HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 091495ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates
FRONT: Gene Bell Planner III
SUPJ: September 14 Meeting of Planning Group
DATE: September 8, 1995
Enclosed are the agenda materials for next week's meeting of
the planning group. The first order of business is a continuation
of the. task we began at our August 17. meeting. This will be, to
review the Rural Character Development option and make a listing of
desirable features as we did with the conventional, density -
neutral, and neo- traditional alternatives last time; a listing of
the features identified at that meeting is enclosed. Please bring
the Rural Character materials from your May 18 agenda packet.
Following review of the Rural Character alternative, we will
discuss the results of the questionnaire mailed with the August 17
agenda (enclosed) along with the desired features of the
development options. There should be several areas on which
consensus is obvious, requiring only acknowledgment by the group.
On other issues, it is hoped that discussion and minor modification
will result in consensus. The desired outcome of the meeting will
be a fairly well - defined set of "vision" statements which we will
use to guide us in the next phase of the process.
The next phase is a design studio proposed for October wherein
the group will come together to design a plan that reflects their
goals. This process will almost certainly take longer than a
standard meeting and we will use the last part of our September
meeting to discuss the scheduling and logistics of the design
studio.
If you are unable to attend next week's meeting please call me
at extension 2589 at the appropriate number: 967 -9251 (Chapel
Hill), 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), and 688 -7331 (Durham).
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
°nlr o/
t° a�
b
AGENDA
Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 8
Thursday, September 14, 1995
7 :30 PM
TIME AGENDA ITEM
7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - Verla Insko,
Facilitator
7:34 2. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from August 17
7:35 .3. FOLLOW -UP ON QUESTIONS FROM AUGUST 17 - Gene Bell
7:40 4. REVIEW OF RURAL CHARACTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE AND LISTING
OF DESIRABLE FEATURES - Verla Insko /Gene Bell
8:10 5. REVIEW OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS /DESIRABLE FEATURES
OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES TO DETERMINE WHERE CONSENSUS
EXISTS - Verla Insko and Gene Bell
9:40 6. IDEAS FOR DESIGN STUDIOS) IN OCTOBER - Gene Bell
9:55 7. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
10:00 S. ADJOURNMENT
M M 7
STONE`( CRE EK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP
2 AUGUST 17 1995
3 i1NU Is
4
s The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan► ~,i;ig Group met on f nursday,August 17, 1995 at
6 7:30 p.m. in EMS facility training room, New Hope Church Road, Chapel Hill, Noilh Carolina.
7
MEMBERS) PRESEN T : Trudy c;uffe, David `t`eitUn ,Dar- -r-�an ;,,�.it.), Sob 1 -fall, Elio Soidi, Meg
;3 McKean, Keith Cook, Kim Price (Alt), Thea '01ilson (Alt), Bob Strayhorn, Don Wilihoit, Dan
9 Teichman, Lee Rafalow, Clint Burklin, iiklichael Warner-, `,urtis Sane, irene VanDyke (Alt), Trish
lo Rafalow (Alt), and Steve 'Halkiotis.
11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Price, Bobby! Nicholson, Gary Hanker, Dean Zehnder, Judson
1 2 Edeburn, Bill Bracy, and R:nnee ^3 ice.
13 FACILITATOR PRESENT: Grla insko
14 STAFF PRE )E NT: Planners Gene Bell, Mary +a1 illi: , `Errilly Cameron, County Manager Jolinn Link,
Is Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker.
16 VISITOR'S PRESENT: James Bumphus, Frank Bumphus, I- larold Da e and Bill Crowther.
17 ANNOUNCEMENTS: Gene Bell announced that the September meeting has been rescheduled for
18 Thursday, September 14, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the EMS facility. This is due to a conflict with a
19 previously scheduled Board of Commissioners meeting. He mentioned that there was a
20 questionnaire included in the packet on the Rural Character Goals and Planning Group Comments
21 and requested that it be completed and returned..
