12_4_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2.5.25 new approaches to encouraging conservation subdivisions in the unincorporated portions of the 384 County because those options provide both the opportunity to permanently protect important land 385 as well as provide more housing and potentially more housing choices as part of those 386 developments. And you might recall from seeing it at a previous presentation that conservation 387 subdivisions are a different way to do subdivision development, neighborhood development, 388 where instead of cutting all of the lots of equal size and having the roads that connect them all, 389 you actually go in and you protect a portion of the site first for environmental, watershed, 390 agricultural, or other wildlife purposes, and then the remaining land is then developed at a denser, 391 smaller lot size. You can get the same yield. In some situations, we actually tested getting a little 392 more yield out of that developable land, but you're still protecting in the alternative that we 393 modeled, protecting 60 percent of the site. So, you were able to accomplish the objective to 394 protect those important lands as well as provide more housing options within the County, and we 395 did get an affirmative from the Board members to move forward with looking at those options. The 396 second was there was not a lot of strong support, No. 4 in terms of the housing potential in those 397 two centers, the more dense mixed-use centers. There wasn’t strong support on that and so we 398 asked, does that mean that we really want to be encouraging that denser development to be 399 happening within the municipalities within the County and not within the unincorporated areas. 400 There are a lot of strong reasons to do that because you have better access to transit and 401 services, jobs, shopping, etc. and they also supported that. Each of the Board members went 402 around and talked a little bit about each of the questions and provided their feedback, and all of 403 them expressed support for that. And then finally we asked them for their interest or willingness to 404 explore expansion of the economic development area, the Buckhorn EDD near I-85 Mebane and 405 expanding that south of West Ten Road and they also responded affirmatively on that, as well. 406 So, those were some of the big policy direction questions that we had coming out of the 407 engagement. That was the guidance that they provided for us to move forward with in helping to 408 draft the plan. And I believe that's my last slide. So, happy to take any other questions or 409 comments that you want to provide to us tonight as we get started on drafting the plan. 410 411 Adam Beeman: So, they want us to encourage higher density in the municipalities, but the County has no say with 412 municipalities, correct? 413 414 Leigh Anne King: That's correct. So, this is what I like to think of as the influential power as opposed to direct 415 authority. There are opportunities to be encouraging that to happen, but you're correct. The 416 County doesn't have direct authority over planning and zoning in any of the municipalities. 417 418 Adam Beeman: Go ahead, Dolores. 419 420 Dolores Bailey: Leigh Anne, what I saw with the five places where you met with people, they were all in the 421 northern part of the County? 422 423 Leigh Anne King: Let me go back to the table. Gravelly Hill, which is, I'm trying to remember, I apologize. So, 424 American Legion is on 54, on the south end on 54. El Centro was held in Chapel Hill. Make sure 425 I'm right on this, Tom. This is a good trivia question for me. 426 427 Dolores Bailey: El Centro Carrboro? 428 429 Tom Altieri: Yes. 430 431 Leigh Anne King: But they met at Chapel Hill. 432 433 Tom Altieri: They met at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. 434 435 Leigh Anne King: Yep. 436 437