Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-08-2004-6dORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 8, 2004 Action Age d Item No. SUBJECT: Resolution Providing Comments Regarding Proposed Changes to the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Metropolitan Area DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Resolution 2. Map 3. Response to Memorandum from DCHG MPO LPA Regarding Expansion of MAB 4, 9/30/03 Assembly of Governments Meeting Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, ext. 2592 Karen Lincoln, ext. 2594 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: Ta provide comment to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHG) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regarding expansion of the DCHC MPO Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB), BACKGROUND: At the May 12~' TAC meeting, the Lead Planning Agency (LPA) for the DCHC MPO presented a proposal to expand the Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) and offered technical justification for the inclusion of all of Orange County in the MAB, Attachment 2 contains the LPA's rationale and justification along with the Planning Department's response to each item, Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries, as stated in 23 U,S,C, §134, "shall encompass at least the existing urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period". The fallowing options to expand the MAB are shown on the map on Attachment 3: • Option 1 -Areas labeled with a number 1 in the blocks- is a "smoothing" of our boundary using streets or highways for boundaries. • Option 2 -Area labeled with a number 2 - is the addition of the Option 1 area and the area shown with a number 2 located east of the MAB of the Burlington MPO (I-40/1-85 corridor area west of Hillsborough). • Option 3 -Area labeled with a number 3 - is the addition of Options 1 and 2 and the area labeled with the number 3 (south western Orange County), • Option 4 -Area labeled with a number 4 - is the addition of Options 1, 2, and 3 and the area labeled with the number 4 (northwest Orange County), In essence, this takes in all of Orange County except that portion currently in the Burlington MPO. A fifth option not offered by the TAC would be no expansion of the Metropolitan Area Boundary. 2 The Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (RPO) will discuss this item at its meeting on June 16, 2004, Orange County currently has adecision-making seat on both the MPO and the RPO, so the county has a voice both in the urban-related issues of the MPO and the rural-related issues of the RPO. If all of Orange County becomes part of the MPO, the county would relinquish its membership in the RPO. As an additional point of information, a review by staff of the indexed electronic BOCC meeting minutes provided one instance where the Board previously discussed this issue. That discussion occurred at the September 30, 2003 Assembly of Governments meeting, and the minutes of that discussion are attached for reference purposes. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with this decision item, RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends that the board discuss the issues and adopt a resolution providing comment to the DCHC TAG, ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENT TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA BOUNDARY WHEREAS, Orange County participates as a voting member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC) and is dedicated to continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning; and WHEREAS, Orange County recognizes that the county is affected by urban policies and influence, and has participated over the last 25 years in many joint/cooperative planning initiatives with various municipalities, and WHEREAS, The DCHC Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), in January 2003, expanded the DCHC Urbanized Area Boundary (UAB) that is used to define the urban- rural boundary for functional classification of roadways and data gathering; and WHEREAS, The UAB is completely within the existing Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB); and WHEREAS, Orange County is strongly committed to intergovernmental planning and coordination; and WHEREAS, Orange County strives to maintain the integrity of its rural areas as evidenced by its land use plan and development policies; and WHEREAS, Orange County participates as a member in the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (RPO), and believes that an RPO perspective in transportation planning is mare attuned to maintaining the integrity of the rural areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that Orange County is apposed to any expansion of the Metropolitan Area Boundary. Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2004. I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners far the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on June 8, 2004, as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. 4 WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2004. Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 5 TAC 05.12,04 Attachment lOB ®LrC OUII-® VlE S 3 Mlles - :m mm¢n nnnlrmv nernnnunr rvremnu pampeea DOHC MPO 8ounda pry; nr., m mmmlaa rmrt:..:a pa aratl.bL TOraaa i2vCM Vt GVIbarWpupram county ia:umaV nC ro AOnsb Enih Inr VnVrv-~rl/Yp trCrn IM1B mlfV.