22 MINUTES: The minutes of the. July 20, 1995 meeting were approved by consensus.
23 STATUS REPORT ON SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLANS: Mary Willis presented a report on all
24 active Concept Plans on file in the Planning Department. She mentioned that this report, which
2s involves 7 proposals and approximately 848 acres of land, was presented to the Board of
26 Commissioners at their June 26th meeting. These plans are conceptual in nature and do not
27 require specificity. Planning staff uses them to review ;.proposed road planning and access
28 neNvorks, etc. The Stoney Creek area concept ;Mans include 130 acres of wildlife corridors, flood
29 plains and natural areas. if a developer submitted a Preliminary- Plan the wildlife and natural areas
30 would be set aside as protected land. Concept Plans are valid for one year and require reapproval
31 or the filing of a Preliminary Plan. One of the 7 active Concept Plans is currently before -the
32 Planning Board for reapproval. The Recreation and Parks Master Plan calls for a park in the New
33 Hope Church Road vicinity. Developers are required to dedicate recreation or park land or allocate
34 payment -in -lieu. The payment- in-lierl amou.rnt is set at t1 h ti assessad value from the tax assessor
3s office. There is not one specific area that woLulo v /oi-k as a par,: for all of the concept plans which
36 means that payment -in -lieu is the method that would probably be used. The Triangle Land
37 Conservancy would most likely be interested in the wildlife corridor portion of this land and
38 conservation easements would also protect portions from de-vellopment. All of these Concept ®! ,s
39 have been presented to the Planning Board by the same agent. It coi_;1d be that severdi deve[npers
40 would be involved in the Preliminary Planning stage. The complete report on these Concept Plans
41 is in the permanent Stoney Creek file in the Clerk's office. 1-hey are. Guernsdale (I & 11) Stoney
42 Creek Farms (I & 11 & ill), Craig Manor and University Trace.
43 In response to a question, Ms. Willis pointed out thin access paints which include four off of
44 NC 10 and two off of New Hope Church Road. These roads do not cross the wildlife corridors and
4s are normally required to loop wherever possible to accommodate EMS traffic. The purpose of the
46 Concept Plan is to assure the owner that if they have addressed the concerns raised by the
47 Planning Board when they apply for their Preliminan,/ Plan it will be recommended for approval to
the Board of Commissioners. ;after the Preliminat�y Plan is approved by the ccai�A C +
Commissioners ;t;,,. returned to the Planning Board � r their final recon�iiriendation i:o L1�e
Commissioners. The Board of Commissioner then vote on ap prcvai. This approval lists all
4 conditions ,\which the de\ /eloper must ad1dra mss. The final stage o` ass Liring that the conditions are,
0 met is handled by the Planning staff. In response "'o a series oi: questions, Nlanr "I at
7 actual n +_it -nbe.r of lots approved will be fewer than presented on these Concept Plans..
3 the land itself will determine what it will support and what will be approved
9 these proposed lots range in size from one to two and one-half acres
10 these are all conventional development proposals
i regulations forbid building in the flood plan but that portion of ?he land can be used as
2 eusen gents. Hood Plains are identified in the Inventory.
13 density could not !�e officially transferred, however, the owners could work together to create the
14 same effect.
15 a parkland payment -in -lies i mon,c;� is deposited in a r3oun y' ft,in,d for i_;se in the area of the County in
16 which it actually originated.
17 a lots could include land identified as in the flood plain but it would have to be a part of the
-18 easement and could not be used for building. �I I
r. st 1 out '10r 'the 1- -leap � cia t � -and, te':��yd for moil s it.,,.-,bilitl fo sep.tic
19 � Its i'i�lNu�S`t�niJE�j�tat�ptid rJ!a�.�i;�ui i.h[^�:. �gF^.�ai�ii �P�.,czi ��n% t�.-., ;-�
systems s U'lhe � the Prelim i ii1na J i ican i., approve.--!.
21 a traffic impact study is required when the 30th lot is created.
22 a u-se of off -site septic easements could be considered for portions of this land,.however, most of
23 it is in the lower Eno Watershed and septiceasements are prohibited.
24 Curtis Bane indicated that the Concept Plans could loon something like the-neo- traditional
25 plan when actually built. However, he stated that probably only 1 �7 out of 100 acres would perk.
