The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About12-13-21 Agenda Regular Meeting 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA | 1 of 3 Agenda Board of Commissioners Regular meeting 7 p.m. Dec. 13, 2021 Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St. Please use the bookmark feature to navigate and view the item attachments. 1. Public charge The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners pledges to the community of Hillsborough its respect. The board asks community members to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner with the board and with fellow community members. At any time should any member of the board or attendee fail to observe this public charge, the mayor or the mayor’s designee will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the mayor or the mayor’s designee will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 2. Oaths and affirmations of office A. Commissioner Robb English B. Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson C. Mayor Jenn Weaver Brief recess for photos of board members Reconvene meeting – Mayor Weaver 3. Audience comments not related to the printed agenda 4. Agenda changes and approval 5. Appointments A. Selection of Mayor Pro Tempore and Committee Appointments – Mayor and Commissioners B. Tourism Board – Appointment of Victoria Pace to fill vacancy for a term expiring Dec. 13, 2023 C. Tourism Board – Reappointment of Barney Caton for a term ending Dec. 9, 2023 6. Items for decision ― consent agenda A. Minutes 1. Joint public hearing Oct. 21, 2021 2. Regular meeting Nov. 8, 2021 3. Regular meeting closed session Nov. 8, 2021 4. Work session Nov. 22, 2021 (canceled) B. Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers C. 2022 Board of Commissioners meeting calendar amendment D. Classification Amendment — Update position titles for Communications Division E. Classification and Pay Amendment — Addition of temporary part-time non-benefited position F. Annexation Ordinance – 12.9 acres on Valley Forge Road BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA | 2 of 3 G. Consistency Statement and Ordinance amending Section 7.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance – Setbacks for nonconforming lots H. Resolution amending Mitigation Action Plan in the Eno-Haw Hazard Mitigation Plan to identity utility projects I. Approval of Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram dealership J. Approval of Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Collins Ridge Phase 1B K. Approval of Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Collins Ridge James J. Freeland Memorial Drive Water Main L. Letter of Support — Regionwide Campaign for Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) Funding M. Special Event Permit and Sponsorship — Hillsborough Arts Council Solstice Lantern Walk 7. Items for decision ― regular agenda A. Consistency statement and ordinance rezoning 244 Cornelius St. from R-10 to General Commercial B. Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance to increase density in multi-family districts C. Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance to remove waivers and introduce flexibility D. Future train station design and engineering team selection E. Continue board discussion on returning to in-person meetings 8. Updates A. Board members B. Town manager C. Staff (written reports in agenda packet) 9. Adjournment Interpreter services or special sound equipment for compliance with the American with Disabilities Act is available on request. If you are disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, call the Town Clerk’s Office at 919-296-9443 a minimum of one business day in advance of the meeting. Public Comment Instructions For public hearings, agenda items and items not on the agenda Public Comment ― Written Members of the public may provide written public comment by submitting it via the Board of Commissioners contact form by noon the day of the meeting. Public hearing comments may be submitted for 24 hours following a public hearing. When submitting the comment, include the following: • Date of the meeting • Agenda item you wish to comment on (Example: 5.C) • Your name, address, email and phone number Public Comment ― Verbal Members of the public can indicate they wish to speak during the meeting by contacting the town clerk using the town clerk contact form by noon the day of the meeting. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA | 3 of 3 When submitting the request to speak, include the following: • Date of the meeting • Agenda item you wish to speak on (Example: 5.C) • Your name, address, email and phone number For concerns prior to the meeting related to speaking, contact the town clerk at 919-296-9443. AGENDA ABSTRACT | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Governing Board Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Town Clerk Sarah Kimrey ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Selection of Mayor Pro Tempore and Committee Appointments – Mayor and Commissioners Attachments: 1. Committee Seat Appointments 2019-2021 2. Committee Appointments 2022-2023 Template Brief summary: The board will select a mayor pro tem and consider committee seats and alternate appointments for 2022-2023. State ethics requirements will apply to the designee and alternate to the Transportation Advisory Board. Action requested: Make board appointments. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: N/A Financial impacts: N/A Staff recommendation and comments: N/A For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 5.A Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov Committee Appointments | 1 of 1 Committee Appointments BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Calendar Years 2020-2021 Commissioner Mark Bell Community Home Trust Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Board (alternate) Hillsborough Water and Sewer Advisory Committee (rotation) Intergovernmental Collaboration Work Group Orange County Food Council Orange County Transit Plan Policy Steering Committee Orange County Visitors Bureau Commissioner Robb English Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Board Hillsborough Water and Sewer Advisory Committee (rotation) Orange County Climate Committee Orange County Intergovernmental Parks Work Group Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson Hillsborough Water and Sewer Advisory Group (rotation) Orange County Housing Collaborative Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness (OCPEH) Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) Board of Delegates Commissioner Matt Hughes Family Success Alliance Advisory Council Hillsborough Tourism Board Hillsborough Tourism Development Authority (TDA) Hillsborough Water and Sewer Advisory Committee (rotation) Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) Board of Delegates (alternate) Commissioner Evelyn Lloyd Fire Department Relief Fund Hillsborough Water and Sewer Advisory Committee (rotation) Orange Rural Fire Department Mayor Jenn Weaver Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Board Hillsborough Water and Sewer Advisory Committee (rotation) Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners Committee Appointments 2022-2023 Mayor Pro Tem - Committee Appointment Frequency Time Meetings/ Year Board Representative Community Home Trust Monthly 2nd Thurs 6 p.m.8 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Board Monthly 2nd Wed 9 a.m.11 Family Success Alliance Advisory Council Bimonthly 3rd Mon 2 p.m.6 Fire Department Relief Fund Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Board Monthly 3rd Tues 7 p.m.12 Hillsborough Tourism Board Monthly 1st Mon 5:30 p.m.12 Hillsborough Water and Sewer Advisory Committee Monthly 1st Thurs 7 p.m.12 Intergovernmental Collaboration Work Group Periodic Orange County Housing Collaborative Quarterly a.m.4 Orange County Intergovernmental Parks Work Group Quarterly 2nd Wed 5:30 p.m.3 Orange County Transit Plan Policy Steering Committee Orange County Visitors Bureau Monthly 3rd Wed 8 a.m.10 Orange County Climate Committee Orange County Food Council Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness (OCPEH)Monthly 1st Wed 5:30 p.m.11 Orange Rural Fire Department Monthly 3rd Thurs 12 Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG)Monthly Hillsborough Tourism Development Authority (TDA)Quarterly 4 Triange J Council of Governments Board of Delegates Bimonthly 4th Wed 5:30 p.m.6 Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA)Quarterly 3rd Wed 9:30 a.m.4 Inactive committees If reactivated, mayor will attend or appoint representative TBA TBA Quarterly as needed TBA Day of Week TBD TBA TBD TBA Approved: 12/13/21 AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Planning and Economic Development Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Planning and Economic Development Manager, Shannan Campbell ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Tourism Board – Appointment of Victoria Pace to fill a vacancy for a term expiring Dec. 13, 2023 Attachments: Volunteer application for Victoria Pace Brief summary: Victoria Pace has volunteered to serve a term of two years on the Hillsborough Tourism Board. At their meeting Monday, Dec. 6, the board voted unanimously to recommend her appointment. Action requested: Consider appointment of Victoria Pace as a member of the Hillsborough Tourism Board for a term ending Dec. 13, 2023. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: Victoria is interested in serving her community by volunteering. She loves living in Hillsborough and enjoys spending time at Cup A Joe. Financial impacts: None Staff recommendation and comments: None For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 5.B Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session Advisory Board Application If you are a Town of Hillsborough resident and willing to volunteer your time and expertise to your community, please complete this form. Volunteers for the Parks and Recreation Board must be at least 13 years old, and volunteers for all other boards must be at least 18 years old. Name: Victoria Pace Home address: 220 S Bellvue St Home phone number: 9199610027 Email address: vpace627@gmail.com Place of employment: Engineering World Health Job title: Operations Manager Birth date: June 27, 1992 Gender: Female Ethnic origin: White Boards you would be willing to serve on: First choice — Tourism Board Second choice — Historic District Commission Third choice — Water and Sewer Advisory Committee Reasons for wanting to serve: I moved to Hillsborough in 2016 and have loved every minute of it. I find something new each week that makes me love living here even more. The town, the community, the level of civic involvement. I’d like to give back to a town that I enjoy and be a part of its continued success. Have you served or are you currently serving on a town board? If so, which ones and when? I have not served on a board, but would love to (as you can see)! Relevant work, volunteer or educational experience: I’ve worked for a Chapel Hill based non-profit (Engineering World Health) for over 4 years, so I have experience managing non-profits, applying for grants, and working within a budget. Previously I worked in the UNC Chapel Hill admissions office, where my main duties included overseeing and curating the visitor experience. I volunteered with the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough (albeit in a very limited capacity) a few years ago. How are you connected to Hillsborough (live, work, play, shop, own property)? I’ve lived here since 2016, owned a home here since 2019, and own two businesses that operate out of Hillsborough (one is a flooring contracting company and the other is a supply company). I spend most of my spare time here and shop local every chance I get. Have you reviewed the Vision 2030 plan, and what are your thoughts about it? I have. I think it is a well written plan with a clear strategy and I would be enthusiastic about working towards fulfilling the Vision. Most of the goals seem attainable within the next 8 years. Some will likely need to be re-worked or included in the next plan, which is understandable. Have you reviewed other town documents (budget, strategy map, small area plans), and what are your thoughts about them? I have, namely the 5 Year Strategic Tourism Plan and the Community Connectivity/Corridor plans. I think the Strategic Tourism plan is great- the Tourism Board has clearly had success since the plan’s adoption in 2017. Last Fridays are always well attended, even in the COVID era, and it seems other visitor organizations in town have experienced growth. I feel the community connectivity/corridor plans are an important part of increasing town tourism. If more residents are able to conveniently access town businesses, they may be more likely to stay in town while hosting visitors (rather than travel to Durham/Chapel Hill for meals and events), thus those visitors may be more likely to return or mention Hillsborough as a lively spot to visit. What challenges do you see the town facing that could be addressed by the board or boards on which you wish to serve? Currently, the limited variety of shops and open commercial space downtown. I think the Tourism Board could work with other boards to encourage new businesses and get the downtown spaces filled. If there is a unique store that is interesting enough for people to come from out of town, it could add significantly to our visitor numbers (for example, I have often traveled to Pittsboro just to go to Screaming for Vintage, but usually stop by other shops while I’m there). I wanted to keep my answers brief for the sake of a non-strenuous review, but I’m happy to provide more information if needed! I’m very enthusiastic about Hillsborough and would love to be a part of a board. Thank you so much for your consideration! How you heard about this opportunity: Internet Agreement: 3 I have been advised that I am committing to attend the volunteer board's regular meetings. Attendance at the regular meetings shall be considered a prerequisite for maintaining membership on the board. The Board of Commissioners may declare a vacancy on the board because of non-attendance. AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Planning and Economic Development Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: NA PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Planning and Economic Development Manager, Shannan Campbell ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Tourism Board – Reappointment of Barney Caton for a term ending Dec. 9, 2023 Attachments: Original volunteer application for Barney Caton Brief summary: Barney Caton has volunteered to serve another term of two years on the Hillsborough Tourism Board. At their meeting Monday, Dec. 6, the board voted unanimously to recommend his reappointment. Action requested: Consider reappointment of Barney Caton as a member of the Hillsborough Tourism Board for a term ending Dec. 9, 2023. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: Barney Caton is the proud owner of Haunted Hillsborough Tours and enjoys serving on the Tourism Board. Financial impacts: None Staff recommendation and comments: None For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 5.C Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session Advisory Board Application If you are a Town of Hillsborough resident and willing to volunteer your time and expertise to your community, please complete this form. Volunteers for the Parks and Recreation Board must be at least 13 years old, and volunteers for all other boards must be at least 18 years old. Name: Barney Caton Home address: 1501 Bartlett Circle Home phone number: 3365383117 Email address: barney.p.caton@gmail.com Place of employment: USDA Job title: Scientist Birth date: March 15, 1966 Ethnic origin: Caucasian Boards you would be willing to serve on: First choice — Tourism Board Reasons for wanting to serve: As the owner/operator of Haunted Hillsborough Tours I have a strong interest in promoting tourism in Hillsborough. As a 15-year resident I know how far we've come, and I'd like to help continue to improve the tourism industry in Hillsborough. Have you served or are you currently serving on a town board? If so, which ones and when? No Relevant work, volunteer or educational experience: Haunted Hillsborough Tours Cub Scouts/Boy Scouts, Troop 821 Lots of relevant professional training (creative problem solving, communication, trust, etc.) Also voluntarily creating a new, and not for profit, historic tour of Churton Street for the Alliance How are you connected to Hillsborough (live, work, play, shop, own property)? I've lived here for 15 years and, as stated, am a small business owner in Hillsborough in the tourism sector. It goes without saying that I shop and play here quite often Have you reviewed the Vision 2030 plan, and what are your thoughts about it? I might prioritize some of the specific objectives under the goals a little differently, but I like the plan overall Have you reviewed other town documents (budget, strategy map, small area plans), and what are your thoughts about them? The Strategy Map is interesting. Unsurprisingly, I very strongly support the values of sustaining the town's character and improving vitality. What challenges do you see the town facing that could be addressed by the board or boards on which you wish to serve? I think we could market the town better to the two nearby colleges and their visitors. Orange County Tourism is a big help but emphasizing our unique features and close proximity could be profitable, I think. How you heard about this opportunity: Newspaper Agreement: 3 I have been advised that I am committing to attend the volunteer board's regular meetings. Attendance at the regular meetings shall be considered a prerequisite for maintaining membership on the board. The Board of Commissioners may declare a vacancy on the board because of non-attendance. AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Administration Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Town Clerk Sarah Kimrey ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Minutes Attachments: 1. Joint public hearing Oct. 21, 2021 2. Regular meeting Nov. 8, 2021 3. Regular meeting closed session Nov. 8,2021 4. Work session Nov. 22, 2021 (canceled) Brief summary: Provide brief summary here. Action requested: Approve minutes of the Board of Commissioners joint public hearing Oct. 21, 2021, regular meeting Nov. 8, 2021, regular work session Nov. 8, 2021 closed session and the Board of Commissioners work session Nov. 22 2021 (canceled). ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: None Financial impacts: None Staff recommendation and comments: Approve minutes as presented. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.A Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 1 of 15 Minutes PLANNING BOARD AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Remote joint public hearing 7 p.m. Oct. 21, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTube Live Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present Town board: Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt Hughes and Evelyn Lloyd Planning Board: Vice Chair Jenn Sykes, Christopher Austin, Frank Casadonte, Cassie Chandler, Lisa Frazier, Alyse Polly, Hooper Schultz, Jeff Scott and Scott Taylor Absent: Planning Board: Chair Chris Johnston Staff: Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell, Assistant Town Manager Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Bob Hornik 1. Call to order and confirmation of quorum Mayor Jenn Weaver called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum, noting that Commissioner Matt Hughes was not yet present. 2. Agenda changes and approval There were no changes. Later, the boards discussed Item 5B-5 before Item 5B-3. Motion: Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Planning Board Vice Chair Jenn Sykes seconded. Campbell called the roll for voting. Vote: 13-0. Ayes: Ayes: Commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Ferguson and Evelyn Lloyd; Planning Board members Sykes, Christopher Austin, Frank Casadonte, Cassie Chandler, Lisa Frazier, Alyse Polly, Hooper Schultz, Jeff Scott and Scott Taylor. Nays: None. 3. Open the public hearing Weaver turned the meeting over to Sykes. Sykes declared the public hearing open without a vote. 4. Development projects A. Annexation – Orange County requesting annexation of approximately 12.9 acres on Valley Forge Road Sykes introduced Item 4A. She reminded those present that the only votes tonight would be to close the public hearing items, not to finalize any decisions. She clarified tonight’s public hearing is for discussion and public comment only, with decisions being made at the subsequent Nov. 18, 2021, Planning Board meeting and the Dec. 13, 2021, Board of Commissioners meeting. Hughes arrived at 7:09 p.m. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 2 of 15 Campbell summarized the staff report outlining the annexation request. She said Orange County owns the 12.9-acre parcel at the end of Valley Forge Road currently occupied by Builders First Source. She said the property is contiguous to the town limits and is zoned General Industrial, which she said is appropriate for the parcel. She explained that the culvert underneath Valley Forge Road failed recently, after which the town made temporary repairs. Campbell said the town needs to make final road repairs and wants to bring the parcel into the town limits to recoup the repair costs over time. Assistant Town Manager Margaret Hauth clarified the roadway washed out almost two years ago. Sykes noted that Pages 3-5 of the agenda packet outline the annexation request. Campbell asked Steve Arndt of Orange County if he would like to add any information. Arndt said Orange County is in favor of the annexation. Sykes asked for comments and questions from the town board and planning board members. When asked, Campbell explained that the pipe under Valley Forge Road has begun to erode with age, putting the culvert and the road at risk of collapse. Polly said it sounds important to fix the problem. Hornik explained that Cates Creek runs through the pipe under the road where the culvert failed. Arndt noted that almost the entire road had washed out when the culvert failed two years ago. Sykes recalled there were several news articles written about the culvert failure at the time. Bell observed that the agenda packet said the property is being put up for sale. He asked for more information or context about the sale. Arndt explained that Orange County originally became involved with the property as part of an economic development project. He said the enterprise on the property has been fully operational for a number of years. He said the county is interested in selling the property but has run into some legal issues that may preclude sale for some time. He said the county would like to sell the property and reallocate its resources to other areas. There were no other questions or comments. Motion: Ferguson moved to close the public hearing for Item 4A. Schultz seconded. Campbell called the roll for voting. Vote: 14-0. Ayes: Ayes: Commissioners Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd; Planning Board members Sykes, Austin, Casadonte, Chandler, Frazier, Polly, Schultz, Scott and Taylor. Nays: None. B. Rezoning – Hunter and Veronica Beattie requesting rezoning of 0.65 acres at 244 Cornelius Street to change from Residential-10 to General Commercial Motion: Ferguson moved to open the public hearing for Item 4B. Bell seconded. Campbell called the roll for voting. Vote: 14-0. Ayes: Ayes: Commissioners Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd; Planning Board members Sykes, Austin, Casadonte, Chandler, Frazier, Polly, Schultz, Scott and Taylor. Nays: None. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 3 of 15 Sykes introduced Item 4B and noted that Pages 6-11 of the agenda packet outline the rezoning request. Campbell confirmed the applicant, Hunter Beattie, was present. She reminded the board members of the two pieces of written public comment they had received from residents Nathan Davis and Stan Davis regarding the rezoning request. Campbell displayed a zoning map showing the parcel in question. She explained the parcel has been subdivided from a larger parcel with frontage on Turner Street and on Cornelius Street (U.S. Highway 70). The applicant is requesting the town rezone the subdivided lot fronting Highway 70 to General Commercial, with the subdivided lot fronting Turner Street remaining zoned Residential-10. Sykes asked Beattie if he would like to add any comments. Beattie said that he and his wife recently purchased the now-subdivided lot along with an adjacent lot that is zoned General Commercial. Beattie noted that the lot in question is vacant. He said both of the lots fronting Highway 70 are across from Mayo’s Barber Shop, an ABC store, Samantha’s Pupusas and two gas stations. He noted the location is very close to the intersection of Highway 70 with N.C. Highway 86, as well as being a quarter-mile from restaurants and a laundromat. He said the eastern of the two lots currently has a building on it and is zoned General Commercial. Beattie said he and his wife are hoping to add to the developable road frontage, noting that rezoning the western lot to General Commercial would yield around 250 feet of frontage. Beattie said most of the commercial development in Hillsborough is south of downtown and requires navigating the traffic bottleneck south of Weaver Street Market. Beattie said he and his wife are interested in creating a commercial space north of downtown to serve the Highway 70 corridor. Sykes noted that opposing perspectives could be found in the two letters received from the Davises, neighbors who oppose the rezoning request. Sykes asked for comments or questions from the board members. When asked, Campbell, Sykes and Hornik explained that the map on Page 6 of the agenda packet shows the town’s Future Land Use Plan, which designates both parcels as Neighborhood Mixed Use. They clarified the map on Page 7 shows the current zoning, with the eastern lot zoned General Commercial and the western lot zoned Residential-10. Campbell displayed a map showing Nathan Davis’ property to the west of the property in question. Campbell explained the eastern of Beattie’s two parcels has a house on it but is zoned General Commercial. Hornik explained that the town adopted the Future Land Use Plan as its vision for future uses in town. He said the Future Land Use Plan is not necessarily consistent with current zoning designations, which may not have been updated in many years. He said the town’s goal is to make zoning consistent with the Future Land Use Plan over time. When asked, Campbell confirmed the rezoning request is only for the subdivided portion of the western parcel fronting Highway 70. She confirmed the subdivided portion facing Turner Street would remain zoned Residential-10. When asked, Campbell said the property west of the lot in question appears to be vacant. She said Beattie owns the lot to the east, which has a house on it but is zoned General Commercial. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 4 of 15 Campbell said the lot southwest of the lot in question is zoned Residential-10 and has a house on it. Hauth confirmed that Nathan and Stan Davis own the southwestern lot and their letters reference their mother living in that house. Lloyd asked if the applicant had checked to see if there is a house near the lot he wants to rezone. She also asked if the applicant could say what he wants to build there. Hauth reminded the board members that rezoning requests of this type cannot delve into specifics regarding potential future uses. She said the applicant is asking for General Commercial zoning, which has a long list of permitted uses. Hauth said the applicant would be allowed to put any of those uses on the property if it is rezoned. She said he is not obligated to and is discouraged from telling the town what he wants to do with the property. Lloyd said that the applicant likely would not build a house on the property, noting that commercial development would bother the Davises, who have lived on their property for a long time. Hauth agreed it is unlikely the applicant intends to build a house on his property. When asked, Hauth clarified that both Nathan and Stan Davis wrote letters on behalf of the same piece of property. He said that if his rezoning request is denied the parcel would be split zoned. He said if the rezoning is approved he would like to combine the resulting two General Commercial parcels into one larger parcel. Regarding the Davis’ letters, Beattie said that Nathan Davis may not be aware that his vacant lot fronting Highway 70 also is designated Neighborhood Mixed Use on the Future Land Use Plan. Beattie noted that another Davis brother owns the small parcel to the west of Nathan Davis’ parcel, which he said has a dilapidated building on it. Beattie said he and his wife bought this parcel in part because of its location near so many commercial developments and the Highway 70 corridor. He outlined that there is a vacant parcel to the east of his General Commercial parcel, pointing out that all of the properties fronting Highway 70 in this area are designated Neighborhood Mixed Use on the Future Land Use Plan. He reiterated that Nathan Davis may not be aware that his vacant parcel is designated Neighborhood Mixed Use in the Future Land Use Plan. Sykes asked Ferguson to give some background information and context on plans for the Highway 70 corridor. Ferguson said that around 2007 a small area task force comprising representatives from the county, town and residents looked at the Highway 70 corridor and created a vision for development there. She said that vision is that the Highway 70 corridor would be a commercial corridor serving the northern part of Hillsborough and taking advantage of the east-west traffic. She said the task force adopted the plan, which is now part of the town’s Future Land Use Plan. Ferguson said the task force looked at the Highway 70 corridor from the intersection with N.C. Highway 86 to the town limits. She said she is glad to answer questions and noted the plan is on the town website. There were no further questions or comments. Motion: Ferguson moved to close the public hearing for Item 4B. Schultz seconded. Campbell called the roll for voting. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 5 of 15 Vote: 14-0. Ayes: Ayes: Commissioners Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd; Planning Board members Sykes, Austin, Casadonte, Chandler, Frazier, Polly, Schultz, Scott and Taylor. Nays: None. 5. Text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance A. Section 7.5 to clarify automatic setback reductions for nonconforming lots Sykes recommended the boards consider all of the proposed text amendments within one public hearing. Motion: Ferguson moved to open the public hearing for Items 5A and 5B. Taylor seconded. Campbell called the roll for voting. Vote: 14-0. Ayes: Ayes: Commissioners Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd; Planning Board members Sykes, Austin, Casadonte, Chandler, Frazier, Polly, Schultz, Scott and Taylor. Nays: None. Sykes introduced Item 5A, a text amendment that would clarify the setback requirements for nonconforming lots. She referred the board members to Page 12 of the agenda packet. Sykes asked Hauth or Campbell to summarize the staff report for Item 5A. Hauth said the ordinance includes a lot of provisions dealing with nonconforming residential lots because Hillsborough has many nonconforming residential lots. She said the Board of Adjustment recently had a case involving a variance request, and staff would like to document the Board of Adjustment’s interpretations in the ordinance as clarifying language. Hauth said the Board of Adjustment’s interpretations in that case would make dealing with setback requirements easier and more flexible. Hauth said the proposed changes to Section 7.5.3 of the ordinance would clarify that preexisting nonconforming lots could have automatic flexibility regarding setbacks. She said the ordinance already said that preexisting nonconforming lots that were too narrow would qualify for an automatic setback reduction, with no setback narrower than 10 feet. She noted the language in the ordinance used “may,” not “must.” Hauth said rather than requiring such lots to have side setbacks of equal widths, the Board of Adjustment interpreted that an applicant could choose to set one side setback at the minimum 10 feet width and then calculate the other side setback based on the formula in the ordinance. She noted there are many cases around town in which houses are not built in the middle of their lots and said that allowing more flexibility promotes a diversity of looks around town. Hauth gave a hypothetical example of how the formula would be applied with the new interpretation. She said a lot that is 50 feet wide would be required to have combined side setbacks totaling 25 feet. In that case, the new interpretation would allow one side setback to be 10 feet wide and the other 15 feet wide, instead of requiring two equal-width side setbacks of 12.5 feet. Hauth said once the setbacks are decided, that choice would be documented in the property’s file. She said the change would allow the same amount of side setback width but would give flexibility in how that width is distributed. Hauth said the additional flexibility could help property owners in many situations, such as when saving a tree, creating a better driveway situation or dealing with topography. Hauth added the change also could remove preexisting violations in cases where houses are too close to their property lines under the current ordinance. Hauth added that rewriting Section 7.5.3 also let staff remove another ordinance section that dealt with narrow lots, thus further streamlining the ordinance. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 6 of 15 Sykes asked for questions or comments regarding Item 5A. None was raised. Sykes expressed appreciation for Board of Adjustment Chair Bill Harris and King for their interpretation of the ordinance. B. Remove option for applicants to seek waivers and replace with targeted flexibility 1. Portions of Section 1, 3 and 6 to remove waiver references and authorization Sykes introduced Items 5B-1 through 5B-7 regarding amendments needed to remove waivers. Hauth explained that until the recent ordinance amendments made to comply with N.C.G.S. 160D, applicants could request rezoning and a special use permit at the same time and also could request waivers through the same process. She noted that the changes made to comply with N.C.G.S. 160D removed that special use permit zoning option. Hauth noted that waivers are distinct from variances. She said waivers were intended to allow creativity and flexibility in challenging situations. Hauth noted that waivers have been an option in town for more than 10 years. She said the town has seen a lot of waiver requests, noting that some waiver requests were well intentioned and well argued while others were not. She said it has been very difficult for staff or Planning Board members to recommend denying any waivers, noting that the more waivers are granted, the harder it becomes to justify saying no. Hauth said staff also has seen applicants using waivers to get around ordinance requirements. Hauth said some such applicants makes it appear that they will not develop in Hillsborough if not granted all of their requests. She said waivers do not seem to be serving their intended purpose of allowing for creativity and flexibility. Hauth said the changes in Item 5B-1 would remove the authorization of waivers from the ordinance. She said staff also has identified six ordinance sections that have received the most waiver requests, and Items 5B-2 through 5B-7 include amendments to those sections to add flexibility without compromising the town’s interests. Hauth said building in that flexibility should eliminate the need for waivers. Hauth explained the changes in Item 5B-1 would eliminate all references to waivers in the ordinance. 2. Section 6.3 to amend the density allowed in the Multi-Family zoning district and add a bonus for affordable housing Hauth said the changes in Item 5B-2 involve the density of multi-family attached housing. She said the current ordinance sets the maximum allowed density for multi-family attached housing at nine units per acre. She referred the board members to a table in the agenda packet outlining the densities of the town’s apartment buildings and townhome neighborhoods. She said nine units per acre works well for townhome neighborhoods but said apartment complexes have been applying for and receiving additional density in the special use process. Hauth said staff is suggesting raising the maximum allowed density for multi-family attached housing to 20 units per acre to closely match the current market. She referred the board members to examples of nearby apartment complexes provided in the agenda packet. Hauth clarified staff is not suggesting changing the height limit of 45 feet, or three stories, in the Multi-Family zoning district. She clarified that many times the fourth story is needed to achieve 20 units per acre. She said staff is not opposed to increasing the height limit but did not want to suggest too many significant changes at once. She said individual applicants might not be able to achieve 20 units per acre on individual parcels, but she said raising the density would allow developers to build at densities closer to 15-18 units per acre, which she said is very common with apartment complexes in neighboring municipalities. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 7 of 15 Hauth showed an example of the Cates Creek apartments in the Waterstone development. She noted that more than half of the 21-acre site was used to meet ordinance requirements other than density, such as parking and conservation easements. She said if the development had been allowed to build at 20 units per acre, in theory the apartments could have fit on a 13.5-acre site. Hauth said that developments need more than just sufficient acreage to achieve the right number of units. Hauth noted that the Cates Creek apartments did receive a waiver allowing fewer parking spaces. Hauth asked Hughes, who lives in Cates Creek apartments, to discuss the parking situation. Hughes noted that every building in Cates Creek apartments has a certain number of one-bedroom, two- bedroom and three-bedroom apartments. He said that even with the apartment complex fully occupied, parking is not hard to find and is even plentiful in some parts of the complex. He said he thinks having fewer parking spaces makes a lot of sense. He acknowledged that parking was harder to find last year when most people were at home during the pandemic, but said he couldn’t imagine assigning spaces based simply on the number of acres or units. Hughes noted that many units have one-car or two-car families regardless of the number of bedrooms. He said overall the parking at Cates Creek apartments works out fine. When asked, Hauth confirmed she was using the Cates Creek apartments example to illustrate how parking and density go together. Weaver said the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan process could involve additional conversations about density and parking minimums. She asked what the implications would be of making changes now and then making additional changes through the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan process. Hauth said staff does not feel comfortable leaving the possibility of waivers on the table until the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan is finished. She said staff feels strongly that waivers need to go away, adding that Hillsborough is not seeing the type of developments that the town wants and not seeing the benefit of the Unified Development Ordinance as long as waivers exist. She said staff does not want to create a development bottleneck while the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan is created, noting that developers are quite interested in coming to Hillsborough. Hauth said staff does not want to remove waivers without building in flexibility for the sections that most often see waiver requests. Campbell said that as an economic development professional she had always liked the idea of waivers because the provide flexibility. However, she said that in the last two years more than one developer has told her they were going to build what they wanted to build, and the town could turn down the waiver requests if they did not want the development. Campbell said the town wants developers who are interested in building to the town’s code and who will make changes to their plans based on that code in order to build the type of development the town has decided it wants to have, not developers who will weaponize waiver requests because they know the town wants developments. Regarding increased density, Campbell said that the town’s current maximum of nine units per acre is very low, noting that the town has not raised the allowed density in many years. She said that increasing multi- family density to 20 units per acre may seem like a big jump, but she noted that the standard for most communities is around 16 or 18 units per acre. Campbell said she frequently gets calls from developers who think they are reading the ordinance wrong and who cannot believe the town’s maximum allowed density is so low. She said she explains to such developers that many of the town’s denser apartment complexes were approved through special use processes. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 8 of 15 Polly asked how common it is to offer waivers. Hauth said she thinks Hillsborough is a little bit unusual in offering waivers and that other municipalities have flexibility built into their ordinances. Campbell said she has not worked for a municipality that offers waivers and said the City of Raleigh and the Town of Morrisville have flexibility built into their ordinances. Campbell recommended moving toward flexibility and building more options into the ordinance. Hughes said he has spoken to a few developers and he does not fully agree that all developers are weaponizing waiver requests, adding he believes waivers often are used appropriately when mistakes are made. He acknowledged there are some circumstances in which developers are abusing waivers, but he asked if it is possible that the Unified Development Ordinance is flawed and hard to meet, resulting in more waiver requests. Hauth agreed it is possible that the Unified Development Ordinance could be flawed, noting the ordinance was crafted over many years by those at tonight’s meeting. She said that those people crafting the ordinance are trying to use words and regulations to define the look, feel and character that town residents value, which is an ever-changing target. She noted that many residents value different things. Hauth added that several different staff members are now interpreting the ordinance, leading to variations in interpretation. Hauth said there are no perfect ordinances and that planning and zoning are very different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Campbell said that at first she also wondered if the ordinance was flawed. She clarified that not all developers are using waivers to do whatever they want, but said she has heard from more than one developer who did plan to use waivers in that way. Campbell said she had assumed the town used waivers because the ordinance did not have enough flexibility and was too hard to meet, but said she has also has heard from many developers requesting waivers who simply do not want to meet the town’s standards. Hughes asked how a need for flexibility would be handled for infrequently requested waivers that are not addressed by tonight’s amendments. He offered several examples relating to the ABC store on South Churton Street and to the Elfin’s Pond development. Hughes asked how developers would seek relief in unusual situations. Hauth noted that several of Hughes’ examples have been addressed by changes to the town’s design standards, which were amended and made more flexible a few months ago. She said staff believes those design standards are now in the simplest and most consistent format, noting they now include more flexibility than in 2018. She said developers in situations such as Elfin’s Pond would still be able to seek a variance. Hauth acknowledged variances require a higher standard and are harder to get. Hauth acknowledged that removing the waiver option would cause some pain among developers, saying inevitably someone will make a mistake and have to correct it at their own expense. She said many developers replicate the same plan in every jurisdiction they build in. Removing waivers would force applicants to choose between their stock design and locating in Hillsborough. Hughes said he approves of all the text amendments presented except for the one to remove waivers. He said he thinks getting rid of waivers altogether could present a regulatory environment that would not be conducive to helping businesses, noting that Orange County has a reputation for not being friendly to businesses. Hughes said getting rid of waivers altogether feels uncomfortable to him, noting that mistakes and unexpected challenges do happen during construction. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 9 of 15 Sykes asked if staff would be able to handle small mistakes moving forward. Hauth replied it would depend on the mistake and the section of code involved. Hauth confirmed staff can approve a mathematical change of up to 10%. Hauth said some of tonight’s other proposed changes would cover a situation like that at Elfin’s Pond. Bell added that being able to engage applicants in a dialog is helpful. He noted that his is undecided about the density change. Austin noted some concern about the density increase given the current congestion on the road network that impacts residents. A side discussion about transportation issue and priorities transpired. Sykes pivoted the discussion to the density bonus for affordable housing. Hauth summarized staff’s recommendation regarding the affordability bonus. She said affordable housing is a major issue and a difficult issue for government to impact without significant financial investment. Hauth said it is easier to impact affordability on the regulatory side by providing incentives that do not cost the town money. Hauth said that discussions about updating density seemed like an opportune time to consider adding an automatic density bonus for affordable housing projects that could be implemented at the staff level. She said such projects would need to document that they are affordable, such as projects that make use of tax credits or other government funding. She asked for the board members’ feedback regarding the numbers proposed in the agenda packet. Hauth reminded the board members that site plans for multi-family housing are approvable by staff and do not require another public hearing after the site is rezoned. She said that implementing a density bonus for affordable housing that staff could implement would save a lot of time and money for applicants, thus encouraging affordable housing development. Hauth noted the presence of Aspen Romeyn of Self-Help Credit Union who has comments regarding the affordability bonus, as well as supportive comments received from CASA, an affordable housing non-profit organization. Hauth summarized that in addition to increasing multi-family density to 20 units per acre, staff also is suggesting adding a 50% density bonus when a project is 100% affordable. She noted that could yield as many as 30 units per acre. Hauth said that may feel like a big change but noted that such projects tend to be small. She offered several examples of such small projects in town, including Hampton Pointe apartments, Eno Haven and CASA in Collins Ridge. Hauth added that the two proposed changes together present an opportunity for existing sites to redevelop at a higher density. Hauth invited Romeyn to speak. Romeyn said she appreciates the town’s efforts to make development of affordable housing easier. She acknowledged that 30 units per acre may seem like a big number but said that in her experience parking requirements limit what can be built. Romeyn said that having the affordable housing density bonus gives affordable housing developers flexibility to maximize the land they have and put as many units as possible to make the project work. Romeyn said land costs and site work are very expensive and being able to maximize the number of units is very helpful. Romeyn suggested adding an option for market-rate projects that include some affordable units. She also suggested other tools for affordability, such as a deed restriction or a ground lease, rather than government funding. Romeyn said such a situation would incentivize developers to partner with non-profits to create affordable units in developments that otherwise would be 100% market rate. Romeyn said the language also JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 10 of 15 should include grants, noting that she currently works with a project that does not qualify for tax credits because of its location. Ferguson said she is hearing that density bonuses are not incentivizing projects in the way they were envisioned. She asked for Romeyn’s opinion. Ferguson also noted it is important to find ways to encourage permanent affordability. Regarding the effectiveness of density bonuses, Romeyn said she has heard feedback similar to what Ferguson reported. Romeyn said many density bonuses are not as high as 50% and that could be part of why they are not as effective. She said she thinks the proposed 50% bonus is high enough to have an impact. Polly said she loves the idea of the density bonus. She asked whether it would be possible to achieve 30 units per acre given the current height restriction of 45 feet. She acknowledged the height limit could be adjusted at a later date. Hauth said that Item 5B-5 includes a proposal to allow affordable housing projects to have fewer parking spaces. She said that when the affordable housing density bonus is paired with the proposed parking reduction, achieving 30 units per acre would be more feasible. Hauth said the current ordinance requires two parking spaces per unit, regardless of how many bedrooms each unit contains. She said shifting to allow one parking space per bedroom would yield a 50% savings in parking for one-bedroom units. Hauth noted CASA has given feedback that they would like even those building at market rate to be able to build fewer parking spaces. Hauth said every parking space is 170 square feet, which is a lot of land. Hauth said saving space on parking would free up space to build more units. Hauth added that the board members have not yet discussed the proposed conditional zone. She said a conditional zone could be created that allows apartments and commercial developments on the same parcels with taller building heights. She noted that building heights in the town’s commercial zones are around 60-65 feet. Hauth said she also is not opposed to changing multi-family building heights but said she did not want to change too much at once. Hauth said allowing multi-family developments in districts with taller height limits would be another way to ease into the higher height limit. Polly said it sounds like there could be more conversations later about changing the height limits. She appreciated Hauth’s sensitivity to not changing too many things at once. She said it sounds like it is possible to reach 30 units per acre within the current rules especially if the parking requirements are changed. Romeyn noted that Chapel Hill recently created a zoning district just for affordable housing that removes density limits. She said the new zoning district allows her organization to build a project with as many units as possible on the land given the topography, stormwater and parking needs. She said they are currently working on such a project that is a mix of townhomes and duplexes for sale and apartments for rent. She said the apartments in that project are three stories tall because that made financial sense in that case. Romeyn said typically affordable housing developers cannot afford to build taller buildings. She said removing the density cap gives affordable housing developers more flexibility. Sykes noted that at a previous Planning Board meeting she had asked about having a bonus as high as 75%. She asked if that number was still on the table or if other board members preferred 50%. Hauth said she did not remember hearing a groundswell of support for a 75% bonus at the Planning Board meeting. Sykes said she thinks the board members know that discussing increasing Hillsborough’s density would be a challenge. Sykes reminded the members than when West Hillsborough asked for lower density, they JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 11 of 15 immediately replied they would support more density if the resulting housing were affordable. Sykes said affordability is something people are very concerned about. Sykes suggested skipping to Item 5B-5 regarding parking, as it applies to affordability and density. 3. Section 6.5.7 to amend buffer requirements to address utilities and stormwater control mechanisms This item was discussed after Item 5B-5. Sykes introduced Item 5B-3. Hauth summarized the staff report. Hauth noted that recently this section was rewritten to provide a lot of flexibility and options to meet buffer requirements. She said staff does not suggest further modification to buffers in general. However, she said the challenge of stormwater control or utility easements that often overlap with buffers has not been fully addressed. Hauth said the proposed changes introduce some flexibility that staff recommends. She noted that both utilities and stormwater control mechanisms have topographic requirements and cannot easily be relocated to meet a mathematical requirement for buffers. Hauth summarized staff’s reasoning and said the proposed amendment creates flexibility to place the buffer closest to the land use requiring the protection, while still allowing the utility or stormwater control mechanism to be placed where its physically reasonable. Hauth noted that some buffers are intended to protect neighboring properties from development disturbances, while other buffers protect the land being developed from disturbances, such as from a railroad or an interstate. In the latter situation Hauth said it could be better to put the utility line closer to the railroad or interstate while leaving the land in between as a buffer. Hauth said when the buffer protects the neighboring property it makes more sense to locate the utility or stormwater pond closer to the development side of the buffer. She displayed several examples. Hauth said the proposed changes add flexibility and should address the majority of waiver requests related to buffers, utilities and stormwater control mechanisms needing to co-locate. Sykes agreed that waivers are frequently requested for this portion of the ordinance. There were no other comments or questions about this item. 4. Section 6.11 to add flexibility in minimum lighting levels and create use-specific lighting standards Hauth summarized the staff report for Item 5B-4. She reminded the board members that the ordinance requires 1 foot-candle of light across parking lots. Hauth offered two lighting examples. Hauth noted that the Walmart parking lot has light levels at about 1 foot-candle with some darker areas. She said light levels are higher closer to light fixtures and where lights overlap. Consequently, some developers install much brighter lights in an effort to reach the 1 foot-candle standard in all areas of a lot. Hauth said the parking lot behind the 515 North Churton Street condominiums has light levels closer to 3 foot-candles in their effort to meet the 1 foot-candle standard in all areas. She said that developer asked for and received a lighting waiver. Hauth reminded the board members that neighbors have commented that 515 North Churton Street is an extraordinarily bright site. She said there is no light trespass off the site but noted it is very bright compared to neighboring backyards. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 12 of 15 Hauth said staff recommends building flexibility into the ordinance, allowing up to 25% of a parking lot to not meet the 1 foot-candle requirement, which would avoid the entire site being overly bright. She noted that bright lights are visible for long distances and affect neighbors’ quality of life without benefiting people in the parking lot. Hauth she said the amendment also defines a few uses that could have brighter areas, provided they meet the 0.2 foot-candle limit at property lines. She said these uses include car dealers, banks and gas stations, uses that want brighter light levels for safety. For reference, Hauth said the Walmart parking lot is compliant at 1 foot-candle across the board, noting that lot does not feel too dark. Hauth said canopies at gas stations are often brighter than 30 foot-candles, which is extremely bright. Hauth added that the vast majority of commercial sites contract for their lighting with Duke Energy, which offers no flexibility, timers or dimmers on their fixtures. She said until there are partnerships with the electricity providers there would be limits to what the town could do about parking lot lighting. Ferguson acknowledged that Duke Energy does not provide a mechanism for on-demand lighting. She wondered about dimmer lighting at more compact developments like Fiori Hills and asked if there has been any thinking about providing dimmer lighting options for denser building models. She asked how the town could support on-demand lighting or dark sky initiatives for private lighting. Hauth noted that Fiori Hills contains street lighting while the proposed ordinance concerns commercial parking lot lighting. Ferguson clarified she had offered Fiori Hills as an example of concentrated lighting in a denser development and said she is looking ahead and wondering where the town could provide more lighting flexibility in general. Hauth said the ordinance is fairly flexible and added that the town’s light levels are fairly low. Hauth said the ordinance requires sharp cut-off fixtures and encourages dark skies initiatives and limiting light trespass. Chandler noted the Bellevue Mill apartments are very bright. She said Duke Energy recently installed many bright lights, which has impacted the quality of life there. Hauth noted the ordinance likely required the bright lighting. Bell asked if Duke Energy is the only provider of commercial lighting or if property owners can install their own lights. Hauth clarified that property owners can install their own lights but said those owners would then have to maintain the lights using bucket trucks, which few are interested in doing. Lloyd reminded Hauth of an incident when a neighbor of the Oakdale Village development on South Churton Street complained to the town about lights from the ABC store. Lloyd recalled the developer had been very helpful to the neighbor. Hauth said that incident had involved lights being at different heights and shining through the neighbor’s windows. Sykes noted that many times the lighting plan is one of the last things developers submit to staff. She asked if the 25% allowance would cut down on how much work staff has to do with resubmissions. Hauth said she did not think the added flexibility would impact resubmission work for staff. Hauth said that as long as the current busy building period continues, Duke Energy likely would not prioritize providing lighting plans. Hauth said developers rarely want to provide their own lighting plans, as it is an extra expense. Sykes asked if there are any ways to use LED bulbs or technologies to mitigate the very bright spots in parking lots. Hauth did not know of any ways. Sykes noted the Walmart parking lot used to appear very bright from the Beckett’s Ridge neighborhood. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 13 of 15 5. Section 6.13 to add range to number of spaces required and add a parking reduction for affordable housing This item was discussed before Item 5B-3. Sykes noted the board members discussed some of the parking issues related to Item 5B-5 in conjunction with Item 5B-2 regarding density. Sykes introduced Item 5B-5 regarding parking. Hauth summarized the staff report for this item. She the ordinance currently generates a specific number of parking spaces for each particular use, with no allowances or flexibility. She said staff suggests building a range of spaces into the ordinance. She said the proposed language would allow uses requiring 99 or fewer spaces to build five more or fewer spaces, while uses requiring 100 or more spaces could build 10 more or fewer spaces. Hauth noted that most uses build fewer than 99 parking spaces. Hauth outlined some examples provided in the agenda packet. Hauth said the proposed language would create flexibility around all of the parking standards. Hauth said staff also recommends allowing affordable multi-family developments to provide one parking space per bedroom, rather than the two spaces per unit required for market-rate complexes. Hauth said generally people want to build more parking than the ordinance allows. She said people rarely want less parking than the ordinance requires. Polly asked if there are any examples of people wanting fewer parking spaces besides affordable housing developments. Hauth confirmed that people almost never want less parking, except in a case where a building or site changes uses and then needs more parking for the new use. She offered Steve’s Market as an example, saying that when that site was a gym offering classes there was never enough parking. Hauth confirmed that commercial enterprises generally do not want fewer parking spaces. Sykes and Campbell agreed. Romeyn said she agreed with reducing the parking requirements for affordable housing. She said she thinks requiring one parking space per bedroom for three-bedroom apartments is excessive for affordable units. She suggested requiring one parking space per bedroom with a maximum of two spaces per unit. Weaver acknowledged there would be more conversations about parking during the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan process. She said she hopes the town would be moving in the direction of fewer parking requirements for any kind of residential construction, noting that would move the town more toward the vision that the community has expressed in numerous ways. Sykes asked if the parking reduction could be extended to all multi-family housing rather than just affordable housing. She appreciated Romeyn’s observation that three-bedroom apartments may not need a third parking space, noting that children do not drive. Hauth said she is happy to see the parking requirements change. Hauth noted there had been a recent change in light of the Cates Creek apartments’ landlord’s feedback that so many spaces were not needed. Ferguson said the town should be mindful of blended and nontraditional family needs. There were no further questions or comments regarding this item. 6. Section 6.17 to add flexibility to resolve utility and street tree conflicts Sykes introduced Item 5B-6. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 14 of 15 Hauth summarized the staff report. She said Utilities Director Marie Strandwitz prefers water and sewer lines be located in easements, not under pavement or sidewalks, which often pushes utilities outside the public rights of way and can impact sidewalk and street tree locations. Hauth reminded the board members the ordinance requires street trees for shading sidewalks. Because the street trees are supposed to be planted close to sidewalks, conflicts can arise with utility lines. Hauth said planting trees over water lines can cause roots to damage the water lines, or maintenance to the water lines could require removing a healthy tree. Hauth said the proposed amendment would introduce flexibility for street trees’ locations. There were no comments or questions regarding this item. 7. Section 6.22 to modify tree preservation language Sykes introduced Item 5B-7 regarding modifying tree preservation language. Hauth summarized the staff report. Hauth said tree preservation is very important and is growing in importance as more is learned about climate change. Hauth said the research she has seen indicates tree preservation must be addressed at the local level. Hauth said that when the ordinance was originally written, numbers were chosen without much research and very flexible language was used. She said the ordinance has not served the town well, especially as several staff members try to implement the ordinance consistently. Hauth said the town currently does not have enough information to craft a fair and defendable tree preservation standard. She added there also is now pushback happening at the state level regarding whether or not municipalities can use planning and zoning ordinances to regulate trees on private property or whether that regulation requires special legislation. Hauth said it is very likely the town will need to petition for special legislation to continue to regulate tree preservation in the future. She clarified the ordinance refers to trees on non-residential private property, not trees on town property or in the public right of way. Hauth acknowledged that staff’s recommendation was a difficult ask. She said staff recommends the ordinance ask developers to document what trees they remove and that it no longer specify what trees developers save. Hauth said this change would be a short-term fix and would definitely change when the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan is complete. Hauth said when the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan is complete the town will have more information to craft a better tree preservation ordinance. Hauth noted that smart growth and tree preservation are incompatible goals and said the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan would provide more information about which of those directions the community values more. Hauth said in the meantime she recommends gathering as much information as possible from developers about tree removal, which information could then be used to inform the town’s plans. She said at that point the town also should know whether special legislation would be needed to regulate tree preservation. Lloyd said she recently drove past the Forest Ridge development on U.S. Highway 70A and noted the area appeared to have been clear-cut. She asked if that development was required to plant or preserve trees. Hauth said the Forest Ridge developer did not save many trees during the course of construction but has since planted street trees in the public rights of way. She added the developers also preserved significant stands of trees in some open spaces. Sykes confirmed she had recently driven through Forest Ridge and seen trees in the rights of way and in some yards. Bell asked if Section 6.22 could be changed after the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan is complete in 6-9 months. Hauth said the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan process likely would take closer to a year to JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES | 15 of 15 complete. Hauth said that the current ordinance language is too vague to enforce without waivers. She said there would need to be some change to the language if waivers are eliminated. Campbell said tree preservation is great if a developer has a perfect, large, flat lot that requires no grading. She said many development sites are small and contain topographic challenges, and the current tree preservation ordinance could make such lots undevelopable, even if those lots are zoned correctly and in prime locations. Chandler said the town’s commitment to preserving trees is one of the things that attracts people to Hillsborough. She said allowing developers to remove any trees they want would be a step in the wrong direction. She said such tree removals should not be allowed without the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan in place. There were no other comments or questions regarding this item or any other text amendments. 6. Close the public hearing Motion: Lloyd moved to close the public hearing for Item 5A and Item 5B. Ferguson seconded. Campbell called the roll for voting. Vote: 14-0. Ayes: Ayes: Commissioners Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd; Planning Board members Sykes, Austin, Casadonte, Chandler, Frazier, Polly, Schultz, Scott and Taylor. Nays: None. Hauth updated the board members regarding Planning Board membership. Hauth introduced Chandler, who is replacing former Planning Board member Toby Vandemark. Hauth said Frazier is at her last meeting after serving on the Planning Board for six years. Hauth said staff is recruiting for an Extraterritorial Jurisdiction representative to fill Frazier’s seat. Sykes welcomed Chandler and thanked her for asking questions during the meeting. Sykes thanked Frazier for her perspective and years of service on the Planning Board and the Parks and Recreation Board. Frazier said she had enjoyed her years of service and had learned a lot while serving. Weaver echoed Sykes’ and Hauth’s comments and thanked Frazier for her service. Weaver welcomed Chandler to the Planning Board. 7. Adjournment Motion: Ferguson moved to adjourn. Frazier seconded. Sykes adjourned the joint public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Shannan Campbell Planning and Economic Development Manager Staff support to the Planning Board Approved: Nov. 18, 2021 Dec. X, 2021 Minutes Board of Commissioners Remote regular meeting 7 p.m. Nov. 8, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTube Live Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt Hughes, and Evelyn Lloyd Staff: Administrative Services Director Jen Della Valle, Assistant Town Manager and Community Services Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik, Town Clerk and Human Resources Technician Sarah Kimrey, Town Manager Eric Peterson, Opening of the meeting Mayor Jenn Weaver called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Town Clerk and Human Resources Technician Sarah Kimrey called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum. 1. Public charge Weaver did not read the public charge. 2. Audience comments not related to the printed agenda There was none. 3. Agenda changes and approval Weaver noted there was an addition to the consent agenda — a resolution requesting reimbursement of duplicate payment for garbage truck. Hughes requested Item 5H be moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. It was renamed Item 6C for discussion. Motion: Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Matt Hughes seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Ferguson and Hughes. Nays: 0. Absent: Evelyn Lloyd Lloyd joined the meeting at 7:03 p.m. 4. Appointments A. Planning Board — Resolution supporting appointment of Saru Salvi to fill a vacancy for a term expiring Nov. 30, 2024 B. Parks and Recreation Board — Reappointment of Jesse Mowels-Aring for a term expiring Nov. 30, 2024 Motion: Hughes moved to approve both appointments. Bell seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 1 of 12 DRAFT Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. 5. Items for decision ― consent agenda A. Minutes 1. Regular meeting Oct. 11, 2021 2. Work session Oct. 25, 2021 B. Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers C. NC-86 Facility Renovation Capital Project Ordinance and Budget Amendments D. Resolution exempting minor design work for the NC-86 Facility Renovation from the Mini-Brooks Act requirements for qualification-based selection E. Endorse updated dedication checklist in the Street Standards document F. Ordinance amending Town Code Section 7, Appendix A – Street Construction Standard Specifications G. Sidewalk Approval – West King Street H. Resolution requesting reimbursement of funds I. Ordinance amending Town Code Section 5-11.a – Non-Discrimination Ordinance Motion: Hughes moved to approve all items on the consent agenda as amended. Ferguson seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. 6. Items for decision ― regular agenda A. Proposed Dates for FY23 Budget Retreat Weaver is not available March 28. Hughes likes the retreats held in succession. Several commissioners said they did not mind holding a budget retreat on a Saturday, but Lloyd prefers weekdays. There was no vote. B. Continue board discussion on returning to in-person meetings The board expressed interest in holding the December meeting in person. Weaver said she is comfortable explaining why there is value in this meeting taking place in person. C. Ordinance amending Town Code Section 5-11.a ― Non-Discrimination Hughes said he requested this item be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion because it was his recollection that the board did not intend to amend the ordinance until the town attorney consulted with Orange County. He was not certain whether the intention was to table all the amendments or just the enforcement. Town Attorney Bob Hornik said he and the county attorney have missed each other’s calls a couple of times. He had suggested the town clerk place the item on the agenda to see if the board wanted to move forward. He thinks he can discuss it with the county attorney within a month. Weaver said her presumption was the board would likely vote to change the enforcement to a civil penalty regardless of the discussion between attorneys. Motion: Ferguson moved to approve the amendment to decriminalize the offense. Bell seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 2 of 12 DRAFT Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. D. Hot topics for work session Nov. 22, 2021 Hauth said some items that were planned for the work session are not ready. She suggested the board plan on canceling the meeting but not do so this evening in case any matter arose in the next few days. The board agreed. 7. Updates A. Board members Board members gave updates on the committees and boards on which they serve. B. Town manager There was none. C. Staff (written reports in agenda packet) There was none. Motion: Ferguson moved to go into closed session at 7:48 p.m. Bell seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. 8. Closed Session Closed session as authorized by North Carolina General Statute Section 143-318.11 (a)(6) regarding personnel matters (town manager’s evaluation) Motion: Ferguson moved to return to open session at 8:30 p.m. Bell seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. Motion: Hughes moved to approve a 4% merit increase for the town manager’s annual evaluation. Bell seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. 9. Adjournment Motion: Ferguson moved to adjourn at 8:33 p.m. Bell seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 3 of 12 DRAFT Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Kimrey Town Clerk Staff support to the Board of Commissioners Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 4 of 12 DRAFT RESOLUTION Resolution requesting an appointment to an Extraterritorial Jurisdiction seat on the Hillsborough Planning Board WHEREAS, as a result of a vacancy, it is necessary to appoint a person to a seat reserved on the Hillsborough Planning Board for persons residing within the town’s extraterritorial planning jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, if a resident of the ETJ cannot be identified to fill the position, the Orange County Board of Commissioners may appoint a resident of the county; and WHEREAS, by state statute and town ordinance, the Orange County Board of Commissioners initially has the authority and responsibility to appoint ETJ members to the Hillsborough Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners: Section 1. The Orange County Board of Commissioners is respectfully requested to appoint the following individual to an ETJ seat on the Hillsborough Planning Board, whose term would expire November 30, 2024: Saru Salvi 506 Silver Fox Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 Section 2. If the Orange County Board of Commissioners fails to appoint persons willing to serve in the capacity described above within 90 days of receiving this resolution, then the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners may make this appointment. Section 3. The Town Clerk shall send a copy of this resolution to the Orange County Manager. Section 4. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 8th day of November 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent/excused: 0 I, Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk to the Town of Hillsborough, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Hillsborough Town Board of Commissioners on November 8, 2021. Sarah E. Kimrey Town Clerk Resolution #20211108-4.A Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 5 of 12 DRAFT BUDGET CHANGES REPORT TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FY 2021-2022 DATES: 11/08/2021 TO 11/08/2021 REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE USER 10-00-3900-3900-000 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 11/08/2021 280,311.00 8,636.02To re-est FY21 PO 24096 905,561.96EBRADFORD 11/08/2021 280,311.00 866.00To re-est FY21 not carried forward 24099 906,427.96EBRADFORD 10-10-4200-5300-454 C.S.-CATV/ASCAP-BMI/COD/TRANS/PAY S 11/08/2021 80,424.00 8,636.02To re-est FY21 PO 24097 89,060.02EBRADFORD 10-10-4200-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS 11/08/2021 40,448.00 11,000.00To cover branding expenses 24107 59,393.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4200-5300-580 CUSTOMER SERVICE & INNOVATION AWARD 11/08/2021 20,000.00 -11,000.00To cover branding expenses 24106 9,000.00EBRADFORD 10-10-6300-5300-320 SUPPLIES - OFFICE 11/08/2021 1,000.00 1,965.00To cover office furniture 24108 2,965.00EBRADFORD 10-10-6300-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS 11/08/2021 7,000.00 -1,965.00To cover office furniture 24109 5,035.00EBRADFORD 10-10-6610-5300-338 SUPPLIES - DATA PROCESSING 11/08/2021 112,000.00 866.00To re-est FY21 not carried forward 24098 115,279.84EBRADFORD 30-80-8140-5300-330 SUPPLIES - DEPARTMENTAL 11/08/2021 100,000.00 -750.00To cover jackets/insulated bibs for adverse 24102 99,736.00EBRADFORD 30-80-8140-5300-350 UNIFORMS 11/08/2021 4,100.00 750.00To cover jackets/insulated bibs for adverse 24103 4,850.00EBRADFORD 30-80-8200-5300-330 SUPPLIES - DEPARTMENTAL 11/08/2021 60,000.00 -750.00To cover jackets/insulated bibs for adverse 24104 59,250.00EBRADFORD 30-80-8200-5300-350 UNIFORMS 11/08/2021 4,100.00 750.00To cover jackets/insulated bibs for adverse 24105 4,850.00EBRADFORD 19,004.04 EBRADFORD 2:21:31PM11/02/2021 fl142r03 Page 1 of 1 GF- Revenue Admin. Admin. Admin. Public Space Public Space Information Services Water Distribution Water Distribution Wastewater Collection Wastewater Collection APPROVED: 5/0 DATE: 11/8/21 VERIFIED: ___________________________________ Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 6 of 12 DRAFT ORDINANCE NUMBER: 20211108-5.C ORDINANCE Capital Project Amendment NC-86 Facility Renovation The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners ordains that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following capital project ordinance is hereby amended: Section 1. Revenues anticipated to be available to the town to complete the project are hereby amended as follows. Current Budget +/- Amended Budget NC-86 Facility Renovation $225,982 $2,000,000 $2,225,982 Section 2. Amounts appropriated for the capital project are hereby amended as follows. Current Budget +/- Amended Budget NC-86 Facility Renovation $225,982 $2,000,000 $2,225,982 Section 3. Copies of this ordinance should be furnished to the clerk, budget officer and finance officer to be kept on file by them for their direction in carrying out this project. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 8th day of November in 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or excused: 0 Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 7 of 12 DRAFT BUDGET CHANGES REPORT TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FY 2021-2022 DATES: 11/08/2021 TO 11/08/2021 REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE USER 48-30-5600-5700-720 CONSTRUCTION 11/08/2021 0.00 2,000,000.00To adj project per FY22 budget 24100 2,000,000.00EBRADFORD 48-70-3980-3980-300 DEBT ISSUANCE PROCEEDS 11/08/2021 0.00 2,000,000.00To adj project per FY22 budget 24101 2,000,000.00EBRADFORD 4,000,000.00 EBRADFORD 10:38:15AM10/20/2021 fl142r03 Page 1 of 1 NC-86 Reno NC-86 Reno APPROVED: 5/0 DATE: 11/8/21 VERIFIED: ___________________________________ Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 8 of 12 DRAFT RESOLUTION Resolution Exempting Design Consultation for the NC 86 North Facility from NCGS 143-64.31 WHEREAS, N.C.G.S. 143-64.31 requires the initial solicitation and evaluation of firms to perform architectural, engineering, surveying, construction management-at-risk services, and design-build services (collectively “design services”) to be based on qualifications and without regard to fee; and WHEREAS, the town selected MHA Works through a qualifications-based process in 2017 to initiate design of a new public works facility and other improvements at the NC 86 Facility property; and WHEREAS, proposes to enter into a contract for design services to update the modified scope for this renovation to inform budget planning and a future solicitation for full design of the facility; and WHEREAS, G.S. 143-64.32 authorizes units of local government to exempt contracts for design services from the qualifications-based selection requirements of G.S. 143-64.31 if the estimated fee is less than $50,000; and WHEREAS, the estimated fee for design services for the above-described project is not to exceed $10,000. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners: Section 1. The above-described project is hereby made exempt from the provisions of G.S. 143-64.31. Section 2. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Approved this 8th day of November 2021. Jenn Weaver, Mayor Town of Hillsborough ATTEST: Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk Resolution #20211108-5.D Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 9 of 12 DRAFT ORDINANCE NUMBER: 20211108-5.F ORDINANCE Amending Chapter 7 Appendix A, Street Construction Standard Specifications, of the Town Code The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners ordains: Section 1. The concrete driveway entrances paragraph of Section [7-]01-7, Incidental Drainage and Concrete Items, is hereby amended by adding the sentence “All driveway concrete located within the town right of way shall be 6 inches thick unless additional thickness is needed based on anticipated vehicle weight.” Section 2. Section [7-]01-7, Incidental Drainage and Concrete Items, is hereby amended by adding a “sidewalks” paragraph after “concrete driveway entrances” as follows: Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete 5 inches thick. All expansion joints within sidewalks within the right of way or public access easements shall be filled with an NCDOT approved sealant. Truncated domes within ramps shall be tinted black in all locations to provide visual differentiation from the base concrete. Section 3. Section [7-]01-8, Signing, is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph: Street name signs maintained by the town shall be 9” or 6” extruded aluminum substrate and have high intensity prismatic reflectivity. The copy shall be green translucent film that is reverse weeded to produce white copy on a green background. This process provides the high intensity prismatic reflectivity for the background and copy. Signs shall not have a white outline or frame. Section 4. Section [7-]01-10, Pavement markings is hereby amended by adding “Pavement markings shall be of thermoplastic unless a different treatment is specifically required by the town or NCDOT” as a third paragraph. Section 5. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 6. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 8th day of November in 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or excused: 0 Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 10 of 12 DRAFT ORDINANCE NUMBER: 20211108-6.C ORDINANCE Amending Town Code Section 5-11.a The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners ordains: Section 1. The following of Section 5-11.a of the Code of Ordinances shall be amended. 4. Penalties and Enforcement. (a) Any person, firm, or corporation violating any provisions of this ordinance shall, be issued a citation setting forth a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00). Each and every day during which such discrimination continues shall be deemed a separate offense. Violation of this ordinance shall not constitute a misdemeanor pursuant to G.S. 14-4(a). Section 2. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 8th day of November in 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or excused: 0 Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 11 of 12 DRAFT RESOLUTION Requesting Reimbursement of Funds WHEREAS, The Hillsborough finance director and town manager have described to the Board of Commissioners the desirability of adopting a resolution, as provided under federal tax law, to facilitate the town’s using proceeds of tax-exempt financing to restore the town’s funds when the town makes capital expenditures prior to closing on the financing; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners as follows: Section 1. The purchase of new garbage truck. Section 2. The unit intends to finance the purchase. The expected type of financing is installment financing pursuant to G.S. 160A-20. The expected maximum amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued or contracted for the purchase is $ 300,000. Section 3. The town intends that funds that have been advanced, or may be advanced, from the General Fund for the purchase will be reimbursed from the financing proceeds. Section 4. The Board of Commissioners intends that the adoption of this resolution will be a declaration of this town’s official intent to reimburse this purchase from financing proceeds. Approved this 8th day of November 2021. Jenn Weaver, Mayor Town of Hillsborough Attestation: Sarah Kimrey, Town Clerk Resolution #20211108-5.H Nov. 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 12 of 12 DRAFT 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MINUTES | 1 of 1 Minutes BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Remote work session - canceled 7 p.m. Nov. 22, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTube Live Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: None Staff: None Absent (excused): Mayor Jenn Weaver and Commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt Hughes and Evelyn Lloyd The Board of Commissioners work session originally scheduled at 7 p.m. Nov. 22, 2021 was canceled Nov. 16, 2021 due to a lack of agenda items. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Kimrey Town Clerk Staff support to the Board of Commissioners Nov. 22, 2021 Board of Commissioners Work Session Approved: ____________________ Page 1 of 1 DRAFT AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Administration Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Emily Bradford, Budget Director ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers Attachments: Budget Changes Detail Report Brief summary: To adjust budgeted revenues and expenditures, where needed, due to changes that have occurred since budget adoption. Action requested: Consider approving budget amendments and transfers. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: N/A Financial impacts: As indicated by each budget amendment. Staff recommendation and comments: To approve the attached list of budget amendments. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.B Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session BUDGET CHANGES REPORT TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FY 2021-2022 DATES: 12/13/2021 TO 12/13/2021 REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE USER 10-00-3800-3800-350 MISCELLANEOUS 12/13/2021 32,500.00 -873.79Re-appropriate drug seizure funds 24140 31,626.21EBRADFORD 10-00-3900-3900-000 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 12/13/2021 280,311.00 873.79Re-appropriate drug seizure funds 24139 907,301.75EBRADFORD 10-00-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY 12/13/2021 400,000.00 -22,000.00To cover PD patrol vehicles 24116 211,900.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4200-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF./CONV. 12/13/2021 38,095.00 -1,000.00To cover GARE annual dues 24110 37,095.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4200-5300-530 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 12/13/2021 7,184.00 1,000.00To cover GARE annual dues 24055 8,184.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4200-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS 12/13/2021 40,448.00 2,500.00To cover branding expenses 24146 61,893.00JDELLAVALL 10-10-4200-5300-580 CUSTOMER SERVICE & INNOVATION AWARD 12/13/2021 20,000.00 -2,500.00To cover branding expenses 24145 6,500.00JDELLAVALL 10-20-5100-5300-460 C.S./DRIVER SAFTEY TRAINING 12/13/2021 3,500.00 265.00To cover overage 24141 4,265.00EBRADFORD 10-20-5100-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS 12/13/2021 3,500.00 -265.00To cover overage 24142 3,235.00EBRADFORD 10-20-5100-5700-735 CAPITAL - BUILDINGS & IMPROVEMENTS 12/13/2021 59,000.00 -22,000.00To cover PD vehicles 24118 60,000.00EBRADFORD 10-20-5100-5700-740 CAPITAL - VEHICLES 12/13/2021 70,000.00 22,000.00To cover PD patrol vehicles 24117 92,000.00EBRADFORD 12/13/2021 70,000.00 22,000.00To cover PD vehicles 24119 114,000.00EBRADFORD 30-80-3500-3800-350 MISCELLANEOUS 12/13/2021 10,000.00 457.00To record rain garden valve proj rev 24114 10,457.00EBRADFORD 30-80-3900-3900-000 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATED 12/13/2021 728,039.00 65,000.00To re-est funds PS control panel funds 24113 1,249,541.36EBRADFORD 30-80-8140-5300-165 MAINTENANCE - INFRASTRUCTURE 12/13/2021 57,000.00 457.00To record rain garden valve proj rev 24115 58,957.00EBRADFORD 30-80-8140-5300-330 SUPPLIES - DEPARTMENTAL 12/13/2021 100,000.00 -482.00To cover overage 24125 99,254.00EBRADFORD 30-80-8140-5300-444 C.S./TANK MAINT PROGRAM 12/13/2021 41,000.00 482.00To cover overage 24126 41,482.00EBRADFORD 30-80-8200-5700-741 CAPITAL - EQUIPMENT 12/13/2021 0.00 181,500.00To replc PS control panel 24111 404,997.00EBRADFORD 30-80-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY 12/13/2021 400,000.00 -116,500.00To replc PS control panel 24112 119,933.00EBRADFORD 48-30-5600-5700-045 DESIGN 12/13/2021 154,182.00 -225,982.00To move proj. to Fund 60 24131 0.00EBRADFORD 48-30-5600-5700-720 CONSTRUCTION 12/13/2021 0.00 -2,000,000.00To move proj. to Fund 60 24132 0.00EBRADFORD 48-70-3980-3980-300 DEBT ISSUANCE PROCEEDS 12/13/2021 0.00 -2,000,000.00To move proj. to Fund 60 24133 0.00EBRADFORD JDELLAVALLE 3:19:40PM12/06/2021 fl142r03 Page 1 of 2 GF - Fund Balance GF - Contingency Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Police Police Police Police WSF - Fund Balance Water Distribution Water Distribution Wastewater Collection WSF - Contingency NC-86 Facility NC-86 Facility NC-86 Facility Water Distribution GF- Revenue W&S- Revenue BUDGET CHANGES REPORT TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FY 2021-2022 DATES: 12/13/2021 TO 12/13/2021 REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE USER 48-71-3870-3870-100 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 12/13/2021 154,182.00 -225,982.00To move proj. to Fund 60 24134 0.00EBRADFORD 60-05-3870-3870-406 TRANSFER FROM GF-NC86 RENOVATION 12/13/2021 0.00 225,982.00To move proj. from Fund 48 24135 225,982.00EBRADFORD 60-05-3980-3980-104 INSTALL FIN/NC86 RENOVATION 12/13/2021 0.00 2,000,000.00To move proj. from Fund 48 24136 2,000,000.00EBRADFORD 60-05-5600-5700-774 NC86 - DESIGN 12/13/2021 0.00 225,982.00To move proj. from Fund 48 24137 225,982.00EBRADFORD 60-05-5600-5700-775 NC86 - CONSTRUCTION 12/13/2021 0.00 2,000,000.00To move proj. from Fund 48 24138 2,000,000.00EBRADFORD 72-00-5100-3301-052 RESTRICTED REV-ABC BOARD GRANT 12/13/2021 6,101.60 2,750.00To record ABC funds 24143 11,601.60EBRADFORD 72-20-5100-5300-052 ABC BOARD EXPENDITURES 12/13/2021 6,101.60 2,750.00To record ABC funds 24144 11,601.60EBRADFORD 136,414.00 JDELLAVALLE 3:19:40PM12/06/2021 fl142r03 Page 2 of 2 NC-86 Facility Gen Cap Improv Fund Gen Cap Improv Fund Gen Cap Improv Fund Gen Cap Improv Fund Restricted Rev Restricted Rev BUDGET CHANGES REPORT TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FY 2021-2022 DATES: 12/14/2021 TO 12/14/2021 REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE USER 10-00-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY 12/14/2021 400,000.00 -2,536.00To replc tire changer & balancer 24149 209,364.00EBRADFORD 12/14/2021 400,000.00 -900.00To cover arbitrage 24151 208,464.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4400-5300-575 ARBITRAGE 12/14/2021 0.00 900.00To cover arbitrage 24150 900.00EBRADFORD 10-30-5550-5300-170 VEHICLE REPAIR - STREETS 12/14/2021 24,000.00 -5,885.00To replc tire changer 24147 23,815.00EBRADFORD 10-30-5550-5700-741 CAPITAL - EQUIPMENT 12/14/2021 6,000.00 8,421.00To replc tire changer & balancer 24148 14,421.00EBRADFORD 0.00 EBRADFORD 9:28:48AM12/07/2021 fl142r03 Page 1 of 1 GF- Contingency Accounting Fleet Maint. Fleet Maint. AGENDA ABSTRACT | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Administrative Services Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Town Clerk Sarah Kimrey ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: 2022 Board of Commissioners meeting calendar amendment Attachments: 2022 Board of Commissioners meeting calendar Brief summary: The 2022 Board of Commissioners meeting calendar amendment, includes the following changes: • Addition of budget retreat, March 21 • Addition of budget retreat, April 4 Action requested: Approve as presented. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: N/A Financial impacts: N/A Staff recommendation and comments: N/A For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.C Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919-732-1270 www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov Amended: Dec. 13, 2021 Meeting Schedule: 2022 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meetings start at 7 p.m. in the Board Meeting Room of the Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St., unless otherwise noted. Times, dates and locations are subject to change. Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the board may conduct remote meetings utilizing Zoom. The public will be able to view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video on the town’s YouTube channel. Regular meetings Regular meetings typically occur the second Monday of the month. Jan. 10 Remote Aug. 8 Remote Feb. 14 Remote Sept. 12 Remote March 14 Remote Oct. 10 Remote April 11 Remote Nov. 14 Remote May 9 Remote Dec. 12 Remote June 13 Remote Work sessions Work sessions typically occur the fourth Monday of the month. Jan. 24 Remote Feb. 28 Remote March 21 Remote (budget retreat) March 28 Remote April 4 Remote (budget retreat) April 25 Remote May 23 Remote June 27 Remote (with budget adoption) Aug. 22 Remote Sept. 26 Remote Oct. 24 Remote Nov. 28 Remote Joint public hearings Joint public hearings with the Planning Board typically occur the third Thursday of a month. Jan. 20 Remote April 21 Remote July 21 Remote Oct. 20 Remote AGENDA ABSTRACT | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Administration/HR Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Human Resources Manager, Haley Bizzell ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Classification Amendment – Update position titles for Communications Division Attachments: FY22 salary schedule Brief summary: The Public Information Office has been renamed to the Communications Division. With this change, staff recommends updating position titles accordingly. Below is a list of position titles to be updated: Old Position Title New Recommended Title Public Information Officer Communications Manager Web Developer/Assistant Public Information Officer Web Developer/Assistant Communications Manager Public Information Specialist Communications Specialist Action requested: Approve updated FY22 salary schedule with the updated position titles. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: Town Manager Eric Peterson has authorized the change to rename the Public Information Office to Communications Division. Communications is a more descriptive term for the division’s role, which is to communicate and engage with the community. This change would also align with Carrboro (Communication and Engagement) and Chapel Hill (Communications and Public Affairs). The use of similar terms is easier for the public. Financial impacts: None. Staff recommendation and comments: For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.D Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session Salary Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum FLSA Status Class Code Classification 1 31,209 40,571 49,934 N 0100 CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE 1 31,209 40,571 49,934 N 0101 METER SERVICES TECHNICIAN 1 31,209 40,571 49,934 N 0102 UTILITY MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN I 2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0204 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TECHNICIAN 2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0205 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SPECIALIST 2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0206 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I 2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0207 UTILITY MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN II 2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0208 LEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE 3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0304 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II 3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0305 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SPECIALIST 3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0307 UTILITY MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN III 3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0308 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR I 3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0309 WATER PLANT OPERATOR I 4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0403 CREW LEADER/EQUIPMENT OPERATOR III 4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0405 PLANNING TECHNICIAN 4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0406 UTILITY SYSTEMS MECHANIC I 4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0407 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR II 4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0408 WATER PLANT OPERATOR II 4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0409 PLANT MAINTENANCE MECHANIC I 4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0410 PLANT MECHANIC 5 37,934 49,315 60,695 N 0507 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 5 37,934 49,315 60,695 N 0509 UTILITY SYSTEMS MECHANIC II 5 37,934 49,315 60,695 N 0510 PLANT MAINTENANCE MECHANIC II 6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0608 LABORATORY TECHNICIAN/WATER PLANT OPERATOR III 6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0609 UTILITY SYSTEMS MECHANIC III 6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0610 WASTEWATER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR 6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0611 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR III 6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0612 WATER PLANT OPERATOR III 6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0613 PLANT MAINTENANCE MECHANIC III 7 41,823 54,370 66,916 N 0708 BACKFLOW/FOG SPECIALIST 7 41,823 54,370 66,916 N 0711 FLEET MECHANIC 7 41,823 54,370 66,916 N 0712 OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE 8 43,914 57,088 70,262 N 0804 METER SERVICES SUPERVISOR 8 43,914 57,088 70,262 N 0805 POLICE OFFICER/POLICE OFFICER FIRST CLASS 8 43,914 57,088 70,262 N 0806 COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST 8 43,914 57,088 70,262 N 0807 STORMWATER PROGRAM COORDINATOR 8 43,914 57,088 70,262 E 0808 BILLING & CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR 9 46,110 59,942 73,775 N 0908 CHIEF WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR 9 46,110 59,942 73,775 E 0910 FINANCIAL ANALYST 9 46,110 59,942 73,775 E 0911 MANAGEMENT ANALYST 9 46,110 59,942 73,775 E 0912 PLANNER 9 46,110 59,942 73,775 N 0913 UTILITIES INSPECTOR 9 46,110 59,942 73,775 N 0914 SENIOR POLICE OFFICER 10 48,415 62,940 77,464 E 1013 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST 10 48,415 62,940 77,464 N 1014 POLICE CORPORAL 10 48,415 62,940 77,464 E 1016 WEB DEVELOPER/ASSISTANT COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER 10 48,415 62,940 77,464 N 1017 LEAD UTILITIES INSPECTOR 10 48,415 62,940 77,464 N 1019 MASTER POLICE OFFICER 10 48,415 62,940 77,464 N 1020 FACILITIES COORDINATOR 11 50,836 66,087 81,337 E 1107 UTILITY MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 11 50,836 66,087 81,337 E 1108 UTILITY SYSTEM SUPERVISOR 11 50,836 66,087 81,337 E 1109 BUDGET & MANAGEMENT ANALYST 12 53,378 69,391 85,404 E 1211 FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 12 53,378 69,391 85,404 N 1212 POLICE SERGEANT 12 53,378 69,391 85,404 E 1213 SENIOR PLANNER 13 56,047 72,860 89,674 E 1301 TOWN CLERK/HR TECH 14 58,849 76,504 94,158 E 1405 POLICE LIEUTENANT 14 58,849 76,504 94,158 E 1407 SAFETY & RISK MANAGER 14 58,849 76,504 94,158 E 1409 CIVIL ENGINEER 15 61,791 80,329 98,866 E 1507 UTILITY SYSTEM SUPERINTENDENT 15 61,791 80,329 98,866 E 1508 WASTEWATER PLANT SUPERINTENDENT 15 61,791 80,329 98,866 E 1509 WATER PLANT SUPERINTENDENT 16 64,881 84,345 103,809 17 68,125 88,562 109,000 E 1701 COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER 17 68,125 88,562 109,000 E 1702 PUBLIC SPACES & SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER 17 68,125 88,562 109,000 E 1703 PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER 17 68,125 88,562 109,000 E 1704 HR MANAGER 17 68,125 88,562 109,000 E 1705 STORMWATER & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER 17 68,125 88,562 109,000 E 1706 IT MANAGER 18 71,531 92,990 114,450 E 1801 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER 19 75,108 97,640 120,172 20 78,863 102,522 126,181 E 2002 BUDGET DIRECTOR 21 82,806 107,648 132,490 22 86,947 113,031 139,114 E 2201 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR 23 91,294 118,682 146,070 E 2300 CHIEF OF POLICE 23 91,294 118,682 146,070 E 2301 FINANCE DIRECTOR 23 91,294 118,682 146,070 E 2302 UTILITIES DIRECTOR 24 95,859 124,616 153,374 E 2400 ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER/COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR AGENDA ABSTRACT | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Administration/HR Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Human Resources Manager, Haley Bizzell ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Classification and Pay Amendment – Addition of temporary part-time non-benefited position Attachments: None Brief summary: The Police Department has requested a temporary part-time non-benefited property and evidence technician position. The person in this position will be assigned to dispose of property, complete inventory, and reorganization. The temporary position will be active until the project is complete. The time it will take to complete the project is unknown at this time. Action requested: Approve the temporary part-time position of evidence and property technician. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: The investigation division has been working on this project when they have time, but they haven’t been able to dedicate one person to the project therefore, progress has been slow. The evidence and property technician position has been filled with a retired Police Lieutenant, Scott Nicolaysen at a rate of $30 an hour. Scott cannot work more than 1,000 hours in a calendar year to ensure he stays within the parameters of his retirement. Financial impacts: Additional hourly rate of $30 an hour for a part-time employee working 1,000 hours or less per year. Staff recommendation and comments: Approve the temporary part-time position of evidence and property technician. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.E Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Planning Public hearing: Yes Date of public hearing: Oct. 21, 2021 PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Shannan Campbell, Planning & Economic Development Manager Margaret A. Hauth, Assistant Town Manager ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Annexation Ordinance – 12.9 acres on Valley Forge Road Attachments: 1. Public hearing materials 2. Draft ordinance Brief summary: This item was heard at the October joint public hearing. Steve Arndt, Orange County Asset Manager, appeared on behalf of Orange County to answer questions and speak in favor of the request. There were no public comments. The Planning Board recommended annexation at the November meeting with a unanimous vote. Action requested: Adopt the annexation ordinance. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: Orange County filed an annexation petition at the town’s request of the parcel they own on Valley Forge Road. The parcel is west of the Cates Creek crossing scheduled for repair and is occupied by Builders First Source with a distribution operation. The parcel is zoned General Industrial and no change to zoning is requested. The property is contiguous with the existing city limits. Annexation fills a portion of a donut hole in the city limits. Financial impacts: Annexation will trigger a provision in the tenant’s lease requiring them to make a payment in lieu of property taxes to the town in addition to Orange County. Staff recommendation and comments: Recommend approval as written. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.F Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session October 2021 Joint Public Hearing Item Cover Sheet/Staff Report Agenda Item #: 4A ATTACHMENTS: 1 –application and map GENERAL INFORMATION: Project Title: Annexation Request from Orange County involving approximately 12.9 acres on Valley Forge Road Purpose: Add the property to the city limit. Background: The parcel is owned by Orange County, but occupied by Builders First Source, a manufacturer and supplier of building materials. This site involves distribution, not manufacturing and makes use of the on-site rail spur for product delivery. This site was developed many years ago under an industrial bond program. The bonds have been retired. The town will be proceeding with a significant repair to Valley Forge Road shortly. This property is the only one that benefits from this road repair. Orange County has agreed to have the property annexed so the town may see some future benefit to the nearly $1 million investment in replacing the culverts where Cates Creek goes under Valley Forge Road. The current lease agreement with Builders First Source requires them to make “in lieu” payments to both the town and county equal to property taxes. The lease specifically included municipal taxes if the property was annexed. The lease is through 2027. The county is marketing the property for sale. This is a simple annexation by petition of the owner. The zoning of the property is General Industrial, and the current use is allowed by right in that district. An annexation of this type legally requires a public hearing before the elected board only. As the town’s tradition usually sees annexations requests partnered with zoning requests, we scheduled this for review at a joint public hearing for consistency of appearance. Planning Board action on this request is not legally required, but the Town Board has always welcomed Planning Board input. This hearing was advertised consistent with state law. No written notices to neighbors or onsite signs were required. Next steps: Planning Board recommendation on November 18 Town Board action on December 13 Ordinance No. 20211213- Return to: Hillsborough Planning Department, P.O. Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 The following ordinance was introduced by Commissioner , and duly seconded by Commissioner . AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WHEREAS, a petition was received requesting the annexation of 12.9 acres on Valley Forge Road by the owners, Orange County; WHEREAS, the Parcel Identification Number (PIN) for the requesting property is 9874-30- 3619; WHEREAS, the petition was signed by the owners of all the real property located within such area; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the annexation was held on October 21, 2021 following notice of such hearing published in the News of Orange County on October 6 and 13, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS: Section 1. The Board of Commissioners finds that a petition requesting the annexation of the area described in Section 2 was properly signed by the owners of all the real property located within such area and that such area is contiguous to the boundaries of the town of Hillsborough, as the term "contiguous" is defined in G.S. 160A-31(f). Section 2. The following area is hereby annexed to and made a part of the Town of Hillsborough: Beginning at a concrete monument on the East right of way line of Southern Railway Company (where said East right of way line intersects with the North right of way line of Interstate Highway #85), running thence with the East side of the Southern Railway right of way North 21 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds West 682.65 feet to an iron stake. Thence continuing with the railroad right of way North 19 degrees 28 minutes 10 seconds West 334.15 feet to an iron stake. Thence North 9 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 297.50 feet to an iron stake in Duke Power Company right of way. Thence with said right of way South 62 degrees 58 minutes 50 seconds East 325.58 feet to an iron stake. Thence along the West side of Cates Creek the following courses and distances: South 25 degrees 05 minutes East 139.68 feet South 35 degrees 44 minutes East 371.77 feet South 22 degrees 05 minutes East 95.79 feet South 46 degrees 04 minutes East 120.16 feet South 58 degrees 47 minutes East 120.59 feet South 22 degrees 45 minutes East 74.75 feet South 32 degrees 57 minutes 40 seconds West 315.93 feet to an iron stake on the North right of way line of Interstate Highway 85. Thence with said Interstate Highway 85 right of way South 73 degrees 35 minutes West 350.60 feet to the place and point of beginning. Containing 12.90 acres, according to survey of Property of Valley Forge, Inc., survey of John B. Pridgen, Jr., Registered Engineer, dated June 21, 1971. Section 3. This Ordinance shall become effective on adoption. Section 4. The Town Clerk shall cause to be recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County and in the Office of the Secretary of State an accurate map of the annexed territory described in Sections 2 together with a duly certified copy of this ordinance. Such a map shall also be delivered to the Orange County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 13th day of December 2021. Ayes: Noes: Absent or Excused: Town of Hillsborough Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk SEAL STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE I, , a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that Sarah E. Kimrey personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that she is the Town Clerk for the Town of Hillsborough, a North Carolina municipal corporation, and that she, as Town Clerk, being duly authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument to acknowledge that it is an Annexation Ordinance duly adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners on the date indicated. Witness my hand and official seal, this the _____ day of ____________, ____. (Official Seal) _____________________________ Notary Public My commission expires. AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Planning Public hearing: Yes Date of public hearing: Oct. 21, 2021 PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Shannan Campbell, Planning & Economic Development Manager Margaret A. Hauth, Assistant Town Manager ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Consistency Statement and ordinance amending Section 7.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance – Setbacks for nonconforming lots Attachments: 1.Public hearing staff report and example drawings 2.Draft consistency statement 3.Draft amending ordinance Brief summary: This item was heard at the October joint public hearing. This amendment codifies an interpretation made by the Board of Adjustment earlier in the year. There were no public comments on the proposed amendment. The Planning Board recommended adoption at the November meeting with no discussion and a unanimous vote. Action requested: Consider adopting the consistency statement that the amendment IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adopt the ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: This amendment adds a little flexibility for applying setbacks to nonconforming lots. Financial impacts: None Staff recommendation and comments: Recommend approval as written. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.G Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session October 2021 Joint Public Hearing Item Cover Sheet/Staff Report Agenda Item #: 5A 5A - Setback requirements for nonconforming lots During a recent hearing cycle, we talked about nonconforming lots. I think I had recently determined that something like 40% of our residential lots are nonconforming for the lot size of the district they are in. This was also the topic of a recent appeal/variance to the Board of Adjustment. The board read the ordinance as written and made the findings that staff would like to document in the ordinance. Existing language: 7.5.3 NONCONFORMING LOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS A residential lot created before February 17, 1986 which is nonconforming based solely on its size shall not be required to observe the standard setbacks in Section 6.3, Dimensional Requirements. The following table indicates the degree to which otherwise applicable setback standards may be reduced; provided however that no setback should ever be less than ten (10) feet. 7.5.4 TABLE: NONCONFORMING LOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS1 DISTRICT CUMULATIVE SIDE SETBACKS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED2 REAR SETBACK SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED FRONT SETBACK SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED R‐40 50% 25% 25% R‐20 40% 11% 15% R‐15 40% 10% 15% R‐10 40% 13% 17% AR 40% 15% 19% 1 For lots that are not rectilinear, each side, front, and rear setbacks should be measured separately. 2 Cumulative side setbacks should be evenly distributed on a property, such that both side setbacks are the same length. 7.5.5 NARROW LOTS Notwithstanding the side yard requirements set forth in Section 6.3, Dimensional Requirements, in no case shall a lot created before February 17, 1986 be required to observe side yard setbacks that when added together constitute more than fifty (50) percent of the width of such lot. In such as case, the side yard setback may be reduced by an equal amount on either side to avoid violating this fifty (50) percent limitation, but in no case shall side yards be reduced to less than ten (10) feet under this subsection. The Board of Adjustment reasoned that a property owner, in determining the side setbacks, COULD opt to set one setback at 10 feet and then determine the other side setback based on the formula, so long as they met the cumulative percentage. They were relying on the use of “should” not “shall” in the second footnote in the table. However, once they picked that option, it would have to carry forward. This amendment would also address the provisions in Section 7.5.5, so that section could be deleted. Proposal: 7.5.3 NONCONFORMING LOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS a) This subsection shall apply to any of the following: 1) Where A single residential lot created before February 17, 1986, which that is nonconforming based solely on its size shall not be required to observe the standard setbacks in Section 6.3, Dimensional Requirements area or width, or 2) Lots created under subsection 7.3.4, Multiple Detached Dwellings on a Single Parcel. 3) Lot line adjustments, combinations or partial combinations made to lots referenced in (1) or (2) above where the lot(s) or resultant lot(s) remain nonconforming as to area or width after such action is taken. b) The following table indicates the degree to which otherwise applicable setback standards may be reduced; provided, however, that no setback should shall ever be less than ten (10) feet in width. 7.5.4 TABLE: NONCONFORMING LOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS1 DISTRICT CUMULATIVE SIDE SETBACKS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED2, 3 REAR SETBACK SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED4 FRONT SETBACK SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED4 R‐40 50% 25% 25% R‐20 40% 11% 15% R‐15 40% 10% 15% R‐10 40% 13% 17% AR 40% 15% 19% 1 For lots that are not rectilinear, each side, front, and rear setback should be measured separately. 2 Lot width as measured at the standard front setback line for the district in which the lot is located shall be used. 3Cumulative side setbacks should but is not required to be be evenly distributed on a property, such that both side setbacks are the same length. 4Lot depth measured using the shortest lot line shall be used. 7.5.5 NARROW LOTS Notwithstanding the side yard requirements set forth in Section 6.3, Dimensional Requirements, in no case shall a lot created before February 17, 1986 be required to observe side yard setbacks that when added together constitute more than fifty (50) percent of the width of such lot. In such as case, the side yard setback may be reduced by an equal amount on either side to avoid violating this fifty (50) percent limitation, but in no case shall side yards be reduced to less than ten (10) feet under this subsection. This example likely gives the most flexibility. If the lots above are zoned R-20, but only 97’ wide (minimum is 100’), that would give the owner access to a setback reduction. If they use the additional flexibility this amendment gives, they could set one side at 10 feet (rather than 19) and have 28 feet on the other side. This provides options for house spacing, driveway location, tree or rock preservation, or other circumstances. Above are some of the most likely situations. The 40 foot lot gets no benefit. Regardless of the zoning district, 40% of the 40 foot lot yields 16’ meaning both side setbacks are reduced to only 10, nothing less. The two 60 foot lots illustrate the flexibility. The cumulative setback is required to be 24’. The owner could pick 2 equal setbacks of 12’ each or 10’ and 14’. The closer the lot is to the required lot width, the more flexibility this amendment provides. Narrower lots have to meet the 10 foot mini- mum. Item 4-c1—setback example Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160D-605 The Town of Hillsborough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of planning staff to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 7.5 to allow nonconforming lots to reduce setbacks automatically AND chose whether to establish equal side setbacks or different side setbacks. The section related to narrow lots becomes duplicative and will be deleted. The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan and the Town Board’s proposed action on the amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s): Many residential lots in town were developed prior to zoning and are nonconforming in regard to minimum lot width and size. Creating an automatic and proportional setback reduction for these lots provides efficient and consistent relief where needed. Adding flexibility for side setbacks to be different lengths helps maintain the diverse appearance of residential streets and reduces monotony. Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _13th day of _December_, 2021. _____________ _________ Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk ORDINANCE NUMBER: 20211213-X.X ORDINANCE Amending the Unified Development Ordinance of the Town of Hillsborough The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners ordains: Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance Section 7.5.3, Nonconforming Lot Setback Requirements, is hereby replaced to read as follows: 7.5.3 NONCONFORMING LOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS a) This subsection shall apply to any of the following: 1) A single residential lot created before February 17, 1986, that is nonconforming based solely on its area or width, or 2) Lots created under subsection 7.3.4, Multiple Detached Dwellings on a Single Parcel. 3) Lot line adjustments, combinations or partial combinations made to lots referenced in (1) or (2) above where the lot(s) or resultant lot(s) remain nonconforming as to area or width after such action is taken. b) The following table indicates the degree to which otherwise applicable setback standards may be reduced; provided, however, no setback shall ever be less than 10 feet in width. Section 2. Section 7.5.4, Table: Nonconforming Lot Setback Requirements, is hereby replaced as follows: 7.5.4 TABLE: NONCONFORMING LOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS1 DISTRICT CUMULATIVE SIDE SETBACKS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED2, 3 REAR SETBACK SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED4 FRONT SETBACK SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED4 R-40 50% 25% 25% R-20 40% 11% 15% R-15 40% 10% 15% R-10 40% 13% 17% AR 40% 15% 19% 1 For lots that are not rectilinear, each side, front, and rear setback should be measured separately. 2 Lot width as measured at the standard front setback line for the district in which the lot is located shall be used. 3 Cumulative side setbacks should but are not required to be evenly distributed on a property, such that both side setbacks are the same length. 4 Lot depth measured using the shortest lot line shall be used. Section 3. Section 7.5.5, Narrow Lots, is hereby deleted. Section 4. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 13th day of December in 2021. Ayes: Noes: Absent or excused: Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Community Services & Utilities Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Margaret A. Hauth, Assistant Town Manager ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Resolution amending Mitigation Action Plan in the Eno-Haw Hazard Mitigation Plan to identity utility projects Attachments: Draft resolution Brief summary: The town submitted two grant applications under the BRIC program. These projects are important components of the town’s hazard mitigation planning efforts. This resolution will update the plan to include these projects. Action requested: Adopt resolution. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: Identifying the River Pump station and interceptor relocation project and the booster pump at the OWASA interconnection updates our mitigation action plan to be more specific and show concrete tasks. This should help support our funding requests. The amendment will be sent to the state, if approved. Financial impacts: None. This amendment supports our grant applications but is not required to secure funding. Staff recommendation and comments: Adopt resolution. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.H Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session RESOLUTION Amending the Eno-Haw Hazard Mitigation Plan To add specific projects to the Mitigation Action Plan WHEREAS, Hillsborough is vulnerable to an array of natural hazards that can cause loss of life and damages to public and private property; and WHEREAS, Hillsborough desires to seek ways to mitigate situations that may aggravate such circumstances; and WHEREAS, Hillsborough has identified the River Pumping Station Relocation from Floodway and the Resilient Regional Water Supply Project as additional infrastructure to limit the impacts of natural hazards to our community; and WHEREAS, North Carolina Emergency Management's Hazard Mitigation Section has reviewed the currently adopted Eno-Haw Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan for compliance with Stafford Act requirements and recommended amendments to the plan. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners 1. Adopts Amendment One to the Hillsborough Annex (P) to the Eno-Haw Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan to identify action SP-3 and SP-4. 2. Agrees to take such other official action as may be reasonably required to carry out the proposed projects to the extent that such are eligible under the BRIC Program. 3. Agrees to incorporate the salient points of this amendment into the next update of the Hillsborough Annex P to the Eno-Haw Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners that this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Approved this 13th day of December 2021. Jenn Weaver, Mayor Town of Hillsborough AGENDA ABSTRACT: Approval of Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram Dealership | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Utilities Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Utilities Director K. Marie Strandwitz, PE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Approval of Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram (CDJR) Dealership Attachments: Draft Water and Sewer Extension Contract Brief summary: The CDJR dealership will be constructed behind the Sheetz on Highway 86 and I-85. The sewer system on the parcel will remain private, thus this contract is solely for the water main work. This contract is also updated to incorporate some of the cost recovery fees previously discussed. These are summarized in new Section E of the draft contract. Action requested: Approve execution of the contract by the town manager when finalized. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: The project involves the installation of approximately 930 lf of 12” water main, 49 lf of 8” water main, and 255 lf of 6” water main, 1 public hydrant, 1 private hydrant, removal of 725 lf of 12” water main and 195 lf of 6” water main and all appurtenances for a complete and operational system as designed by Summit Design and Engineering Services. Financial impacts: Upon acceptance, the town will assume ownership of 205’ of new 12” water main, 60’ of new 6” water main and one new hydrant. The maintenance of these assets can easily be incorporated into the town’s current operations. The capacity requested is 3,375 gallons per day. Staff recommendation and comments: Staff supports this project which will discharge into our Elizabeth Brady sewer basin. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.I Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session 1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT THIS WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT (WSEC) is entered into this _____ day of , 2021 by and between HILLSBOROUGH DEALERSHIP PROPERTY II, LLC, 4900 LEIGH DRIVE, RALEIGH, NC 27616 (hereinafter the “DEVELOPER”) and the Town of Hillsborough, a North Carolina municipal corporation (hereinafter the “Town”): WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER proposes to extend the Town’s water and sewer system (hereinafter the “Work, or Improvements”) to serve its HILLSBOROUGH CDJ+R DEALERSHIP project (hereinafter the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Work for the Project is more specifically identified in the appendices of this Contract; and WHEREAS, DEVELOPER has agreed to pay certain costs associated with the proposed Work; and WHEREAS, at its meeting held , 2021, the Town Board of Commissioners authorized the proposed water main extension subject to execution of this WSEC and compliance with its terms. NOW, THEREFORE, the DEVELOPER and the Town, and the successors, and assigns of each of them agree: (1) Subject to DEVELOPER’s compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, and subject to DEVELOPER obtaining all necessary approvals from the State of North Carolina or any other agency or authority with jurisdiction over the Work, the Town will permit the connection of Improvements constructed for the above- referenced Project to the Town’s water and sewer systems. a) The Town reserves the right to refuse to allow connection to or use of the Town water and/or sewer system (i) when such connection would cause the Town’s system or the operation thereof to be in violation of any applicable state or federal requirement; or (ii) for reasons not known or foreseen by the Town at the time this contract was executed that would create a clear and present danger to the public health or safety. Reasons for refusal to allow connection shall include, but not be limited to, lack of water supply or lack of capacity of one or more components of the water or sewer system. b) The Town's authorization to connect to the Town's water and sewer system, including any capacity reservations noted, under this Contract shall expire if (i) substantial (i.e. more than token) construction of the project has not begun within one year from the date upon which this contract was executed; (ii) after construction begins, construction ceases for a continuous period of more than one year (unless a result of an action by the Town); or (iii) the extension to be constructed pursuant to this contract has not been connected to the Town's system in accordance with the requirements set forth herein within two years from the date upon which this contract was executed, unless extended by writing before the 2 expiration. (2) Nothing in this Contract shall be construed as constituting express or implied approval of the Project by the Town under any applicable Town zoning, subdivision, or other land use ordinance. (3) The DEVELOPER agrees to comply with or satisfy the following terms and conditions as well as those set forth in Appendix A and acknowledges that the Town's authorization to connect the proposed extension to the Town's system is specifically contingent upon compliance with and satisfaction of the same. If these conditions are not met, this Contract will be rendered null and void and the DEVELOPER will need to re-negotiate a new Contract for extension of service from the Town. A. General Conditions: 1. Unless otherwise explicitly and specifically stated, DEVELOPER shall bear the costs and expenses of all obligations and duties created by this Contract, including without limitation, engineering and legal fees incurred by the Town in connection with the proposed extension. The Town will invoice the Developer for such costs incurred, and payment is due within 30 days. 2. The Town will permit the use of the extension to the Town's water or sewer system only after the Improvements have been successfully tested, all the conditions set forth in Sections B, C, and D and any costs billed per A(1) and Section E, and any additional conditions appended hereto, have been satisfied. 3. The Town shall own and maintain the Improvements constructed under this contract after they are accepted by the Town Board of Commissioners and until such time as the Improvements have been accepted by the Town Board, the DEVELOPER remains responsible for all maintenance and repairs to the Improvements. 4. The DEVELOPER shall warrant all materials and workmanship of the Improvements pursuant to the Post-Construction Conditions of this Contract. Should defects in workmanship or materials be discovered in work done pursuant to this contract by or for the DEVELOPER during the warranty period, the DEVELOPER shall be responsible to see that all such defects are promptly corrected at the DEVELOPER’s expense and written evidence of such, such as a stamped/sealed certification by the DEVELOPER’S engineer per paragraph A.12 above, is provided to the Town. 5. The Town may make or authorize extensions or connections to or from any of the Improvements constructed pursuant to this Contract without permission of the DEVELOPER. 6. Water and sewer service shall meet all minimum State and Town standards. The Town makes no warranty as to any water quality, quantity or pressure to be provided. 7. This Contract may be assigned by the DEVELOPER, but such successor or assignee shall obtain no rights hereunder until after it has provided the Town with a written acknowledgment of the assignee’s assumption of all DEVELOPER’s obligations and responsibilities under this Contract. 8. This Contract is specific to the Project named above and described in Appendix A as approved by 3 the Town Utilities Department and the Board of Commissioners. Any change or alteration in the approved intended use, i.e., residential, and commercial development, or configuration of the approved Improvements of such Project by the DEVELOPER or successor or assignee shall, absent the written consent of the Town, void this Contract. 9. DEVELOPER shall employ a licensed North Carolina engineering firm and engineer to prepare the design and to provide construction administration services throughout the entire Project. DEVELOPER shall provide for third-party construction observation services for the duration of the construction through the Town’s acceptance of the Project. 10. The words “line” or “lines” shall include "main or "mains" unless the contract otherwise requires. "Sewer" means "sanitary sewer." 11. This Contract shall be deemed made in and shall be construed in accordance with the law of North Carolina. B. Pre-Construction Conditions 1. The DEVELOPER and its engineer shall discuss the capacity needs of the Project with the Town early in the Project’s conceptual phases. Water and sewer capacity allocated to the Project will be noted in Appendix A and any changes in Project scope requiring more or less than the allocated amount will require an amendment to this Contract. For large Projects, the Town may require the DEVELOPER to conduct its own capacity analysis using a licensed North Carolina Professional Engineer utilizing information provided by the Town. a) If results of the capacity analysis determine off-site improvements to the Town’s existing system (conveyance or treatment) are needed to accommodate the Project and the DEVELOPER decides to proceed with the Project, the Town will negotiate any cost-share of such off-site improvements with the DEVELOPER, and the terms reached as a result of the negotiations will be included in Appendix A. 2. The DEVELOPER shall engage a licensed North Carolina Professional Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of water improvements and/or sanitary sewer improvements to serve the Project. The Project shall not rely solely on the Town’s Standard Utility Specifications, which may not cover all methods of construction or administrative matters (e.g., shoring, trenching, backfill, pipe laying, handling rock or hazardous wastes, bypass pumping, temporary water service, general and special conditions, site security, payment and change processes, geotechnical or other investigations, etc.). 3. The DEVELOPER shall secure formal approval of the water and sewer construction plans and specifications by the following agencies or authorities (and any other government agencies which may have jurisdiction over one or more elements of the Project), and provide approvals of such to the Town: 4 • Town Utilities Department • North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (if the Project entails any site infrastructure that is considered private, the plans and permit applications shall clearly delineate such and two applications may be required) • North Carolina Department of Transportation 4. The DEVELOPER shall secure and record all required easements for the Work. The Town will provide a boilerplate easement document for utilization. 5. The DEVELOPER shall schedule a pre-construction meeting to include the Town Utilities Department, the Town Planning Department, the Contractor, major Subcontractors, and other pertinent stakeholders prior to commencement of the Work and at this time will provide the Town a list of contacts for the Project. 6. The DEVELOPER shall instruct its contractor to submit to its engineer all material and shop drawing submittals and for its engineer to share all approved submittals with the Town. 7. The DEVELOPER shall pay all fees for the Improvements due to the Town prior to construction of the Improvements. 8. The Town will not accept new pumping stations except under extraordinary circumstances. If the Town accepts a pumping station in the Project design, the DEVELOPER shall pay the Town’s Perpetual Maintenance Fees for such Improvements as required by the Town Code. 9. The DEVELOPER shall ensure that its engineer, surveyor, and contractor receive a copy of the final approved permits, plans and specifications for the Project and is aware of the Town’s Utility Specifications, Standard Details and As-Built Digital Submittal Requirements prior to construction commencement, as applicable to each. C. Construction Conditions: 1. Unless otherwise provided in this Contract, all construction shall be in accordance with Town and State policy, standards, and specifications at the time of construction commencement. a) The Town shall approve the size and type of material for all water and sewer lines. b) The DEVELOPER shall provide, at its sole cost and expense, for construction observation of the water and sewer Improvements by an independent, competent, and experienced inspector (Inspector) to be approved by the Town. Such Inspector shall have at least five years’ experience in observing water and sewer main construction. Inspection by the Town does not consist of or imply supervision. The role of the Town’s inspection staff is not to oversee construction of the Project, but only to (i) witness the installation of critical items of importance to the Town and (ii) periodically check on the Project’s progress. 5 c) All work on the extension of water or sewer lines shall be subject to inspection by the Town, and no Work may be covered up until such inspection has occurred or the Town is confident an Inspector observed the Work. If any Work is covered up prior to inspection, the town may require such Work to be uncovered or exposed for inspection at the DEVELOPER’S expense. If, in the judgment of the Town, there is a demonstrated lack of competent supervision by a Contractor, the Town may halt work until approved supervision is obtained and the work done in accordance with town specifications and requirements; or provide constant inspection by Town personnel at the expense of the Developer. d) The Town will require acceptance testing to determine whether the Work complies with State and Town standards and specifications. All such testing shall be at the DEVELOPER's expense, and a Town representative must be present when testing occurs unless declined or delegated in writing. The DEVELOPER or its Contractor must provide the Town at least 48 hours advance notice of any testing. The Contractor or third-party Inspector shall document the testing of each segment in detail (type of test, date, test conditions and results, pass/fail) on legible forms. Contractor or third-party construction observer’s failure to document a test will require retesting and a retesting fee for each instance thereafter. e) The Inspector hired by the DEVELOPER shall be onsite each day that meaningful work is performed and shall prepare daily logs to be submitted weekly to the Town. Daily logs shall include a general description of the work performed that day, weather conditions, equipment used, number of crew, any installation observations, or concerns, and who they were communicated to, and associated photos with a photo log. The Inspector shall routinely communicate with the Town on progress and issues that arise. i. Meaningful work means the installation of water or sewer infrastructure and appurtenances that will become part of the public system of the town, installation of water or sewer services, making taps to existing Town water or sewer mains, testing (including flushing and chlorinating of water mains) of water or sewer systems for acceptance, testing of soils for compaction around water and sewer systems, pouring thrust blocking, constructing pumping stations, tanks or other water and sewer features. f) The Inspector shall consult with the Town and the DEVELOPER’s engineer on any significant field changes. The DEVELOPER’s engineer shall gain approval in writing from the Town’s Utilities Director or delegated staff prior to making such changes. Changes shall be reflected on the record drawings. i. Significant change may include but not be limited to adding or deleting infrastructure or services; changing the alignment or grade of infrastructure; moving hydrants, manholes, valves or backflow prevention device locations; adding additional services; changing pipe sizes or materials; adding couplings; or 6 making other changes that will affect the layout or operation of the system as designed and approved. g) All Work on the Improvements shall be performed by a contractor licensed to perform this type of Work in North Carolina. h) DEVELOPER shall have their construction contractor coordinate with the Town on tie-in plans and water shutdowns at least one week in advance. Contractor shall be responsible to notification to customers of water disruptions. i) Town shall operate any existing system features (i.e., valves, hydrants) to accommodate Work by contractor, unless permission for others to operate such features is granted by the town in writing. Unauthorized operation of hydrants or valves or other system components by DEVELOPER or its contractor (or subcontractor) without prior approval of town constitutes tampering and theft and will result in the Town assessing $2,500 per occurrence. Should DEVELOPER fail to pay an assessment imposed pursuant to this paragraph or if tampering occurs more than once on the Project, the Town may stop work on the Project until the assessment is paid, or some other arrangement is made to satisfy the Town that no further tampering will occur. Repeat instances of tampering my result in the Town nullifying this Contract. j) DEVELOPER shall report any instances of sewer bypass or overflow, or any instance of water system issues, caused by the Work. k) DEVELOPER shall ensure contractor checks and confirms line and grade throughout installation of future public gravity sewers to ensure proper slope and alignment per plan. Failure to comply with minimum slope shall result in the removal and replacement of such sewers mains at proper grade, at DEVELOPER’s cost. l) DEVELOPER shall provide proof of approved product submittals to the Town prior to construction commencement. m) DEVELOPER shall provide a copy of this WSEC to its water and sewer contractor and submit proof to the Town of same. n) DEVELOPER shall require its contractor to provide 48-hours’ notice to the Town in advance for any taps and acceptance testing. o) DEVELOPER shall require that its water and sewer contractor have its field superintendent onsite during all construction of the Improvements. The field superintendent and a secondary field contact shall be identified at the preconstruction meeting. p) The DEVELOPER shall ensure that the water and sewer contractor maintain field records of the Work as it progresses and shall have a registered land surveyor collect and seal as 7 accurate, the location and survey attributes for all water and sewer features as required by the Town according to its As-Built Digital Submittal Requirements. Any missing information to meet the requirements shall be collected at the DEVELOPER expense and prior to Town acceptance of the system. q) The DEVELOPER shall prepare and submit final as-built drawings of the Work which are sealed by a North Carolina registered Professional Engineer. r) The evidence or observation of off-road vehicles or metal tracked equipment driving over installed utilities after inspection may require reinspection and retesting at the costs listed in Appendix E at the discretion of the Town. 2. The DEVELOPER shall bear the total cost of all water and/or sewer construction within the Project and the total cost of all water and/or sewer construction required to extend service to the Project, unless negotiated otherwise and stated in this Contract. D. Post-Construction Conditions: The following stages shall be completed after construction of the Project: 1. Prior to use of the Project for any reason the Town shall have performed a pre-acceptance inspection and received from the DEVELOPER and approved: a) sewer smoke testing and televising reports as required by the Town specifications, b) copies of all acceptance testing performed on the Improvements, including any testing of backflow prevention devices; fats, oils and grease interceptors or separators; fire flow or apparatus testing (as it relates to affecting the public water system); sewer manhole vacuum testing; sewer and water main pressure and leakage testing; mandrel testing; geotechnical compaction testing if utilized; and bacteriological testing of any water mains, c) two printed copies (1 full D-size and 1 half-size) and one electronic PDF copy of the sealed as-built drawings (full as-built drawings should be presented unless the Town agrees to accept a series of partial as-built drawings), d) a full CAD version of the final as-built drawings including all necessary X-references and font files to make a complete view of the data in Autodesk’s AutoCad 2020 or other Autodesk CAD viewer software, e) a contractor's notarized affidavit that the drawings accurately represent the as-built improvements, f) the completed Engineering Certifications executed by the Professional Engineer of record indicating that work has been performed in substantial compliance with the approved plans 8 and specifications and that the state has received such certifications and approved them (final certification should be provided unless the Town agrees to accept a series of partial certifications and then a final certification), and, g) evidence the noted deficiencies, including any noted from the sewer televising and smoke testing, have been corrected by the DEVELOPER’S contractor and approved by the town, unless the Town has provided written permission for specific minor deficiencies not affecting the operation of the system to be corrected before acceptance of the system per Item D(2)(g). 2. Prior to the Town accepting the system for ownership, the Developer shall: a) provide a Contractor’s Affidavit and Release of Liens from all subcontractors and materialmen, b) provide digital data as required by the Town’s As-Built Digital Submittal Requirements, i. the digital data will be quality checked by the Town’s surveying firm (typically 10% of the system). Additional time shall be accounted for this effort in DEVELOPER’s schedule, ii. the data shall be corrected at the DEVELOPER’s expense if significant discrepancies exist between the survey data exist from the quality check, iii. The charges for the Town to perform the quality check and input the data into the town GIS system will be billed to the DEVELOPER. c) convey to the Town and record or cause to have recorded in the Orange County Registry all deeds of easement and plats showing all water and/or sewer easements required to serve the Project, d) provide an engineer-certified Statement of Value per bid line item of the final cost of the water and sewer Improvements, e) have submitted all daily field reports and other pertinent Project records as requested such as approved submittals, Requests for Information, Field Work Orders and Change Orders, f) ensure all Engineering Certifications are final, g) All Town punch list items are completed and signed off upon. h) provide developer completed state Change of Ownership forms to transfer the state-permitted water and sewer Improvements that are to become public to the Town (the Town will execute its portion and submit to the state upon Town Board of Commissioners acceptance), 9 i) formally dedicate to the Town by letter all physical Improvements constructed to serve the project that is the subject of this contract, which Improvements shall become part of the Town water and sewer system upon acceptance by the Town Board of Commissioners and will thereafter be owned and maintained by the Town, with exception of the warranty conditions, and j) present a warranty in the name of the Town of Hillsborough for a minimum period of two years from the date of Town Board of Commissioner acceptance of the construction for the Project or phase of Project. The method of securing the warranty shall be by Maintenance Bond or Letter of Credit from a viable surety with a rating of AA or above, or other form of security in a form acceptable to the Town. The security amount will be 25% of the total cost of the Improvements as certified in the Statement of Value prepared by a North Carolina licensed engineer. 3. It shall be the DEVELOPER’s responsibility to request release of the warranty at a point not earlier than two years from the date of acceptance of the system by the Town. The warranty shall remain in effect until such time as all four of the following conditions are satisfied: a) Town staff have evaluated the system for the end-of-warranty release and provided documented comments of defects to be corrected, b) DEVELOPER has performed end-of-warranty sewer smoke testing and televising (CCTV) and provided such to the Town for review in accordance with the Town’s specifications, c) DEVELOPER has corrected any defects noted by the Town staff in its evaluation of the system and the Town has verified this, and d) The Town has returned or noted cancellation of the warranty security instrument. E. Fees: 1. All fees and charges to be paid pursuant to this Contract shall be calculated in accordance with the Town’s fee schedule in effect when the fees and charges are paid, or if not in the fee schedule, as outlined in this section. Fees typically are adopted as part of the Town’s budget process each year with an effective date of July 1 and are subject to change. 2. DEVELOPER's construction of Improvements pursuant to this Contract shall not relieve DEVELOPER of the obligation to pay applicable fees under the Town's water and sewer ordinances and policies in effect at the time the fees are paid, and this Section E, except as amended by Appendix A. 3. DEVELOPER's construction of Improvements pursuant to this Contract does not affect the Town's policy with respect to the fees to be paid to the Town by property owners other than DEVELOPER for connection to the improvements constructed by DEVELOPER pursuant to this Contract. Nor shall DEVELOPER have any right to collect fees from persons connecting onto or extending the 10 improvements constructed under this Contract. 4. The following fees will be applicable to the Project: a) Water and sewer system development, engineering review, inspection and meter fees as applicable and published in the fee schedule referenced in Section A(1) and herein. b) Perpetual Maintenance Fees for any approved pumping station per town code calculations. c) Tampering fees as outlined in Item C(1)(i). d) DEVELOPER shall ensure its water and sewer contractor is prepared for acceptance testing by pre-testing items in advance. Reinspection fee for each recurring trip for previously failed tests, a call for testing that requires the Inspector to wait more than 30 minutes or observation by the Inspector that the items are not ready to be tested, or no timely notification of cancellation (4 hours in advance) of testing will be charged to DEVELOPER at $300 per trip plus .25/linear foot (lf) over 1,000 feet of main tested. Reinspection of service taps (including sewer cleanout, meter box, curb stop), mainline valves, hydrants, manholes, air release valves, and other singular items will be $50 each. e) DEVELOPER shall ensure the construction is conducted in an orderly and organized fashion and that the Town’s resources are efficiently utilized. Repeated and duplicative effort by the Town on a project will require reimbursement from the Developer for staff time and travel in accordance with Section 14-68 of the Town Code of Ordinances. f) Construction water for the Project will not be obtained from the Town’s water system unless through rental of a hydrant meter, installation of a construction meter (for home building), or through bulk water purchase from the Town’s Water Treatment Plant in accordance with policies and rates in place at the time of rental. g) DEVELOPER shall reimburse the Town for review of sewer CCTV tapes at $1.00/lf. CCTV that is submitted not in accordance with the Town CCTV specifications will be immediately rejected with a one-time charge of $100. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 11 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract in duplicate originals, as of the day and year first above written. HILLSBOROUGH DEALERSHIP PROPERTY II, LLC TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH By: ___________________________ By: ___________________________ Signatory Title Eric J. Peterson Town Manager ATTEST: ATTEST: ______________________________ ______________________________ Town Clerk Sarah Kimrey This Contract is approved to as form: __________________________ Town Attorney This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. __________________________ Tiffany Long, Finance Director List of Appendices: Appendix A 12 HILLSBOROUGH CDJ+R DEALERSHIP PROJECT TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT APPENDIX A HILLSBOROUGH DEALERSHIP PROPERTY II, LLC, 4900 LEIGH DRIVE, RALEIGH, NC 27616 agrees to satisfy the following conditions in addition to those set forth in this WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT before the Town will permit the connection, operation and future ownership of improvements constructed for the above referenced Project to the Town water and sewer system: 1. The Project has reserved, for the period stated in WSEC paragraph 1(B), 3,375 gpd. 2. The Project consists of construction of a new car dealership with sales floor, offices and maintenance bays. The Project will require the relocation of existing town water mains, abandonment of existing utility easements and the creation of new utility easements, and extension of water and sewer mains and services, installation of a 1.5” domestic meter and fire protection line. The sanitary sewer work will be privately owned but discharge into the town system through the existing privately owned onsite pumping station. 3. Public water for the project may include installation of approximately 930 lf of 12” water main, 49 lf of 8” water main, and 255lf of 6” water main, 1 public hydrant, 1 private hydrants, removal of 725 lf of 12” water main and 195 lf of 6” water main and all appurtenances for a complete and operational system as designed by Summit Design and Engineering Services. Actual facilities to be constructed will be depicted in the issued construction plans and state permit application(s). AGENDA ABSTRACT: Approval of Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Collins Ridge Phase 1B | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Utilities Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Utilities Director K. Marie Strandwitz, PE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Approval of Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Collins Ridge Phase 1B Attachments: Draft Water and Sewer Extension Contract Brief summary: Collins Ridge Phase 1B is proposed to be 85 lots (79 single family and 6 townhomes). This contract is updated to incorporate some of the cost recovery fees previously discussed and beefs up some of the existing conditions to ensure the town receives quality infrastructure workmanship and documentation. The fees are summarized in new Section E of the contract. Action requested: Approve execution of the contract by the town manager when finalized. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: Collins Ridge is a large multi-phased subdivision that has an approved Special Use Permit and plan. An existing Water and Sewer Extension Contract does exist, but this will be terminated and replaced with phase-by-phase extension contracts. The termination of the existing contract is due to several reasons: 1) the terms of the contract were not followed; 2) the project scope has changed; 3) the developer listed is no longer the responsible party; and 4) the contract is now designed with more robust conditions and fees and capacity reservation language. Financial impacts: Upon acceptance, the town will assume ownership of approximately 960’ of 12” water main, 3,354’ of 8” water main, 6 hydrants, 2,906’ of 8” sewer main, and 20 manholes. The maintenance of these assets can easily be incorporated into the town’s current operations. The capacity requested is 40,080 gallons per day. Asset statistics and capacity will be finalized when the permit application is approved. Staff recommendation and comments: Staff supports this project that will discharge to our Elizabeth Brady sewer basin. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.J Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session 1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT THIS WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT (WSEC) is entered into this _____ day of , 2021 by and between SFTEN, LLC (hereinafter the “DEVELOPER”) and the Town of Hillsborough, a North Carolina municipal corporation (hereinafter the “Town”): WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER proposes to extend the Town’s water and sewer system (hereinafter the “Work, or Improvements”) to serve its COLLINS RIDGE – PHASE 1B project (hereinafter the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Work for the Project is more specifically identified in the appendices of this Contract; and WHEREAS, DEVELOPER has agreed to pay certain costs associated with the proposed Work; and WHEREAS, at its meeting held , 2021, the Town Board of Commissioners authorized the proposed water main extension subject to execution of this WSEC and compliance with its terms. NOW, THEREFORE, the DEVELOPER and the Town, and the successors, and assigns of each of them agree: (1) Subject to DEVELOPER’s compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, and subject to DEVELOPER obtaining all necessary approvals from the State of North Carolina or any other agency or authority with jurisdiction over the Work, the Town will permit the connection of Improvements constructed for the above- referenced Project to the Town’s water and sewer systems. a) The Town reserves the right to refuse to allow connection to or use of the Town water and/or sewer system (i) when such connection would cause the Town’s system or the operation thereof to be in violation of any applicable state or federal requirement; or (ii) for reasons not known or foreseen by the Town at the time this contract was executed that would create a clear and present danger to the public health or safety. Reasons for refusal to allow connection shall include, but not be limited to, lack of water supply or lack of capacity of one or more components of the water or sewer system. b) The Town's authorization to connect to the Town's water and sewer system, including any capacity reservations noted, under this Contract shall expire if (i) substantial (i.e. more than token) construction of the project has not begun within one year from the date upon which this contract was executed; (ii) after construction begins, construction ceases for a continuous period of more than one year (unless a result of an action by the Town); or (iii) the extension to be constructed pursuant to this contract has not been connected to the Town's system in accordance with the requirements set forth herein within two years from the date upon which this contract was executed, unless extended by writing before the expiration. 2 (2) Nothing in this Contract shall be construed as constituting express or implied approval of the Project by the Town under any applicable Town zoning, subdivision, or other land use ordinance. (3) The DEVELOPER agrees to comply with or satisfy the following terms and conditions as well as those set forth in Appendix A and acknowledges that the Town's authorization to connect the proposed extension to the Town's system is specifically contingent upon compliance with and satisfaction of the same. If these conditions are not met, this Contract will be rendered null and void and the DEVELOPER will need to re-negotiate a new Contract for extension of service from the Town. A. General Conditions: 1. Unless otherwise explicitly and specifically stated, DEVELOPER shall bear the costs and expenses of all obligations and duties created by this Contract, including without limitation, engineering and legal fees incurred by the Town in connection with the proposed extension. The Town will invoice the Developer for such costs incurred, and payment is due within 30 days. 2. The Town will permit the use of the extension to the Town's water or sewer system only after the Improvements have been successfully tested, all the conditions set forth in Sections B, C, and D and any costs billed per A(1) and Section E, and any additional conditions appended hereto, have been satisfied. 3. The Town shall own and maintain the Improvements constructed under this contract after they are accepted by the Town Board of Commissioners and until such time as the Improvements have been accepted by the Town Board, the DEVELOPER remains responsible for all maintenance and repairs to the Improvements. 4. The DEVELOPER shall warrant all materials and workmanship of the Improvements pursuant to the Post-Construction Conditions of this Contract. Should defects in workmanship or materials be discovered in work done pursuant to this contract by or for the DEVELOPER during the warranty period, the DEVELOPER shall be responsible to see that all such defects are promptly corrected at the DEVELOPER’s expense and written evidence of such, such as a stamped/sealed certification by the DEVELOPER’S engineer per paragraph A.12 above, is provided to the Town. 5. The Town may make or authorize extensions or connections to or from any of the Improvements constructed pursuant to this Contract without permission of the DEVELOPER. 6. Water and sewer service shall meet all minimum State and Town standards. The Town makes no warranty as to any water quality, quantity or pressure to be provided. 7. This Contract may be assigned by the DEVELOPER, but such successor or assignee shall obtain no rights hereunder until after it has provided the Town with a written acknowledgment of the assignee’s assumption of all DEVELOPER’s obligations and responsibilities under this Contract. 8. This Contract is specific to the Project named above and described in Appendix A as approved by the Town Utilities Department and the Board of Commissioners. Any change or alteration in the 3 approved intended use, i.e., residential, and commercial development, or configuration of the approved Improvements of such Project by the DEVELOPER or successor or assignee shall, absent the written consent of the Town, void this Contract. 9. DEVELOPER shall employ a licensed North Carolina engineering firm and engineer to prepare the design and to provide construction administration services throughout the entire Project. DEVELOPER shall provide for third-party construction observation services for the duration of the construction through the Town’s acceptance of the Project. 10. The words “line” or “lines” shall include "main or "mains" unless the contract otherwise requires. "Sewer" means "sanitary sewer." 11. This Contract shall be deemed made in and shall be construed in accordance with the law of North Carolina. B. Pre-Construction Conditions 1. The DEVELOPER and its engineer shall discuss the capacity needs of the Project with the Town early in the Project’s conceptual phases. Water and sewer capacity allocated to the Project will be noted in Appendix A and any changes in Project scope requiring more or less than the allocated amount will require an amendment to this Contract. For large Projects, the Town may require the DEVELOPER to conduct its own capacity analysis using a licensed North Carolina Professional Engineer utilizing information provided by the Town. a) If results of the capacity analysis determine off-site improvements to the Town’s existing system (conveyance or treatment) are needed to accommodate the Project and the DEVELOPER decides to proceed with the Project, the Town will negotiate any cost-share of such off-site improvements with the DEVELOPER, and the terms reached as a result of the negotiations will be included in Appendix A. 2. The DEVELOPER shall engage a licensed North Carolina Professional Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of water improvements and/or sanitary sewer improvements to serve the Project. The Project shall not rely solely on the Town’s Standard Utility Specifications, which may not cover all methods of construction or administrative matters (e.g., shoring, trenching, backfill, pipe laying, handling rock or hazardous wastes, bypass pumping, temporary water service, general and special conditions, site security, payment and change processes, geotechnical or other investigations, etc.). 3. The DEVELOPER shall secure formal approval of the water and sewer construction plans and specifications by the following agencies or authorities (and any other government agencies which may have jurisdiction over one or more elements of the Project), and provide approvals of such to the Town: • Town Utilities Department 4 • North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (if the Project entails any site infrastructure that is considered private, the plans and permit applications shall clearly delineate such and two applications may be required) • North Carolina Department of Transportation 4. The DEVELOPER shall secure and record all required easements for the Work. The Town will provide a boilerplate easement document for utilization. 5. The DEVELOPER shall schedule a pre-construction meeting to include the Town Utilities Department, the Town Planning Department, the Contractor, major Subcontractors, and other pertinent stakeholders prior to commencement of the Work and at this time will provide the Town a list of contacts for the Project. 6. The DEVELOPER shall instruct its contractor to submit to its engineer all material and shop drawing submittals and for its engineer to share all approved submittals with the Town. 7. The DEVELOPER shall pay all fees for the Improvements due to the Town prior to construction of the Improvements. 8. The Town will not accept new pumping stations except under extraordinary circumstances. If the Town accepts a pumping station in the Project design, the DEVELOPER shall pay the Town’s Perpetual Maintenance Fees for such Improvements as required by the Town Code. 9. The DEVELOPER shall ensure that its engineer, surveyor, and contractor receive a copy of the final approved permits, plans and specifications for the Project and is aware of the Town’s Utility Specifications, Standard Details and As-Built Digital Submittal Requirements prior to construction commencement, as applicable to each. C. Construction Conditions: 1. Unless otherwise provided in this Contract, all construction shall be in accordance with Town and State policy, standards, and specifications at the time of construction commencement. a) The Town shall approve the size and type of material for all water and sewer lines. b) The DEVELOPER shall provide, at its sole cost and expense, for construction observation of the water and sewer Improvements by an independent, competent, and experienced inspector (Inspector) to be approved by the Town. Such Inspector shall have at least five years’ experience in observing water and sewer main construction. Inspection by the Town does not consist of or imply supervision. The role of the Town’s inspection staff is not to oversee construction of the Project, but only to (i) witness the installation of critical items of importance to the Town and (ii) periodically check on the Project’s progress. 5 c) All work on the extension of water or sewer lines shall be subject to inspection by the Town, and no Work may be covered up until such inspection has occurred or the Town is confident an Inspector observed the Work. If any Work is covered up prior to inspection, the town may require such Work to be uncovered or exposed for inspection at the DEVELOPER’S expense. If, in the judgment of the Town, there is a demonstrated lack of competent supervision by a Contractor, the Town may halt work until approved supervision is obtained and the work done in accordance with town specifications and requirements; or provide constant inspection by Town personnel at the expense of the Developer. d) The Town will require acceptance testing to determine whether the Work complies with State and Town standards and specifications. All such testing shall be at the DEVELOPER's expense, and a Town representative must be present when testing occurs unless declined or delegated in writing. The DEVELOPER or its Contractor must provide the Town at least 48 hours advance notice of any testing. The Contractor or third-party Inspector shall document the testing of each segment in detail (type of test, date, test conditions and results, pass/fail) on legible forms. Contractor or third-party construction observer’s failure to document a test will require retesting and a retesting fee for each instance thereafter. e) The Inspector hired by the DEVELOPER shall be onsite each day that meaningful work is performed and shall prepare daily logs to be submitted weekly to the Town. Daily logs shall include a general description of the work performed that day, weather conditions, equipment used, number of crew, any installation observations, or concerns, and who they were communicated to, and associated photos with a photo log. The Inspector shall routinely communicate with the Town on progress and issues that arise. i. Meaningful work means the installation of water or sewer infrastructure and appurtenances that will become part of the public system of the town, installation of water or sewer services, making taps to existing Town water or sewer mains, testing (including flushing and chlorinating of water mains) of water or sewer systems for acceptance, testing of soils for compaction around water and sewer systems, pouring thrust blocking, constructing pumping stations, tanks or other water and sewer features. f) The Inspector shall consult with the Town and the DEVELOPER’s engineer on any significant field changes. The DEVELOPER’s engineer shall gain approval in writing from the Town’s Utilities Director or delegated staff prior to making such changes. Changes shall be reflected on the record drawings. i. Significant change may include but not be limited to: adding or deleting infrastructure; changing the alignment or grade of infrastructure; moving hydrants, manholes, valves or backflow prevention device locations; adding additional services; changing pipe sizes or materials; adding couplings; or making other changes that will affect the layout or operation of the system as designed and 6 approved. g) All Work on the Improvements shall be performed by a contractor licensed to perform this type of Work in North Carolina. h) DEVELOPER shall have their construction contractor coordinate with the Town on tie-in plans and water shutdowns at least one week in advance. Contractor shall be responsible to notification to customers of water disruptions. i) Town shall operate any existing system features (i.e., valves, hydrants) to accommodate Work by contractor, unless permission for others to operate such features is granted by the town in writing. Unauthorized operation of hydrants or valves or other system components by DEVELOPER or its contractor (or subcontractor) without prior approval of town constitutes tampering and theft and will result in the Town assessing $2,500 per occurrence. Should DEVELOPER fail to pay an assessment imposed pursuant to this paragraph or if tampering occurs more than once on the Project, the Town may stop work on the Project until the assessment is paid, or some other arrangement is made to satisfy the Town that no further tampering will occur. Repeat instances of tampering my result in the Town nullifying this Contract. j) DEVELOPER shall report any instances of sewer bypass or overflow, or any instance of water system issues, caused by the Work. k) DEVELOPER shall ensure contractor checks and confirms line and grade throughout installation of future public gravity sewers to ensure proper slope and alignment per plan. Failure to comply with minimum slope shall result in the removal and replacement of such sewers mains at proper grade, at DEVELOPER’s cost. l) DEVELOPER shall provide proof of approved product submittals to the Town prior to construction commencement. m) DEVELOPER shall provide a copy of this WSEC to its water and sewer contractor and submit proof to the Town of same. n) DEVELOPER shall require its contractor to provide 48-hours’ notice to the Town in advance for any taps and acceptance testing. o) DEVELOPER shall require that its water and sewer contractor have its field superintendent onsite during all construction of the Improvements. The field superintendent and a secondary field contact shall be identified at the preconstruction meeting. p) The DEVELOPER shall ensure that the water and sewer contractor maintain field records of the Work as it progresses and shall have a registered land surveyor collect and seal as accurate, the location and survey attributes for all water and sewer features as required by 7 the Town according to its As-Built Digital Submittal Requirements. Any missing information to meet the requirements shall be collected at the DEVELOPER expense and prior to Town acceptance of the system. q) The DEVELOPER shall prepare and submit final as-built drawings of the Work which are sealed by a North Carolina registered Professional Engineer. 2. The DEVELOPER shall bear the total cost of all water and/or sewer construction within the Project and the total cost of all water and/or sewer construction required to extend service to the Project, unless negotiated otherwise and stated in this Contract. D. Post-Construction Conditions: The following stages shall be completed after construction of the Project: 1. Prior to use of the Project for any reason the Town shall have performed a pre-acceptance inspection and received from the DEVELOPER and approved: a) sewer smoke testing and televising reports as required by the Town specifications, b) copies of all acceptance testing performed on the Improvements, including any testing of backflow prevention devices; fats, oils and grease interceptors or separators; fire flow or apparatus testing (as it relates to affecting the public water system); sewer manhole vacuum testing; sewer and water main pressure and leakage testing; mandrel testing; geotechnical compaction testing if utilized; and bacteriological testing of any water mains, c) two printed copies (1 full D-size and 1 half-size) and one electronic PDF copy of the sealed as-built drawings (full as-built drawings should be presented unless the Town agrees to accept a series of partial as-built drawings), d) a full CAD version of the final as-built drawings including all necessary X-references and font files to make a complete view of the data in Autodesk’s AutoCad 2020 or other Autodesk CAD viewer software, e) a contractor's notarized affidavit that the drawings accurately represent the as-built improvements, f) the completed Engineering Certifications executed by the Professional Engineer of record indicating that work has been performed in substantial compliance with the approved plans and specifications and that the state has received such certifications and approved them (final certification should be provided unless the Town agrees to accept a series of partial certifications and then a final certification), and, g) evidence the noted deficiencies, including any noted from the sewer televising and smoke 8 testing, have been corrected by the DEVELOPER’S contractor and approved by the town, unless the Town has provided written permission for specific minor deficiencies not affecting the operation of the system to be corrected before acceptance of the system per Item D(2)(g). 2. Prior to the Town accepting the system for ownership, the Developer shall: a) provide a Contractor’s Affidavit and Release of Liens from all subcontractors and materialmen, b) provide digital data as required by the Town’s As-Built Digital Submittal Requirements, i. the digital data will be quality checked by the Town’s surveying firm (typically 10% of the system). Additional time shall be accounted for this effort in DEVELOPER’s schedule, ii. the data shall be corrected at the DEVELOPER’s expense if significant discrepancies exist between the survey data exist from the quality check, iii. The charges for the Town to perform the quality check and input the data into the town GIS system will be billed to the DEVELOPER. c) convey to the Town and record or cause to have recorded in the Orange County Registry all deeds of easement and plats showing all water and/or sewer easements required to serve the Project, d) provide an engineer-certified Statement of Value per bid line item of the final cost of the water and sewer Improvements, e) have submitted all daily field reports and other pertinent Project records as requested such as approved submittals, Requests for Information, Field Work Orders and Change Orders, f) ensure all Engineering Certifications are final, g) All Town punch list items are completed and signed off upon. h) provide developer completed state Change of Ownership forms to transfer the state-permitted water and sewer Improvements that are to become public to the Town (the Town will execute its portion and submit to the state upon Town Board of Commissioners acceptance), i) formally dedicate to the Town by letter all physical Improvements constructed to serve the project that is the subject of this contract, which Improvements shall become part of the Town water and sewer system upon acceptance by the Town Board of Commissioners and will thereafter be owned and maintained by the Town, with exception of the warranty conditions, and 9 j) present a warranty in the name of the Town of Hillsborough for a minimum period of two years from the date of Town Board of Commissioner acceptance of the construction for the Project or phase of Project. The method of securing the warranty shall be by Maintenance Bond or Letter of Credit from a viable surety with a rating of AA or above, or other form of security in a form acceptable to the Town. The security amount will be 25% of the total cost of the Improvements as certified in the Statement of Value prepared by a North Carolina licensed engineer. 3. It shall be the DEVELOPER’s responsibility to request release of the warranty at a point not earlier than two years from the date of acceptance of the system by the Town. The warranty shall remain in effect until such time as all four of the following conditions are satisfied: a) Town staff have evaluated the system for the end-of-warranty release and provided documented comments of defects to be corrected, b) DEVELOPER has performed end-of-warranty sewer smoke testing and televising (CCTV) and provided such to the Town for review in accordance with the Town’s specifications, c) DEVELOPER has corrected any defects noted by the Town staff in its evaluation of the system and the Town has verified this, and d) The Town has returned or noted cancellation of the warranty security instrument. E. Fees: 1. All fees and charges to be paid pursuant to this Contract shall be calculated in accordance with the Town’s fee schedule in effect when the fees and charges are paid, or if not in the fee schedule, as outlined in this section. Fees typically are adopted as part of the Town’s budget process each year with an effective date of July 1 and are subject to change. 2. DEVELOPER's construction of Improvements pursuant to this Contract shall not relieve DEVELOPER of the obligation to pay applicable fees under the Town's water and sewer ordinances and policies in effect at the time the fees are paid, and this Section E, except as amended by Appendix A. 3. DEVELOPER's construction of Improvements pursuant to this Contract does not affect the Town's policy with respect to the fees to be paid to the Town by property owners other than DEVELOPER for connection to the improvements constructed by DEVELOPER pursuant to this Contract. Nor shall DEVELOPER have any right to collect fees from persons connecting onto or extending the improvements constructed under this Contract. 4. The following fees will be applicable to the Project: a) Water and sewer system development, engineering review, inspection and meter fees as applicable 10 and published in the fee schedule referenced in Section A(1) and herein. b) Perpetual Maintenance Fees for any approved pumping station per town code calculations. c) Tampering fees as outlined in Item C(1)(i). d) DEVELOPER shall ensure its water and sewer contractor is prepared for acceptance testing by pre-testing items in advance. Reinspection fee for each recurring trip for previously failed tests, a call for testing that requires the Inspector to wait more than 30 minutes or observation by the Inspector that the items are not ready to be tested, or no timely notification of cancellation (4 hours in advance) of testing will be charged to DEVELOPER at $300 per trip plus .25/linear foot (lf) over 1,000 feet of main tested. Reinspection of service taps (including sewer cleanout, meter box, curb stop), mainline valves, hydrants, manholes, air release valves, and other singular items will be $50 each. e) DEVELOPER shall ensure the construction is conducted in an orderly and organized fashion and that the Town’s resources are efficiently utilized. Repeated and duplicative effort by the Town on a project will require reimbursement from the Developer for staff time and travel in accordance with Section 14-68 of the Town Code of Ordinances. f) Construction water for the Project will not be obtained from the Town’s water system unless through rental of a hydrant meter, installation of a construction meter (for home building), or through bulk water purchase from the Town’s Water Treatment Plant in accordance with policies and rates in place at the time of rental. g) DEVELOPER shall reimburse the Town for review of sewer CCTV tapes at $1.00/lf. CCTV that is submitted not in accordance with the Town CCTV specifications will be immediately rejected with a one-time charge of $100. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 11 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract in duplicate originals, as of the day and year first above written. SFTEN, LLC TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH By: ___________________________ By: ___________________________ Signatory Title Eric J. Peterson Town Manager ATTEST: ATTEST: ______________________________ ______________________________ Town Clerk Sarah Kimrey This Contract is approved to as form: __________________________ Town Attorney This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. __________________________ Tiffany Long, Finance Director List of Appendices: Appendix A 12 COLLINS RIDGE – PHASE 1B TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT APPENDIX A SFTEN, LLC agrees to satisfy the following conditions in addition to those set forth in this WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT before the Town will permit the connection, operation and future ownership of improvements constructed for the above referenced Project to the Town water and sewer system: 1. The Project has reserved, for the period stated in WSEC paragraph 1(B), 40,080 gpd. 2. The Project consists of 79 single family lots and 6 3-BDR townhomes 3. Public water and sanitary sewer facilities for the project may include, approximately 960’ of 12” water main, 3,354’ of 8” water main, 6 hydrants, 2,906’ of 8” sewer main, 20 manholes and all appurtenances for a complete and operational system as designed by McAdams. Actual facilities to be constructed will be depicted in the issued construction plans and state permit application(s). 4. The evidence or observation of off-road vehicles or metal tracked equipment driving over installed utilities after inspection may require reinspection and retesting at the costs listed in Appendix E at the discretion of the Town. AGENDA ABSTRACT: Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Collins Ridge James J. Freeland Mem. Water Extension | 1 of 2 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Utilities Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Utilities Director K. Marie Strandwitz, PE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Approval of Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Collins Ridge James J. Freeland Memorial Drive (JJFM) Water Main Extension Attachments: Draft Water and Sewer Extension Contract Brief summary: This project is for a water main extension to loop the water system in Collins Ridge back to existing water mains along South Churton Street, which will be very beneficial for water quality and resiliency. This contract is updated to incorporate some of the cost recovery fees previously discussed (Section E) and beefs up some of the existing conditions to ensure the town receives quality infrastructure workmanship and documentation of the project. Additionally, this particular contract incorporates an extended warranty for the Phase 1A water and sewer system due to past concerns over workmanship. Gratefully and in good partnership, DR Horton has also agreed to donate some funds towards our recent interconnections project which directly benefited the subdivision by interconnecting water mains along South Churton Street to provide system redundancy. With multiple sources of water supply, the risk of subdivision loss of water is greatly reduced. We are however still negotiating the length of the warranty and the contributed funds amount which will be added to the contract before signature. Action requested: Approve execution of the contract by the town manager when finalized. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: Collins Ridge is a large multi-phased subdivision that has an approved Special Use Permit and plan. An existing Water and Sewer Extension Contract does exist, but this will be terminated and replaced with phase-by-phase extension contracts. The termination of the existing contract is due to several reasons: 1) the terms of the contract were not followed; 2) the project scope has changed; 3) the developer listed is no longer the responsible party; and 4) the contract is now designed with more robust conditions and fees and capacity reservation language. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.K Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session AGENDA ABSTRACT: Water and Sewer Extension Contract for Collins Ridge James J. Freeland Mem. Water Extension | 2 of 2 Financial impacts: Upon acceptance, the town will assume ownership of 1,461’ of new 12” water main, and three new hydrants. The maintenance of these assets can easily be incorporated into the town’s current operations. There is no capacity reserved as no structures are being built and as such, there will be no system development fees collected at this time. Staff recommendation and comments: Staff supports this project. 1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT THIS WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT (WSEC) is entered into this _____ day of , , by and between SFTEN, LLC (hereinafter the “DEVELOPER”) and the Town of Hillsborough, a North Carolina municipal corporation (hereinafter the “Town”): WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER proposes to extend the Town’s water and sewer system (hereinafter the “Work, or Improvements”) to serve its COLLINS RIDGE – JAMES J. FREELAND MEMORIAL DRIVE WATERMAIN EXTENSION project (hereinafter the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER is owner of the property for which COLLINS RIDGE PHASE 1A water and sewer systems were constructed under a separate WSEC with Criteria Development, LLC (DEVELOPER’S predecessor in interest; “Criteria”), the terms of which separate WSEC were not followed by Criteria, DEVELOPER acquired the Collins Ridge property and the Project from Criteria but no formal assignment of the separate WSEC with Criteria was ever executed, , the description of the Project has changed since the execution of the separate WSEC, and Criteria will not be leading any future phases of Work; and WHEREAS, the Work for the Project is more specifically identified in the appendices of this Contract; and WHEREAS, DEVELOPER has agreed to pay certain costs associated with the proposed Work; and WHEREAS, at its meeting held , 2021, the Town Board of Commissioners authorized the proposed water main extension subject to execution of this WSEC and compliance with its terms. NOW, THEREFORE, the DEVELOPER and the Town, and the successors, and assigns of each of them agree: (1) Subject to DEVELOPER’s compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, and subject to DEVELOPER obtaining all necessary approvals from the State of North Carolina or any other agency or authority with jurisdiction over the Work, the Town will permit the connection of Improvements constructed for the above- referenced Project to the Town’s water and sewer systems. a) The Town reserves the right to refuse to allow connection to or use of the Town water and/or sewer system (i) when such connection would cause the Town’s system or the operation thereof to be in violation of any applicable state or federal requirement; or (ii) for reasons not known or foreseen by the Town at the time this contract was executed that would create a clear and present danger to the public health or safety. Reasons for refusal to allow connection shall include, but not be limited to, lack of water supply or lack of capacity of one or more components of the water or sewer system. 2 b) The Town's authorization to connect to the Town's water and sewer system, including any capacity reservations noted, under this Contract shall expire if (i) substantial (i.e. more than token) construction of the project has not begun within one year from the date upon which this contract was executed; (ii) after construction begins, construction ceases for a continuous period of more than one year (unless a result of an action by the Town); or (iii) the extension to be constructed pursuant to this contract has not been connected to the Town's system in accordance with the requirements set forth herein within two years from the date upon which this contract was executed, unless extended by writing before the expiration. (2) Nothing in this Contract shall be construed as constituting express or implied approval of the Project by the Town under any applicable Town zoning, subdivision, or other land use ordinance. (3) The DEVELOPER agrees to comply with or satisfy the following terms and conditions as well as those set forth in Appendix A and acknowledges that the Town's authorization to connect the proposed extension to the Town's system is specifically contingent upon compliance with and satisfaction of the same. If these conditions are not met, this Contract will be rendered null and void and the DEVELOPER will need to re-negotiate a new Contract for extension of service from the Town. A. General Conditions: 1. Unless otherwise explicitly and specifically stated, DEVELOPER shall bear the costs and expenses of all obligations and duties created by this Contract, including without limitation, engineering and legal fees incurred by the Town in connection with the proposed extension. The Town will invoice the Developer for such costs incurred, and payment is due within 30 days. 2. The Town will permit the use of the extension to the Town's water or sewer system only after the Improvements have been successfully tested, all the conditions set forth in Sections B, C, and D and any costs billed per A(1) and Section E, and any additional conditions appended hereto, have been satisfied. 3. The Town shall own and maintain the Improvements constructed under this contract after they are accepted by the Town Board of Commissioners and until such time as the Improvements have been accepted by the Town Board, the DEVELOPER remains responsible for all maintenance and repairs to the Improvements. 4. The DEVELOPER shall warrant all materials and workmanship of the Improvements pursuant to the Post-Construction Conditions of this Contract. Should defects in workmanship or materials be discovered in work done pursuant to this contract by or for the DEVELOPER during the warranty period, the DEVELOPER shall be responsible to see that all such defects are promptly corrected at the DEVELOPER’s expense and written evidence of such, such as a stamped/sealed certification by the DEVELOPER’S engineer per paragraph A.12 above, is provided to the Town. 3 5. The Town may make or authorize extensions or connections to or from any of the Improvements constructed pursuant to this Contract without permission of the DEVELOPER. 6. Water and sewer service shall meet all minimum State and Town standards. The Town makes no warranty as to any water quality, quantity or pressure to be provided. 7. This Contract may be assigned by the DEVELOPER, but such successor or assignee shall obtain no rights hereunder until after it has provided the Town with a written acknowledgment of the assignee’s assumption of all DEVELOPER’s obligations and responsibilities under this Contract. 8. This Contract is specific to the Project named above and described in Appendix A as approved by the Town Utilities Department and the Board of Commissioners. Any change or alteration in the approved intended use, i.e., residential, and commercial development, or configuration of the approved Improvements of such Project by the DEVELOPER OR successor or assignee shall, absent the written consent of the Town, void this Contract. 9. DEVELOPER shall employ a licensed North Carolina engineering firm and engineer to prepare the design and to provide construction administration services throughout the entire Project. DEVELOPER shall provide for third-party construction observation services for the duration of the construction through the Town’s acceptance of the Project. 10. The words “line” or “lines” shall include "main or "mains" unless the contract otherwise requires. "Sewer" means "sanitary sewer." 11. This Contract shall be deemed made in and shall be construed in accordance with the law of North Carolina. B. Pre-Construction Conditions 1. The DEVELOPER and its engineer shall discuss the capacity needs of the Project with the Town early in the Project’s conceptual phases. Water and sewer capacity allocated to the Project will be noted in Appendix A and any changes in Project scope requiring more or less than the allocated amount will require an amendment to this Contract. For large Projects, the Town may require the DEVELOPER to conduct its own capacity analysis using a licensed North Carolina Professional Engineer utilizing information provided by the Town. a) If results of the capacity analysis determine off-site improvements to the Town’s existing system (conveyance or treatment) are needed to accommodate the Project and the DEVELOPER decides to proceed with the Project, the Town will negotiate any cost-share of such off-site improvements with the DEVELOPER, and the terms reached as a result of the negotiations will be included in Appendix A. 2. The DEVELOPER shall engage a licensed North Carolina Professional Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of water improvements and/or sanitary sewer improvements 4 to serve the Project. The Project shall not rely solely on the Town’s Standard Utility Specifications, which may not cover all methods of construction or administrative matters (e.g., shoring, trenching, backfill, pipe laying, handling rock or hazardous wastes, bypass pumping, temporary water service, general and special conditions, site security, payment and change processes, geotechnical or other investigations, etc.). 3. The DEVELOPER shall secure formal approval of the water and sewer construction plans and specifications by the following agencies or authorities (and any other government agencies which may have jurisdiction over one or more elements of the Project), and provide approvals of such to the Town: • Town Utilities Department • North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (if the Project entails any site infrastructure that is considered private, the plans and permit applications shall clearly delineate such and two applications may be required) • North Carolina Department of Transportation 4. The DEVELOPER shall secure and record all required easements for the Work. The Town will provide a boilerplate easement document for utilization. 5. The DEVELOPER shall schedule a pre-construction meeting to include the Town Utilities Department, the Town Planning Department, the Contractor, major Subcontractors, and other pertinent stakeholders prior to commencement of the Work and at this time will provide the Town a list of contacts for the Project. 6. The DEVELOPER shall instruct its contractor to submit to its engineer all material and shop drawing submittals and for its engineer to share all approved submittals with the Town. 7. The DEVELOPER shall pay all fees for the Improvements due to the Town prior to construction of the Improvements. 8. The Town will not accept new pumping stations except under extraordinary circumstances. If the Town accepts a pumping station in the Project design, the DEVELOPER shall pay the Town’s Perpetual Maintenance Fees for such Improvements as required by the Town Code. 9. The DEVELOPER shall ensure that its engineer, surveyor, and contractor receive a copy of the final approved permits, plans and specifications for the Project and is aware of the Town’s Utility Specifications, Standard Details and As-Built Digital Submittal Requirements prior to construction commencement, as applicable to each. C. Construction Conditions: 1. Unless otherwise provided in this Contract, all construction shall be in accordance with Town and State policy, standards, and specifications at the time of construction commencement. 5 a) The Town shall approve the size and type of material for all water and sewer lines. b) The DEVELOPER shall provide, at its sole cost and expense, for construction observation of the water and sewer Improvements by an independent, competent, and experienced inspector (Inspector) to be approved by the Town. Such Inspector shall have at least five years’ experience in observing water and sewer main construction. Inspection by the Town does not consist of or imply supervision. The role of the Town’s inspection staff is not to oversee construction of the Project, but only to (i) witness the installation of critical items of importance to the Town and (ii) periodically check on the Project’s progress. c) All work on the extension of water or sewer lines shall be subject to inspection by the Town, and no Work may be covered up until such inspection has occurred or the Town is confident an Inspector observed the Work. If any Work is covered up prior to inspection, the town may require such Work to be uncovered or exposed for inspection at the DEVELOPER’S expense. If, in the judgment of the Town, there is a demonstrated lack of competent supervision by a Contractor, the Town may halt work until approved supervision is obtained and the work done in accordance with town specifications and requirements; or provide constant inspection by Town personnel at the expense of the Developer. d) The Town will require acceptance testing to determine whether the Work complies with State and Town standards and specifications. All such testing shall be at the DEVELOPER's expense, and a Town representative must be present when testing occurs unless declined or delegated in writing. The DEVELOPER or its Contractor must provide the Town at least 48 hours advance notice of any testing. The Contractor or third-party Inspector shall document the testing of each segment in detail (type of test, date, test conditions and results, pass/fail) on legible forms. Contractor or third-party construction observer’s failure to document a test will require retesting and a retesting fee for each instance thereafter. e) The Inspector hired by the DEVELOPER shall be onsite each day that meaningful work is performed and shall prepare daily logs to be submitted weekly to the Town. Daily logs shall include a general description of the work performed that day, weather conditions, equipment used, number of crew, any installation observations, or concerns, and who they were communicated to, and associated photos with a photo log. The Inspector shall routinely communicate with the Town on progress and issues that arise. i. Meaningful work means the installation of water or sewer infrastructure and appurtenances that will become part of the public system of the town, installation of water or sewer services, making taps to existing Town water or sewer mains, testing (including flushing and chlorinating of water mains) of water or sewer systems for acceptance, testing of soils for compaction around water and sewer systems, pouring thrust blocking, constructing pumping stations, tanks or other water and sewer features. 6 f) The Inspector shall consult with the Town and the DEVELOPER’s engineer on any significant field changes. The DEVELOPER’s engineer shall gain approval in writing from the Town’s Utilities Director or delegated staff prior to making such changes. Changes shall be reflected on the record drawings. i. Significant change may include but not be limited to: adding or deleting infrastructure; changing the alignment or grade of infrastructure; moving hydrants, manholes, valves or backflow prevention device locations; adding additional services; changing pipe sizes or materials; adding couplings; or making other changes that will affect the layout or operation of the system as designed and approved. g) All Work on the Improvements shall be performed by a contractor licensed to perform this type of Work in North Carolina. h) DEVELOPER shall have their construction contractor coordinate with the Town on tie-in plans and water shutdowns at least one week in advance. Contractor shall be responsible to notification to customers of water disruptions. i) Town shall operate any existing system features (i.e., valves, hydrants) to accommodate Work by contractor, unless permission for others to operate such features is granted by the town in writing. Unauthorized operation of hydrants or valves or other system components by DEVELOPER or its contractor (or subcontractor) without prior approval of town constitutes tampering and theft and will result in the Town assessing $2,500 per occurrence. Should DEVELOPER fail to pay an assessment imposed pursuant to this paragraph or if tampering occurs more than once on the Project, the Town may stop work on the Project until the assessment is paid, or some other arrangement is made to satisfy the Town that no further tampering will occur. Repeat instances of tampering my result in the Town nullifying this Contract. j) DEVELOPER shall report any instances of sewer bypass or overflow, or any instance of water system issues, caused by the Work. k) DEVELOPER shall ensure contractor checks and confirms line and grade throughout installation of future public gravity sewers to ensure proper slope and alignment per plan. Failure to comply with minimum slope shall result in the removal and replacement of such sewers mains at proper grade, at DEVELOPER’s cost. l) DEVELOPER shall provide proof of approved product submittals to the Town prior to construction commencement. m) DEVELOPER shall provide a copy of this WSEC to its water and sewer contractor and submit proof to the Town of same. 7 n) DEVELOPER shall require its contractor to provide 48-hours’ notice to the Town in advance for any taps and acceptance testing. o) DEVELOPER shall require that its water and sewer contractor have its field superintendent onsite during all construction of the Improvements. The field superintendent and a secondary field contact shall be identified at the preconstruction meeting. p) The DEVELOPER shall ensure that the water and sewer contractor maintain field records of the Work as it progresses and shall have a registered land surveyor collect and seal as accurate, the location and survey attributes for all water and sewer features as required by the Town according to its As-Built Digital Submittal Requirements. Any missing information to meet the requirements shall be collected at the DEVELOPER expense and prior to Town acceptance of the system. q) The DEVELOPER shall prepare and submit final as-built drawings of the Work which are sealed by a North Carolina registered Professional Engineer. 2. The DEVELOPER shall bear the total cost of all water and/or sewer construction within the Project and the total cost of all water and/or sewer construction required to extend service to the Project, unless negotiated otherwise and stated in this Contract. D. Post-Construction Conditions: The following stages shall be completed after construction of the Project: 1. Prior to use of the Project for any reason the Town shall have performed a pre-acceptance inspection and received from the DEVELOPER and approved: a) sewer smoke testing and televising reports as required by the Town specifications, b) copies of all acceptance testing performed on the Improvements, including any testing of backflow prevention devices; fats, oils and grease interceptors or separators; fire flow or apparatus testing (as it relates to affecting the public water system); sewer manhole vacuum testing; sewer and water main pressure and leakage testing; mandrel testing; geotechnical compaction testing if utilized; and bacteriological testing of any water mains, c) two printed copies (1 full D-size and 1 half-size) and one electronic PDF copy of the sealed as-built drawings (full as-built drawings should be presented unless the Town agrees to accept a series of partial as-built drawings), d) a full CAD version of the final as-built drawings including all necessary X-references and font files to make a complete view of the data in Autodesk’s AutoCad 2020 or other Autodesk CAD viewer software, 8 e) a contractor's notarized affidavit that the drawings accurately represent the as-built improvements, f) the completed Engineering Certifications executed by the Professional Engineer of record indicating that work has been performed in substantial compliance with the approved plans and specifications and that the state has received such certifications and approved them (final certification should be provided unless the Town agrees to accept a series of partial certifications and then a final certification), and, g) evidence the noted deficiencies, including any noted from the sewer televising and smoke testing, have been corrected by the DEVELOPER’S contractor and approved by the town, unless the Town has provided written permission for specific minor deficiencies not affecting the operation of the system to be corrected before acceptance of the system per Item D(2)(g). 2. Prior to the Town accepting the system for ownership, the Developer shall: a) provide a Contractor’s Affidavit and Release of Liens from all subcontractors and materialmen, b) provide digital data as required by the Town’s As-Built Digital Submittal Requirements, i. the digital data will be quality checked by the Town’s surveying firm (typically 10% of the system). Additional time shall be accounted for this effort in DEVELOPER’s schedule, ii. the data shall be corrected at the DEVELOPER’s expense if significant discrepancies exist between the survey data exist from the quality check, iii. The charges for the Town to perform the quality check and input the data into the town GIS system will be billed to the DEVELOPER. c) convey to the Town and record or cause to have recorded in the Orange County Registry all deeds of easement and plats showing all water and/or sewer easements required to serve the Project, d) provide an engineer-certified Statement of Value per bid line item of the final cost of the water and sewer Improvements, e) have submitted all daily field reports and other pertinent Project records as requested such as approved submittals, Requests for Information, Field Work Orders and Change Orders, f) ensure all Engineering Certifications are final, g) All Town punch list items are completed and signed off upon. 9 h) provide developer completed state Change of Ownership forms to transfer the state-permitted water and sewer Improvements that are to become public to the Town (the Town will execute its portion and submit to the state upon Town Board of Commissioners acceptance), i) formally dedicate to the Town by letter all physical Improvements constructed to serve the project that is the subject of this contract, which Improvements shall become part of the Town water and sewer system upon acceptance by the Town Board of Commissioners and will thereafter be owned and maintained by the Town, with exception of the warranty conditions, and j) present a warranty in the name of the Town of Hillsborough for a minimum period of two years from the date of Town Board of Commissioner acceptance of the construction for the Project or phase of Project. The method of securing the warranty shall be by Maintenance Bond or Letter of Credit from a viable surety with a rating of AA or above, or other form of security in a form acceptable to the Town. The security amount will be 25% of the total cost of the Improvements as certified in the Statement of Value prepared by a North Carolina licensed engineer. 3. It shall be the DEVELOPER’s responsibility to request release of the warranty at a point not earlier than two years from the date of acceptance of the system by the Town. The warranty shall remain in effect until such time as all four of the following conditions are satisfied: a) Town staff have evaluated the system for the end-of-warranty release and provided documented comments of defects to be corrected, b) DEVELOPER has performed end-of-warranty sewer smoke testing and televising (CCTV) and provided such to the Town for review in accordance with the Town’s specifications, c) DEVELOPER has corrected any defects noted by the Town staff in its evaluation of the system and the Town has verified this, and d) The Town has returned or noted cancellation of the warranty security instrument. E. Fees: 1. All fees and charges to be paid pursuant to this Contract shall be calculated in accordance with the Town’s fee schedule in effect when the fees and charges are paid, or if not in the fee schedule, as outlined in this section. Fees typically are adopted as part of the Town’s budget process each year with an effective date of July 1 and are subject to change. 2. DEVELOPER's construction of Improvements pursuant to this Contract shall not relieve DEVELOPER of the obligation to pay applicable fees under the Town's water and sewer ordinances and policies in effect at the time the fees are paid, and this Section E, except as amended by Appendix A. 10 3. DEVELOPER's construction of Improvements pursuant to this Contract does not affect the Town's policy with respect to the fees to be paid to the Town by property owners other than DEVELOPER for connection to the improvements constructed by DEVELOPER pursuant to this Contract. Nor shall DEVELOPER have any right to collect fees from persons connecting onto or extending the improvements constructed under this Contract. 4. The following fees will be applicable to the Project: a) Water and sewer system development, engineering review, inspection and meter fees as applicable and published in the fee schedule referenced in Section A(1) and herein. b) Perpetual Maintenance Fees for any approved pumping station per town code calculations. c) Tampering fees as outlined in Item C(1)(i). d) DEVELOPER shall ensure its water and sewer contractor is prepared for acceptance testing by pre-testing items in advance. Reinspection fee for each recurring trip for previously failed tests, a call for testing that requires the Inspector to wait more than 30 minutes or observation by the Inspector that the items are not ready to be tested, or no timely notification of cancellation (4 hours in advance) of testing will be charged to DEVELOPER at $300 per trip plus .25/linear foot (lf) over 1,000 feet of main tested. Reinspection of service taps (including sewer cleanout, meter box, curb stop), mainline valves, hydrants, manholes, air release valves, and other singular items will be $50 each. e) DEVELOPER shall ensure the construction is conducted in an orderly and organized fashion and that the Town’s resources are efficiently utilized. Repeated and duplicative effort by the Town on a project will require reimbursement from the Developer for staff time and travel in accordance with Section 14-68 of the Town Code of Ordinances. f) Construction water for the Project will not be obtained from the Town’s water system unless through rental of a hydrant meter, installation of a construction meter (for home building), or through bulk water purchase from the Town’s Water Treatment Plant in accordance with policies and rates in place at the time of rental. g) DEVELOPER shall reimburse the Town for review of sewer CCTV tapes at $1.00/lf. CCTV that is submitted not in accordance with the Town CCTV specifications will be immediately rejected with a one-time charge of $100. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 11 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract in duplicate originals, as of the day and year first above written. SFTEN, LLC TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH By: ___________________________ By: ___________________________ Signatory Title Eric J. Peterson Town Manager ATTEST: ATTEST: ______________________________ ______________________________ Town Clerk Sarah Kimrey This Contract is approved to as form: __________________________ Town Attorney This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. __________________________ Tiffany Long, Finance Director List of Appendices: Appendix A 12 COLLINS RIDGE – JAMES J. FREELAND MEMORIAL DRIVE WATER MAIN EXTENSION TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT APPENDIX A SFTEN, LLC agrees to satisfy the following conditions in addition to those set forth in this WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT before the Town will permit the connection, operation and future ownership of improvements constructed for the above referenced Project to the Town water and sewer system: 1. The Project has reserved, for the period stated in WSEC paragraph 1(B), 0 gpd (flow accounted for in prior and future contracts involving building construction). 2. Public water and sanitary sewer facilities for the project may include, approximately 1,460 linear feet of 12” water main, three hydrants and all appurtenances for a complete and operational system as designed by McAdams. Actual facilities to be constructed will be depicted in the issued construction plans and state permit application(s). 3. The evidence or observation of off-road vehicles or metal tracked equipment driving over installed utilities after inspection may require reinspection and retesting at the costs listed above at the discretion of the Town. 4. DEVELOPER shall provide a TBD-year warranty on the Phase 1A water and sewer system due to the former developer, Criteria, not following the terms of its WSEC in providing adequate inspection of the project, and the Town’s and third-party observations regarding the quality of construction throughout that project phase and ongoing repairs to such occurring presently. 5. DEVELOPER agrees to contribute $TBD towards the Town’s Water Main Interconnections Project which is providing physical interconnections between water mains along South Churton Street that will directly benefit Collins Ridge by providing water system redundancy. This amount is approximately 50% of the total project cost. This amount is payable upon invoice to the DEVELOPER. AGENDA ABSTRACT | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Governing Board Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Letter of Support – Regionwide Campaign for Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) Funding Attachments: 1.Request for support 2.Letter of support Brief summary: Triangle J Council of Governments is working with Research Triangle Park (RTP), Regional Transportation Alliance (RTA), and the RDU Airport Authority to advocated for federal support for the airport's primary runway 5L-23R. The airport is one of our region's greatest assets and deserves its fair share of federal aviation funds. TJCOG has asked Hillsborough to join in the regionwide campaign by sending a letter of support to the U.S Department of Transportation requesting federal funding to replace the runway. Action requested: Approve and sign letter supporting a request from Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) for $275 million in funding to replace its primary commercial service runway. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: The Regional Transportation Alliance (RTA), the voice of the regional business community on transportation, released a report (www.letsgetmoving.org/RDUAID) in July 2021 that examines these capital funding challenges and provides recommendations for addressing them. One of the primary challenges addressed is the need for the replacement and relocation of the primary runway 5L-23R at RDU. RTA, Research Triangle Park (RTP), Triangle-J Council of Governments (T JCOG), and RDU leadership are all focused on federal support for the runway as an urgent funding opportunity, with significant potential benefit for the national commercial aviation system. Financial impacts: None Staff recommendation and comments: For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.L Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS World Class Region Thank you for your interest in helping our region thrive. One of our greatest assets is the Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU), governed by the RDU Airport Authority. The RDU Airport Authority has developed an array of facilities to meet our region's commercial air service needs since RDU opened in 1943. But today, RDU faces significant capital infrastructure funding challenges. The Regional Transportation Alliance (RTA), the voice of the regional business community on transportation, released a report (www.letsgetmoving.org/RDUAID) in July 2021 that examines these capital funding challenges and provides recommendations for addressing them. One of the primary challenges addressed is the need for the replacement and relocation of the primary runway 5L-23R at RDU. RTA, Research Triangle Park (RTP), Triangle-J Council of Governments (T JCOG), and RDU leadership are all focused on federal support for the runway as an urgent funding opportunity, with significant potential benefit for the national commercial aviation system. We believe that a focused, private-public awareness and lobbying effort leading up to the completion of the runway's Environmental Assessment will maximize our opportunity for success. We are asking your county -a key partner in the success of our region -to join us in this regionwide campaign by sending a support letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation requesting federal funding to replace the primary runway at RDU International Airport. On the following pages, you will find a simplified support letter template and sample talking points. Please mail one signed hard copy on your letterhead to the following address: Hon. Pete Buttigieg Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E Washington, DC 20590 Also, please scan a copy of the letter and attach that letter to an email sent to the following: TO: DOTExecSec@dot.gov CC: Steve.Dickson@FAA.gov Shannetta.R.Griffin@faa.gov BCC: RDUletter@tjcog.org If you have questions, please contact Alana Keegan, akeegan@tjcog.org. Executive Director 4307 Emperor Boulevard,Suite 110 Durham NC, 27701 www.tjcog.org @TJCOGnc 101 E. Orange St. | PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov Hon. Pete Buttigieg Secretary U.S. Dept. of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 December 13, 2021 Dear Secretary Buttigieg: On behalf of the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners, I am writing to support a request from Raleigh- Durham International Airport (RDU) for $275 million in federal funding to replace its primary commercial service runway, 5L-23R. RDU is a critical driver of job creation, prosperity and quality of life throughout North Carolina’s Research Triangle region. The Research Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham, and surrounding communities) is among the fastest growing in the US, and population projections expect an additional 1.4 million residents to move to our region by 2050, an 85% increase from 2010. RDU’s primary commercial runway is near its end-of-life due to pavement deterioration and its replacement and relocation is RDU’s most critical project. RDU needs additional federal grant funding to help pay for the $366 million project to keep the runway in operation and allow for terminal gate expansion. Even with substantial local and airport fee increases and continued, significant state legislative support, RDU will not be able to fund the overall capital infrastructure needed to support the aviation demands of our growing region. Assistance from a federal partner will be essential. We request that FAA provide a letter of intent for a 75% federal grant in support of the total $366 million project cost so RDU can continue to serve as an increasingly vital node in the national commercial aviation system and an economic engine for this state. Thank you for your consideration and leadership. With warm regards and gratitude, Jenn Weaver, Mayor Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners cc: Steve Dickson Shannetta R. Griffin AGENDA ABSTRACT: HAC Solstice Lantern Walk Special Event Permit 2021 | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Planning and Economic Development Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Shannan Campbell, Planning and Economic Development Manager ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Special Event Permit and Sponsorship — Hillsborough Arts Council Solstice Lantern Walk Attachments: 1. Special Event Permit application 2. Walk route map/diagram 3. COVID-19 event safety information Brief summary: The Hillsborough Arts Council would like to resume holding its annual Solstice Lantern Walk on Riverwalk. Exclusive greenway use, trash pickup, and road closure sponsorship is being requested per Town Code Article III, Chapter 7, Section 19. However, this is more of an assistance with a road crossing for the anticipated large number of pedestrians at Margaret Lane than what we define as a typical as a ‘road closure’. The HAC would like to direct event participants who would like to do so to head into downtown shops and restaurants. Action requested: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny permit to hold the special event. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: None Financial impacts: Low; however, sponsorship is being requested for town services so there are department level costs associated for Police. Staff recommendation and comments: Fire- requests that all lanterns be illuminated with flameless battery powered lights. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 6.M Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Planning Public hearing: Yes Date of public hearing: Oct. 21, 2021 PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Shannan Campbell, Planning & Economic Development Manager Margaret A. Hauth, Assistant Town Manager ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Consistency statement and ordinance rezoning 244 Cornelius St. from R-10 to General Commercial Attachments: 1. Materials from public hearing packet 2. Written public comment received 3. Draft minutes from November Planning Board meeting 4. Draft consistency statement 5. Draft amending ordinance Brief summary: This item was heard at the October joint public hearing. The applicant was present to answer questions. Written comments received are attached to this item. The Planning Board recommended approval at the November meeting with a unanimous vote due to the application’s consistency with the Future Land Use Plan and US 70 Cornelius corridor plan. Action requested: Consider adopting the consistency statement that the amendment IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adopt the ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: The application is consistent with the town’s comprehensive plan (both Future Land Use Map and US 70/Cornelius corridor plan). The combination of this parcel with an adjoining commercial lot creates a fairly flat lot with good visibility and access to Cornelius Street. The written comments received refer to an occupied family home at 260 Cornelius Street, roughly 80 feet from the nearest property corner of the applicant property. Financial impacts: None Staff recommendation and comments: Recommend approval as written. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 7.A Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session October 2021 Joint Public Hearing Item Cover Sheet/Staff Report Agenda Item #: 4B ATTACHMENTS: 1 –application and narrative GENERAL INFORMATION: Project Title: Rezoning Request – 244 Cornelius Street. This is an undeveloped parcel that has been divided, leaving an undeveloped R-10 lot on Turner Street Purpose: Hunter and Veronica Beattie requesting rezoning of 0.65 acres at 244 Cornelius Street to facilitate redevelopment with a parcel they own immediately to the east. Background: Future Land Use Plan excerpt: Pink = Mixed Use Neighborhood Dark green = Protected Open Space Gold/Tan = Small Lot Residential The blue line indicates the area included in the amendment request. The applicant owns the parcel the parcel to the east and south. The parcel to the south is zoned residential. The town should consider a future amendment to change the land use designation now that the parcel has been divided. The mixed- use designation was intended for the Cornelius Street frontage. Zoning Map excerpt: Red = General Commercial The black line is the city limits. Gold/Orange = Residential-10 The blue line indicates the area included in the amendment request. The applicant owns the parcel the parcel to the east and south. The parcel to the south is to remain zoned residential. The applicant has indicated an intent to combine the two commercial lots facing Cornelius Street if the request is approved to facilitate redevelopment for commercial purposes. The applicant purchased the original parcel (approximately .88 acres). They acquired the parcel to the east (developed with a house) earlier. Their stated intent is to combine the two Cornelius parcels for redevelopment as a commercial use. The lot on Turner Street remains zoned R-10. A plat has been recorded separating this lot from the application lot. The Future Land Use Plan was developed after the adoption of the US 70/Cornelius Street Corridor Plan and is consistent with recommending more commercial or intense uses along Cornelius Street to provide convenient locations for corridor residents to products and services. Appendix I Application Packet for Annexations Page 2 of 3 APPLICATION FOR Text and/or Map Amendment Request Planning Department 101 E. Orange Street/P.O. Box 429 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: (919) 296-9477 Fax: (919) 644-2390 Website: www.hillsboroughnc.gov Amendment Type: Future Land Use Plan Map Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Text Unified Development Ordinance text Property Address: PIN: Applicant Name: ____________________________________________________ Mailing Address: _________________________________________________ Phone: ______________________ City, State, Zip: __________________________________________________ E-mail: ______________________ Property Owner Name: ___________________________________________ Mailing Address: _________________________________________________ Phone: _____________________ City, State, Zip: __________________________________________________ E-mail: _____________________ Location/Streets Accessed: ___________________________________________________________________________ Current Zoning District(s): Acreage: Proposed Zoning District(s): _________________________ Water Service: Public Water Well Sewer Service: Public Sewer Septic Tank Existing Structures on Site: ___________________________________________________________________________ Critical Areas: Flood Drainage/Stream/Pond Cemetery Historic Resource Steep Slopes Easement See next page Historic X 244 Cornelius St. Hunter Beattie 9865809382 601 W. Rosemary St. Unit 403 Hillsborough, NC 27278 646-642-3277 hunterbeattie@gmail.com Hunter Beattie Highway 70 / Cornelius St. R-10 .65 GC X X None Appendix I Application Packet for Annexations Page 3 of 3 Describe how the request will address the following factors that the Town Board of Commissioners must determine when considering an amendment to the test of the Unified Development Ordinance or Zoning Map (use separate sheet): 1. The extent to which the amendment is consistent with all applicable Town-adopted plans. 2. The extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment. 3. The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need. 4. The extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zoning district for the land. 5. The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern or deviate from logical and orderly development patterns. 6. The extent to which the proposed amendment would encourage premature development. 7. The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in strip or ribbon commercial development. 8. The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in the creation of an isolated zoning district unrelated to or incompatible with adjacent and surrounding zoning districts. 9. The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the property values of surrounding lands. 10. The extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse environmental impacts, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and the natural functioning of the environment. I/We certify that all of the information presented by me/us in this application is accurate to the best of my/our knowledge, information, and belief. APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER. Applicant’s signature date Property Owner’s signature date 9/29/21 9/29/21 In re: Application to rezone .65 acres on Highway 70 (PIN 9865809382) Hillsborough Planning Board, I am applying to rezone .65 acres of land on Highway 70 from R-10 to GC. The land is adjacent to another parcel I own, also on Highway 70, that is already zoned General Commercial and consists of a building on .42 acres. I am in the process of combining these two lots; and I believe it is reasonable for both to be zoned General Commercial. The lots are across from Mayo’s Unisex Barbershop and the Orange County ABC Store. To the East of the ABC store, there is an El Salvadorean Restaurant and a BP Gas Station, which is at the intersection of Highway 70 and Highway 86. To the West of my property, there is a vacant residential parcel. In attempting to address the Unified Development Ordinance 3.7.2, I will note the following: -there is already significant traffic and associated noise on Highway 70 in front of this parcel -the parcel is next to and across from existing Commercial property -the parcel is located approximately 800 feet from the intersection of Hwy 70 and Hwy 86 Lastly, I will note that as Hillsborough has grown significantly; and extensive commercial development has occurred South of downtown, there has been very little change in commercial development North of Town. Many residents of Durham, Mebane, and Hillsborough drive by this intersection every day; and as a longtime resident of Orange County, who lived in Hillsborough for 10 years; I believe that additional commercial development North of downtown will have a positive impact on downtown traffic and our community. Thank you for your consideration, Hunter Beattie L A N D S U R V E YP.L.L.C. P-1735DONALD B ABELE LICENSED SURVEYOR1320 HAWTHORNE LANE BURLINGTON, NC 27215434-250-4500 From:Stan Davis To:Shannan Campbell Subject:Opposition to Rezoning 0.65 acres at 244 Cornelius St to General Commercial Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 5:17:55 PM Good afternoon Shannan, I am writing this email to express my opposition to the rezoning proposal of the land adjacent to the property where my Mother resides. She has been living at this location in relatively peaceful surroundings for over 60 years and I would rather she not be bothered with the noise and eventual traffic issues rezoning Commercial would certainly bring. So if I have a vote at all in this matter, I would vote to keep the land residential for now. Thank you for your time and consideration, Stanley Davis 1319 From:Davis, Nathan To:Shannan Campbell Subject:Requesting not to rezone 244 Corneilius street to commercial Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 3:10:34 PM Greetings, After being able to catch a little of the hearing last night, and looking at the proposed maps, I couldn’t help but think about how close that rezoning border would be to my mother’s bedroom window. I don’t think she would have any peace in that at all. Just to think that she had five sons to go fight for our country to help keep peace, one in the Army, one in the Navy, one in the Marines, and two in the Air Force, a son that was a cop in Hillsborough for over ten years to help keep peace in Hillsborough, and then to have her peace taking away from her by rezoning her neighboring residential property to commercial property. We don’t want it to happen, and we think it is unfair to do so, knowing that someone’s peace could be taken away during this process. Thank you for considering this email. Nathan Davis From:Davis, Nathan To:Shannan Campbell Subject:Requesting that the land at 244 Corneilius street not be rezoned Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 2:20:22 PM Good afternoon, I am emailing you to let you know that my family does not want that land rezoned. My family has been living on our property at 260 Corneilius street for over 60 years and my mother, who is 86 years old, often talks about how peaceful it is here. At this time, mostly the only thing that interferes with that peace is every now and then is when she’ll hear a loud car or truck on Hwy 70 that she may ask, what is that or who is that coming. Putting a business right next door to us would pretty much eliminate that peace and probably increase the apprehension and nervousness that she has about things. It may even cause her to stress more, always hearing the traffic, right next door. My mother’s nerves already gets the best of her. She currently takes nitroglycerin for chest pains that occurs with her worrying about things. I think taking away that peace by putting a business next door can take it over the top. I ask that for the peace of my mother, my family, and our land, that the land in question, is not rezone. Thank you Nathan Davis From:1stmmdd@nc.rr.com To:Shannan Campbell Subject:rezoning property 244 Cornelius street Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 2:41:38 PM My name is Mark Davis and I’m neighbors to the Beattie’s property which they want to rezone 244 Cornelius street. I have a problem with them starting a business on that property because I just found out that the land that they want rezoned, is a little over 75 feet from my mother’s bedroom window. My mother lived on the property over 60 years. It is not good for her to be trying to rest in her bedroom with strange noises or possibly people continuing walking by 75 feet away from her bedroom window. She is on oxygen and dialysis with other health issues …. Noise and any kind of disturbance isn’t something she should have to be dealing with now at her age. Even preparing the property for the business most likely would be noisy. Thank you, Mark Davis ----------------------------------------- From: "Shannan Campbell" To: "1stmmdd@nc.rr.com" Cc: Sent: Monday October 25 2021 2:24:34PM Subject: test email Let me know if you get this. Shannan 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 1 of 2 Minutes PLANNING BOARD Remote regular meeting 6:30 p.m. Nov. 18, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTubeLive Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Chair Chris Johnston, Vice Chair Jenn Sykes, Cassi Chandler, Alyse Polly, Hooper Schultz and Scott Taylor Absent: Chris Austin, Frank Casadonte and Jeff Scott Staff: Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell and Assistant Town Manager Margaret Hauth B. Rezoning - Hunter and Veronica Beattie requesting rezoning of 0.65 acres at 244 Cornelius St. to change from Residential-10 to General Commercial Johnston introduced Item 4B. He referred the board members to a number of materials in the agenda packet, including public comments. Johnston noted applicant Hunter Beattie’s presence at the meeting via phone. Member Hooper Schultz arrived at 6:45 p.m. Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell summarized that Beattie has requested the town rezone the northern part of a parcel he owns that has dual frontage on Highway 70 and Turner St. Campbell said the applicant proposes to subdivide the lot, with the southern portion fronting Turner St. remaining Residential-10. The applicant has requested the town rezone the northern portion of the lot, which fronts Highway 70, from Residential-10 to General Commercial. She said the applicant also owns an adjacent lot fronting Highway 70 that has a house on it but is zoned General Commercial. Johnston referred the board members to Page 33 of the agenda packet. He recalled reading in the public hearing minutes that there had been discussion at the hearing about the town’s Future Land Use Plan regarding this application. Sykes confirmed that Beattie’s rezoning request complies with the town’s Future Land Use Plan as well as with a recent economic growth study of the Highway 70 corridor. Sykes noted two neighbors had submitted comments opposing the rezoning. She said she brought up the Future Land Use Plan as a clarification. When asked, Campbell confirmed Beattie had requested the northern portion of the lot be rezoned General Commercial while the southern portion would remain Residential-10. Campbell confirmed the lot currently is vacant. Johnston asked for the board members thoughts, comments or questions. Sykes said the board’s decision-making model is to look for compliance with the Future Land Use Plan. She said the rezoning request complies with the Future Land Use Plan. She acknowledged the rezoning would be a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 2 of 2 change for the people already living in the area, but she noted that the decisions regarding land use in that area were decided 10 years ago, if not more. When asked, Campbell confirmed that the orange portions of the zoning map on Page 34 of the agenda packet refer to residentially zoned land. Campbell confirmed that the parcels to the east of the lot in question are owned by Nathan Davis and Stan Davis, who submitted comments opposing the rezoning, while the parcel to the west of the lot in question is owned by the applicant. Schultz noted that he lives in the Highway 70 corridor and said he thinks following the Future Land Use Plan is a smart choice. Polly noted it is not ideal when most of the public comments are against an item, but she said the rezoning request does make sense as it complies with the Future Land Use Plan. Polly said she thinks it makes sense to move forward with the rezoning request as proposed. Scott agreed. Motion: Schultz moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the town board. Sykes seconded. Hauth called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Chandler, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Sykes and Taylor. Nays: None. Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160D-605 The Town of Hillsborough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of Hunter and Veronica Beattie to amend the Town of Hillsborough Zoning Map as follows: Rezone 0.65 acres at 244 Cornelius Street from Residential-10 to General Commercial The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan and the Town Board’s proposed action on the amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s): The parcel in question is designated Neighborhood Mixed use in the Future Land Use Plan. That land use designation includes the General Commercial Zoning District. The US 70/Cornelius Street Plan, which is a component of the comprehensive plan, indicated small scale commercial development of this corridor is expected and encouraged when property owners no longer wish to have residential uses in the corridor. The parcel in questions was designated ready for redevelopment” in the 2007 plan. Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _13th day of _December_, 2021. _____________ _________ Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk ORDINANCE NUMBER: 20211213-X.X ORDINANCE Amending the Zoning Map of the Town of Hillsborough The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners ordains: Section 1. An application has been made for the rezoning of the property herein. Section 2. The application has been referred to the Town Planning Board for its recommendation and the Planning Board has provided the Town Board with a written recommendation addressing the consistency of the proposed rezoning with the town’s comprehensive plan and such other matters as the Planning Board deemed appropriate. Section 3. The Town Board has, prior to acting on the application, adopted a statement describing the consistency of the proposed rezoning with the Town’s comprehensive plan and explaining why the action contemplated by the Town Board as reflected herein in reasonable and in the public interest. Section 4. The Zoning Map of the Town of Hillsborough is hereby amended to rezone 0.65 acres at 244 Cornelius Street from Residential-10 to General Commercial (OC PIN 9865-80-9382). Section 5. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 6. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 13th day of December in 2021. Ayes: Noes: Absent or excused: Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Planning Public hearing: Yes Date of public hearing: Oct. 21, 2021 PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Shannan Campbell, Planning & Economic Development Manager Margaret A. Hauth, Assistant Town Manager ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance to increase density in multi-family districts Attachments: 1. Public hearing staff report and examples 2. Written public comments received 3. Draft minutes from November Planning Board meeting 4. Draft consistency statement 5. Draft amending ordinance Brief summary: This item was heard at the October joint public hearing. The written comments from CASA are attached and speaker comments are provided in the draft minutes. The Planning Board recommended adoption at the November meeting with a 5-1 vote. Action requested: Consider adopting the consistency statement that the amendment IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adopt the ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: Refer to the public hearing staff report and minutes for detailed discussion, attached. Financial impacts: Staff recommendation and comments: Recommend approval as written. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 7.B Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session Section 6.3 – increase the density allowed in the multi-family zone and add a bonus for affordable housing The ordinance currently only allows 9 units per acre. While that accommodates most townhome developments (which are sometimes zoned multi-family), apartment complexes tend to have 12- 16 units per acre. The table below shows the various attached housing communities in Hillsborough and their density. Those shaded in orange are townhome development. Twenty units per acre is more common across the Triangle. The height limit and parking requirements impact the ability of developments to build at much higher density. Examples of a variety of built complexes in surrounding communities are attached for reference. Staff recommends the by right multi-family density be changed to 20 units per acre. All land zoned multi-family in Hillsborough’s jurisdiction is developed. The density will apply to existing sites as well as any application. The change in density may also incentivize the redevelopment of existing complexes built at lower densities. With existing height limits, parking requirements, and other ordinance requirements many applicants will not be able to achieve this full density but setting the number higher than the built density allows applicants to reach the common built density they need to make the project buildable from their economic side. Eight examples are attached of nearby communities and their densities. The photos are all form websites or Google. The permitted density in each district is a place where it’s easy to build in an affordable housing incentive – allowing an automatic density bonus for affordable housing – provided terms are clearly defined. Staff recommends a 50% bonus for affordable housing provided through a state tax credit program or other government provided funding mechanism. The generally accepted definition of “affordable” is that when housing costs do not exceed 30% of the monthly income for the resident. Most government programs focus on what is affordable to households who makes 80% of the area median income (AMI). These values and thresholds are published by HUD on a regional basis. They are not calculated locally. Staff believes the funding mechanism is critical to this bonus and cannot simply be because an applicant promises affordable units. Existing attached housing neighborhood Developed density Hampton Pointe Apartments 6 Eno Haven Apartments 6.48 West Village Apartments 7.45 The Lory at Hillsborough 7.52 Patriot’s Pointe Apartments 8.68 Heritage Apartments/Townhomes 9 Union Street Condos 11.5 Bellvue Mill Apartments 11.57 Cates Creek Apartments 12.69 515 North Churton Condos 15.4 Carrington at Perimeter Park Morrisville – about 16 units per acre Carraway Village Chapel Hill – I-40 & Eubanks Road It’s unclear if the buildings fronting on Eubanks Road are residential or not. The red box indicates what staff used to approximate density. 244 units on 10 acres – 24 units per acre Chapel Hill North Perkins Drive, Chapel Hill (behind Harris Teeter) This site is about 14 units per acre, but the backside (second photo with 3 cars) are townhomes. If you focus on the 4 story apartments, the density is about 20 units per acre. Cortland at RTP South Durham at HWY 54 and HWY 55 22.8 du per acre Trinity Ridge Apartments West Raleigh off Wade Ave About 19 du per acre The Arboretum North Cary off N Harrison Avenue 23 du per acre Carden Place Apartments Mebane behind Tanger Outlets About 17 du per acre SANCTUARY AT POWELL PLACE Pittsboro off 15-501 and HWY 64 About 17 du per acre From: Jess Brandes <jbrandes@casanc.org> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:41 PM To: Margaret Hauth <Margaret.Hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov> Cc: Dan Jewell <djewell@cjtpa.com>; Rachel Eberhard <reberhard@casanc.org> Subject: comments regarding text changes Margaret, After discussing internally, we feel more comfortable submitting CASA's comments in writing instead of making public comment this evening. Thanks again for the opportunity! Section 6.3 - increase the density allowed in the multi-family zone and add a bonus for affordable housing We support the increased density for the multi-family zone, especially since it will be a great benefit for what CASA is doing with Collins Ridge. We do, however, have additional questions about the 50% bonus for affordable housing being tied to the tax credit or other government funding mechanism. This will primarily benefit affordable housing developers, but it doesn't seem to properly incentivize market rate developers to provide more units in the 60-80% AMI range (i.e. that range not served by tax credits). Additionally, in the case of affordable housing developers like us or Habitat, if we have a project using private philanthropy and grant dollars (we’re doing one of these now in Chapel Hill), are we unable to take advantage of the bonus? We believe there are also other alternatives to hold developers to their word for providing the affordable units (deed restrictions, contract with the Orange County Community Development to enforce, or have a management agreement in place with an affordable property manager). Section 6.13 - add a parking range rather than max or min and add a parking reduction for affordable housing The proposed changes to the parking requirements are a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough. The one-space per bedroom will only benefit projects with one-bedroom apartments and doesn’t provide a benefit for two- and three-bedroom units (which are oftentimes families with additional children but no additional drivers). It’s more beneficial for owners like CASA to see one-space per unit regardless of how many bedrooms or no parking requirement at all. Lastly, CASA benefits greatly from having flexibility to waive requirements within the jurisdictions we serve. We understand that many developers have abused this process in the past but having the flexibility in creating our developments given the population we serve has proved to be very beneficial. We support the use of waivers for developers, but if they get eliminated, we support any changes to the development process that allow for ideal flexibility going forward. Jess Brandes Sr. Director of Real Estate / Transitional COO CASA Send invoices to casanc@avidbill.com 624 W Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27603 Mobile: 540.220.1582 Direct line: 919.307.3429 Find us on Facebook | Follow us on Instagram | www.casanc.org 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 1 of 4 Minutes PLANNING BOARD Remote regular meeting 6:30 p.m. Nov. 18, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTubeLive Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Chair Chris Johnston, Vice Chair Jenn Sykes, Cassi Chandler, Alyse Polly, Hooper Schultz and Scott Taylor Absent: Chris Austin, Frank Casadonte and Jeff Scott Staff: Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell and Assistant Town Manager Margaret Hauth C. Unified Development Ordinance: Text amendments 3. Section 6.3 to amend the density allowed in the multi-family zone and add a bonus for affordable housing Johnston introduced Item 4C-3, noting that the amendment would change the density allowed in the Multi- Family zoning district and would add a density bonus for affordable housing. Hauth confirmed Johnston’s summary. She noted there had been comment at the public hearing from Aspen Romeyn, a former Town of Hillsborough intern who currently works on affordable housing with Self-Help Credit Union. Hauth said written comment also was received from CASA, an affordable housing non-profit. Johnston noted CASA’s written comment is on Page 62 of the agenda packet. Hauth said some of the comment regarded the 50% affordable housing bonus, which not many jurisdictions offer. Hauth said Romeyn and CASA also advocated for additional flexibility regarding what qualifies as affordable housing. Hauth said she had been trying to ensure such projects would be 100% affordable housing, noting that Self-Help Credit Union works in bigger jurisdictions where it is possible to achieve mixed-income projects. Hauth said the town has not been successful with mixed-income projects in the past. She said staff still recommends increasing the maximum allowed density in the Multi-Family district to 20 units per acre with a 50% affordable housing density bonus. Sykes noted a recent news story about Wake County potentially adding a 10% affordable housing density bonus. Sykes said the thrust of the news story was that such a low bonus would not work, with a 40%-50% bonus required for effectiveness. Sykes said there currently is an affordability crisis and said she is fine with adding the density bonus. She said she has heard from several businesses in town that want the town to take steps toward making housing affordable. When asked, Hauth summarized how the North Carolina tax credit program for affordable housing works to make housing affordable a number of years, typically for 20 years. She summarized other tools the town could use, such as deed restrictions, to make projects affordable for a longer time period. Hauth said some projects also may remain affordable even after the tax credits have been used when those projects are bought by developers who specialize in affordable housing. She offered some local examples. Schultz agreed with Sykes that it is important that Hillsborough remain a place where people of all income levels can live. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 2 of 4 Chandler agreed it is important to provide affordable housing in town. She expressed concern about the impact of jumping from only 9 units per acre to 20 units per acre in the Multi-Family zoning district. Chandler asked what the overall impact would be to the town of increasing that allowed density. Hauth said the potential impact is hard to quantify. She noted the change would only apply to land zoned Multi-Family and noted there is no vacant Multi-Family land in town. Hauth said the Planning Board and the town board would have complete control over whether any new land is zoned Multi-Family in the future. She acknowledged that land currently developed as Multi-Family also could be redeveloped at the higher density in the future. She asked if Chandler was asking if staff had calculated the impact of redeveloping every current Multi-Family development at 20 units per acre. Chandler confirmed she was asking for that calculation. She asked what the impact would be on the town’s water and sewer systems, schools, police department and transportation network. She asked how the change would impact the town’s Comprehensive Sustainability Plan and wondered if it would be better to wait to make such a change. Chandler said she felt uncomfortable changing the density with limited information. Campbell explained staff typically do not receive impact or traffic studies until they receive a development proposal. Chandler asked if staff could project an example using a development currently built at 9 units per acre to see how many dwelling units could be built there at 20 units per acre. Campbell said staff could estimate the impact of such a change on water and sewer usage, noting that traffic estimates would be difficult. Hauth said staff could calculate the change in the number of units, noting it would hard to estimate the number of people. She estimated that there are about 1,000 apartment dwelling units in Hillsborough. Hauth estimated that increasing the allowed density at most would add another 1,000 units in town. Hauth acknowledged that would be a lot of additional units, but she said there is a very low chance that all of the units in town would be redeveloped at the higher density all at once. She reiterated that the Planning Board and Town Board control how much land is zoned Multi-Family. Chandler said that if the board members were willing to increase the allowed density, then it is likely they would be willing to rezone land as Multi-Family in order to build more apartments in the future. Sykes reminded the board members that the text amendment to reduce the amount of parking required for affordable housing also plays into the density discussion. She noted that reducing the required parking would free up space for more units. Sykes noted she had been in favor of a lower maximum density of 16 units per acre, which she feels is a more reasonable number. Sykes said increasing the density is important because the town cannot compete with other area municipalities if it continues to allow only 9 units per acre. She said she does want the affordable housing density bonus, which she feels is very important. Regarding Chandler’s concerns, Sykes said that increasing density and encouraging smart growth have been priorities of the elected town board ever since she has been on the Planning Board. Johnston summarized that Chandler seems concerned that jumping from the extreme low of 9 units per acre to 20 units per acre with a 50% affordable housing bonus is too dense and would overly stress the town’s infrastructure. Chandler confirmed she is concerned about overbuilding and its impact on sustainability. She asked if the affordable housing bonus must be based on an increase to 20 units per acre. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 3 of 4 Sykes said the affordable housing bonus could be based on any number the board chooses. Sykes clarified that the ordinance would set the maximum number of units per acre but that a developer who builds 16 affordable units per acre could qualify for 24 units per acre with the 50% density bonus. Sykes noted she had originally proposed keeping the density at 9 units per acre but offering an affordable housing bonus of 75%, which would yield 30 units per acre. Sykes reiterated that the town has an affordability problem. Hauth said there is a continuing shift in the market, with both older and newer generations preferring attached housing over owning single-family detached houses. Hauth noted that younger and older people often prefer not to deal with house maintenance and yardwork. She said the planning field is full of information about how it is important to have a number of housing types to fit the broader interests of other lifestyles. Hauth said the town’s 1,000 apartment units comprise a small percentage of the town’s housing market. Sykes and Schultz said that, as younger people themselves, they believe young people often do want to own a single-family detached house but cannot afford to do so in this area. Polly acknowledged that jumping from allowing 9 units per acre to allowing 20 units per acre feels like a big jump, but she said that in the bigger picture it is important to ensure there is enough affordable housing in Hillsborough. Polly said she would be open to increasing the maximum density to a slightly lower number if the other board members find that more palatable. Recalling that 9 units per acre is very low for the area, Polly asked what the maximum allowed density for Multi-Family zoning districts are in other nearby municipalities, Campbell said developers in the local market need to build anywhere from 12 to 20 units per acre to make building a development worthwhile. Campbell said other area examples were built between 16 and 30 units per acre. Hauth added that developers often cannot build as many units per acre as the ordinance allows, noting she was encouraging allowing 20 units per acre with hopes of seeing developments built at 16 units per acre. Hauth said other site and ordinance requirements could limit the number of units a developer can fit on an acre. When asked, Hauth confirmed staff does not propose increasing the height limit in the Multi-Family zoning districts. She confirmed all of the Multi-Family land in town already has been developed. Polly recalled Hauth’s comment at an earlier meeting that it could be difficult for developers to achieve 20 units per acre with the current 3-story height limit. Hauth confirmed and noted that most of the examples staff pulled for the board members achieved 20 or more units per acre by adding more stories. Hauth said the board could choose to increase the height limit at a later date or could choose to allow taller buildings in a conditional zoning district. Johnston said he had expected more public comment about concerns of overbuilding at the public hearing. He said it is difficult to balance having enough space for everyone while still being a small town. Johnston said he feels better knowing that all the Multi-Family land in town is already developed. He said it would be very difficult to redevelop all of the town’s existing attached housing at 20 units per acre. He said he does not foresee the town’s population exploding as a result of increasing the Multi-Family density, and said increasing the density would offer more flexibility. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 4 of 4 Sykes noted that staff has spreadsheets that calculate the impacts of new developments, particularly the impacts on the water and sewer systems. She said developments that would strain the system would not be approved. Campbell confirmed staff has capacity models that help ensure the town does not overbuild. She offered several examples and clarified that those models are used when specific developments are proposed. Campbell said that, although there is no more land in town currently zoned Multi-Family, there is a huge demand for such land. Campbell said she would not be surprised to see developers asking for land to be rezoned Multi-Family or Residential-10. Sykes said the former Shops at Daniel Boone property would be prime candidate for such rezoning requests. Campbell said the Daniel Boone property would be better used as commercial land, but added she considers apartments a commercial use. Campbell confirmed there could be requests to build apartments on the Daniel Boone property. Sykes asked how schools’ capacities are planned and whether the town or the Orange County School Board controls that planning process. Hauth described the spreadsheet modeling system that the town and the school board use to predict school capacity. Hauth said she has found the system to be accurate over the past 15 years. When asked, Chandler said she is always concerned about a slippery slope and how changing one small aspect leads to larger changes later. Johnston asked for other comments or concerns. None was raised. Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of amending the density allowed in the Multi-Family zoning district and adding a 50% affordable housing density bonus to the town board. Schultz seconded. The board members briefly discussed whether the allowed density should be increased to 20 units per acre or to a slightly lower number. Schultz noted that allowing 20 units per acre would give developers the wiggle room they need to achieve a lower number of units per acre, noting Hauth’s earlier comment that site and ordinance constraints often would prevent developers from building to maximum density. Hauth confirmed it would be difficult for developers to reach 20 units per acre given the town’s many other requirements. Campbell clarified that developers would build 20 units per acre if they are able to do so. Hauth offered an example involving the Ardmore Cates Creek apartment complex in the Waterstone development. Hauth called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-1. Ayes: Members Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Sykes and Taylor. Nays: Chandler. Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160D-605 The Town of Hillsborough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of planning staff to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as follows: Establish a density of 20 units per acre for multi-family developments and allow developments where all units are affordable to households making 80% of AMI or less at the time of development to have a density of 30 units per acre. Both densities are subject to ordinance rounding provisions. The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan and the Town Board’s proposed action on the amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s): • The removal of waivers and special use zoning process eliminate the two methods used for increased density over the last ten years. • The previous density limit is significantly lower than the density needed to make projects buildable form the development community perspective. • The town has identified affordability as a priority concern. • Rental housing tends to be a more affordable option than ownership housing. • The bonus for affordable units is a low-cost method for the town to encourage affordable housing. Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _13th day of _December_, 2021. _____________ _________ Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk ORDINANCE NUMBER: 20211213-X.X ORDINANCE Amending the Unified Development Ordinance of the Town of Hillsborough The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners ordains: Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.3.1is hereby amended to reflect the following changes in the multi-family density: 6.3.1 TABLE: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - RESIDENTIAL MF & MFSU2 Minimum Lot Area (sf) 1 acre 4,840 sf per dwelling Minimum Lot Width 200 Minimum Side Yard Width 40 Minimum Rear Yard Width 40 Minimum Front Setback 35 Maximum Building Height 45 Maximum Impervious Surface (% of gross lot) NA 2The maximum density for attached dwellings in the MF or MFSU district is 20 units per acre (subject to rounding as defined in Section 9.1.4). 3An attached dwelling application that proposes all units to be affordable to households making 80% AMI or less at the time of construction may propose up to 30 units per acre as a maximum density (subject to rounding as defined in Section 9.1.4). Section 2. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 13th day of December in 2021. Ayes: Noes: Absent or excused: Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Planning Public hearing: Yes Date of public hearing: Oct. 21, 2021 PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Shannan Campbell, Planning & Economic Development Manager Margaret A. Hauth, Assistant Town Manager ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance to remove waivers and introduce flexibility Attachments: 1. Public hearing staff report 2. Draft minutes form November Planning Board meeting 3. Draft consistency statement 4. Draft amending ordinance Brief summary: This item was heard at the October joint Public Hearing. There were no public comments on the proposed amendment. The Planning Board recommended adoption at the November meeting. The votes were unanimous except on the removal of waivers in general, which passed 5-1. The members delayed action on the tree preservation language, so it is excluded from the proposed action. Action requested: Consider adopting the consistency statement that the amendment IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adopt the ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: There was significant discussion by the Planning Board at their November meeting about the specific changes. The motion and heading for the subsections are bold and highlighted in the minutes attachment. These items were packaged for efficiency. The board may choose to separate topics and adopt in parts if preferred. Refer to the public hearing staff report for detailed discussion, attached. Financial impacts: Staff recommendation and comments: Recommend approval as written. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 7.C Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session October 2021 Joint Public Hearing Item Cover Sheet/Staff Report Agenda Item #: 5B ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Amendments to ordinance sections authorizing or referring to requesting waivers 2 – Density in multi-family zoning - examples 3 – Buffers 4 – Lighting 5 – Parking 6 – Sidewalks – resolving street tree & utility conflicts 7 – Tree preservation Item 5B – Removing Waivers and Adding Flexibility The concept of waivers being available for quasi-judicial project review was added in 2011 with the conversion to a Unified Development Ordinance. In this time, staff believes that waivers are being overused. Applicants are asking for what they “want” so they can control their construction costs and use stock plans, not what they “need” to make a site work. With the number of waivers sought by some applicants, it seems like applicants are weaponizing the ordinance against the town. Their testimony in support of a waiver or discussion with staff during review makes it appear that they will not develop in Hillsborough if not given all of their requests. The intent was to allow for creativity and flexibility for challenging situations, not to provide an “out.” The Planning Board asked staff to be more rigid about waivers a few years ago and support arguments from applicants have improved. After many years of all waivers being granted with little discussion, it is very difficult for staff to take a hard stance when the boards have not been clear about which sections are important. Hence, staff’s comment has often been “not opposed.” This back and forth is not productive. Staff strongly recommends the removal of the waiver option, especially in combination with recent amendments and these proposed amendments to introduce some flexibility. Staff looked at all the waivers requested (nearly all have been granted) and looked at identified six sections that were the most common target of waiver requests. This item includes amendments to those areas to add flexibility without compromising the town’s interests. Step 1- remove ordinance references authorizing waivers Attachment 1 details the amendments needed to remove authorization of waivers from the entire ordinance. Some sections simply reference the possibility of requesting a waiver, others provide the clear authorization. The amendment text follows the staff report. Section 1.8.2.2.b specifically authorizes the waiver concept. A portion of this paragraph should be deleted. Section 3.8.4.4 specifically authorizes waivers for special use permits. This paragraph should be deleted. Section 3.8.19.2 is within the section that provides guidance on determining whether a change to an approved plan is a minor change or modification. The clause referring to a “request for a new waiver” should be deleted. Section 3.8.20 provides guidance to applying the minor change/modification criteria. Since many existing plans have waivers in place, references in this section to waivers need to remain. Section 3.8.20.1 should be amended to delete “without triggering a waiver” and Section 3.8.20.4 should be deleted as it refers to new waivers. Section 3.13.7.4 describes the ability for an applicant to seek a waiver on appeal. This paragraph should be deleted. Section 3.13.7.5 has a clause making references to waivers and this clause should be removed. Section 6.17.3 about sidewalks makes reference to waivers. These references should be deleted. Step 2 – introduce flexibility Section 6.5.7 - address utilities and stormwater control mechanism challenges with buffers We rewrote this section to provide a lot of options to meet buffer requirements. Staff does not suggest further modification to buffers in general. However, we have not fully addressed the challenge of stormwater control or utility easements that often seem to overlap with a buffer. The attached language introduces some flexibility that staff recommends. Both utilities and stormwater control mechanisms have topographic requirements and cannot easily be relocated to meet a mathematical requirement for buffers. The amendment creates flexibility to place the buffer closest to the land use requiring the protection, while still allowing the utility or stormwater control mechanism to be placed where its physically reasonable. Section 6.11 - add flexibility in minimum lighting levels and create use-specific lighting standards Staff suggests amendments to address the most common issues – small dark pockets & use specific requests to be overly bright. The 1 footcandle requirement across parking lots has been in place for some time. As a point of reference, the Wal-mart parking lot is roughly 1 footcandle, although it does have some darker areas. The parking lot behind 515 North Churton is closer to 3 footcandles in their effort to meet 1 footcandle in all areas. The canopies at gas stations are often in excess of 30 footcandles. The attached language allows up to 25% of a parking lot not meet the 1 footcandle requirement to avoid the entire site being over lit to be wholly compliant. The amendment also defines a few uses that may have brighter areas, so long as they meet the 0.2 footcandle limit at the property lines. These uses include car dealers, banks, and gas stations. Section 6.13 - add a parking range rather than max or min and add a parking reduction for affordable housing Waivers to parking requirements fall in a couple of categories: overlap with design standards & the number of spaces required. Since the design standards were just changed, no further amendments are suggested there, but some flexibility to create maximum & minimums is proposed. The language allows 5 spaces more or less than the requirement for uses requiring 99 or fewer spaces and 10 spaces more or less than the requirement for uses required to provide 100 spaces. There is an added cap for small uses that the reduction or overage cannot exceed 50% of the requirement. Prior to the public hearing, the planning board discussed using plus or minus 5% for uses requiring 20 or fewer spaces. Given the examples below and the related square footages, this may not be advisable as it offers very little flexibility to most enterprises. The majority of single business spaces are less than 10,000 sf in Hillsborough. Examples: A use that is required to have 10 spaces must build at least 5 and cannot build more than 15. Examples are: 3,000 sf bank, government office, retail operation, veterinarian 2,500 sf doctor’s office, fitness club, or office 750 sf restaurant School with 4 classrooms Church with seating for 80 A use requiring 25 spaces must build at least 20 but no more than 30. Examples are: 7,500 sf bank, government office, retail operation, veterinarian 6,250 sf doctor’s office, fitness club, or office 1,875 sf restaurant School with 63 classrooms Church with seating for 200 Additionally, staff recommends allowing affordable multi-family developments to provide one parking space per bedroom, rather than the 2 spaces per unit required for market-rate complexes. The attached language details both amendments. Section 6.17 - resolve utility and street tree conflicts Amendments are proposed to clarify the overlap of sidewalks, sidewalk shading (street trees), utility easements, and public rights of way. The utilities director prefers water and sewer lines in easements, not under pavement or sidewalks. This often pushes utilities outside the public right of way and can impact sidewalk location and street trees. The attached language introduces flexibility in locating street trees. Section 6.22 - modify tree preservation language This section hasn’t been the source of lots of waivers but is of growing importance as we learn more about climate change. Please remember that this section only applies to site plans (i. e. non-residential) or Special Use Permits, not individual homes sites. We never circled back to this section after the rewrite in 2011 to clarify the hazy standards. The American Planning Association recently released a detailed study about urban forestry. That study recommends a localized approach and clarity about what the purpose of the requirements are. The town has not yet had that type of discussion, but it is likely coming either with the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan or as a Plan recommendation. Our current language is too vague to enforce without waivers. We have tried to be flexible without amendments, but that is risky as development continues, tree preservation grows in importance, and development sites become more challenging. The current language creates 3 groupings on pre-development tree cover – less than 25%, 25-50%, and over 50%. We have tried to keep pre-development and post development tree cover in the same grouping. For example, if a site is 90% covered at application and remains 51% covered at development, it is acceptable. Many could argue that is not what the ordinance says. Staff recommends an amendment that doesn’t set a standard but requires information that might help us craft a standard after the completion of the Comprehensive Sustainability Plan. We realize this is not ideal and delays really addressing the issue. However, there is no right answer to this question and many competing interests. Tree preservation is good, but so is compact development. The planning board did not recommend adopting these changes. They will spend time at the December meeting discussing options and possible recommend adoption of modified language OR send a new amendment to the January hearing. 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 1 of 11 Minutes PLANNING BOARD Remote regular meeting 6:30 p.m. Nov. 18, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTubeLive Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Chair Chris Johnston, Vice Chair Jenn Sykes, Cassi Chandler, Alyse Polly, Hooper Schultz and Scott Taylor Absent: Chris Austin, Frank Casadonte and Jeff Scott Staff: Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell and Assistant Town Manager Margaret Hauth C. Unified Development Ordinance: Text amendments 2. Portions of sections 1, 3, and 6 to remove waiver references and authorization Johnston introduced Item 4C-2. Hauth summarized that items 4C-2 through 4C-8 are a package, noting they all concern removing waivers. She said the board members could start with Item 4C-2, which removes the waiver authorization from the ordinance, or the members could discuss each item individually before deciding whether they are in favor of removing waivers. She observed that the members did not have much chance to talk about some of the items before the public hearing, noting that the members had been hoping for more public comment at the hearing. Hauth said staff recommends these changes but said the board members would need to decide what they think. Hauth noted that the changes do not all have to be approved just because she called it a package. She noted that Item 4C-2 is overarching, as it removes the waiver authorization from the ordinance. Hauth said that if the board members do not want to remove the waiver authorization, then they might not want to approve any of the other amendments. She said she is available for questions. When asked, Hauth clarified that the board members might want to discuss whether they support the idea of removing waivers. She said that if the members do not support removing waivers, then maybe none of the following text amendments are necessary. Hauth recommended the members discuss whether they support removing waivers or whether they feel removing waivers is too strong an action. Hauth clarified that some of the amendments might be beneficial regardless of whether waivers are removed. Hauth said she did not want to presuppose that the board members see the issue the same way she does. Hauth summarized her view that waivers need to be eliminated and that the proposed text amendments would introduce the flexibility needed in the ordinance to eliminate waivers. Hauth reiterated that she did not want to impose her view on the board and said she is available for other questions. Polly said she would be happy for the board members to start with a discussion about waivers in general and then move on to specific details. Polly said she is in favor of eliminating waivers. She noted that the board has seen many projects with waiver requests. She said waivers often have been used to help make things easier for contractors, who may have stock plans that they are reluctant to change. Polly noted that adjusting plans to meet the town’s ordinance takes more time, energy and money. She said she can understand contractors’ reluctance to spend resources, but she noted the Town of Hillsborough adopted its Unified Development Ordinance to support smart growth in way that maintains the town’s character. She acknowledged waivers PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 2 of 11 often make sense but said that over the past several years waivers often have been used to make development easier and less costly for contractors. She noted that the board members often push back and ask questions about waiver requests but ultimately grant most requests. Polly said it would not be fair to applicants for the board to consistently approve waiver requests but then suddenly become more strict. Polly asked whether other nearby municipalities offer waivers. She noted Campbell said at the public hearing that the municipalities she had worked for previously do not offer waivers. Polly said she does not think other nearby municipalities offer waivers, making Hillsborough unusual in that respect. She said if that is the case then she believes her hesitancy and reluctance regarding waivers is reasonable. Polly said the fact that offering waivers is not common practice is something to be aware of. Hauth said she is not aware of other area municipalities that allow waivers, but she noted that many other municipalities offer conditional zoning, which Hillsborough is considering but has not yet implemented. Hauth said conditional zoning allows developers to ask for the standard that they want or need. Hauth said conditional zoning would be a replacement for the special use zoning to which the board members are accustomed. Hauth said offering conditional zoning is not the same as allowing waivers, noting that with conditional zoning applicants could ask for something specific and the board could allow it for that particular location and use. She said waivers often are viewed as escape hatches from the ordinance, while the conditional zoning process offers more of a tradeoff or a condition. Hauth said applicants must choose to go through the conditional zoning process to get what they want as opposed to simply adding waiver requests to their application. Polly noted the pattern of granting most waiver requests that developed over time. She asked how likely it would be for a similar pattern to emerge with conditional zoning. Polly said she wants to ensure the board responds consistently to different projects and different circumstances. She asked how likely it would be for the board to fall into a similar pattern of granting most conditional zoning requests. She asked how the board members might tease out the priorities or factors determining whether to grant or deny conditional zoning requests. Hauth said it is hard to know for sure, as conditional zoning has not yet been tried in Hillsborough. She noted that the board could start out from a more deliberate or restrictive position with conditional zoning, rather than being permissive from the beginning. She offered some examples of how conditional zoning requests could be approached. Campbell noted that conditional zoning requests generally involve more give and take, with requests for relief in one area offset by concessions in another. She contrasted that give and take with the “escape hatch” that waivers can represent. Campbell offered some examples. She said the town’s conditional zoning would be developed in the coming months. Campbell said there are developers who approach the town with genuinely creative ideas that do not fit the ordinance, which she characterized as much different than developers who do not want to meet town requirements because it is cheaper and easier. Polly said that it sounds like applicants requesting conditional zoning need a better justification, which often aligns with the goals and vision of the town. Hauth said conditional zoning could be set up from the beginning to require better justifications. Schultz said as development continues he thinks waivers need to be eliminated. He said he does not want to see haphazard development and there needs to be a hard change in the current practice of granting most waivers that are requested. Schultz agreed with Polly that the board members push back about waiver requests but ultimately grant most requests. He said he thinks now is a good time to change that practice. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 3 of 11 Chandler said she appreciated Polly’s perspective. She voiced concern about the town being on a slippery slope regarding always granting waiver requests. Sykes noted that many waiver requests come from chain developments that are very hesitant to modify their plans. She offered several examples. Sykes said in the absence of conditional zoning, which is still in development, such developers would have to go through the much more strict variance process. Sykes said such bigger, national developers are the most likely to be able to afford to build right now given the current market. She worried that removing waivers would prompt developers to choose to build just down the road in Alamance County instead of in Hillsborough, even with flexibility added into the ordinance. Sykes also worried that the proposed flexibility would not sufficiently account for the varied topography of many development sites. Sykes worried that removing waivers in the current economic environment without the conditional zoning process already in place could shut down large chains’ development plans in Hillsborough. Sykes noted the larger chain developments probably would use the conditional zoning process when it becomes available. Polly asked for Campbell’s economic development perspective on Sykes’ concerns. Polly said it sounds like there would be only a short time period between ending waivers and beginning to offer conditional zoning. Polly added that she loves the idea of home-grown businesses and is happy to support local developments. Sykes agreed that local developments are preferable but said it is costly to build anything new right now. She asked if this is the right time to remove waivers given the current high costs of building. Campbell acknowledged that larger, national chains are the most reluctant to make changes to their stock plan, but she noted those chains often will make changes under market pressure. Campbell noted some of the town’s larger development and redevelopment sites are at the interstates. She said Hillsborough cannot compete with Alamance County even with the current waiver system, noting that developers would always choose land on an interstate in Alamance County over a similar tract in Orange County due to Alamance County’s lower taxes. Campbell offered an example of how market demands have caused McDonald’s to change their building plans. She pointed out that Hillsborough’s design standards are in line with what other municipalities are requiring. Campbell agreed with Sykes that removing waivers could lose the town potential chain or cookie-cutter developments. When asked about the timeline for developing the town’s conditional zoning, Campbell said it is a work in progress. Campbell said she and Hauth have been researching what other municipalities are doing and what kind of conditional zones the town might need based on inquiries staff has received. Johnston asked for clarification regarding staff’s ability to approve mathematical adjustments within 10%. Hauth said the 10% rule is used when an already-approved project meeting the ordinance runs into a problem in the field, such as when a developer realizes during construction that there is more rock to be graded than was anticipated. Hauth clarified it is not assumed that developers have 10% flexibility on every mathematical standard. She said plans must start by being compliant with the ordinance but that staff can approve field modifications within 10% after construction is underway. Hauth further clarified that, in contrast, the proposed text amendment about parking would purposefully create a range of required parking spaces. Johnston asked how the board members felt about removing waivers. Schultz said that he would make a motion to recommend removing waivers to the town board. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 4 of 11 Polly noted the board had begun with a broad discussion of the idea of removing waivers. She asked if the board members wanted to discuss the individual changes involved. Chandler and Johnston said yes. Hauth clarified that she had wanted to make sure the board members supported eliminating waivers before discussing the individual text amendments. Hauth said that even if the board votes to remove waivers, the board would not necessarily have to agree to each of the following text amendments. Johnston proposed the board could consider all of the text amendments under one motion, suggesting informal polls of members’ opinions could be taken throughout the discussion. He asked how the members felt about removing waivers generally. Sykes said she would prefer to have the conditional zoning process in place before eliminating waivers. She said she wants every option available for developers who want to build in town while building costs are so high. Sykes noted that the town has a substitute available for waivers in the form of conditional zoning but it is not yet ready. Sykes said she would like to leave waivers in place while conditional zoning is hammered out. She said if economic factors were different she would feel more comfortable taking the risk of losing developers. Campbell clarified that conditional zoning is not a substitute for waivers. She said flexibility in the ordinance is the substitute for offering waivers. Campbell clarified that conditional zoning is another tool to allow for even more flexibility than what the ordinance allows. Sykes said she would still prefer to keep the maximum flexibility available to developers during such a risky economic time. Taylor said that, from a contractor perspective, having waivers available in case of mistakes is helpful. Taylor agreed with Hauth, however, that the town has the ordinance and its policies in place so that contractors, developers and engineers conform to the town’s vision. Taylor said he think it is unfair that developers can use the waiver system to get out of complying with the ordinance. He said even though waivers could save him money if he made a mistake on a project, he thinks developers should have to conform to the ordinance. Taylor said he supports removing waivers. Polly asked Hauth and Campbell if there is any time pressure for removing waivers now instead of waiting until conditional zoning is in place. Chandler noted Campbell’s remark that conditional zoning would not replace waivers. Campbell said staff believes the time is right to remove waivers. She noted staff has received more and more requests for waivers and staff believes they have hit a hit tipping point. Campbell said waiver requests take a lot of work for staff and the Board of Adjustment. She agreed the board could decide to wait and eliminate waivers at a later time. Campbell said given that some flexibility had been added into the ordinance recently it seemed like the right time to consider removing waivers. Hauth noted the board members have different points of view about removing waivers and do not seem unanimous in their opinions. She suggested the board vote on each text amendment individually so the town board could better appreciate the board members’ different opinions, noting that the town board members read the minutes of the Planning Board meetings. The board members indicated agreement. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 5 of 11 Sykes said she does not have a problem with the details of removing waivers. She clarified she does not want to remove the safety net that waivers represent at this time. She said that a year ago she would not have felt as cautious. She agreed that removing waivers eventually is a good idea. Chandler said she feels unsure of the decision-making process around granting or denying waivers. She expressed concern that a developer with more power might find it easier to get a waiver than a minority. Chandler said because of her discomfort she would prefer to eliminate waivers and create an environment in which all applicants must follow the ordinance equally. Johnston noted that historically the board members receive staff reports regarding waiver requests, and generally those reports included how staff has felt about each request. Johnston said he did not recall seeing a report in which staff was vehemently opposed to any particular waiver requests. He acknowledged that he has not been seeing things from staff’s perspective, but he said he thought waiver requests generally were for field mistakes or site issues that staff could not approve. Johnston said he felt a little nervous about eliminating that avenue of recourse. Hauth noted Johnston had asked similar questions at previous meetings. Hauth said she had tried to answer more subtly but would now answer more pointedly. Hauth noted that waivers had been available since before Johnston was on the Planning Board. She said that when waivers were first available, she had no guidance or direction on what priorities or criteria were most important in evaluating whether or not a waiver should be granted. Hauth said that one of the very first applications with waiver requests was for Leland Little’s first auction building, and Hauth said she was quite opposed to granting those waivers because the project’s plan was very contrary to the ordinance’s requirements. Haugh said she had documented her concerns in the agenda packet but that the Planning Board members and town board members had granted the waiver requests anyway. Campbell added that staff is very uncomfortably telling the board members whether or not to approve a waiver request. She said staff’s role is to help applicants and the board members, and opposing waiver requests can create adversarial relationships. Campbell said staff tries to stay neutral and let applicants plead their cases to the board. Hauth said if waivers had been treated as hard to get from the beginning, they would not be in this situation now. She said the town had already been granting waivers for four years before anyone asked if they were using waivers as intended. Hauth said that once the town started granting waivers it became hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Sykes noted that Hauth has been at Board of Adjustment meetings at which waiver requests were turned down. She said some of the Board of Adjustment members such as herself are getting tired of granting every waiver request. Sykes reiterated that the risk to removing waivers right now is losing potential chain developers. Sykes said she thinks some of the individual text amendments to add flexibility are a good idea but said she still prefers to keep waivers in place as a safety net right now. She recalled a recent Board of Adjustment case in which the developers seemed accustomed to using waivers to get their way, saying she had been in the minority of members who did not want to grant a waiver. She said board members should cultivate the nerve to say no to inappropriate waiver requests. Sykes said she still thinks it is important to have an extra avenue of flexibility. Taylor asked how staff tells potential developers that their designs do not meet the town’s ordinance and that they will have to build elsewhere. He asked what kind of staff accountability there is if a developer asks to work something out behind the scenes. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 6 of 11 Campbell said staff is not allowed to work behind the scenes, noting that would be illegal. She said if staff receives a site plan that does not meet the ordinance, staff denies the application, at which point the applicant can appeal. Campbell said the denial form contains a comment section in which staff tells the applicant what they need to change in order to comply with the ordinance. She said applicants generally will make those changes in order to comply rather than resubmit a site plan that she must deny again. Hauth agreed. She said Taylor might have been referring to a situation in which a developer complies with the ordinance on paper but then later requests a field modification to get what they want. Hauth said staff has not seen such a situation. She said usually if an applicant wants something that will not comply with the ordinance, staff informs them and offers possible solutions. Hauth said applicants also could ask the town board for a text amendment to change the ordinance. She said generally if a project will not conform to the ordinance no matter what changes are made, the applicants accept the situation and build elsewhere. Hauth emphasized that both she and Campbell are certified planners and as such they adhere to a code of ethics. She said both her and Campbell’s jobs are to enforce the ordinance as written, adding that they have no authority to be flexible on that. Campbell offered several examples of how staff might handle a situation of noncompliance in the field. She said if she finds a noncompliance issue during the final inspection, she tells the applicant they must meet the site plan or they will not get a certificate of occupancy, unless it is within the 10% flexibility that staff can approve. Sykes recalled a recent Board of Adjustment meeting in which the board denied about half of the waivers requested by a chain developer. Johnston suggested the board members vote on Item 4C-2 regarding removing the waiver authorization before moving on to the individual text amendments to introduce flexibility into the ordinance. Motion: Schultz moved to recommend approval of removing waiver references and authorization to the town board. Polly seconded. Hauth called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-1. Ayes: Members Chandler, Johnston, Polly, Schultz and Taylor. Nays: Sykes. 3. Section 6.5.7 to amend buffer requirements to address utilities and stormwater control mechanisms Johnston introduced Item 4C-4. Hauth summarized that the text amendment would create flexibility to place buffers closest to the land requiring protection, while still allowing utilities or stormwater control mechanisms to be placed where they are physically reasonable. Johnston referred the board members to Page 63 of the agenda packet. He asked for board members’ comments, questions or opinions. None was raised. Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of addressing utilities and stormwater control mechanism challenges with buffers to the town board. Chandler seconded. Hauth called the roll for voting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 7 of 11 Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Chandler, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Sykes and Taylor. Nays: none. 4. Section 6.11 to add flexibility in minimum lighting levels and create use-specific lighting standards Johnston introduced Item 4C-5. Hauth summarized that the text amendment would allow a portion of a parking lot to not meet the ordinance’s required lighting standard in order to prevent the entire lot from being overly bright. Hauth said the text amendment also would allow parking lot lighting for certain uses, such as banks, car dealerships and gas stations, to be brighter than the maximum lighting level as long as the lighting still complies with required light levels at property lines. Sykes recalled that the Walmart parking lot lights used to be very bright when viewed from the Beckett’s Ridge neighborhood. Chandler recalled she had commented at the public hearing regarding the very bright lights at Bellevue Mill Apartments. Schultz said he lives across from a very bright corner store. When asked, Hauth confirmed the maximum light level was set at 30 foot-candles because gas stations generally are lit at about 30 foot-candles. She added that 30 foot-candles is closer to what the board allowed for a recently approved car dealership, saying she did not want the dealership to be too far out of compliance even though they received a waiver. When asked, Hauth confirmed the car dealership’s waiver still would apply even if the text amendment passes. There were no other comments or questions. Motion: Chandler moved to recommend approval of adding flexibility in minimum lighting levels and creating use-specific lighting standards to the town board. Schultz seconded. Hauth called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Chandler, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Sykes and Taylor. Nays: none. 5. Section 6.13 to add range to number of spaces required and add a parking reduction for affordable housing Johnston introduced Item 4C-6. Hauth summarized that the text amendment would create a range of required parking spaces rather than a specific target number, saying different uses have different needs even though they may be grouped together in the ordinance. She noted the board members had discussed adding additional flexibility of 5% or five spaces, adding that staff still recommends using percentages rather than flat numbers. She referred the board members to several examples in the agenda packet. Hauth said the text amendment also would introduce parking flexibility for affordable housing, allowing one parking space per bedroom rather than two spaces per unit. Hauth noted there had been comment at the public hearing from affordable housing representatives, who suggested extending that flexibility to all apartment complexes. Sykes recalled how difficult it had been to deal with the Little School’s parking situation. She said she felt comfortable adding the suggested 5% flexibility into the ordinance. She said requests for parking waivers have come up frequently, noting that applicants could ask for more parking rather than less parking. When asked, Hauth confirmed a CASA representative had requested the flexibility of building one parking space per bedroom rather than two spaces per unit. Hauth clarified that the ordinance already allows one PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 8 of 11 space per bedroom for apartment complexes with more than 100 units. She said the ordinance requires two spaces per unit for smaller complexes because there are fewer spaces to share overall in such complexes. Johnston noted the CASA representative’s remark that, “it’s more beneficial for owners like CASA to see one space per unit regardless of how many bedrooms or no parking requirement at all.” Hauth said CASA often targets people transitioning out of homelessness or others who depend on public transportation. She said CASA would prefer there be no parking requirement and instead let their own experience dictate what the parking demand should be for their apartment complexes. Hauth noted that Chapel Hill recently has developed an affordable housing zoning district with no parking requirement, observing that Chapel Hill has a robust free bus system while Hillsborough does not. Hauth said CASA often builds smaller apartment buildings comprising 80 or fewer apartments. She said she would be hesitant to see a larger, market-rate complex in Hillsborough with only one parking space per unit, except perhaps in a mixed-use development. Hauth gave an example involving the Ardmore Cates Creek apartment complex. She agreed that parking and income are directly related and said she understood the CASA representative’s request. Hauth suggested that one parking space per unit could be reasonable in an affordable housing complex, or that flexibility could be made dependent on target residents’ income levels. Hauth reiterated she feels it is risky to allow one parking space per apartment for all complexes until the town has a more robust transit system. Sykes suggested allowing one space per bedroom for now, noting the ordinance could be amended further in the future. Polly noted that complexes often include three-bedroom apartments. She asked how the board members would feel about requiring one parking space per bedroom with a maximum of two spaces per unit, rather than requiring three spaces for a three-bedroom apartment. Hauth confirmed that would be possible. Johnston asked for other board members’ thoughts. None was raised. Polly said she would move to recommend approval of adding a parking range and adding a parking reduction for affordable housing, with a maximum of two spaces per unit, to the town board. Chandler said she liked the idea of building a range into the ordinance. Hauth asked Polly if her motion would extend the maximum of two spaces per unit to all apartment complexes or only to affordable housing complexes. Polly wondered if it would make sense to extend the suggested cap on parking spaces to all apartment complexes. Polly asked the other board members if they generally see more apartment parking spaces available than are being used regularly. Sykes nodded that she thinks there are more spaces available than are regularly used. Sykes also pointed out that two- or three-bedroom units could house two or three driving-age individuals, while a one-bedroom unit could house a couple with two cars. She noted that, without the cap, the two scenarios tend to balance out, with some three-bedroom units providing extra spaces for the one-bedroom couples with two cars. Chandler agreed. Schultz recalled Commissioner Matt Hughes’ comments regarding the many unused parking spaces at the Ardmore Cates Creek apartment complex. Sykes asked if those apartments were built before the bedroom restriction was in place. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 9 of 11 Hauth explained the board had granted the Ardmore Cates Creek apartment complex a parking reduction waiver, after which the town created the current two-tier approach. She noted the Ardmore Cates Creek apartment complex was not the first apartment complex to say they did not need all of the required parking. Hauth explained the Ardmore Cates Creek apartment complex still was required to build more than one space per bedroom, noting they still have extra parking. Polly said there are situations in which it makes sense to build more parking spaces, even though she feels she often sees a lot of unused parking spaces. Polly agreed that for the moment the maximum cap of two spaces per unit should be used only for affordable housing, noting the board could return to this issue in future. Motion: Polly moved to recommend approval of adding a parking range and adding a parking reduction for affordable housing, with a maximum of two spaces per unit for affordable housing, to the town board. Schultz seconded. Hauth called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Chandler, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Sykes and Taylor. Nays: none. 6. Section 6.17 to add flexibility to resolve utility and street tree conflicts Johnston introduced Item 4C-7. Hauth summarized that the ordinance requires shade trees for public sidewalks to be planted at regular intervals. She said the text amendment would allow flexibility in where those trees are placed to avoid potential conflicts with water and sewer lines. When asked, Hauth confirmed the flexibility would apply on when there are conflicts with the placement of water or sewer lines. Sykes noted that tree roots growing through water pipes can break the pipes, creating expensive replacement costs. When asked, Hauth confirmed the section being amended refers only to trees that are installed, not existing trees. Johnston asked for the board members’ thoughts, questions or concerns. None was raised. Motion: Schultz moved to recommend approval of resolving utility and street tree conflicts to the town board. Scott seconded. Hauth called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Chandler, Johnston, Polly, Schultz, Sykes and Taylor. Nays: none. 7. Section 6.22 to modify tree preservation language Johnston introduced Item 4C-8. Hauth summarized the item. Hauth noted the board members did not have much chance to discuss this item before the public hearing and that there were no comments on it at the public hearing. Hauth said the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 10 of 11 ordinance’s current language regarding tree preservation is too vague to enforce. She said staff recommends the amendment not set a standard but instead require information that would help the town craft a better standard after the completion of the town’s Comprehensive Sustainability Plan. Hauth said the amended ordinance would simply ask applicants to provide a calculation of existing tree coverage without setting a minimum or maximum standard for tree preservation. When asked, Hauth confirmed that without a minimum tree preservation standard an applicant could remove all the trees on a site. She clarified that most sites are replanted at about 10% coverage to meet the town’s other standards. Hauth noted staff had picked the current ordinance’s numbers without doing much research, saying the ordinance’s standard has been difficult to apply. Hauth said staff has interpreted the ordinance fairly loosely over time. When asked, Hauth said the proposed amendment would require applicants to calculate how many canopy trees are removed and provide the town with that information. She said staff and the boards could then use that information when crafting a new standard. She confirmed applicants could remove all the trees on a site, then replant trees after development. Schultz asked if the points table used to calculate tree coverage is in the agenda packet. Hauth said it is not, but she said the points table is in the ordinance. Hauth briefly described how the tree points table is used to calculate tree coverage. Schultz expressed concern that applicants would remove mature trees and then replant smaller trees that would never achieve the same amount of coverage. Hauth agreed that would be a possibility. Hauth said that she had been trying to craft more flexible placeholder language in order to keep this amendment on the same public hearing agenda as the other text amendments. Hauth said she was open to holding this item for a while to hear any additional adjustments that the board members want, acknowledging the board members did not get a chance to discuss this item before the public hearing. Sykes said she preferred to hold this item until a later date, saying there are a lot of older trees in areas being targeted for redevelopment. When asked, Hauth explained staff is concerned that the current standard in the ordinance is not easy to enforce consistently, especially now that two or three people now handle site plan reviews. She explained that the original language was crafted with the intention that it would be short-lived. Hauth said the standard is actually very difficult to meet and offers no flexibility. Schultz asked if the ordinance might incorporate a diameter requirement that might be more enforceable. Hauth agreed but said the challenge is that larger trees always seem to be exactly where the building or the driveway needs to be placed. She briefly described some of the other challenges of enforcing the tree preservation standard. Johnston wondered if a points system might be used to calculate and require tree coverage. Hauth said the ordinance’s tree points table does exactly that. She described the tree points table and how it currently is used and suggested other ways it could be used in the future. Hauth said staff could look into other ways of using the tree points table, noting it would take a lot of work to enforce. Sykes the tree points table seems to offer quantifiable information that could be useful to the board members in making this decision. Sykes recommended holding Item 4C-8 until the board members can review the tree PLANNING BOARD MINUTES | 11 of 11 points table. She noted that residents often bring up tree preservation as a priority, particularly in the town’s older neighborhoods. Sykes suggested that educating the board members on the tree points table would be an effective first step toward modifying the ordinance’s tree preservation language. Johnston agreed and suggested reviewing the tree points table could be given first priority at the next Planning Board meeting to ensure enough time for a full discussion. Sykes agreed and recommended including an agenda item at the Dec. 16, 2021, meeting to review the tree points table. The board members indicated agreement. Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160D-605 The Town of Hillsborough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of planning staff to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as follows: Amend Sections 1, 3, and 6 to remove authorization for waivers and introduce flexibility in the requirements for buffers, lighting, parking, and sidewalks The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan and the Town Board’s proposed action on the amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s): Waivers are being used by applicants to avoid site specific design rather than access needed flexibility or creative solutions. The town has updated the ordinance to make requirements specific and targeted at defining and achieving community priorities. Flexibility has been added to address unique site situations that were previously addressed with waivers. These amendments are consistent with Vision 2030 goal of sustaining Hillsborough unique sense of place by aligning the development regulations with the communities goals so future development is compatible. Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _13th day of _December_, 2021. _____________ _________ Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk ORDINANCE NUMBER: 20211213-X.X ORDINANCE Amending the Unified Development Ordinance of the Town of Hillsborough The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners ordains: Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance Section 1.8.2, Site Specific Development Plans, is hereby amended to delete the following from paragraph “b”: When a permit is subject to an evidentiary hearing, the permit issuing authority may waive or modify those minimum requirements upon (i) the applicant’s specific, written request for a waiver or modification and (ii) the presentation of satisfactory, competent evidence by the applicant demonstrating that the applicant’s proposal otherwise satisfies or meets the need the minimum standard to be waived or modified was intended to address. Section 2. Section 3.8.4, Applying the Ordinance to Determine Compliance with Standards to Make Findings of Fact, is hereby amended to delete paragraph 3.8.4.4. Section 3. Section 3.8.19.2, is hereby amended to read as follows: Changes to a specific condition imposed during the approval of a Special Use Permit or expansion of an approved waiver shall constitute a modification. A change that eliminates or reduces the need for a granted waiver is a minor change. Section 4. Section 3.8.20.4 is hereby deleted. Section 5. Section 3.13.7.4 is hereby deleted. Section 6. Section 3.13.7.5 is hereby renumbered to 3.13.7.4 and the clause after “made” is hereby deleted. Section 7. Section 6.5.8, Use and Development within Buffers, is herby amended to replace 6.5.8.3 and 6.5.8.4 and add 6.5.8.5 as follows. Existing Sections 6.5.8.5 and 6.5.8.6 are unchanged and are renumbered as necessary. 6.5.8.3 New utility corridors are not permitted in buffers unless no reasonable alternative exists. Crossings at angles between 60 and 90 degrees are acceptable where utility corridors are necessary. New utilities may only run coincident or parallel with a required buffer if: 6.5.8.3.a The utility is installed on the new development side of the buffer and in a manner that allows the installation of an A1, B1, or C1 buffer, as required by Table 6.5.10, between the utility and the property line. If a Type D buffer is required, a buffer meeting the requirements of Table 6.5.4.4 shall be installed on the development side of the utility and the utility placed as close to the property line as reasonable. 6.5.8.4 When a development plan is proposed on land adjacent to or encumbered with an existing utility easement (overhead or underground) and the proposed development will not modify or relocate the utility, no buffer is required to be installed by the development plan. The development plan must maintain any existing buffer (vegetative, built, or topographic) existing at the time of development plan application between the existing utility easement and adjoining properties requiring a buffer under this ordinance. 6.5.8.5 Stormwater control mechanisms are discouraged from being located in buffers unless mandated by the natural topography. Such installations may be located within a required buffer in a manner that allows the installation of an A1, B1, or C1 buffer, as required by Table 6.5.10, between the utility and the property line. If a Type D buffer is required, a buffer meeting the requirements of Table 6.5.4.4 shall be installed on the development side of the utility and the utility placed as close to the property line as reasonable. Section 8. Section 6.11.4.1 is hereby amended to replace “shall” with “generally will” and add “A compliant lighting plan may show proposed light contours or light intensity grid with less 1.0 footcandle rating for no more than 25 percent of parking and walkway area if the flexibility prevents the site from exceeding the maximums described in 6.11.5, Maximum Light Levels, or the flexibility prevents intensity differences of greater than 5 footcandles across the illuminated portion of the site.” Section 9. Section 6.11.5.2 is amended by deleting the sentence “The permit issuing authority may consider an applicant’s unique situations and use requirements during the development review and may allow greater intensities within the site.” Section 10. Sections 6.11.5.3 and 6.11.5.4 are hereby added to read: 6.11.5.3 Use Specific exceptions The following uses have unique operating or safety concerns related to site lighting and may have light intensities of 30 footcandles under canopies, outdoor sales areas, or in walk-up or drive-up service areas: 6.11.5.3.a banks and financial institutions, including freestanding automated teller machines 6.11.5.3.b motor vehicle sales 6.11.5.3.c motor vehicle fuel stations 6.11.5.4 Use Specific exceptions limited The light intensity from the excepted areas in 6.11.5.3 must be reduced to the following limits at property lines as described: 6.11.5.4.a 1.0 footcandles at any property line adjoining a public or private right of way if the use across the right of way is not zoned or used for residential purposes. 6.11.5.4.b 0.2 footcandles at any property line adjoining a public or private right of way if the use across the right of way is zoned or used for residential purposes. 6.11.5.4.c 0.2 footcandles at any property line adjoining land zoned or used for residential purposes. Section 11. Section 6.13.3.3 is amended to delete “minimum” from the heading and add the following text: The number generated by applying the standard is the required number of parking spaces for defined use, constituting both a minimum and maximum. Rounding conventions shall be employed when the standard requires a fractional parking space. Uses requiring 20 or fewer spaces after rounding are allowed to build up to 5% more or 5% fewer spaces if the addition or reduction does not represent a deviation of 50% or more from the standard. Uses requiring 21-99 spaces after rounding are allowed to build up to 5 more or 5 fewer spaces. Uses requiring 100 spaces or more after rounding are allowed flexibility to build up to 10 more or 10 fewer spaces. Example – a use that is required to have 10 spaces must build at least 5 and cannot build more than 15. A use requiring 25 spaces must build at least 20 but no more than 30. Section 12. Section 6.13.3.4 and Section 6.13.9.10 are hereby deleted. Section 13. Section 6.13.3.5, Table of Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required, is hereby amended to add: Dwelling: attached (20+ units, 100% of units affordable to households making 80% AMI or less at time of construction) 1 space per bedroom and no more than 2 spaces per unit. Section 14. Section 6.17.3.1, Development Sites, is hereby amended to delete “waiver or” in the two places in this paragraph. Section 15. Section 6.17.3.3.d and 6.17.3.3.e are hereby amended to add “Varied spacing may be approved by the permit issuing authority if there are conflicts between utilities and street tree placement but the number of street trees required cannot be reduced. Trees must be located between the building façade and street to qualify as street trees.” to each section. Section 16. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 17. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 13th day of December in 2021. Ayes: Noes: Absent or excused: Sarah E. Kimrey, Town Clerk AGENDA ABSTRACT | 1 of 3 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Public Space and Sustainability Public hearing: No PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Public Space and Sustainability Manager, Stephanie Trueblood ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Future train station design and engineering team selection Attachments: Clearscapes Proposal Brief summary: The Town of Hillsborough issued an RFQ for design and engineering of the future train station on Sept. 27, 2021. Responses were due on Nov. 8, 2021. The town received 8 proposals from qualified North Carolina-based firms. A selection team made up of 4 town staff and 2 field experts reviewed the 8 proposals and individually ranked them according to criteria set in the RFQ. The scores were tallied and the firm with the highest overall score was Clearscapes. The selection team recommends that town staff be authorized to negotiate with Clearscapes for a contract not to exceed $800,000, which is 10% of estimated cost of the project plus $100,000 for design of the future greenway connection to downtown Hillsborough. Action requested: Authorize staff to negotiate with Clearscapes a contract not to exceed $800,000. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: In 2008, the town board authorized the purchase of 20 acres adjacent to the rail line for economic development purposes. No specific use was envisioned at that time, but the hope was that site would be appropriate for a passenger rail station, future town office needs, and residential and non-residential development at urban densities. The station was funded in the 2016-2025 TIP, with an estimated cost of $7 million for the station, parking, and access. The town prepared a conceptual plan to identify environmental and permitting construction on the site and determine an approximate footprint for the funded project. The funding agreement was executed on Feb. 23, 2021. The town has primary responsibility for delivering the project as well as long-term ownership/maintenance of the building and site. The future station must be completed within 7 years of the funding agreement approval. Design will begin in FY22. Design is expected to take 2 years, permitting up to 1 year, and construction is estimated at 2 or more years. For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 7.D Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session AGENDA ABSTRACT | 2 of 3 The RFQ was released on Sept. 27, 2021, with a deadline for submittals of Nov. 8, 2021. The project scope from the RFQ includes: • A 7,000 square foot net-zero future train station building with the following components: o 1,000-1,500 square feet of waiting room and ticketing area space o 2,000-2,500 square feet of meeting room and storage space o 1000-1500 SF town offices, o 1,500-3,000 square feet of accessible public restrooms, storage, and mechanical space • Parking lot for train station including: o 100 parking spaces o 10-20% EV ready parking spaces • Stormwater Control Measures to meet stormwater requirements which may include technologies such as: o Green infrastructure o Treatment trains o Innovative parking lot stormwater catchment/treatment • Utilities for the site • Accessible train station platform • Roadways and sidewalks into the train station site from Orange Grove Road • Pedestrian connection via greenway to downtown Hillsborough (including a possible pedestrian bridge and tunnel) • For each component above, a permitting plan indicating the other agencies who have review or comment authority, reviews steps, and process time • For each component, an evaluation of sustainable and green building practices that the town should consider – including solar energy options (passive and active) – should be identified with a pro or con recommendation • All components must be ADA compliant • Ensure that plans for all facilities function well together, in terms of traffic flow, ingress and egress, accessibility, connectivity, parking, etc. • The RFQ emphasizes the town’s Clean Energy Pledge and a Net Zero building. In response to the RFQ, the Town received 8 proposals from qualified firms. The following firms submitted proposals: • Clearscapes • Kimley Horn • Neighboring Concepts • RND • Summit • VHB • Wagner • WSP A selection team was assembled that included the following members: • Jen Della Vale, Administrative Services Director, Town of Hillsborough • Shannan Campbell, Planning and Economic Development Manager, Town of Hillsborough • Heather Fisher, Stormwater Program Coordinator, Town of Hillsborough • Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner II, Orange County • Craig Newton, Facilities Engineer Consultant, NCDOT Rail Division • Stephanie Trueblood, Public Space and Sustainability Manager, Town of Hillsborough AGENDA ABSTRACT | 3 of 3 Proposals were scored individually by the selection team members based on the following weighted criteria: • Experience 10% • Understanding 15% • Project Approach and Schedule 20% • Capacity 10% • Qualifications 10% • Communication 15% • References 5% • Net Zero Qualifications 15% All scores were submitted and tallied. The Clearscapes proposal received highest overall score. The final scores were very close among the proposals, exposing the competitive nature of this project. Due to the fact that the scores were so close, a follow up email was sent to selection team members soliciting any reservations about recommending Clearscapes. All selection team members responded with confidence in the firm. The selection team recommends Clearscapes based on the overall score and the Clearscapes’ team’s extensive experience with rail projects, public facilities, and net zero construction. NCDOT generally caps design costs at 10% of a project’s cost ($700,000 in this case) and this project has an additional allowance of $100,000 to design and engineer the pedestrian connection to downtown. The town may provide additional funding or negotiate with another firm if an agreement cannot be reached for the stated price. Financial impacts: N/A Staff recommendation and comments: Authorize staff to negotiate with Clearscapes a contract not to exceed $800,000. H I L L S B O R O U G H T R A I N S T A T I O N Section 1: COVER LETTER Section 2: PROJECT QUALIFICATIONS - Harrisburg Train Station - 150 East Rosemary - Raleigh Union Station - Go Raleigh Transit Station - Saxapahaw River Mill Section 3: PROJECT TEAM Section 4: PROJECT UNDERSTANDING, METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH Section 5: NET ZERO AND SUSTAINABLE EXPERIENCE Raleigh Union Station, Waiting Area Section 1: Cover Letter November 8, 2021November 8, 2021 Town of HillsboroughTown of Hillsborough Attn: Stephanie TruebloodAttn: Stephanie Trueblood 101 East Orange Street101 East Orange Street Hillsborough, NC 27278Hillsborough, NC 27278 via email: via email: stephanie.trueblood@hillsboroughnc.govstephanie.trueblood@hillsboroughnc.gov RE: Request for Qualifications - Hillsborough Train Station RE: Request for Qualifications - Hillsborough Train Station Dear Ms. Trueblood,Dear Ms. Trueblood, We are delighted to submit our qualifications for planning, design, and engineering services for your new train station. We are delighted to submit our qualifications for planning, design, and engineering services for your new train station. Through our work at Raleigh Union Station, we understand first hand how the thoughtful and creative design of multi-modal Through our work at Raleigh Union Station, we understand first hand how the thoughtful and creative design of multi-modal rail-centered transit facilities can catalyze surrounding development and become an anchor for the broader community. rail-centered transit facilities can catalyze surrounding development and become an anchor for the broader community. ClearscapesClearscapes specializes in creating “people places” and is recognized as one of the most creative and adaptable design firms in specializes in creating “people places” and is recognized as one of the most creative and adaptable design firms in the region. For over 40 years, we have partnered with public clients across North Carolina to help achieve their community-the region. For over 40 years, we have partnered with public clients across North Carolina to help achieve their community- centered goals through thoughtful planning and design, bringing meaningful cultural narratives to life through the creative centered goals through thoughtful planning and design, bringing meaningful cultural narratives to life through the creative expression of the built environment. Clearscapes works at many scales, assimilating client and stakeholder goals, budgets, expression of the built environment. Clearscapes works at many scales, assimilating client and stakeholder goals, budgets, project constraints, and community context into unique planning and architectural solutions suited specifically for their project constraints, and community context into unique planning and architectural solutions suited specifically for their purpose and place.purpose and place. The recently completed Raleigh Union Station has been recognized as a new model for creatively integrating rail travel into The recently completed Raleigh Union Station has been recognized as a new model for creatively integrating rail travel into our cities - it has become the living room for Raleigh’s creative district and has spurred nearly $1billion in private investment our cities - it has become the living room for Raleigh’s creative district and has spurred nearly $1billion in private investment in the surrounding Warehouse District. This project creatively weaves transit infrastructure into a highly sustainable civic and in the surrounding Warehouse District. This project creatively weaves transit infrastructure into a highly sustainable civic and mixed use campus and a re-imagined post-industrial context built around an integrated stormwater and pollinator landscape. mixed use campus and a re-imagined post-industrial context built around an integrated stormwater and pollinator landscape. Clearscapes facilitated a highly interactive design and approval process, collaborating closely with a diverse group of project Clearscapes facilitated a highly interactive design and approval process, collaborating closely with a diverse group of project partners and stakeholders including the NCDOT Rail Division, City of Raleigh, North Carolina Railroad Company, Norfolk partners and stakeholders including the NCDOT Rail Division, City of Raleigh, North Carolina Railroad Company, Norfolk Southern, CSX, and the Federal Rail Administration.Southern, CSX, and the Federal Rail Administration. We maintain a close working relationship with the NCDOT Rail Division and regional railroads and are currently working on We maintain a close working relationship with the NCDOT Rail Division and regional railroads and are currently working on three rail-related projects. Notably, we are nearly complete with the design, construction documents, and railroad approvals three rail-related projects. Notably, we are nearly complete with the design, construction documents, and railroad approvals for the new Harrisburg train station. This project is very similar in scope to the Hillsborough Train Station – it includes a 5500sf for the new Harrisburg train station. This project is very similar in scope to the Hillsborough Train Station – it includes a 5500sf building designed with two wings to accommodate the station and a municipal police station, two low-level covered platforms building designed with two wings to accommodate the station and a municipal police station, two low-level covered platforms with a fully-accessible overhead connector, and a site design to integrate with an adjacent private mixed-use development.with a fully-accessible overhead connector, and a site design to integrate with an adjacent private mixed-use development. For your project, we have assembled a team of equally passionate and talented long-time collaborators with specific For your project, we have assembled a team of equally passionate and talented long-time collaborators with specific experience with train station planning, design, and approvals and NetZero and sustainable design as well as extensive experience with train station planning, design, and approvals and NetZero and sustainable design as well as extensive experience with the design and construction of public facilities.experience with the design and construction of public facilities. Roberta MK Fox served as Assistant Director of City Planning and Director of Raleigh’s Urban Design Center for more than a Roberta MK Fox served as Assistant Director of City Planning and Director of Raleigh’s Urban Design Center for more than a decade. During this time, she conceived of a new Raleigh Union Station within a formerly inaccessible active railroad wye, decade. During this time, she conceived of a new Raleigh Union Station within a formerly inaccessible active railroad wye, led the process to secure grant funding, and collaborated closely with Clearscapes to bring the vision for Raleigh Union led the process to secure grant funding, and collaborated closely with Clearscapes to bring the vision for Raleigh Union Station to fruition. Now, as the founder of Station to fruition. Now, as the founder of Catalyst DesignCatalyst Design, she leverages her public sector and design experience on a range , she leverages her public sector and design experience on a range of public and private projects with a special focus on strategic planning, consensus building, project delivery, and project of public and private projects with a special focus on strategic planning, consensus building, project delivery, and project implementation. Roberta regularly partners with Clearscapes for urban design and placemaking, community engagement, implementation. Roberta regularly partners with Clearscapes for urban design and placemaking, community engagement, stakeholder management, and grant writing.stakeholder management, and grant writing. Surface 678Surface 678 is nationally-recognized for their sustainable and community-centered site and landscape design. They have is nationally-recognized for their sustainable and community-centered site and landscape design. They have collaborated with Clearscapes on many of our civic projects – most notably leading the site design effort for Raleigh Union collaborated with Clearscapes on many of our civic projects – most notably leading the site design effort for Raleigh Union Station. Surface 678 worked previously with the Town of Hillsborough on the conceptual site analysis for this project and Station. Surface 678 worked previously with the Town of Hillsborough on the conceptual site analysis for this project and has worked extensively in Orange County with numerous projects for NC Botanical Gardens and UNC-Chapel Hill. They are has worked extensively in Orange County with numerous projects for NC Botanical Gardens and UNC-Chapel Hill. They are currently leading the site design for a planned NetZero warehouse complex in Research Triangle Park. currently leading the site design for a planned NetZero warehouse complex in Research Triangle Park. Ballentine EngineeringBallentine Engineering is a dedicated Orange County business and a long time collaborator with Surface 678. They will provide surveying, is a dedicated Orange County business and a long time collaborator with Surface 678. They will provide surveying, infrastructure assessment, and utility design, and will lead the civil engineering effort for all areas outside of the RR right-infrastructure assessment, and utility design, and will lead the civil engineering effort for all areas outside of the RR right- of-way. of-way. BeneschBenesch brings 75 years of national experience with railroad-related projects and is leading our project team for brings 75 years of national experience with railroad-related projects and is leading our project team for Harrisburg Train Station. They have previously worked in Hillsborough on the design of Gold Community Park and will lead the Harrisburg Train Station. They have previously worked in Hillsborough on the design of Gold Community Park and will lead the railroad review and approvals process and will provide civil engineering within the railroad right-of-way.railroad review and approvals process and will provide civil engineering within the railroad right-of-way. Raleigh Union Station, Breath of Gods Entry Plaza Canopy Section 1: Cover Letter Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package Sud AssociatesSud Associates has focused on sustainable design since their inception as an energy conservation consulting firm more has focused on sustainable design since their inception as an energy conservation consulting firm more than thirty years ago. Led by ASHRAE Fellow, Dr. Ish Sud, they are one of the most well-respected sustainable design than thirty years ago. Led by ASHRAE Fellow, Dr. Ish Sud, they are one of the most well-respected sustainable design and engineering firms in the southeast. They have completed detailed energy audits for a range of public and corporate and engineering firms in the southeast. They have completed detailed energy audits for a range of public and corporate clients and have led a number of sustainable projects including the design of a NetZero facility for the National Institute of clients and have led a number of sustainable projects including the design of a NetZero facility for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). They are currently working with the Town of Carrboro to develop a pathway to Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). They are currently working with the Town of Carrboro to develop a pathway to NetZero for their municipal buildings. Notably, Sud Associates collaborated closely with Clearscapes on the transformation of NetZero for their municipal buildings. Notably, Sud Associates collaborated closely with Clearscapes on the transformation of a vacant textile mill complex into a highly-sustainable mixed use village in Saxapahaw NC. a vacant textile mill complex into a highly-sustainable mixed use village in Saxapahaw NC. Lysaght & AssociatesLysaght & Associates has worked has worked with Clearscapes for nearly 40 years and has led the structural design effort for all of our rail and transit projects.with Clearscapes for nearly 40 years and has led the structural design effort for all of our rail and transit projects. With our collective team experience, we understand the opportunities and challenges that will shape this project as it moves With our collective team experience, we understand the opportunities and challenges that will shape this project as it moves forward. Simply put, securing approval for new passenger rail facilities on existing North Carolina rail lines with significant forward. Simply put, securing approval for new passenger rail facilities on existing North Carolina rail lines with significant freight traffic is not a simple or a straightforward task. As the designers of two of newest passenger stations in the state, we freight traffic is not a simple or a straightforward task. As the designers of two of newest passenger stations in the state, we know what is important to the range of different rail owners and operators from a design and technical perspective, and we know what is important to the range of different rail owners and operators from a design and technical perspective, and we have earned a level of trust that helps to streamline this schedule and process. At the same time, this project demands more have earned a level of trust that helps to streamline this schedule and process. At the same time, this project demands more than just an effective technical response. To be successful, this new station will need to work symbiotically with the planned than just an effective technical response. To be successful, this new station will need to work symbiotically with the planned surrounding development to create Hillsborough’s next great community space. With our focus on creating places that bring surrounding development to create Hillsborough’s next great community space. With our focus on creating places that bring people together in both the civic and the private realms, we understand this dichotomy and how to merge the two while people together in both the civic and the private realms, we understand this dichotomy and how to merge the two while balancing their different and sometimes conflicting needs. balancing their different and sometimes conflicting needs. Conflict of Interest DisclosuresConflict of Interest Disclosures Clearscapes and our proposed consultant team do not have any known conflicts of interest to report.Clearscapes and our proposed consultant team do not have any known conflicts of interest to report. Legal DisclosuresLegal Disclosures Clearscapes has never been in litigation with a client in our forty-year history. We have no pending claims, disputes, or Clearscapes has never been in litigation with a client in our forty-year history. We have no pending claims, disputes, or litigation in the past five years. Similarly, Catalyst Design, Surface678, Sud Associates, and Lysaght&Associates have no litigation in the past five years. Similarly, Catalyst Design, Surface678, Sud Associates, and Lysaght&Associates have no pending claims, disputes, or litigation in the past five years.pending claims, disputes, or litigation in the past five years. Ballentine Associates was named in one frivolous lawsuit in August 2020 file by a Chapel Hill neighborhood against the Town Ballentine Associates was named in one frivolous lawsuit in August 2020 file by a Chapel Hill neighborhood against the Town of Chapel Hill and Habitat for Humanity seeking to prevent the construction of an affordable housing project. That lawsuit of Chapel Hill and Habitat for Humanity seeking to prevent the construction of an affordable housing project. That lawsuit reached a mediated settlement in July 2021.reached a mediated settlement in July 2021. As a large firm with a national presence, Benesch has five outstanding and twenty resolved claims or litigation in the past five As a large firm with a national presence, Benesch has five outstanding and twenty resolved claims or litigation in the past five years. None of the cases involve the branch offices in this proposal. Details are provided separately on page 38.years. None of the cases involve the branch offices in this proposal. Details are provided separately on page 38. Corporate DisclosuresCorporate Disclosures Clearscapes PA is a registered North Carolina Professional Association founded in 1981 and headquartered in Raleigh NC. Clearscapes PA is a registered North Carolina Professional Association founded in 1981 and headquartered in Raleigh NC. We will be the team leader and the contract holder for the project with Fred Belledin, President, as the primary point of We will be the team leader and the contract holder for the project with Fred Belledin, President, as the primary point of contact. Our team is comprised of (14) people, including (7) architects, (5) architectural interns, and (2) administrative staff. contact. Our team is comprised of (14) people, including (7) architects, (5) architectural interns, and (2) administrative staff. Clearscapes is a North Carolina HUB certified Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE) and a registered Small Professional Services Clearscapes is a North Carolina HUB certified Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE) and a registered Small Professional Services Firm (SPSF) with the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT). As a dedicated small business, our annual billings typically Firm (SPSF) with the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT). As a dedicated small business, our annual billings typically range from $2.5-3.5million. range from $2.5-3.5million. The sampling of projects included in this proposal demonstrates our team’s collective passion for and commitment to The sampling of projects included in this proposal demonstrates our team’s collective passion for and commitment to collaborating with municipalities to create singular public and community facilities within the context of social equity, collaborating with municipalities to create singular public and community facilities within the context of social equity, ecological stewardship, and fiduciary responsibility. Our team’s participatory design approach unifies diverse stakeholders ecological stewardship, and fiduciary responsibility. Our team’s participatory design approach unifies diverse stakeholders around a central narrative and balances challenging regulatory, site, and budgetary constraints to yield beautiful, functional, around a central narrative and balances challenging regulatory, site, and budgetary constraints to yield beautiful, functional, place-specific design solutions that are broadly embraced by their communities. Your vision for a train station within a place-specific design solutions that are broadly embraced by their communities. Your vision for a train station within a new mixed use district along with your commitment to low or NetZero energy represents a unique opportunity to create a new mixed use district along with your commitment to low or NetZero energy represents a unique opportunity to create a connected community anchor and to establish a new standard for development in Hillsborough. We would welcome the connected community anchor and to establish a new standard for development in Hillsborough. We would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with your team to bring this vision to fruition.opportunity to collaborate with your team to bring this vision to fruition. Sincerely,Sincerely, CLEARSCAPES, P.A.CLEARSCAPES, P.A. Fred Belledin, AIA, PresidentFred Belledin, AIA, President mobile: 919.741.7360mobile: 919.741.7360 email: fbelledin@clearscapes.comemail: fbelledin@clearscapes.com The Town of Harrisburg and North Carolina Railroad Company (NCRR) are partnering to develop a new passenger rail station along Highway 49 at the primary vehicular access point into the town. The new station is needed to meet the growing demands for rail access to Amtrak and NCRR’s Piedmont and Carolinian lines for residents and employees north of Charlotte and in the growing university area. Benesch and Clearscapes are collaborating with Town leadership, NCRR, and Amtrak to create a mixed use station that will become a visual gateway into the town and provide easy and convenient access for rail passengers. Benesch is managing the project and has provided the site civil and landscape architecture for the entire site including grading and drainage (both inside and outside the railroad R/W), erosion control, utilities, hardscape and landscape. Clearscapes is developing the design of the station building, platforms, and overhead connector. The site is envisioned by the Town as a gateway into the community, and the siting of the station along with the “green” landscape setting will set the initial impression for travelers coming into Town as well as passengers arriving into the station. Building materials and colors were carefully chosen to bring the history of the old Harrisburg depot into the architecture while meeting the Town’s design guidelines. PROJECT DATA Project Size: 5,500sf / 2.35 acres Project Cost: $12,000,000 Project Involvement: Aug 2020 - ongoing KEY TEAM MEMBERS Brian Thompson, Benesch Lester Barnes, Benesch Fred Belledin, Clearscapes Chuck Lysaght, Lysaght & Associates PROJECT REFERENCE Donald Arant Project Manager North Carolina Railroad Company 919.534.0418 donaldarant@ncrr.com HARRISBURG TRAIN STATION MUNICIPAL / TRAIN STATION / MIXED USE HARRISBURG, NORTH CAROLINA Section 2: Project Qualifications 12 1 2 3 4 567 8 9 11 10 12 1 2 3 4 567 8 9 11 10 FRONT ENTRY ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION MTL ROOF PAINTED SIDING PAINTED SHAKE BRICK PRE-CAST PAINTED STEEL ANODIZED ALUMINUM MATERIAL PALETTE Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package 150 EAST ROSEMARY PRIVATE / MIXED USE CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA Surface678 and Ballentine Associates are leading the site and civil design for the new 225,000sf lab ready office building. The site includes the functioning NCNB Alleyway containing power, water, gas and sewer services that must be maintained for other properties. The much needed green space is designed to be a modern day town green, providing Rosemary Street’s equivalent to the adjacent post office’s Franklin Street plaza. Along East Rosemary Street the garage has no street interaction, but the new building will have commercial space along its length and an active streetscape will be developed. The project has integrated several sustainable design features including the use of permeable paver system and cistern for capturing and reusing site storm water and HVAC condensate. PROJECT DATA Project Size: 225,000sf Project Cost: $ TBD Project Completion: Ongoing KEY TEAM MEMBERS Eric Davis, Surface678 George Retschle, Ballentine PROJECT REFERENCE Michael Stevenson Principal Perkins Eastman 704.927.0484 m.stevenson@perkinseastman.com 150 East Rosemary is a state-of-the-art private and institutional research complex that will be the newest anchor of Chapel Hill’s emerging innovation corridor. The complex is arranged around a new green space at the corner of East Rosemary and Henderson Streets. Section 2: Project Qualifications Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package RALEIGH UNION STATION MUNICIPAL / TRAIN STATION / MIXED USE RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA Spanning over a decade of planning and design, Raleigh Union Station involves the conversion of an unremarkable mid-century industrial building into a multi-modal transportation center and gathering space that has transformed Raleigh’s National Register Depot District. More than a transit terminal, the project is now a destination - the “living room” for Raleigh’s creative district - with restaurants, retail, and offices as well as indoor and outdoor environments for public gatherings and events. Made possible by a unique partnership between all three levels of government (federal, state, and local) and five private railroad companies, the Clearscapes design team led an in-depth public engagement and stakeholder design process that directly enhanced the design solution and engendered public support. The project is designed to function immediately as an inter-city rail station with provisions to accommodate future light, regional, and high speed rail as well as bus service in an adjacent public/private development (in progress). The project reinvigorates an access-limited and environmentally-challenged brownfield site, transforming it into a bustling LEED Silver urban redevelopment with a range of integrated sustainable strategies such as: stormwater management via bioswales, rain gardens, green roof, and permeable pavers, a pollinator ‘mound’ that also addresses onsite contaminated soils, architecturally-calibrated daylight harvesting, and alternative low impact hvac approaches such as chilled beams. Showcasing the unique heritage of the former steel warehouse, the project interlaces old with new. Original rusted steel components are complimented by a simple, modern industrial steel palette to create an urban environment that is unique, authentic, and memorable. Located in the middle of a rare railroad wye, references to the track intersections are woven throughout the project, creating a metaphor for merging Raleigh’s rich past and its hopeful future. PROJECT DATA Project Size: 55,000sf / 6.5 acres Project Cost: $88 million (inc rail work) Project Involvement: 2012-2018 KEY TEAM MEMBERS Fred Belledin, Clearscapes Roberta Fox, Raleigh Urban Design Ctr Eric Davis, Surface678 Brian Thompson, Benesch Chuck Lysaght, Lysaght & Associates PROJECT REFERENCE Craig Newton Facilities Engineer NCDOT Rail Division 919.707.4731 cmnewton@ncdot.gov Beth Nooe Raleigh Urban Design Center 919.996.4635 beth.nooe@raleighnc.gov Section 2: Project Qualifications Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package PROJECT DATA Project Size: 80,000sf Project Cost: $10,000,000 Project Involvement: 2013-2017 KEY TEAM MEMBERS Fred Belledin, Clearscapes Roberta Fox, Raleigh Urban Design Ctr PROJECT REFERENCE David Eatman Transportation Director City of Raleigh 919.996.4040 david.eatman@raleighnc.gov Originally constructed in the mid-1980s, the Moore Square Transit Station had become functionally obsolete and did not provide the quality rider experience that GoRaleigh desired – especially in light of the passage of the Wake County Sales Tax dedicated to Transit. Working for WSP, Clearscapes participated in the transportation study that led to major station improvements at this critical inner-city transit center. Community engagement sessions were held at the station to gather input from users, surrounding business owners and major stakeholders to understand the needs, goals and aspirations for this project in order to inform design solutions. The addition of a third bus lane vastly increased capacity. New customer amenities including high quality restrooms, ticketing, and gathering spaces were reintroduced to this mid-block facility. A significant cross-block pedestrian connection linking Raleigh’s main street to one of its most important urban squares channeled major downtown pedestrian traffic through the facility, providing additional vibrancy to this important space. A high-quality urban courtyard was introduced, providing an amenity for the surrounding restaurants to spill into. A new six-story stair and elevator tower, wrapped in perforated aluminum panels and LED lighting, creates a glowing landmark for the surrounding downtown blocks. The most distinctive features of the renovated station are the glass canopies and glass shelters that provide an open and welcoming environment for patrons and pedestrians alike. The graphic panels integrate GoRaleigh Transit branding throughout the station and internally lit light boxes enhances user experience with warm glowing light. GORALEIGH TRANSIT STATION MUNICIPAL / TRANSIT STATION RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA Section 2: Project Qualifications Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package SAXAPAHAW RIVER MILL PRIVATE / MIXED USE SAXAPAHAW, NORTH CAROLINA “ a music venue that’s arguably the most elegant and interesting non-municipal performance space in the state. A wonder of concept, design and execution, the ballroom perfectly mirrors its surroundings…. It’s a brilliant work of art, meant to serve as an outlet for more of the same and an anchor for the community...” Grayson Haver Currin, The Indy Nestled on the banks of the Haw River in the rolling hills of the piedmont, the community of Saxapahaw is home to the former Dixie Yarn Mills. Working with a diverse stakeholder group comprised of former mill operator, a construction executive, a former NBA basketball star, a community activist, a butcher, and a school teacher, Clearscapes facilitated a highly interactive design process to realize their collective vision of a thriving and highly sustainable village that celebrates life on the river and honors the history of the mill. The former mill is now home to (29) residential lofts, a pub, a restaurant, a butcher, a brewery, and the 700+ capacity Haw River Ballroom. The design of the complex forges a new relationship between the historic buildings and the surrounding landscape. Selective slicing and removal of portions of the large, formerly windowless industrial footprints creates an intricate network of courtyards and pedestrian paths. Newly daylit buildings and balconies overlook these courtyards, a reconstructed Piedmont meadow, and an intimate amphitheater nestled into a former coal pit. A man made river comprised of a series of runnels, waterfalls, and rain gardens captures stormwater runoff and culminates in a constructed wetlands sited under the watchful eye of an environmentally-focused charter school. Sustainability is interwoven throughout the complex: - Campus-wide geothermal HVAC system - Campus-wide solar thermal hot water - Solar PV - 100% natural stormwater capture and treatment- Rainwater capture for all non-potable exterior water use - Graywater piping for toilets tied into an existing onsite water treatment plant - Pollinator landscapes - Extensive material salvage and reuse PROJECT DATA Project Size: 100,000sf Project Cost: $14,000,000 Project Involvement: 2008-2014 KEY TEAM MEMBERS Fred Belledin, Clearscapes Ish Sud, Sud Associates Misha Meinert, Sud Associates PROJECT REFERENCE Heather LaGarde Owner Haw River Ballroom 336.525.2314 heather@hawriverballroom.com Benesch Brian Thompson, PE Lead Rail Engineer Lester Barnes, PE, LEED GA Civil Engineer (RR RoW) Lysaght & Associates Chuck Lysaght, PE Lead Structural Engineer Clearscapes Brandy Thompson, AIA, LEED AP Principal Architecture Leader/Client Contact HUB WBE / NCDOT SPSF Clearscapes Fred Belledin, AIA Team Leader HUB Certified WBE / NCDOT Certified SPSF LEADERSHIP PROJECT TEAM Sud Associates Christian Kaltreider, LEED AP Energy Analyst Misha Meinert, PE Electrical Engineer Dixie Davis, PE Mechanical Engineer HUB Certified MBE Ballentine Associates George Retschle, PE Lead Civil Engineer Dillon Smith, PE Civil Engineer CORE TEAM Sud Associates Ish Sud, PE, PhD, ASHRAE, LEED AP BD+C, Principal Building Engineering Leader HUB Certified MBE Catalyst Design Roberta MK Fox, AIA, ASLA Principal Transit Leader/Urban Design Woman-Owned Business Section 3: Project Team Surface 678 Eric Davis, PLA, LEED AP Principal Site Leader HUB Certified MBE Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package CLEARSCAPES was formed in 1981 out of a collaboration between an architect and an artist, around the shared idea that architecture should be a functional work of art that serves to engage and inspire its users and their community. This simple premise of inspiration, collaboration, and community is the basis of our firm. We are a firm of architects and artists, and since our inception, we have merged the practice of architecture and art to inspire new ways of seeing and thinking about each. We are a firm of collaborators - we are in constant collaboration with each other, our clients, our consultants, and our communities. The stories of our projects are the stories of our clients; and our coworkers are empowered to share equally in the privilege and responsibility of bringing these stories to life in built form. We are a firm of citizen activists - as proponents of community-based architecture, we believe it is the responsibility of individuals to engage the broader community for the common good. Our coworkers can be found serving on city commissions and local, state, or national non-profit boards providing outreach with many local institutions, leading in professional organizations, serving as critics or lecturers in education, or participating in other grassroots initiatives. Clearscapes is a HUB Certified woman-owned full-service design firm comprised of (7) registered architects, (5) architectural interns, and (2) administrative support staff. Structured differently than traditional firms, our principals are intimately involved with every project from initial concept design through project closeout. We provide architectural design services for a range of public, private, and institutional clients across North Carolina. In addition, we have more than 100 public and private art installations throughout the US. Over the past 40 years, our commitment to design and client service is evidenced by the 80+ design awards that we have received and the fact that two-thirds of our work is for repeat clients. We have completed dozens of projects for municipalities across the state, including train stations, community centers, municipal complexes, performing and cultural arts centers, libraries, museums, and park facilities. We understand the responsibility that comes with designing important public facilities and the accountability for upholding a community’s vision in a fiscally responsible way to generate the greatest public value for future generations. CLEARSCAPES FIRM BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE Transfer Company Food Hall, Raleigh, NC OUR TEAM FIRM BACKGROUNDS, EXPERIENCE, AND PREVIOUS COLLABORATIONS John Chavis Memorial Park Raleigh NC CATALYST DESIGN 1 (Raleigh NC) provides a range of urban design and architecture services and is committed to helping organizations move through change to create better places for people. Roberta MK Fox, AIA, ASLA, Principal and Founder of Catalyst Design, has more than 20 years of experience with planning and design for private and public- sector projects with a special focus on strategic planning, project delivery, transportation architecture, community-led planning efforts, and people-centered spaces. Previous Collaborations In her previous position as Assistant Director of City Planning, Roberta’s collaboration with Clearscapes was essential to the success of the project. Early in the process, Clearscapes and Roberta re-imagined the previously- completed feasibility study and development approach, freeing up 20,000sf of leasable area by adding a modest addition at the back of the existing building for the back-of-house station function. Although this appeared counterintuitive, this approach greatly streamlined platform access and created revenue-generating space that allows the station to operate at a 20-30% deficit rather than the typical 80-90%, creating significant savings for the City of Raleigh over the useful life of the building. Roberta is currently collaborating with Clearscapes on two mission-driven redevelopment projects and a USGA headquarters in Pinehurst for which Roberta is utilizing the site design as an educational partnership with NCSU and as a test case for golf courses to serve as an interconnected series of pollinator landscapes. For this project, Catalyst Design will provide peer review for transportation design, help to guide the urban design of the project, develop the governance framework, stakeholder involvement and consensus building strategies, and help to identify potential grant and other funding opportunities. SURFACE 678 2 (Durham NC) is a landscape architecture firm dedicated to great design at the intersection of nature and technique. Along with design excellence, a major hallmark of Surface 678 is their emphasis on collaboration and communication. They achieve successful design through open, honest, and positive design collaboration among all parties. BALLENTINE ASSOCIATES (Chapel Hill NC) has been providing land planning, civil and environmental engineering, and land surveying services in Orange County and surrounding areas for more than 40 years. Surface678 and Ballentine have worked together on a number of public and private projects in Orange County including, most notably, the UNC-CH Arts Common and Ackland Art Museum. They are currently leading the site design for 150 East Rosemary, an innovative private and institutional research complex designed around a public town green. Previous Collaborations For the recently completed John Chavis Memorial Park, Surface678 and Clearscapes worked closely together to maximize the usability of a topographically-challenging landscape. Growing out of a strong community desire for more amenities than the existing site could accommodate, the new community center is carefully fit into an otherwise unusable hillside, and the building form is carved out to fit around a historic carousel and accommodate a future regulation 400m track that would not otherwise fit on the site. The form of the building is seamlessly integrated into a new circular community plaza with a multi-functional stage, infrastructure for food trucks and festival tents, and the largest interactive splash pad in Raleigh. For this project, Surface678 and Ballentine Associates will lead the site planning, civil, and landscape design and will manage the state environmental permitting process. Section 3: Project Team Raleigh Union Station Raleigh NC Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package BENESCH (Charlotte NC) is a multi-disciplined engineering and professional services firm that enhances infrastructure and communities across the country by creating spaces and connections in ways that make a difference. They have a national portfolio of rail engineering projects and have worked extensively on North Carolina rail corridors, building strong working relationships with leadership at NCDOT and all of the state rail owners and operators including NCRR, Norfolk Southern, CSX, and Amtrak. Previous Collaborations Benesch is the team leader for the design of the Harrisburg Train Station with Clearscapes designing the station, platforms, and overhead connector. The team completed 90% construction documents in 10 months, including a 2 month pause for owner decisions. For this project, Benesch will lead the civil engineering within the railroad RoW, review and coordinate with NCDOT and NCRR as needed on rail interface, and lead our coordination efforts through NCDOT for railroad approvals (NCRR, Norfolk Southern, and Amtrak). SUD ASSOCIATES 2 (Durham NC) has focused on sustainable design since their inception as an energy conservation consulting firm in 1979. Each project incorporates that experience including their expertise in energy modeling, a creative approach to sustainable technologies, and rigorous oversight during the assessment to the construction period to produce a product that works efficiently through the life of the building. LYSAGHT & ASSOCIATES (Raleigh NC) has a reputation for delivering innovative, practical and unexpected solutions, especially those with structural challenges or budget constraints. Their relevant experience includes Harrisburg Train Station, Raleigh Union Station, and the Raleigh Triangle Transit Authority Downtown Station. Harrisburg Train Station Harrisburg NC Saxapahaw Rivermill Saxapahaw NC Station Front Elevation Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"02 12 1 2 3 45678 9 1110 Station Rear Elevation Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"01 12 1 2 3 45678 9 1110 Previous Collaborations Sud Associates’ collaboration with Clearscapes on Saxapahaw Rivermill exemplifies our team’s commitment to optimizing the use of sustainable technologies to insure that they operate as cost effectively as possible. The property owners were committed to the idea of a campus geothermal heating and cooling system for the project. However, this system is not a logical choice for surge loads like the Haw River Ballroom. Sud Associates created a detailed model of projected heating and cooling demand for each of the spaces within the complex and worked with the owners and architects to develop different scenarios to balance the load and optimize the performance of the system. As a result of this effort, the Ballroom was ultimately designed with a base unit that utilized the geothermal loop and a separate peaking unit which balanced the loads and allowed for the overall system to be downsized from what was initially anticipated. The resulting savings were then allocated to a campus solar thermal hot water system. With the high water demands associated with the residential and food service components of the development, this approach resulted in a greater sustainable impact for the same level of investment that would have otherwise been committed to a larger but less efficient geothermal system. For this project, Sud Associates will lead the building engineering effort including all building energy and water usage modeling as well as research and recommendations for sustainable systems. Lysaght&Associates will lead the structural design of the station, platform, and site structural components. 1 Woman-owned business 2 HUB Certified MBE Section 3: Project Team PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE / ARCHITECT Fred has led many of Clearscapes’ largest and most sustainable projects. As a principal, he oversees collaborative design processes from project concept through construction. Long interested in both design and craft, Fred joined Clearscapes as an architectural intern in 1997, working in both the architecture and art studios. Today, Fred’s focus is on community-driven work including community centers and facilities, transit centers and destination mixed use and collaborative spaces. He brings special expertise in working with historic structures, completing dozens of historic tax credit projects and chairing state and local historic preservation boards and commissions. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Harrisburg Train Station, Harrisburg, NC Raleigh Union Station, Raleigh, NC Saxapahaw Rivermill, Saxapahaw, NC Amtrak Station & Crew Base, Raleigh, NC Amtrak Station Southern Pines, Southern Pines, NC John Chavis Community Center, Raleigh, NC Dix All Faiths Chapel, Dorothea Dix Park, Raleigh, NC Raleigh Convention Center, Raleigh, NC Marbles Kids Museum, Multiple Renovations and Master Planning, Raleigh, NC Transfer Company Food Hall, Raleigh, NC The Clayton Center for the Arts, Clayton, NC Historic Oak View Park, Raleigh, NC Mordecai Interpretive Center, Raleigh, NC Zebulon Town Hall, Zebulon, NC Brewhouse, Pittsburgh, PA AFFILIATIONS Preservation NC, Past Chair Raleigh Historic Development Commission, Past Chair Raleigh Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board, Past Chair NC National Register Advisory Committee Covington Foundation, Board Member EDUCATION Bachelor of Architecture with Honors Carnegie Mellon University, 1995 CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Registered Architect: North Carolina FRED BELLEDIN AIA BRANDY THOMPSON AIA, LEED AP PRINCIPAL / ARCHITECT Brandy joined Clearscapes in 2004, and as a Principal, is responsible for the leadership and development of projects throughout all phases of design and construction. She was drawn to architecture by her interest in historic preservation and adaptive reuse, and found a passion for improving communities through quality design and place-making. Brandy’s experience includes a range of public and private sector work, often requiring consensus building among complex stakeholder groups. Many of the projects Brandy has led are Historic Tax Credit projects and contribute to the preservation and revitalization of historic districts and cultural heritage sites across the state. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Dix All Faiths Chapel, Raleigh, NC NCSSM Academic Commons Addition and Dining Hall Renovation Advance Planning, Durham, NC Bureau of Mines Building Renovation, NCSU, Raleigh, NC Christ Episcopal Church Addition and Renovation, Raleigh, NC North Regional Library, Raleigh, NC Merrimon-Wynne Event Center, Raleigh, NC Contemporary Art Museum, Raleigh, NC Clayton Community Center, Clayton, NC SAS Building R Renovation, Cary, NC St. Philip’s Episcopal Church Campus Master Plan, Durham, NC Capitol Broadcasting Radio Headquarters, Raleigh, NC Episcopal Diocesan House Development Study, Raleigh, NC AFFILIATIONS LEED Accredited Professional, GBCI The American Institute of Architects (AIA) City of Raleigh Appearance Commission, Past Chair EDUCATION Bachelor of Environmental Design in Architecture North Carolina State University, 2001 Bachelor of Architecture North Carolina State University, 2002 CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Registered Architect: North Carolina Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package URBAN PLANNER / TRANSIT CONSULTANT Roberta has more than 20 years of experience practicing architecture, landscape architecture, and urban design for both public- and private-sector projects with a special focus on strategic planning, project delivery, transportation architecture, and the people-centered spaces around them. Roberta has left her mark on the transportation and social infrastructure of communities in Seattle, WA; Vancouver, BC; Washington DC; and, most recently in Raleigh, NC, where she served as the Assistant Director of City Planning and Principal Urban Designer at the Raleigh Urban Design Center. In this role, she influenced public space policy and design through a series of signature projects, including urban plazas, private use of public space regulation, community- focused/community-developed plans, and most notably Raleigh Union Station, a district-wide multimodal project she followed from inception through implementation. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Episcopal Diocese of Raleigh, Diocesan House Master Plan, Raleigh, NC New Bern Station Area Plan, Raleigh, NC Wakefield Area Plan, Raleigh, NC RTA FAST Network, Regional Freeway and Street-Based Transit Network Study, Raleigh, NC Coastal Dynamics Design Lab, Floodprint Project, Pollocksville, NC St. Phillip’s Episcopal Church, Campus Plan and Feasibility Study, Durham, NC West Morgan Area Study, Raleigh, NC* Raleigh Union Station Phase I, Raleigh, NC* Go Triangle, Raleigh Union Station Phase II, Raleigh, NC* *Prior to founding Catalyst Design AFFILIATIONS American Institute of Architects American Society of Landscape Architects American Planning Association EDUCATION Master of Landscape Architecture Louisiana State University, 2001 Bachelor of Architecture The Catholic University of America, 1998 CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Registered Architect: North Carolina ROBERTA MK FOX AIA, ASLA PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Eric Davis is vice president at Surface 678. He brings 25 years of experience in landscape design, master planning, recreational design, and community planning. The common thread throughout Eric’s work is a desire to impact the community through the creation of healthier, more enjoyable outdoor environments. Eric’s expertise is in master planning, creative design, and well-managed construction processes involving complex, multi-disciplinary teams. His park experience ranges from small neighborhood parks to national landmarks. Eric is strongly suited to projects involving public engagement, collaboration with artists, environmental and habitat consultants, and government agency coordination. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Durham Station Improvements, Durham, NC Hillsborough Train Station, Hillsborough, NC Raleigh Union Station, Raleigh, NC John Chavis Memorial Park, Raleigh, NC NC Museum of Natural Sciences Dueling Dinos Streetscape Improvements, Raleigh, NC Durham County Health and Human Services Complex, Durham, NC Beech Bluff County Park, Raleigh, NC Green Hills County Park, Raleigh, NC Greensboro Science Center & Zoo Expansion, Greensboro, NC Horseshoe Farm Nature Preserve, Wake Forest, NC Town of Cary Neighborhood Parks, Cary, NC Perry Street Parking Deck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA AFFILIATIONS American Society of Landscape Architects Town of Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, 2008–2010 Triangle Modernist Houses Board, 2015 EDUCATION Masters of Landscape Architecture University of California, Berkeley Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Planning University of California, Santa Cruz CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Landscape Architect: North Carolina, Maryland, Ohio, Texas, Virginia ERIC DAVIS PLA, LEED AP Section 3: Project Team PRESIDENT / CIVIL ENGINEER Mr. Retschle has over thirty years of diversified civil engineering and construction experience, through which he has developed strong masterplanning, infrastructure design, and project management skills. Mr. Retschle’s experience includes commercial, residential, mixed-use and industrial site design, as well as the design of university campus infrastructure. George has a strong background in stormwater management design is well-versed in sustainable design, having completed several LEED Certified projects. In addition to providing overall firm leadership as the firm’s President, Mr. Retschle also currently leads one of the firm’s engineering teams comprised of project managers, engineers, and designers. In this role, Mr. Retschle follows select projects from conception through closeout, with his responsibilities including project and scope definition, workflow scheduling, client and consultant coordination, coordination with government officials, and QA/QC. SELECTED EXPERIENCE 150 Rosemary, Chapel Hill, NC Glen Lennox, Chapel Hill, NC North Carolina State University Centennial Campus Infrastructure Phase V, Raleigh, NC State Employees’ Credit Union, multiple locations across the State including: Smithfield, Garner, Brier Creek (Raleigh), Henderson, Lumberton, New Bern Ave (Raleigh), Charterwood (Chapel Hill), Clayton, Garner, Shelby, and Wilkesboro, NC National Heritage Academies Charter Schools, Multiple Locations, NC AFFILIATIONS Member NSPE Town of Chapel Hill Stormwater Advisory Board, Co-Chair, 2015 Certified BMP Maintenance Certifier, City of Durham, NC EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering Technology Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Registered Professional Engineer: North Carolina, Virginia GEORGE RETSCHLE PE CIVIL ENGINEERING TEAM LEADER Mr. Smith joined Ballentine Associates in 2014 as and Engineering Intern and quickly became a standout leader within the firm, being promoted to Project Manager in 2018 and then Engineering Team Leader in 2020. Mr. Smith currently leads a very busy and successful engineering team with a diversified work load and client base. Mr. Smith has over twelve years of diversified civil engineering and surveying experience, through which he has developed strong design and project management skills. At Ballentine Associates, Mr. Smith works closely with all members of the design team in developing projects from concept through closeout, with his responsibilities including contracting, workflow scheduling, client and consultant coordination, coordination with government officials, project design, and providing design guidance to his team and others. SELECTED EXPERIENCE 150 Rosemary, Chapel Hill, NC Rolesville Charter Academy, Rolesville, NC Peak Charter Academy, Apex, NC Johnston Charter Academy, Clayton, NC Winterville Charter Academy, Winterville, NC Gate City Charter Academy, Greensboro, NC State Employees’ Credit Union, multiple locations across the State including: Smithfield, Garner, Brier Creek (Raleigh), Henderson, Lumberton, New Bern Ave (Raleigh), Charterwood (Chapel Hill), Clayton, Garner, Shelby, and Wilkesboro, NC Glen Lennox, Chapel Hill,NC South Green, Carrboro, NC AFFILIATIONS American Society of Engineers (ASCE) EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering North Carolina State University, 2010 CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Registered Professional Engineer: North Carolina DILLON SMITH PE Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package PROJECT ENGINEER Mr. Barnes has over 15 years of experience in Civil Engineering and has been involved in the development of plans for parks, commercial and residential sites, and other infrastructure improvements. His design expertise includes sanitary sewer systems, water, roadway, stormwater management and construction administration. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Harrisburg Train Station, Harrisburg, NC Mina Weil Park/W.A. Foster Recreation Center, Goldsboro, NC Harrisburg Park, Harrisburg, NC Washington Park, Lexington, NC Druid Hills Neighborhood Park, Charlotte, NC Canton Swimming Pool Replacement at Recreation Park, Canton, NC EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering University of Tennessee Knoxville CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: North Carolina, South Carolina NCDOT Level III Designer of Erosion Control Plans LESTER BARNES PE, LEED GA SENIOR RAILROAD ENGINEER Mr. Thompson has more than three decades of civil engineering experience, 26 years of which have been spent in a consultant role, focused on railroad and related industries. His experience includes railroad design, operations, grading, drainage, construction cost estimating, route selection, environmental permitting, feasibility studies, specifications, contract document development and construction engineering and inspection. He has worked with government agencies, private industries, and short line and Class I railroads. He understands the unique goals and objectives of each client and project. Having completed large and small projects for a variety of applications, Mr. Thompson offers a broad range of experience and problem solving skills. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Harrisburg Train Station, Harrisburg, NC Raleigh Union Station Track Design, Raleigh, NC Iowa Interstate (IAIS) - Chicago to Quad Cities, High-Speed Rail Service, Wyanet, IL to Moline, IL NCDOT Charlotte Gateway Station, CE&I, Charlotte, NC Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) - Johnson Avenue Yard Reconfiguration, Jamaica Station, New York, NY UPRR Sunset Route Double Track Project, Yuma and Gila Subdivisions in Arizona and California AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers Railway Association of North Carolina EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering University of Nebraska -Lincoln CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: Texas, Virginia, South Carolina, Ohio, North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida Basic Track Inspection Certification, Railway Education Bureau, Zeta-Tech Associates: Omaha, NE Rail Yard Design Practices, AREMA, Chicago, IL BRIAN THOMPSON PE Section 3: Project Team PRINCIPAL / MECHANICAL ENGINEER Dr. Sud is a highly experienced and seasoned mechanical engineer with more than 35 years of experience. He is an active member of ASHRAE, is an ASHRAE Fellow, has participated in several ASHRAE TCs and has helped author several ASHRAE Guidelines and Standards. He has expertise in Mechanical Engineering, resource conservation and sustainable design. He has been the manager and lead designer for numerous projects, including energy conservation measures and renovations to existing buildings, including lighting retrofits, HVAC, energy monitoring and control systems, and ADA and code compliance projects involving multi-disciplinary teams of designers. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Carrboro NetZero Pathway, Carrboro, NC NIEHS NetZero Energy Warehouse, Durham, NC Saxapahaw Rivermill, Saxapahaw, NC Fletcher Business Park Solar Thermal Heating and Cooling Plant, Fletcher, NC Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts Assessment, Design of New Chiller Plant, HVAC Upgrades, Life Safety Upgrades, Raleigh, NC National Park Service Rehabilitate Wright Brothers Visitor Center, Manteo, NC Renovation of Multi-Site Parks, Durham, NC Solid Waste Management Annex & Truck Wash, Study and Design, Durham, NC NC DOT Durham District Office, Replacement HVAC System Study and Design, Durham, NC NIEHS 2010 A/E IDIQ AFFILIATIONS US Green Building Council LEED AP BD+C ASHRAE Fellow EDUCATION Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Duke University Master of Science, Mechanical Engineering, Duke University B. Tech, Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: NC, TN, SC, VA ISH SUD PhD, PE, ASHRAE, LEED AP BD+C ENERGY ANALYST Mr. Kaltreider received his Master’s degree from the University of Colorado in Architectural Engineering, with a specialty in building systems. His training, employment with the National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL), and experience with Sud Associates has given him a broad background and deep understanding of building systems and how to model them. He has extensive experience with several energy modeling programs (DOE-2, Trace, eQUEST, AGI-32, PHOENICS) and is an expert at both modeling systems and reviewing models developed by others. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Carrboro NetZero Pathway, Carrboro, NC NIEHS NetZero Energy Warehouse, Durham, NC Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts - Assessment, Design of New Chiller Plant and HVAC Upgrades, Life Safety Upgrades, Raleigh, NC National Park Service, Rehabilitate Wright Brothers Visitor Center, Manteo, NC Renovation of Multi-Site Parks, Durham, NC Solid Waste Management Annex & Truck Wash, Study and Design, Durham, NC Donald W. Cameron Campus—Business & Industrial Bldg. and Central Energy Plant, Guilford Technical Community College, Colfax, NC NC DOT Durham District Office, Replacement HVAC System Study and Design, Durham, NC City of Catawba Energy Audits NIEHS 2010 A/E IDIQ Donald Julian Reaves Student Activity Center, Winston-Salem State University AFFILIATIONS US Green Building Council LEED AP BD+C EDUCATION Master of Science, Architectural Engineering: Building Systems Program, University of Colorado at Boulder CHRISTIAN KALTREIDER LEED AP BD+C Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Michael has more than 20 years of experience working on electrical engineering projects. He has done design, specification and construction management of building systems including power, fire alarms, normal/emergency lighting and electrical distribution systems; telephone, public address, security systems and IT cable plans for residence halls, schools, offices and other commercial buildings. He also has experience with design of roadway, area and sports lighting, high and low voltage electrical power distribution, instrumentation, and controls (E, I&C), SELECTED EXPERIENCE Carrboro NetZero Pathway, Carrboro, NC NIEHS NetZero Energy Warehouse, Durham, NC Saxapahaw Rivermill, Saxapahaw, NC Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts - Assessment, Design of New Chiller Plant and HVAC Upgrades, Life Safety Upgrades, Raleigh, NC National Park Service, Rehabilitate Wright Brothers Visitor Center, Manteo, NC Renovation of Multi-Site Parks, Durham, NC Solid Waste Management Annex & Truck Wash, Study and Design, Durham, NC Donald W. Cameron Campus—Business & Industrial Bldg. and Central Energy Plant, Guilford Technical Community College, Colfax, NC NC DOT Durham District Office, Replacement HVAC EDUCATION Masters of Electrical Engineering Fachhochschule, Bochum Germany CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: NC MICHAEL MEINERT PE PRINCIPAL / STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Chuck has 47+ years of experience as the structural engineer for governmental, educational, commercial, industrial and residential projects using steel, reinforced concrete, masonry, laminated wood, light gauge steel and heavy timber. His ability to develop creative and often unexpected solutions to structural and budget challenges is just one reason why architects, contractors and clients in more than 35 states want Chuck and his firm as an integral part of their team. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Raleigh Union Station, Raleigh, NC Harrisburg Train Station, Harrisburg, PA Cheek Clark Building Renovations, UNC Chapel Hill, NC Howell Hall Renovations, UNC Chapel Hill, NC Person Hall Renovations, UNC Chapel Hill, NC Frank Porter Graham Student Union Renovations, UNC Chapel Hill, NC New East Elevator, UNC Chapel Hill, NC The UNC Farm at Penny Lane, UNC Chapel Hill, NC Planned Parenthood Addition, Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill Cooperative Pre-School, Chapel Hill, NC Christ United Methodist Church, Chapel Hill, NC Church of the Holy Family, Chapel Hill, NC Cameron Ice House, Hillsborough, NC Nathan Hooker House, Hillsborough, NC EDUCATION Masters of Science, Civil Engineering North Carolina State University, 1976 Bachelor of Science, Architectural Engineering University of Texas 1972 CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. CHUCK LYSAGHT PE PROJECT AVAILABILITY CLEARSCAPES Section 3: Project Team / Section 4: Project Understanding, Methodology and Approach CLEARSCAPES CURRENT WORK Projects Under Construction Gem Theatre Improvements, Kannapolis NC - completion in 2021 City of Burlington Carousel House, Burlington, NC - completion in 2021 Projects In Design St. Philip’s Episcopal Church Master Plan, Durham, NC - completion December 2021 Harrisburg Train Station, Harrisburg, NC - completion Late 2021 / Early 2022 (design only) Six Cottages, Raleigh, NC - completion 2022 Missing Middle Infill Residential, Raleigh, NC - completion 2022 Historic Coker House Renovation, Chapel Hill, NC - completion 2022 Seaboard Social Hall, Wilmington, NC - completion Late 2022 / Early 2023 NC School of Science and Math, Durham, NC - Dining Hall Renovation - completion 2023 USGA Golf House Pinehurst, Pinehurst, NC- completion June 2024 Stewart Theater, Dunn NC - completion TBD Mann Center of North Carolina, Sanford, NC - completion TBD Pine State Creamery Redevelopment, Raleigh, NC - completion TBD Christ Church Columbarium, Raleigh, NC- completion TBD Chatham Mills Redevelopment, Pittsboro, NC - Completion TBD On-Call Design Services Contracts North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC- ongoing through 2022 We are careful to pursue only projects for which we feel we can make a meaningful difference. This opportunity to collaborate with your team to enhance connectivity within Hillsborough and beyond and to create a community anchor worthy of your community aligns perfectly with our firm’s passions and unique skill set. We have reviewed the current workload of our full design team and are confident in committing the resources to maintain your project schedule. Raleigh Union Station, Entry Plaza Canopy (prior to installation of integrated art) Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package Designing public spaces that reflect the broad aspirations of the community requires expertise, imagination, and innovation balanced with respect for the users and the culture of their community. At their core, these are places for people to connect - to ideas, to culture, to knowledge, and to each other. Yet each of these facilities bring a unique set of requirements to efficiently and effectively deliver the services and amenities expected by the community. Community participation in public art for Oberlin Rising, Raleigh NC - by Thomas Sayre / Clearscapes PROJECT APPROACH PROJECT UNDERSTANDING, METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH Our team and our firm are constructed to provide a smooth and well organized project delivery process. Clearscapes is structured differently than a traditional architecture firm—our principals are intimately involved with every project and each team member participates fully in the project design and delivery from initial concept through project closeout. Our comprehensive collaborative approach extends to the entire design team, the client, the construction team, and the broader community. This top-to-bottom continuity and collaboration is essential to our work—it ensures that each design team member takes ownership of the project goals and understands their individual responsibility for them, and that each design and engineering decision supports a holistic solution. It also breeds a deep familiarity with the project for each team member that streamlines both the design and construction process and eliminates many potential missteps or conflicts along the way. We are captivated by your project’s potential. From enhancing connectivity within your community and beyond, to charting a new sustainable path forward, to setting the stage for your next community anchor, a design process that is shaped by continuous collaboration with your team and thoughtful and consistent stakeholder engagement will help to ensure the transformative impact that is needed and a design solution that is a synthesis of community aspirations, municipal mission and needs, operational efficacy, and the pragmatics of budget and schedule. As advocates for participatory design, we propose to approach your project as an intense charrette-based design process. We will collaborate closely with your team and project stakeholders to ensure that key players all share ownership of the resulting design solution and a commitment to bringing the project to fruition. DISCOVERY Our approach begins with a comprehensive review of existing documentation to thoroughly understand the proposed program and the existing site and broader context and to create a material repository for our team’s process. We will use this time to begin to build a relationship with your team, investigate subsurface, site/civil engineering, and regulatory constraints in more detail, research the history of the site and neighborhood, and review all material compiled and completed for the project to date. STRATEGIC KICK-OFF WORKSHOP We will organize and lead a Strategic Kick Off workshop to launch the project and organize the working group, including your team and other project stakeholders as appropriate at this phase. This kickoff will clarify roles, project goals and processes, and stakeholder engagement strategies. SITE ASSESSMENT To be successful, the design solution must balance your needs and desires with the site’s natural and neighborhood context. A thorough site analysis will build upon earlier studies and allow us to optimize the approach to station and associated rail operations and to meaningfully weave that design into the larger site plan and broader neighborhood fabric. Examples of some of the aspects to be explored include: We will review available site surveys and testing completed to date and identify any additional work that may be required. Ballentine’s in-house team will complete any needed site, topo (NAVD88), and utility (SUE levelB) survey work as well as any needed stream buffer delineation and/or subsurface testing. Site access appears to be reasonably considered with the proposed internal roadway. Based on anticipated ridership, the possibility of future bus operation, and the anticipated overall site build out, we will assess the need for any Traffic Impact Analysis (T.I.A.) and/or potential roadway improvements beyond the site boundaries. Similarly, based on your vision for multimodal connectivity, we will assess bike, pedestrian, and potential bus access into and within the site, including potential greenway and/or bike/ped connections to downtown, the Riverwalk Greenway, and the planned Collins Ridge greenway. For rail access, we will include an assessment of the current track alignment (horizontal and vertical) and the proposed station and platform location as well as considerations for a potential additional future platform with an overhead (or underground) connection should a second track be contemplated by NCDOT in the future. We will assess the stream buffer adjacent to the planned station site and its potential impact on future development connectivity, including the possibility of a stream crossing(s). We will assess stormwater requirements, calculate runoff and facility size requirements, and will evaluate a range of options to best integrate the stormwater approach with the site and architectural concepts and to further your sustainability goals. We will review the anticipated site build out to assess any opportunities for shared parking or to confirm self-park requirements for the station. We will explore potential shared parking solutions for the site using the most current best practices. CONCEPT DESIGN A vision for a future place has to be about more than the place. It has to encompass the aspirations of the community, show the way to a future, and be exciting enough to demand implementation yet pragmatic enough that people believe that it can and will happen. The concept design process will test options to allow you to prioritize what is most important and will ultimately establish the framework for creating a memorable and enduring design solution that will serve your community for future generations. We anticipate that this phase will be organized around three primary charrettes and formal review meetings with additional informal meetings as appropriate. Working from the ideas, priorities, and general discussions that arise during the charrettes, we will develop multiple design alternatives for the site layout, station and platform (with consideration for adjacent development and bus service), and bike/ped connections beyond the site. These alternatives will be further evaluated and tested in collaboration with your team and ultimately narrowed down to three concepts for additional study. Each alternative will incorporate, at a minimum, each of the following: • Conceptual layout of the station, platform and connector and the broader site with provisions to accommodate the desired program • Road plan and access including driveways and provisions for emergency vehicle, bus, and delivery access • Concepts for bike/ped/vehicular/mass transit circulation within the site and connectivity to downtown and beyond, including considerations for future enhanced multimodal connectivity such as expanded bus service • Determination of code-required and functionally Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications PackageSection 4: Project Understanding, Methodology and Approach necessary parking counts to support your project, including potential time of use scenarios • Layout of open spaces and natural areas - including the adjacent stream buffer area - with an eye towards sustainable principles • Utility, stormwater management, and other infrastructure provisions • Zoning and regulatory framework • Civic, narrative, and sustainability design aspirations We will provide illustrations and graphics to demonstrate the layout and development strategies and a summary of constructibility and long term operational and maintenance considerations to allow for a sound and intentional decision-making process. With our team’s considerable construction and development experience, we will develop Rough Order of Magnitude (RoM) cost comparisons to assist in evaluating the options. SCHEMATIC DESIGN Once one of the three concept alternatives has been identified as the preferred approach, we will further develop the site and architectural design and begin early transition into technical design in preparation for Town and State site review and to allow for preliminary energy modeling to assess sustainable strategies and more refined project costing exercises. Throughout this process, each planning and design decision will need to be carefully considered for functional, environmental, budget, building performance, and experiential or civic impact. Ultimately, a design solution must be developed that maintains the vision of your team and the community while accommodating the necessary range of pragmatic requirements: Building Systems and Sustainability We will evaluate a range of potential HVAC systems for consideration by the team to balance first and life-cycle costs in parallel with strategies for on- or off-site energy generation. Similarly, we will develop high-efficiency lighting strategies in parallel with daylight harvesting to minimize costs. We will evaluate potential structural systems for consideration by the team and will develop preliminary member sizes. We will assess opportunities for integrating sustainable principles into the design, including Net Zero. We will prepare preliminary analyses including: daylight factor calculations, preliminary base building characteristics and parameters for the energy model, and preliminary documentation for any selected sustainable design standard (TBD). Site Systems We will continue to refine the access, circulation, parking, grading, stormwater, utility, and tree conservation strategies for the project and will begin to investigate habitat opportunities. Regulatory Framework We will develop the preliminary accessibility / life safety / building code approach and summary for the building and site. Early in this phase, we will begin coordination with the Town to streamline the site pre-submittal process and NCDEQ to prepare for state permits. Later in this phase, we will begin meeting with Orange County to review and discuss the building code approach. Schematic Design deliverables will include drawings, specifications, a preliminary opinion of probable cost, and other analyses and reports consistent with the standards outlined in Sections 504/505 of the State Construction Manual. Regulatory and review submittals at this stage will include, at a minimum: Rezoning and CUP submittal to the Town of Chapel Hill, courtesy review by the State Construction Office, and 30% schematic reviews routed through NCDOT to a number of project partners. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Once the schematic design has been approved, we will begin developing the architectural, interiors, and engineering design in greater detail. Systems and structural engineering will be carefully integrated into the building design and key architectural concepts will be fleshed out. We will continue to refine and update sustainable strategies including life cycle cost analysis and other calculations as well as documentation for any selected sustainable design standard (TBD). Design Development deliverables will include drawings, specifications, an updated opinion of probable cost, and other analyses and reports consistent with the standards outlined in Section 507 of the State Construction Manual. Regulatory and review submittals at this stage will include, at a minimum: courtesy review by the State Construction Office and 60% design development routed through NCDOT to the project partners. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS During the construction documents phase, we will prepare the project for permitting and bidding and complete the design optimization. We will review details and material and equipment selections with project partners to ensure that they are durable, cost- effective, easily maintained, and energy efficient. We will finalize the life cycle cost analysis and other calculations as well as documentation for any selected sustainable design standard (TBD). Construction Document deliverables will include final drawings, specifications, and opinion of probable cost, and other analyses and reports consistent with the standards outlined in Section 507 of the State Construction Manual. Regulatory and review submittals at this stage will include, at a minimum: building permit applications to the Town, land permit applications to NCDEQ, courtesy review by the State Construction Office, and 90% construction document reviews routed through NCDOT to the full range of project partners (GoTriangle, NCRR, NS, Amtrak). CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION We view construction administration as an extension of our design approach. To ensure continuity and to capitalize on the depth of knowledge developed during the design process, the team members that develop and document the design will also perform construction administration. With their combined knowledge of the project design as well as construction detailing, our team members in the field understand exactly what to look, and when needed, how to correct deficiencies or make adjustments in a way that does not impact the design. We have found this approach to be extremely effective in streamlining the construction process and in minimizing potential errors and cost increases. Successful Construction Administration begins with complete and clear contract documents that have been fully coordinated by the design team. As the Team Leader, Clearscapes will oversee the work of our full consultant team in the completion of contract documents and their involvement during Construction Administration. Timeliness is key to successful Construction Administration, whether solving a construction-related challenge in the field, reviewing submittals, answering a Request for Information (RFI), issuing Architect’s Supplemental Instruction (ASI), or reviewing proposed Change Orders (PCO). Construction cost and schedule are directly impacted by the design team’s quick response to these issues. Creating an accurate, complete, and reasonable submittal schedule is important so that the design team can anticipate and schedule their personnel to complete these reviews within the time frame allotted. Tracking all submittals, RFIs, ASIs, PCOs, and COs by electronic logs accessible by all members of the project team, while knowing at any time the status of each, who is responsible for the resolution, and the time frame available, is essential to keep the project on schedule. We often require field mock-ups of all major building elements and finishes as a technique to establish the quality level expected and solve any technical challenges that may exist in complex assemblies. This leads to a collaborative process between designer and craftsman and assures a high- quality end result. Coordination drawings prepared by the contractor and reviewed by all trades and the design team is also an important step to ensure conflicts are resolved before becoming field problems. Management of the Owner’s construction contingency is another primary responsibility of the Architect during construction. Each cost proposal will be reviewed by the design team for appropriateness, thoroughness of documentation, and whether it reflects true market value for the work. Clearscapes will track and prepare change orders in a timely manner to be able to track the Owner’s contingency balance METHODOLOGIES We employ an integrated system of careful advance planning and regularly scheduled monitoring that empowers each of our team members while holding the entire team responsible for the success of the project. QUALITY CONTROL At Clearscapes, we celebrate design’s ability to solve problems. We find this goal is best attained via an integrated design process. It relies upon a multidisciplinary and collaborative team whose members make decisions together based on a shared vision and a holistic understanding of the project. We recognize that such an approach often requires additional effort and collaboration during the early phases of the project. However, when goals have been more thoroughly explored and ingrained within the team, projects can be executed more thoughtfully, taking advantage of building system synergies and insight from engineers and construction managers—while ultimately saving money. Quality control is built into every phase of our work, as critical questions change with each evolutionary phase of the project. To judge the quality of a design and constructability, one needs to be as close as possible to experiencing the finished spaces—or seeing the building in its context. At Clearscapes, we rely on two specific strategies to ensure Quality Control success: senior level Quality Assurance leaders (working independently from the project design team), and utilization of a systematic approach to QC review which ensures consistency and reliability of document content. Central to this systematic approach are the following tenets: • Contract Document Checklist: Used by project managers to establish prescriptive standards for phase Section 4: Project Understanding, Methodology and Approach Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package deliverable requirements, design phase collaboration and milestone-based activities. • REVIT Standards: Establishes standards for all BIM activities, including multi-discipline model coordination, digital transfer protocols, and model content quality. • Guide to Consultants: Prescriptive guidelines for engineering and specialty consultants, which dictate expected deliverables by phase, coordination and communication protocols, and document quality standards. • Peer Reviews: At each phase of design, independent QC peer reviews of the entire document set (drawings and specifications) by the Quality Assurance team. Peer reviews include all aspects of contract document content, with focus on chronic issues in construction coordination, most notably interdisciplinary coordination of mechanical and electrical systems at interstitial spaces, and building envelope coordination and detailing. The result of this consistent, rigorous approach to quality control is directly manifested in a reduction in field coordination issues and change orders, resulting in high client satisfaction and client success. It simultaneously maintains a dual benefit of keeping a large team working together and towards the same criteria and goals. BUDGET CONTROL At project outset, we verify that the budget is realistic for the desired scope through benchmarking. This includes the detailed evaluation of comparable facilities and systems, in order to establish achievable budget targets. Factors include quality expectations, local cost indexes, and special site conditions. During each phase of the project, our firm and team are expected to utilize a value-based decision- making process which considers relative cost versus performance of materials and systems. We evaluate these options with the client to make informed decisions Throughout the design process, we use cost databases to develop cost estimates utilizing unit pricing, with ongoing input from consultants. This is a continuous, interactive process throughout design. Because of the frequency and size of work that Clearscapes and our consultant team does with important public buildings and sites in North Carolina, we maintain a current database of cost information that allows our budget estimating to be accurate. Clearscapes has bid (3) complex renovations and new construction of public buildings in the last (2) months which has allowed us to update our database to reflect the unique market conditions the construction industry is currently experiencing due to the high demand and reduced industry capacity. Historically, our estimates fall within the pricing spread submitted by the contractors on bid day. Finally, a “second voice” in the cost estimating process is essential - especially in light of unusual current market conditions. We will work with you to determine if independent third-party consulting is appropriate for this project. If so, we typically partner with Palacio Collaborative to fulfill this role. This is a partnership with years of experience under its belt. They have developed a specialized Cost Modeling system unique to their company that assists in understanding, setting and reconciling project scope and budget. This is the critical first step in improving the opportunity for project success. Palacio notably understands current market conditions and is able to project future construction trends. We are happy to provide additional information on the Palacio team and their capabilities. Our recently bid projects reflect the highly overheated construction market that we are experiencing. With the use of carefully designed alternates and collaborative value engineering, we are able to move these projects into the construction without impacting the project goals, increasing the budget, or delaying the schedule. SCHEDULE CONTROL As with the early budget generation, we will prepare an overall draft project schedule for the Strategic Kickoff Meeting by receiving input from all the stakeholders in this project. The schedule will identify all key landmark dates with time frames for each project phase duration. All regulatory reviews that impact this project will also be clearly defined along with their durations. Each month Clearscapes will update the schedule, indicating actual accomplishments versus anticipated progress. If there are schedule impacts that affect the project’s progress, including the need for additional time for decision-making on the Owner’s part, we will provide options on how to overcome these delays so that you can make conscious decisions on the overall project’s time frame. The Design Team also is willing to add additional staff to accelerate portions of our work to overcome schedule impacts beyond our control. During construction, we will review the contractor’s updated construction schedule and monitor their progress. If work slips behind schedule, we will require that they prepare a recovery schedule to demonstrate how they will overcome the delay and maintain the project delivery date. Our construction documents will require construction schedule adherence with approval of monthly payment request certification to insure compliance. Raleigh Union Station, Track Elevation Section 4: Project Understanding, Methodology and Approach Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package PROJECT SCHEDULE MONTH Phase Workshop ToH / Orange Co Agencies North Carolina DISCOVERY Strategic Kickoff Town of Hillsborough NCDOT and GoTriangle SCO Courtesy Review (Rezoning / CUP / ZCP) (per "Agreement") (per "Agreement") Orange County NCRR / Norfolk Southern / NCDEQ - DEMLRCONCEPT (20%)Options Charette 1 (Building Permit)Amtrak (coordination) (Land Disturbance) Options Review NCDEQ - DWR / PLS Sustainability Charrette 1 (Water / Sewer) Options Charette 2 Select OptionSCHEMATIC (30%)Schematic Charrette Sustainability Charrette 2 Presubmittal 1 month Schematic Review Rezoning / CUP NCRR/NCDOT/GoTriangle SCO Courtesy Review (30%) DESIGN DEV (60%)DD Charrette 9 months 30 day comment period 30 day comment period 15 day resolution period 30 day resolution period DD Review NCRR/NCDOT/GoTriangle SCO Courtesy Review (60%) PERMIT DOCS (90%)30 day comment period 30 day comment period 15 day resolution period 45 day resolution period Land Disturbing Permit + Water / Sewer ExtensionZCP / Site Permitting NCDEQ 3-4 months 3 months FLOAT PERIOD CD Review NCRR/NCDOT/GoTrianglePermit/Agency Reviews Norfolk Southern/Amtrak SCO Courtesy Review (60%) Building Permitting (2 cycles)45 day comment period 30 day comment period 1-2 months 15 day resolution period 45 days resolution period CON DOCS (100%) NCRR/NCDOT/GoTriangle Norfolk Southern/Amtrak 45 day final review period 17 12 13 14 15 16 DESIGN REGULATORY APPROVALS 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 24 18 19 20 21 22 23 This preliminary schedule is for reference and may be adjusted as we better understand your needs and priorities as they relate to the following assumptions: 1. The Concept Design period assumes a +/-20% design level for the three concepts. This duration may be adjusted if needed to better reflect the desired level of detail and/or to reflect a more or less intensive feedback and review process. 2. The Rezoning/CUP process is the critical schedule path. This overall projected schedule may shift accordingly if this process is shortened or lengthened. 3. This schedule assumes that construction documents will proceed in parallel with the Rezoning / CUP process. If preferred, the schedule may be extended to start construction documents once the rezoning / CUP is completed in order to reduce upfront cost and mitigate any potential risk. 4. It is understood that various agency reviews will be facilitated by NCDOT. Based on our experience with review time frames for the RR companies, some additional time has been factored in beyond what is indicated in the “Agreement”. Please note that RR review periods are unpredictable and may extend even beyond what is currently shown. Our team will work with you to adjust this schedule if/as desired based on desired scope, sequencing of regulatory reviews, and other variables. NET ZERO AND A SUSTAINABLE VISION FOR THE FUTURE Getting to net zero energy is easy to understand: Consume less energy + generate that much energy renewably. The real task is achieving this affordably, especially in challenging climates. Our team is able to accomplish this because we have the experience doing deep analyses of new and existing buildings (including ASHRAE audit methodologies) and the in-house expertise to do energy modeling, daylight simulation, and cost-estimating, We work side-by-side with contractors throughout the design and construction process to achieve the best result at the lowest cost. However, we believe that successful and meaningful sustainable design is more than just about what technologies to use and the technical expertise that we bring to your project. We will meet with the Town to discuss and understand your needs and goals for uses of the space to begin to understand how a particular suite of sustainable strategies and technologies can be optimized for the program and also become a meaningful part of the visual and spatial narrative that is developed for the overall development. Our approach to sustainability is highly open and collaborative and would include Town leaders, engineers, and facilities staff, the design team, and equipment vendors and partners. Concept development will be creative and far reaching, though the emphasis in final decisions and implementation will be placed on sound, practical, cost effective technologies and approaches. Systems are not sustainable if they are not both economically reasonable and technically functional. Our ability to identify and implement pragmatic and cost effective sustainability measures is demonstrated by the fact that most of our sustainable projects, including those involving cutting edge technologies, have been for private clients seeking stringent economic returns. NET ZERO AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN COLLABORATIVE, PRACTICAL, AND COST EFFECTIVE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Our team understands that sustainable design is not just about what technologies to implement, though that is an important part of the process. We believe that sustainable design is fundamentally a process of collaboration, integration, and creativity with a forward-thinking perspective; it is primarily a mindset and process that leads to innovation and ensures that the right mix of sustainable design solutions emerge for a particular set of project conditions. Section 5: Net Zero and Sustainable Experience Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) worked with Sud Associates to design and construct a Net-Zero Energy warehouse and office as a model project for the agency. The resulting facility includes warehouse storage, office/administrative, warehouse support, and freezer spaces and is the first government-owned building within the Department of Health and Human Services to earn a Net Zero Energy rating. The building has exceeded expectations, producing 38 percent more energy than it used during the first year of occupancy. Notable project features include: • Photovoltaic roof panels can generate electricity equivalent to 100 percent of the building’s use. Since occupancy began, the building’s excess energy could run approximately 12.5 homes of 2,000 square feet. • Variable refrigerant flow cooling and heating offers high-efficiency temperature control. Routed refrigerant piping, instead of a duct system, can heat one area while cooling another. • Bathrooms are equipped with low-flow technology and rainwater harvesting. • Natural gas infrared heaters warm the receiving area • Daylight is harvested via skylights. Solar light tubes funnel light from the roof into interior spaces. Sud Associates was the Team Lead of the Bridging Documents. PROJECT DATA Project Size: 25,000sf Project Cost: $10 million Project Involvement: 2017-2018 KEY TEAM MEMBERS Ish Sud, Sud Associates Michael Meinert, Sud Associates Christian Kaltreider, Sud Associates PROJECT REFERENCE Mr. Samuel M. Musulin, P.E. NIEHS 919.541.3313 NIEHS NET ZERO WAREHOUSE INSTITUTIONAL / NET ZERO RTP, NORTH CAROLINA PROJECT LIGHTYEAR PRIVATE / NET ZERO RTP, NORTH CAROLINA Section 5: Net Zero and Sustainable Experience The Lightyear Project is a Net-Zero warehouse facility for a confidential client in RTP. The proposed facility is approximately 50,000 sf of warehouse space designed to support the client’s production within RTP. The building and site have been designed to rely on both onsite geothermal and solar energy harvesting to operate at a net zero energy use. Surface 678 provided site design for the facility including all pedestrian connectivity, vehicular access and service area design. Site capacity for future expansion was carefully considered during the site design process. PROJECT DATA Project Size: 50,000sf Project Cost: $1,859,081 Project Completion: Ongoing KEY TEAM MEMBERS Eric Davis, Surface 678 PROJECT REFERENCE Christopher H. Small Principal Hanbury Architecture + Planning 919.714.1027 Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package CARRBORO NET ZERO PATHWAY MUNICIPAL / NET ZERO CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA Carrboro’s Strategic Energy and Climate Action plan calls for Town facilities to work toward net zero energy use. Two initial steps toward that end are to define net zero explicitly and to perform energy analyses on the 12,235sf Town Hall, the 19,912sf Century Center, and the 6,300sf Public Works complex. Sud Associates worked with Town leaders to develop a pragmatic and achievable pathway towards meeting this goal. Sud Associates was engaged to provide energy analysis and net zero consulting services as part of an overall architectural assessment. First, they established a framework to create a specific definition of the metric and boundary to be used in evaluating “net zero” and developed strategic concepts for how to meet this standard. Implications of the various options for defining net zero were discussed, and the Town Council settled on an official Town definition which uses greenhouse gasses (GHG) as the net zero metric, and which allows off-site renewable energy to be used in offsetting a building’s GHG emissions. Next, they conducted a detailed energy analysis of each building including: • Review of facility documents and site visits to confirm conditions • Analysis of utility data including building usage and schedules • Detailed research into existing and potential new building equipment • Creation of energy simulations and water usage spreadsheet models • Completion and calibration of energy simulations and water models Finally, Sud Associates combined the information learned from the energy analyses with the net zero definitions chosen by the Town to provide basic recommendations for general strategic approaches to moving each building toward net zero. PROJECT DATA Project Size: 38,447sf combined Project Cost: $TBD Project Involvement: 2020-2021 KEY TEAM MEMBERS Ish Sud, Sud Associates Christian Kaltreider, Sud Associates PROJECT REFERENCE Jim Spencer Jim Spencer Architects 919.960.6680 Section 5: Net Zero and Sustainable Experience Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package The facility brings together fiber suppliers and users under one roof to educate the broader community about the process. Towards this end, the building is a unique combination of industrial facility and educational community center - in addition to the testing and processing facilities, it contains a community library, conference rooms, and a catering facility to serve both interior and exterior events. The design of the building illustrates the process of turning fleece into fiber. The three core-ten steel roof forms, each with a subtly different pattern, represent the three distinct staples of the alpaca coat, each with a distinct fiber length or texture. The cypress represents the more vulnerable body of the animal with the fleece removed. As they patina, the core-ten and cypress cladding merge with the vernacular barns and outbuildings of the western North Carolina landscape. The owner’s commitment to a natural and sustainable fiber process is also carried through in the design of a highly sustainable building. A geothermal system, 90% natural daylighting, LED fixtures, and a comprehensive building energy management system help to reduce energy use 40% over comparable buildings. Low-flow fixtures, process water filtering, and rainwater harvesting help to reduce water use by 40% over comparable buildings. A 76kV solar PV system provides electricity. All storm water is treated by on-site bioswales. The project has achieved LEED Gold Certification. PROJECT DATA Project Size: 17,000sf Project Cost: $5,250,000 Project Involvement: 2010-2012 KEY TEAM MEMBERS Fred Belledin, AIA Chuck Lysaght, PE PROJECT REFERENCE Julie Jensen, Owner Echoview Farms 828.645.3473 julie@echoviewfarm.com SUSTAINABLE FEATURES LEED Gold Registered Geothermal Heating/Cooling Solar Thermal Hot Water 76kW Solar PV System Daylight Harvesting Rainwater Harvesting Process Water Recycling Community Resource Center Considered the first new textile processing facility to be constructed in North Carolina in the last twenty-five years, Echoview Fiber Mill is envisioned as a “crossroads for industry and community”. It serves to assist farmers and breeders with the processing of wool, mohair, angora, alpaca, llama, exotic fibers such as yak, camel, buffalo and vegetative fibers such as hemp and bamboo. ECHOVIEW FIBER MILL PRIVATE / LEED GOLD WEAVERVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA APPENDIX BENESCH LEGAL DISCLOSURES OUTSTANDING CLAIMS AND LITIGATION Case Number: 18-2218 (Nebraska) Basis: On March 18, 2016, the teenage plaintiff stepped into the roadway and was struck by a car in an area with no sidewalk (prior to or during construction). Benesch provided design services, but not construction observation. Status: On March 28, 2019, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice. The plaintiff, now an adult, is seeking damages in the amount of $500,000 in combination from all defendants. Case Number: 19 6035346-S; Superior Court J.D. of Ansonia at Milford (Connecticut) Basis: On September 25, 2018, heavy rainfall (5.8”) and Contractor failure to follow design drawings allegedly caused flooding at adjacent properties. Benesch was a sub to KB, an architectural firm, for design of new athletic fields for Derby High School. Benesch provided engineering support for design (including drainage) and limited CA services, but no construction observation. A suit was filed by the homeowners against (1) The City of Derby (2) Turco Golf, Inc. and (3) Kaestle Boos Associates, Inc. On December 27, 2019, Turco Golf filed an Apportionment Complaint against Langan Civil Engineers, Benesch, Turner Construction and John J. Brennan Construction. The apportionment complaint doesn’t seek affirmative relief, it just seeks to limit Turco’s liability. In order for Benesch to have liability, the plaintiff or one of the other original defendants would have to plead over seeking liability against Benesch. Status Ongoing. It is unlikely that Benesch has any liability in this matter. Case Number: 2019L008148; Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division Basis: Benesch is named as a defendant in a suit stemming from an injury to an Area Equipment employee on November 14, 2018, on a project at Canal Street under the Congress Expressway. Benesch provided design services for a temporary shoring plan to Area Equipment, who was a sub-contractor to Lorig Construction, under the terms of an on-call professional services agreement with Area. Benesch’s scope did not include any project site services, nor did Benesch have any employees on site, and had no knowledge of the injury until serviced with the complaint. Status: Ongoing. It is unlikely that Benesch has any liability in this matter. Case Number: CV-P1-2014-135 (Connecticut) Basis: On November 26, 2018, Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise named Benesch as a third-party defendant in this matter seeking contractual indemnification for amounts they paid in settlement. This project was initially contracted by Purcell and Associates (an acquired company), but was completed after merger with Benesch in 2012. This suit alleges that on May 13, 2013, the plaintiff sustained injuries stepping off a sidewalk that intersected with a handicapped slope that was designed by Purcell; however, the contractor and client intentionally deviated from Benesch’s design during construction. Status: Ongoing. Benesch is defending this case and it is unlikely that Benesch has any liability. Case Number: 2016L0105074, 16 L5389, 2017 L 07057 and 16 L003443 (Illinois) Basis: The suit stems from a March 25, 2016 limousine accident in a construction zone on I-90 near the Stage 3B area of construction. Benesch did the design of this section. According to reports, the driver was blinded by sun and struck the concrete barrier. One person died and 6 others were injured. This is the second suit relating to this accident. Benesch was named in this suit on October 5, 2016. Status: Ongoing. In July 2021 the judge granted the defendants motion for summary judgement based on the driver of the limousine as the sole proximate cause of the accident; however, plaintiffs responded by filing Notices of Appeal which are pending disposition with the court. RESOLVED CLAIMS AND LITIGATION Case Number: CI19-44 (Nebraska) Basis: On February 16, 2021, Benesch was named as a third-party defendant in a case for extra work and backcharges related to the construction of the York Ballfield Complex. The dispute centers around cracking of the concrete in the dugouts, which the contractor claims are design defects and Benesch (and York) maintain that the design of the slabs was delegated to the contractor. Outcome: This matter was settled pre-trial in July 2021, with Benesch and the City each agreeing to contribute $15,000 to a $30,000 settlement. Case Number: 2018 L 005438 (Illinois) Basis: On January 19, 2021, Benesch was added as a defendant in a lawsuit that resulted from a vehicle collision at 26th Street and Pulaski on September 22, 2017, allegedly as a result of construction at the intersection. Benesch was a subconsultant to C*NECT, a joint venture between Civiltech and Infrastructure Engineering, under a contract for Project Management Consulting for Capital Improvement Projects. Outcome This case settled during a pre-trial conference on March 17, 2021, with plaintiff agreeing to accept $50,000. Benesch’s general liability carrier agreed to contribute $10,000 to the settlement in an effort to bring the matter to a quick resolution. Case Number: 2019-008545; Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pennsylvania Basis: On December 4, 2019, Benesch was named as a defendant in this suit claiming damage to property due to the destructive vibrations in the excavation of the property and roadway near plaintiff’s property. Benesch had design and construction engineering services, but did not provide construction observation Outcome: This matter was settled pre-trial in February 2021 with plaintiffs agreeing to accept $60,000, of which Benesch contributed $4,000. Case Number: 20183008026; Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Third District Basis: Commuter Rail Construction Team (CRCT) is a joint venture between Benesch and V3 providing Construction Management Engineering Services for various METRA capital projects, which are assigned on a task-order basis. On August 5, 2019, Benesch was named as a defendant in this suit stemming from a trip and fall accident that occurred on December 1, 2017, at Healy Station. A train overshot the platform, and Fiala allegedly tripped and fell over a metal object that was protruding from gravel near one of the platforms when walking across the gravel to board the train. Outcome: This matter was settled pre-trial in February 2021, with plaintiffs agreeing to a settlement of $30,000, of which Benesch’s general liability carrier contributed $5,000. Case Number: S-583-18 (Pennsylvania) Basis: On June 19, 2018, Benesch was named as a defendant, along with 20 other individuals/entities. The suit stems from a request from the Borough to investigate the structural integrity of multiple structures sited on parcels 64-02-0006.000 and 64-02-0003.002. The investigation was conducted by Benesch employee, Dominic Yannuzzi, who determined that the buildings were unsafe and constituted a dangerous structure or premises according to the Borough’s ordinance. The basis of the Complaint is that a neighbor had an illegal sewer hookup to the Plaintiff’s sewer lateral, which ultimately caused all the damage to the subject properties. There was an extensive legal battle between the Borough and Cruz, which required Yannuzzi to testify in court. The Complaint does not list any grievances with Benesch’s evaluation. Outcome: Plaintiff abandoned this case and Benesch, along with the two employees named as defendants in this action were dismissed from the case with prejudice on December 28, 2020. Case Number: KNL-CV-19-6043315-S; State of Connecticut, Superior Court in New London Basis: On October 23, 2019, plaintiff filed suit directly against Benesch and South Coast Development in state court. This case is related to the same matter Lemire previously filed in tribal court against the Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, and in which Benesch was named a third-party defendant for the purpose of contractual indemnification by the MPTN. This project was initially contracted by Purcell and Associates (an acquired company), but was completed shortly after the merger with Benesch in 2012. This suit was filed by Bethany Lemire alleging that on May 13, 2013, she sustained injuries stepping off a sidewalk that intersected with a handicapped slope that was designed by Purcell. Outcome: Per a settlement conference in October 2020, Lemire agreed to accept $115,00 to settle this matter, with Benesch and the Contractor, South Coast Development, each agreeing to contribute $57,500. Case Number: 2018-C-3284; Supreme Court of PA Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, Lehigh Co. Basis: On January 5, 2019 Benesch received a Notice to Defend resulting from Brayman Construction’s loss of their drill rig in August 2017. Brayman claims the loss resulted from a failed dewatering plan prepared by Benesch for the replacement of Bridge RV 24.81 over Swabia Creek in Lower Macungie Township PA. Benesch was engaged to design repairs and modifications to the substructure and replacement of the superstructure for this bridge under a Master Services Agreement with Norfolk Southern. Trumbull was the general contractor for construction of the bridge replacement. Outcome: Per a settlement conference in July 2020, Charter Oak agreed to accept $150,000 to settle this matte, with Benesch and the Contractor, Trumbull Corporation, each agreeing to contribute $75,000. Case Number: 2016-L-003349 (Illinois) Basis: This suit results from a vehicle accident that occurred on May 11, 2014 on Interstate 290 in the area approximately 500 feet west of Devon Avenue in Elk Grove Village. Mr. Auriemma, who was driving an SUV and towing a boat on a trailer, struck the concrete/cushioned barriers causing the boat to break free from the trailer and strike his vehicle. Claimant alleges the barriers had been placed improperly in the left driving lane, which had been reconfigured to become part of the left shoulder without appropriate warming signage during the roadway construction project. Mr. Auriemma claims that he sustained serious and permanent injuries in this accident. Benesch was the Design Section Engineer on this project. Outcome: This matter settled for $560,000 in a pre-trial settlement on April 11, 2019, with Old Republic Insurance Group agreeing to fund $250,000 of the settlement on behalf of its insureds and additional insureds (including Benesch). Case Number: 2017 CA 001468 (Florida) Basis: On August 10, 2017, Benesch was named as a Successor Entity to Ghyabi & Associates (an acquired company) in the above referenced suit. FDOT claims errors and omissions in the construction plans and contract documents relating to the underdrain installation in the reconstruction of a portion of this roadway. Outcome: This matter was settled through mediation on July 18, 2018 for $500,000, with Ghyabi’s insurance carrier contributing $300,000 towards the settlement. Case Number: 2016 L 001174 (Illinois) Basis: The suit stems from a pedestrian injury that occurred on November 18, 2015 at the intersection located at South LaSalle Street and West Madison Street. Benesch provided construction engineering services for the Chicago Department of Transportation on this Central Loop Bus Rapid Transit project. Benesch received a summons naming Benesch in this matter on July 18, 2016. Outcome: This matter was settled on December 15, 2017 for $35,000, with Travelers paying $5,000 on behalf of Benesch. Project Name: Plant Wide Fire Alarm and Protection System Upgrade and Integration (Michigan) Basis: This claim is for increased costs of work incurred by the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) from construction change orders made by the contractors, Motor City Electric. Benesch provided Engineering and Construction Administration for this project. The GLWA admits that the costs would have been required regardless of any alleged errors or omissions in Benesch’s design; however, damages were incurred due to the increased cost of labor being performed under a change order instead of under the original bid. The GLWA has requested a contribution from Benesch in the amount of $75,294.88. Outcome: Benesch agreed to reduce their amendment for extra work by $20,000. Case Number: 170101695 (Pennsylvania) Basis: This suit stems from an accident that occurred on January 17, 2015 on the Bridge over Longshore Avenue on I-95 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Thomas Hosgood sustained injuries while he was seated in a heavy piece of machinery removing concrete decking off the bridge and a portion of the bridge collapsed. Benesch served as the prime design consulting firm on this contract and did not provide either construction management or construction inspection services. URS provided design for the Longshore Avenue bridge in question. Outcome: This matter was resolved through mediation on November 15, 2017, with Benesch’s general liability carrier, Travelers, agreeing to pay $25,000 towards a $1,050,000 total settlement. Case Number: S-1905-15 (Pennsylvania) Basis: On November 3, 2015, Benesch received a Writ of Summons stating that Heim Construction had commenced an action against Echo Bridge, Cameron Bridge Works, Cameron Manufacturing & Design, Alfred Benesch & Co., and AECOM. This claim relates to additional charges incurred by the Contractor, Heim Construction totaling approximately $30,000. The charges were for work related to a partial deck collapse during the initial deck concrete pour of a 130’ pedestrian bridge that was bid as a design-build; plans were provided by the bridge manufacturer and Benesch’s role was review of the bridge shop drawings. Outcome: A Release and Settlement Agreement was executed in September 2017, with Benesch paying $16,000 towards the total settlement of $37,000. Case Number: 201302558 (Pennsylvania) Basis: Benesch was named as an Additional Defendant in this suit that was filed on November 17, 2014. This suit involves a pedestrian accident that occurred on November 3, 2012, in a construction zone on a project that Benesch designed. Benesch is not providing construction services on the project and had no one on site. The accident occurred at an intersection where the traffic signals had been removed. Benesch’s design included temporary light design. Outcome: Matter settled in September 2017 for $5,000. Benesch was not a party to the settlement and was dismissed from the suit. Case Number: 15L06608 (Illinois) Basis: On July 23, 2015, Benesch received a summons regarding this personal injury case that relates to a 2011 contract between METRA, IHC Construction, Illinois Constructors and Benesch for the Englewood Flyover Bridge Project, for which Benesch is providing Construction Management Services. On February 19, 2014, an employee of Michels Corporation – (subcontractor of IHC and Constructors) was injured while performing pile driving work on a Klemm drill rig. Outcome: In May 2017 this matter was resolved with a settlement of $77,000, of which Benesch agreed to pay $4,000. Benesch is currently awaiting the formal paperwork dismissing Benesch from this case. Case Number: 150803452 (Pennsylvania) Basis: On September 1, 2015, Benesch received a Notice to Defend in this suit which stems from construction work on the I-95 project at or around the Cottman-Princeton Interchange, which began in September 2013 and is ongoing. Plaintiffs claim that excavation and other construction activities have disturbed the structural integrity of their property and the building located on their property, and are claiming damage to their property “well in excess of $75,000” both in physical damage and loss of revenue. Outcome: On January 3, 2017, Benesch received copies of the executed Stipulations of Dismissal from both the plaintiff and co-defendants in this matter confirming that the case against Benesch had been discontinued. Case Number: 10581 CV 2013 (Pennsylvania) Basis: Alfred Benesch & Co. filed suit against Pioneer Construction in April 2014 for non-payment of fees (including interest, unbilled services and legal fees) totaling $154,494, which stemmed from a 2010 Design-Build contract for this PennDOT project. In May 2014 Pioneer filed a preliminary objection arguing that Benesch’s claim for Prompt Pay Act damages be dismissed because the project was a PennDOT job, and PennDOT is excluded from the provision of the Commonwealth Procurement Coder under which Benesch is seeking payment. In January 2015, the judge issued an order denying Pioneer’s preliminary objections, and Pioneer responded with a countersuit alleging errors and omissions. Outcome: Resolved through execution of a settlement agreement in August 2017, whereby Benesch and Pioneer mutually released each other from all claims. Case Number: 2014L012107 (Illinois) Basis: This suit, filed against a number of defendants including BV3 ( a joint venture with V3 and Alfred Benesch & Company) alleges Construction Negligence and Loss of Consortium resulting from the injuries sustained by an employee of the Contractor, F.H. Paschen, on the job site. Outcome: In May 2017 this matter was settled out-of-court between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s employer, Paschen, in the amount of $400,000. Paperwork formally dismissing Benesch from the case is forthcoming. Case Number: 2014-435 (Pennsylvania) Basis: Benesch was engaged by the Galeton Borough Authority (“GBA”) in 2010 to design new infiltration gallery intake structures to supply a peak 2025 design flow of 220,000 gpd and an average demand of 182,000 gpd. The infiltration galleries were place online in October 2013, and by September 2014 they began experiencing flows at 1/3 of average and ¼ of peak production. Benesch has been actively working with the GBA to identify possible causes for the low flows; however, the client filed a Writ of Summons naming Benesch as a defendant on November 5, 2014. Outcome: To avoid litigation Benesch agreed to a settlement offer of $40,000 in March 2017. Case Number: 2012 L 003901 (Illinois) Basis: This suit involves the death of James Quigley, an employee with S&J Construction, who was killed at the project site on April 9, 2012, while working on the erection of a bridge over Torrence Avenue on the 130th/S. Brainard Avenue/S. Torrence Avenue Realignment and Improvement project. Benesch is one of seven defendants in this case. Outcome: Resolved in July 2017 through a settlement paid by S&J Ironworks’ insurance carrier, Old Republic, to whom most defendants tendered their defense. Hillsborough Train Station: Qualifications Package Raleigh Union Station Concourse green roof AGENDA ABSTRACT | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: Governing Board Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Mayor Jenn Weaver ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Continue board discussion on returning to in-person meetings Attachments: None Brief summary: At the August regular meeting, the board shared thoughts and comfort levels for returning to in-person meetings. The board agreed to continue remote meetings while allowed under the governor’s state of emergency and reassess monthly. Action requested: Brief check in only, give staff direction if necessary. ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: See above. Financial impacts: None Staff recommendation and comments: For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 7.E Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session AGENDA ABSTRACT: Item to be considered | 1 of 1 Agenda Abstract BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting date: Dec. 13, 2021 Department: All Public hearing: No Date of public hearing: N/A PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT Department Heads ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED Subject: Departmental Reports Attachments: Monthly departmental reports Brief summary: N/A Action requested: Accept reports ISSUE OVERVIEW Background information and issue summary: N/A Financial impacts: N/A Staff recommendation and comments: N/A For clerk’s use AGENDA ITEM: 8.C Consent agenda Regular agenda Closed session ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Human Resources/Town Clerk Report: November 2021 Meetings and events • Bi-weekly human resources team meeting • Weekly GARE Countywide Racial Equity Plan Co-Leads meeting • Monthly NCHIP board meeting • Monthly Triangle J Council of Government HR Roundtable conference calls • Civic Clerk agenda software demo (11/16/21) • Monthly Diversity Equity & Inclusion Core Team Meeting • Board of Commissioners regular meeting (11/8/21) Employee Events and Training Recruitment and Selection (* = filled) • Police Officer o Recruitment opened (2/19/20) o Continuous recruitment (204 applicants to date) o Start date: 01/04/2021 o Start date: 7/5/21 o Start date: 10/15/21 o Start date: 11/1/2021 • Accounting/Payroll Technician o Recruitment open (4/19/21) (14 applicants) o Recruitment closed (4/30/21) o Readvertised (6/10/21) o Recruitment closed (7/5/21) (48 applicants) • Lead Utilities Inspector o Recruitment open (5/10/21) o Recruitment closed (5/27/21) (2 applicants) o Readvertised (6/23/21) o Recruitment closed (7/12/21) (3 total applicants) • Civil Engineer o Recruitment opened (6/23/21) o Recruitment closed (7/12/21) (6 total applicants) o Readvertised (9/24/21) o Recruitment open until filled (5 applicants to date) • Utility Maintenance Technician I, II, III o Recruitment opened (9/10/21) o Recruitment open until filled (15 applicants to date) • Planner o Recruitment opened (9/03/21) o Recruitment closed (9/19/21) (8 total applicants) o Start date: 11/1/21 • Facilities Coordinator o Recruitment opened (10/4/21) o Recruitment closes (11/3/21) (26 applicants to date) o Offer accepted; start date TBD • Equipment Operator/Equipment Operator Trainee o Recruitment opened (10/20/21) o Recruitment open until filled (7 applicants to date) • Budget & Management Analyst o Recruitment opened (10/20/21) o Recruitment closed (11/17/21) (16 total applicants) • Human Resources Analyst o Recruitment opened (10/29/21) o Recruitment closed (11/28/21) (66 total applicants) Pay and Benefits • Biweekly payroll (2) • Merit increases • FMLA – 10 Notice of Eligibility and Rights & Responsibilities sent (2021) Wellness • Weekly onsite nutrition counseling (offered remotely) • Wellness mini-grant program Performance Evaluation • Maintained NEOGOV PE system Professional Development • Master Clerks Academy I & II (Sarah) (11/17-11/19) • UNC SOG-Race Matters: Courageous Conversations for Leaders (Haley) (11/05/21) Miscellaneous • Quarterly Employee Newsletter Public Information Office Report: November 2021 Subscriptions EMAIL (as of Nov. 30) List Subscribers Change Total 1,417 ↑ 2 News 1,313 ↓ 2 Meeting notices 716 ↑ 4 Bid postings 597 ↑ 4 SOCIAL MEDIA (as of Nov. 30) List Subscribers Change Facebook 4,942 ↑ 14 Twitter 2,707 ↑ 25 Nextdoor 6,599 members ↑ 39 4,134 households ↑ 22 YouTube 2,936 ↑ 4 Work • Added future train station project page to the website. • Photographed several happenings including Arbor Day tree planting, fire station groundbreaking and holiday tree assembly. • Discussed communications with a subcommittee of the Water and Sewer Advisory Committee and requested listing of 12 key messages to promote throughout the year. • Continued work on branding rollout, including checking proofs, creating or assisting with new templates, updating documents, working on swag project, working with clerk on framing and matting of seal, creating banner design for mayor and board to use in holiday parade, working with graphic designer on additional needs. • Worked on various town materials, including December print newsletter for insertion in utility bills, community survey, newcomers guide, draft community engagement section for OneOrange racial equity framework, curbside collections calendar. • Within Administrative Services: Reviewed racial equity training proposals, attended demonstration of minutes and agenda software, worked with clerk on streaming options for in-person board meetings. • Manager attended Racial Equity Institute groundwater training and UNC School of Government employment law training. Safety and Risk Manager Report: November 2021 Meetings Attended/Conducted • Departmental meeting • HR Team meetings • Budget kickoff meeting • Safety Committee meeting Site Inspections • Fleet Facility • Wastewater Treatment Plant • Police Headquarters • Police Substation • Public Works Facility • Water Treatment Plant • Gold Park • Turnip Patch Park • Murray Street Park • Hillsborough Heights Park • Cates Creek Park Miscellaneous • On target with 4th quarter random FMCA drug screens • Annual Town Wide Fire Extinguisher Audit – Pye/Barker • Gathered pertinent information and submitted 2 workers comp. grant requests • Property & Liability Grant request to the NCLM • Worked on employee training schedule • Working on workers comp. claims • Working on completion of incident reviews (Safety Committee) • Stocked/distributed/ordered safety gear • Working on inspection requirements with Safety Committee members • Distributed updated safety wear • General duties concerning new facility at Hwy 86 North • Forwarded safety inspection results to departments • Collecting fire extinguisher monthly check sheets • Forwarded recommendations (work orders) generated from park and facility inspections Planning and Economic Development Division Report November 2021 FY 22 Revenues Collected Planning & Review Fees $28,719.38 (57% of budget) Data is through November 30, 2021 for both permits and Certificates of Occupancy. Data for completed developments has been removed but totals still reflect all previous activity. Public Works Report: November 2021 Work Orders 30 completed within two days Public Spaces 36 staff hours Cemetery 1 grave marked Asphalt Repairs 4 potholes, 4 utility cuts Training 2 staff attended 2 separate trainings thorough ITRE Installation of Christmas Decorations 26 staff hours Leaf Collection 72 loads of leaves December 2021 BOC Meeting TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH UTILITIES STATUS REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 2021 Prepared by Marie Strandwitz 12/6/21 Page 1 BRIC Applications A meeting is scheduled December 14 to receive feedback on the two projects for which applications are submitted: OWASA booster pumping station and River Pumping Station relocation. Additionally, the consultant team will be submitting these applications also to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for additional/backup funding opportunities. Water Restrictions As of August 3, we are on a Stage 1 water withdraw restriction due to low flow in the Eno River. This means we need to release a little bit more from the reservoir to make up any difference over 1.510 mgd withdrawal. If Lake Orange gets to 24" below normal pool (currently at 13" below), Stage 2 withdraw restrictions will be placed into effect. The state has just deemed our area a drought designation of D2 (Severe Drought) or D1 (Moderate Drought). If no signifcant rain occurs within the next few weeks, voluntary water restrictions will be requested by proclamation. PROJECT STATUS West Fork of the Eno Reservoir The reservoir is 33.9 feet. The releases met or exceeded the minimum required release. Both Lake Orange and Lake Ben Johnson are spilling. The new Phase 2 normal pool elevation is 53' so we have a ways to go in filling the reservoir. This gives the director concern over the vegetation previously cleared and the timing of regrowth. WFER Phase 2 Construction Project The final payment request for the project is being developed. The Town needs to transfer easements and right of way to NCDOT. Signs need to be ordered and placed per the restrictive deed agreement related to conservation land. WTP The filter project is underway and good news is there are no major issues with Filter 1. The caps do need to be replaced as they broke, and the sand filter media needs replenished. Collection System Modeling and Lawndale Evaluation We are awiting the formal report regarding the Lawndale sewer study findings and working on temporary solutions to relieve the River sewer basin interceptors. Staffing The Utilities Department is in need of an engineer and is expanding its job posting in this area. No effort has been made towards a Lead Inspector as work has been light. When Collins Ridge starts back up, an inspector will be needed. Water and Sewer Advisory Committee (WSAC) Activities WSAC in-person meetings have been cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic. The next meeting is (was) December 2. Rate restructuring is the main theme. An in-town member position is being solicited and will be looked at early next year. Development and Town Project Activity Collins Ridge is moving forward with Phase 1B and a transmission main along James J. Freeland Memorial Drive. The car dealership behind Sheetz is progressing. Water and Sewer Extension Contracts are on the agenda for these projects. We are working to accept the Odie St. project and release both Corbinton Commons and Crescent Magnolia from their warranty bonds after punch work is completed. The interconects project is complete and a final pay application and record drawings are being developed. There remains increased inquiries on parcel development within our service area. The Water and Sewer Extension Contract has been updated with various fees for inspection, and final record reviews. These will make their way to the budget fee sheet soon.