Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 012596ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE. ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 untr a/ t° o, MEMORANDUM JAN I 't'1996 m ari as p, rsi TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III 63'�i /3 SITBJ: Rescheduled Planning Group Meeting DATE: January 12, 1996 Delays caused by the inclement weather of the past week have made it necessary to reschedule the Planning Group meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 18, 1996. The meeting has been moved back a week to Thursday, January 25 at 7:30 PM. Our regular meeting site, the EMS Meeting Room, is not available and we will be meeting in the Government Services Center Meeting Room at 200 South Cameron Street in Hillsborough. A map will be included in the agenda materials to be mailed next week. If you have questions, please call me at extension 2589 at 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill), 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), or 688 -7331 (Durham) . If you would like to send me a FAX transmission, the number is 644 -3002. cc: John Link, County Manager Verla Insko, Facilitator Marvin Collins, Planning Director Press ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE, ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 L O IT S - t FEB 1 31996 AGENDA Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 13 ursday, February 15, 1996 at 7:30 PM TIME AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER - Verla Insko, Facilitator 7:35 2. STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SUBCOMMITTEE EFFORTS a. Overview of Flexible Development Options - Gene Bell b. Overview of "Straw" Proposal - Lee Rafalow C. Identification of Key Issues for Discussion - Elio Soldi 8:10 3. GROUP DISCUSSION OF IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 9:40 4. IDEAS FOR COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE - Follow -up on discussion from January 25 9:45 S. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from January 25, 1996 Meeting 9:50 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS, GROUP COMMENTS, UPCOMING MEETINGS 9:55 7. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING (FEBRUARY 29, 1996) 10:00 8. ADJOURNMENT ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE, ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ♦ y � v M f UV !'�/ IN kyj TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III Z SUBJ: Implementation Strategy Subcommittee Deliberations DATE: February 9, 1996 The Implementation Strategies Subcommittee has met twice since the Planning Group meeting on January 25. We have been working our way through a "straw" proposal prepared by Lee Rafalow at the request of the subcommittee in January. Using the Flexible Development Options as a starting point, he drafted a proposal specific to the planning area. The subcommittee discussed it extensively on January 31. We had hoped to complete our discussion of it on February 8, but other considerations took precedence. My standard practice following a subcommittee meeting is to summarize the main points of discussion, but not do minutes due to time constraints. However, when listening to the tapes of the January 31 meeting to extract key points, it became obvious to me that it had been a very productive session. I found it difficult to summarize without losing the flavor of the discussion and thus, elected to do an almost verbatim account of the meeting. This account is attached along with the proposal prepared by Lee. I hope it will prove helpful in our discussions on February 15. STONEY CREEK IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING COMMENTS - JANUARY 31, 1996 Attendance: Curtis Bane Lee Rafalow Dan Kenan Elio Soldi Planning Staff: Gene Bell The subcommittee convened to discuss the implementation proposal prepared by Lee Rafalow (copy attached with paragraphs numbered). The proposal was to have been considered on January 10, but inclement weather and poor attendance at a subsequent meeting prevented this. The proposal was discussed by paragraph -by- paragraph with formal discussion beginning at 7:30 PM. Paragraph 1 Lee: Recognizes principles we have agreed upon from Vision and Value groups. No comments. Paragraph 2 Lee: To include by reference, the Flexible Development options, with the following proposed differences between the Flexible Development Options (FDO) as currently proposed and how he would have it applied in Stoney Creek area. For example, FDO recommends 33% of total area as open space whereas his sentence 2 proposes 50% of buildable land and that active recreation area not be considered as part of open space calculations. Reason for change is his feeling that 33% constitutes suburbia and not rural character preservation; and we've all agreed that what we want to do is rural character preservation. Going back to what may be contentious, think this may be. Elio: Is it clear what Lee is proposing? He is proposing that we want options offered in FDO, but where those options allow for a density bonus in exchange for open space beginning at say 35% open space we want to bring it up to 50 %; and where FDO says open space of 50% for other benefits such as roadway requirements, we want to put it at 60 %. His question for Lee is, "Does this apply to entire area, or predominantly address the yellow part ?" Lee: As written it would apply to both the yellow and "pumpkin ", i.e., lower and intermediate intensity, but one thing group might consider is that guidelines he wrote apply to yellow area and perhaps guidelines as written in current proposal (FDO) would apply to pumpkin area and "rust" area (higher intensity); its not perfect. Curtis: Believe that increasing from 33% to 50% will also increase acreage needed per unit to preserve 50% minimum of buildable land. 1 Lee: Thinks people focus on percentages and try to translate into total density they can have. Has no effect on number of units you can have and therefore no effect on density. Curtis: Why do you use 1.75 acres for a one -acre designated rural development when you have 33% non - buildable land? Lee: The way this works is that you look at land you have and figure out how many units that land can support based on its percability. For example, you've got 400 acres that peres at two acres per unit, then that gives you 200 units. The only thing this (yield plan ?) determines is how densely packed those 200 units are going to be. Curtis: Not taking into account buffer zones. Lee: Has no effect on total number of units; does affect placement of those units-. Curtis: Fear that government may interpret this wrong. Elio: Restating what has been said to be sure he understands. Assume that under present zoning you have determined how many units you can build. You can still build that number of units because we are not changing the zoning. However, if you allow at least 50% of the land to be open space, then you can build those units clustered on another part of the land and if you will allow 60% of the land to be open we allow you to build even more units. Curtis: Don't think this (quarter -acre lots with access to common open space) represents rural character. Lee: The design principle when doing cluster development is to attempt to get as many units as you possibly can, to try and design the site so that all units have direct access (to open space). Curtis: "But you still aren't saying, this is mine." Elio: Let's leave this aside, is an emotional issue. The possibility is that you are going to build the same number of units but in a different way. In addition, if you are willing to go to 60% on open space you may get 210 units rather than 200. Maybe going with this approach will allow you to speed up the