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