<CI IM1if map. N1e~ropoli~ian Area Boundary ~IV1AB) 6 Orange County Planning Department Response on Proposed Changes to MPO Boundary The May 5, 2004 memorandum from Felix Nwoko to TAC members on expansion of the MPO boundary listed the fallowing eight points as justification, Following each point is the Orange County staff response: 1. Entire Orange County is covered in the Triangle Regional Madel, Response: We agree that the entire County is covered in the model and think this makes for a better model. The modeling of peripheral areas makes good planning sense since impacts don't generally begin or end at jurisdictional boundaries. However, we don't agree that inclusion in the model equates to inclusion in the urban area. Much of Orange County is rural and projected to remain rural. The County has a very strong record on rural planning initiatives that is reinforced by our current and upcoming programs. 2, Orange County is affected by urban policies and influence. Response: This is very true. Employment, infrastructure, and housing opportunities (or the lack thereof) in the urban areas can have profound impacts on areas in the County's jurisdiction. This is certainly a primary reason for the many joint/cooperative planning initiatives the County has participated in over the last 25 years with the various municipalities. Orange County continues to have a strong commitment to inter- governmental coordination, but doesn't see the issue of urban policies and influence as sufficient justification for including the entire County in the MPO. 3, The ability to coordinate planning for land use, transportation, and air quality would be better served by the proposed inclusion of the entire County. Response: It has not been demonstrated how the planning process would be better served by the inclusion of the entire County in the MPO. The County has for many years been an active participant in all of the planning areas listed and our commitment to intergovernmental planning and coordination remains strong. 4. Federal transportation dollars for the MPO cannot be spent in areas outside the MAB, Orange County is now designated as non-attainment thus eligible for CMAQ funds, however, the fund allocation to the MPO can only be spent within the MAB. Response: How much Federal funding is Orange County likely to receive for areas under its jurisdiction? Most of the County's jurisdiction within 7 current MAB boundaries is rural and it is questionable how much degradation of air quality is attributable to activities in these areas. With the exception of the EflandlCheeks area along US 70, expanding the boundary will take in areas even more rural and less of a contributor to poor air quality. 5. The non-attainment designation areas outside the MPO boundary creates a new level of complexity for transportation and air quality planning. Response: It is our understanding that the non-attainment designation is applied to these areas because the entire county is being classified as such, and not because there are air quality problems emanating from them. This is an area the County needs additional documentation on to better understand the whole issue of non-attainment. We don't feel that current rural development patterns (and the traffic generated by them) are significant contributors to air quality degradation. Likewise, if proposed plan, policy, and ordinance proposals recommended for the rural areas are ultimately adopted, air quality degradation from future rural development will be even less of an issue. 6. The current 2025 LRTP included transportation investments and decisions affecting Orange County area mainly because the MPO has operated under the assumption that all of Orange County would be included in the planning boundaries of the MPO. Therefore, the TAC has previously reviewed and approved socia-economic data and forecasts for the entire county. Also, revenue forecasts for the 2025 LRTP included sources throughout the entire county. Response: Where did the assumption originate that all of Orange County would be included in the MPO? There is no record of the County indicating a desire to see its total area included within MPO boundaries and there is no justification based on current or future population densities. The County recognizes that certain portions of its jurisdiction are urbanizing and are affected by the existing urban centers. This has been the basis of our participation in the MPO process. The County has always been straightforward in maintaining the integrity of its rural areas and data supplied for the regional model has reflected what is envisioned for these areas in the future. As noted in the first question, we support inclusion of the rural areas in the model, but don't view this as a basis for inclusion of the entire County within the MAB. 7. If the entire county is not included, the TAC could not make decisions on projects or other issues which would affect areas outside the MAB. Response: There is not convincing evidence that the TAC needs to be involved in decisions on County projects outside the MAB. Orange County is unique among Triangle counties in that it still has large expanses of agricultural and undeveloped rural land. Past planning efforts have helped keep these areas intact and future efforts will place greater attention on their protection. In terms of transportation planning, an RPO perspective is more attuned to maintaining the integrity of the rural areas. 