Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft report - Vision Committee 1995mmm V REPORT OF THE STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN VISION SUB C ON[ IITTEE Subcommittee Members Curtis Bane Trudy Cuffe Judson Edeburn David Yelton Dean Zehnder Meeting Dates September 26, 1995 October 4, 1995 NOTE: In preparation of the DRAFT Vision Statement, the Vision Subcommittee also considered a preamble. Various ideas were discussed, but time constraints precluded the subcommittee making a recommendation. One subcommittee member suggested incorporating text discussed for the preamble into the body of the Draft Vision Statement. This is attached as ALTERNATIVE VISION STATEMENT with the text changes in bold italics. D�3aff� REPORT OF THE STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN VISION SUBCO EE Existing land use patterns in the Stoney Creek area reflect the nature of its rural heritage. Expanses of agricultural active and inactive) and forest land are interspersed with residential development of varying scales, most of which occurs on lots exceeding one acre in size and served by single wells and septic systems. An expanding municipality on the area's periphery and its location between two interstate highways enhance its attractiveness for development and contribute to pressures for change. Development of a "vision" for the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan has considered the natural, cultural, and visual resources of the area in the context of diverse viewpoints expressed during the planning process. Two key themes have been prominent and seem central to development of the plan. These are, first, that it is important to retain elements of the present rural character for the area so far as it is economically feasible for property owners, and second, that property owners should receive fair value for their land should they choose to sell or develop it in some way. The Stoney Creek Small Area Plan should serve to guide future changes in the Stoney Creek Basin area while recognizing its rural heritage, cultural, historical and natural resources, and the rights of individual property owners. In this regard, the goals of the Orange County Rural Character Study seem particularly relevant in defining the vision for the area. Specifically, they focus on balancing development with agricultural preservation, protection of natural, cultural, and visual resources and managed growth, while maintaining flexibility for landowners." Elements of the plan should address the following: • Development of mechanisms which will encourage preservation of rural landscapes including as much of forested and agricultural land - and active farming - as economically feasible for the landowner. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of significant cultural and historical features and the development of criteria and incentives for encouraging their preservation. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of natural _terrain features and sensitive ecological areas and the development of criteria and incentives for assuring their protection. • Recognition of the generations of land stewardship by rural landowners and the protection of their property rights and land values by providing a variety of development options which will allow for flexibility and creativity in design. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory and incentives visual resources and the development of criteria for assuring their protection. • Protection of the character of existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses /densities and the direction of growth that is not rural in character toward municipal /urban transition areas where it can take advantage of existing MMnA 7 ALTERNATIVE VISION STATEMENT Existing land use patterns in the Stoney Creek area reflect the nature of its rural heritage. Expanses of agricultural (active and inactive) and forest land are interspersed with residential development of varying scales, most of which occurs on lots exceeding one acre in size and served by single wells and septic systems. An expanding municipality on the area's periphery and its location between two interstate highways enhance its attractiveness for development and contribute to pressures for change. Development of a "vision" for the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan has considered the natural, cultural, and visual resources of the area in the context of diverse viewpoints expressed during the planning process. Two key themes have been prominent and seem central to development of the plan. These are, first, that it is important to retain elements of the present rural character for the area so far as it is economically feasible for property owners, and second, that property owners should receive fair value for their land should they choose to sell or develop it in some way. Defining a "vision" has in many ways, been like trying to define beauty; it is largely in the eye of the beholder. One person may envision preserving all that is natural and unspoiled in the area leaving little opportunity for future development. Another may view those same natural settings and visualize quiet neighborhoods nestled into the landscape with meandering lanes, parks, trails, small farming patches, and maybe even a country store. Still others may see the beauty of the area in its prime location and accessibility. Contiguous undeveloped tracts could be developed into a village with a wide variety of housing, some commercial and employment opportunities, convenient local services, recreational, and educational facilities. And if designed properly, this village could produce a much healthier tax base for the County as a whole. Each of these visions for the Stoney Creek area is based on reality, plus a sincere desire to "do right" by the residents already here and those yet to