HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 121495ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD Q
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Receive
DEC 111995
• Managers Office.
AGENDA
Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 11
Thursday, December 14, 1995 at 7:30 PM
TIME AGENDA ITEM
7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER - Verla Insko, Facilitator
7:31 2. PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
SUBCOMMITTEE - Gene Bell and Implementation Strategies
Subcommittee Members
9:00 3. REVIEW OF REVISED CONCEPT PLAN
- Gene Bell and Preliminary Design Subcommittee Members
9:25 4. REVIEW OF REVISED VISION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT - Gene
Bell and Vision Subcommittee Members
9:35 S. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from November
16, 1995 Meeting
9:50 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS, GROUP COMMENTS, UPCOMING MEETINGS
9:55 7. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING (JANUARY 18, 1996)
10:00 8. ADJOURNMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE STONEY CREEK
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES SUBCOMMITTEE
Members: Curtis Bane, Renee Price, Lee Rafalow, Elio Soldi,
and Dan Teichman
Two key themes have guided development of the draft Stoney
Creek Small Area Plan. These are, first, that it is important to
retain elements of the present rural character for the area and
second, that property owners should receive fair value for their
land should they choose to sell or develop it in some way. The
draft plan reflects a substantial commitment of time, resources,
and efforts at consensus building by the Stoney Creek Planning
Group. As stated in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, "The
success of the planning activity, however, is dependent on the
degree to which public and private development actions and
decisions are coordinated since the Plan is not 'self- executing. "'
While a range of legal options are available for plan
implementation (see Appendix A for overview) , the zoning ordinance
has traditionally been the major tool for implementing land use
plans in Orange County, and elsewhere. It serves as the means to
achieve the desired relationship between land uses; to prevent
incompatible land use associations; and to encourage and provide
incentives for the more compact and efficient land use patterns
delineated in the plan. Simply stated, zoning is the division of
a jurisdiction into different districts and the regulation within
those districts of land uses, density of population, intensity of
the use of buildings and land, and lot coverage and required
setbacks.
An example of a plan recommendation being transformed into
reality by zoning is the implementation of the Rural Buffer zoning
district in January 1987. The Rural Buffer is a 38,000 acre area
composed of the New Hope Creek drainage basin and University Lake
Watershed lying to the north and west of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
To hel -p- -keep the area rural and limit urban sprawl, the Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan recommended that future development
occur on larger lots. Required minimum lot sizes for residential
development were increased from 0.92 acre (40,000 square feet) to
two acres (87,120 square feet). While helping achieve plan goals,
critics of the Rural Buffer rezoning claimed that it was a
"downzoning" and that it adversely impacted the property rights and
property values of land owners.
A recommendation of the draft Stoney Creek Small Area Plan is
the creation of higher, intermediate, and lower land use intensity
areas. The most expedient way to implement the plan
recommendations would be to amend the zoning ordinance to create
higher, intermediate, and lower intensity districts with required
1
minimum lot sizes consistent with the plan recommendations.
However, this would be clearly at odds with the underlying premises
of the Plan and effectively undermine Planning Group efforts at
achieving consensus across a broad spectrum of landowner opinion.
The Property Value /Rights Subcommittee states that, "Stoney
Creek landowners should be able to choose from a variety of
development options that are consistent with good land stewardship,
community health standards, and Rural Character design guidelines.
Offering landowners constructive alternatives to meet these
objectives is better than forcing them into a very narrow range of
options." The Flexible Development proposal presented at public
hearing on November 27 is consistent with this statement and offers
an alternative to wholesale rezoning of the area (assuming it is
adopted in some form by the County Commissioners in early 1996).
The basic provisions of Flexible Development presented at the
public hearing are:
• The existing one -acre minimum lot size would be retained.
• The provision of open space would be optional, however a
developer would be required to submit two concept plans - one
for a conventional subdivision and another for a "flexible" or
open space subdivision.