process so you can build without delay. Maybe the entrance is the only place you need a standard road and interior roads can be private. The open land preserved will allow for more wildlife, more open space, and nice views. But person may say, this takes away from the property owner. The question becomes, will a developer /property owner find a market receptive to this new idea? This appears to be happening in some areas. Some people are willing to buy into an environment that is preserved more naturally, although they have to share it with other people. Is a different way to look at 0 property, doesn't answer emotional ties to land. A person with strong feelings about this probably would not buy into such a development; he would probably be happier with his own 10 acres. By providing this as an option, we don't take away the other options. We do add a process which is new and perhaps not well understood, but may eventually allow us to keep more open land. Curtis: Understand what you are saying, but have concerns that concept plans have been accepted on about 830 acres of the 2000 developable acres in the planning area; 250 belongs to Bob Strayhorn; 450 of it is his; and the remainder is Duke Forest. Buffers and 50% of buildable area for open space is limiting. Going to have a thousand more cars on road because of new developments. Elio: Suppose that proposal is interesting to the developer if they can see a way to get slightly more units, have a speedier process, and be in a favorable market. This would not preclude you doing what is -allowable under current regulations, is another way to develop land. Curtis: Feel that with the exception of several 50 acre tracts, he is one that will feel effects of new regulations. Elio: Under current zoning, do you feel that you could economically develop your land? Curtis: No, feel that return would be higher by selling land and putting money in bank, than by building house and renting it out. Elio: You have open all possibilities that are available now and what this plan does, doesn't take any of those away. Unless you are pursuing rezoning, then that is a different matter and hasn't been discussed. Lee: Actually, his proposal does suggest that rezoning be something that happens within some prescribed boundaries; actually make rezoning to higher densities in rust areas something that is reasonably a matter of course. Elio: Perhaps you have to look at these as trade -offs. There may be situations in which part of your land is eligible for higher densities. Curtis: Will agree with it if you designate how many more units you can put per percentage of buildable land taken. Lee: FDO as proposed says that for every acre saved above and beyond what is required, you get another unit. Curtis: What if you are dealing with a situation where more than one unit per acre is allowed? 3 Lee: Don °t recall reading anything specifying any difference based on how zoned. Basically said, if you have required amount of land set aside in open space and decide to set aside an additional acre, you get an additional unit, two acres you get two units, etc. Curtis: If you gave three acres and had four to the acre already, would you be allowed 12 units? Lee: Doubt if that is the case. Gene: If you had R -4 density already, you probably wouldn't be doing FDO. Elio: As one of the larger landowners, it is important that you see something desirable and valuable. Also, hope that some of the people currently developing land will see something desirable. Feel that in the long run, these options may enhance the value of people owning surrounding property and provide options to selling land to realize value from it. Curtis: Why does density bonus begin at 60 %? Elio: Can be debated; we are exploring now whether this proposal can be brought to the floor and be worked on. If this group can agree there is something good in this, can begin looking at details, i.e., 50 %, 60 %, 55 %, 45 %, etc. Curtis: Thinks density bonus should start lower, say 400. Elio: Are you somewhat comfortable with the idea? Curtis: Like FDO. Elio: So you would not oppose in principle the suggestion Lee has put on the table, the only question is the percentages? Curtis: Right. Elio: Can we leave it at that and move on; then come back? Lee: Yes, grab whatever consensus we have. Dan: Seems to be two issues frustrating Curtis as potential developer. One is density and the other is problems he mentioned earlier in taking 15 years to get through the approval process on a development. Maybe there is some way to streamline the approval process. This might be a more valuable incentive than just density alone. Lee: This is included in FDO. Do we have some general agreement on second paragraph, keeping in mind that numbers still need to be discussed? 4 Group: Yes. Paragraph 3 Lee: Thinks this paragraph is most important in proposal. What this really is, is a presumption that higher intensity uses are permitted in pumpkin or rust. This is conditioned upon purchasing a conservation easement from a landowner with property in yellow or pumpkin area and conservation easement is in perpetuity, e.g., you want to build at twice the intensity currently allowed; for each additional unit you want to build, the regulations would be written such that if you purchased conservaticn easements (to be held by Orange County, the Eno River Foundation, or Triangle Land Conservancy) for 200 acres in the yellow or pumpkin areas and they were duly recorded, you would be able to build 200 more units on the property. Don't know if one acre for one unit is the right formula, but using it for example. This results in two very good things: 1. A form of - TDR that allows us to maintain a roughly equivalent number on units in the area so no matter where units end up, we know how many there will be; and 2. Preserves land values of people who are sellers and enhances land values of people who are buyers. This preserves the land value of sellers because it is a fairly small market and they should be able to get a reasonable price for their conservation easement. Enhances land value of buyers because they are implementing higher density in an area where there is going to be lots of open space preserved; there are studies that indicate open space enhances the value of adjacent areas. This creates an environment conducive to increased land values for everybody; "near perfection" if written correctly by the laTayers. Elio: Large landowners with land in both areas could sell themselves the right for higher density on one part of their land. Curtis: Life of a conservation easement? Lee: Perpetuity. Curtis: Like an end on things. If you put an end on this might be able to accept. Got to have an end like 10 or 20 years. We don't know what things will be like in 20 years. Lee: With this system we do know there will be a lot of preserved open space. Elio: Two ways to view: 1. Open ended; the area is growing, people moving in, there is land available for development, need to take advantage of it. 2. Nice area, want to preserve desirable characteristics; to do so have to create incentives for doing things in a certain way. Once incentives in place, area will have well - defined 0 character. Is there anything in the second approach that will give you as much economic advantage as in the first approach? Curtis: He has a lot of land that will not perc that might fit right into conservation easement approach. However, if County should run water and sewer at some future date, he will not be able to take advantage of it. Lee: But you will already have received a return on land from sale of conservation easements. Curtis: Don't like idea of lump sum; prefer some kind of annual/ continual income from property. Elio: You could set up payment over an extended period of