The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMeeting 031496ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 19 MEMORANDUM TO: Stoney Creek Small Area Plan Group FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III �y SUPJ: Revised Schedule DATE: March 6, 1996 MAR 7 -1996 It has become necessary to do a slight modification to our meeting schedule. The change involves switching the dates of our March 21 Group meeting and open house proposed for the week of March 11. Thus, we now have a Planning Group meeting on March 14 and open`,._ house on March 21. This change was announced at the end of our February 28 meeting, but in that the meeting ran long and some members had to leave prior to adjournment, not everyone heard it. Agenda materials are being prepared for the March 14 meeting and should be in the mail by the end of this week. Please call me at extension 2589 at 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill), or 688 -7331 (Durham) if you have questions. '7 REVISED SCHEDULE FOR STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN (Revisions Proposed for Consideration at February 28 Meeting) 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: • Receive Implementation Subcommittee Report • Discuss Implementation Issues February 28, 1996 - Planning Group Meeting for Additional Discussion of Implementation Issues /Strategies March 14, 1996 - Planning Group Meeting to: • Finalize Concept Plan Recommendations • Finalize Implementation Strategy • Finalize Plans for Open House March 21, 1996 - Community Open House to: • Review Background of Plan • Review Recommended Plan • Review Implementation Strategy • Receive Citizen Comments /Suggestions April 4, 1996 - Planning Group Meeting to: o Review Comments from Open House • Make Adjustments to Recommended Plan • Make Adjustments to Implementation Strategy 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 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 C ♦nnl. e/ Or d ♦tom ,_ P b FEB 26199.6 TO: 5Wfiey Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates FROM? , Gene Bell, Planner III SUBJ: Agenda for February 28 Planning Group Meeting DATE: February 23, 1996 Enclosed is the agenda for our next Planning Group meeting. As at our last meeting, the main item of discussion will be plan implementation. The Implementation Strategy Subcommittee met on February 22 to develop a revised proposal based on comments received at the February 15 Planning Group meeting. The proposal is undergoing text changes and still needs a final review by the subcommittee; thus it is not included in this mailing. My goal is to distribute it by the most expedient means available early 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. Please note our change in meeting place. Neither of our regular sites are available so we will be using the Planning Department Conference Room at 306F Revere Road in Hillsborough. A map is enclosed for your convenience. o t rave gUFKE — nc,• RO RD RABBR Dl GOVERNOR 9 ROCKY LA 1556 1555 ' Hal Tamil �a Catfi � GOYERNOR+i . C R UL PTREE R° BURKE Cj(O W S P4�1 C. 4 LE SHAWNEE OR ' EO CT R Fairview �TRq Cam 57 a ORANGE HIGH SC O( H Rp Fq ouc Park C86 VE 0 F9F"I 1328 F CC HOMEMO A T A V range Co my Orange r ° o s A Mq E HARPER Public Wp ST ks RENCHER ST HS = C1 ^` C) p ANN ST o a � TO 0 �° IN S 1p �WNOq sl* q �, E HOLMAN RD CW Stanford r c=Ji °� ° ; m °o T ° CM `'`� y /F M S o NANC FAIRVIEW Mars = DR s� Hill Ii Hilk PPIE o p D oR N� -,Lis E or r 3 ° ` syo slh, AFL TaberrIi ho Ct o A undo Life A C C1R airvie Be BOUNDARY F� `"o 9 �`� 'y G Medical hr BEE TREE F OAK ST RO 70 OLE 'aJ� � ALMA A BUS .Q E 7 s �.9 CEDAR ST �9 0� a Offices IF Dent �' x C w '- W 081 S7 NORTH ° W FREE LAN � D COR81N !' ST 0 � n `� Q p� APHINE (A a pod Historical Society Hall ll �9p-y�s Q y �fl ERW DZ I � N8 O DIWL1 } Church 0 ■ H W " S S o Stan ntral r ST a }�� A ° m UNION ST IStOfIC (n UNION ST LAINE T 0 OXfORD RO Q° God Prophecy s o AL ;'K E$ 5 ,. ��` m Central IV rn n y S PRUCE QUEEN CE #n HI sboxoU h C3 �' TILL l OR ST Central Human Services res } } ■ Historical ° lAT1MER ST °c TRYO ST It W ui P E C Qran ark � r O N E 'AVEC 1 e eth Z OUn J itOfficr So nt atthews Epis E 991 ount r Ba rd 9 KING G o _ �KNI MARGAR St Rot COU ourtlnus Rural U1 L-Ut Visitor Center 60 1 ha I Co nmerce '^ YNOR en 8 TON `^ S j Id y �v CO 0 CiOYt $ fYIC Q s �a a ew �" tsT Ite a a at ane ourthou She H6 iffs Dept = RING apt CALyIN t f 1 . ORR9 Services An E 0 ASHE PI EY °a II Or h c sl —� RIBAULT BUS DR ST s T 7 SO � a1 ST N '� � �'EH aOA• ar � o 'p _ w N TUSCARO OR - -- - O -- - - - - — - -- - - - - - -- - -— x han —Club ' 09a a r � 6 N rth Orange ' M0 uNTA�N a C Rsc Sqd PARTI �o Bus 70 VV, � NE M li P °�, 8 °9P 3.40700 9 ° n ° 0 COM ERCE ST �� ° 0 C R E ril ugh Done J uar ,. ORN RST01 7 C m onsN,, hol Ctr 1 FRE B R H MEAD011 -AND 1009 h ` Daniet Boone ; CATES Et �- o ntique Village FARM �' sT HAMPTON Exit - 16 TIMERS NIL S�IO 0 r1 r EO9O� Exit - 164 6 0 Milt' �° CR( SS D �, GATEMO E °,�� CA TES cr Prison mp C ' 1 006 pCK C WALTER R0 S1i1 °� wgT r A t A ItDALE QupO 1_iNT orth Carolina 0 ff MITI ANA °A'KOALE ^ \ ID • DT 99cp ` ORKkI j rady Brown I Ic �1E W j 0 T G ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 I>�tr n` AGENDA Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 14 Wednesday, February 28, 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 8:15 3. GROUP DISCUSSION OF IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 9:30 4. IDEAS FOR COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE - Follow -up on discussion from January 25 9:40 5. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from January 25, 1996 and February 15, 1996 9:45 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS, GROUP COMMENTS, UPCOMING MEETINGS 9:55 7. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING (MARCH 21, 1996) 10:00 8. ADJOURNMENT * * * * * * * * PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN MEETING PLACE * * * * * * * * M M 7 STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP FEBRUARY 15, 1996 MINUTES The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, February 15, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in the Orange County Government Services Center at 200 South Churton Street, Hillsborough, N.C. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Yelton, Steve Price, Dan Teichman, Bob Strayhorn, Lee Rafalow, Bob Hall, Meg McKean, and Keith Cook. ALTERNATES PRESENT: Irene Van Dyke, Dan Kenan, Frank Bumphus. MEMBERS ABSENT: Bobby Nicholson, Trudy Cuffe, Gary Hanker, Michael Warner, Bill Bracey, Renee Price, Stephen Halkiotis, Don Willhoit. Curtis Bane, Judd Edeburn, James Bumphus, Elio Soldi, Dean Zehnder, and Clint Burklin. VISITORS: Helen Strayhorn STAFF PRESENT: Planners Gene Bell and Emily Cameron. FACILITATOR PRESENT: Verla Insko CALL TO ORDER The meeting commenced at 7:40 in the absence of a quorum. Gene Bell said that Elio Soldi, Clint Burklin, and Dean Zehnder had called and said they would not be able to attend. STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SUBCOMMITTEE EFFORTS Gene Bell: Brief review of discussion at January 25 Planning Group meeting concerning implementation and subcommittee activities since that time. The subcommittee met on January 31 and February 8 to review a proposal prepared by Lee Rafalow at request of subcommittee in January. Reference to summary of January 31 meeting which was included in agenda packet for this meeting. Hoped to resolve issues at February 8 meeting, but not able to work through them, so bringing before Planning Group. Then gave update on basic features /premises of Flexible Development Options (FDO) by referring to handouts prepared for community meetings in November. Reviewed basic features of each of the development options (estate, conservation, and cluster) except for village plus incentives and Rural Design Guidebook. Bob Hall: Density bonuses? Gene Bell: Only permitted in certain areas, i.e., transition areas (up to 2.5 units /acre) , water -sewer service areas (up to 1.3 units/ acre), and within 0.75 mile of an interstate corridor (2.5 units/ 1 acre) . With exception of small area east of University Station Road and portion of area in the Rural Buffer, most of the Stoney Creek Planning Area is within one or more of these designations. Then gave update of Planning Board (PB) review /deliberations on FDO. Key PB recommendations included: - 330 open space on entire tract; - program should be voluntary as opposed to mandatory; - emphasis on incentives; and - removal of village option from consideration at this time, do more education and take to another public hearing. Proposed schedule: - Final PB recommendation on February 19; - Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) consideration on March 6 and 19; - adoption by BOCC on April 1 with effective date set for July 1, 1996; - review of Rural Design Guidebook by PB and BOCC between April l and July 1; and - training sessions for surveyors, developers, and landowners between June 17 and 28. Lee Rafalow: Clarification on quasi- transfer of development rights (TDR) aspects of FDO. Referred to open space map and provisions in FDO which would allow density transfers to transition, water -sewer service areas, and interstate corridors. Bob Strayhorn: Question relating to whether or not two acres of land would be required in watersheds so zoned to get one additional unit in the Stoney Creek 'area. Gene Bell: FDO as written is a one - for -one relationship. The group felt that clarification was needed on this point. Gene Bell: Clarification that FDO does not apply in Rural Buffer. Bob Strayhorn: FDO is an excellent way to preserve agricultural land, but feels