
9 Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
10
I I COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses
12 Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, and Stephen Halkiotis
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Margaret Brown
14 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Assistant County Managers
16 Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S, Baker (All other staff members
17 will be identified appropriately below)
18 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin C. Foy and
19 Members Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Jim Ward, and Bill Strom,
20 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Sally Greene, Dorothy Verkerk
21 and Edith Wiggins
22 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Alex Zaffron,
23 and Members Joal Hall Broun, Jacquelyn Gist, and Diana McDuffee
24 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Mike Nelson and
25 Members Mark Chilton and John Herrerra
26 HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
27 HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mayor Joe Phelps and Members
28 Michael Gering, Eric Hallman, Evelyn Lloyd, Frances Dancey, and Brian Lowen
29
.30
31 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
32 PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
33
34
35 Chair Jacobs said they need to find ways to improve turnout of elected officials at these joint
36 meetings.
37
38
39 1. Briefing on Downtown Economic Development Initiative (Town of Chapel Hill)
40
41 Mayor Foy said that as of July 1, 2004 the Downtown Chapel Hill Economic Development
42 Corporation has taken its office. In the last few years, the Town of Chapel Hill has looked at
43 how the downtown area is doing and how it can continue to be interesting. He thought it would
44 be helpful for the other jurisdictions to hear the ideas.
45
46 Chapel Hill Town Manager Cal Horton said that Nick Didow is the new interim Executive
47 Director of the Chapel Hill Downtown Economic Development Commission, He will be making a
48 presentation. Chris Berndt will describe the Economic Development initiative that the Council
49 has undertaken, that could lead to the development of parking lots two and five. He said that,
50 contrary to the headlines in the News and Observer today, it is not fast-tracked, but it is
51 following the normal pace.
2
1
2 Nick Didow made reference to the one-page handout, which was an overview of the
3 corporation. The mission is "to bring the resources of the Town, University, and downtown
4 community together to maintain, enhance, and promote downtown as the social, cultural, and
5 spiritual center of Chapel Hill through economic development," The corporation is governed by
6 seven board members. The Town of Chapel Hill appointees are Robert Epting, Allen Fine, Tom
7 Tucker, and Andrea Rohrbacher, The University of North Carolina appointees are Vice
8 Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield and Trustee Roger Perry. This group chose a seventh board
9 appointee, which is Betty Kenan. Nick Didow said that he was selected as the Interim Executive
10 Director in mid-August. He will help get the corporation going and help in the search process for
11 a permanent Executive Director.
12
13 Nick Didow made the following points:
14
15 - The board meets the second and fourth Wednesday morning of each month from 7:30—
16 9:00 a.m.
17 - The funding is two-thirds from the Town of Chapel Hill and one-third from UNC.
18 - They have to work collaboratively with other local, county, regional, and state economic
19 development groups and downtown Chapel Hill stakeholders,
20 - CHDEDC is a private 501(c) 3 corporation that has chosen to operate in accordance
21 with the North Carolina Open Meetings Law.
22 - Major current CHDEDC activities include:
23 o Managing the transition of critical downtown services and activities with
24 assistance from several partner organizations;
25 o Start-up matters including filing for 501(c) 3 federal designation, opening a
26 CHDEDC corporate office in downtown, establishing telecommunications and
27 Internet support services, bank accounts, etc,;
28 o Board discussion of CHDEDC goals, short term objectives, long term objectives
29 and downtown economic development strategies;
30 o Review recent recommendations for improving downtown;
31 o Briefings on UNC, Town, and private economic development projects at various
32 stages of planning and implementation that will significantly impact downtown;
33 o Establishing a positive board culture in process and conduct to be an effective
34 organization and change agent for downtown Chapel Hill; and
35 o Development of an Executive Director job description and strategy to recruit a
36 permanent, full-time Executive Director.
37
38 The office of the CHDEDC will be 308 West Rosemary Street, Suite 202. The next meeting is
39 Wednesday, October 13th, at the Chapel Hill Museum — Public Meeting Room starting at 7:30
40 a.m, He invited everyone to attend.
41
42 Jacqueline Gist said that they were glad to have Nick Didow in this role. She said that Carrboro
43 was undergoing their own second renaissance in Carrboro, and one of the biggest things is the
44 renovation of the ArtsCenter/Cat's Cradle property. She said that even though they are very
45 distinct political entities, they are one community and their downtowns flow into each other. She
46 suggested that they have a meeting twice a year with the CHDEDC and the complementary
47 counterparts in Carrboro.
48
49 Nick Didow said that he would pass this suggestion along to his board. He agreed that
50 cooperation was a good idea,
51
3
1 Chris Berndt made a PowerPoint presentation about the Downtown Economic Development
2 Initiative. She said that this project started when they began their downtown small area plan in
3 1997.
