Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 030496ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 .snip ./ L O� 105 1 Dlkyj N] • "M M_. TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III 9I� SUBJ: Agenda for March 14 Planning Group Meeting DATE: March 8, 1996 Enclosed is the agenda for the March 14 Planning Group meeting. As at our last meeting, the main item of discussion will be plan implementation. The Implementation Strategy Subcommittee met again on March 7 to develop a revised proposal based on comments received at the February 28 Planning Group meeting. We need to try to wrap up discussion on this item in that time is getting very short. If we can't reach consensus on certain items in the proposal, we may have to drop them from consideration and go with the items on which we do have consensus. Our other main item of business will be details of the Community Open House on March 21. I'll bring handouts that I'm working on to our meeting on the 14th for review and comment. In that the open house is a week after our meeting, and the handouts will be for distribution at the open house, there should be time for minor modifications to them if needed. I'll also be asking for volunteers to assist at the open house so please check your schedule for that evening. 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. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ate, ~ctrl AGENDA Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 15 Thursday, March 14, 1996 at 7:30 PM TIME AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER - Verla Insko, Facilitator 7:35 2. REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL - Gene Bell and Implementation Strategy Subcommittee Members 8:00 3. GROUP DISCUSSION OF IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 9:15 4. IDEAS FOR COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE - Gene Bell 9:40 5. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from January 25, 1996, February 15, and February 28, 1996 9:45 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS, GROUP COMMENTS, UPCOMING MEETINGS 9:55 7. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING (APRIL 4, 1996) 10:00 8. ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SUBCOMMITTEE At the February 28 meeting of the Planning Group, a set of recommendations from the Implementation Strategies Subcommittee was distributed and discussed (those recommendations are an attachment to the minutes of that meeting and are included in this agenda packet). The Planning Group was unable to resolve some of the recommendations and referred them back to the subcommittee for further deliberations. Elio Soldi summarized these issues on pages 13 and 14 of the draft minutes. The Implementation Strategies Subcommittee convened on March 7 to review these items and makes the following recommendations: Provision of 70% Open Space in a Development At the meeting on the 28th, Meg McKean proposed this as a desirable option for which a developer should receive incentives to pursue. The subcommittee was supportive of the idea and suggested expedited review and approval as an incentive to get a developer to use this option. The subcommittee said they still needed to see the Rural Design Guidelines. Counting 50% of Active Recreation Space in the Lower Intensity Area Toward Open Space The Subcommittee discussed this item at length. General consensus was that 50% of active recreation space should not count toward open space in the lower intensity (yellow) plan area. This would not preclude active recreation uses in the louver intensity area, they just wouldn't be allowed to count toward open space. Active recreation uses would continue to count toward open space at the 50% rate in the intermediate (pumpkin) and higher intensity (rust) plan areas. Expedited Review and Approval The subcommittee was supportive of expedited review as an incentive for certain types of development. A prime example is the provision of 70% open space as mentioned above pending review of the Rural Design Guidelines. Another option mentioned was expedited review for developments that provide lot sizes of five acres and greater (this was a recommendation of the Rural Character Study Committee several years ago). A variation on the five acre lot theme proposed at the meeting was determining the number of lots on a tract based on a yield plan; designing the development to have five acre lots; and then being allowed to sell or transfer the excess lots. For example, a person has 100 acres and a yield plan shows he could realize 70 lots on it. He decides to divide the tract into five acre lots and uses 20 of the 70 lots the yield plan indicated he could have achieved. Thus, he would like to be able to sell or transfer the 50 lots he didn't utilize to another area. The subcommittee was supportive of this approach, but agreed that it needed to be explored more before a recommendation could be made. This was because language in the Flexible Development Proposal is oriented toward preservation of primary and secondary open space and allowing bonus housing units based on preservation of qualifying open space above the 33% level. Before making a firm recommendation on these options, the subcommittee expressed the desire to learn more about the subdivision review and approval process. In this regard, I have included informational handouts on the minor and major subdivision processes as administered by the Planning Department. Included are brochures which give a short summary of each process as well as more detailed handouts. Also included are fee schedules and a schedule of approval dates for major subdivisions. Mixed -Use Development In Higher Intensity (Rust) Areas Subject to Purchase of Conservation Easements It was the consensus of the subcommittee to not pursue this option, but rather to leave commercial in the area as it is "on the books today." Another Option on Conservation Easements Besides PerpeX The possibility of a 20 year conservation easement which would yield a density bonus of one -tenth (0.10) of a unit per acre of qualifying open space preserved was discussed on the 28th as an alternative to perpetual conservation easements. It was felt that a person who would not consider a perpetual easement might find this option more attractive with the result being more open space preserved than might otherwise be the case, even if for a limited time. The subcommittee questioned how extensively the option might be used, but felt it worth leaving in. MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURES CONCEPT PLAN I. APPLICATION A. The subdivider needs to receive Planning Department approval of a Concept Plan, before submitting a Final Plat. B. Concept Plan application requirements: 1. Application form /checklist signed by the owner and applicant. 2. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation ". If the property to be subdivided is currently under "farm use value taxation. ", please contact the Orange County Tax Office. 3. Two (2) copies of the Concept Plan prepared in accordance with Section IV -B of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 4. Tax map showing the lot to be subdivided and adjacent properties. 5. Private road justification where private road status is being requested. (Refer to Section IV- B -3 -d -1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.) b. Application fee. C. Upon receipt of an application, Planning Staff has 5 days to accept or reject the application. A Concept Plan application will not be accepted unless it is complete. H. REVIEW AND APPROVAL A. The Planning Staff will review the Concept Plan for general suitability of the land for development, and consistency with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. B. The Planning Department shall complete its review of the Concept Plan within fourteen (14) days of submission by the applicant. The Planning Department shall notify the applicant in writing of its analysis and recommendations within this period as well. 1. Approve the Concept Plan; 2. Approve the Concept Plan subject to conditions; or 3. Deny the Concept Plan. If the Concept Plan is denied, the Planning Department will state its reasons for denial in writing to the applicant. The applicant may resubmit a revised Concept Plan to the Planning Department for review and approval.. C.. Any decision by the Planning Department regarding a Concept Plan may be appealed to the Planning Board. MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURES FINAL PLAT I. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Following concept plan approval by the Planning & Inspections Department, the subdivider has twelve (12) months to submit an application for Final Plat approval. At the time of application, all required improvements for the subdivision must either be installed according to specifications or financially guaranteed for installation within 12 months. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation ". If the property to be subdivided is currently under "farm use value taxation ", please contact the Orange County Tax-Office. A complete Final Plat application will include: 1. Original mylar of the Final Plat prepared in accordance with Section V -D of the Subdivision Regulations. 2. A copy of the Final Plat indicating Health Department approval /denial for each lot shown thereon. 3. Eight (8) copies of the Final Plat. 4. A road maintenance agreement to assure installation and /or maintenance of required improvements. 5. Application fee. B. Upon receipt of a Final Plat application, the Planning Staff will review it for completeness. Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant within five (5) working days with notification of deficiencies. II. REVIEW AND APPROVAL A. A complete Final Plat application will be reviewed by the Planning Department for compliance with all applicable regulations including conditions placed on the concept plan approval. Auxiliary documents will be sent to the County Attorney for his review and approval - - - — - - -- - - - — B. With the County Attorney's recommendation, the Planning Department will take action on the application within 45 days and will: 1. Approve the application, - 2. Approve the application subject to conditions; or 3. Deny the application; If approved, the applicant has 90 days to record the Final Plat and auxiliary documents at. the Orange County Register of Deeds. If denied, reasons for denial will be stated in writing to the applicant within ten (10) days. The decision of the Planning Department regarding a Final Plat application may be appealed to the Planning Board. C. Recordation of the approved Final Plat and auxiliary documentation will be done in the . presence of and with the advice and consent of the Planning Department. Contact your project planner for an appointment to record Final Plats and auxiliary documents. MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURES CONCEPT PLAN I. APPLICATION A. Before submitting a Preliminary Plat, the subdivider must receive Planning Board approval of a Concept Plan. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation ". If the property to be subdivided is currently under "farm use value taxation ", please contact the Orange County Tax Office. B. Concept Plan application requirements: 1. Application form /checklist signed by the owner and applicant. 2. Sixteen (16) copies of the Concept Plan. 3. Tax map showing the lot to be subdivided and adjacent properties. 4. Private road justification where private road status is being requested. (Refer to Section IV- B -3 -d -1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.) C. Upon receipt of an application, Planning Staff has 5 days to accept or reject the application. A Concept Plan application will not be accepted unless it is complete. Ii. REVIEW AND APPROVAL A. The Planning Staff will review the Concept Plan for general suitability of the land for development, and consistency with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Within 45 days of acceptance of the application, the Planning Department will present its analysis and recommendation to the Planning Board at its regular monthly meeting. B. The Planning Board will take action on the proposal based on its conformity with all applicable regulations. Within 45 days of receipt of the Planning Department's report, the Planning Board will: 1. Approve the Concept Plan; 2. Approve the Concept Plan subject to conditions; or 3. Deny the Concept Plan. If the Concept Plan is approved, the applicant has 12 months to submit a Preliminary Plan. If the time period elapses and no Preliminary Plan has been submitted, then the Concept Plan expires. If the Concept Plan is denied, the Planning Board will state its reasons for denial in the minutes of the meeting. The applicant may resubmit a revised Concept Plan to the Planning Department for review and recommendation to the Planning Board. C. Any decision by the Planning Board regarding a Concept Plan may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURES PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION A. Prior to Preliminary Plat application the subdivider must receive Planning Board approval of a Concept Plan, or must have had a sketch plan approved between 2/1/88 and 1/31/89. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation ". If the property to be subdivided is currently under "farm use value taxation ", please contact the Orange County Tax Office. Preliminary Plat application requirements: 1. Application form /checklist signed by the owner and applicant. 2. Twenty -five (25) copies of the Preliminary Plat 3. Tax map showing the location of the parcel to be subdivided. 4. Application fees. 5. A copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department soils analysis approval /denial for each lot. 6. Private road justification, where applicable. 7. Draft copies of a road maintenance agreement, homeowners association documents, and /or restrictive covenants as required. B. The Planning Department will review the application for completeness and general conformity with applicable regulations within five (5) working days after submittal. Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant with notification of deficiencies. II. REVIEW AND APPROVAL A. The Planning Department will send out copies of the plat and accompanying documents for review and comment to officials and agencies which may include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. N.C. Department of Transportation 2. Orange County Health Department 3. Orange County Board of Education 4. Orange County Erosion Control 5. Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council 6. Adjacent town /county jurisdictions where a courtesy review procedure has been established 7. Utility providers 8. Orange Soil and Water Conservation District 9. County Attorney 10. County Engineer B. Within 85 days of acceptance of the application, the Planning Department will present an analysis and recommendation to the Planning Board at their regular monthly meeting. The Board will act within 45 days of the presentation of the Planning Department's report and will: 1. Recommend approval of the application; 2. Recommend approval subject to conditions; or 3. Recommend denial of the application. C. The Planning Department will forward its report and the Planning Board's. recommendation tot the Board of County Commissioners at its next available regularly scheduled meeting. Within 45 days of the meeting, the Commissioners will take action on the proposal and will: 1. Approve the application; 2. Approve the application subject to conditions; or 3. Deny the application. The applicant has 12 months to apply for Final Plat approval or the Preliminary Plat becomes null and void. MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCEDURES FINAL PLAT I. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Following preliminary plan approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the subdivider has twelve (12) months to submit an application for Final Plat approval. At the time of application, all required improvements for the subdivision must either be installed according to specifications or financially guaranteed for installation within 12 months. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation ". If the property to be subdivided is currently under "farm use value taxation ", please contact the Orange County Tax Office. A complete Final Plat application will include: 1. Original mylar of the Final Plat prepared in accordance with Section V -D of the Subdivision Regulations. 2. Department of Transportation stamp of approval on the mylar signed by the District Engineer (for public roads only). 3. Five (5) copies of the Final Plat. 4. A road maintenance agreement to assure installation and /or maintenance of required improvements. 5. Application fee. B. Upon receipt of a Final Plat application, the Planning Staff will review it for completeness. Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant within five (5) working days with notification of deficiencies. II. REVIEW AND APPROVAL A. A complete Final Plat application will be reviewed by the Planning Department for compliance with all applicable regulations including conditions placed on the preliminary subdivision approval. Auxiliary documents will be sent to the County Attorney for his review and approval. B. With the County Attorney's recommendation, the Planning Department will take action on the application within 45 days and will: 1. Approve the application; 2. Approve the application subject to conditions; or 3. Deny the application; If approved, the applicant has 90 days to record the Final Plat and auxiliary documents at the Orange County Register of Deeds. If denied, reasons for denial will be stated in writing to the applicant within ten (10) days. The decision of the Planning Department regarding a Final Plat application may be appealed to the Planning Board. C. Recordation of the approved Final Plat and auxiliary documentation will be done in the presence of and with the advice and consent of the Planning Department. Contact your project planner for an appointment to record Final Plats and auxiliary documents. 