Browse
Search
Meeting 121495
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Meeting 121495
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 5:18:46 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:42:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Elio Soldi commented that the 4 acre lot size needs to be optional. If the option appears <br />advantageous to the owner it may be chosen. <br />Dean Zehnder agreed that scenic roads are desirable. He mentioned that the area north of NC <br />10 is an open pasture. Its character will change when it is developed. This group has no <br />influence over that type of change. <br />David Yelton mentioned that it is the vista, not the road, that is in question here. Vistas are <br />difficult to restrict from changing. <br />Curtis Bane mentioned that internal roads are necessary. Incentives are necessary to <br />encourage developers to hold the open space toward New Hope Church Road. <br />Michael Warner stated that if the lower density land uses are identified above the road it would <br />encourage the preservation of the vista. <br />Curtis Bane asked that emphasis be on influence rather than restricting choices. <br />Judd Edeburn suggested that the design guidelines be used to facilitate the vision created in <br />this group. <br />David Yelton mentioned that the R -1 designation would allow 60% open space and have <br />clustered homes which would create contiguous open space throughout the area. Minimum 2 <br />to 4 acre lots work against this vision. It is important to select options that are acceptable and <br />still in keeping with the vision. <br />Meg McKean stated that clustering is acceptable with any option. <br />4 <br />Clint Burklin mentioned that whatever happens needs to be limited to 3 to 5 acceptable options <br />for this area. It may be possible, with changes in county zoning, for the incentives in the orange <br />areas on the map to encourage higher density land uses and lower density in the yellow areas. <br />Elio Soldi felt that broad implementation needs to be established first and then more specific <br />issues, such as maintaining the scenic vistas by the orientation of the lots, could be addressed. <br />He agreed that there has to be a trade -off in encouraging higher density in some areas and <br />lower density in others. <br />Verla Insko suggested establishing broad directions to the implementation subcommittee. <br />Clint Burklin suggested that the Preliminary Design subcommittee review the map at their next <br />meeting. An Implementation Subcommittee could be created to begin looking at that issue at <br />the same time. <br />Dean Zehnder mentioned that the general development pattern of Strayhorn Hills and Wyngate <br />makes clear that the land is marketable at one home per two acre density. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.