G. COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion items)
Operations Committee, October 30, 2007 (any item pulled from the committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda) (Mrs. Robinson)
1.
Green Level Preservation Initiative
(PL08-016)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of recommendations made by staff
based on community feedback from the Green Level Community Meeting and moved
that it remain on discussion for full council review at Ms. Dorrel’s request.
Staff recommendations are based on three factors: (1) the sentiments of the
community, (2) the Other Considerations presented in Section F of the staff
report, (3) Council’s desire to consider the wishes of the Green Level
community, and are as follows:
a. Historic Preservation: Committee unanimously recommended approval of the following recommendations:
(1) The Town should not create a local historic zoning district for Green Level.
(2) The Town should continue to offer a density bonus incentive for historic preservation, as currently provided through the Conservation Residential Overlay District.
(3) Focus the Town’s historic preservation efforts on assisting individual property owners in Green Level who are voluntarily willing to work or partner with the Town to preserve their historic buildings.
(4) Evaluate how the Town might utilize its new local enabling legislation to regulate the demolition of historic structures on a Town-wide basis, including within Green Level.
b. Rural Character: Committee unanimously recommended taking no regulatory action with respect to new and/or infill development via a general downzoning and/or by regulating the size, type, architecture, and spacing of new development and recommended continued use of existing ordinances, guidelines, and policies to assist in making new development as sensitive as possible to the surrounding context.
c. Rural Views and Open Space: Committee unanimously recommended that the Town refrain from pursuing further open space preservation within Green Level for the purposes of attempting to maintain the community within its historic rural context and recommended instead that the Town, as part of its separate open space program, seek to acquire properties as permanent open space in order to further the goals of the Town’s Open Space Plan.
d. Green Level Church Road: Committee unanimously recommended approval of the following:
(1) Amend the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to re-designate Green Level Church Road as a major thoroughfare, and that it be widened along its existing alignment. Remove the 2004 thoroughfare bypass that crosses Bachelor Branch.
(2) Plan for an asymmetrical, context-sensitive widening of Green Level Church Road, in order to best protect Green Level Baptist Church and any other historic structures whose owners elect to voluntarily preserve their historic buildings.
(3) Move forward with developing an asymmetrical, context-sensitive functional alignment and proposed cross-section for Green Level Church Road, based on community preferences and input – such as the community’s preference for the use of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as opposed to swale and ditch.
e. Other Recommendations: Committee unanimously recommended approval of the following:
(1) Develop a Comprehensive Town-Wide Approach to Historic Resources. Development of policies, plans, and recommendations for historic resources within isolated parts of Cary’s planning jurisdiction will continue to be difficult as long as the Town lacks consensus and clear policy direction for all of the Town’s historic resources. The Town should develop a comprehensive approach and plan for historic preservation. Such a plan should:
(a) Separate the historic resources element from the open space element in the Town’s existing Open Space and Historic Resources Plan, and give clear and unambiguous attention to historic resources;
(b) Update the Town’s official goals and objectives for historic preservation;
(c) Include a jurisdiction-wide inventory of all historic structures;
(d) Prioritize the relative importance of each historic property – from most important to least important – so that the Town and staff can most effectively target their resources and attention; and,
(e) Clearly identify the ordinances, programs, policies, funding mechanisms and funding amounts that the Town will use to further historic preservation.
(2) Focus financial resources on Carpenter. The Town could successfully maintain several times as many historic buildings within their historic rural context in the Carpenter district as could be done at Green Level. Further, due to the planned thoroughfare and collector roadway alignments in Carpenter, it will be both feasible and practical to preserve that community. Financial resources should be targeted for preservation within Carpenter, rather than Green Level.
STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee,
October 30, 2007
Green Level Preservation Initiative (PL08-016)
Consideration of the community feedback from the
Green Level Community Meeting and staff’s recommendations for Green Level
Speaker: Mr. Scott Ramage
From: Jeffery G. Ulma, Planning Director
Prepared by: Scott Ramage, Principal Planner
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager
A. Summary
At a work session on July 10, 2007, Town Council considered historic preservation, open space, views, and thoroughfare options in the area of the Green Level National Register Historic District. Council directed staff to hold a community meeting with the residents of Green Level to obtain community input before proceeding. This report summarizes the results of the community meeting held on September 13, 2007, and provides staff’s recommendations in consideration of that input.