1996 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DEADLINES MAJOR S UPDI VISION CONCEPT PLAN PLANNING BOARD SUBMITTAL ACCEPTANCE MEETING DEADLINE DEADLINE (Fridays) (Fridays) Jan. 22 Jan. 5 Jan. 12 Feb. 19 Feb. 2 Feb. 9 Mar. 18 Mar. 1 Mar. 8 Apr. 15 Mar. 29 Apr. 5 May 20 May 3 May 10 June 17 May 30 June 7 July 15 June 28 July 5 Aug. 19 Aug. 2 Aug. 9 Sept. 16 Aug. 30 Sept. 6 Oct. 21 Oct. 4 Oct. 11 Nov. 18 Nov. 1 Nov. 8 Dec. 16 Nov. 29 Dec. 6 The Concept Plan application must be submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department by the Submittal deadline. During the five (5) worldng days following submittal, the Planning Staff will review the application to determine if it includes all required information and will notify the applicant of any discrepancies. Only those applications which are found to be complete by the Acceptance Deadline will be presented at the next Planning Board meeting. Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant. N9 1996 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DEADLINES M,4 JOR S UBDI VISION 11/6/95 11/20/95 12/18/95 1/16/96 2/12/96 3/18/96 4/15/96 5/20/96 6/17/96 7/15/96 8/19/96 9/16/96 11/13/95 11/27/95 12/25/95 1/23/96 2/19/96 3/25/96 4/22/96 5/27/96 6/24/96 7/22/96 8/26/96 9/23/96 1/22/96 2/19/96 3/18/96 4/15/96 5/20/96 6/17/96 7/15/96 8/19/96 9/16/96 10/21/96 11/18/96 12/16/96 (5,6) LATEST BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE 3/16/96 4/1/96 4/16/96 5/14/95 6/26/96 6/26/96 8/20/96 9/17/96 10/15/96 11/19/96 12/17/96 (1) Subdivision application materials must be submitted by the submittal deadline in order to be presented at the Planning Board meeting listed in the schedule above. (2) The Planning Staff has five (5) working days to review the submittal to assure that it is complete. Applications which are not omplc. by the acceptance date will be returned to the applicant and may be re- submitted for the Planning Beard meeting which corresponds with the next submittal date. (3) Preliminary Plats must be presented to the Planning Board within 85 days from the time an application is accepted. The dates listed represent the latest Planning Board meeting at which the 85 -day deadline can be met. In some cases, the subdivision can be presented to the Planning Board at the meeting prior to that listed. (4) In most cases, the Planning Board hears the staff report, discusses the subdivision and then makes its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. However, if the Planning Board feels that there is insufficient information available, or unresolved issues, it may postpone making a recommendation until its next regular meeting. (5) Preliminary Plats must be presented to the Board of Commissioners within 45 days from the date on which the Planning Board makes its recommendation. The dates listed represent the latest Commissioners meeting for a subdivision forwarded from the corresponding Planning Board meeting date. In most cases, however, the subdivision can be presented to the Commissioners at the 1st or 2nd meeting following the Planning Board's recommendation. (6) In most cases, the Board of Commissioners receives the Planning Board recommendation, discusses the subdivision, and renders a decision to approve or deny the subdivision. However, if the Board of Commissioners feels that there is insufficient information available, or unresolved issues, it may postpone making a decision for 45 days. 30 PRELIMLYAR Y PLATS (1) (2) (3,4) APPLICATION APPLICATION LATEST SUBN=AL ACCEPTANCE PLANNING DEADLINE DEADLINE BOARD (Mondays) (Mondays) ?YfEETING DATE 11/6/95 11/20/95 12/18/95 1/16/96 2/12/96 3/18/96 4/15/96 5/20/96 6/17/96 7/15/96 8/19/96 9/16/96 11/13/95 11/27/95 12/25/95 1/23/96 2/19/96 3/25/96 4/22/96 5/27/96 6/24/96 7/22/96 8/26/96 9/23/96 1/22/96 2/19/96 3/18/96 4/15/96 5/20/96 6/17/96 7/15/96 8/19/96 9/16/96 10/21/96 11/18/96 12/16/96 (5,6) LATEST BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE 3/16/96 4/1/96 4/16/96 5/14/95 6/26/96 6/26/96 8/20/96 9/17/96 10/15/96 11/19/96 12/17/96 (1) Subdivision application materials must be submitted by the submittal deadline in order to be presented at the Planning Board meeting listed in the schedule above. (2) The Planning Staff has five (5) working days to review the submittal to assure that it is complete. Applications which are not omplc. by the acceptance date will be returned to the applicant and may be re- submitted for the Planning Beard meeting which corresponds with the next submittal date. (3) Preliminary Plats must be presented to the Planning Board within 85 days from the time an application is accepted. The dates listed represent the latest Planning Board meeting at which the 85 -day deadline can be met. In some cases, the subdivision can be presented to the Planning Board at the meeting prior to that listed. (4) In most cases, the Planning Board hears the staff report, discusses the subdivision and then makes its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. However, if the Planning Board feels that there is insufficient information available, or unresolved issues, it may postpone making a recommendation until its next regular meeting. (5) Preliminary Plats must be presented to the Board of Commissioners within 45 days from the date on which the Planning Board makes its recommendation. The dates listed represent the latest Commissioners meeting for a subdivision forwarded from the corresponding Planning Board meeting date. In most cases, however, the subdivision can be presented to the Commissioners at the 1st or 2nd meeting following the Planning Board's recommendation. (6) In most cases, the Board of Commissioners receives the Planning Board recommendation, discusses the subdivision, and renders a decision to approve or deny the subdivision. However, if the Board of Commissioners feels that there is insufficient information available, or unresolved issues, it may postpone making a decision for 45 days. 30 PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE Adopted 6/15/89 Effective 7/1/89 Amended 3/24/92 Ordinance Amendments $ 160.00 Rezoning Requests/ Comprehensive Plan Amendments 160.00 In + 5.00 /acre Major Transportation Corridor (N1TC) Site Plan Review 117.00 Site Plan Review Certification Not - Required 60.00 Certification Required 117.00 Zoning Permit 15.00 Minor Subdivision Concept Plan 60.00 Final Plat 117.00 Major Subdivisions Concept Plan 80.00 + 1.00 /lot Preliminary/Final Plat 350.00 (Single fee for both /no separate fees) + 5.00 /lot Re- approval of Expired Preliminary Plats 60.00 Partial Width Right -of -Way Request 81.00 Board of Adjustment - Variance /Appeal 180.00 Special Use Permits Class A 360.00 + 5.00 /acre Class B 180.00 Planned Developments 1-4 Units or Lots 250.00 +30.00 /unit or lot Home Occupation Plan Review 67.00 Major Transportation Corridor (N1TC) Site Plan Review 117.00 Site Plan Review Certification Not - Required 60.00 Certification Required 117.00 Dl� r (.1.j is STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP FEBRUARY 28, 1996 MINUTES The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, February 28, 1996 at 7:30 PM in the Orange County Planning and Agriculture Center at 306F Revere Road in 1- Iillsborou,11. .NIEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Strayhorn, James Bumphus, Judd Edeburn, Clint Burklin, Lee Rafalow, Meg McKean, Dan Teichman. Elio Soldi, Curtis Bane, and Dean Z;:hnder. ,NIENIBERS ABSENT: Bob Hall, David Yelton, Steve Price. Keith Cook, Bobb,:- Nicholson, Trudy Cuffe, Gary Hanker, Michael `Varner, Bill Bracey, Renee Price, Stephen Halkiotis, and Don IX'illhoit. STAFF PRESENT: Gene Bell, Planner III FACILITATOR PRESENT: Verla Insko CALL TO ORDER: The meeting commenced at 7:40 in the absence of a quorum. REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL AND DISCUSSION: Gene Bell announced that the Implementation Strategy Subcommittee met on February 15 and handed out a listing (attached) of recommendations resulting from that meeting. He began reviewing the recommendations item -by -item. There were no questions on the first three items. Item 4 Judd: Thinks it might be problematic if other small area plans were done and they expressed desire to transfer density out of their areas; might tend to be shifted to areas not as well organized or governed by a small area plan. Dan: Could be a problem after many (10 or 12) small area plans done. Lee: Has given some thought to issue. Thinks County will have to take on task of creating sending and receiving zone districts. Sees our group as pioneering the effort. Clint: Reminder that pumpkin and rust are receiving areas. Bob: Whether market Nvill support buying