Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-24-20; 12-2 - Information Item - MMC Facilitated Conversation about the Greene Tract - Final Session Notes - February 14, 2020 1 MMC Facilitated Conversation about the Greene Tract Final Session Notes February 14, 2020 Session Outcomes Continue to move forward on agreements about the plan for the Greene Tract by: 1. Enacting communication ground rules for working together. 2. Clarifying common ground. 3. Articulating sticking points. 4. Unpacking what's getting in the way of coming to resolution. 5. Planning for next steps. Participants Carrboro: Lydia Lavelle, Carrboro Mayor David Andrews, Carrboro Town Manager Trish McGuire, Carrboro Planning Director Chapel Hill: Pam Hemminger, Chapel Hill Mayor Maurice Jones, Chapel Hill Town Manager Judy Johnson, Chapel Hill Planning Director Orange County: Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy Co Manager Penny Rich, Chair of County Commissioners, Orange County Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director John Roberts, Orange County Attorney Ashley Moncado, Orange County Special Projects Planner Facilitator Maggie Chotas, Dispute Settlement Center Session Notes Welcome & Introductions Maggie Chotas welcomed participants, reviewed the goals for the session and highlighted that the majority of the meeting would be to review the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 2 between all parties. Ms. Chotas reviewed the ground rules, which were previously set by the MMC group during the meeting on December 18, 2019. The ground rules were confirmed as is. Ground rules 1. Identify when we are talking personally or from the majority of our Boards. 2. Encourage staff to participate and share, given that they have been valuable context and insight. 3. Clarify facts along the way, and do not get offended if someone tries to correct misstatements. 4. Do not take things personally. 5. Share notes back with our Boards. Next, the group reviewed action steps taken in between the last meeting in December and the current meeting. Judy Johnson explained that all of the jurisdictions adopted similar resolutions in mid-late January, which reflected a big effort from everyone in the room plus the two absent attorneys. There is an Interlocal Agreement has been signed by all boards. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Environmental Assessment has been posted and will be open for submissions through March 10, 2020. Ms. Johnson emphasized the substantial steps that have been made Mayor Lavelle recapped that some language was changed with the Interlocal Agreement, but that after a slight change, all three boards unanimously passed the Interlocal Agreement. Mayor Hemminger shared that the staff worked together to develop the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for how they would work together to do the Environmental Assessment. At the Assembly of Governments meeting in late January, there was good conversation around this work. Travis Myren said most of the comments from the Assembly of Governments meeting were reflected in the draft MOU. Mayor Hemminger highlighted that the attorneys and staff from all three entities met up to start working on the MOU. John Roberts, attorney from Orange County, took the first draft of the MOU and the staffs of all three jurisdictions reviewed it. The elected officials are still in the process of reviewing the document in depth. Mayor Lavelle explained that some issues were discussed at the Assembly of Governments meeting, including what would happen if there was an impasse. The attorneys incorporated possible solutions in the current draft of the MOU. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 2 3 Ms. Chotas asked the group to identify the necessary outcomes of their time together in the session. Chair Rich noted the need to review the MOU collectively and suggested breaking down the MOU into sections in order to do so. Mayor Hemminger summarized that the Assembly of Governments asked the group to discuss the work plan, next steps and timing. She identified the need to come up with common terms, including what is meant by connectivity. The group generally agreed on the importance of using common language. Chair Rich asked if we are ready for a work plan? Mayor Hemminger clarified the goal of establishing a "timeline of steps" and Chair Rich agreed. The group discussed how there was agreement on the timeline for the Environmental Assessment, but there is uncertainty around what happens after that. A timeline of steps would spell out the action items. Mr. Roberts noted the MOU includes the statement "staffs will develop a work plan that includes a decision point timeline regarding development of the property." Mayor Hemminger wondered if a better term was framework. Chair Rich noted we want something our boards can look at to see what we can accomplish. Ms. Johnson expressed that staff could give the "high level" pieces of a work plan and possibly share them at the next meeting of the MMC. Chair Rich, speaking for herself and she thought for her board, shared the hope that the MOU can be signed by June because boards take a break after that and then it will be budget season. Mayor Lavelle concurred that the Carrboro board should be able to sign by June. Mayor Hemminger expressed that Chapel Hill may not be able to commit to signing within that timeframe due to other big