Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-05-2005 Session . . . .' .t'}) I'll 'l} .. 4 MINUTES TOWN BOARD STRATEGIC GROWTH MEETING August 5, 2002 PRESENT: Mayor Joe Phelps, Mike Gering, Ken Chavious, Mark Sheridan, Frances Dancy, Evelyn Lloyd Demetric Potts, Eric Peterson, Kenny Keel, Margaret Hauth David Stein, Rob Shapard, Scott Radway, and Jack Smyre STAFF: PUBLIC: Mayor Phelps called the meeting to order and introduced the board members to the speaker from NC State University, David Stein. Mayor Phelps suggested that Mr. Stein go through his presentation, then the members could discuss the next steps in the plan, and save about 15 minutes to discuss water issues at the end of the meeting. Stein introduced himself as a Planning Specialist with the School of Design who offers the assistance of staff and students to communities for design projects. He walked through a PowerPoint presentation on the services the school could provide on a contract basis. Stein noted that they could assist with both a visioning process and visualization. He said the visioning is the verbal portion where the community is surveyed, goals and objectives are established and the citizens are deeply involved in crafting a verbal vision of the future. Stein said the visualization part is more graphic and includes photographic manipulation to show what changes in ordinances and development patterns can look like. He said the school could also run a three-day charette with a team of 20 students. Commissioner Gering asked what small towns the school has worked with. Stein said Seaboard, Manteo and Stokesdale. He asked about the staff commitment needed to assist the school. Stein said the students do the bulk of the work. He added there would be 2 or 3 meetings with the community and certain sessions during the charette where staff would be needed. He added that the team could work within the entire town, a larger area, or on an individual parcel. Commissioner Sheridan asked Stein his impressions of Hillsborough. Stein said his impressions are limited by the few hours he has spent in town the last two days. He said there are some vacant buildings downtown, the perimeter development is not of the highest standards, but the town has a lot of potential. Commissioner Gering asked whether Stein could help with implementation of the vision as well by assisting with ordinance re-writes. Stein said they could help by providing an outline, but his students are designers, not planners or attorneys. He suggested that the ONC planning school might be of assistance. Commissioner Sheridan suggested that further discwision of Stein be delayed to a later meeting. Hauth asked About Stein's availability. Stein confirmed that he has projects for the fall semester, but might be available in the spring or next fall. The commissioners thanked Stein for coming to the meeting. Hauth described the two maps she prepared with Peterson and Potts. She noted the boundaries of current utility service and the adopted service boundary. She said the staff suggestion is meant only as a starting point and sought to include all areas where service exists and a limited amount of additional land. Commissioner Gering asked if staff had any idea as to the population or water demand within the boundary and Hauth said she didn't. Commissioner Dancy said it . . . U~l3 would depend on the land use within the boundary. Commissioner Sheridan suggested that maybe a specific boundary wasn't necessary. He expressed concern that a boundary may commit the town to provide services too soon or too broadly. Commissioner Chavious suggested that this process might help the Town locate additional reservoir sites. Commissioner Gering asked about the process of adopting the growth boundary. Hauth said it can be done in .a number of ways, depending on what purpose the boundary is for. Peterson said that the board could adopt the boundary by resolution and the board to chose how to enforce it. Peterson said that it was his understanding that the members were working on the boundary to clearly defme their goals, increase the efficiency of both staff and board time spent on development questions, and to narrow the focus of the larger planning discussion. By consensus the members agreed that the line provided on the maps as an option was conceptually OK to work with at this point in time. They agreed to refer to it as the conceptual growth boundary. The members discussed whether to seek additional information from Stein or whether to consider retaining his servicl:ls. Commissioner Dancy noted that the visualization part really appealed to her, so they could see what development might look like. The members generally agreed that help from the School of Design would be useful. They further agreed that the review of Waterstone should not halt to allow for a potential design process. Commissioner Sheridan suggested that staff contact Stein with a possible budget range of $10,0~20,000 and describe areas of town that need focusl~d attention. He suggested that the letter be-iQ.the approach that the town has X available and interest in Y areas, what can the School do within those'con~traints. The members agr~ed that three areas should be detined- the 1-40 interchange, the i-~5 corridor from the interchange on S Churton to the River, and, the US 70 corridor between the river bridges. The member received an update on the water situation. l'esp~'ifully ~ubmitted, ~{k,Ji. Margaret au, eCfetary