and selling rights in this area remains to be seen. Curtis: This is reason he suggested a private group (listed further down in report) to monitor transfer of rights. Dan: If we don't make a proposal, market won't have any reason to even try it. After trying, we'll find out if we're successful. Bob: What we're after is a method of creating open space. Remains to be seen whether practical or not for the Stoney Creek area. Transfers in area would not be as affordable as buying somewhere else and bringing them in. Elio: This does create an option and doesn't take anything away. Thinks larger market desirable. Initiatives like Stoney Creek may lead to creation of a larger market eventually. Feels this is a positive approach. Bob: Not putting County money in it which is the only way he feels it will work; is a business transaction between buyer and seller. Elio: An the bigger the market becomes, the more effective it will become. Bob: Market needs to be focused on areas around towns where water and sewer can be extended Clint: Stoney Creek area serves as a buffer between Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Durham. Towns need to be encouraged to allow higher density within their boundaries, maybe by buying easements in Stoney Creek area . Bob: Right now all developers have to contend with when getting additional density around towns is cost of extending water and sewer. Purchasing rights /easements adds a whole new dimension to things. Have to change way of thinking. Judd: When revising report, may suggest that County look at this on a larger scale so that receiving areas are worked out. Vleg: Thinks we should put in implementation report a recommendation on transfer of development rights (TDR). Dan: FDO offers a lot, but doesn't offer it specific to a designated area. All we're saying is we're applying FDO /TDR, but applying them in this specific area and County may want to look at larger application. Lee: Thinks Judd is recommending a sentence at end that say we suggest other small area plans and County at -large look at creating sending and receiving districts. Dan: Would recommend it as part of cover letter to proposal. Clint: Risk is that it could take County a long time to do. Judd: Don't want to tie adoption of this (Stoney Creek recommendations) to that. Item 5 Gene: Quick overview of where bonus units can be used depending on amount of open space preserved. Dan: Clarification on point raised at last meeting concerning open space preserved and bonus units allowed. Gene/Lee: For each acre of qualifying open space preserved above the 33% minimum, an additional (bonus) housing unit is allowed. Gene: Clarification on question Bob asked at last meeting. Relationship is one additional unit for each acre of qualifying open space preserved above the minimum regardless of the underlying zoning (two acre lot size in the Little River watershed for example) in the area where open space is being preserved. Bob: All land to be treated alike? Gene: Anything defined as open space in the FDO. Dan: FDO makes no distinction. Gene: Reminder that for land to qualify as open space, it has to fit definition of primary or secondary conservation areas in the FDO. Curtis: Flood plain, low -lying land, steep slopes, and things like this that make land unusable for building on qualify as conservation area. Meg: Should all preserved land be treated as having equal value? 2 Lee: No, but not sure we can do much about it since it is contained in FDO. Bob: Nlav be land somewhere that is just too valuable to work under this process. Dan: How would we go about defining- land where it wouldn't work? Let: Add another color to map and provide additional definition. The problem is that that kind of thinking, has to be done in conjunction with thinking about issues like buildable: vs unbuildable land. Elio: Bob made a good point. If you have a good piece of land, there's no way you would want to go with FDO because you could get so much money for it. So more incentives for a piece of land like this would be helpful. Lee: Keep in mind too that for much of the land we are talking about to realize its potential value, a change in zoning is required; and we have said that is not a right that someone has, that it is the political process that one has to go through to make it happen. Bob: But nothing in this proposal keeps me from that right. Dan: Think it is a valid point that not all land is equal. Some is basically unbuildable. In order to say that some of this land that would otherwise had buildings on it that we want to see preserved because its in a vista or on a corner that's more valuable than that unbuildable land implicitly states that we can define those attributes about the more valuable land and unless we are going to tackle that issue in some timely manner before we run out of time to even have any influence with this, we're going to have to live with that premise the best that we can, the way it's written in the FDO. Don't know that we can tackle in any timely manner to get something out the door from this committee. Bob: Think some of the land that we ought to work hardest to preserve is land that's some of our unbuildable land and if a way to get that is to give a building somewhere else, then think it's a just and honest way to do it. If somebody owns that land they have a right to someday have water and sewer there probably. May be in our lifetime, may not, but that right is still out there. Lee: We have said as a group that they don't have a right to water and sewer. There is a process to go through. The point that that land can be used as an incentive to preserve that land, well that land is already preserved, it s not allowed to be built on. When person bought that land it was unbuildable. Bob: That's the way you look at open space. Some people see it differently. Lee: Understand, just presenting the other side. Not saying we need to resolve that. Dan: Some land is unbuildable due to truly being unbuildable. But some is unbuildable due to economics and that what Bob is referring to. Lee: All land that is unbuildable is unbuildable for economic reasons. Gene: Let's move to the two bullets under number 5. Brief overview of where bonus units can be used depending on amount of open space preserved. Elio: As we look at this we must remember that it is an option; we still have available what can be done under current development standards too. Two questions come to mind: Does this offer additional opportunity for somebody and are there other incentives that we could add to this to favor open space? Would urge everyone to see if we can add more incentives where possible. Meg: Disappointed that this offers low baseline to work with, would like to see higher open space requirements among other changes. Would like to see expedited review offered for 50% set aside where the 50% is buildable land. Dan: Everything outside of primary conservation is buildable land, but that doesn't mean that its buildable vs unbuildable. It could be outside primary conservation and not be considered buildlable by owner of land. Lee: Let's take unbuildable out of conversation and talk about as primary conservation. Meg: Mean buildable as defined by County. Gene: As determined by yield plan. Elio: Meg re -state your additional incentive. Meg: Want to see expedited review and approval for development plans that set aside 50% or more of what the County already defines as buildable land. Curtis: Goes against what we've said before. Meg: Is an incentive for expedited review. Curtis: We've already said previously that open space should be determined from the total tract acreage. Meg: Not taking away what we've agreed to earlier. Expedited review is an incentive for doing more than is required. Dan: Let's discuss expedited review and how it relates to an incentive when we get to point 7 and stay with the 33% and 50% for these two bullet items. Dan: Have a question for the subcommittee regarding splitting the density bonus for preserving greater than 33% up to 50% open space and using the bonus wherever when preserving more than 50% open space. Lee: This originated at last Planning Group meeting where I proposed some restrictions on use of density bonus in the yellow zone vis -d -vis the FDO proposal. This suggestion was not widely endorsed. Bob said maybe we could do something that's graduated and that's what you see here. Overall goal was to try to get some kind of consistency in the buildout. We're not achieving that, but anything that helps move us in that direction seems desirable. Clint: What makes it attractive to me is that some of the better receiving area in a cash sense is this area (rust and pumpkin). So there's seems to be a real incentive to achieve better than 50% so you can use all of your bonus units in the study area. Dan: Re- iteration of key points of 33 %+ and 50 %+ proposal. Perhaps a third item as mentioned by Meg might be above another percentage, whatever that might be, you