• If a Flexible Development option is chosen, at least one -third
(33%) of the land within a subdivision must be preserved as open
space which may be preserved through:
o An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into
lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50 %)
are established for each lot, and the open space outside such
limits is preserved through restrictive covenants and /or
conservation easements; or
O A "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into
lots, and open space is preserved through the use of
conservation easements held by the County or a land
conservancy; or
o A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land
saved through such reductions is dedicated to the County or
a land conservancy, or owned and maintained by a homeowners'
association; or
O A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units
are clustered around a village green and supporting shops,
and the village is surrounded by open space.
• Density bonuses, while limited by the type of water supply/
sewage disposal service available to the development, may be
K
achieved by:
• Providing greater amounts of open space than required; or
• Providing affordable housing units either as part of the
development or at an off -site location; or
• Purchasing the development rights on farm or forest lands,
natural areas, and similar resources; or
• Some combination of the above.
• Water supply /sewage disposal service may include:
o Individual wells and septic systems on each lot or located
off -lot within a recorded easement, including subsurface
disposal or spray irrigation on open land; or
O A community water and /or sewage disposal system, including
subsurface disposal or spray irrigation on open land,
designed, constructed, and maintained in conformity with all
applicable state, federal, and local rules and regulations;
or
o Connection to a water and /or sewage disposal system operated
by a municipality, association, or water or sewer authority.
As part of such service provision, public water and sewer
extensions would be permitted to defined "transit corridors"
and "transition areas."
As presented at public hearing, all
options are to be available to landowners.
Stoney Creek Small Area Concept Plan
development intensities in certain portions
the Planning Group might want to consider rec
specific options to certain areas.
Flexible Development
However, in that the
recommends specific
of the planning area,
ommendations targeting
The Implementation Strategies Subcommittee met on November 30
and December 6. A third meeting to fully develop recommendations
was needed, but due to the Thanksgiving holidays, this was not
possible. General recommendations of the subcommittee at this
point are:
1. Use Flexible Development (assuming it is approved) to
implement the plan. Though these items are features of the
Flexible Development proposal, the subcommittee reiterated its
support for density being based on a yield plan using the
underlying R -1 zoning, conventional subdivision development
remaining an option, and the provision of options and
incentives for the landowner.
3
2. Include dis- incentives as well as incentives. For example,
conventional subdivision development will continue to be an
option for the property owner. However, if the community
through its endorsement of the plan has expressed a preference
for a certain type of development, e.g., cluster or
conservation, then these options should be easier to do.
Conventional development proposals should be considered at
public hearing to hear community concerns. This doesn't
prevent the person from doing conventional development, but
does act as a dis- incentive and may encourage him /her to
consider an option which has community support.
3. The acreage ranges for the three intensity levels should come
out of the Preliminary Design Subcommittee report and be
replaced with descriptions, i.e., lower intensity = most
restrictive, higher intensity = most permissive.
4. Finally:
• Fine -tune the intensity levels (description as well as
geographic extent) in the Conceptual Plan and recommend
specific Flexible Development options for each of them. For
example, there seemed to be general consensus on the part of
the subcommittee that the Estate, Cluster, and Conservation
options might be compatible with the Lower Intensity
Category. Time expired before the Subcommittee could
consider recommendations for the Intermediate and Higher
Intensity areas. The full Planning Group may wish to begin
discussions on this and refer the issue back to the
subcommittee if consensus cannot be reached.
• Explore opportunities for, and encourage changes to the tax
laws regarding farm and managed forest land. If a landowner
could sell farm and /or forest land and not be liable for
back taxes as long as the land stayed in the same use, it
would in many cases make it possible for the landowner to
raise needed cash without feeling forced to develop.
• Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) seems to offer the
means for achieving many desirable goals. The general
assembly should be lobbied strongly to pass legislation
allowing it.
Note: The recommendations section of this report was written
following the subcommittee meeting on December 6 and the
subcommittee did not have the opportunity to review it. Any
errors, omissions, or misinterpretation of subcommittee
members' views are my (Gene Bell) responsibility.
4
APPENDIX A
OVERVIEW OF M PLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
(Summarized from Section 4, Land Use Element, Orange County Comprehensive Plan)
A land use plan is merely a "good idea" unless a commitment is made to translate the
concept into physical form through adoption and implementation. The success of the
planning activity is dependent on the degree to which public and private development actions
and decisions are coordinated since the Plan is not "self-executing". Legal, financial and
administrative tools must be developed and utilized effectively. The implementation tools
include: a zoning ordinance; subdivision regulations; a sedimentation and erosion control
ordinance; a flood damage prevention ordinance; building and fire codes; water and sewer
extension policies; a thoroughfare plan; community development projects; public investments;
coordination with other plans; and public education and awareness.
Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance is the major legal tool for implementing the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan and small area plans. The Zoning Ordinance serves as the means to
achieve the desired relationship between land uses; to prevent incompatible land use
associations; and to encourage and provide incentives for the more compact and efficient land
use patterns delineated in the Land Use Element. Simply stated, zoning is the division of a
jurisdiction into different districts and the regulation of population density, buildings and land
use intensity, lot coverage, and building setbacks within those districts. Most zoning
ordinances divide land uses into three general categories of residential, commercial, and
industrial use and specify the areas (or districts) where each of these uses is permitted.
Subdivision Regulations
Subdivision Regulations govern the conversion of raw land for intensive use. They serve as
the means to secure a well designed and coordinated pattern of streets, lots and utilities in
advance of subdivision, given the relative permanence of the character of the subdivision
once completed. This implementation tool is particularly necessary to coordinate existing
development and potential future development with proposed development. As the interest of
the developer is generally short term, their application of subdivision regulations protects not
only the individual homeowner, but also the general public by providing for a review process
which suggests and facilitates coordination of the proposal with the long range specifications
of the plan. By providing an opportunity for negotiation it likewise allows for the potential
coordination of public and private activities.
Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
The Orange County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance provides the legal means
by which the adverse impacts of land disturbing development activities can be minimized.
The Ordinance serves to control and prevent accelerated soil erosion, maintain the ecological
balance, prevent the obstruction of natural and artificial drainageways, inhibit flooding,
reduce the undermining of roads and protect water quality. Before a construction permit is
granted, a developer must submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan. These plans
include the type of soils present at the site, the topography and location of nearby streams,
erosion control measures to be taken during construction, and the operation and maintenance
of any structural controls during the life of the project.
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for Orange County provides a means for
prohibiting or restricting development within areas environmentally constrained by floodways
and floodplains. This ordinance seeks to prevent property loss, insure human safety and
enable the safe and natural flow of streams.
Codes
Building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, fire and housing codes protect the health safety
and welfare of individuals in the community by establishing minimum standards for
individual structures. These codes supplement the broader influence of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances.
Thoroughfare Plan
A thoroughfare plan addresses the means and manner of transporting goods and people
throughout the County and into and from adjacent counties. The major purpose of the
thoroughfare plan is to assess the capacity of the existing road and highway system in terms
of future development requirements. A Thoroughfare Plan is premised on a road
classification system which specifies the level of service provided by each road in the
network.
Economic Development Plan
The physical land use planning activity cannot be separated from economic considerations. In
determining the appropriate pattern of land use for the County an assumption is implicitly
made regarding the type of growth favored and the response of the economy to such growth.
Conscious efforts to broaden and diversify the economic base of the area and promote certain
forms of economic development should complement physical planning considerations
affecting land use patterns, particularly as they impact on the maximization of opportunities
for County residents for housing and work, and the protection of the environment.
A key goal of the Strategic Plan for Orange County's Economic Development is to:
"...insure the desired quality of life ... by encouraging economic development through
investment-in human resources, the expansion of existing businesses, and the creation of
diversified and environmentally safe businesses... to provide jobs for county residents and to
increase the non - residential tax base...".
New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan
In 1989, the governing boards of Orange County, Durham County, Durham, and Chapel Hill
recognized the importance of a system of open space along New Hope Creek and its
tributaries between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land north of
Jordan Lake. The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan includes recommendations
for acquiring critical environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and
larger tracts of historic, educational or recreational value. Acquisition could be through
donation, purchase in fee simple or purchase of development rights.
A -2
Sewer and Water Extension Policy
A water and sewer extension policy refers to an official or unofficial policy or policies
regarding the expansion of centralized sewer and water systems into previously unserviced
areas. The presence or absence of water and sewer facilities significantly affects location and
intensity of development in a given area. Without the provision of centralized sewage
collection and disposal land can only be developed for rural uses and at rural densities.