8. The MPO planning process is Federally mandated whereas the RPO process is State mandated. Because of this, RPOs have no access to MPO Federal funding. Response: How much Federal funding is Orange County likely to receive? Unless the County is forfeiting large sums by going with the RPO this is likely anon-issue. The County still feels that the interests of its rural areas are best served by the RPO concept. Concluding Comments Orange County thinks it is important that planning designations complement, rather than contradict one another. Through the update of its Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element, Orange County is attempting to define more clearly, the distinction between urban and rural areas. To reinforce this distinction, the following strategies are proposed: 1. Lower residential densities in the rural areas 2. Urban growth boundaries where infrastructure will be limited 3. Potential density transfer programs for rural areas Expected benefits from these strategies include, but are not limited to: • Reduced development impacts on agriculture • Fewer vehicle miles traveled resulting in improved air quality • Enhanced water quality (surface and groundwater) • Protection of the natural and cultural environment • Rural character preservation If the MPO designates all of Orange County as "urban" while the County designates certain areas as rural -and through its land use plans, policies, and ordinances, clearly demonstrates a commitment to this concept -then it sends a mixed message to farmers, rural property owners, and land developers. As part of the TAC discussions on MPO boundary changes, we recommend that the Orange County Planning Director or his designee, be invited to a TAC meeting to present current thinking on the County's plans for rural areas. We are supportive of "smoothing" boundaries as contained in option one. However, all other areas should remain in the RPO. 9 Portions of the area depicted as Option 2 may be developed at urban densities at some future date. If this occurs, the infrastructure making it possible will most likely originate in the Mebane/Alamance area. While inclusion of this area in the Alamance MPO is not proposed, coordination with transportation planning to the west is logical given other urbanizing influences from that direction. This should be an item for on-going Orange County, Town of Mebane, Alamance County discussions. q ~ 30 ~ b3 A bG M~nu~s ~ ~ Chair Brown said that this caught her attention and she asked the County departments that deal with affordable housing to bring forward how the County deals with complaints. She thinks that the problem is that most people do not understand their rights or how to get assistance, She said that the County would be involved in any way that is needed, Bill Strom said that he and Edith Wiggins co-chaired the Town committee that led a task force towards creating the guidelines for the rental-licensing program that the Council passed. Chapel Hill has a requirement that the landlords certify that the rental units meet the State minimum housing code. This shifts the burden from the renter to the landlord as far as maintaining the unit. He is interested in pursuing this further. Jacquelyn Gist asked that each board appoint a representative to begin having initial discussions. A motion was made by Jacquelyn Gist, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis for each board to appoint a board member or a representative to serve on an initial steering committee to address the issue of substandard rental properties, and ask staff to coordinate the meeting. John Herrara asked to put a target date on this task force and Jacquelyn Gist said that the steering committee should meet by the end of November and put target dates in at that time, VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Report on Orange Countv Animal Shelter Chair Brown said that this report is online on the Orange County website and the Board of County Commissioners has a work session on this to come to a decision on how to proceed with the operation of the shelter, Kevin Foy asked about the decision about the Town's land at Eubanks Road. Chair Brown said that the staff is coming back at the work session on this topic with the pros and cons of several pieces of property, including the one that Chapel Hill offered, 5. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Organizational Review Commissioner,lacobs said that he has been in meetings where this is discussed and that he wants to know where everyone stands on this. He said that we all have the opportunity to add additional areas now that there is a new census. He said that approximately 40% of Orange County participates in an RPO (Rural Planning Organization) with Chatham, Lee, and Moore Counties and he suggests that the towns let the Board of County Commissioners discuss whether it is the most beneficial route to include the entire County in the MPO. Alex Zaffron said that he is the Chair of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO. There are a lot of issues and it is extremely complex. He suggests that this group review the materials.. The MPO will take this issue on next week. It is obviously a newly expressed interest on the part of CAMPO to merge or to find a better, more cooperative governance structure. Regarding the RPO issue, his understanding of the legislation is that it must be a mutual agreement. 7. Informational Items a. Timelines for Town/Countv Partner Capital Projects b. Solid Waste Issues