get double units to use wherever. Is that the idea of graduated density bonuses? Clint: Hate to see equations or things get real complicated. Think what we have is probably sufficient. Dan: Agree, satisfied with two steps. Meg: Would like to figure something really spectacular to do for people who set aside 70% of all the tract and not worry about buildable vs non - buildable. Dan: Is there any suggestion to add a third bullet above 70 %? If so what should that be and when do we discuss it? 4 'ilia: Like to come beck to it. Lee: If somebody is doing a major development where they are puttin`, a concentrated kind of development on 30% of the land that they have and tell them the,., don't have to go before the public, they Nvill jump on it. 4' ria: Is there any discussion on point six? Group: Yes! Bob: Very much opposed to anything that differs from the FDO. Think if you have open space, regardless of the type, has value to someone. Don't know if any the yellow area would ever have a golf course, but it bothers him to restrict the opportunity. Dan: Is a park considered active recreation land? Gene: Generally, a park is going to be public property. Discussion by several group members concerning FDO allowing 50% of active recreation land being allowed to count toward open space and bonus units and that this would not apply in the yellow area if the subcommittee recommendation was adopted. Bob: He worked for years to try to get recreational areas for County residents and cannot see penalizing somebody willing to do it on their own and doesn't see it as being insane to give that person some building space somewhere else. Verla: Assuming that your objection is that you view number six as a disincentive to property in the yellow area? Bob: Yes. Judd: How are roads and power line easements included in open space calculations and at what ratio do they count? Lee: To Curtis, keep hearing you say that taxes are a key point of this equation, but they have nothing to with how you calculate density bonuses. Curtis: If you're paving taxes on a piece of land, regardless of where it is, e.g., under a road, in a creek, it ought to be part of the calculation. Verla: Don't know if the current conversation is relevant to getting through the subcommittee proposal. Judd: Only analogy he is trying to make is for similar sorts of land use, whether it's paved or whether it's cleared, how does that relate to another part of the credit which is the road? Lee: When we started out, our first subcommittee worked very hard on trying to come up with very concrete statements about what our objectives were and we came up with two; we've had some creep on one of them and the other seems to have evaporated. The one that has crept is the one that said we are going to do everything in our power to preserve the value of the land. The creep that has occurred over the intervening months since we defined objective; it has been translated into everything that is economically possible as an opportunity is being endorsed by this group. Conversely, the other objective we agreed upon is that we would preserve rural character and that's gone. Verla: Very important for the people on this committee to feel committed to the outcome or there won't be an agreement. Is the work of the subcommittee resulting in anything better than what the current proposal is? Is there anything that we're doing in the incentives that would make you want to develop differently than what the current option is? Would you choose any of these other options over the current option? Curtis: Depends on the nature of the piece of land. Verla: So there are some incentives that would at least make you look at these options? Curtis: Sure. Verla: To Lee. Are you getting enough rural character preservation to be supportive of this proposal that we take to the Planning, Board? Lee: We're right on the edge of where I can support it, right on the edge. Feel like we've gone so far to add density to this area that what we're going to preserve is stuff that can't be built on anyway. I'm not sure what we're achieving. As hard as it was for everyone involved, I hated the process of fighting about University Station. Once we come up with a proposal here it's going to disarm us in a way that's going to make it very hard for him and his constituents to get what thev want and will make it hard for Curtis and Bob and other landowners to get things bevond what this says. So in a sense, this is a disarmament we're doing here (for both sides) and he is at the point where he might rather fight on a case -by -case basis. Verla: If fighting is the alternative to the negotiated settlement, maybe we should start the conversation by saying we believe we can do better than what we have now. Elio: Thinks Verla has hit on the crucial point. There may be things in proposal that we may find we wouldn't do, but nothing forces us to do them. All we are looking at is can we add enough incentives so that when we leave here there is one aspect of this proposal that we feel comfortable with, and feel that in this case have to agree somewhat with Lee. He's not saying you can't do this. He's saying perhaps you should consider it. We've gone so many miles now; I feel we've achieved something. There are options in document that I would deliberately consider for my land. Think there options that might help Curtis. Not sure that we can we can address some of the issues Bob has raised regarding the potential value of land. We've taken away nothing. At this point would say let's see if we can add something else for those people that want conservation. We may not agree, but let's try to come up with something we can all support. This document may serve as an incentive for another small group to work on. Feel that we've gone a long way and if we recognize that we've gone a long way. Otherwise, we're going to end up splitting hairs and going to part and not achieve much. Dan: We've agreed up to point five on the words in here from the subcommittee. We said there ought to be a third bullet under item five. Now we're on item six. Reference back to page four, section two of the FDO regarding active and passive recreation lands and rights -of -way in open space determination. Also examples of active recreational lands. Bob: Think the fact that we're losing all lands as method of determining buildable, these two things should equal out. Dan:_ So you're suggesting that item six basically struck? Bob: Yes. Verla: And how I read your objection is that it is taking away something that has been given in the FDO. Lee: Don't think you can take away something that has not yet been passed. Originally said we were going to preserve the value of the land. Now there are people who think that statement means we are going to preserve every possible opportunity that land might produce; I object to that. Bob: To have a future subdivision like I might want, probably going to have to build it himself. People that have the land tend to view things a little differently. Need to try to put yourself in the other person's shoes; thinks it will enhance understanding. Dan: This proposal came from subcommittee whether they agreed or disagreed. The group needs to come to some consensus that it needs to go back because it is not acceptable, it needs to be struck because it is not acceptable, or it needs to be accepted as it is. 0 Versa: We're trying to get through the document and it seems sonic parts need to be revisited. Bob: Thinks that if someone develops recreational open space the FDO rules should apply in the yellow area. Lee: What that means is that we (group) never needed to exist. Versa: We're arguing positions. If the proposal won't work then we need to try to identify others that might achieve goals, but need to look at options instead of just arguing positions. Elio: Think what Lee was saying lie wants us to recognize is that we had a goal of rural character and as Versa was saving this may not be the most suitable way to approach it, but he cannot adhere to a document that will emphasize only land value and not rural character which was part of the equation. We want Lee in our corner. Dan: If we're going to discuss six let's do it, if not let's move on. Group: Let's move on and come back to six if time permits. Item 7 Curtis: What is expedited review, Gene: The minor subdivision process would come the closest to it. It's where a person is doing five lots or less and all of the review and approval takes place in the Planning Department. It doesn't have to go to the Planning Board or Countv Commissioners or any public meetings or hearings. Whereas, if you do more than five lots, it has to go to the Planning Board twice and to the Countv Commissioners at least one time and takes months and months. Dan: Seems that some type of expedited review is clearly an incentive, but when proposal is sent to Planning Board it clearly needs to be identified what expedited review and approval is tied to as opposed to just