4
5 Background
6
7 - Downtown Small Area Plan, adopted in March 2000 — Lots 2 and 5: "Development
8 Opportunity Areas'
9 - Comprehensive Plan, adopted May 2000, includes strategies related to downtown and
10 nearby neighborhoods
11 - Downtown Design Workshops, February— March 2002 — public developed concepts for
12 Lots 2 and 5 and other downtown sites
13 - Council Committee on Lot's 2 and 5, formed June 2002 to consider how to proceed with
14 development of sites
15 - Council adopted principles and priorities for sites, February 2003
16 - Contract with Stainback Public-Private Real Estate, November 2003
17
18 P_roiect— Key Steps
19
20 - Project kick-off event at Old Post Office, November 2003
21 - Market Demand Study completed in Spring 2004 by Economics Research Associates
22 - Conceptual master plans for Lots 2 and 5, RBC site, and Wallace Parking Deck
23 developed by HKS, Inc. May-June 2004
24 - Council adopted building program for sites, June 2004
25 - Draft financial feasibility analysis— public forums on September 14 and 27, 2004
26
27 Next Steps
28
29 - Council seeking comment from the Downtown Commission, Chapel Hill Downtown
30 Economic Development Commission
31 - Council to consider proceeding with developer solicitation and selection phase, October
32 27, 2004
33 - Meetings with downtown merchants, neighborhoods, and UNC
34
35 Regarding the building program, there will be retail, a substantial residential component, as well
36 as replacement parking and additional parking. She showed pictures of the conceptual plans.
37
38 For Lot 2, the vision is to have an underground transit transfer system, which could replace the
39 buses stopping on the side of the street.
40
41 Diana McDuffie asked about the transit transfer center and if they are envisioning a developer to
42 build this and if it would be built with public funds. She asked if it would have a lot of impact on
43 how the bus service is delivered. Chris Berndt said that the idea originated with the Chapel Hill
44 Transit Board. This is at a very preliminary stage. The idea would be to look for federal sources
45 of funding.
46
47 Diana McDuffie said that they want to be involved early on in the discussions of funding.
48 Mayor Foy said that there might not be a possibility for a transit center there, but they would like
49 to at least propose it if it were feasible.
50
4
1 Joal Hall Broun said that they understand this but they want to know the financial implications
2 for their taxpayers and that all partners have time to review this if public money is used.
3
4 Commissioner Carey asked about how the RBC site figures into this. Chris Berndt said that this
5 is privately owned property and could possibly be used for a parking facility to serve Lot 2 and
6 the Wallace Deck area. Their consultants are looking at this but nothing has been finalized..
7
8 Commissioner Gordon asked about pedestrian walkways and Lot 5, Chris Berndt said that this
9 could be shown as more pedestrian friendly, but still be a thru-street,
10
11 Alex Zaffron asked if looking at TTA phase 2 was too far into the future for planning in this
12 context and Cal Horton said yes,
13
14 Alex Zaffron asked if there was a rough figure for total square footage yield and Chris Berndt
15 said 380,000 square feet of residential,
16
17 2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory and Action Plan (Orange County ERCD and
18 Towns)
19
20 Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that a year ago, they came
21 before the Assembly of Governments and were charged with developing a scope of work and
22 an RFQ for pursuing a joint Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Action Plan. He said
23 that the origin of this goes back to 2002 when each of the local jurisdictions joined ICLEI
24 (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives).. ICLEI is an international consortium
25 of 400-500 local governments that are interested in taking steps to affect climate change and to
26 reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are 66 different North American members of this.
27 Most of the members are in Europe and Asia.
28
29 He made reference to the handout entitled, 10 Things Local Governments Can Do to Cut
30 Global Warming Pollution" and encouraged everyone to read this,
31
32 He said that in April of this year, the designation of the Triangle region as non-attainment for
33 ground level ozone has gotten a great deal of attention and there have been local and state
34 efforts to begin addressing this non-compliance. Also, the jurisdictions have taken steps to use
35 alternative fueled vehicles within their fleets. Orange County will be attempting to co-locate with
36 Orange County Schools a new compressed natural gas fueling station over the next year.
37
38 Another issue, which has not been a big issue in the Triangle, but has in the Triad area, is
39 particulate matter, which is particulate that is emitted from smokestacks, fossil fuel burning,
40 vehicles, and power plants. The Triangle area does not appear to be non-compliant in this area.
41
42 As a part of ICLEI, each jurisdiction is asked to complete this inventory and action plan. In
43 2003, the staffs in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County noted that it might make sense to
44 do a joint plan. Since last year, they have developed a Request for Qualifications. The
45 submittal from the possible consultant is included in the agenda packet. The workgroup was
46 unanimous in recommending ICLEI Energy Services from Toronto. The estimated cost of the
47 project is about $40,000-45,000. A grant from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
48 Planning Organization would fund 80% of the transportation related cost for this project
49 (approximately $8,000). If the formula that has been used in the past with joint projects is used,
50 which is a 43-43-14 split, the cost for Chapel Hill and Orange County will be about $15,000 and
51 the cost for Carrboro will be about$5,000. The funding has already been set aside in Orange
5
1 County. The duration of the project would be about four months. An Air Quality Advisory Group
2 would be formed.
3
4 No action is needed at this time,
5
6 Diana MCDuffie said that she went to an ICLEI conference several years ago and she came
7 back very enthusiastic about this. She said that she is interested in how long it will be before
8 they do the energy audit so that they can start the community engagement and make a
9 difference.
10
11 Dave Stancil said that they have heard that it will take four months. Diana McDuffie urged that
12 this be moved ahead.
1.3
14 Alex Zaffron said that the MPO needs to work off the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan
15 instead of the 2025 LRTP, The 2030 LRTP was just approved today and will be sent to the EPA
16 Air Quality Conformity Analysis.
17
18 Chair Jacobs asked Dave Stancil about anticipating the consultants to direct the County toward
19 future funding sources. Dave Stancil said that they would include this.
20
21
22 3. Morgan & Little Creeks Local Watershed Planning Initiative (North Carolina
23 Department of Environment& Natural Resources - Ecosystem Enhancement
24 Program/Orange County Planning and ERCD)
25
26 Dave Stancil said that there has been an effort underway to look at the possibility of watershed
27 planning, particularly stream restoration work and storm water management.
28
29 Bonnie Duncan, Planning Supervisor from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
30 Natural Resources, made the PowerPoint presentation. The program goals are to restore,
31 enhance, and protect watershed functions.
32
33 Drivers for Local Watershed Planning
34
35 - Stream and wetland mitigation — NCDOT and USACE
36 - Storm water management— NPDES (Phase 11)
37 - Impaired streams list— Section 303(d)
38 - Nutrient Management—Jordan Lake Strategy
39
40 Study Area — Subwatersheds
41
42 Morgan Creek
43 o Orange County
44 o Chapel Hill
45 o Carrboro
46 o Chatham County
47
48 Little Creek
49 o (Bolin and Booker Creeks)
50 o Orange County
51 o Chapel Hill
6
1 o Carrboro
2 o Durham
3
4 Participants in Planning Process
5
6 - Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham
7 - UNC at Chapel Hill
8 - OWASA
9 - Triangle Land Conservancy
10 - Morgan Creek Valley Alliance
11 - Friends of Bolin Creek
12 - NC Wildlife Commission
13 - US Fish and Wildlife Service
14 - US Natural Resources Conservation Service
15 - Triangle J Council of Governments
16
17 Improve and Project Watershed Functions
18
19 Accomplishing this goal involves:
20 - addressing eutrophication in lakes
21 - in-stream water quality conditions
22 - modification of floodplain hydrology
23 - headwater stream stability and sediment loading
24 - aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat
25
26 Three Phases of Assessment
27
28 Preliminary Findings
29 Detailed Assessment
30 Targeting of Management
31
32 Preliminary_ Findings
33
34 - erosion and sediment in streams
35 - impaired water quality/toxicity
36 - degraded aquatic and terrestrial habitat
37 - Jordan Lake nutrient loads and TMDL
38
39 Potential Sources:
40
41 - Urbanization
42 o Imperviousness
43 o Disturbed buffer
44 o Floodplain encroachment
45 o Leaking sewer/septic
46 - Agriculture
47 o Disturbed cover
48 o Livestock access
49
50
51
7
1 Detailed Technical Assessment (potential sources, stressors, and strategies)
2
3 Quantify Magnitude of Impacts:
4
5 - Predicted impact from various stressors using:
6 o Empirical models
7 o GIS analyses
8 o Statistical analyses
9 - Predicted nitrogen and phosphorus loads to Jordan Lake
10 - Modeled other stressors, including:
11 o Sediment loading
12 o Stream erosion and instability
13 o Imperviousness
14 o Buffer disturbance
15
16 Targeting of Management (specific watershed recommendations)
17
18 Potential Strategies:
19
20 - Stream restoration
21 - Storm water management
22 - Best management practice retrofits
23 - Conservation of undeveloped land
24 - Low density/low impact development
25 - Further monitoring and analysis
26
27 Tanaible End Results
28
29 - 25 BMP sites identified
30 o treat 600 acres of priority subwatersheds
31 - 11 stream restoration projects
32 o 28,000 linear feet of restored stream
33 - 137 priority preservation parcels
34 o over 600 acres of high quality riparian habitat targeted for preservation efforts
35
36 EEP Implementation
37
38 - Stream restoration and enhancement
39 o Mason Farm —floodplain restoration
40 o Chapel Creek
41 - Best Management Practices (BMPs)
42 o Best if in conjunction with restoration
43 - Preservation
44 o Easements required for all projects
45 o Acquisition or donation
46
47 Implementation Partnerships
48
49 - EEP will work with landowners to seek additional funding for projects:
50 o EPA Section 319 base or incremental
51 o Clean Water Management Trust Fund
8
1 o Natural Resources Conservation Service
2 • CRP, EQIP, WRP, FIP, WHIP
3 o US Fish and Wildlife Service
4
5 High Priories Actions for All Jurisdictions
6
7 - Apply for individual permit under NPDES Phase 11 to allow for more stringent protections
8 than State minimums
9 - Revise development ordinances to remove barriers to low impact development and
10 facilitate its use
11 - Stay ahead of the curve!
12
13 Contact Information:
14
15 Bonnie Duncan, NC EEP
16 919-715-5315 bonnie.duncan(a)ncmail.net
17
18 Deborah Amaral, Ph. D., NC EEP
19 919-715-3466 deborah amarah _ncmail.net
20
21 Jason C. Doll, Stantec, Inc.
22 919-851-6866 idol l(astantec.com
23
24 Download Information:
25
26 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/plans/MLC&KPC/MLCHome.htm
27 —
28 - Morgan and Little Creeks Local Watershed Plan Summary
29 - Preliminary Findings Report
30 - Detailed Technical Assessment
31 o Report
32 o Water Quality Monitoring Addendum
33 - Target of Management Report
34
35
36 Ed Harrison said that he went to a lot of the meetings and he had never seen the slide with the
37 tangible end results. He urged that these be sent to the local governments quickly because
38 they need help prioritizing the money to spend. These are also suited for Clean Water
39 Management Trust Fund applications,
40
41 Deborah Amaral said that they are delivering a full copy of the detailed assessment to each
42 government..
43
44 Commissioner Gordon asked about the funding possibilities, Bonnie Duncan said that their
45 funding comes from compensatory mitigation payments. They have a memorandum of
46 agreement with DOT to work proactively to develop these plans. They also operate an in-lieu
47 fee program, and they handle all of DOT's off-site mitigation needs. Any other funding comes
48 from the local governments.
49
50 Jason Doll said that he has been doing these assessments with the EEP for four years, and the
51 funding sources are the easy part. The hard part is landowner willingness to participate.
9
1 4. Identification of School Site Locations with Towns (Orange County Planning and
2 Towns)
3
4 Planning Director Craig Benedict said that he was speaking on behalf of a staff group made up
5 of representatives from both school districts and the Towns of Hillsborough, Carrboro, and
6 Chapel Hill, He said that they have not identified any new school sites in the towns, but they are
7 talking about the process.
8
9
10 Presented By: Craig Benedict, AICP, Orange County Planning Director, on behalf of the Smart
11 School Siting Staff Workgroup
12
13 Smart Growth and School Siting
14 ■ Informal "Smart Growth and Schools" staff workgroup started this year
15 ■ AOG discussion in 2003 and 2004
16 ■ Planning Directors of Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carboro, and Hillsborough
17 ■ Superintendent of Orange County Schools
18 ■ Representative of the Chapel Hill —Carrboro City Schools Superintendent's office
19
20 Smart Growth and School Siting
21 ■ Formalizing a process for new school site selection
22 ■ Better integrate land use issues and school siting with the principles of"Smart Growth,"
23 ■ Consider revisions to Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects adopted on
24 11121/00
25 • Provisions for donated sites
26
27 (see next page for conclusion of presentation)
28
10
1 Draft of Process
2 (Current Under Development)
3 1. Determine Need for Additional School(s)
4 ■ Annual Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee
5 (SAPFOTAC) Report
6 ■ Statistical methods used to project student enrollment out 10 years and identify future
7 needs
8 ■ Report is forwarded to Towns for information purposes, County, and School Districts for
9 CIP (Capital Investment Plan) planning
10
11 2. Technical Group Meets
12 ■ Determines general geographic location in which new school or schools need to be
13 located using information about:
14 • potential high growth areas
15 • high over capacity situations
16 • interest in reducing bus/student/parent vehicle miles using Smart Growth Principles
17 • opportunity for land banking
18
19 3. Smart Growth Principles
20 ❑ Location of Urban Service Boundaries
21 ❑Sufficient infrastructure (water, sewer, roads) availability?
22 ❑ Land Use Compatibility
23 ❑ Presence of environmentally sensitive resources?
24 ❑ Co-location and/or Mixed Use opportunities?
25 ❑Walkable/Pedestrian-Bike Friendly?
26 ❑Transportation considerations
27 ❑ Community participation in siting process (general area)
28 ❑ Sharing Academic Resources
29 ❑ "Green" Buildings
30 ❑Value Engineering
31
32 4. Practical Siting Considerations
3.3 ■ Where is sufficient contiguous undeveloped acreage available in geographic area under
34 consideration?
35 ■ Use GIS technology to determine potential sites
36
37 5. School District Meets with Towns and County
38 ■ Discuss feasibility/location
39 ■ Discuss co-location opportunities
40 ■ Possible ad hoc committee review
41 ■ BOCC liaison
42 ■ Coordination and Communication
43
44 6. Procurement of the property designated for the new school
45
46
47 Z- Growth Design Considerations
48 ■ Site Principles
49 • Environmental considerations
50 • Public Transit considerations
11
1 • Walkable Community concepts (pedestrian and bike)
2 • Co-location considerations
3 ■ School Building Standards
4 • Energy and water conservation
5 • Access to site (ingress/egress)
6 • Public access to buildings and athletic facilities
7
8 Smart Growth and School Siting
9 Informal Staff workgroup is expected to conclude work on the draft process by the end of 2004
10
11 (end of"Smart Growth and School Siting" materials)
12
13 Update on Comprehensive Plan
14 Land Use Element and TDR Activities
15
16 Land Use Element:
17 ®:Report on Public Outreach Process' - online atwww.co.orange.nc us/planning
18 ■ Emphasis - watersheds, air quality/less VMT, farm economy, and urban/rural
19 ■ Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Urban Transition Area Task Force
20 ■ Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan
21 ■ Next steps
22
23 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR):
24 ■ Request For Qualifications (RFQ)/consultant
25 ■ Timeline
26 ■ Sending and receiving areas
27 ■ Intra-county vs, multi jurisdictional
28 ■ Phase I — Feasibility_
29 • Legal
30 • Economics
31 • Political
32 • Financial
33 • Administrative
34 ■ Phase II — Implementation Process
35
36
37 Chair Jacobs asked about the timeframe and Craig Benedict said that within a month, there
38 would be a report to the Board of County Commissioners.
39
40 Chair Jacobs recognized that there were five school board members present from both school
41 systems, as well as Orange County Schools Superintendent Shirley Carraway and Chapel Hill-
42 Carrboro City School Assistant Superintendent Steve Scroggs. The board members included
43 OCS Chair Libbie Hough, Vice Chair Brenda Stephens, CHCCS Vice Chair Lisa Stuckey, and
44 Board Members Valerie Foushee and Nick Didow.
45
46 Joel Hall Braun said that they know the siting of schools encourages growth around those
47 schools. The issue is where to site these schools in terms of providing growth where it is more
48 appropriate. Secondly, because of the early integration of schools, the lack of schools in
49 historically African American neighborhoods is something they need to think about. When
50 thinking about siting another school in the southern part of Orange County, they may need to
51 think about siting it near or around Rogers Road. Thirdly, she said that they always think about
12
1 building new schools and they need to ask themselves if it is a possibility to add on or create
2 some type of different construction with the present schools. Other thing to consider is
3 retrofitting the Lincoln Center and other smaller schools because of the trend toward smaller
4 class sizes.
5
6 Chair Jacobs said that the Department of Public Instruction recommended acreages that are not
7 functional for urbanized areas. He said that Raleigh just received a smart growth award for a
8 middle school that is located on four acres in downtown Raleigh. He thinks the school boards
9 should have more participation and be more creative in the construction standards. He pointed
10 out that South Carolina just abandoned its acreage standards.
11
12 Jim Ward asked how the group dealt with the acreage issue. Craig Benedict said that with the
13 urban sites, they knew it would be more difficult to find acreage. Recommendations will be
14 coming forward on acreage needs more on a case-by-case basis. There is some land banking
15 opportunities,
16
17 Joal Hall Broun left at 9:15 p.m,
18
19 Craig Benedict said that they acknowledge that there will have to be urban settings, where
20 acreage will have to be changed, and suburban settings but not sprawl settings, where they
21 should be as conscious as possible of efficiently using whatever lands are available,
22
23 Commissioner Gordon said that there needs to be a formal statement of smart growth principles
24 that everyone agrees upon. She thinks there can be smart growth principles in rural, urban, and
25 suburban settings. She said that the idea of land banking was not new, and the county has had
26 a School Park Reserve Fund for several years. The idea was to set aside one cent a year for
27 land purchases for school and co-located park sites, This fund was spent down and currently
28 no more money is being added. She said that the County needs to work with the school
29 systems on school siting because statutory responsibility for siting schools still resides with the
30 school boards.
31
32 Ed Harrison, Jacquelyn Gist, Alex Zaffron and Cam Hill left at 9:20 p.m.
33
34 5. Update on Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Transfer of
35 Development Rights Activities (Orange County Planning)
36
37 Craig Benedict said that there were public outreach activities in March, April, and May of this
38 year, where the staff went to the various townships and made presentations about the
39 comprehensive plan update. The main emphasis of the work has to do with watershed
40 protection.
41
42 Regarding air quality, the pattern of development happening in rural parts of the County is
43 somewhat of a sprawl pattern and there are a lot of vehicle miles traveled. Some suggestions
44 involve a reduction in the build out population of the rural areas of the County,
45
46 Another issue is to look at the Hillsborough general area. There are areas outside of
47 Hillsborough that could be serviced by water and sewer that are under Orange County's
48 jurisdiction, These could be urban transition areas. A task force has been formed to talk about
49 the potential for this. There is also a task force for a small area plan in Efland.
50
13
1 The next step will be meeting with the Board of County Commissioners next week to discuss
2 some of the recommendations from the outreach. There may be opportunity next year to meet
3 with the joint planning area partners to talk about the rural buffer.