26 Bob Strayhorn agreed that aftar soil testing thie plans would be gUite different..
27 Bob Hail indicated that he hoped that nothing is si_Iggested 11 I L �i� s.. l . ei i��E� ii "31
} r 4 ,� .l_, 3
28 development in what is supposed to be the rural pat L U ii I•
29 David Yelton mentioned that Density Neutral was intended to mean what an arena w01_111-JI
3o support with individual septic and weii for each lot. It is important to determine what will be
31 supported so that it is clear what is meant by the term density neutral.
Thp riPfini,in�i nr riN;-i -qil npi fr-�l in the ,tnney Creep a in -nai lea �lan rann�-t was read J.
33 by Meg McKean as follows " densty/ neutral refers to 500/0 of the buildable land as undivided
34 permanent open space The same number of houses are built as permitted under existing zoning
35
but they ai
36 REViEW OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES: Verla irsko indicated that Gene Bell would briefly review the
37 development alternatives and then comments would be solicited from the Planning Group.
38 CGNVE "rI IONAL_DEVELOPMENT :_ Gene Sell briefly reviewed the option. He mentioned the
39 Grange County soil survey and identified the areas where there would probably be difficulty with the
40 soil. After some discussion of Map g it was suggested and agreed to 'use Map 10 for the review of
41 the Conventional Development. The following comments were made regarding positive elements of
42 this plan:
43 • Thea Wilson read Dean� Lehnder'S� E lrll~nelnl He 111KelJ that the development �Jpie is wel!
44 established and the outcorne can bo anticipated. 'What he disliked was that natural and visual
45 resources would be lost.
46 4 Kim Price felt that the visual or rural (QESOUrce was preserved with the larger lots.
•_I
Keith C��ck indicated khat lie iik ;d the Larger lots and rile Comm! inity park.
Meg McKean said that because total bUlldoUt would be loonier density, `11SUal character world be
J
preserved, although, more b\( aCCli�l¢rt tllai? by design.
�!. rlC11i ri 1. ; ! ^./ er,5 ,1 i i I y l; design. f hey
4 B{ 10' � � i'la li i`��' n.,. ` ;l:�i'� i ra grit -1 Clue e� b1 ll� ��: l
5 maintain T'reedom (o deveiop.
6 -� Michael liVarner rnentior,ed viarer E se weir not' bek � an t -Itii�i°r whi ;in k1i- yid : es�rict ;lL�,'eic:pf� Font
( to l,lvhat the lard �v /o ld, na%twr"�!!!/ bbear
l t a v i l e J , .w } i 1
a-i 1 , G> i j 1
Lee Rafaiow indicated th�.s he liked the communit;� park, flexibilit~� for land own�rs, prolii�itions
9 on water and sewer and restrictinc t�eveoomen' .c .,.,;,,at the land '1)/O _rid Lear.
!/ t liked at !'t r ;r,,nlf ,_, rs- hzai ^f n.pptii ti Iin;rj i ;1� �� i1'� i-irl
10 � Bob �:trayhorn indicated thin he ,il�bc:, th�.� {�+Jl irl:J t: i i\.! .? , �,�� ,;„:�i�.,ns ��� :� -ae; i� i,� a���.rn�ri , ._. , iv
11 Would like to see larger largyerl7 -blot slrzes.
12 i1 '+1n 5 {V i17110 ii. -J i.-1+ 'v-Z LL ^1 L1111L
�1f.,31 important to list Qti- r�i.i:ing _iia4 is ;,onsfr�er,jd �csi�i,J��+l�sDc,t ai: t.t the
I1t Lee t .afalQ�v� mentioned :i�'::� it was �r 1 { r! i� v 'yrC. L : 7 �i at v'i ter{ lUtvJ LO Uti iJ � i Li 1
15 creation of a personal plan for this cornmunitly.
16 DENSITY NEUTR,',L PLAN:
17 Dan Teichman stated that he liked the preservation of open space and natural resources as ; eil
13 as prolilLltions on within the Attu zfl
19 a Curtis Bane spoke in support of the open space that is mi ai twined and the rl° ;{ihilit for the
20 landowners.