come. However, any of the visions, if zealously pursued to the extreme, will preclude the possibility for other equally valid visions to take place. Therefore, we must attempt to define our "vision" as one of compromise, creativity, flexibility, and fairness. The Stoney Creek Small Area Plan should serve to guide future changes in the Stoney Creek Basin area while recognizing its rural heritage, cultural, historical, and natural resources, and the rights of individual property owners. In this regard, the goals of the Orange County Rural Character Study seem particularly relevant in defining the vision for the area. Specifically, they focus on balancing development with agricultural preservation, protection of natural, cultural, and visual resources, and managed growth, while maintaining flexibility for landowners. Elements of the plan should address the following: • Development of mechanisms which will encourage preservation of rural landscapes including as much of forested and agricultural land - and active farming - as economically feasible for the landowner. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of significant cultural and historical features and the development of criteria and incentives for encouraging their preservation. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of natural terrain features and sensitive ecological areas and the development of criteria and incentives for assuring their protection. • Recognition of the generations of land stewardship by rural landowners and the protection of their property rights and land values by providing a variety of development options which will allow for flexibility and creativity in design. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of the area's visual resources and the development of criteria and incentives for assuring their protection. • Protection of the character of existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses /densities and the direction of growth that is not rural in character toward municipal /urban transition areas where it can take advantage of existing infrastructure. By recognizing and acknowledging that we have a responsibility to balance all aspects of the character of this area (rural heritage, rights of landowners, and likelihood of future change) , the Stoney Creek Basin Land Use Plan should, therefore, seek to preserve as many important elements of rural character and special natural features as financially feasible, while still allowing for quality expansion and growth of rural and country suburban neighborhoods (including some very limited, internally oriented, commercial and service locations that fit in with a preserved rural character) . This must all be done without unfair or unreasonable financial restrictions or burdens either for the landowners who may desire to develop their property, or for the taxpaying citizens of the area who may have to pay for any negative effects or excess costs for public infrastructure of ill - planned development. DRAFT NENUTES STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 The Stoney Creek Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, September 14, 1995 at 7:30 PM in the EMS facility training room, New Hope Church Road, Chapel,Hill, North Carolina. Members Present: Lee Rafalow, Judson Edeburn, Bob Strayhorn, David Yelton, Steve Price, Curtis Bane, Michael Warner, Dean Zehnder, Elio Soldi, Bob Hall, Meg McKean, Bill Bracey, and Renee Price (arrived at 9:00 PM). Members Absent: Bobby Nicholson, Trudy Cuffe, Gary Hanker, Dan Teichman, Keith Cook, Clint Burklin, Dr. Stephen Halkiotis, and Don Willhoit. Facilitator Present: Verla Insko. Staff Present: County Manager John Link and Planners Gene Bell and Emily Cameron. Visitors: James Bumphus, Frank Bumphus, Harold Daye, Sr. and Dan Dunbar. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - Verla Insko called the meeting to order and asked if there were any announcements. Dan Dunbar said he had recently moved to area and lives on Bumphus Road. He asked why representative (s) f or Bumphus Road could not be elected or appointed. Verla Insko said the Commissioners had decided not to expand the group and did not want to revisit that decision. David Yelton said the problem is not that the whole area is not represented, but rather that there seems to have been a breakdown in communication. He suggested that representation already in place for this area should get in touch better. Gene Bell said this was the purpose of the newsletters sent to neighborhood representatives and alternates for distribution. He indicated he had had phone calls indicating that distribution was not everywhere, however. Harold Daye stated that discussion at the last meeting seemed to indicate it wouldn't be a problem to get a representative from Bumphus Road. 1 Verla Insko said this committee didn't have the authority to make appointments; that was the responsibility of the Commissioners. Meg McKean said the map of Stoney Creek neighborhoods was confusing. She said the map chops everything up into pieces and some of the pieces were un- natural. Verla Insko said the group was about half -way through the planning process and the sense she got from the Commissioners was that people could come to meetings and through their representatives or themselves make their concerns known; but the Commissioners had chosen not to change the makeup of committee right now. Elio Soldi said the opinion of the Planning Group at the last meeting seemed to be strongly in favor of additional representation. He asked Insko is she would entertain an official request to the Commissioners if the committee did not think it disruptive and found it advisable. Verla Insko said she believed an official request had been made and the Commissioners had declined to put it on their agenda indicating they did not want to add any more members to the committee. Judd Edeburn said he