time. As large landowner, such a system offers you more. Curtis: What if you had land tied up like so and pine beetles infested 20 acres of it. Would you be restricted from cutting it? Can we include wording to deal with issues like this? Elio: Thinks conservation easement doesn't restrict you from managing land, just prohibits you from developing it. Gene: Reference to FDO proposal and primary and secondary conservation areas. Need to keep this in mind when discussing modified TDR approach because easements should come from primary and secondary areas, not just where landowner feels like. Curtis: Does FDO put time limitation on easements? Gene: No. Generally, restrictive covenants in subdivisions have a specified time frame, however. Lee: For his area they are 20 years. Automatically renews unless there is something like unanimous agreement that changes are needed. Curtis: Whoever put in 20 years realized that things might change in the future and it would be wise to revisit. Lee: Sounds like in principle, we might have some agreement on this, lot of details to be worked out. In particular, Curtis has concerns about length of such easements. Dan: Do development rights expire if they are not used? Nobody knew. Lee: Because it is a confined area, people who sell will likely get a fairer price (something pretty close to market value) because A it is a small enough market that in order to get it (conservation easement) , price going to be pretty high. Flip side is that buyer of easement is going to use it close by and therefore land it is used on is going to benefit in that land being conserved is nearby. Curtis: Somebody is going to pay for it; probably trickles down to buyer. Lee: No question. Curtis: How does conservation easement on property affect taxes? Lee: If conservation easement is in form of a dedication, owner can keep title to land and sell easement or give up title. If owner gives conservation easement and keeps title is still liable for tares, but might be able to make case for lower taxes since value of property is impacted by development opportunities no longer there. Curtis: What does buyer of conservation easement get for his money? Lee: Right to increase the number of units he can build on his property. Curtis: Does buyer have any claim to seller's land? Lee: Not unless he buys land outright. Two classes of conservation easement, one where you keep title and do anything you want except what is not allowed by conservation easement. Second option is to donate land to Orange County, Eno River Foundation, or Triangle Land Conservancy and take a tax loss, deducting difference between value of conservation easement and market value of land. You could make donation with strings attached concerning use of land by you and your family. Down side of all of this is potential for substantial .reductions in tax revenues to County, especially when considered countywide. Elio: Think we have marked here the length of easement and some question as to the nature of the conservancy ( easement ?) , what can, cannot be done? Paragraph 4 Lee: General change that says government and some specific permitted uses that seemed inconsistent with R -1 recommended for change so that public can comment on proposed changes. Reason for making university /college /institute conditional use was that if you had a private one, you might want to require them to buy conservation easements in return for building institute. Gene: Reminder that small part of area in Rural Buffer. VA Paragraph 5 Elio: These apply to rust area. Lee: Want this to be the most permissive and want it to be receiving area for any density shift that takes place from yellow to rust or pumpkin to rust. Recognizing that here are proposed changes so that these uses now be permitted with condition that you buy conservation easement appropriate for uses proposed in those areas; again, details to be worked out. Curtis: If you want to go this way Ok, but what if you don't? Lee: (Referring to Bane property in rust areas on map) Right now you could not build multi - family. If you wanted to do so, you would have to buy conservation easements from somebody in yellow or pumpkin. Elio: And it could be from yourself. Concerning mixed use, is there a chance retail might spread around rather than be localized? Lee: Nothing about conditional use process that says we can't put other conditions in there, i.e., crossroads or other commercial close -by. His definition of conditional use is that it is essentially a special use process that allows public review and comment, and presumption that you'll buy a conservation easement. Elio: Maybe when it comes to retail also have conditions as to location. Lee: Definition of retail, low- impact. Question about store at intersection of US 70 and University Station Road. Gene: Refer to table of permitted uses, S -42. Curtis: R -1 doesn't currently allow commercial does it? Gene: No, only places you find commercial in R -1 right now is something existing before zoning, i.e., grandfathered in. Curtis: So could be opening area up for more commercial? Lee: Intent was to include lesser version of village subdivision kind of thing that would allow country store /low impact use. Fruit and vegetable at Murphey School Road and Cornwallis is good example of use that might be appropriate. Elio: Agree. Now lets go through and see if we can reach consensus on points needing detail and then how do we manage the details? Maybe spend some time on how to manage them. Gene: Planning Board is going to be considering FDO on February 7 and hopefully some of the things they have to deal with there will closely parallel some of these issues. The expectation is that they will get through the entire proposal. If so, their discussion on density bonuses for preserving additional open space or providing affordable housing could provide useful guidance to us. Elio: If we should reach overall consensus, could you (Gene) then take this document and propose some detail like numbers or percentages, one or two options, and tell the group what this would imply, a range? Lee: Give us a statement we can shoot at. Elio: From this conversation, it seems we could go to the group now with this document to be refined. Lee: Think you're jumping the gun; we're getting to the hard part. Elio: With this document minus whatever we disagree on from now. We've put in a lot of time and I think we've developed some understanding and some appreciation of different points of view and think it's time we put it together; can always revisit. Would like next time to come up with a first preliminary draft that nobody is really miserable with, but may require some adjustment. Gene: Would like to take results of tonight's discussion and have a second draft for discussion at a meeting next Thursday. Paragraph 6 Lee: Recognizes that intermediate area is kind of a transition area between higher and lower intensity areas and can be considered as kind of an "open market" for TDRs; that is within pumpkin area you might want to do some sending and some receiving, i.e., it can be kind of a combination of the rust and the yellow. Referring to the use table, if you decided you wanted to do higher intensity uses like active recreational or mixed use that those would be conditional use, presumption that they're OK things to do but that you would need to by conservation easements. Go on to say that all of the FDOs that are allowed in the proposed FDO plan that is being considered currently would be permitted in pumpkin area, so you could do any of those option's in this area. This would be what the county intends on a countywide basis. If the changes that we agreed on based on the percentages that we decided to apply from the second paragraph that we talked about earlier and with the addition that whatever open space you have (trying to be careful not to block people from doing things with small or odd shaped blocks) , but that the intent here is that there be a setback of 100 feet of natural open space along the roadways, may not always be possible due to slopes, etc. and buffer may be only place you can build. Wanted to catch notion that one of the things we wanted to 9 achieve is some setbacks that allow you to preserve the look and feel of a rural landscape. Elio: How do we stand on this? Curtis: Don't like it. Understand what you're trying to do, but believe it creates undue impacts on landowner's use of his land. Would not be able to put a driveway through it. Lee: Not suggesting that you can't do anything in that space. If you need to have an access road that comes off the existing road, then you need to have an access road. Covenants on his land specify a 125 foot setback from Powder Mill Road that they are not allowed to do anything in. They can cut unhealthy trees and they can cut a driveway. The intent of this is not to limit access, but to preserve the viewscape, i.e., that this is a natural space. Curtis: Would a yard or grass be acceptable in this area? Lee: Intent was that it be natural, if pasture OK. Curtis: But if it was rural, wooded land would have to remain that way? Don't like that. Lee: Chances are that if you did a subdivision on your land today, the Planning Board would require a buffer around it. 100 foot was arbitrary, but about the right distance for a good visual screen. Curtis: Seems like if you had to be at least 100 feet from road, that would add to expense of running the road in there. Lee: If you're talking about a single unit, maybe. If you did a subdivision, you would have one cut from the existing road and a road network in your subdivision and all he is trying to say here is that green space around edges of subdivision would be 100 feet. Curtis: Referring to a 19 acre tract of land on south side of Old NC 10 his family owns that is only 200 feet deep. Lee: Would have to word this in such a way that a piece of land's characteristics don't preclude it automatically. Gene: ' Reference to Board of Adjustment and possibility of variance in situations similar to this. Elio: Would such language improve things to indicate that wherever there is a hardship because of the land's characteristics, a variance might be possible? Curtis: Concerned that County make take statement about 100 foot buffer to not allow any development within 100 feet of road. 10 Lee: That is why I was careful to make sure exception clause was added, so that whatever came out of this in terms of final wording would have essence of exception clause in it. Intent here is to preserve road frontage as natural open space where possible and where it is not practical, it's not practical. Curtis: Thinks landowner will perceive this as a loss. Lee: Agreed intent of our group is to preserve rural character and cutting down trees and planting grass isn't preserving rural character. Elio: When writing this up, would you add comments reflecting Curtis' concerns. Curtis: Would like for it to look like an incentive; right now seems more of a disincentive. Lee: Not intended to be either one, but a regulation, i.e., you've got to preserve to the extent that you're able, the road frontage. Curtis: His family owns two or three miles of road frontage and will be directly impacted by regulation. Lee: Understand and sensitive to your concerns. If you built an open space option, this land could be part of the open space. Elio: And where you would have high density probably, you would not have any more rural character; maybe we should word this such that where there is rural character this is where the 100 foot buffer should be, but in the area where rural character does not exist anymore, buffer would not apply. Dan: Would be specific to yellow areas on map. Would not apply in pumpkin and rust. Lee: Actually way it is written applies to pumpkin and yellow; could modify it to say it is just the yellow area and that pumpkin is the existing 40 foot setback. Elio: Curtis, is this more acceptable to you? Curtis: Like it better. Paragraph 7 Lee: Intent here was to indicate this is the sending area for any density shifts we want to do. This is the most restrictive of the areas in terms of permitted uses. Whereas before there were additions of mixed use and retail to higher intensity and slight changes in intermediate, here suggesting that these two uses not be allowed in the yellow zone. 11 Curtis: Would think that golf course might be an inducement to promote clustering homes around it. Lee: Feels that active recreation uses like golf courses are not rural character and should not count as rural character preservation, not to say it should not be allowed, but that it shouldn't count as preserving rural character; and since intent in yellow area is to make that the area we really want to preserve rural character in, propose that golf courses not be permitted there, but that they be permitted in rust and pumpkin areas, but as a conditional use with the intent that conservation easements be bought elsewhere to preserve rural character. There might be a different formula for this, maybe that you only have to 50% of conservation easements and 50% of use counts toward open space. Personally, feels that active recreation uses should be eliminated from counting as open space because they are not natural and don't look anything like farm or woodlots. Elio: Are there any major objections to this now that Lee has explained? Lee: Next section is kind of a mixed bag of controversy and incentive. Intent of first sentence is that conventional R -1 development not be allowed in yellow zone, that if what you want to achieve is full build -out capability, you would have to do that with a modified version of open space; you could build up to five conventional one acre lots (this came directly from Rural Character Study recommendations). Idea is recognizing that if a landowner wants to create a small number of conventional one -acre lots for children /family or to sell, this is an OK thing to do, but if he wants to develop land and achieve full buildout potential based on current zoning /yield plan he will have to achieve that density as an open space development (there is no downzoning going on here). Elio: This is strongest proposal yet; will probably meet opposition. At this point we have a serious decision to make. Everything discussed to this point can probably be adjusted up or down. Afraid that some group members will interpret it as having gone back on agreement not to take away anything. Although as you point out, density can still be achieved, but it has to be done by a certain type of development. Some people will interpret this as being told what to do. If we're going to lose all we've gained because of this, should seriously consider including it. Lee: If five isn't right number, maybe go to 10, but it could get too big. Reason he wrote it this way was because of something Bob Strayhorn said about disincentives and that was if you really don't want something then don't permit it and so, that's what he did. Elio: Have a suggestion to take this and make it separate, i.e., have two documents, one without this provision and the other with it. This may be the thing one or two people may focus on and Offs object to most strongly to and possibly invalidate whole proposal. Gene: Recommend approach followed tonight, agree upon what we can and then move on to the more difficult issues. Lee: Have no objection to going through in a methodical fashion and if this group can craft into something more "digestible," but still achieves purpose, happy to have us do that. But don't want us to go