The provision of public services and facilities should not seek to follow private development,
but should occur simultaneously with planning efforts to channel development over time in a
manner consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the Land Use Plan. Public facilities
should be designed to serve a specific purpose given a desired location, density and form of
private development.
Community Development Programs
Community Development programs seek to coordinate public funds with redevelopment
activities to stimulate private development in an area. Projects are premised on community
goals and require a coordinated approach to the negotiation between public agencies, private
developers and the residents of a community to achieve the objectives of these goals.
Generally, these objectives include neighborhood stabilization and business renewal, among
others.
Public Investments
Development of a capital improvements program and budget is a key implementation tool. It
requires integrating both County and municipal plans with the recommendations and priorities
for programming the fiscal outlay for capital improvements during the plan period. This
administrative tool provides decision - makers with guidance mechanisms aimed at
coordinating the improvement of the provision of public services and facilities with the
private development they are intended to serve. In particular, the provision of water and
sewer facilities, roads, schools and parks, among others, should be-considered and approved
in light of their development inducing impact on a specific area.
Coordination with Other Plans
A successful and acceptable planning program necessitates the maximization of coordination
between the Land Use Plan and other official plans and policies and the minimization of
"conflicting signals". The Plan should seek consistency with existing local, regional, state
and federal plans and policies. It should also be supplemented with more detailed functional
plans regarding transportation, housing, recreation and water and sewer extensions, as well
as specific area plans.
Public Education and Awareness
The primary and most effective implementation tool is the acceptance and commitment of the
general citizenry to the concept of the planning process and the product evolving from that
process. Since the planning process necessitates trade -offs between the public and private use
of land in a legal climate where property ownership and use is highly revered, public
awareness, support, and participation in the process should be facilitated and encouraged.
A -3
DRAFT 3
REPORT OF THE STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN
VISION SUBCOMIVIITTEE
The process of defining a "vision" is in many ways like trying to
define beauty; it is largely in the eye of the beholder. The
beginning stages reveal a variety of individual visions, each
equally valid, but often in conflict with one another. However,
any vision if zealously pursued to the extreme will preclude the
possibility for other equally valid visions to be incorporated in
the final plan. Therefore, we have defined our collective vision
as a result of significant compromise, creativity, flexibility, and
fairness with all who will have a hand in shaping the future of the
Stoney Creek Basin.
Development of a "vision" for the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan has
considered the natural, cultural, visual, and economic resources of
the area in the context of diverse viewpoints expressed during the
planning process. Two key themes have been prominent and seem
central to development of the plan. These are, first, that it is
important to retain elements of the present rural character for the
area and second, that property owners should receive fair value for
their land should they choose to sell or develop it in some way.
Existing land use patterns in the Stoney Creek area reflect the
nature of its rural heritage. Expanses of agricultural (active and
inactive) and forest land are interspersed with residential
development of varying scales, most of which occurs on lots
exceeding one acre in size and served by single wells and septic
systems. An expanding municipality on the area's periphery and its
location between two interstate highways enhance its- attractiveness
for development and contribute to pressures for change.
The Stoney Creek Small Area Plan should serve to guide future
changes in the Stoney Creek Basin area while recognizing its rural
heritage, cultural, historical, and natural resources, and the
rights of individual property owners. In this regard, the goals of
the Orange County Rural Character Study seem particularly relevant
in defining the vision for the area. Specifically, they focus on
balancing development with agricultural preservation, protection of
natural, cultural, and visual resources, and managed growth, while
maintaining flexibility for landowners.
Elements of the plan should address the following:
• Development of mechanisms which will encourage preservation of
rural landscapes such as active farms, forests, and visual
openness.
• Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of
significant cultural and historical features and the development
of criteria and incentives for encouraging their preservation.
• Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of natural
terrain features, visual resources, and sensitive ecological
areas and the development of criteria and incentives for
encouraging their protection.
• Recognition of the generations of land stewardship by rural
landowners and the protection of their property rights and land
values by providing a variety of development options which will
allow for flexibility and creativity in design.
• Protection of the character of existing neighborhoods from
abrupt changes in density or land use by providing density
transitions. Also, provision should be made to direct growth
that is not rural in character toward more urbanized areas
where it can take advantage of existing infrastructure.