thought in terms of consensus, a mechanism was needed that would satisfy a group that may have concerns about representation; some way for input so that when the group comes up with a recommendation, as many folks as possible can buy into it because they feel a part of it. Verla Insko said she agreed. Lee Rafalow asked what the group was going to do about the fact that people on Bumphus road did not feel that they were being adequately represented. Elio Soldi said if the group intended to make a recommendation that had any chance of being adopted and implemented, everybody needed to be included. He said there seemed to be a strong feeling that people in the community long before he was there, who had a history in the community, and did not feel represented posed a great problem. He strongly recommended opening the process to admitting a representative from Bumphus Road. He felt that there was clear evidence that as long as a group in the community did not feel represented, anything the Planning Group did would be secondary. He said the Bumphus Road residents could express their concerns to committee members or come to meetings and express them, but that was not the same as being part of the committee and that feeling seemed to be important. Bob Hall asked if the group could not re- affirm its previous consensus that Bumphus Road had an official recommendation and 2 request that it be passed back to the Commissioners indicating that it wasn't a "willy-nilly," last minute type of thing, but something the group had taken time to think about and felt it was very relevant. David Yelton said that without further discussion, he wouldn't be able to go along with consensus on that. Bob Strayhorn said it was unfortunate that the commissioners left early when this issue was discussed at the August meeting. He felt they would have looked at it differently if they had been there. He said it wasn't like James Bumphus and his brother and brother - in -law have not been involved, because this was the fourth or fifth meeting he had seen them at. He said they were concerned enough to be there and that half of the members who have been appointed stay away. He thought it was a good opportunity to get some long- standing members of the community involved who were willing to be involved. He said if the Commissioners were not sensitive to that, then everyone needed to go home. David Yelton said he wasn't out to reject someone, but was concerned what it represented. Lee Rafalow speculated that there were two reasons the Commissioners may not want to consider this. The first was continuity in the group and he agreed that people who participate need to have all the information. He said he would argue that James Bumphus had been to as many meetings as some formal representatives and for that reason his appointment would not be disruptive. The other reason the Commissioners might not want to do additional appointments is it raises whole specter of participation to anyone who has an interest in the process. He said he had advocated early on that everyone should be able to participate, but felt the process was too far along now and that continuity was needed. He said if the group could express to the Commissioners that there was a way to improve the representative aspect of the group and that continuity was not lost because James Bumphus had been a participant, then the problem could be-solved without opening a can of worms. Elio Soldi said he agreed with Lee Rafalow that this was an exceptional case. He didn't think other groups would be asking for membership and felt that a strong case could be made to the Commissioners that this would not disrupt the process. David Yelton said he intended no disrespect to the people from Bumphus Road, but asked if people had been attending meetings, why was the connection never made that there was a representative for that geographic area? Harold Daye responded that no one ever said anything. The only thing they ever heard was Stoney Creek; there was no indication 3 that Bumphus Road was included. Meg McKean said there were four Stoney Creeks - the creek, a subdivision, a proposed development named Stoney Creek Farms, and the whole area. She thought that when the term "Stoney Creek" was used, the whole area was being referred to. Bob Strayhorn made a motion that the group ask the County Commissioners to reconsider appointing a member from Bumphus Road and requested that Mr. Link deliver this request to the Commissioners. Bill Bracey seconded the motion. David Yelton asked how many people were being talked about in the Bumphus Road area and /or was the group talking about somebody represented by large land holders in the area. He suggested maybe it was just a matter of shifting who spoke for that group. He asked if the group was talking about a group of people or a chunk of land that needed to be represented. Bob Strayhorn said they were talking about a community. Dan Dunbar added they were talking about a historic community composed of people, land, and kinship patterns; land that amounts to roughly 100 acres and represents historic continuity. John Link said the discussion of the last 15 minutes had become much more focused and positive and as he understood it, they were talking about a community that may have been represented geographically, but did not feel like they were represented as a community. He felt that it was a very legitimate message to send back to the Commissioners that way. A community historically present in this area that did not feel like they had been represented by the previous appointments. He said if they could agree on one person to represent the community, he would be glad to carry that to the Commissioners and felt that in that context, they probably wouldn't have any trouble making an appointment. David Yelton asked the size of the Bumphus Road community._ James Bumphus responded that