the important point to most people is open space. The way FDO is proposed, the Stoney Creek area would be in line to receive additional density. Would hope it could be worded so that it would only apply in the area to receive water and sewer. Lee Rafalow: Agree with Bob, but think sending areas should be limited to agricultural land. Gene Bell: Clarification that farmland was one of many categories under secondary open space. Lee Rafalow: Will divide his presentation into two parts; broad - brush overview of his proposal and what he thinks subcommittee has general consensus on followed by details /points -of- contention. Key points of proposal: 2 - No disincentives; - tried to incorporate consensus from value subcommittee, i.e., preserve rural character and protect property values in area; - trying to achieve a constant buildout (intent is that buildout not change overall, but that increased density in one part of the planning area would be offset by reduced density in another part of it); - includes "minor fixes" to permitted use table, e.g., government buildings are now permitted, but would propose changing it to a special use permit process to allow public comment; - a conditional use approach (not presently included in County zoning regulations) that says, in general this use is OK, but under these conditions and with public comment. Intent of conditional use is to incent higher intensity development into higher intensity areas; - there needs to be a way to differentiate between colors since we agreed not to change the underlying zoning and way he is proposing is a form of TDR in Stoney Creek area as a way to achieve constant buildout. Also a way to achieve protection of land values for seller of rights and achieve higher density for buyer. Creates a limited market and will result in higher prices for seller thus assuring he gets close to market value for his land. Buyer benefits because preserved open space is nearby and development closeby benefits; - proposed method here is that when you want increased density in pumpkin or rust, you have to buy conservation easement from someone in the yellow or pumpkin areas. Still have same principles as in FDO except that conservation easement has to be purchased in Stoney Creek area; and - final principle embedded in proposal is that restrictions on use of land are most restrictive in the yellow, lesser in the pumpkin, and least restrictive in rust. Verla Insko: Questions /comments from group. Bob Strayhorn: If you have yellow areas you don't seem to have a lot of options. No opportunities to sell rights outside of planning area. Supports FDO because it gives you options and does not take anything away; feels like this proposal limits options. Lee Rafalow: Think we are getting into the details without really discussing the details. Think what I hear you objecting to is point I made earlier about being more restrictive in the yellow than in the rust. Dan Teichman: What I heard Bob objecting to was being restricted to buying and selling in the Stoney Creek area. Is there enough viable land for buying and selling in the area to make proposal workable? Thinks the math works countywide, but not so sure about 3 small area like Stoney Creek. Bob Strayhorn: Density seems to be what we're interested in without losing anything. A possible change could be to restrict this to a sending area and not a receiving area. Of course, those who might want higher density might not like it, but they wouldn't be losing anything they have now. Dan Teichman: So if someone owned a tract of land available for subdividing, they could send and receive to themselves? Bob Strayhorn: What I'm saying is you could sell and receive inside the boundary, sell outside the boundary, but not bring in from outside the boundary. Lee Rafalow: Good idea, but doubtful on selling outside the area. Dan Teichman: Are there numbers available on potential sending and receiving areas in the Stoney Creek area? Bob Strayhorn: Fear that making conservation easements mandatory would take away tax advantages currently available (cited Bob Nutter as farmer who has taken advantage of tax breaks for conservation easements). Lee Rafalow: Beginning to get into details. For example, my proposal would not allow conventional one -acre lot development ( except f or f ive one-acre lots) ; that would of f ect appraised value. Bob Strayhorn: Goes against our downzoning position. Lee Rafalow: My recollection was that we were going to protect property values and not change potential densities and at some point that transformed into, "We're not going to do anything different than we do today." Bob Strayhorn: If you can prove that you can restrict density /what you can do with a piece of land and make the value go up then... Bob Hall: Can we focus on conservation easements? Assuming there is some consensus that different parts of this area have different intensities. Don't know if we nailed down consensus at last meeting or not. Gene Bell: Came mighty close. Bob Hall: Assuming this is the goal, let's talk about pros /cons. Dan Teichman: Curtis not here so I'll try to speak for him. He didn't object to different intensities for different colors, he just didn't like the color his property was in. Think we had relative consensus that purpose of different colors was to have different intensity /density levels. 