B. Project Background
In early 2007, staff identified several issues affecting the Green Level area for Council consideration, including an assessment of the historic district by the Town’s consultants, the district’s rural context and views, and new findings regarding the feasibility of the bypass alignment that was previously proposed for Green Level Church Road to the east of the district. Staff presented these issues at the February 15, 2007 Planning and Development Committee meeting. (See staff report PL07-022 Issues and Direction for the Green Level Historic District.)
At the February 22, 2007 meeting, Council tabled this topic for at least 90 days to allow sufficient time for the Town’s transportation engineering consultants to evaluate the feasibility of the bypass alignment. (See agenda item 3.h. in the February 15, 2007, Planning and Development Committee Report minutes.)
At the work session on July 10, 2007, staff presented the results of the engineering analysis, as well as a summary of the findings, issues, and policy options related to historic preservation, open space preservation, and potential road alignments. (See July 10 work session minutes; Green Level discussion is in the second half of the minutes.) Staff advised Council that selection of the best road alignment option for Green Level Church Road depends on the Town’s goals and objectives for historic preservation and open space protection.
Council decided that staff should meet with the residents of Green Level to hear the community’s views and preferences regarding the various issues. Staff held that meeting on September 13, 2007.
C. Green Level Community Meeting – Publicity and Attendance
The community meeting was structured as an open house, and was held at Crosspointe Church, at 6911 Carpenter Fire Station Road, from 4 to 7 p.m. Approximately 60‑70 people attended the open house, and included people from both within the Green Level community as well as from other parts of Cary.
The meeting was publicized by sending direct-mail invitations to all 125 property owners located within approximately one-half mile of the various alternative roadway alignments or the historic district. Direct e-mail notification was also sent to the Chair of the Friends of the Page Walker, the Planning and Zoning Board, and Town Council. The open house was also publicized on the Town’s web calendar, and on a web page created for the Green Level Initiative. Finally, a News Release for the open house was issued to the media on September 11, 2007.
Approximately 40-50 of the 60-70 meeting attendees live or own property within the Green Level area, and about 21 attendees live outside of the Green Level area. (The Green Level “area” is broadly identified as the area west of the future I-540 and south of Green Hope School Road, and along either Green Level Church Road or Green Level West Road.). Attendees represented 44 different parcels in Green Level, totaling approximately 1,000 acres, as shown on Map 1. (This figure includes 7 parcels and 221 acres owned by the Town of Cary at Thomas Brooks Park.)
D. Green Level Community Meeting – Citizen Feedback
A comprehensive opinion survey was provided to each attendee, and 45 survey forms were returned to staff. The feedback forms represent 36 different parcels, of which 23 parcels are located in the Green Level area and represent 516 acres within Green Level, as shown on Map 2. (None of these surveys included Town of Cary property.)
The opinion survey form is broken down into four categories of questions, corresponding to the four major issues facing Green Level. Specifically:
The questions from the 45 completed survey forms are tallied in the attached Survey Tabulation and a summary and analysis of citizen responses to each of the survey questions is provided in the Survey Summary. Responses are reported in three ways:
E. Summary and Analysis of Survey Results
One consistent theme recurs across all of the survey question responses: respondents who live or own property within Green Level have very different views and preferences than respondents who live outside of Green Level, in other parts of Cary. Further, even within Green Level, there are differences of opinion between Green Level respondents who live or own property within the affected area, and those that live outside the affected area. This leads to the following summary observations:
F. Other Considerations for Analysis
Given the wide-ranging differences of opinion within the community, the following additional factors should be considered as part of the overall analysis.
1. Findings from Historic Preservation Consultants. The Town’s historic preservation consultants from Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. (EPE), have reported that:
a. The Green Level National Register Historic District is one of only three such “rural crossroads historic districts” in Wake County.
b. The value of the Green Level National Register Historic District lies just as much in its setting, open spaces, and rural context, as it does in its buildings. It is the entire collection of buildings, retained within their rural open spaces, that distinguishes Green Level as worthy of listing on the National Register as a Rural Historic District.
c. Taken individually, none of the contributing historic buildings within Green Level would likely rise to the level of National Register nomination and listing, although they may be deemed historically significant at the local, county, or state level. Therefore, if the district cannot be maintained in its setting, there could be a threat to the district’s listing on the National Register.