21 4 Lee Rafa- low +he clustering aspects which he believes create neighborhoods and
22 comi- nunides.
23 Clint Burklin liked the visual buffers along the roads and natural areas.
24 Michael Warner mentioned that development would be restricted to what the land would
25 naturally bear.
26 Trudy Cuffe mentioned the open space
27 Irene VanDyke liked that the wildlife corridors would he ;preserved in perpetuity.
23 Meg McKean commented that the natural areas benefit both residents and passerbys.
29 Elio Soldi liked that alternative septic systems are an option without increasing the density.
30 Keith Cook liked open spaces and the recreation space.
31 Kim Price and T i hea VVii ion stn indikcated chat they lilked the over "all plan.
32 s Bob Strayhorn and Trudy CUffe liked the open space bUt WOUld choose larger lots
33 Lee Rafalow supported that mixed Lases, Su%h as at�rlclii�L l "al and residential, were available.
S�
David "eltcn� mentioned that i"te i1i <ed the bUf ?r et'aveArl eXf 3tfnG -and ne`v developments.
35 Irene VanDvke liked that the area would not be divided into s ::all see *ions.
36 Bob Hall mentioned the fact that primary and secondary areas were Also, this tn—
37 of development would provide an opportunity iar camr�unit� to develop.
33 Lee Rafaiow mentioned the somewhat lower infrastructure costs associated with this type of
39 development.
40 NEC - TRADITIONAL DESIGN-
41 Bob Strayhorn mentioned the cornmercial area n,"F -re— in `l'trs f�A� ?gn
42 Trudy Cuffe commented on the open, space.
43 David `{eiton mentioned the buffer aro+_rnd the existing neighborhoods.
44 a Michael darner mentioned that he supported the open space, however, the road would need to
45 be removed from the design.
46 Curtis Bane liked the idea of public trans- portation being available.
3
,4 1
5
R
9
14
-15
16
17
18
23
24
27
Cob Stra_vhorn mientioned that i'he corrimulnl�,, b(--,lco—e rela"
parlvvol
q r.�!,
CIL, ;;J 11,_- d I ICA 0-U
David "v( iton 1_eit that 'I Its oliffered 1h ea �0% s, r
Fan' e, It \JI-1 0, L! I A-4 a 0 `11i"W1
employmeant,
4, r i I q_ i f f ri 1, e, -k r-)
Planning Giroup,
rfl v
A discussi,.)n -3 r I r,
n i Is cf the
renres,,anted loy MiChinel IVAJ-, _e. 7-� e c ns L
g!`OUn WaS to req-Lies-t that the Board ol: rn issiolners in c. ;I!. I (J Buzrr,pus Poad -,:-:is 3 re0r�' e rl L
neighborhood and -appoint a delegate and a I IL e r ni -ra t e for that in e g n 1� o r hi c, (-) all
The Agenda for the September -1 4th meeting was discussed. The following Items wil! be
considered at that meeting:
'I) Rur-ai Character Design
z..) 'low-up on discussion from AUgUSL 1 71'h inneeting
3.) Ideas for Design Studio in October
4) Follow Up on r1westionnaire
-�stions at the September 'I 41-h meeting.
ff was also aske-d to the folliviving qu.,: t
1) Are natural are-as and/or wildlife corridors taxec-11 on e different scale than build-able Namd?
,_1
Is the Orange County School 'System interested in siting a school in the Stoney creek area
3) What statistics are av L -to
_,Y
e-Jilable regarding the 0_1 SePCIC SILL— this aria CCUIC! exp-
support based on previous history?
There being no further business the meeting Wl_s adjourned. The next meeting of . 13
N
P " �A 1 .1 at 7:30 p-m. in the ENIS facility Training
lanning Group -, iiii i3e on Thursd-ay, S�7(�ptombnr 141 "n
Roy rn.