We recognize and acknowledge that we have a responsibility to
balance all aspects of the character of this area including its
rural heritage, rights of landowners, and likelihood of future
change. The Stoney Creek Basin Land Use Plan should, therefore,
seek to preserve important elements of rural character and special
natural features, while still allowing for quality expansion and
growth of rural and country suburban neighborhoods; concurrent with
this growth should be a recognition of the need for affordable
housing and opportunities for active and passive recreation through
the provision of a community park. Finally, the plan should not
preclude aleng with the possibility of some very limited,
internally oriented, commercial and service locations that fit in
with a preserved rural character and are consistent with Flexible
Development options that may be available for the area. This must
all be done without unfair or unreasonable financial restrictions
or burdens either for the landowners who may desire to develop
their property, or for the taxpaying citizens of the area who may
have to pay for any negative effects or excess costs for public
infrastructure of ill- planned development.
New text is in bold while deleted text is lined through.
The Vision Subcommittee did not reconvene to discuss changes to the
report so the proposed changes do not necessarily reflect consensus
on the part of the subcommittee.
Subcommittee member, Judd Edeburn, shared the following revisions
with me by phone:
Finally, the plan should not preclude aleng with the possibility of
some very limited, internally oriented, commercial and service
locations that f; } in with a i reser compatible with preserving
rural character and are consistent with Flexible Development
options that may be available for the area.
12 -8 -95
M M V
STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP
NOVEMBER 16, 1995
MINUTES
The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, November 16,
1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the Training Room of the EMS facility, New Hope Church Road, Chapel
Hill, N. C.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Cook, Clint Burklin, James Bumphus, Dean Zehnder, Bob
Strayhorn, Judd Edeburn, Meg McKean, Thea Wilson, Curtis Bane, Irene VanDyke (alternate),
Michael Warner, Renee Price (arrived at 8:45 p.m.), Elio Soldi, Dan Teichman , Kim Price,
(alternate), David Yelton, and Trish Rafalow (alternate).
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lee Rafalow, Bob Hall, Robert Nicholson, Trudy Cuffe, Bill Bracey,
Gary Hanker„ Steve Price, Steve Halkiotis, Don Willhoit and alternates Kenneth Maynard,
John Ringland, and Dan Kenan.
STAFF PRESENT: Planners Gene Bell and Emily Cameron and Deputy Clerk to the Board
Kathy Baker.
FACILITATOR PRESENT: Verla Insko
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Gene Bell suggested that announcements be held until the end of the
meeting and that review of the Preliminary Design Subcommittee Report begin immediately.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: The members of this committee were
Bill Bracey, Clint Burklin, Renee Price, Steve Price and Michael Warner.
Gene Bell reported that the subcommittee studied the resource maps which were created by
the UNC City and Regional Planning class. Duke Forest was identified as the primary area to
protect from development impact. _Stoney Creek, particularly the wildlife corridor, was also
identified as having high priority for protection. Other areas which were identified were the
New Hope Church property, proposed scenic road corridors, a stand of chestnut oaks, and
existing farmland and neighborhoods.
Gene Bell indicated that another subcommittee could be created to focus on implementation.
Curtis Bane requested that consideration be given to assuring that the children who will inherit
this land can afford to live here. This needs to be included in the list of issues to be discussed.
Clint Burklin mentioned that they discussed the goals and vision and tabled the issue-of _
implementation. They attempted to visually put the goals on the map. He requested feedback
from the group regarding whether the map represented achievable and desirable goals for the
area. The implementation phase will involve establishing guidelines for making the goals
voluntary while preserving values and property rights.
1
M M 7
Michael Warner indicated that discussion centered around the need to protect the wildlife
corridor rather than on the appropriate width of the corridor.
Judd Edeburn said that from Duke University's standpoint the tract of land to the North of
Highway 10 will not receive the same level of protection. He suggested that the stream corridor
could be used for a narrower wildlife corridor connecting Stoney Creek and Camp New Hope.
Bob Strayhorn said that New Hope Church does not have a stream on it.