projects. Maurice Jones said they would be in a better position to know if the June timeframe could work after more conversations. Chair Rich emphasized the nature of the MOU was to describe how the group moves forward or not. Mayor Lavelle said she wanted to learn more about what would be controversial within the MOU. Diving into the Memo of Understanding Ms. Chotas proposed the process to review the MOU, as follows: consider section by section, with a focus on understanding what's there, clarifying terms and identifying further questions. The group will highlight where they have agreement. If there are things that can be resolved quickly, the group will resolve them. For those areas where they don't have agreement, they will develop a list of areas to address at future meetings. The group agreed to the proposed approach. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 3 4 Mr. Roberts explained that all of the attorneys agreed that the initial MOU document provides a strong framework for the working relationship of the parties. Speaking for the three attorneys, Mr. Roberts noted the document could be adopted now, highlighting that it has "some teeth" in case there's any reluctance and gets all parties to the same place within a two year timeframe. MOU Whereas Statements Chair Rich focused on the language of the sixth "whereas" statement, which states: "WHEREAS, the Parties agree that some portion of the Property should be dedicated to providing mixed income housing and other uses." Chair Rich was concerned this statement did not adequately stress the importance of affordable housing, noting the County Commissioners would not be satisfied with the level of importance placed on affordable housing in the current draft. Chair Rich asked if there was a way to highlight affordable housing more. Mr. Roberts responded the original document said "affordable housing" throughout, and this language was changed recently. He asked for further explanation from others who were part of making the change. Ms. Johnson noted there was an interest in broadening the language from "affordable housing" to "mixed income" because of the varying levels of affordable housing. The term "mixed use" is problematic because it connotes something that isn't intended. Mayor Hemminger wondered if the term "affordable housing" could be added so that the document would read "affordable housing, mixed income and other uses." She agreed with Chair Rich that someone picking up the current draft MOU wouldn't understand that affordable housing is included in mixed income. Chair Rich confirmed the description should "affordable housing, mixed income and other uses." Mayor Lavelle raised a question about the next "whereas" statement, which reads, "WHEREAS, the Parties agree that some portion of the Property should be reserved for a future school site and public recreational facility site." Mayor Lavelle asked if this language was meant to include a public recreation site in addition to the school or if the "recreational facility site" was part of the school. Ashley Moncado responded there were two separate entities, including a school and an additional recreational site. Mayor Lavelle asked about the public park and whether it would be there even if the school was not there. Ms. Moncado explained it was to be there even if there wasn't a school. Mr. Benedict confirmed acreage was designated for a public park even without a school. Ms. McGuire said that it was part of the range of uses discussed at a previous Assembly of Governments meeting two years ago, noting the change was requested following the Environmental Scan. She stated the minutes from the Assembly of Governments meeting would need to be checked to confirm. Mayor Lavelle expressed surprise a recreational site would be there even without a school, given that over the years she only heard of the interests for open Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 4 5 space, affordable housing and a school. Mr. Benedict said the community wanted the possibility of a park even if the school didn't happen. Mayor Lavelle asked who would develop programs if there were soccer fields, ball fields. Would that programming fall to Chapel Hill, Carrboro or Orange County? Ms. McGuire emphasized it was an overarching statement to say there had been an identification for what the space would be used for, noting the interest in the amount of space was the extent of the evaluation. Mayor Lavelle said a public recreational facilities separate from future school site public school would need to be further discussed by the Carrboro board to determine if it is apriority for Carrboro. Mayor Hemminger said the word "facility" was problematic because it implied a building of some sort and could instead be changed to "public recreation area." Ms. Lavelle explained Carrboro has an interest in having a school in that space, but if there is not a school, Carrboro may not have an interest in building a park separate from a school. Mr. Andrews agreed Carrboro has not explicitly discussed having a park in that space, separate from the school. Mr. Benedict noted there is an interest in having a recreational area accessible to the public, outside of a school. The community would value a dual use space for community and school. Chair Rich agreed she did not recall having a conversation around having a park separate from a school. Mr. Myren clarified if everyone was committed to the school, there wasn't a need to have a discussion about an option that doesn't include a school. Ms. Hammersley emphasized the priority is in ensuring the school site has the appropriate amount of acreage. Mr. Myren shared, based on the meeting with the school administration, it's not clear they would allow it to be accessible publicly. Mayor Hemminger noted the intergovernmental park work group established guidelines that said the public has the right to use these spaces, but there are caveats. High school facilities cannot be shared spaces because of the level of use on those buildings, but elementary schools are more easily accessible by the public and make great partnerships. Neighborhoods typically have access to elementary schools after hours, and this space would be no different. The group affirmed their wish that there will not be a recreational facility if there is no school on the site. Mayor Hemminger noted Chapel Hill does require recreational spaces when new housing is developed, so perhaps the developer would be required to add in a recreational site. Chair Rich Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 5 6 emphasized the importance of defining the terms "park" and "recreational space," elaborating the space should be open fields for open use, and that would be considered a "park." MOU Section 1:Term and Termination Mr. Roberts provided a synopsis of Section 1 as an overview of term and termination, giving each party a way out of the contract. It sets out a two-year term and five five-year renewals, assuming that anything built there will be completed within a total time of 27 years. Mr. Roberts clarified that, as it written, any party may withdraw from the MOU agreement without penalty by giving 60-day notice to the other parties. Parties may withdraw from the agreement at any time, even if development has already started. Mr. Benedict noted the developer agreement would dominate at some point in the future. The agreement with the developer would set forth the parameters for what can happen and then the developer would agree before the land is handed off. That agreement would be more binding on the parties than the MOU because it's more of a zoning of the property. Mayor Hemminger asked to change the language to include a requirement for "written notice" to withdrawal. Mr. Roberts responded that a different section of the MOU requires that any notice be written notice. Section 2: Responsibilities of the Parties Mr. Roberts gave an overview of this section which spells out what the parties will be doing during the first 18 months of this agreement. Mayor Hemminger asked for clarification on content contained within the letter "i" which states that the parties will be "jointly conducting all public outreach and conducting no individual public outreach regarding the Property." Mr. Roberts explained the term "public outreach" is more clearly defined in Section 3 of the document, which outlines that all "public engagement" will be jointly conducted with staff present from Chapel Hill, Orange County and Carrboro and a joint public hearing with the elected boards. Conducting individual meetings would not be considered "public engagement," but official public engagement would be jointly conducted with staff and elected officials. Mayor Lavelle asked if"engagement" was the same thing as "outreach." Mr. Roberts noted that the difference between "engagement" and "outreach" can be more clearly defined. Mr. Myren noted in "i" it could be "public engagement" instead of"public outreach." Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 6 7 Chair Rich emphasized the importance of using common language and why it's important to all be together in one room so half of the neighbors aren't hearing one thing and the other half something else. Mayor Hemminger asked for more information about letter "k" which states that the parties will be "[r]eaching Final Determinations on the ultimate uses of the Property within 18 months of the execution of this Agreement." She noted her concern that the group will not know all of the uses within 18 months. Mr. Roberts explained "final determination" is defined in Section 4, and the boards will need to determine the varying uses of the property and vote on them within the two- year term. If the boards haven't done that within 18 months, that's because of disputes and that's when the disputes process would kick it. Ms. Johnson stated in earlier conversations there was an area designated as land-banked. She acknowledged things may change over the course of the time period, and 18 months is not a long time to determine all of the uses for the land. How do we keep a door open, given things change? Ms. Hammersley asked if land-banking could be a determination? Mr. Roberts affirmed if the three boards determine a site it land-banked, it can be. The group generally agreed land-banking could be a determination, but the designation couldn't be used unintentionally. There may be an undetermined use for one section of the land, and that would be sufficient provided all three groups agreed to determine the land use at a future point. Chair Rich noted there should be a difference between what is land-banked and what the group is not yet able to determine. Ms. Hammersley said determining criteria for land-banking is a good next step. Mr. Roberts clarified that if one party wants a section of the land land-banked, and the other parties disagree, then the "dispute" clause of the contract would be triggered. However, if all parties agree they do not know how the land will be used, then the parties would be in agreement and the "dispute" clause would not be implicated. Ms. McGuire shared that if the group knows that housing is the priority, that could be expressed as the group's intention at this point. She further explained that the group could acknowledge the process for changing the intention of the land at a future point. The group agreed to further define the term "use" in this document. Mr. Benedict clarified the general use categories were better defined when they did the map a year ago. Section 3: Public Participation and Decision-Making Mr. Roberts gave an overview of this section, highlighting the draft proposes the group have six joint staff meetings and a joint public hearing at the first Assembly of Governments in 2021. Ms. Johnson provided context from when staff met. There was an interest moving some language from the MOU into the work plan document—specifically, keep the first sentence and the last sentence in that paragraph, but move the details to the work plan. Mayor Hemminger and Mayor Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 7 8 Lavelle agreed it seemed like an unnecessary level of specificity to determine the number of meetings in the MOU. Public Engagement Mayor Hemminger asked for clarification around what a 'joint public hearing" entails, wondering if it means just receiving input and not responding. Chair Rich replied that a public hearing gives the public a chance to speak and it is not an opportunity for elected officials and staff to respond. The group agreed a 'joint public hearing" is a chance for the public to speak and for elected officials and staff to hear the public. Staff may answer basic questions from the public but no voting or decisions will take place at that public hearing. The group discussed the difference between this MOU document and a more detailed work plan. Ms. McGuire suggested some specifics could be helpful, for example setting up a parameter for the number of public engagement sessions. She noted general parameters might be helpful for how we implement at this stage. Chair Rich asked when the groups will share the draft MOU and notes from this meeting with their respective boards. Mayor Lavelle suggested including the minutes to this meeting along with the current MOU draft as a clean copy. The group decided to send the current clean draft of the MOU (without changes from current meeting incorporated), along with the notes from this meeting, to their respective boards via email. The attorneys will simultaneously implement changes into MOU from this meeting of the MMC and that draft will come to the next MMC meeting. Mixed Income Housing and other uses Mayor Hemminger suggested adding the phrase "affordable housing" to this section. Chair Rich noted the term "affordable housing" should be included throughout the entire document. Mr. Roberts noted a sentence could be added stating, "other uses may include land banking" or "other future uses may include land banking." Mr. Andrews the last sentence include "developer(s)" instead of "developer" given the possibility of multiple developers of the site. School Site and Public Recreational Facility Site Mayors Hemminger and Lavelle recommended taking out the term "facility" in this section title, so it would instead read "School Site and Public Recreation." Chair Rich expressed an interest in reviewing the standards for a school site for efficiency. Mayor Hemminger mentioned the standard is based on a DPI-arrived number that is per child. Chair Rich noted for the sake of efficiency, the group discussed including "approximately 16 acres" for the school site, instead of stating the school site in terms of a minimum. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 8 9 The group discussed changing the title of this section to include the word "with" instead of "and" so it would read "School Site with Public Recreation." Joint Preserve Mr. Roberts noted a similarity to the preceding paragraphs. Mr. Benedict noted connectivity was tried to environmental, vehicular and pedestrian. Chair Rich requested adding the term "public transportation" into the connectivity plan because at some point might have to change bus routes. Mayor Hemminger suggested changing this section to read the parties will "work together to draft connectivity plans" as opposed to "work together to draft a connectivity plan." Ms. McGuire asked if it would be helpful to add the word "infrastructure" here given the concept of utilities. The group discussed the term "utilities" as opposed to "infrastructure," and the term "public utilities." Connectivity plans including utilities, vehicular, bicycles and pedestrian. Ultimately, the group decided the term "utilities" was sufficient, and it was not necessary to include "public." Section 4: Final Determination Mayor Lavelle noted the second sentence was awkward and did not flow; it's missing a word or two. The group discussed fixing this second sentence for the next draft of this document. Section 5: Disputes Mayor Lavelle noted that this section explains what the group discussed at the Assembly of Governments. If there is a dispute, we try to talk and resolve it, can request mediation. Mayor Hemminger asked for clarification about mediation. Do you request it and they have to come? Mr. Roberts explained that the first section discussed interim minor types of disputes where a mediation would be time consuming. If everybody doesn't agree you need a mediation, you don't have a mediation. The second paragraph emphasizes the need for a mandatory mediation for major disagreements at the end of the 18-month period or another selected time period. Mayor Lavelle recommended the clarification: "During the first 18 months" this is what happens... Mr. Roberts explained a minor dispute could be resolved by a majority vote of the boards, and if the parties agree to a mediation, that would be an option. Agreement was made to change the document to read "the majority vote as provided below"not "above." Mr. Roberts explained divesture as when one party wants to sell their interest and neither of the other two parties wants to buy the interest, then the selling party would have to comply with North Carolina property sales law. Partition is when you want your interest separated, but the deed prohibits doing that, the party may need to go to Court to have it separated. Ms. McGuire explained the need for different approaches to minor or major approaches. They needed a way to resolve minor disputes before the 18-month period. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 9 10 Mr. Roberts reiterated the group can negotiate and if there is a disagreement, the governing boards can vote by majority vote, unless all of the governing boards agree to mediate the dispute. After 18 months, everyone must go to mediation. Mayor Hemminger noted she would like to see the group take a stab at mediation even for minor disputes because there might be common ground —it might not be as big as assumed. Mayor Lavelle noted there might be a step between formal mediation such as facilitation. Mr. Roberts noted facilitation could be included in the 60- day timeframe. The group agreed to discuss this further at a later point. Ms. Johnson noted it would be helpful to run through a topic and imagine what would happen if they do not agree on the headwater preserves location, for example. Summarized next steps Participants clarified the next steps coming out of the session. Topic ` Action Steps 1. Minutes from the • Ms. Chotas will deliver draft notes to the group by end-of-day meeting February 28, 2020. • Group members will have until March 4 at 5 pm to provide clarifications. • The final draft of the notes will be distributed by March 6. 2. Send meeting notes and . Each municipality will send notes of this meeting with the MOU draft to Boards current (clean) draft of the MOU to their respective boards via email — not to be placed on a board agenda. • Individual board members' questions and comments will be addressed at the next meeting of the MMC group. 3. Develop the next draft • Attorneys develop next draft of the MOU based on input of the MOU from the February 14 meeting. • The MMC group discusses the draft and brings input from individual board members to their meeting on April 3. • Attorneys will revise MOU based on input from the April 3rd meeting. The resulting draft of the MOU will be distributed to all three boards for formal review and feedback. 4. Reconvene the group on . The group will come back together in a facilitated session on Friday, April 3, 2020. Friday, April 3, 2020, 10:30-noon, at the Chapel Hill Public Library. • The attorneys will be included in scheduling this meeting. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 10 11 Evaluating the session The facilitator asked participants to reflect on what worked well about this session and what they would like to see changed for the next one. What worked well What to change for the next session - Fridays are good for meetings. - Include attorneys on the mailing list to - Helpful to go through MOU section by schedule meetings. section. - The facilitation of the conversation. - Hearing from staff about why things were in the MOU the way they were. L Cross conversation was fruitful. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 11 12 Facilitated Conversation about the Greene Tract Summary of Key Topics Discussed & Questions Raised on MOU Document February 14, 2020 Section of MOU Document Changes needed & Questions to address Whereas Statements • Include the term "affordable housing"throughout • Delete "facility" change to "Public recreational site" • Define "use" Section 1: Term & Termination Section 2: Responsibilities of • "Public engagement" (not outreach) the Parties Section 3: Public Participation Public Engagement & Decision Making • Move sentences in between first and third to last/to work plan • Define joint public hearing as input session from public— no voting, no decisions • Include general parameters to inform work plan Mixed Income Housing • Add "affordable housing" throughout • Other"uses" may include "land-banking for future use" • Developer(s) School Site with Public Recreation • With a school of approximately 16 acres Connectivity • Add "public transportation" • Connectivity plans (no "a") Section 4: Final Determination • Second sentence needs to be fixed Section 5• Disputes • Clarify with the first paragraph—"in the first 18 months this is what happens..." • Majority vote below • Talk more about minor disputes—consider including facilitation to try to find common ground • Walk through examples at next MMC meeting