saying expedited review is good. Clint: Feel that we need to see design guidelines before finalizing things. Bob: What brought this about is that there is a lot of land being developed in the County in 10.01 acre lots to bypass subdivision regulations. It evidently saves a lot of time and expense. Of course, when you get in an area where land values are much higher its harder to do that and make it work and that's the reason the subcommittee was talking about encouraging large lots (though not 10 acres). Personally, he is more interested in having less people on the land rather than to have incentives to see how many more you can get on the land. Elio: Then why don't we take Meg's suggestion that if you leave 70% open space it entitles you to a speedy process. Dan: Would be a third category under item five specifically tying expedited review to something. Curtis: Thinks incentives should start at 3' )%. Versa: If there aren't enough incentives for Curtis to preserve 33% open space then he can build under the current option. So, we have an incentive that addresses 50% and what we're looking for is an incentive that would make somebody want to preserve 70 %. Bob: And we probably won't know what that is until we adopt something and see if it works. If people don't use it, it must be flawed, but it won't hurt anybody. Elio: This is the criteria we should use. If something doesn't hurt, doesn't punish, doesn't affect options, then it is an incentive. 7 Lee: Thing we are forgetting is that there are all kinds of things in here that do hurt. It's just that they don't hurt the person who wants to do a major development. They only hurt the people who live there already, they only hurt the environment. Verla: Do I understand that you only want to use expedited review for 70 %? Dan: Proposal only says that subcommittee thinks expedited review and approval is a good incentive. How it might be applied hasn't been discussed yet. Clint: ivly view from being on the subcommittee is that we (I) were recommending expedited review for five acre lots. Or 33% and Rural Design Guidelines. Haven't been written yet. Verla: Why would you want to give bonus for meeting guidelines? Clint: Guidelines are way beyond what they have to do today. And I can't vote on this (proposal) until they are done. Verla: You're not saying that we couldn't use expedited review for meeting 70% open space? Clint: No. Expedited review for five acre lots is not riding on design guidelines. Elio: Think we are going in wrong direction. We want a document that has something positive to offer. If we take 70% can't think of anyone doing that of their own free will unless they love land, but can think of a group that wants to develop that comes up with a cluster and we tell them they can get it approved quickly. So why are we debating this? We want open land. What do we lose by putting in something some person may adopt? Just because we want to debate points we have no control over? We can't control all the things we have discussed. Bob: Only way we would ever lose there is if at some point in time they put mandatory on it. Verla: Can we find an incentive for more than 50% open space? Dan: Think we need to be more explicit, only two things came from subcommittee as being potential options for using expedited review (conventional subdivisions with five acre lots and meeting or exceeding rural design guidelines - whatever they are). Meg has raised a third option and there could be four or five more. If this group feels that expedited review is an incentive it agrees with then we need to work on what list could be. Elio: If something is a good incentive that takes nothing away and is a viable option, see no reason not to promote it. Verla: Does anyone disagree with expedited review being an incentive? Lee: Don't disagree, but want to point out that expedited review is a nice way of saying the public has no say. So we have to be very careful about what we say the public has no say in. Elio: Then I will make this point; we have to give away something if we want open space. It seems that to gain sufficient open space which is what we want to do in terms of rural character, is a tremendous advantage for which we have to pay something. Lee: Think Meg's suggestion was a very good one for the subcommittee to go back and work on. Agree with that more than the notion of five acres as a candidate for expedited review. Thinks expedited review has to be used very judiciously and believes 70% is an example where a way can be found to do this. Dan: Are there any other thoughts to send back to the subcommittee besides 70 %, five acres, and rural design guidelines (whatever they might be)? Don't think conventional five acre lot subdivisions are exciting enough for expedited review. Want to save it for something she really wants to see. Bob: He is just adamant the other Five acre lots excites him much than living_ in a cluster development. %%erla: How about five acre lot with four acres in preserved open space? Lee: What does it mean to have five acres with 30% open space? The whole thing about the building envelope in FDO is another one of these things that is a little crazy. You say you can only put one house on it and then you create a building envelope that specifies 501,-b of the land. Well, 80% of land is outside of building envelope anyway. Judd: The trick here is to provide a place in the Stoney Creek area where Bob would be happy to live - might be a five or ten acre lot - and to provide a place in area where 70% of the open space on a tract is preserved and those folks who live in the other 30% are happy that they're there and when they ride by Bob's place it preserves rural character and when he rides by the entrance to their place all he sees is the 70% open space. So they don't want to live exactly in the same house or neighborhood, but in the Stoney Creek neighborhood there are enough options and the design guidelines make both places attractive to both sets of people. Bob: That's what we have right now in the area. Clint: How do we develop enough incentives to get developers to `,o beyond minimum? Meg: We lay out options and market will detennine what is built. Elio: We are losing sight because we are debating our own preferences. View should be if this is an option that somebody may use - I may not use it - but as long as it does not prevent me from using my option why should I object. Dan: Have another suggestion to add, expedited review for people willing to donate parkland. Group discussion on desirability of parkland especially athletic fields with lights and compatibility with goals of preserving rural character and property values. Verla: We can ask subcommittee to wrestle with the options under which expedited review may be appropriate. Clint: May be able to address that as part of item six because if the recreation uses are preserving open space then maybe we could allow in yellow as well other areas, i.e., unlit parks. Judd: On rural design guidelines, would it not be expected that one would follow them as part of the development process? Clint: If ,.!ou were doing conventional development you wouldn't have to follow guidelines. Lee: Believe that if you are calling yourself an open space development and applying for density bonuses associated with it, then rural design guidelines would apply. Gene: Yes. Verla: Send that back to subcommittee to address. we Elio: Let's put a few things that may work and not debate down to the ground something that we don't like personally. Again, if it doesn't take away any of our rights and has potential to increase rural character, why debate it? Bob: Only reason to debate, if you're not losing anything, is to seek ways you think might make it work and have People use it. Elio: Cannot foresee any circumstances where incentives, and especially 70 %, will adversely affect landowners because they still have all the options to choose from for their land. Unless we view it as it does not affect potentially what I can do, but it adds something to our goal, then that's the way we should consider it. Otherwise, we're opening up all sorts of debates that will lead nowhere and create conflicts. We cannot solve all issues. Verla: Like to spend 10 minutes on the possibility of some type of low impact, mixed -use commercial in the rust area. Reference to Carrboro definition of neighborhood mixed -use. Dan: What uses would be involved? Lee: Good question. Don't know what would be involved yet. Verla: What kind of direction can we give to subcommittee so they can pursue constructively? Elio: Certain uses that would not be allowed and some that would be allowed conditionally. Starting point could be Lee's original proposal where he made some suggested changes to the permitted use table. Dan: Real issue here is if you allow, you put in a finite list of what can be allowed. Lee: Don't feel we can really discuss this until subcommittee has worked on it and has proposal on table. Dan: The question is do people sitting around table feel that we should allow the possibility of some form of low - impact, mixed -use commercial development in the rust areas? Bob: Seems to be thought that some areas might be able to take some mixed -use and that if they are permitted will have to purchase conservation easements. In other words, the community is going to get something out of them for letting them have something. About as un -rural character as you can get! Clint: Would help subcommittee if you could say maybe you're on right track, come back and tell us uses and how it might work. Bob: Looks like it ought to be something that would be good for the community as a whole to be there or ought to say no, we can't allow it. But to say we'll allow, but you're going to have to buy 20 acres of conservation easement to get it, then he wants no part of it. Lee: Why? Bob: If that person is doing something that is a service to the community, why does he owe anything? Lee: Presumably this person could make more money by doing the commercial use that is currently not allowed and the community in return would get preserved open space. Bob: But you don't have to buy conservation easements now to request a rezoning; feel like we're taking away. Dan: Is giving something in return that you can't get today. Unless you go through a request of zoning change which is outside the domain of this. 10 Elio: Think we are talking about two different things. Maybe the subcommittee should explore other incentives. If there is something that is really a benefit to the community, then it should ._� alloy,; ed without any conditions. But we are looking at uses that currently have been deemed not to be desirable ti r this area and are sayingg we are going to be more flexible, but you have to give something back to the community to onerate. Now there may be uses that are beneficial to the community that we should consider as allowable 'X ithOUt c,"tservation easements. Lee: Not that these uses are undesirable. but that they have trade -outs and trade -of'ts are such that this 're doing to create traffic we otherwise wouldn't want and maybe as a community this is a use that has some pluses and we can live with the minuses under the provision that some additional land is beim, conserved. That's the principle. If there is not support for it, we can take it of the table. Verla: How would this differ from rezoning,? Lee: Under conditional use, presumption is that this use is permitted, you _just have to meet the condition(s). Dan: If you look at the map, substantial part of the rust area already built upon and two areas already identified for commercial - industrial uses. So we're talking about a limited number of properties that would even apply and the owners of those pieces of land being allowed to do something in lieu of purchase of conservation easements and is that something we want subcommittee to do. Haven't heard yes or no. Personally think it should be a yes. It's not that big an issue considering the whole overall area. It's an incentive, it ought to be explored. Verla: Don't hear any objections. Now, to question of lease vs perpetuity on conservation easements. Lee: This is result of strong discussion he and Curtis had at last meeting. Curtis is very concerned about putting conservation easements in perpetuity because things change over time and all easements we have discussed and as proposed in FDO are in perpetuity. In an effort to get things off center, the idea of some type of lease was proposed. Somehow it got put on the table that a lease might be something to consider. Never got to the point where we agreed on the calculus, i.e., if a lease is for 20 years then you get 0.10 tin its. The whole idea of trying to set aside land here is to set it aside. Understand discomfort with how things change over time. Figure of 20 years came up as the common time frame for renewal of restrictive covenants. Very uncomfortable with the idea of 0.10 bonus unit(s) for 20 year lease. Meg: Uncomfortable with idea in general and specifically deciding rate of exchange. Why not let somebody who has sold his development rights buy them back? Bob: At same price? It's going to take a lot of finesse to talk someone into selling their development rights. Elio: I'm seeing economic flexibility that we don't have now. Bob: Support anything that gives another option. Elio: As long as anyone around table can point out there is a danger in the option, then we should discuss it. We should try to talk about what we are comfortable about. He cannot foresee any resident coming to him and saying the group has taken something they could do and now can't do. Dan: It's clearly stated in the FDO that perpetuity is the standard. Does the group agree (without debating the numbers) that there ought to be another option other than perpetuity? If yes, is there guidance to give the subcommittee? Verla: Is anybody opposed to option of leasing? And having open space be available to development again after 20 years or some defined time. 11 Bob: Don't know enough about where it has been applied to speak to it. Feel that when the vote for PDR for farmland preservation was being discussed, there were a lot of people who would not have opposed PDR if they had a lease option. y[eg: Concerned by time limit. Seems that person who is buying is buying permanent development right. Lee: Two ways to think about. One is in line with net present value analysis of money. What you get now is a lot of value in that you've preserved X acres and you pay a small amount for it, but the return on that investment is very high. That's an argument in favor of it. An argument against it is that in this area there is a buildout that is going to occur and last maybe 50 years. As an owner of land can decide that going to be doing development in 20 years regardless of what's happening around him. In light of fact he knows he won't be developing, he can sell that development right for a temporary period of time and still do exactly Nvhat he was going to do, thus increasing the net buildout in the area without any long term consequences. Dan: To Curtis. Are you in favor of another option besides perpetuity? Curtis: Yes, but don't like perpetuity. Meg: Uncomfortable with trying to assign a rate. We are not letting the market determine how much value you would get. Elio: Let's look at from another point -of -view. We're trying to preserve rural character, let's not debate 10 %. Suppose sufficient people adopt this option and the fact that there is some open land there may create a new view of that land. It is more valuable because it is open. That would be an incentive for that person to keep it open. We tend to look at options at how it affects us from our point -of -view, rather than does it have the potential to achieve our goals of preservation of value and preservation of rural character. There are things here (in proposal) he doesn't like, but if he thinks they contribute to the goals he will be for them. Meg: Afraid ratio business may make it not used by people who would like to use it and no open space is saved. Ratio we set will determine attractiveness. Elio: Any option that doesn't burden us, require government, change taxes, that is free; if it has a chance to find one customer and save land , then it is an incentive. Verla: Suggestions on how it should read? Bob: Two dilemmas. If we set it like it is and people don't use it, say we're ,missing something. And if set it and people start using it, we say we're giving too much away. Dan: You get open space preserved, but want to make it usable to the extent that when 20 years comes up, that person makes the right decision again. Dean: If we keep adding clauses to basic FDO, isn't there a risk of end document becoming so complicated that everyone throws up their hands in disgust? Verla: Another issue seems to be people saying if they're going to do that in Stoney Creek, I want to be able to do it in my area too. Dan: Not sure it is cause for concern, if things we are adding are incentives, then people will be using for good reasons. Dean: Ultimately our work has to go to public hearing and if document is too complex, there is concern may not be implemented. 