September 18, 2000
September 18, 2000
On April 5, 2000, the Shaping Orange County’s Future Project published a document called “Provisional Report and Recommendations.” On August 28, 2000, the Orange County Staff prepared an “Implications Report”, offering comments on each of the 193 recommendations contained in the Provisional Report. This Chapel Hill Staff Addendum offers additional staff comments on selected Action Recommendations - - those for which the Chapel Hill community would likely have particular interest.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Projections of Growth: Pages 10 and 11 of the Report describe trends and growth projections for the County. We believe that some of the projections may be high, given the relatively moderate growth projected for Chapel in the Comprehensive Plan. Chapel Hill’s growth is likely to be limited to a significant degree in the next 20 years as land within the Urban Services Area becomes fully developed. It appears that there may be differences in assumptions about what is likely to occur in southern Orange County over the next two decades. It may be useful to seek a consolidated set of projections that would incorporate the adopted policies of all governments in Orange County.
Rewards to Developers: On page 25 of the Report, under Recommendation #7 of the “Put Community Building First” goal, a recommendation suggests offering rewards to developers who successfully incorporate and preserve county history in their projects. A key question here involves the kind of rewards that are contemplated. A related recommendation is on page 33 of the Report, under Recommendation #9 of the “Improve Government Efficiency and Effectiveness” goal: an action strategy calls for “positive incentives for developments that meet the community’s goals.” We believe that greater specificity would be helpful to describe what outcomes are desired, and what rewards or incentives might be offered to achieve those outcomes.
Adding Voting Members from ETJ to Town Council: On page 28, under Recommendation #2 of the gal to “Address Citizen Concerns about Representation in Government,” the Report suggests that there be a Town referendum or special legislation to allow voting authority for ETJ/transition area residents and/or the establishment of a liaison-type seat on the Chapel Hill Town Council. We note that State law currently prescribes how such representation is to be managed, mainly through allocated seats on Town advisory boards. The current system acknowledges that areas immediately outside the borders of municipalities are likely to be annexed by those municipalities as the land develops, and therefore provides a mechanism for that development to occur under urban standards. Representation is provided via County appointees to municipal boards and commissions. In addition, we note that Chapel Hill and Orange County have executed a Joint Planning Agreement, which allows joint jurisdiction over many areas currently just outside of Chapel Hill’s municipal boundaries.
Triangle West Plan: On page 35 the Report lists, as part of Recommendation #3 under the goal to “Adopt Policies to Move the Community Toward Sustainability,” a call for development of a “Triangle-West” regional vision and plan. The regional plan would develop guidelines for a “Growth Budget “ to allocate scarce resources in each area, and control the amount and timing of growth. We note that there are a number of mechanisms in place to accomplish joint planning and information-sharing. A key question here is whether there is a need/possibility for Chapel Hill to become part of a new intergovernmental mechanism that would allocate and control growth region-wide.
2/3 of Growth Channeled into Cities: Page 42 of the report shows Recommendation #1 of the goal to “Promote Land Use Patterns that Meet our Citizen’s Needs While Protecting Natural Resources.” This recommendation calls for channeling 2/3 of the County’s future growth into Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, Mebane, and “transition areas,” and to limit growth in rural areas. We note that the Chapel Hill Town Council has carefully studied the existing Town and its transition area, and adopted plans for the level of growth that is considered to be most appropriate. We also note that an objective of limiting growth in rural areas does not necessarily need to be coupled with an objective of increasing growth in urban areas.
Market-Driven Development: Page 44 of the Report contains Recommendation #3 of the goal, “Promote Land Use Patterns that Meet our Citizens’ Needs While Protecting Natural Resources.” This recommendation suggests that, within the bounds of adopted design guidelines, development should be market-driven, allowing flexibility about how builders/developers use each parcel of land. We do not believe that this approach to growth management is consistent with the recently adopted Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan, which specifies types and intensities of desired land use on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
Bus Service Between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough: Page 47 shows Recommendation #2 under a goal to “Create Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Systems that Meet People’s Needs” : Increase bus service between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill/Carrboro. This recommendation refers to the probable need for the Triangle Transit Authority to be the service provider on this kind of route.
“Auto-limited Zones” for Chapel Hill: Page 48 of the Report lists recommendations designed to “Create Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Systems that Meet People’s Needs.” Recommendation #3 suggests creating “auto-limited” zones for downtown Chapel Hill. We note that this idea was previously studied by the Chapel Hill Town Council for a portion of East Franklin Street, and set aside as not being practical or desirable. The recommendation on Page 48 also calls for making the main UNC campus in Chapel Hill an auto-limited zone. We note that UNC has recently completed work on the first draft of a Central Campus Master Plan that places heavy emphasis on increasing the safety and desirability of pedestrian movements; but stops short of recommending auto-limited zones.
Disclosure of Thoroughfare Plans: Page 49 of the Report calls for local governments to support “the full and immediate disclosure of all local transportation and thoroughfare plans.” We are not aware of any local transportation plans that are being withheld from public review. More specificity here about what is being suggested may be helpful.
Establishment of New Groups and Committees: The Report recommends that 10 new groups or initiatives be created. The following page lists these ten suggested new initiatives. Details about each are included in the Provisional Report.
· Develop a county arts incubator.
· Convene a short-term study committee to address issues of representation on the Board of County Commissioners.
· Convene a short-term study committee to examine representation of citizens from ETJ areas on municipal elected boards.
· Create a county-wide intergovernmental Data Center.
· Create a coordinated Government Efficiency Project.
· Conduct a cost-of-services study to examine the “real” costs of different types of land uses and development.
· Institute a mechanism that ensures that all local government staffs communicate and are aware of the initiatives and programs of other local governments in the county.
· Create an inter-governmental “Growth Management Board.”
· Establish and fund a public/private task force to identify and attract desirable businesses.
· Create a Citizens’ Roundtable to “engage citizens in the discussion and analysis of a broad range of concerns and issues related to our countywide community life.”
It may be helpful for a revised Report to identify priorities. While each of these new groups and/or initiatives may be needed, it may not be possible to pursue all.
SUMMARY
We believe that the Shaping Orange County’s Future project and its Provisional Report have helped to focus community discussion on issues of countywide concern on a broad array of topics covering many aspects of life in Orange County. There are a number of recommendations that we believe would result in desirable and helpful outcomes for the Chapel Hill community.
We concur with the comments offered by Orange County staff in the attached “Preliminary Staff Evaluation: Implications of the Shaping Orange County’s Future Provisional Report and Recommendations.” This Addendum offers additional comments on issues of particular relevance and interest to the Chapel Hill Community.
We hope that the Shaping Orange County’s Future Task Force will find these comments to be useful in preparing a revised final draft of the Provisional Report.