forward with this as a "flakey idea that Lee has, but we don't really want you to consider." Elio: Want to recommend both, but separate. Lee: No problem with that. Elio: Can we do that (to Gene), extract this and make a recommendation and make it two parts, includes all the other items we have discussed with some of the adjustments / f lexibi 1 ity numbers. And then add this recommendation. So it does not appear that f irst part is more strongly recommended than second, but recommended separately. Possibility is that first part will pass and second will not. Lee: Would much rather that this group work on making this so that we think it will pass, play with the numbers, be creative about the concept, come up with a different way to achieve the concept and so on. Dan: Will we meet again before full Planning Group meeting? If so, we need to invite Bob Strayhorn. Next Meeting: Thursday, February 8 at 7:30 at Planning Department. Adjournment: 9:30 PM. 13 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Implementation Strategies Draft - 1/7/96 __ 7Tle follow in�� is offered ds suygestiovs for our collsideratiou as 8 StL3Tt1Il�' �p1II t. Lee Paragraph 1 The Small Area Planning group has agreed on two major principles as described in the Vision and Value statements: in short, the preservation of the rural character of the area and the protection of the property values of the land in the area. The group is also working on a map that, once finished, will designate three development intensities. The following set of changes is intended to preserve rural character in the low and intermediate intensity designations and support flexibility and preserve property values in all designations. The tools suggested include changes to the permitted use tables, design guidelines as well as financial incentives. Paragraph 2 This proposal is based on the "flexible development" options in that all designations preserve at least one density - neutral option for development. However, the open space requirements used here are a minimum of 50% of the buildable land and that open space is to be natural, i.e., active recreational uses are not considered as part of the open space. The financial incentives (density bonuses, roadway requirements, etc) specified in the "flexible development" proposal apply except that open space density bonuses begin at the 60 %. Paragraph 3 A key element of this proposal is the implementation of a limited form of transfer of development rights. Conditional use permits in which the applicant is required to purchase conservation easements within the Stoney Creek Basin will help keep the buildout of the area constant, concentrate the development in the higher and intermediate intensity areas and preserve rural character in the intermediate and low intensity areas. Once a conservation easement has been purchased, that land is no longer considered in determining the development yield nor is it considered in the calculation of open space. Paragraph 4 For all of the designations - -High intensity (RIH & R2H) , Intermediate intensity (R1I) and Low intensity (R1L)- -the following changes to the use table are proposed to allow public review. P10 Gov Protective Services P -> SU A P19 Schools P -> SU A P23 Universities, Colleges, Institutes P -> CU A P24 Gov facilities & offices P -> SU A P25 Water & Sewer Pumping Stations P -> SU B * S8 Clubs or Lodges P -> SU B S19A Class 1 Kennels P -> ? ? ?? P23 and S8 are currently not permitted in R2, but this proposal would add them as a conditional use and special use, respectively. Paragraph 5 R1 -High Intensity (R1H) & R2 -High Intensity (R2H) : These designations are intended to be the most permissive of the three. As such, the following additional changes to the permitted use table are suggested to add uses but require the purchase of conservation easements from landowners within the Stoney Creek Basin Intermediate or Low intensity areas. R1H: H4 Dwelling; Multiple Family NA -> CU A S35 Rec Facilities, Golf Club P -> CU A S42 Retail (low impact) NA -> CU A a S54 Mixed Use SU A -> CU A R2H: S35 Rec Facilities, Golf Club P -> CU A S42 Retail (low impact) NA -> CU A S54 Mixed Use NA -> CU A The Conditional Uses, Class A (reviewed by the County Commissioners), are intended to permit higher intensity uses where appropriate water and sewer facilities are available within "urban growth boundary" defined by the R1H and R2H areas. The conditions of the higher intensity (higher density and mixed use) would include purchasing conservation easements from landowners in either the low or intermediate intensity areas. Also. R1H and R2H properties may be considered for rezoning to R2 or higher provided that conservation easements are purchased from landowners within the Stoney Creek Basin Intermediate or Low intensity areas. Paragraph 6 R1- Intermediate Intensity (R1I): The intermediate intensity areas are both 'sending" and "receiving" areas for conservation easements. That is, land within the R1I designation may either sell conservation easements to satisfy a conditional use in the Stoney Creek Basin or an applicant for a conditional use in an R1I area may buy a conservation easement to satisfy a proposed conditional use. The following additional changes to the permitted uses is proposed: S35 Rec Facilities, Golf Club P -> CU A S54 Mixed Use SU A -> CU A All of the "flexible development options are available in R1I as modified above. Design guidelines for R1I should include preservation of at least 100 feet of natural open space (preferably wooded, no active recreational facilities) between any pre - existing roadway and proposed development. Existing lots with (e.g., less than 200 lot depth, no buildable land beyond 100 ft, etc.] are exempt from this guideline, but every effort should be made to preserve road frontage as natural open spaces. Paragraph 7 R1 -Low Intensity (R1L): The low intensity areas are "sending" areas for conservation easements. That is, land within the R1L designation may sell conservation easements to satisfy a conditional use in the Stoney Creek Basin. The following additional changes to the permitted uses is proposed: S35 Rec Facilities, Golf Club P -> NA S54 Mixed Use SU A -> NA A more limited number of the "flexible development" options will be available in R1L. To achieve full yield plan buildout potential, a developer must use an open space option that does not include any more than 5 conventional 1 -acre subdivision lots: i.e., "clustered" development. Other open space options are limited to "conservation" and "estate" development. Design guidelines for R1L should include preservation of at least 100 feet of natural open space (preferably wooded, no active recreational facilities) between any pre-existing roadway and proposed development. Existing lots 100with ft[ etc.] are exempt et less Ofram lot depth, no buildable land beyond this guideline, but every effort should be made to preserve road, frontage as natural open spaces. D� M V STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP JANUARY 25, 1996 MINUTES The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, January 25, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in the Orange County Government Services Center at 200 South Churton Street, Hillsborough, N.C. MEMBERS PRESENT: Curtis Bane, David Yelton, Steve Price, Judd Edeburn, Dan Teichman, Bob Strayhorn, Lee Rafalow, James Bumphus, Elio Soldi, Dean Zehnder, Clint Burklin, and Bob Hall. ALTERNATES PRESENT: Irene Van Dyke and Dan Kenan . MEMBERS ABSENT: Bobby Nicholson, Trudy Cuffe, Gary Hanker, Meg McKean, Michael Warner, Keith Cook, Bill Bracey, Renee Price, Stephen Halkiotis, and Don Willhoit. PRESS: Jennifer Money STAFF PRESENT: Planners Gene Bell and Emily Cameron. FACILITATOR PRESENT: versa Insko