there were twelve houses on Bumphus Road. David Yelton asked if they had been getting the newsletter? He said it seemed like it had just been a miscommunication. Meg McKean said that Michael Warner represents Bumphus Road as people and Bob Strayhorn represented them as landowners. David Yelton said it seemed they had two representatives already. Michael Warner said there were a lot of people on the group who didn't come to meetings and here we had a group that did come, that 4 wanted to be on it, that wanted to contribute, and that was the point to him. Dan Dunbar added that they were a community, a unique community. He thought the planning group had an opportunity to improve their power as a group. Bob Strayhorn said he was absolutely right. Verla Insko said the group needed to have consensus on this before sending it to the Commissioners. Meg McKean said she thought the problem stemmed from the original drawing of neighborhood lines. Verla Insko asked if there were additional comments. David Yelton said he would go along with a proposal to the Commissioners telling them of the group's dilemma and that they wanted to have everyone who had something to offer to the committee and particularly people who had a community or historical base. He thought it needed to be explained to them where the problem came from, i.e., that it was a miscommunication, a misunderstanding of the lines of representation and then let the Commissioners make the recommendation back to the group. Bob Strayhorn asked if his motion had been out of order. The group responded that it had not. David Yelton said the group was still in a discussion mode. He said as part of that discussion, he thought it would be a better recommendation to the Commissioners than just saying we want a representative for this group of families. Verla Insko indicated that this was one of the dilemmas of consensus building. When you had consensus, motions are sort of a formality. She asked Yelton how he would frame a recommendation to the Commissioners. David Yelton said he would say that the group had found that there was a significant and important group in the Stoney Creek Basin that had not had proper representation because of misinterpretation of the bounds of the districts and would like to incorporate them. He suggested the group should leave it to the Commissioners to decide how that would be done. Bob Hall asked David Yelton if he felt like the group was setting a precedent. He questioned Yelton's reluctance to support an issue on which there seemed to be consensus. David Yelton said consensus had been thrown out by several people, but there were people on the group he hadn't heard from regarding 5 opening up the representation question again. He indicated there could be other areas that would say they didn't feel represented and wanted more representatives. He said the point was that there had been representation; it had just been misconstrued and needed to be corrected. He said that everyones' opinions needed to be expressed if consensus was to mean something at the end of the process, but now that the group was at this juncture, he didn't know if there was a perfect way to do it. Elio Soldi observed that David Yelton seemed to be concerned that there was representation, but it had not been properly communicated and he seemed reluctant to send a message to the Commissioners that the group thought that representation was not there to begin with. He said the point was to solve what seemed to be an impasse. He stated that a large number of people seemed to understand that for this community, representation meant to be able to speak directly and to be part directly of the planning group. Soldi continued that they had participated far more than some representatives and he didn't see why Yelton could not understand the importance for the group to convey to the Commissioners what they felt. Verla Insko asked if someone could make a proposal back to David Yelton that would address his concerns about setting a precedent. Lee Rafalow said the fact that James Bumphus had been to more meetings than many of the representatives who were official participants should allay concerns about it being disruptive to the progress of the group (assuming James Bumphus was appointed). If James Bumphus wasn't the one appointed, then concerns about new participants not having the background to participate was a legitimate concern. Rafalow said if wording was to the effect that there was a community that hadn't been adequately represented and there was a solution that was not disruptive, he felt it would deal with the potential for any kind of precedent setting. David Yelton said his question to the Commissioners was should Bumphus Road be represented as land holders or as so many families. Lee Rafalow said that appointments to the group fell into three categories: 1) representatives of an arbitrarily drawn district line ( in some cases less arbitrary than others) ; 2 ) people who were appointed because they have long- standing interests or were recognized by the commissioners as being a particularly valuable addition to the group; and 3) people who were active in other committees of the County's set of advisory panels. He said it didn't matter to him how somebody got appointed to this group; the fact of the matter was there was a group that felt unrepresented because the arbitrary lines didn't recognize the standing of their community. Verla Insko said they had three things: 1) this is a neighborhood; 2) the group believes that it has not been adequately represented; C and 3) Mr. James Bumphus has come to these meetings and he has provided continuity. She asked the group if they wanted to recommend to the Commissioners that James Bumphus be appointed as a new neighborhood representative. David Yelton asked if they could be incorporated under large land holders. Verla Insko said she thought