4
5 Regarding the Transfer of Development Rights issue, this is a renewed effort and the Board of
6 County Commissioners has authorized staff to hire a consultant to do a feasibility study on
7 whether Transfer of Development Rights can work in the County. Development rights would be
8 transferred from farming, rural, or environmentally sensitive areas to urban areas that have
9 adequate public services.
10
11 Commissioner Gordon said that as the comprehensive plan goes forward, the philosophy
12 behind it is to keep the rural areas rural and that the growth will be absorbed in the existing
13 municipal or transition areas. This theme would be echoed with the transfer of development
14 rights.
15
16 Bill Strom asked about testing the performance of the rural buffer and if there were
17 recommendations. Craig Benedict said that the staff recommendation is that the University
18 Lake part of the rural buffer has appropriate zoning at this time. The northern section of the
19 rural buffer does not have the same water quality issues. They are suggesting a three-acre
20 density, which is a two-acre minimum lot size plus one acre of open space.
21
22 Chair Jacobs made reference to the northern rural buffer and said that on October 14t , Duke is
23 going to designate more than 1,000 acres of Duke Forest as permanently part of the state's
24 Natural Heritage Program. This is a start to permanently anchoring the rural buffer.
25
26 Chair Jacobs said that on October 4t' at 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., there would be two open
27 houses to talk about the Twin Creeks Park possibilities. The meetings will be at the Homestead
28 Center. He invited everyone to attend.
29
30
31 6. Potential Reports (limited or no presentations)
32
33 a. Unfunded Mandates (Orange County)
34
35 Chair Jacobs made reference to the list of unfunded mandates, which is more than $600,000.
36 This is a loss of two-thirds of a cent in County tax monies. This does not include class size
37 reduction.
38
39 b. School Resource Officers (Orange County)
40
41 DEFERRED
42
43 c. Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project (Orange County)
44
45 DEFERRED
46
47 The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
48
49 Barry Jacobs, Chair
50
51 Donna S. Baker
14
1 Clerk to the Board
I
1 DRAFT MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT WORK SESSION
4 OCTOBER 7, 2004
5 7:30 p.m.
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Thursday,
8 October 7, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill,
9 North Carolina,
10
I I COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners
12 Margaret Brown and Alice M, Gordon
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stephen Halkiotis and Moses Carey, Jr.
14 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill, Sean Borhanian
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. and Deputy Clerk
16 to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
17
18
19 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
20 PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
21
22 Chair Jacobs said that Commissioner Carey was unable to attend because of a family
23 emergency and Commissioner Halkiotis was out of town.
24
25 1. Reconfirmation of BOCC Goals — priorities anchoring the Land Use
26 Element Update
27
28 Craig Benedict said that this meeting was based on an August 23`d joint meeting
29 with the Planning Board about the progress of outreach with the Land Use Plan
30 Element Update. He would like to discuss what was learned through the public
31 outreach and how to achieve some of the goals. He briefly went over the
32 agenda.
33
34 He introduced the Planning Board members in attendance: Sam Lasris,
35 Craufurd Goodwin, Brian Dobbins, and Renee Price.
36
37 He made reference to pages 15 and 16, which is the list of BOCC adopted goals.
38 Part of the land use plan will be addressing some of these goals. Some of these
39 goals include growth and development impacts analysis, natural resources, rural
40 character, sustainability, transfer of development rights, water resource quantity
41 and quality, and watershed protection.
42
43 He explained a land use plan, which is a development pattern to guide growth.
44 He showed a map with designations for rural, municipal and extraterritorial
45 jurisdictions, and urban areas. The purpose of the plan is to define what rural
46 development and urban development will look like in the designated areas.
47
48
2
1 2. Land Use Element Update Initiatives/Sustainability
2 a. Urban-rural boundaries and Rural Activity Nodes
3
4 This information is on the blue handout.
5
6 Craig Benedict said that in 2003 a growth management strategy was put
7 together. The rural areas are to promote lower intensity development, to protect
8 farmland, and preserve water and environmental resources. The urban areas
9 are to have an intensity threshold to promote mass transit and a healthy
10 economic environment (jobs and services).
1l b. Watershed protection — surface water and groundwater
12
13 Craig Benedict said that being able to lower density in certain areas to protect the
14 quality of surface water is very important. The groundwater level also needs to
15 be protected. Lowering density can protect this as well as low-impact design.
16 This is a way to keep the water on-site as long as possible through retention
17 areas and peak flow management. Orange County is fortunate to have
18 headwater resources, in that there are no rivers that flow from one side of the
19 County through to the other side; they all start in Orange County.
20
21 c. Air quality
22 d. Open space/minimum lot size
23 e. Economics and equity
24
25 Craig Benedict said that the majority of the air pollution in the County comes as a
26 result of vehicle miles traveled. It is not an industrial area. Putting development
27 where there are opportunities for mass transit and reducing development farther
28 away from transit corridors will help reduce the amount of traffic from
29 development. Craig Benedict showed a chart comparing growth scenarios. He
30 also pointed out the densities in different areas of the County on a map,
31
32 Craig Benedict said that if the County moves toward a one unit per three-acre
33 density in these areas, it is not lowering the density as much as the Upper Neuse
34 River Basin technical report said. The staff suggests lowering the density to one
35 unit per three acres and having low-impact design standards to manage the peak
36 flow, which would reduce phosphorous and nitrogen release from development
37 sites, This could probably achieve the same water quality goals as lowering
38 density to one unit per five acres.