12 Elio: Things should be simple and straight - forward. Need to make it clear that all we want to do is add options people may want to choose. They don't have to. And if those options have potential for preserving rural character and provide other economic ways to preclude developing land, then we've done a service. Nobody may use it, but we've not lost anything. Lee: Not sure I've heard anythin to help figure out ho to proceed with this (lease option). Dan: Question was posed earlier, do we believe that there is a reason to have another option besides perpetuity. If we agree, lets tell subcommittee there ought to be another option. Elio: Does anyone feel that this option %vould be in any way detrimental to our goals of preserving land value and rural character. ivte- Mav be that selling in perpetuity with right to buy back if you change your mind at market rate will serve this purpose. Bob: Don't think anyone will be able to afford to buy them back once they are sold. Lee: Thinks this only applies in areas (like Orange County) experiencing growth. Land values can go down. Elio: Thinks options we are discussing has more to offer to large landowners than anything we've seen before. Agree with Lee that land values can change due to market saturation and changes in economy. Summary of issues by Elio for subcommittee to address: We have agreed basically that we are happy with items one through five, and on five going to consider adding a third option that addresses 70% open space. On number 6 there is a question on whether or not to restrict 50% of active recreation space as counting toward open space in the yellow (the subcommittee needs instructions on what to address). Verla: Look at and see if there is some recreational space that would be rural in character to add to the yellow zone. Dan: Right now we're saying 50% in other areas and none in the yellow; maybe there is an intermediate point which says 50 1/'o in these and some other percentage in the yellow. Elio: Number 7? Dan: We have agreement that expedited process is good, but we don't have bullet items that say when it should be used. Elio: Then we have question of mixed -use subject to purchase of conservation easements. Verla: Other thing on expedited review is which guidelines to use. Elio: Back to mixed -use. Dan: Sounds like good incentive, but since there is no understanding of what uses might be, need some more understanding of that. Lee recommends an explicit list. Elio: So we come back with some more detail on what mixed uses are. On number 8 we provide in addition to perpetuity, some form of lease. Bob: Concern about mixed -use. Mixed -use ought to be "wherever." 13 Elio: To Bob, you used the word "beneficial" to the community, right? Bob: That's right. Elio: So do we have to identify some form that would make it beneficial? Bob: Hope the desire would be to have something beneficial to the community as it would anywhere else. Not talking about density. Verla: See you on March 14. Remember we need to talk about open house. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15. 14 THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SUBCOMMITTEE MET ON FEBRUARY 22, 1996 TO FORMULATE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON DISCUSSION AT THE FEBRUARY 15 MEETING OF THE PLANTING GROUP. THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The subcommittee used the Flexible Development Options (FDO) as presented at public hearing on November, 27, 1995 and as currently recommended by the Planning Board as the source for their recommendations; and except where modified, the FDO recommendations apply. 2. The current zoning (R -1 for most of the area) remains in effect and conventional one -acre lot subdivision development remains an option to the landowner /developer (this is a key premise of FDO, but worth restating here). 3. By promoting FDO and modifications thereto specific to the Stoney Creek Area, we hope to preserve land as open space and permit property owners to achieve fair value from their land in so doing. The emphasis is on incentives, not additional restrictions. 4. As with FDO, a modified form of transfer of development rights (TDR) is proposed based on the purchase of conservation easements which protect primary and /or secondary conservation areas. To make this specific to the Stoney Creek planning area we propose: • On the conceptual land use plan, the lower intensity area (yellow) is the sending area for density transfers, the intermediate intensity area (pumpkin) is a sending and receiving area, and the higher intensity area (rust) is a receiving area. • Density transfers can take place within the Stoney Creek area and density from the area can be transferred outside its boundaries; but density from other areas cannot be transferred into the Stoney Creek planning area. 5. As with FDO, the minimum open space to be set aside is 33% of the total area. However, density bonuses for preserving open space in excess of the minimum are applied differently in the Stoney Creek area as follows: ® For every acre preserved above 33o an additional development right is created. Up to 500 open space allows half of this bonus to be applied in the Stoney Creek area and the other half outside. For example, two acres of open space above the 33% minimum is preserved and two additional (bonus) units are permitted. One of these may be located in the Stoney Creek area, but the other one must be located outside of the area. ® Preserved open space in excess of 50o results in an additional unit for each acre preserved, but the bonus unit can be applied wherever the owner desires. For example, assume as above that two acres of open space in excess of 500-o are preserved and two bonus units are received. They can both be used in the Stoney Creek area, they can both be used outside the area, or one can be used in the area and one outside of it. 6. FDO allows 50-06 of active recreation land, e.g., golf courses, to count as open space. The subcommittee recommends this continue to apply in the intermediate (pumpkin) and higher intensity (rust) areas, but not apply in the lower intensity (yellow) areas. 7. The subcommittee agreed "in principle" to several concepts, but did not have time to discuss them fully. Two are presented here for discussion and /or recommendation: • Expedited review and approval (generally in the Planning Department without the involvement of the Planning Board and County Commissioners) for certain types of development, e.g., conventional, subdivision with five acre lots, or for meeting or exceeding a set of rural design guidelines. The possibility of some type of low - impact, mixed - use commercial development in the higher intensity (rust) area (see attached definition of neighborhood mixed -utse from the draft Carrboro small area plan as an example). This c,,ould be a conditional u,se premised upon the purchase of conservation easements. 8. Other ideas /issues discussed by the group on which there was not a recommendation: • FDO assumes conservation easements are in perpetuity. The subcommittee discussed this extensively and considered a lease option in addition to perpetual easements. The lease would be for a period of 20 years, and due to its nature would give a much smaller density bonus. As proposed currently, this would be one -tenth (0.10) of a unit per acre of open space preserved; thus 10 acres of open space preserved for 20 years would be required to receive one bonus unit, 20 acres for two units, etc. The creation of a group of private citizens familiar with development procedures that could preview proposals and make a recommendation on them before they reached government to hopefully expedite the process and make it smoother. A provision that at least one development right on a tract of land be retained so that the option to build a house at some future date is not lost. Northern Transition Study Area Town of Carrboro Local Street A street whose sole function is to provide access to abutting properties. It serves or is designed to serve at least 10, but not more than 25 dwelling units, and carries between 75 and 200 trips per day. Minor Street A street whose sole function is to provide access to abutting properties. It serves or is designed to serve 9 or less dwelling units, and carries up to 75 trips per day. Neighborhood Mixed -Use These areas are intended to be predominantly residential, but allow for some appropriately- scaled commercial activities. However, commercial activities in these areas are subject to design and performance standards to ensure that they do not create negative impacts on neighbors. Residential developments in these areas are clustered to preserve sensitive environmental areas and public open space. Subcollector Street A street whose principle function is to provide access to abutting properties, but can also be used to connect minor or local streets with collector or arterial streets. They serve or are designed to serve at least 26, but not more than 100 dwelling units, and carry between 200 and 800 trips per day. Village Mixed -Use Modeled after the ideas of Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater - Zyberk, these areas are pedestrian- scaled, mixed -use communities. Each village area is no more than one -half mile across so that residents are able to walk to destinations within the village. In the denser central areas of these developments there is a mixture of commercial, office, and residential uses. Commercial. activities in these areas are intended to serve only the residents of the community and should not attract a large number of consumers from outside of the village. Page D -2 or discussion purposes only Small Area Plan September 12, 1995 f