large land owners was being confused with at -large representatives, a mix up of terms. She said the question was would they be appointed as at- large, or as representatives of their neighborhood. David Yelton indicated he thought the decision should be left up to the Commissioners. Bob Strayhorn said he thought he had made a motion that was clear and he thought he heard the County Manager say he understood the group's intent and that he would deliver it to the Commissioners. He said he was satisfied with that and felt that it would get the group back on the agenda and satisfy the Bumphus family too. James Bumphus said that was correct. Verla Insko said she thought the group had consensus and the Commissioners could decide the question of neighborhood or at -large representation. John Link said if Insko could summarize the three points mentioned earlier, without raising the question about type of appointment, he thought it would be pretty easy to carry to the Commissioners. Verla Insko summarized as follows: 1) We have a defined neighborhood that has not been represented on this group; 2) there has been a member of this neighborhood who has been a fairly consistent attendee; and 3) the planning group requests that an appointment from that neighborhood be made. Gene Bell made the following observations about the overall process: The planning group was set up by the Commissioners to make a recommendation on a plan for the area; any recommendations sent forward in the form of a recommended plan will have to go to public hearing; it has always been County practice when doing small area plans to notify everyone inside the planning area by first class mail that the public hearing is being held; and in addition, people within 500 feet of the planning area boundaries are notified too. He said the hearing notice generally included a summary of what the plan was about in addition to date, place, and time. Bell said he was making these comments to let everyone know there would be an opportunity for people to know about the plan before it went to public hearing. He also indicated that nothing was final until the public hearing was held, the recommendations received from the 0 Planning Board, and a final decision made by the County Commissioners. He also shared one other idea with the group, an open house prior to the hearing. He reminded everyone that the process had begun in February or early March with an open house. He said it might be worth having an open house once the group had proceeded further with its work and actually had something tangible to show; he thought that it might be good to let people know what was going on and that it was not a "done deal" at that stage and that they could convey comments to staff or to their representatives, either at- large, neighborhood, or agency. Verla Insko said it would be a good idea for to have a future discussion about how to do that (the open house). Lee Rafalow asked that the minutes for this meeting show that the revised students' report still contained the same errors regarding projected impacts of their proposed plans. 2. MINUTES - No action. 3. FOLLOW -UP ON QUESTIONS FROM AUGUST 17 - Gene Bell distributed a memo from Mary Willis' "Soil Suitability in Stoney Creek Area," which is included as Attachment 1 to these minutes. 4. REVIEW OF RURAL CHARACTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES AND LISTING OF DESIRABLE FEATURES - After brief introductory comments by Gene Bell and Verla Insko, the group was asked to list desirable features of the Rural Character Plan alternative presented on May 18. the following features were identified: 1. Incentives, sliding scale with density bonuses 2. Allows alternatives for water and sewer 3. Flexible options for land owners 4. Based on voluntary options 5. Some options without density bonuses 6. Responsive to land form /character -- - - --- - 7. Applied to whole county 8. Encourages exceeding minimum standards 9. Promotes (allows) variety of housing 10. Unpredictability (within guidelines) 11. Incorporates natural features 12. Goal to preserve rural character 13. Five one -acre lots per lot of record 14. Allowing agriculture in open space 15. Addresses affordable housing 16. Reinforces urban growth boundaries 17. Possibility of open space 18. Cooperation between owners /planners /boards 19. Allows for internally oriented commercial Lee Rafalow expressed concern that a lot of time had been spent talking about positives and he was not quite sure where things were going; it didn't capture the negatives. He said there were two things the group had tentative agreement on: 1) we like rural character, and 2) we like land owners to get fair value for their property. Thus far we've spent no time working on item 2. At the last meeting he sensed a strong undercurrent getting in the way of working together; undercurrent is concern about that second item, fair value to landowners. He said the last comment in the survey dealt directly with that issue. He thought it was real important to surface that issue and get it on the table. Bob Strayhorn agreed. He said we've identified things we'd like to see, but in reality someone else owns that land where I might want to see a park or someone else a wildlife corridor or permanent forest. At some point in time we have to think about what are the rights of the people who own that. This was one of the main reasons he liked the Rural Character Study. It encourages people who own land to do some of these things. We say we want a 15 acre park; are we intending to down zone it in some manner that we are going to capture that? How are we going to do that? At what point in this process will we talk about these types of things, i.e., wildlife corridors, how we get them so that someone is not having to sacrifice their land to create that wildlife corridor. We all agree that we like that, we like the open