CALL TO ORDER A quorum was established at 7:45 and Facilitator, Verla Insko called the meeting to order. The group agreed to consider Item 3 on the agenda first since some members of the Preliminary Design Subcommittee had not arrived. STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SUBCOMMITTEE EFFORTS Gene Bell gave a brief of subcommittee efforts. He indicated that poor attendance and bad weather had hindered the work of the group. He indicated that he had discussed possible strategies with Planning Director, Marvin Collins, and that he (Collins) had suggested an approach similar to that employed in the Economic Development Districts Design Manual which entailed identifying the planning area, defining the land use intensity classifications, defining permitted uses for each classification, and determining design standards that would be applicable in the area. 1 Lee Rafalow had two observations. First, he said unless the group could think of ways to come up with differences in the colors (intensity levels), their work was meaningless. Second, he indicated more people were needed on the subcommittee to enhance creativity and hopefully produce consensus. He mentioned a proposal he had prepared at the request of the subcommittee to add detail to the concepts and that it had received mixed reviews at the last meeting. Curtis Bane indicated that he felt that the open space percentages in the proposal were too high. He felt the work of the group would ultimately result in only high income people being able to live in the area. Elio Soldi summarized his understanding of events to date: • We have identified some goals on which we all agree, namely we do want to preserve the rural character and safeguard property values and rights; and • We have also reached some general agreement regarding how we understand the area being ideally subdivided into three color zones, i.e., lower, intermediate, and higher intensity. Curtis Bane indicated that he thought all Bane property should be higher intensity. He identified the areas on the map. Elio Soldi said'the subcommittee had discussed ways to implement the color scheme on the map. He indicated there were two points - of -view. The first was a system of incentives and disincentives. Things that are desirable should be easier to do while those things viewed as less desirable should be more difficult. Lee Rafalow mentioned that Soldi had missed the last Planning Group meeting where the issues of disincentives was discussed. He ( Rafalow) said he took to heart comments about disincentives and that uses deemed undesirable should just not be allowed. He said that in drawing up his proposal he tried to provide something that would differentiate between the color zones; that would in the rust color be most permissive and in the yellow be most restrictive. Elio Soldi said his understanding was that the subcommittee would look at what was permitted in the R -1 zone that might not be desirable, e.g., sewage treatment plant, and might require public comment. He said this was what Lee had done in his proposal. He said the group also looked at the Flexible Development Options to determine what was desirable and what might need to go to public hearing. He said this was where things stood at the last meeting he attended. Lee Rafalow reiterated his concerns about the work of the sub- committee and asked for additional members to enhance creativity. Dan Teichman asked about the status of the Flexible Development proposal. Bell indicated that the proposal was currently in the Planning Board review stage. Teichman asked if there was anything the Implementation Subcommittee could do to influence the review of Flexible Development. Bell indicated that Flexible Development was on a "separate track" and with the exception of the Rural Buffer area would be applicable throughout County planning jurisdiction. Teichman asked if a proposal coming out of this group (Implementation) would be "tacked" on to Flexible Development. Bell stated that what came out of the Implementation Subcommittee would be specific to the Stoney Creek area. Lee Rafalow added that a number of people on the Planning Board have said that they would look very favorably on suggestions that either expanded upon or limited Flexible Development options for areas in which small area plans were being prepared and that right now, Stoney Creek was the only such area. Elio Soldi added if we could not propose something now that finds some resonance among the people currently developing property at Old N.C. 10 and New Hope Church Road, we will have lost a large part of what is considered scenic in the area. He said if it wasn't possible for us to propose options with incentives that a developer would consider seriously, then we would not be able to achieve preservation of what we still have in the area. He said he would opt for sorting out options on which we agree and refining them. A short discussion ensued on affordable housing and Verla Insko stated that while it was highly desirable, the key premises underlying the work of the Planning Group were to protect rural character and protect landowners' rights. She asked if there was agreement on the three colors on the map, not necessarily where they were located, but that the approach was logical and that the differences in color represented some difference in density or buildout. Lee Rafalow said the colors meant a difference in density potential. Bob Strayhorn added the colors represented a desired intent. David Yelton said the map represented how the area "might" look if certain design elements and incentives came into play. He said this might be a good way to visualize the area, but if all Flexible Development options were available it was difficult to say how the area might ultimately develop. Judd Edeburn mentioned one problem seemed to be mingling implementation with philosophy and concepts and whether it was incentives or disincentives being discussed, it was implementation; but when talking about whether and area ought to be "rust" or "green" that's not implementation, is something different. We haven't given the subcommittee enough detail of what we all really want for the area. Perhaps large group needs to "hash it out a 3 little more." Bob Hall referred to disagreement at the last meeting resulting from the issue of disincentives. He questioned what might be reasonable incentives and design criteria for the various colors. As an example, he said in this area we would like to see this form of development. If you develop this way, we offer expedited review (or something similar) as in incentive. He said he thought the group needed to talk with more large landowners in the area. Elio Soldi said he thought the group had pretty much agreed upon the color scheme, but apparently this wasn't the case. This needed to be done first. He felt that implementation options were limited because the group had agreed not to take away existing options. The most productive option seemed to be saying what we want to encourage and why, but this could not be done until the colors were agreed upon. Dan Teichman stated that the group wasn't agreeing on colors, but rather on incentives to do something different in different parts of the planning area. He said this was more important than where the colors were. Verla Insko asked Bell to expand upon his previous comments relative to design guidelines. Bell stated that a streamlined approach based on the County's Economic Development Districts Design Manual was a possibility. For each of the intensity areas it would describe a table of permitted uses and set parameters on the character of development that would take place in each of the areas. He added that poor attendance and weather delays had kept the subcommittee