Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 061595MMI V i�-6 STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP JUNE 151 1995 MINUTES The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, June 15, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the Orange County Emergency Management Facility (911 Center) , 1914 New Hope Church Road, Chapel Hill, N.C. MEMBERS PRESENT: Curtis Bane, Michael Warner, Steve Price, Judd.Edeburn, Keith Cook, Bob Strayhorn, Lee Rafalow, Elio Soldi, Meg McKean, and Bob Hall. ALTERNATES PRESENT: Trish Rafalow and Dan Kenan. MEMBERS ABSENT: Bobby Nicholson, Trudy Cuffe, Gary Hanker, Dan Teichman, David Yelton, Dean Zehnder, Bill Bracey, Clint Burklin, Cherie Rosemond, Stephen Halkiotis, and Don Willhoit. STAFF PRESENT: Planners Gene Bell, David Stancil, Emily Cameron, and Don Belk. FACILITATOR PRESENT: versa Insko Verla Insko convened the meeting at 7:31 and asked members to introduce themselves. She then reviewed the roster noting neighborhoods that were not represented. Gene Bell added that Cherie Rosemond had called him and said she would try to attend although she would be very late. He also mentioned that Trudy Cuffe had phoned and said she would be unable to attend. Verla Insko also mentioned that future meetings of the group would be held at the 911 Center assuming availability. This met with the group's approval. Verla Insko stated that her goal was for the group to begin taking responsibility for the outcome and managing itself. She added that she felt the group had a better chance of working together if they identified themselves as a group. She then said she would like to suggest changing the agenda, the goal being to get right into the task of developing a community vision. She recommended moving items 3 and 4 to follow 5. Everyone was agreeable to the change so long as time was reserved at the end to address the other items. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Gene Bell mentioned the flexible development proposal currently before the Planning Board and asked if the group would like to see a flexible development design alternative at some future date. Lee Rafalow said he needed to know more about flexible development before he could answer the question. Bell said he would try to get a one or two page summary out to the group to give them a better understanding of the proposal. He also mentioned the impact fees study underway this summer, the purpose of which is to derive better data on student generation rates per household for input into impact assessments for new residential construction. He stated that once the study is completed, staff can run "new" numbers on the fiscal impacts of the various development alternatives. He concluded his comments by stating that the meeting schedule would remain on the third Thursday. Lee Rafalow asked if keeping meetings on the third Thursday would preclude Commissioner Don Willhoit from attending. Bell stated that the Landfill Owner's Group (LOG) of which Commissioner Willhoit is also a member had only scheduled its meetings through June. He stated that Commissioner Willhoit had indicated that he was going to try to get the LOG to schedule its meetings on a different night in the upcoming fiscal year. MINUTES: There were no comments; the minutes were accepted as presented. AGENDA ITEM 5 - DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY VISION: versa Insko stated that the goal was to develop a community vision and the group needed to agree on how to do it. She suggested the group begin with an environmental scan referring to previously supplied information on population trends, environmental constraints and opportunities, and land use and development patterns. Elio Soldi mentioned that the group had received this information previously and now was the time to begin sorting through and trying to understand it. He; didn't think too much time should be spent reiterating what the group had already seen. Insko stated that this didn't have to be done in any particular order and that the group may want to begin by each person taking a few minutes to verbalize their vision for the area and staff could begin recording the ideas. Ideas could be very general or quite specific and the conversation would be open- ended. Gene Bell mentioned that he and Verla Insko had met on Monday morning to discuss ideas for the meeting and that she had mentioned what he thought was a very good idea. This was to ask the Planning Group, "If you could wave a magic wand and have the area develop as you would like to see it in the next 15 to 20 years, what would it be like ?" He suggested that each group member give their thoughts and that Emily would record them on a flip chart, the pages of which would be posted on the wall. He said that after each person had had a chance to give their "vision," the group could begin reviewing the ideas and looking for common themes and hopefully working toward consensus on some items. The group was receptive to this suggestion. 2 i Judd Edeburn said the group needed to recognize that development is going to take place on some of the tracts that are open now. He would like to see some of the area's current character retained by doing developments in such a way as to preserve vistas and buffers so it doesn't end up looking like some areas in Wake County where there is tract - after -tract of the same type of development. He said he would like for new development in the Stoney Creek basin to retain what residents like about the area while allowing land owners to develop their property. Edeburn emphasized that development should retain the rural character of the area. He closed by stating that his assumption was that some growth for the area was inevitable although this was not his vision for the area. Meg McKean said to, "Preserve as much as possible, cave in as little as possible." Her preference was for no change. Her prediction for future of area was different although she was unhappy to have to predict that. Michael Warner indicated that his preference (wish) was for no change. He agreed with Meg McKean to back off from that as little as possible. Verla Insko asked if no change meant for the area to stay as it is now and Warner replied "yes." He didn't, however, think this was going to happen. Elio Soldi said he 'liked some change because it brought people in and out and promoted variety. He enjoyed living there because his neighbors were not all like him and he had learned from that. He felt that the people who owned the land should be able to own it as long as possible and within reasonable constraints should be able to benefit from that land. He indicated that there were varying perspectives on land ownership; some just viewed it for personal enjoyment while others viewed it as an investment in the future. He said he wanted a plan with a lot of flexibility for many people to be accommodated. His preference was for as little change as possible. Realistically, he hoped the group could come up with a vision that could not be disputed because too many people had been shut out. Michael Warner clarified his previous statement by saying that by "no change," he didn't mean exactly the same people living there. It was more a question of how many people will live there. He agreed there is a diversity of people there now and he welcomes more diversity. His concern was density. For him, the number of housing units is what distinguishes a rural area from a suburban area. He thought the area was still rural, but there was a development threshold separating rural from suburban. His hope was that "ruralness" could be maintained and he viewed this as being done by keeping housing densities low. Steve Price said he wanted to see more public land (lake, ball field, picnic grounds, trails, etc.) He said it could be in the form of a development where a certain amount of land is set aside, 01 either just for that development or for the entire community. What he didn't want to see was development like where he currently lives where "x" amount of land is chopped up into as many lots as possible leaving no land for public use. He thought public land should be incorporated into any design resulting from the group's work. Curtis Bane felt that people were ignoring what had happened with lands left open and no one being responsible for them. He cited the Craig place and Carr farm properties. Verla Insko asked how he would like to see the area in 20 years. He said he would like to see water and sewer available and for the people who own the land and pay taxes on it to be able to do as they wished with it. Insko asked for clarification on how this might look. Bane said it could involve developing the land to its maximum potential. Elio Soldi asked if this meant as much development as could be legally permitted and Bane said "yes. " Insko asked what would be the ideal way for the area to look in 30 years when driving through it. Bane said on family -owned property in the vicinity of Old NC 10 and Mt. Hermon Church Road he would like to see condominiums. He said he envisioned commercial for the 100 acres behind Carolina Builders. In the Economic Development District (EDD) he indicated there were 34 acres envisioned for a commercial park. He said that UNC and Research Triangle Park were attracting people to the region and that there had to be a place for them to live. He said that this area was excellent for such purposes given the interstate highway/ railroad transportation corridor. Soldi asked Bane if he saw the area developing to its maximum density or did he envision some type of mix. Bane referred to the EDD plan and recommended it to the group because of its recommendations on primary4 and secondary development areas along with appropriate buffer zones. Insko asked if he liked the EDD Plan and would like to see development in accordance with it and he responded affirmatively. Verla Insko asked for clarification on earlier comments by Curtis Bane on residential development. He felt that if there was too strong a push to limit residential development, future generations would not have a place to live and would have to look to other areas such as Chatham or Person Counties. Insko said it sounded like part of his vision was to think about generations to come and he responded, "absolutely." Bane said he agreed that there should be public parks and ,that this was already addressed through Orange County's development ordinances. He mentioned the 50 acre park proposed in the Orange County Master Park Plan. He also said he would like to see a small park on an acre of land his family owned adjacent to the church. Lee Rafalow said he was pretty close to Elio Soldi's vision. If it were possible, he would roll back time because he felt it would be nice to have more farmland in the neighborhood than there is now. He said he was interested in preserving the farmland character, especially along New Hope Church Road and NC 10. He said all farms 4 didn't have to be preserved to achieve this, but did want to preserve the character, i.e., vistas and so forth. Rafalow indicated that he liked the suggestion that development that does occur should encourage some diversity; he agreed there is a lot of diversity already and this is one of the things he liked. One of the things he would like to see in whatever small amount of development that would occur in his vision would be for development to encourage communities and not just people who live in houses nearby to each other. He said he had learned that there are ways in which the development of physical space can be done that encourages people interacting with each other. Like others who had already spoken, Lee Rafalow also wanted to see the impacts of development minimized. He believed that minimizing impacts also meant minimizing development itself, although he was willing to be shown to be wrong in this assumption. He said he liked the idea of public spaces, but didn't think this necessarily meant ownership by the State or County. They could be common areas owned by small developments that are part of building the character of a very localized community. He said there was an alternative to public ownership and this was community ownership. Curtis Bane asked who picked up the garbage or mowed the grass. Rafalow mentioned development alternatives previously reviewed by the group that contained common areas owned by people in the development who were cooperatively responsible for maintenance. Bane asked about access by people from outside the development. Judd Edeburn mentioned a park in his community owned and maintained by the Ruritan Club that was open to everyone. Rafalow clarified that he was not against pubic ownership, he just wanted to emphasize that this was not the only mechanism for getting public spaces. Elio Soldi asked if he (Lee Rafalow) meant that he would not exclude the possibility of open area owned by a smaller community, but accessible to the larger community or was this impossible. Rafalow said he was not trying to state this, although he thought this was a desirable goal. He said that when he mentioned this, it was not a major point, he was just trying to say there were many ways to achieve this goal. He said that a part of his vision was for people to be able to realize fair value for their land and that he didn't want" to see people penalized by their neighbors. On the other hand, he thought it was important for everyone to realize as neighbors that we all live here or chose to live here because of what is here now with some expectations of what the future might be. Those expectations were created (and will be created) by zoning. Rafalow said that in the ideal world, he wanted whoever desired to sell their property to get top dollar for it and he wanted the person who bought it to be outstanding neighbor. His definition of an outstanding neighbor was someone who isn't going to destroy the character of the neighborhood. Getting away from his vision, he said that in the real world people who pay top dollar for property tend to destroy the neighborhood. He said there was a real problem everyone had to deal with as a group and 5 that involved everyone having to make some sacrifices. Bob Strayhorn said the problem was called, "People." Meg McKean asked if it would be acceptable to hook descriptions. and visions to evaluations of presentations already seen by the group? Verla Insko responded affirmatively. McKean said a hazard was to think of plans already given as "real" or to think there are only four alternatives. She said, however, she could explain a lot more about her vision by referring to the neo- traditional plan. She said she was not prepared to see 10 square blocks of three -story buildings in this area. She cited several urban areas where this might be acceptable. Insko asked what she would like to see. McKean reiterated her previous comments of as little change as possible, a break from conventional development patterns of just stuffing more in, thinking that the more housing units there are the more money you ,get out (taxes ?), and open space set - asides. She said the neo- traditional plan prepared by the students was denser than any neo- traditional plan anyone has ever proposed for the area. She indicated the number of housing units was triple the proposal by Arthur Cogswell. She said, " This may make us think negatively about neo- traditional plans when we should not." She said the principles of such planning may be fine, but designing them to that extreme would make them undesirable. In terms of visions, however, she added that there has to be a lot of green left in the future. Bob Hall said he was interested in seeing current landowners have the value of their land go up and not feel like what this group does takes away from their value. He liked the idea of preserved chunks of undeveloped land (parks, open space, vistas) . He said he was not hung up on;'how to define it, but the point was that it wasn't commercial or residential. It is open land that has other purposes and is preserved into perpetuity in some legal way that can't be circumvented. He was also interested in getting a sense of what the population goal (in real numbers) is for this area to have some sense of 'how many people are we talking about living here. In regard to the density question, he was interested in there being some way for land owners to exchange density bonuses back - and - forth, i.e., transfer of development rights (TDR). Verla Insko asked Bob Hall if he hoped there would be a maximum density. He responded that there would be some concept of what we're talking about in our vision. Are we talking about 50,000 people here, 30,000, 10,000 ... what kind of range for the buildout of the area? Lee Rafalow asked Hall what his vision was. Hall responded that the beginning vision was to think about the area, i.e., if it is 5,000 acres and under current conditions the land supports one unit per two acres, that's 2,500 units. There is some basic math tha +t needs to be done. Insko sought clarification asking Hall if he would like to see some agreed upon buildout. He said he wanted to see a sense of what the consequences of buildout are. Insko asked how this was part of his vision. Hall offered an example of everybody developing to the max if water and sewer was available. Whet would that allow us to do in this area? Let's see what the actual numbers would be. This might cause us to say, "Wow, is that really what we want ?" We might want to require higher open space dedication requirements for developing at that density. Rafalow said it was beginning to sound more like process than vision. Hall said he thought some mechanism of TDR was a vision as well as a process for the area and it hinged on some sense of what the maximum level of development might be. Rafalow said what he was wanted to determine from Hall's comments was what the population cap for the area ought to be and how TDR ought to result in the preservation of open spaces as mentioned earlier. Hall said he would start with the current conditions (environmental and regulatory) and determine what buildout would be. This would serve as a baseline for the area and a starting point for discussing higher or lower densities taking into account TDR, affordable housing, open space set - asides, incentives, and so forth. Meg McKean said TDR seemed to be a way of choosing how much development ca ;n actually happen and requiring the remaining development potential to be bought off. Bob Hall spoke of small area planning in southern Orange County (Chapel Hill ?) in which specific tracts of land were identified for high density /low density. He said he didn't know if that kind of agreement could be reached in the Stoney Creek area, so he was saying maybe an exchange in the market place (TDR) was a way of doing it. Curtis Bane asked about the time frame on the vision. Bell mentioned that the standard planning horizon was 20 years. Michael Warner indicated an important part of the vision was whether or not water and sewer is envisioned for the area; in his vision, it was not. Following comments about part of the area being in transition area and eligible at some point for water and sewer, he said his vision was for the area outside transition to not be served with water and sewer. Density should be dictated by what the land will support using wells and septic tanks. Hall stated he would like to get around hinging the, discussion on whether water and sewer happens since it was beyond the control of the Planning Group. Elio Soldi suggested that the group try to come together on some points where there seemed to be agreement. For example, everyone said they didn't want land prices to go down. Lee Rafalow clarified his statements on this by saying he wanted land owners to get fair value. Soldi said he would like to see if the group agreed on some general ideas. Bob Strayhorn said they needed to agree on fair value f irst . Verla Insko made the .observation to the group that if water and sewer were available there was less control over development. Michael Warner asked if anyone had ever ridden through and area with water an sewer and thought to themselves, A "This place has rural character." Strayhorn said there were places in eastern North Carolina where water lines had been extended into the rural areas, but they didn't have Duke University , UNC, Research Triangle Park, and two interstate highways. Bob Strayhorn said'if he had a vision, it would be to go back 40 years before there was a Stoney Creek and Powder Mill and find some way to buy the properties where they are situated. Getting back to the present, he said that most of the development that had taken place in the area had happened when the land got out of the hands of the original owners and into the hands of people wanting to make a profit. He said those who owned land wanted to keep it as long as zney coula, nuz zne longer they had to contend with. Ver about what he would like. He as low as possible without putt developed their land already example. He said he loved hi unless tragedy or other unfc happen. He said he would prc space if the community would sz Stoney Creek planning area, a have to go to purchase open space like Curtis Bane and h mandated open space strategies everyone having to contribute sold or developed their prop( about it. Lee Rafalow said hE Strayhorn said he was not sure few acres would be ;if they knE was going toward purchasing or zney nela on zne more reszriczions _a Insko asked Strayhorn to say more aid he would like to keep it density ing the burden on people who haven't He mentioned open space as an open space and it wasn't for sale reseen circumstances forced it to bably feel a lot better about open y to everybody who sells land in the -.ertain percentage of your proceeds pace. He felt that owners of open .mself were being hit hardest when were proposed. He said the idea of to open space acquisition when they rty made him feel a little better thought Strayhorn had a good idea. how supportive people who owned a w a sizable portion of their profit an space. The discussion shifted to impact fees for schools. Bob Strayhorn said there should be a change in the structure of the impact fee program. He felt 'that fees should be reduced -for the person building a home and the person moving here and working in some other county should pay a larger portion. He felt the counties where these people worked were getting the tax benefits of non- residential development and Orange County was footing the bill on education. He stated that Orange County was a bedroom county. He said his vision would be similar to what the Rural Character Study Committee tried to do, to put as few demands on landowners as you can, maybe in this area you go to two acres as a starting point, but encourage people to go beyond the minimum and'give incentives for doing things. He would be opposed to ever taking any of his land for open space if that was not what he wanted. He said he wanted to be a good neighbor, but didn't feel anyone was entitled to what he had had to work for; he was willing to share with them as long as he was here. Strayhorn felt we were missing the boat by not recognizing people who have contributed to open space preservation. He mentioned the Blackwood family as an example, citing how they had lived modestly all their lives, although they could have whatever they wanted if they were willing to sell their land. He closed by saying that people who enjoy open space need to recognize and thank those who have preserved it rather than trying to figure out ways to get it without paying for it. Trish Rafalow said liked living near livestock. She felt that it was wrong that tax laws were set up such that farmers were penalized. Given that, she would like to live in a community with a more progressive tax system that put a value on preserving open space and working farms. Curtis Bane asked if she was suggesting that the power be put in the private sector rather than the governmental sector. She said she wasn't sure about that, but wanted to avoid situations that put residents (wanting to see open space preserved) in an adversarial relationship with land owners wanting to realize maximum value from their land. There was a brief discussion on the current tax system that assesses farmers four years back taxes on the development value of their land when they sell, more or less forcing them to sell it for development rather than farming ',purposes. Bob Strayhorn referred to Curtis Bane's previous comments on the next generation. He said most of the group's discussion revolved around a negative attitude on people moving into the Stoney Creek area. He said as much as he disliked growth, it bothered him to be insensitive to the; next generation. Things could be made so expensive and so exclusive as to preclude anyone from moving to the area he said,, but 'this was not his vision. He said he would encourage open, space and be willing to work with anybody to figure out ways to get it equitably, but he wasn't looking for ways to get open space other than by purchasing it or encouraging someone to donate; he didn't want it to be forced on people. Bane said there was a 21 acre tract with open space across the railroad tracks from him and the going price was $22,000 an acre with the average lot size being about two acres. He didn't know how many people would be able to afford property there. Lee Rafalow said he was a Habitat for Humanity volunteer and in regard to land values, he had observed that land closer to town had the potential of being priced lower. He also said land that is truly rural, k.e.,', north of Cedar Grove, was also going to be relatively inexpensive because it was far from the demands of growth. The land half -way between rural and in -town and was the target of considerable demand. He said it was a fact of life that land in the Stoney Creek basin area was expensive and would become more expensiver He felt it was difficult to make desires for diversity in the community happen without taking some very concerted policy steps and that meant essentially that government had to step in and make it happen, i.e., requiring developers to set aside a certain amount for low- income housing if that was what the community truly wanted. The market place would not do it. Meg McKean added that the market place would not preserve open space either. 9 Dan Kenan felt that there had to be some kind of limit eventually. He was concerned that if the population kept expanding, there would not be anything left for future generations to buy because everything would be developed. He preferred that things "precious and valuable" such as Duke Forest and open space be saved. Though very few entities could afford to save large undeveloped tracts of land, he felt that Duke University could do this. He didn't want to see the Eno Division of Duke Forest end up like the Blackwood Division may, i.e., potential landfill. He said he travels a lot on the back roads of Orange County and appreciates the vistas and farmland he passes. Increased density will negatively impact what makes his land valuable to him and probably to others as well. As a final point, he agreed with others who said they would like to see agriculture preserved as an activity in this part of Orange County. Bob Strayhorn said, "To have a good agricultural area, you need to have good agricultural land and unfortunately, we are really not blessed with that." Land in the Stoney Creek area was fine for farming until about the mid 1950's, but the size of fields and type of soil in the, area makes it difficult to compete with better areas. To survive, agriculture will have to change drastically and Strayhorn said it bothered him to see the changes that have taken place. His vision 30 years ago would have been to try to continue the agricultural tradition. He cited opportunities available in the city where a person could earn twice the income they would have from farming plus receive benefits too. He also said it bothered him to sit around the table with neighbors and have contrasting views for the area. Historically, neighbors have had to pull together to survive. He said the rural perspective had always been, "If you wanted something, you tried to find a way to purchase it." He cited examples of community facilities in Cedar Grove, Caldwell, and Schley financed by the Ruritan Club and churches at no cost to taxpayers. He said it bothered him that this view was fading away and that now many people seemed to view land being taken out of agriculture as suitable for acquisition by government for parks and other public uses. There are property rights and the same protections should exist for large property owners as well as small ones. There has to be a balance somewhere. His vision would be to have something similar to the Rural Character strategies instead of mandated restrictions such as no water or no sewer. Strayhorn said he was not promoting water and sewer, but would rather see restrictions on the number of houses that could be built. He said if water and sewer was across the road from someone, it was not right for them not to have the benefits of it. Strayhorn concluded by saying he had more frustrations than visions at present. Keith Cook said�he wanted to piggyback on Bob Strayhorn's vision. He said the individual who already owns the property needs to be looked out for. Changes are coming and we need to be more negotiable. People have moved here for the opportunities and M quality of life. Many Orange County residents work in Durham and Alamance Counties and job opportunities are needed here because residential property taxes cannot pay everything. There is going to be growth here; it should benefit the person who owns property, but should be managed too. Cook felt it was possible to preserve rural character and have growth too. He thought things would continue to change here because of the Research Triangle would keep expanding. Verla Insko asked Strayhorn to clarify his statements on the Rural Character Study approach. He said he liked an approach that encouraged people to go beyond the minimum and rewards them for it. He cited a Rural Character recommendation that would simplify and streamline the process of a landowner selling a few lots to raise needed funds. Holding down costs and frustrations could preclude the owner from selling more than he really needed too and thus help preserve the remainder of the property. Insko asked about the cost of open space and Strayhorn said he felt everyone should pay their share. He said many property owners felt that the longer they held on to their land, the more it was going to cost them. People coming in demand more open space and there is notching left. In defense of newcomers, Lee Rafalow said that many had preserved open space; Strayhorn agreed that Rafalow and some others in the area had done a good job of this. Verla Insko said the group needed to capture the essence of the discussion on incentives as part of its vision. The group summarized the discussion by listing multiple options, simple to understand, and voluntary with density (low ?) as a central theme. Meg McKean said she had two points. First, she mentioned Bob Strayhorn's comments earlier about people being unable to get water and sewer when they needed it. She said she was worried about the opposite, being forced to pay for water and sewer when she didn't need it. She mentioned her experience in another area where she was forced to pay a water and sewer assessment even though it wasn't needed because her family had been conscientious in the care and maintenance of their septic system. Second, she stated her strong support for the concept of TDR although she didn't know how large the buying area needed to be to make it workable. She said she was excited at the opportunity to vote on it last year. Gene Bell said that clarification was needed because the bond vote last year was for purchase of development rights and not a transfer program, there being a substantial difference in the two. McKean asked if the interpretation was that Orange County folks are not ready for this? i Bob Strayhorn said he served on the committee putting the package together and they were looking for ways to purchase development rights on prime farmland. It soon became obvious that purchasing prime farmland was not the goal of many of the backers of the program. He stated that prime farmland does not exist in the 11 central part of the county, but is located in the northeast and southwest areas. Strayhorn said his friends in the rural areas north of Hillsborough couldn't get excited about their tax dollars going to purchase his development rights. He said if the program had been restricted to Chapel Hill Township, it would probably have passed. He felt that as long as it was countywide in scope, it was going to have a difficult time unless the money collected in a township was spent there too. Finally, the committee charged with putting the program together had to promote it too and this was not the way it should have been. Lee Rafalow noted that in telling people about the program last fall, he probably convinced some to vote against it (although this was not his intent) because they realized what they really wanted was a TDR program. Bob Hall expressed concern that the Stoney Creek area could be made too attractive to development through the use of incentives and options as opposed to having higher densities around urban areas which is what people keep talking as more logical, i.e., development from the center out. Bob Strayhorn agreed and stated that the towns in the county were forcing problems the on Stoney Creek area by their attitudes toward growth. Lee Rafalow said TDR and urban growth boundaries were talked about, but we're not enlightened enough as a population to realize that this means some people are going to have density close to them. The conversation shifted to the proposal for a transit corridor through the area. , Lee Rafalow said he had read up on transit oriented development and thought it could be made to work. His objective, both for his neighborhood and the Research Triangle area, was to actually draw urban growth boundaries and put high - density developmentinside those boundaries and not permit "North Raleigh." Bob Hall said this was the basis of the Orange County Land Use Plan, i.e., development should be encouraged in the urban areas, this is the transition area, and this is the rural area. Elio Soldi said there has to be a mechanism by which higher densities become economically desirable. He thought there was a lot of common ground and that the group needed to figure out a way to encourage people to do the desirable thing and perhaps, make it economically attractive too. If a boundary were set around a town for higher density, then a system could be designed by which land owners who lose the benefit of being able to develop their land could be given something in exchange. The question becomes what is the mechanism by which this can be done? He said if the plan covers a larger area, the higher density area cannot have all of the development rights, some of these will be allocated to people in lower - density areas and development rights will have to be purchased from them. He said a large market was needed because in a small one, people with the money would own all shares in a short time because there wasn't the ability to trade. He felt it was possible within a county to create a market that sustains a desirable trend, i.e., you can build high- density here but you 12 don't have all the shares you need to build 10 floors and you'll have to buy from this farmer who has been given a certain percentage of shares. Keith Cook said that in a vacuum you could do this, but there are forces outside of Orange County's control. Elio Soldi said that was the stock market, but there was not a stock market for this type of commodity (development rights). The conversation shifted to quality -of -life and why people move to Orange County. Keith Cook stated people move to Orange County for schools and quality -of -life. He cited moving from a condominium to two acres of land as a quality -of -life consideration. Lee Rafalow cited low crime rate, low density development, open space, and "green" as quality -of -life indicators that people who live here really appreciate. He said the group needed to recognize why this area is desirable and make sure we don't destroy it in the process. Rafalow said he also wanted to respond to Soldi's comments about the size of the market. He was not sure that the market for development rights has to be large. He cited the example of what utility companies are doing today as a result of pollution transfer programs enacted by the federal government and said the market place in this sector was very small (100 or so). Verla Insko stated (that one of the barriers to TDR in the County identified in previous discussions was that nobody wanted to accept the density. She cited the example of a transportation corridor and the need for higher densities around station areas and in the corridor. Bob Strayhorn stated she was, "right on target." When this was talked about in committees, finding a place for the density to go (receiving areas) was a big problem. If agreement on receiving areas couldn't be reached, further discussion on the issue was useless. Verla Insko informed the group it was 9:22 and asked how they wanted to proceed.' Bob Hall said he didn't want this to be the end of discussion on TDR. Lee Rafalow said it would be nice to try to try to put some kind of wrapping around what consensus the group had reached. Elio,Soldi agreed and suggested they try to agree upon common ground. Insko suggested that there is no wall around "visions." They can still emerge as other questions come up. Visions can be revisited. Insko asked how the group would like to proceed on finding common ground. Lee Rafalow said he thought he heard everyone except Curtis Bane say that somehow preserving the rural nature of this area was a desirable goal. He didn't hear everyone say that they thought it was an achievable goal. That suggested to him that there was some agreement that the Stoney Creek basin area should be somehow outside the urban growth boundary. He wasn't sure where the line ought to be, but when you look at where the open spaces are in the area, they are along New Hope Church Road and N.C. 10 toward 13 Durham. He suggested that maybe the group had the beginnings of a consensus that there is a lower- density development that we want to have in that portion of the planning area. Soldi asked if there was general agreement on the desire to preserve a certain amount of rural open space. Verla Insko said she wanted to try to interpret what she perceived Curtis Bane's position to be. Government shouldn't try to impose outcomes on land owners, that land owners ought to be able to develop without restrictions. Upon reflection, she said she was not sure this was what Bane was saying and he said it was not. He said government had already set up a process for how development is to take place. He said a lot of the things required by government are good. He cited schools, police, and other services that enhance life and thought there should be a certain amount of holding development accountable. He also felt that what the land owner wants to do, especially large land owners, should be taken into consideration by the government. Meg McKean said she had a way of paraphrasing what Bane said and she didn't feel that his position was that different from the rest of the group. What she heard him say was that the land owner should get income from the land, but not that the land had to be developed in a certain fashion. She asked if he could get the money for the condos without the condos, would that be OK with him and he indicated that it would. He mentioned the current tax burden on the property owner and said that future demand for schools, water and sewer, and other services would have to be paid for some way.' Insko said to "let land owners reap benefits" seemed to be a statement everyone could agree on. "Let land owners reap benefits" and "retain current character" were listed as two statements on which there seemed to be group agreement. Lee Rafalow said he,thought he heard Curtis Bane say earlier that he wanted development. Bane said he supported development in certain areas,, but also liked the open space and community park ideas too. Verla Insko asked if the two statements were acceptable to everyone. A short discussion on retaining character followed. Insko said it'seemed to be a quality issue, i.e., people might agree on the statement, but disagree on what it looks like. Rafalow summed up by saying perhaps we should take small victories and celebrate them since there were two statements everyone seemed to agree on. A short discussion ensued with development patterns and densities in North Raleigh being used as an example of how the area could eventually develop without a clear vision. No one wanted to see development of this type in the Stoney Creek basin area. Bob Strayhorn said the challenge was to be able to achieve what the group wanted to see without the land owner being required to make all the contributions. Bob Hall said that the dichotomy was not between North Raleigh and no growth, but the perception of people on one side that their land is going to be taken from them and people on the other side who t 14 want to have preservation of rural character. These two groups are not coming together and there is the perception that people wanting to preserve rural character are trying to make the current land owners make all the sacrifices, i.e., you can't do with your land what you want to do.'; Bob Strayhorn said that's often what you hear when you attend. hearings on development proposals. Elio Soldi said preservation of open space and protecting the land owner's rights were two statements on which there seemed to be agreement. He said there was a conflict between the two and the question was if something creative could be found to minimize the conflicts. Judd Edeburn mentioned that some of the plans presented by the students incorporated recommendations such as setbacks that seemed to address some of the concerns being expressed the group. Soldi said it was important to him that the people who owned the land not be forced or prevailed upon to give up what they had worked for. He also said it was important to him that as much of the scenery everyone enjoys now be kept too. He said as the group goes through its discussions it needs to sort out areas of consensus knowing there will be areas of conflict too. As conflicts are identified, the group can then try to identify ways to minimize them. Verla Insko said it sounded like he (Elio Soldi) would like for the two principles (agreed upon statements) to guide the groups's discussions. Bob Hall said it was similar to the notion of takings, that the 'group was opposed to government takings of people's land. Lee.'Rafalow cautioned that "takings" was a loaded term. Hall said that was why he was using it, that we need to be clear that we're not trying to take people's land. Insko suggested more discussion.on the first statement of letting landowners reap benefits. Judd Edeburn asked who owned the University Station lands now, the farmers who once farmed it or investors? He asked if the ability of the investor to reap benefits was any different from the farmer who owned it originally? Insko said this was a good point. Rafalow said this was why the term "reap benefits" was not terribly helpful; he suggested "fair value" as an alternative. He said it had in it some sense that fairness was built in. Verla Insko said t`he statements needed to be re- organized and suggested that 'staff work on them. Lee Rafalow said he didn't want to discount all the ideas group members contributed because he thought there were a lot of good ones presented. He suggested focusing on the two key issues. He said if everyone agreed to the first starred point on the flip chart (retain current character), then the students' option for a transit oriented development was inappropriate for the community. Elio Soldi suggested not taking the discussion that far at this point. Meg McKean asked if this wasn't an example of why this (Rafalow's comments on a development option) was important, i.e., a population cap. Are we talking about a future for 50,000 people or 10,000 people? Insko said it would seem to depend if the population was concentrated in a one mile corridor or spread out in one acre tracts, but she didn't know to answer to the question. 15 Elio Soldi asked if there was a third element of consensus that the group could agree upon. Keith Cook asked about water and sewer. Lee Rafalow suggested that water and sewer had nothing to do with the group's vision, but was rather a means to an end. Soldi said the term diversity had been mentioned several times; was this a valid subject? Keith Cook said it was a good thing to agree on, but hard to establish if you were talking about housing /affordable housing. Soldi said it may be good to make a list of things that were desirable, although not necessarily feasible, and analyze each one individually. Verla Insko referred to the flip ,chart and asked if two additional items should be include (population cap and no water and sewer, I think). Rafalow said he contributed to the two points and agreed with them, but had not heard agreement echoed by the group. Insko suggested asking the staff to reorganize and group the ideas on the list and bring them back for the next meeting. Soldi suggested focusing on a few items at the next meeting rather than trying to deal with a list of 20 things. He said the group needed to reduce things to a level everyone was comfortable working with to make it possible to get down to details. Verla Insko referred to agenda items three (update on questions from last meeting) and four (Rural Character Impact Assessment) and said the group had not gotten to them. Gene Bell' indicated that there were handouts for both items. Lee Rafalow said he :,had a concern regarding meeting attendance. He said the group was at a point in its discussions now where people who drop in- and -out would be very disruptive. Verla Insko added that those people and the rest of the group would also be very disadvantaged. Rafalow asked the group to consider ways to encourage consistent attendance. If a neighborhood that is not being well represented has other people who could do a more consistent job, they need to be recruited. Insko asked for a show of hands of those present at the last meeting. Rafalow made the observation that the last meeting and those preceding it weren't particularly important by themselves. However, he felt that from this point on, '.consistent attendance was important. Elio Soldi said the group was now talking to each other and now it was time to be part of the process. Previously, the group had been in the mode of receiving and trying to assimilate information. Insko passed a membership list around asked the group's assistance in contacting people who weren't there. Handouts for agenda items three and four were distributed. Lee Rafalow asked if the Rural Character fiscal impacts were adjusted for capital costs. David Stancil said they were not, that they were consistent with the previous impact assessments prepared by the students. '�He indicated that when the group comes up with a recommended plan, another impact analysis will have to be prepared and by then, data from the Impact Fees Study will be available. 16 Verla Insko announced that she wanted the group to set its agenda for the meeting on July 20. Elio Soldi suggested taking the two consensus item from this meeting and going into more detail on the implications of each at the next meeting. Lee Rafalow concurred, suggesting that an hour be set aside to discuss in more detail ( "peel the onion ") what it means to preserve rural character and another hour on what it means to make sure land owners get fair value for their property. Insko listed the following items on the board as the agenda.for next time: 1. 1 °Define" Rural Character 2. "Define" Rights of Property Owners 3. Any Other Items of Common Ground Meg McKean suggested a reminder in the next agenda packet alerting everyone that consensus building is underway and their attendance is crucial. ADJOURNMENT: 4: s s P.M. k 17 STONEY CREEK BASIN PLANNING GROUP NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE Colonial Hills Steve Price Kim Price 1801 Washington St. 1801 Washington St. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 732 -2005 732 -2005. Joppa Oaks Bobby Nicholson Kenneth Maynard 2436 Lonnie Circle 2439 Lonnie Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 732 -8348 732 -7142 NC 86 Area Trudy Cuffe None 3630 NC 86 South Hillsborough, NC 27278 732 -7554 New Hope/ Michael Warner Trish Rafalow Powder Mill 100 Europa Drive 4512 Powder Mill Rd. Suite 250 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 382 -2950 383 -8213 Old NC 10 North None None Old NC 10 South Gary Hanker John Ringland 2622 Hoot Owl Drive 2512 Hoot Owl Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 644 -7199 644 -2977 Stoney Creek Meg McKean Dan Kenan 3711 Stoneycreek Rd. 3522 Bluestone Ct. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Unlisted Number 644 -1450 Stoney Creek Farms None None Strayhorn Hills Dan Teichman Irene VanDyke 2310 Stagecoach Dr. 30.15 Carriage Trail Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 644 -0874 732 -8014 David Yelton 3005 Carriage Trail Hillsborough, NC 27278 732 -4672 University Station Curtis Bane None Road Area 3809 University Station Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 383 -1559 Wyngate Dean Zehnder Amy McBride 2121 -Old Forest Dr. 2210 Wyngate Dr Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 644 -8365 644 -1430 Rev. 6 -28 -95 STONEY CREEK BASIN PLANNING GROUP (CONTINUED) AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES) At Large Bob Strayhorn 2103 New Hope Church Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 967 -1467 Dr. Angelaurelio Soldi 4317 Cedar Pass Chapel Hill, NC 27514 383 -2853 Lee Raf glow 4512 Powder Mill Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 382 -2950 Duke University Judson Edeburn School of the Environment Duke University PO Box 90328 Durham, NC 27708 613 -8014 orange County Keith Cook School Board 419 Calvary Ct. Hillsborough, NC 27278 644 -1657 Economic Development Bob Hall Commission 5706 Old Stony Way Durham, NC 27705 489 -1931 Triangle Land Bill Bracey Conservancy Arbor Realty 431 W. Franklin St. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 967 -4116 Orange County Clint Burklin Planning Board 3811 Stoneycreek Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 732 -4379 Cherie Rosemond 3823 Old NC 10 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 383 -5284 Orange County Dr. Stephen Halkiotis Commissioners 1007 Panther Ct. Hillsborough, NC 27278 644 -6863 Don Willhoit 203 Lexington Rd. chapel Hill, Nc 27516 942 -2571