39
40 Commissioner Brown asked why they would not just lower the density to one unit
41 per five acres and why they would diminish the recommendations from the
42 Neuse River. She said that, as time goes on, people do things to their property,
43 which would mean that the low-impact efforts would be lost to some degree.
44 Craig Benedict said that the sedimentation and erosion control division in his
45 department has been focused on construction and monitoring sediment. More
3
1 recently, they have been looking at water quality issues. He thinks there has to
2 be a move to being more oriented toward storm water management.
3
4 Chair Jacobs asked about calculations on average lot size, excluding ten-acre
5 lots. Craig Benedict said that lot sizes are averaging 2.5 acres. The soils in
6 portions of the County are not good for septic systems, which is why those areas
7 are less dense.
8
9 Commissioner Brown made reference to the original goals and the idea of air
10 quality, traffic, groundwater, watershed protection and the cost of supplying
11 services. She said that on the other side, we are taking the Neuse River and not
12 using the State's highest recommendations, but using this mixture. She said that
13 these recommendations are probably the absolute minimum for watershed
14 protection. She asked if both could be done. She said that it seemed that the
15 staff was using the comments from the public meetings to make the
16 determination to modify these goals. She does not think there is a balance
17 because there are too many people in the County that want protection. She
18 thinks this is a very significant modification from the comments of these very
19 small groups of people.
20
21 John Link said that he encouraged Craig Benedict to provide the options and it is
22 not entirely based on the public meetings.
23
24 Commissioner Brown said that many of the people that attend the meetings have
25 no understanding of what the issues are. The public education piece is very
26 important. She said that a few people in the County (developers and a few
27 property owners) are very opposed to zoning or land use planning, and they tend
28 to drum up some very erroneous understandings about how this might impact
29 them, and they are the ones that come to the meetings. She will stand for the
30 people in the County that are very concerned about the water quality. Many of
31 these people will never come to public meetings.
32
33 Commissioner Gordon said that she does not think that the Board ever confirmed
34 the goals. She also could not figure out which set of goals in the packet the
35 Commissioners were to supposed to reconfirm. She asked for more clarity and
36 thoroughness. She would like to see the goals and the objectives of the goals
37 written out in full sentences. She would like to see a document that states all of
38 the goals, including the ones from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee
39 (CPLUC). If goals have been deleted, she would like to know why. She made
40 reference to page nine and suggested saying "water resources protection" rather
41 than "watershed protection", because watershed does not bring up the issue of
42 groundwater. She asked that a list of all the goals and an explanation of any
43 deletions be prepared by staff and brought back to the Commissioners for
44 approval. She said that she is not ready to go forward with this.
45
4
i Commissioner Brown said that she thought the public comment and going on the
2 road had already taken place and recommendations were coming back to the
3 County Commissioners. She asked about the process.
4
5 Commissioner Gordon said that she meant proceeding forward to public hearing.
6 She thinks the statement of the goals needs to be more systematic.
7
8 Chair Jacobs said that the Board should determine if this is ready for public
9 hearing.
10
1l Commissioner Brown said that the affordable housing issue came up in the
12 public meetings, and she thinks it needs to be understood that there is an
13 affordable housing program in the County. The understanding is that the higher
14 the density, the more affordable the housing will be, and this is an erroneous
15 notion. She thinks they should go back to the original goals, which would steady
16 and balance what the new land use plan is trying to accomplish.
17
18 Discussion ensued on affordable housing.
19
20 Chair Jacobs said that part of what was heard at the public meetings was that
21 people were afraid they were getting priced out of Orange County because of the
22 cost of land and housing. The Board can clarify how it is addressing the issue of
23 affordable housing.
24
25 Craig Benedict said that he would take the Board's comments and try to weave a
26 matrix. He asked the Board for the top five guiding principles.
27
28 Commissioner Gordon stated again that she could not find in the agenda packet
29 a definitive list of goals to be reconfirmed. She is also concerned that it is not
30 clear what the principles are. Since the Board did not get this information in a
31 timely manner, she does not want to figure this out this evening. She asked the
32 staff to get the information together, including goals from the CPLUC, and give
33 the Board time to review it.
34
35 Commissioner Brown made reference to page 21 and said that it could be easily
36 narrowed down to six. She said that one and six were virtually the same. She
37 said that 2, 3, and 13 could be put in the same goal. Several others can be
38 combined to make only six goals.