from fully considering this. Bob Strayhorn expressed frustration at the last meeting with the discussion of disincentives. He felt it was at odds with the goal of not taking anything away. He stated that when the planning process started, Flexible Development was not an option. Now that they were being discussed he felt they fit well with what could be accomplished in a fair way. He said he liked them and thought it was moving in the right direction. Elio Soldi mentioned that the proposal that Lee Rafalow had drafted for the subcommittee to consider tried to get away from disincentives. He felt Flexible Development offered incentives and that some of those had been incorporated in the proposal. Verla Insko asked for two more volunteers to work with the Implementation Subcommittee in refining the proposal. Dan Teichman removed himself from the subcommittee because he had been unable to attend previous meetings and work constraints would prevent future attendance. Clint Burklin and Dan Kenan volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. Lee Rafalow announced that schedule constraints 11 required that he leave the meeting at this time. REVIEW OF REVISED CONCEPT PLAN Gene Bell began by saying the Preliminary Design subcommittee met on January 4 to review concept plan presented on December 14 and worked on revisions /refinements suggested at that time. An issue the subcommittee discussed at length was providing a linkage between the New Hope and Stoney Creek drainage basins. Corridors along streams such as New Hope and Stoney Creeks serve as "natural highways" for the movement of wildlife. For wildlife traveling from one drainage basin to another, sparsely developed areas and ridge lines take on added significance. The southern tip of the Stoney Creek planning area which borders the ridge separating the two drainage basins and also lies adjacent to the largely undeveloped Camp New Hope lands offers opportunities for inter - basin travel of wildlife. While there is development on the land between this area and Stoney Creek, it is relatively sparse and on large lots and tracts. Also, considerable vegetative cover continues to exist on these properties. This area has been designated on the map to recognize its significance. The recommended approach to protecting the area is to educate property owners about its significance and encourage them to provide an extra layer of protection by granting conservation easements to an organization such as the Triangle Land Conservancy; the intent is not to impose additional ordinance or governmental restrictions. The area is shown as an overlay and covers slightly over 200 acres. Clint Burklin gave additional details on the subcommittee's deliberations regarding the proposed connection. Steve Price added additional clarification. David Yelton pointed out that this area did not seem to have the same significance as the corridor along Stoney Creek. Burklin agreed. Curtis Bane asked if this proposal would add any additional restrictions. Burklin pointed out that this was not the intent. Bob Strayhorn said the corridor was probably wider than it needed to be to serve any purpose. David Yelton questioned the rationale for trying to connect the two drainage basins. Judd Edeburn stated it might be valid from a biological standpoint, but probably not from a practical one. Dan Kenan said providing connections like this were useful, especially where habitat destruction takes place (fire /storm) and wildlife can use the connection to access other areas. He added Z that provisions for establishing such connections should be voluntary or incentive based. Dan Teichman questioned the importance of this corridor as opposed to other "connections" in the planning area that were not identified on the map. Was the primary significance here that it connected two green areas on the map, i.e. , Camp New Hope lands and Duke Forest? If this approach was going to be followed, it should apply to other portions of the planning area too. David Yelton concurred, pointing out similar areas on the map. Bob Strayhorn said leaving the area "yellow" would probably accomplish the desired intent. Clint Burklin pointed out one other change on the map, extending the "yellow" (lower intensity) area through the land east of Strayhorn Hills up to I -85. The primary intent was to encourage a separation between Hillsborough and Durham as they expand to the east and west in the future. David Yelton requested clarification on the various intensity levels. Bell referred to one of the meeting handouts (attached) which provides additional detail on the intensity levels. Verla Insko asked if there were any suggested changes to the concept plan. Curtis Bane requested that all Bane lands be classified as higher intensity. He also said that if the former University Station area was developed at one unit per acre, it should be classified as intermediate. There was considerable discussion on the proper intensity level for the area at the intersection of New Hope Church Road and Old N.C. 10 especially since the County Commissioners had approved a preliminary subdivision plan here for Stoney Creek Farms I. Bell indicated that the plan contained 47 lots on 95 acres or an average overall lot size of two acres. Bob Strayhorn said this was probably one of the better areas for subdivision development indicating that average lot sizes could be even higher on some tracts. Elio Soldi questioned additional changes to the map indicating he thought there was general agreement to the intensity levels depicted on it. His basic understanding was that area where we would like to see low or moderate intensity were identified and the Implementation Subcommittee was asked to come up with incentives (that do not take away property values /rights) to encourage it to develop that way. He said it was very hard to designate what exactly would happen to a piece of land. He saw the subcommittee's job being to create an environment that encourages developers to do what is desired. Verla Insko added we've got to get off tweaking the map every Z meeting we have. She added that we've got to have consensus on the map we send to the implementation subcommittee to come up with incentives that will promote less dense development. Bob Strayhorn said he thought most everyone could agree to doing development in a better way without taking anything away from people. He felt that trying to make things too restrictive and protect everything on the map would result in spending half the time in the courthouse. Dean Zehnder said he thought we had general agreement on things and that rather than continuing to redefine sharp divisions between individual plots of land, we needed to send them forward to the implementation subcommittee. There was general consensus on this. PROPOSED SCHEDULE REVISIONS Verla Insko indicated it would not be possible to make the February public hearing. Gene Bell also indicated that his previous suggestion of a special hearing between Hillsborough and Orange County on March 13 was not a viable option. He handed out copies of a revised schedule which proposed taking a plan to public hearing on May 28 (copy attached). He indicated April 18 was the critical date by which everything needed to be in final form. He also added that optional meeting dates were included in case they were needed. Before proceeding further, Elio Soldi asked for a summary on what the group had agreed to so far. He asked if the concept map had been agreed to in principle. There was group consensus that it had been agreed to in principle. He suggested that the group spend some time reviewing the implementation proposal. Bell suggested that the implementation subcommittee needed to spend more time on it first since the full group had