0 Verla Insko: Think Curtis felt that if his land were in rust area, he would have potential to make more money. Bob Strayhorn: We say density, but guess thing that has as much to do with it as anything is restrictions on a piece of property. A lot of things, e.g., water and sewer, could happen to enhance the value of Curtis' land and he is afraid those things will be blocked from him and he will be denied opportunity. Verla Insko: My understanding, Curtis doesn't want to lose value. Bob Strayhorn: Or potential value! Verla Insko: And he feels restrictions may take away from potential value. Bob Strayhorn: Curtis' family has held onto land for a long time with expectation that it will increase in value and he is afraid things will be frozen in time and cut off his opportunities. Verla Insko: Big issue for Curtis seems to be not to lose any current or potential value. Dan Teichman: Don't think Curtis is making erroneous assumption that when you build out land to whatever density it can bear, it is worth more than open space in monetary value. Lee Rafalow: There is a principle in TDR mechanism that says if you are going to get increased value for your land by developing at increased density, then you pay for that. Feels that if Curtis built at 2.5 units per acre, it would probably negatively affect his (Lee) quality of life and property value. By having to preserve open space somewhere else in neighborhood, Curtis would be compensating him (Lee). The Strayhorns could benefit by selling development rights to preserve open space and get essentially market value for their land. David Yelton: Maybe first choice for purchasing rights should be in Stoney Creek area, but if after some time period (three to six months) there was no seller, rights could be bought outside area. Bob Strayhorn: We shouldn't allow 2.5 units per acre if it isn't right. If it is right, then it's Curtis' right. Limiting his rights for your benefit results in you receiving value that's costing you nothing. Where does the community take part? Verla Insko: Request that Lee try to articulate what Bob said. Lee Rafalow: Landowner's rights include the right to profit from changes that occur based on what is happening in the larger area, e.g., creation of EDDs created value for landowners in and near districts. Other point he thought he heard Bob say seemed to relate to the value the community gets out of the existence of open space; one reasonable thing to consider is that the community has to tithe something toward the value received from open space. Bob Strayhorn: Things that have happened in county have not been pleasing to him. Other people have benefitted (employment wise) from being in the Research Triangle area. He and Curtis feel they aren't being allowed to benefit because of potential restrictions. Lee Rafalow: Reference to takings laws; no notion of givings. There is no notion of equity in the system. Only the notion of private property rights in takings laws. Thinks TDR is a good example of how free market can be used to protect everybody's interests because if Curtis wants to have additional value, he has to buy that opportunity. Compensates other people for their loss. Bob Strayhorn: Reference to Stoney Creek subdivision, Colonial Hills, and Wyngate and opportunities afforded by each for residents and property owners. If we change current system need to be sure we change it for the better. The "four corners' at New Hope Church Road and NC 86 have potential value for commercial use. Would be good if there was a value to that and it could be transferred in some way for not using corners. Lee Rafalow: Need to be clear about what I'm saying. Need to do everything in our power to ensure that property value /rights landowners have today are preserved and are compensated whenever they are affected by changes, e.g., his feeling that increased density lowers the value of surrounding property, at least for certain uses. Reference to four corners land. Currently all a person can do is put house there and if someone bought it they would be speculating on County's willingness to change zoning. That is the creation of new wealth when the County does that and that new wealth really belongs to the entire community and entire community should be compensated. Bob Strayhorn: Aren't I creating value for you by keeping property in open space? Road