39
40 Commissioner Brown said that people need to understand the efforts and
41 existing programs put in place to address these issues.
42
43 Chair Jacobs said the following goals from page 21 could be combined: 1 and 6;
44 2, 3, and 13; 4 and 7; 5 and 9; 8 stands alone; and 11 and 12.
45
46 Chair Jacobs agreed that it would be good to have a definitive statement.
5
1
2 Commissioner Gordon said that she does not agree that there should necessarily
3 be five, six, or seven principles. There might need to be more. She would be
4 willing to categorize the goals, but not narrow them down to five or six tonight .
5 She recalled that the CPLUC goal statements had quite a few points under each
6 goal ,
7
8 Chair Jacobs said that a starting point for discussion would be the CPLUC goals
9 with an explanation of how they were derived. If staff thinks it can be narrowed
10 down to five or six guiding principles, then the Board can discuss this,
11
12 Commissioner Brown said that sustainability should be listed because it keeps
13 coming up,
14
15 Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to come up with one list of goals
16 with the definitions. She would like to leave open how the goals are consolidated
17 into principles,
18
19 Chair Jacobs agreed and said that the principles could be called sustainable land
20 use guiding principles or something of that nature,
21
22 Commissioner Brown made reference to the four map options and said that she
23 felt constricted by them. Craig Benedict noted that all the options included rural
24 activity nodes.
25
26 Craig Benedict gave a detailed explanation of rural activity nodes,
27
28 Chair Jacobs said that the rural activity nodes have never been discussed, since
29 he has been on the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners. This
30 would be a good issue to discuss.
31
32 Commissioner Gordon said that the rural activity nodes have been defined and
33 they are supposed to be places where there are rural scale enterprises. It was a
34 long process to decide their locations on the existing land use plan.
35 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the blue areas on the growth
36 management system map, which are transition areas or urbanizing areas. She
37 thinks the urbanizing areas should be left there and not deleted,
38
39 Craig Benedict said that the designation of the transition areas would be left on
40 the maps. Where there is a zoning overlay on the maps, the areas have been
41 designated as urbanizing areas so they do not get lost.
42
43 Commissioner Brown would still like to see more options. She would like to see
44 what was said in the Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan, Craig
45 Benedict said that there is an executive summary on page 26 of the package.
46
6
1 Commissioner Gordon said that when this is presented it should be clear which
2 areas could have increased density if certain performance standards were met,
3 She made reference to the possibility of working with Durham County, with
4 respect to protecting their water supply watershed,
5
6 Chair Jacobs said that they should at least write a letter to Durham County and
7 Hillsborough stating that the County is working with OWASA to help protect the
8 watershed that supplies their water, and that there be some kind of reciprocal
9 arrangement,
10
1l Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict if he was intending that the towns
12 would take in more density if the County reduces density, Craig Benedict said
13 no, The rural area development is exhibiting a sprawl pattern of growth. He said
14 that resolving what could happen in the rural areas is important in achieving a lot
15 of goals. He does not think that towns should be asked to increase density, The
16 urban areas could be discussed with the towns,
17
18 Chair Jacobs made reference to the Upper Neuse River study and the maps and
19 said that they could be presented by saying that these are the alternative ways of
20 constructing land use that the study proposed. The Board will ultimately choose
21 the best permutation,
22
23 Discussion ensued on how best to ask Durham County and Hillsborough to
24 participate in water quality protection,
25
26 Commissioner Gordon asked for modifications of these maps for the County
27 Commissioners, Since they have not decided on the maps to go to public
28 hearing, they should have time to review and approve the maps.
29
30 3. Watershed Technical Studies — Upper Neuse Watershed Management
31 Plan
32
33
34 4a. Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Urban Transition Area Task
35 Force
36
37 Craig Benedict said that this group had its first meeting. There is a brief excerpt
38 on page 31. The next meeting is October 20th,
39
40 Chair Jacobs said that he could try to write a letter by that time to Hillsborough
41 about working together on protecting the watershed that supplies their water.
42
43 4b. Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan
44
45 Craig Benedict said that when there is a critical mass of applications, they would
46 come back to the County Commissioners for the formation of this group.
7
1
2
3 5. Rural Character and Farmland Protection Work Group Update
4
5 The Planning Board and two members of the Agricultural Preservation Board
6 have been talking about what is happening in the rural areas and how to
7 preserve the farm economy and have rural development that still preserves open
8 space and environmental resources. The work group has met three or four
9 times. The group has spent a lot of time on clustering.
10
11 Craig Benedict explained the different issues this work group is working on.
12
13 Commissioner Gordon asked about the work product of this group. Jay Bryan
14 said that the goal was to bring a report to the Planning Board recommending a
15 series of tools to protect rural character and preserve farmland.
16
17 6. Public Hearing Notification Requirements
18
19 7. Timeline/Next Steps
20
21 This will be brought back at a future County Commissioners' meeting.
22
23 The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
24
25 Barry .Jacobs, Chair
26
27 David Hunt
28 Deputy Clerk to the Board