ReSpectfuilly submitted,
K'athy Baker, Deplurt\,,, Clerk
COMMENTS - 8/17/95 STONEY CREEK PLANNING GROUP MEETING
Map 10 - Conventional Design H
1. Predictable, can anticipate outcome.
2. Larger lots protect visual character.
3. Community park.
4. Allows flexibility for landowners.
5. No water and sewer.
6. Restricts development to what land will bear.
Map 12 - Density Neutral
7. Prohibits development in natural areas.
8. Flexibility for landowners.
9. Clustering to create neighborhoods.
10. Buffers along state roads and natural areas.
11. Restricts development to what land will bear.
12. Open space preserved.
13. Wildlife corridors preserved in perpetuity.
14. Natural areas benefit neighbors and visitors.
15. Provides water /sewer alternatives.
16. Recreation opportunities.
17. Allows mixed uses (agricultural /residential) .
18. Provides buffers between existing and new development.
19. Identifies /inventories primary & secondary conservation areas.
20. Potential to lower infrastructure costs.
Map 16 - Neo- Traditional
21. Offers commercial option /local employment.
22. Open space on Stoney Creek (without road) .
23. Buffers around existing neighborhoods.
24. Transportation - rail opportunities.
25. Community parks.
26. Potential for donated school site.
27. Wide range of house styles and prices.
28. Includes features of all development options.
a i ,'i tl ' 'i I t l .. _ 4 VST:: , 4 Imo:. >: :::.; :1:::.:.: ! i
..::::.::...::.:......
............... ......................................................................................:..::::::::::::.:::::::::::................ ...............................
RURAL CHARACTER GOALS
1. Preserve agriculture
Agree: 8 Disagree: 2 Undecided: 1 No Response: 0
Comments: If voluntarv; will eventuallv loose farms for
economic reasons; make it possible, not mandatory; encourage
more variety in small crop farms; where /when possible; only
a means to hang on, not preserve family land; and good goal
if economically viable.
2. Protect natural and cultural resources
Agree: 9 Disagree: 0 Undecided: 0 No Response: 2
Comments: If voluntary; needs to be clearly defined; protect
historical /cultural features such as graveyards and ancient
buildings, but not trees; and agree for natural resources, but
not sure about cultural resources (old structures).
3. Protect visual resources
Agree: 9 Disagree: 1 Undecided: 1 No Response: 0
Comments: If voluntarv; define - we tend to call pretty part
of someone else's property a visual resource; where possible
with growth allowed; not at expense of landowner; if this is
accomplished, items 1 and 2 will also be done; and stronalv
agree, this impacts us dail
4. Manage orderly growth
Agree: 10 Disagree: 1 Undecided: 0 No Response: 0
Comments: If voluntarv; prefer minimal arowth. but what occurs
must be orderly; absolutely, but growth is coming; keeping the
future in mind; this is agreeing that growth will occur;
growth under neo- traditional plan could be orderly; agree, but
don't believe planning group agrees on definition of orderly.
5. Provide flexibility for landowners
Agree: 10 Disagree: 1 Undecided: 0 No Response: 0
Comments: This is more a tool than a aoal; some - landowners
should have choices, but choices must be constrained; assis-
tance programs should be available to landowners with plans to
develop to offer design options their land will allow; land
owners should be given all consideration possible; within
established parameters; and owners need to be trusted to take
community's concerns into account when they develop.
1.
2.
3.
4.
PLANNING GROUP COMMENTS
Retain current character of area; preserve as much as possible
Agree: 5 Disagree: 2 Undecided: 4 No Response: 0
Comments: Current character is large lots, trees, some vistas;
must consider cluster development for the greatest ultimate
_good; this will be difficult; don't let those who own one
acre rule those who own land with development potential; and
I like current character of area.
Keep density low; set a population or density cap
Agree: 5 Disagree: 3 Undecided: 2 No Response: 1
Comments: Maybe two acre average and no commercial or
industrial; density neutral for now with eve on neo-
traditional in future; impractical; this development area is
all that some landowners have, let them reap benefits; density
cap is more useful than population cap; commendable goal, but
is population cap legal?
Provide more public lands, parks, trails.....
Agree: 5 Disagree: 1 Undecided: 2 No Response: 3
Comments: With compensation; possibly a good tool, but not a
goal; not sure it has to be open to all, just needs to be
unbuilt; Duke Forest is open, semi - public park, but not
managed by public - try to build plans for trails and parks
into development plans for larger tracts; as it fits in with
planning for density- neutral and neo- traditional; set a limit
of one acre for every 500 residents; absolutely, this is a
deficiencv at this time; and depends on cost - community park
would be nice.
Save open space when area is built out
Agree: 10 Disagree: 0 Undecided: 0 No Response: 1
Comments: This is vital ;.don't understand statement; aim for
contiguous wildlife corridors; concentrate home locations; can
be done by dedicating one acre for 500 residents; and save
some space as woodland, meadow, shared park— not golf course._
5. Encourage diversity /sense of community
Agree: 8 Disagree: 1 Undecided: 2 No Response: 0
Comments: Sense of community; I believe neighborhoods and
churches offer sense of community, but not sure that
"sections" of county do; do it through churches and civic
organizations in the private sector; don't understand how to
answer question; and agree in principle, but how is it done?
6. Allow owners to realize value from their land
Agree: 11 Disagree: 0 Undecided: 0 No Response: 0
Comments: But should not take awav from value of other
people's land; must be flexible in seeing how owners can get
money from non - conventional options too; but not necessarily
the highest bid, no matter the consequences; and owners should
be allowed to realize value from sale of their land.
7. Maintain viability of natural systems
Agree: 8 Disagree: 0 Undecided: 2 No Response: 1
Comments: Vital_; needs to be defined; within reason; water,
wildlife, trees are natural systems that become stagnant or
die if they aren't used - we must manage them; and prefer
development that minimizes impact on natural systems.
8. Screen development from the roads
Agree: 8 Disagree: 1 Undecided: 2 No Response: 0
Comments: Unrealistic, you can't preserve all roadsides,
creek banks, pastures, slopes, and ridges; not necessary in
density - neutral /neo- traditional; fairly easy to do, helps
preserve character tremendously; trees are not the only
screens; and strongly support this.
9. Maintain wildlife corridors
Agree: 9 Disagree: 2 Undecided: 0 No Response: 0
Comments: Of limited lona -term bracticality: corridors need to
be better explained and defined; important for future quality
of life; within reason; wildlife will find undeveloped areas
to dwell in - where is division between wildlife and pests;
and agree, depending on viability and cost.
10. Encourage higher density adjacent to existing urban areas
Agree: 7 Disagree: 2 Undecided: 1 No Response: 1
Comments: There are urban areas in Stoney Creek region; not
here; there are no existing urban areas in this area; as _
related to density cap; good goal, but don't believe any of
area surrounding Stoney Creek basin can be considered urban.
11. Affordable housing
Agree: 5 Disagree: 3 Undecided: 2 No Response: 1
Comments: The most affordable housing is in town where you can
walk to stores and schools and get mass transit, the country
is not the most easy place to live cheaply; desirable, but
not sure it can be enforced; not critical, our 6 square
miles don't have to be everything; too ambiguous; every new
rule area has to abide by drives up the initial investment to
buyers; how determined; and too late for Stoney Creek area,
land prices are too high to be affordable without subsidies.
Additional Comments:
Slow growth tends to be better managed and thought out than
rapid growth. It might benefit us to concentrate on this one
factor a bit. If larger tracts ( 50 or more acres) are limited
in how quickly they can "build out" to "maximum capacity"
(however we define that) - for example, a tract can only be
built out to 50% capacity in 10 years; then 50% more in the
next `10 years - then I believe we have a plan that allows
flexible growth that will preserve open space and some rural
character for 20 - 30+ years more.
With this mailing of development options I feel we are on the
verge of making great progress - I truly hope so. Transfer of
development rights is a tool that can be useful.
Most of the people that I talked to were appalled at this
group's resistance to acknowledge the property owner's right
to develop their lands, the trust to not destroy the
community's values, and the idea that the ideals of native
Orange County residents had some shortcoming in moral values
as to the development of their lands.