space. David Yelton said he thought that each of the plans looked at (student plans plus Rural Character) has some positives and maybe some had more than others. He said this may not exactly which ones people were leaning toward, but at least the group saw more beauty in some as opposed to others. However, he said all had negatives and that one of his goals would be to try to identify the plan or combination of plans that looked best on the surface. Then you would have to start digging out the negatives and say can we neutralize that negative or can we adjust the plan we've come up with to incorporate that negative and change it into a positive or take care of as many negatives as possible? You can't always get rid of all negative impacts of some large comprehensive plan, but you can try to minimize those and address things such as, if the big idea is to have x number of acres of park land in a certain area, how is that going to be contributed? How can we address the fact that no landowner wants to have to take that out of their profitability as far as the value or salability of the land. Meg McKean said Lee and David had talked about the need to discuss negatives; she didn't know when this was going to happen, but felt it was an extremely important thing to do. If all we do is list positives all we will have is a list that says apple pie, apple pie, apple pie. Verla Insko said she was going to try to summarize what she had heard. Lee Rafalow raised the issue that we really haven't had a 9 discussion about fair value to landowners; clearly a concern to people. He suggested we. ought to get this on table and look at it. Bob Strayhorn expanded on that by giving an example of how a park may be desirable, but how is the landowner going to get value out of his land. Are we going to down zone it? Once again it is a question about value. Lee Rafalow added that Bob Strayhorn had raised an additional point, the flexibility issue; not just fair value, but the right of the property owner to determine what he or she wanted to do with their property. David Yelton said the group could still have a vision of the plan or combination of plans that most attracted them with positive elements, but whatever was chosen there would be negative's to be addressed too. Verla Insko said the group was dealing with two questions now. First was the whole range of negatives for all of the plans and second, the specific question of when the group dealt with value to the landowner. Meg Mckean said she didn't think the question of fair value to the landowner ever went away. Any set of rules will have some implications to the landowner and it was very important for the group to tease out what that set of rules would do to different kinds of landowners, i.e., little ones and big ones. She said the group couldn't run away from that question. Lee Rafalow said he wanted the group to be careful about they heard what he was to say. He said if the group were forced to choose from the plans they'd seen and if a majority rule decision - making process was used, he thought the density - neutral approach would come the closest to what most people in this room thought was the right thing to do. He said he wasn't trying to declare this as a consensus of to get people to argue with him about it. He thought it was fairly close to the sort of thing the group could agree on as the model on which to build. He said he was satisfied with putting that issue aside and focusing a little while on the issue - -- which he believed was getting in the way of good communication. He said he didn't think the group was doing as good a job as it could in terms of communication because there was one important issue kind of watching the whole process and just waiting to find something to jump on; and he felt that they needed to get it out. Verla Insko asked if Rafalow was suggesting that the group jump ahead and deal with it. Michael Warner observed fair value to landowners had been on the agenda at one meeting, but had never been talked about. He asked if it should be added to the agenda for a future meeting rather than being a by product of other discussions. Ou7 Verla Insko said she thought Lee Rafalow was proposing that it be dealt with at this meeting. Lee Rafalow said he was proposing that the group start discussing it at this meeting; he didn't know if it could be finished in the time remaining. He thought that it was the only thing that was particularly important for the group to make progress in its ability to communicate currently. Elio Soldi said that since July the group had been drawing up lists. He felt that at some point, they should address the issue of owner rights. He suggested they try to condense what they'd done, there being a lot of overlap. He thought certain areas of consensus already existed. He said the group had an idea, but had never gotten to specifics. He thought if a "straw man" plan was put in front of everyone, then they could single out the idea, "If you want to keep this open space, what does it mean to that owner? How can it be done, what kind of flexibility ?" He said he would like to get down to specifics. Verla Insko mentioned an idea she and Gene Bell had discussed by phone, subcommittees to deal with issues the larger group was getting bogged down with. Gene Bell then shared ideas on how one or more subcommittees could be formed to deal with issues such as property rights. He suggested that a subcommittee composed of a representative cross section of planning group members could work through the difficult points of an issue and bring back a report or position paper to the larger group that addressed previously- identified concerns. He also shared ideas on how a design studio could be used to get the groups' ideas relative to a proposed plan on paper. Lee Rafalow said it seemed that three activities had been identified. The first was to put in more