David Yelton asked what preservation tools would be available using today's standards in the
event that Duke chose not to maintain ownership of this land.
Judd Edeburn indicated that this planning process will make it easier for Duke to consider
preserving the tract to the north of Highway 10. If a sewer line were proposed up Stoney Creek
through the forest , then density and future development would become a concern. It is helpful
to Duke to know the thinking of the members of this group. The overriding concern is what
would water and sewer do to the larger Duke Tract. He did not feel that Duke would reevaluate
and put the northern tract back in the long term preservation category.
David Yelton asked if there had been discussion about the possibility of damming the creek to
create additional ponds or creeks.
Clint Burklin replied that the committee did not discuss damming the creeks. He also indicated
that the main waterflow is out of the forest not out of the neighborhood. The committee looked
primarily at the parcels not developed, although they did not discuss exactly what was meant
by protection. Developmental implementation strategies need to be established--that do not
create hardships for the landowners.
Bob Strayhorn pointed out that the stream that flows into Stoney Creek is going to be protected
by a natural corridor because of the floodplain.
Clint Burklin mentioned that when the corridor is put at the back of proposed lots the remaining
50 -60% is developable even with the current flood plain protection.
It was suggested that the words "teaching and research" be added to the text under Resource
Areas - Duke Forest.
Gene Bell handed out the Conceptual Land Use Plan map. He mentioned that the map defines
three land use intensity categories. Those categories are higher, intermediate and lower
intensity areas. He pointed out which areas are included in each of the categories. A complete
explanation is included in the Preliminary Design Subcommittee Report.
M M 7
3
Clint Burklin mentioned that they put lower density along the scenic corridor, Stoney Creek, and
Duke Forest in order to provide lower pressure on them. The greater density was expected to
be closer to major interchanges.
Michael Warner further explained that they attempted to align the level of proposed density with
the current development in the area.
Dan Teichman stated that a parcel on the east side of New Hope Church Road at the
intersection of New Hope Church Road and Old NC 10 has a preliminary plan being presented
to the Planning Board. That plan would be closer to higher intensity.
Michael Warner mentioned that the proposal has been under discussion for 6 years and could
require several more years before it is completed.
Dan Teichman asked for clarification on what the transition areas will actually look like.
Curtis Bane asked if there was going to be assurance that the resident who makes less than
$50,000 a year would have home ownership options. Large lots do not lend themselves to lower
priced homes. This needs to be discussed prior to a final plan being formulated.
Verla Insko suggested putting implementation strategies for affordable housing on the list to be
discussed.
Dean Zehnder stated that affordable housing could be addressed by density requirements.
One solution would be to lower the 1/2 acre requirement to 1/4 acre.
Clint Burklin indicated that they could consider other methods for protecting sensitive areas
including a larger buffer around Duke Forest.
Elio Soldi pointed out that implementation strategies could encourage, or discourage, Duke
from continuing to protect the Duke Forest Area. Landowners need to see that they have
economically beneficial options for land protection.
Dean Zehnder asked what it implied to identifying scenic roads as desirable resources. Is there
a mechanism for protection of visual resources?
Mike Warner indicated that they discussed setbacks and buffers but they did not specifically
discuss implementation.
Gene Bell said that the scenic road received less priority than the other designations on the
map.
Bob Strayhorn mentioned that one of the concerns is how to achieve goals without down -
zoning. He mentioned that everything in yellow on the map would be down - zoned.
Elio Soldi commented that the 4 acre lot size needs to be optional. If the option appears
advantageous to the owner it may be chosen.
Dean Zehnder agreed that scenic roads are desirable. He mentioned that the area north of NC
10 is an open pasture. Its character will change when it is developed. This group has no
influence over that type of change.
David Yelton mentioned that it is the vista, not the road, that is in question here. Vistas are
difficult to restrict from changing.
Curtis Bane mentioned that internal roads are necessary. Incentives are necessary to
encourage developers to hold the open space toward New Hope Church Road.
Michael Warner stated that if the lower density land uses are identified above the road it would
encourage the preservation of the vista.
Curtis Bane asked that emphasis be on influence rather than restricting choices.
Judd Edeburn suggested that the design guidelines be used to facilitate the vision created in
this group.