not seen the proposal. Verla Insko observed that the group would probably need the optional meeting dates and suggested incorporating them in the schedule. She also asked if there was agreement on the mission (vision ?) statement and value statement and agreement in principle on the items discussed at this meeting. COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE Dan Teichman asked what was needed for the proposed open house. Bell indicated that a final product was not necessary but maps, text, handouts, etc. would be needed. He also asked about how much lead time was needed to inform the community. Bell indicated two - and -a -half to three weeks was reasonable. Teichman stated that planning group deliberations tended to run long and suggested 7 setting the open house date for the week of March 11. Bell indicated the open house would probably be held at one of the schools in the area. He said standard practice was to begin about 5:00 or 5:30 with a staff member on hand with maps and handouts. Interaction with the public would be one -on -one with a presentation at 7:30. He said all property owners of record in the study area as well as those within 500 feet were notified by first class mail. The group agreed to the week of March 11 as the preferred time for the open house. MINUTES December 14, 1995 minutes approved by consensus. ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPCOMING MEETINGS Special Planning Board meeting on February 7 for additional deliberations on the Flexible Development Proposal. AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 15 MEETING Focus on implementation strategy. Bell announced that the EMS Center was no longer available and asked it the Government Services Center was acceptable to everyone as a meeting site. The group indicated it was acceptable. ADJOURNMENT 9:40 PM. am STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN LAND USE INTENSITIES REVISED DESCRIPTIONS Prepared for 1 -25 -96 Planning Group Meeting New Hope Basin Connection Corridors along streams such as New Hope and Stoney Creeks serve as "natural highways" for the movement of wildlife. For wildlife traveling from one drainage basin to another, sparsely developed areas and ridge lines take on added significance. The southern tip of the Stoney Creek planning area which borders the ridge separating the two drainage basins and also lies adjacent to the largely undeveloped Camp New Hope lands offers opportunities for inter -basin travel of wildlife. While there is development on the land between this area and Stoney Creek, it is relatively sparse and on large lots and tracts. Also, considerable vegetative cover continues to exist on these properties. This area has been designated on the map to recognize its significance. The recommended approach to protecting the area is to educate property owners about its significance and encourage them to provide an extra layer of protection by granting conservation easements to an organization such as the Triangle Land Conservancy; the intent is not to impose additional ordinance or governmental restrictions. The area is shown as an overlay and covers slightly over 200 acres. Lower Intensity Areas Lower Intensity Areas comprise a substantial part of the planning area and lie adjacent to most of the "Resource Areas" (dark green) delineated in the concept plan. The current character of these areas is residential development on relatively large lots, a considerable number of large undeveloped tracts (both open and forested), and the only active farm in the area. Lower Intensity Areas best typify the area's remaining rural character. These are the areas where many of the plan's protection goals (natural resource, visual, and neighborhood) will be achieved. Lower Intensity Areas are proposed to have the lowest average development densities in the future, to be determined in part by the character of existing development. Implementation tools that may be applied will probably go beyond limitations on density and could include features such as buffers and easements. Extension of water and sewer service to these areas is not envisioned. Lower Intensity Areas lie in the central and southern part of the study area adjacent to Duke Forest, the Strayhorn farm, New Hope Church Road, and the Rural Buffer area to the southwest, south, and southeast. It is proposed that the area also extend north to I -85 in the undeveloped area east of Strayhorn Hills to provide a low - density separation between the future urban expansion of Durham and Hillsborough. Lower Intensity areas cover approximately 1,560 acres or about 38 % of the planning area. Intermediate Intensity Areas Intermediate Intensity Areas are intended to provide a transition between Higher and Lower Intensity Areas. They are envisioned as being predominantly residential with density being determined in large part by the character of existing development. Water and sewer extension to these areas is unlikely. The largest area of intermediate intensity includes Strayhorn Hills and Wyngate and intervening areas bordering I -85. A smaller area of intermediate intensity lies on both sides of University Station.Road south of Old NC 10, and a third very small section separates the southwestern corner of Duke Forest along NC 86 from higher intensity to the west adjacent to the I -40 /Old NC 86 EDD. Intermediate Intensity Areas cover approximately 1,150 acres or about 25 % of the planning area. Higher Intensity Areas Higher Intensity Areas are generally synonymous with the ten and twenty year transition areas in the existing plan or they are adjacent to areas proposed for future development on an urban scale. At some future date, they will most likely be incorporated into the municipalities of Hillsborough and Durham through the annexation process. A mix of land uses is possible in these areas and they will be served by water and sewer. They could be viewed as "receiving areas" for lower density areas to the south. Most Higher Intensity Areas lie in the west and northwest parts of the planning area. There is however, one smaller portion situated on the eastern tip of the area adjacent to the I -85/US 70 EDD. Density in these areas will be determined by the availability of water and sewer. Higher Intensity Areas cover slightly over 600 acres or about 15 % of the planning area. ME I V REVISED SCHEDULE FOR STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN (PUBLIC HEARING MOVED TO MAY 28, 1996) (Planning Group Meets Third Thursday; Two Optional Dates Included) January 25, 1996 - Planning Group Meeting to: • Further Refine Concept Plan • Further Refine Implementation Strategy • Discuss Ideas for Open House • Review Proposed Schedule Changes February 15, 1996 - Planning Group Meeting to: • Finalize Plan Recommendations • Finalize Implementation Strategy • Finalize Plans for Open House February 29, 1996 - Optional Meeting Date, If Needed Week of March 4 or March 11, 1996 Community Open House to: • Review Background of Plan • Review Recommended Plan • Review Implementation Strategy • Receive Citizen Comments /Suggestions March 21, 1996 - Planning Group Meeting to: • Review Comments from Open House • Make Adjustments to Recommended Plan • Make Adjustments to Implementation Strategy April 4, 1996 - Optional Meeting Date, If Needed April 15, 1996 - Planning Board Review of Recommended Plan and Implementation Strategy April 18, 1996 - Planning Group Meeting to Consider Final Adjustments to Plan /Implementation Strategy May 1, 1996 - BOCC Considers Public Hearing Notice May 10, 1996 - Notice to Newspapers /Notify Residents May 15, 1996 - Publish First Notice May 22, 1996 - Publish Second Notice MAY 28, 1996 - PUBLIC HEARING June 17, 1996 - Planning Board Recommendation August 5, 1996 - BOCC Decision