paving and utility lines have been done on his property at his expense; he still pays taxes on these areas. Dan Teichman: Referring to Lee's proposal. Could someone wishing to develop at higher density come to Bob and say I want to purchase development rights on those corners and deed it to Nature Conservancy, etc. Is that creating value for Bob that he couldn't get today unless he sold corners outright? Even TDRs as a tool don't seem to meet Bob's needs. Lee Rafalow: Would argue that TDR plan as currently contained in FDO would eventually lead to strip development at intersection because you will get preservation at fringes of county and infill development elsewhere. Eventually that land would get rezoned. M Bob Hall: That's why Lee is saying need to restrict the market. Bob Strayhorn: Or you give incentives to the landowner to encourage him to do some of the things that meet goals. Don't think you could sell anyone intersection for houses. Some of the incentives discussed by Rural Character Study Committee (RCSC) might be useful, i.e., simplifying process so landowners could develop property themselves in a low density manner without selling to a developer, five acre lots for example. Maybe if a person would do development with five acre average lot size, the approval process could be shortened/ simplified. Would be an incentive to eliminate having to go through doing two plans. Bob Hall: Might be worth investment of doing two plans if you get 30 one -acre lots vs six five acre ones. Cost of doing two plans? Lee Rafalow: Steve Yuhasz at a Planning Board meeting estimated it would add about $1,000 to application process. What I heard Bob Strayhorn saying, and it is something we discussed at subcommittee, is an incentive would be to take things off of the public review process (reference to 10 acre lot development). Dan Teichman: Haven't heard anyone come up with equitable incentives to address development at Bob's intersection. Lee Rafalow: Maybe that intersection is unique situation. Don't see how Strayhorns ever going to be compensated for potential value it has (through rezoning) other than for community at -large to buy it. Bob Strayhorn: Do we have agreement that it is important to landowners to have the opportunity for potential (appreciation of land value)... am I hearing you right? Lee Rafalow: Hearing me say I understand your situation. Bob Strayhorn: It's the American way... opportunities. Some we make and some just happen to us. Bob Hall: Lee is saying that it cuts both ways, that the value going up doesn't just come out of thin air (reference to public investments in RTP and UNC to exclusion of other areas). We have avoided the issue of potential. We have been very clear that we want to preserve a person's current property rights, not what they could be if water and sewer were available, but what they are now. That's where we stopped at our agreement; we didn't get into question of who pays for water and sewer. Isn't that a giving? Meg McKean: Maybe we could make some changes pinpointing who the beneficiary is; maybe land that appreciates in value because it is adjacent to open space should go up in property tax rate and the open space land enhancing the value goes down in tax rate. 7 Dan Teichman: Reference to Joe Pickard's land behind his house. Doesn't want to see houses on 0.4 acre lots behind his house, would rather see a park. Way to create incentive for one vs other is to give Joe opportunity to maximize value for his land. Don't know to do that with modified TDR approach and can't imagine how park land value could offset value he would receive by developing it. Don't know that mechanisms we are discussing (only sending and receiving in this area) are enough, not necessarily wrong, just not enough to overcome monetary drive for property rights in this area. Bob Hall: Reference to Bob Strayhorn's comments about RCS and not always translated into dollars and cents, incentives can be like his comments regarding process, i.e., making it easier to develop. There can be incentives in the planning - process that have a value. Bob Strayhorn: That don't have anything to do with density. Dan Teichman: This group is struggling to make FDO more relevant to us and have more teeth to it. When push comes to shove don' t think the numbers will work in this area. Works great if you have $500 acre land in northern part of county, but doesn't work on Bob's land and like to think it doesn't work on Joe Pickard's property. Bob Hall: Think we need to talk to Joe Pickard. Just like what Curtis envisions for his property is different than what the Strayhorn's want for theirs. If we are going to try to identify tools and incentives to implement plan, helpful to find out what it is (desires of landowners) . TDR approach may be useful for Curtis whereas "faster track" may be more appealing to