David Yelton mentioned that the R -1 designation would allow 60% open space and have
clustered homes which would create contiguous open space throughout the area. Minimum 2
to 4 acre lots work against this vision. It is important to select options that are acceptable and
still in keeping with the vision.
Meg McKean stated that clustering is acceptable with any option.
4
Clint Burklin mentioned that whatever happens needs to be limited to 3 to 5 acceptable options
for this area. It may be possible, with changes in county zoning, for the incentives in the orange
areas on the map to encourage higher density land uses and lower density in the yellow areas.
Elio Soldi felt that broad implementation needs to be established first and then more specific
issues, such as maintaining the scenic vistas by the orientation of the lots, could be addressed.
He agreed that there has to be a trade -off in encouraging higher density in some areas and
lower density in others.
Verla Insko suggested establishing broad directions to the implementation subcommittee.
Clint Burklin suggested that the Preliminary Design subcommittee review the map at their next
meeting. An Implementation Subcommittee could be created to begin looking at that issue at
the same time.
Dean Zehnder mentioned that the general development pattern of Strayhorn Hills and Wyngate
makes clear that the land is marketable at one home per two acre density.
M M
There was discussion about using incentives to encourage the creation of a park in this area.
Dan Teichman said the subcommittee had identified resource areas, proposed scenic roads,
existing farmlands, and existing neighborhoods. They could then list other categories that they
thought would be important to include, such as a park site.
Clint Burklin asked that the Vision subcommittee add a park to their vision for this area.
Bob Strayhorn suggested including a vision of a park but having others decide exactly where it
would be located.
Dean Zehnder asked if there was sufficient money in the County's payment -in -lieu fund to
create a park or would there need to be a sale of bonds.
Gene Bell said that there was $4,000 or $5,000 in the fund. There would need to be a bond.
In a discussion about where to put a park it was suggested that it could be placed near the
railroad tracks if it was properly protected with fencing.
David Yelton stated that this is a vision of what might happen in this area with the proper
incentives. It could take place if this area remained R -1, although it might be very difficult
without the incentives.
Verla Insko mentioned that it is possible for an implementation strategy to include rezoning
suggestions
Gene Bell mentioned that the Values Subcommittee has dealt with the current zoning and the
rights implied by that zoning. Existing development patterns in much of the lower intensity land
uses (yellow area on the map) are clearly established with lot sizes between 3 and 10 acres.
Bob Strayhorn's farm and several of the properties that were a part of the University Station
proposal are the main areas that could still be impacted by the smaller lot options.
Bob Strayhorn mentioned the possibility of using transfer of development rights. The
landowners in the yellow areas of the map need to have the option of using the transfer of
development rights if it becomes available.
Clint Burklin hoped to have an equal amount of "receiving areas " for the density if transfer of
development rights were implemented. This could be an option in the incentive program. We
need to make sure that there is an area available to receive the development rights from the
landowner who wants to sell.
Gene Bell stated that the purchase of development rights is a possible future option, however,
the transfer of development rights would have to be approved by the State Legislature.
5
®r' A
7
Elio Soldi suggested that implementation strategies to further the goals be established and
then discussed as a group. At that point options such as rezoning could be discussed.
Both Elio Soldi and Curtis Bane volunteered to be on the Implementation Subcommittee. This
subcommittee will work on developing options that would make the vision desirable to the
landowners.
VISION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: The members of this subcommittee are Trudy Cuffe,
Dean Zehnder, Curtis Bane, Judson Edeburn and David Yelton. The statement entitled Draft 2 -
Prepared by Vision Subcommittee on 11/7/95 was used for discussion. The "Alternative Vision
Statement" was included for reference only.
Dan Teichman mentioned that the inclusion of a park is an important point and needs to be in
the Vision Statement.
David Yelton said that they had focused on preservation rather than construction in their
discussion. He agreed that they could include the establishment of a public access recreational
area.
Verla Insko commented that if affordable housing or mixed price housing was included in the
vision, then an implement stategy might be inclusionary housing which would then require
Enabing Legislation.
David Yelton mentioned that the committee felt that words such as "guarantee" and "assure"
implied a loss of options for the landowners.- For that reason, they avoided using those words.
