|
Approved 2.5.25
<br />get to discussing, well, what does this really mean? And it's one survey versus two surveys, how 764
<br />you'd be guided in making recommendations. 765
<br /> 766
<br />Leigh Anne King: So that was part of the reason we asked those specific questions to the Board, because I think, 767
<br />the way I read the outcomes of the public engagement is that I think we're hitting the right 768
<br />questions, and we're kind of getting to this “where's the sweet spot?” kind of question. We know 769
<br />we want to achieve a lot of things, and they all have tradeoffs, so where do we want to kind of line 770
<br />up? I think that we're kind of getting to that midpoint where we're hitting that right balance in the 771
<br />middle of the Venn diagram. I think, when we take this back out to the public this coming spring, 772
<br />that'll be the true test of whether we interpreted their feedback correctly given the guidance that 773
<br />we had from the Board. I think there was stronger support for the rural conservation 774
<br />neighborhoods, the fact that you can actually protect more land through that type of development 775
<br />is, and experientially, it might be a little different, because if you've ever seen a clustered 776
<br />subdivision out in a rural area before, it is a denser housing type on part of the site. But you're 777
<br />effectively permanently protecting a larger area, and when you subdivide lots into large lots, it's 778
<br />not the same thing. You're not permanently protecting those in the same kind of consolidated 779
<br />manner. So, I think that that's why we want to do a third round of engagement. Did we get this 780
<br />right? And we have to kind of make some judgment calls based on the feedback that we get, and 781
<br />that's why we wanted to ask the commissioners for their kind of guidance on how to move forward 782
<br />with this work so that we were heading in the direction that they supported. 783
<br /> 784
<br />Adam Beeman: On the expansion of economic development, did they give any inclinations or feedback as to what 785
<br />type of economic development? Like, industrial or we looking for some retail stuff where we can 786
<br />actually go shopping and buy something other than a cement plant or another manufacturing 787
<br />facility? 788
<br /> 789
<br />Leigh Anne King: Yeah, I think the intention in modeling that was more what we call employment focused uses. So, 790
<br />at this level of scenario modeling, we don't really get into the hard details of, like, is this going to 791
<br />be an Amazon warehouse space or is this going to be at a manufacturing facility for X, Y, Z 792
<br />Company? But I think the intention was there's probably going to be some mix of retail and 793
<br />commercial that would go in these areas, but it was predominantly going to be more, what we call 794
<br />employment focused. So, you know, you're warehousing, your manufacturing, maybe light 795
<br />industrial type uses. 796
<br /> 797
<br />Cy Stober: We did receive a critique. It's in the ordinance that we do, and we don't. We don't encourage, I 798
<br />suppose, consumer uses as much as we could in the EDDs, and that needs to be in the table. To 799
<br />reduce vehicle miles traveled at lunch hours and so forth, that we need to integrate better. 800
<br />Integrate retail and especially restaurants. And, my predecessor, Craig, kind of inched towards 801
<br />that, especially introducing restaurants in the ORM District. I think we need to do that more 802
<br />broadly. But we also need to consider how we balance that with the primary purpose, which is 803
<br />employment and perhaps we have different future land use classes to get, again, at where our 804
<br />activity notes are versus our EDDs. We may need to emphasize employment centers, but also 805
<br />sustainable in terms of worker needs, like as holistic of a perspective as we can, is that somebody 806
<br />who comes there could theoretically walk to get lunch rather than have to get in their car. You got 807
<br />1,000 people on the road between 12 and 1, all going to the same places. 808
<br /> 809
<br />Adam Beeman: I mean, downtown has a lack of parking because everything has exploded, it's so busy down here. 810
<br />Good luck finding parking. But that's beside the point. So, the conservation subdivision, I feel like 811
<br />that was the right corner and I just, I personally don't think that we should be pushing towards 812
<br />private septic systems, especially since we've had that, I don't know the name of the company, but 813
<br />they were just in the news. They own the property and the whole community is on the well and 814
<br />they're having issues. I don't think that that's the way we should head. If you want cheaper 815
<br />housing, the community is going to have to pay for it through the County, and not private 816
<br />investment because, as Fiddlehead showed, it was going to be some stupid cost per unit. So, that 817
<br />doesn't do anything to solve the problem for affordability. I just went to a woman in Durham who 818
|