Bob. Verla Insko: What are some tools /incentives that might be applicable to various colors on maps? Gene Bell: Easy to address for yellow. Reference to RCS suggestion by Bob Strayhorn at subcommittee meeting re streamlined approval process for lots five acres or greater. Short discourse on classes of subdivision, i.e., exempt plat (10.01+ acre lots) = quickest, minor subdivision (five or fewer lots) = administrative approval in Planning Department, and major subdivision (greater than five lots) = at least two reviews by Planning Board and review /approval by County commissioners (lengthy process). Bob Strayhorn: Reference to Bob Nutter subdividing some of his property and paying someone to carry it through the process for him; ended up costing him $1,500 per lot. It's not only the Planning Department involved. You have the Health Department, Department of Transportation, etc. Emily Cameron: Having worked with people, would say it's probably worth paying someone familiar with the process to coordinate the surveyor, Health Department, contractors, DOT, attorneys, etc. Bob Strayhorn: Bottom line; it's expensive to subdivide property. Emily Cameron: Application fee for five lot minor subdivision is $117, major subdivision is $350 plus five dollars per lot. Verla Insko: So if process could be streamlined, it could save landowner time and headaches and maybe make it more feasible to develop as proposed in yellow or pumpkin land? Emily Cameron: Would probably mean more to developer of large tracts who have money tied up in options and loans. It may not be as big an incentive to landowner who lives there and doesn't have as much invested as developer. Bob Strayhorn: Most of the time, landowner just sells land to developer and someone else ends up getting most of the money the families who owned land for many years should have received. Emily Cameron: To help property owners understand FDO Planning Department staff will be compiling maps of primary /secondary open space and will give general assistance to people by showing them what some options may be. Lee Rafalow: So when we go back to the subcommittee, this is one area we can address. I've heard Bob say that he does not like the restrictiveness he (Lee) has proposed in yellow areas. Is that consensus of group, that we should not be more restrictive in one zone than another? Meg McKean: If you're not more restrictive in yellow than rust, then there is no yellow. Maybe compensation should be in the form of a different array of incentives. Bob Hall: We have to decide if this yellow area means something. Bob Strayhorn: Would seem to me that it would mean that the incentives that you would put into place in the yellow would be to try to encourage the type of development you want ,to see there; not saying you can't build this or that, but giving incentives to do what is desired. Would have a different set of incentives in the pumpkin and rust areas, but don't say that a person can't still put a house on an acre of land if that is their choice. Dan Teichman: In yellow area between NC 10 and I -85 could be 2.5 units /acre based on FDO. Lee Rafalow: Let's be clear about what our consensus was earlier; this was not changing the value /rights based on current zoning, and current zoning doesn't have 2.5 density bonus associated with it. Dan Teichman: Agree, but if we ignore this (FDO) and it gets approved then our assumption of current is FDO, so let's understand E what this will mean. Lee Rafalow: So you're saying let's make explicit what I've had as a working assumption all along; that we can make whatever changes we want to FDO and propose those as our version of FDO. Bob Strayhorn: In the Stoney Creek area? Lee Rafalow: Yes. Bob Strayhorn: That would be one way to do it. Dan Teichman: No problems with that, but feel that FDO will be approved by BOCC and it (FDO) will be common base from which anything we do will be additive. Don't believe PB and BOCC will say Stoney Creek is different from rest of county for these items, don't think they will make a special distinction. Bob Hall: PB said they would respect small area plan's sense of what is appropriate. Dan Teichman: Hope so, but afraid they will say respect your input added to this, but not in replacement of it. Bob Strayhorn: If they (BOCC) accept what we've sent, it will be the first time (RCSC is example of past efforts). David Yelton: Make sure we encourage /promote flexibility concepts of plan to encourage open space (hopefully) in future developments. Dan Teichman: As group, need to have idea that what we propose will be equivalent of this for the county, but only for Stoney Creek; fear county plan will govern with Stoney Creek being additive. Verla Insko: Question to Bob Strayhorn re FDO. Bob Strayhorn: Have no problems with FDO in general. Not acceptable to him though to increase density along certain