It was felt that "assuring" certain areas would be protected would in effect be down - zoning
them. They wanted the Vision Statement to encourage creativity and flexibility.
Bob Strayhorn asked how legislation could be used to create mixed use housing in areas where
large lots were the norm. He supports incentives rather than mandates.
Verla Insko pointed out that density might not be an incentive. This conversation pertains to the
desire /vision of this committee, not how to implement the vision.
Dan Teichman felt that this is about recognizing and acknowledging the responsibility to create
a balanced vision that includes different types of development. He mentioned that the
desirability of "affordable or mixed variety" housing could easily be included in this vision.
Verla Insko asked if it was, in fact, a part of this group's vision to encourage inclusionary
housing? If so, this issue needs to be on the list of discussion items.
Meg McKean stated that inclusionary housing already exists.
David Yelton mentioned that in true rural character there are options for minor commercial, such
as an internally oriented community store. They created a list of those types of commercial
0� QjI V
opportunities. A copy of that list is included as an attachment to these minutes. The Rural
Character designation includes these limited commercial opportunities , but R -1 does not.
They felt that the R -1 designation was not necessarily the answer for all of the neighborhoods in
this community.
Meg McKean stated that the vision includes some commercial while the design statement
precludes any commercial development. This is a contradiction which should be addressed.
Gene Bell said that the contradiction occurred because the Preliminary Design Subcommittee
met prior to the Vision Subcommittee meeting. This information will be reviewed and revised by
the Preliminary Design Subcommittee.
David Yelton mention that they were talking about expanding the designations to include the
possibility that a landowner could sell a crop that was produced on their property. Example he
used were having a pond stocked with catfish, operating a bed and breakfast, or selling
produce grown on the property.
Bob Strayhorn agreed that some of these options would benefit the rural character. There
needs to be opportunities for people to generate income within areas designated for open
space.
Meg McKean asked about activities that are allowed in the R -1 designation. She asked for
information about what would be required to allow a wider range of desirable options.
Emily Cameron replied that a range of uses might be allowed either through a home occupation
permit or a special use permit . To a great extent it is a matter of scale of operation and origin
of product. -
Verla Insko suggested that the group look at the Vision Statement and decide if it needs to be
reworded or accepted in its current form.
Dean Zehnder mentioned that there has been very strong opposition to commercial activity by
several members of this committee who are not represented tonight. He asked if there was a
zoning designation that would allow only the type of small scale commercial that appears to be
desirable to the majority of this group?
Gene Bell mentioned that the Zoning Ordinance could be amended.
Dan Teichman suggested the Vision Statement needs to include comments on the types of
home occupations which are allowed. He asked if participants felt that a change to increase or
decrease should be suggested?
Bob Strayhorn agreed with being careful about what is allowed in the community, however, he
stressed the necessity of landowners having choices. He felt that a community store would be
a benefit to a rural community.
Do,
.01
Elio Soldi distributed a memorandum dated November 15, 1995, which discussed incentives for
preservation of rural character and open space development emphasizing continuous open
spaces. He felt that it was important to adopt the Vision Statement.
Dan Teichman agreed with Elio Soldi that the adoption of a Vision Statement is critical to the
success of this Work Group's Vision.
It was decided that Implementation would be a priority item to discuss at the December
meeting.
Renee Price asked Gene Bell to prepare an overlay showing current commercial uses.
VALUES SUBCOMMITTEE: The members of this subcommittee are James Bumphus, Bob
Hall, Elio Soldi, Bob Strayhorn, Meg McKean and Lee Rafalow. Meg McKean mentioned the
County Attorney recommended several word changes. Other than those few changes, the
report has not changed from the one presented at the October meeting. This report will be
discussed at the December meeting.
IMPLEMENTATION SUBCOMMITTEE: This will be the first report at the December meeting.
The members of this Subcommittee are Curtis Bane, Renee Price, and Elio Soldi. Additional
members who have an interest working on this subcommittee are needed. Contact Gene Bell if
you are willing to work on this important task.
MINUTES: The minutes of the October 19., 1995 meeting were approved by consensus.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning
Group will be Thursday, December 14, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the EMS meeting room on New
Hope Church Road.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk