Browse
Search
Meeting 012596
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Meeting 012596
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 4:54:15 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:36:49 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Gene: Planning Board is going to be considering FDO on February 7 <br />and hopefully some of the things they have to deal with there will <br />closely parallel some of these issues. The expectation is that <br />they will get through the entire proposal. If so, their discussion <br />on density bonuses for preserving additional open space or <br />providing affordable housing could provide useful guidance to us. <br />Elio: If we should reach overall consensus, could you (Gene) then <br />take this document and propose some detail like numbers or <br />percentages, one or two options, and tell the group what this would <br />imply, a range? <br />Lee: Give us a statement we can shoot at. <br />Elio: From this conversation, it seems we could go to the group <br />now with this document to be refined. <br />Lee: Think you're jumping the gun; we're getting to the hard part. <br />Elio: With this document minus whatever we disagree on from now. <br />We've put in a lot of time and I think we've developed some <br />understanding and some appreciation of different points of view and <br />think it's time we put it together; can always revisit. Would like <br />next time to come up with a first preliminary draft that nobody is <br />really miserable with, but may require some adjustment. <br />Gene: Would like to take results of tonight's discussion and have <br />a second draft for discussion at a meeting next Thursday. <br />Paragraph 6 <br />Lee: Recognizes that intermediate area is kind of a transition <br />area between higher and lower intensity areas and can be considered <br />as kind of an "open market" for TDRs; that is within pumpkin area <br />you might want to do some sending and some receiving, i.e., it can <br />be kind of a combination of the rust and the yellow. Referring to <br />the use table, if you decided you wanted to do higher intensity <br />uses like active recreational or mixed use that those would be <br />conditional use, presumption that they're OK things to do but that <br />you would need to by conservation easements. Go on to say that all <br />of the FDOs that are allowed in the proposed FDO plan that is being <br />considered currently would be permitted in pumpkin area, so you <br />could do any of those option's in this area. This would be what the <br />county intends on a countywide basis. If the changes that we <br />agreed on based on the percentages that we decided to apply from <br />the second paragraph that we talked about earlier and with the <br />addition that whatever open space you have (trying to be careful <br />not to block people from doing things with small or odd shaped <br />blocks) , but that the intent here is that there be a setback of 100 <br />feet of natural open space along the roadways, may not always be <br />possible due to slopes, etc. and buffer may be only place you can <br />build. Wanted to catch notion that one of the things we wanted to <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.