parts of the highway and this may be a change to FDO he would support. Without water and sewer (which may come to area at some future date) would want to see area stay way it is. Another change might be that it would be OK for development rights to go out of the Stoney Creek area, but not bring them in from the outside. Dan Teichman: Does it make sense what he is asking subcommittee to address, i.e., the difference between whether things in FDO should or should not apply in area and changing the numbers therein? Lee Rafalow: Think we are talking about a procedural difference. Need to make sure we get the basic question on the table for the PB and BOCC (reference to Renee showing up at last subcommittee meeting and expressing surprise that group could propose something Im different for Stoney Creek) . Gene Bell: Reference to comments he made at subcommittee meeting, i.e., why have a small area plan if it can't be different from other areas. Gave example of three Economic Development Districts (EDDs) in current County Plan. General goal of EDDs is same, i . e . , to enhance the tax base and provide jobs, but there are differences (in the ordinance) concerning permitted uses and design standards from one EDD to another. Verla Insko: So, EDDs are essentially tailor made. Lee Rafalow: Think it is a good idea to make it explicit, but don't think we have a problem. Verla Insko: What other guidance does subcommittee need? Lee Rafalow: Details, 50o vs 33o for example. Elio has also provided-a list. Dan Teichman: Need definitions of terminology, e.g., mixed -use, retail -low impact... David Yelton: Active recreation land hasn't been addressed and payment -in -lieu doesn't seem to offer much. Gene Bell: Received a report today on payment -in -lieu and haven't had chance to review it yet. Will try to provide information on this and potential of park site from development currently underway in next agenda. Don't think subcommittee has time to address this at their next meeting. Adjournment time reached. Lee Rafalow: Request that meeting be extended for 10 minutes for additional subcommittee guidance. Bob Hall: Conditional use /special use changes are complex and seem to be adding more layers; could this be put off for awhile? Verla Insko: Issues needing clarification? Lee Rafalow: Amount of open space to qualify as open space (33o vs 500). This affects amount of density bonus. All this number really means is where you start giving density bonuses; as example propose 50% in yellow areas, 33o in pumpkin, and pack rust. Keith Cook: Why increased open space in the yellow? Lee Rafalow: Goal there is less intensive use. Also brought up discussion at subcommittee about setback proposal along roads; Curtis was especially concerned. 11 Bob Strayhorn: 200 foot setback? Lee Rafalow: No 100 feet. Discussion on 200 feet came up where there were shallow lots (about 200 feet deep) and there was desire to provide design flexibility. Bob Strayhorn: Agree, should think of some type of incentive. Lee Rafalow: Curtis had question about length of conservation easements. . He had real problem with perpetuity, thought there should be some fixed time. Meg McKean: Seems to be case of whether it is a lease or a sale. Bob Strayhorn: In some areas of country you can agree not to do anything on property, for say 25 years, and receive compensation. Bob Hall: Thinks maximum tax advantage comes with perpetuity. ANNOUNCEMENTS, GROUP COMMENTS Bob Strayhorn: Informed group that he had been negotiating with cellular company about possibly locating a tower on his property and he wanted everyone to hear it directly from him rather than reading about it in the paper or receiving a notice from Planning Department. He said three sites were under consideration: - wooded area behind hog houses; - tract off NC 86 near old cemetery; and - next to Camp New Hope on other side of church toward I -40. He said putting tower on property would be a 25 year commitment and would allow him to achieve income from land without developing it. The group thanked him for sharing this information. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 PM. Comments on open space following adjournment: Bob Strayhorn: Thinks we should stay with minimum in FDO and encourage folks to go further. Lee Rafalow: Instead of a 50o requirement in yellow, maybe change intensity of bonus in yellow so that at 330 open space you have to have two acres for one unit instead of one acre for one unit. Bob Strayhorn: Another way to look at it. What about density bonuses for doing something we want that would allow transfers out of the district, e.g., if person could have 75 units, but if he was willing to do cluster or large lots maybe he could get bonus for not doing whole thing. All we seem to be thinking about is density bonuses, ought to be thinking about bonuses you can move. 12