concrete terms, the group's vision and there was a proposal, if not a consensus, to do that in a subcommittee. The second activity was a design studio exercise to go through and the third was identifying techniques for getting landowners to have-fair value for their land and deal with the property rights issues. He suggested that three subcommittees could be appointed. He said the subcommittees could take on their respective issues knowing that members represented different perspectives, but that they had learned enough about the group to try and make sure all perspectives of the larger group were represented. Three "straw man" solutions could be created and then brought back together for the larger group to consider. The group would then have something to work with instead of vague ideas which each person probably understood differently. John Link said he thought it would be a valuable contribution on the part of the group, and certainly the subcommittee, to define what is meant by the phrase, "property rights." He thought there 11 was wide and varied opinion about that. What he has heard people say in that context is, "Don't take away the present rights I have to develop my property;" which is to say, "Don't down zone my property." He said there had been a great deal of discussion over the last three years on perception versus reality. The perception of the property owner is that if he has 100 acres he can go out there and develop 100 units; this is perception and not reality because the Environmental Health Division will determine how many lots can ultimately be developed. He thought there was a real feeling that rights were being taken away through downzoning. He said this issue really needed to be resolved to make progress. He thought it would be invaluable for the subcommittee to address this issue. Meg McKean asked what was the job of the value subcommittee. Elio Soldi said the worst thing was to have a committee that was not clear on its responsibilities. First, he said the subcommittee needed to look at what are the real rights the owner has; namely, not just what was thought, but what was practically available to him. Then, what were the legal effects? The third item would be to address the implications of some of the ideas that have been brought up. Bob Hall suggested tools or mechanisms to help protect property rights or value, i.e., tools to encourage, enhance, protect..., might be added. Elio Soldi asked if the vision could be simply taking all the beautiful things the group had been talking about and boiling them down, avoiding a lot of overlap, and simplifying the language; essentially saying, "This folks, is what we want to pay attention to as we work." Value was a little more demanding because the subcommittee needed to be sure it had a clear definition of a certain idea and a clear relation of what to keep in mind as it worked. Verla Insko asked for volunteers for the three subcommittees. Judd Edeburn, David Yelton, Curtis Bane, and Dean Zehnder agreed to serve on the Vision Subcommittee. Gene Bell was asked to contact Trudy Cuffe and see if she would serve too. Bob Strayhorn, Lee Rafalow, James Bumphus, Bob Hall, Meg McKean, and Elio Soldi agreed to serve on the Value Subcommittee. Renee Price, Bill Bracey, Steve Price, and Michael Warner agreed to serve on the Preliminary Design Subcommittee. Gene Bell was asked to contact Clint Burklin and see if he would serve too. 12 S. REVIEW OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS /DESIRABLE FEATURES OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES TO DETERMINE WHERE CONSENSUS EXISTS - Discussion on this item was precluded by the above discussion and appointment of subcommittees. 6. IDEAS FOR DESIGN STUDIOS) IN OCTOBER - This was covered under Item 4. 7. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING - The next meeting of the Planning Group was set for Thursday, October 19, 1995. It was agreed that the Vision and Value Subcommittees would meet one or more times before that meeting and bring back proposals for discussion at that time. The Preliminary Design Subcommittee would receive its charge at that meeting. S. ADJOURNMENT - 10:00 PM. 13 ATTACHMENT 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Gene Bell, Planner III Comprehensive FROM: Mary Willis, Planner III Current DATE: September 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Soil Suitability in Stoney Creek Area On August 17, 1995, I presented a report on subdivision activity to the Stoney Creek Basin Work Group. Specifically discussed were seven Concept Plans which have been approved by the Planning Board, covering an area of about 850 acres in the vicinity of the former University Station proposal. A total of 493 dwelling units are proposed in the Concept Plans. The Work Group asked for additional information concerning the suitability, of soils for septic systems in order to develop a more realistic estimate of the number of lots which may be created if Preliminary Plans are submitted and approved. Since the Work Group's August meeting, a Preliminary Plan for University Manor (formerly Stoney Creek Farms Phase I) has been submitted. The Concept Plan proposed 60 residential lots. The Preliminary Plan, containing approximately 95 acres, includes 47 residential lots and about 21 acres of open space. The minimum residential lot size is 40,000 square feet (.92 acre) and the average size is 61,586 square feet (1.4 acres). According to the Soil Survey of North Carolina, most of the soils in the project area are similar to those found on the University Manor site, and a comparable lot yield is expected —One _exception is the area north of the Southern Railroad, where soil limitations are greater due to steep slopes. In all areas, however, the actual number of lots which could be created will not be known until soils analyses for each proposed lot are conducted.