2. Number of Historic Structures. As can be seen on Map 3, there are eight remaining principal contributing structures within the historic district. One of the homes, the A.M. and Valleria Council Farm house, is abandoned and in considerable disrepair, as is the Green Level Community Store.
3. Ability to Retain Historic Structures within Context. There are threats to at least three or four of the eight contributing structures, regardless of any steps that might be taken as part of the Green Level Preservation Initiative.
a. Two of the principal contributing structures (the C. and Helon Council House and the Green Level Community Store) front onto Green Level West Road (see Map 3). This road will eventually be widened to 4 lanes with a median, per the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. There is no feasible alternative alignment for this road, due to the White Oak Creek floodplain and Cary’s urban services boundary line with the Town of Apex. Additionally, turn lanes and signalization will someday need to be added at the intersection of Green Level Church and Green Level West Roads. Hence, it will be impossible to maintain these two contributing structures within their rural context.
b. It is likely that Green Level Church Road will need to be widened to accommodate a center turn lane at the entrance to the proposed Saxonbury-Singh Subdivision, across from the Mills Farm Store, which is already very close to the existing roadway. In addition, Green Level Church Road will undoubtedly be widened someday along its approach to the intersection of Green Level Church Road and Green Level West Road – in front of the Vick Council Rental House – in order to accommodate turn lanes. Such road projects will make it difficult to maintain both the Mills Farm Store and the Vick Council Rental House within their rural context.
c. Green Level Baptist Church wishes to expand, and is waiting for available municipal water and sewer in order to do so. Campus expansions built around the original historic structure will alter the original rural context for that part of the district.
d. Given the above, even if the Town adopted the most aggressive preservation approaches possible, and even if the Town could permanently preserve the open space and views opposite Green Level Baptist Church (i.e., Bill Mills’ farm and Reba Mills Heirs’ property), in the end it would only be possible to preserve three or four principal contributing buildings within their historic rural context. Even then, the context for that central cluster of contributing buildings will be altered after the church expands. (By contrast, preservation of far less open space within the Carpenter Historic District would succeed in retaining over a dozen principal contributing buildings within their rural context.)
4. Cost of view protection. The most critical views are the upland farm fields opposite Green Level Baptist Church (see Viewshed Map on the project web page). The smallest amount of critical views to protect is about 33 acres, and the preferred view area totals about 65 acres. However, property owners are unlikely to sell only the prime upland portions of their farms, and would more likely insist on purchase of their entire tracts. Thus the acreage could range from 51 to 145 acres. At current land prices between $80,000-$120,000 per acre, the cost of view protection could therefore range anywhere from $2.6 million to $17.4 million.
5. Opportunity cost and budget. The Town’s historic preservation consultants have suggested that the substantial financial resources that would be required to retain three or four structures within their rural setting in Green Level might be better applied elsewhere. That is, the same amount of funding (or less) could permanently protect more historic buildings in Carpenter, downtown Cary, or at select sites (such as the Nancy Jones House on Chapel Hill Road).
6. Uncertain ability to acquire view properties. The key open spaces can only be protected if the property owners are willing to sell their properties to the Town, or are willing to sell a conservation easement over their properties. The owners of the Reba Mills Heirs tract (90 acres) may be willing to sell the entire tract to the Town, but Bill Mills is not interested in selling or in a conservation easement. The critical open space and view is the field on Bill Mills’ property.
7. Lack of alternative open space and view protection funding sources. At the July 10 work session, Council raised the question of whether county, state, or federal program funds might be available to help fund acquisition. Investigation by Parks and Recreation staff found no available funding programs for such upland areas. Additionally, Council questioned whether non-profit organizations such as The Triangle Land Conservancy might be able to provide funding. Parks and Recreation found no available funding from such nonprofits, which have minimal acquisition budgets and typically rely on voluntary gifts of land for their holdings.
8. Cost of road. If the Town pursues a widening of Green Level Church Road, it is likely that most of the road cost will be borne by private development. If the Town were to successfully protect the open spaces on the Reba Mills and Bill Mills tracts, the Town would have to bear the full cost of the eastern bypass option. Private development may be able to pay for significant portions of the western bypass option. But considering the number and size of parcels involved, there is an increased likelihood that at some point the Town would have to actively purchase portions of the roadway easement and pay for sections of the roadway.
9. Operational aspects of road options. Staff has operational concerns about the two one-way bypass options.
a. The bypass options will require at least one more traffic signal than the widening option, and the signal will impose additional traffic delay.
b. The bypass options could result in a need to widen a section of Green Level West Road to 6-8 through lanes instead of four. This would be needed between the current intersection of Green Level West and Green Level Church Roads and the future intersection of the new one-way bypass with Green Level West Road. Having 6 to 8 lanes would further change the character of the district.
c. The bypass options will require additional turn lanes at the thoroughfare intersections, resulting in typically urban signalized intersections within Green Level.
d. One-way traffic on Green Level Church Road will pose an inconvenience to parishioners of Green Level Baptist Church, since arrivals to and departures from the church would be limited to a single direction.
In contrast, the best regional traffic flow and the best direct transportation connections to the Town of Apex are provided along the existing alignment.
10. Disposition of buildings and land. Should the Town actually purchase any historic or open space properties, the Town will need to assume maintenance for the properties. Historic buildings and sites could be re-sold to private parties after protective easements have been established. However, purchased open space would need to be managed indefinitely, and farm fields would need to be kept under active cultivation in order to maintain the defining nature of the location.
11. A balanced Town-wide approach to preservation. At the open house, one Green Level resident asked why the Town was focusing on Green Level without first addressing downtown historic structures or the Carpenter district. Along with a number of other historic structures scattered about Cary that lack regulatory protection, this again raises the question whether a comprehensive, Town-wide approach to historic preservation is needed.
G. Fiscal Impact
There are no costs associated with the staff’s recommendations other than staff time and effort already budgeted to planning activities in Green Level.
H. Staff Analysis and Recommendation
The analyses and recommendations that follow are based on three factors: (a) the sentiments of the community as reported in Section E., above, (b) the Other Considerations presented in Section F., above, and (c) Council’s desire to consider the wishes of the Green Level community, based on Council’s direction to first seek out community input. The analyses and recommendations are provided separately by topic.
1. Historic Preservation
Analysis. As described in Section E., above, it is clear that all respondent classes agree in principle that they’d like to see historic buildings in Green Level preserved. However, it is equally clear that Green Level residents and landowners do not think that the Town should take a role in this matter, and that historic preservation should not be regulated by the Town. Clear majorities of Green Level residents were opposed to:
However, Green Level residents were supportive of the continued use of density bonuses for developers that promise to permanently preserve historic structures. It should be noted that there was less resistance to the use of mandatory waiting periods when the waiting period was reduced to one year; in that situation, the community was evenly split for and against the notion.
Recommendation. Staff offers the following recommendations:
(a) The Town should not create a local historic zoning district for Green Level.
(b) The Town should continue to offer a density bonus incentive for historic preservation, as currently provided through the Conservation Residential Overlay District.
(c) Focus the Town’s historic preservation efforts on assisting individual property owners in Green Level who are voluntarily willing to work or partner with the Town to preserve their historic buildings.
(d) Evaluate how the Town might utilize its new local enabling legislation to regulate the demolition of historic structures on a Town-wide basis, including within Green Level.
2. Rural Character
Analysis. While a majority of Green Level respondents were clearly opposed to regulation of historic buildings in their community, they were more ambivalent about the use of regulatory approaches for preserving the character of the community, such as by downzoning the community or regulating the size, type, architecture, and spacing of new development. However, staff feels that it does not make sense to take regulatory steps with respect to new development if the community has rejected a regulatory approach to the preservation of historic buildings. For example, it wouldn’t make sense to regulate the architecture of new buildings if the Town wasn’t also regulating additions and modifications to historic buildings.
Recommendation. Staff recommends against taking regulatory action with respect to new and/or infill development via a general downzoning and/or by regulating the size, type, architecture, and spacing of new development. The Town will continue to use its existing ordinances, guidelines, and policies to assist in making new development as sensitive as possible to the surrounding context.
3. Rural Views and Open Space
Analysis. While Green Level residents are split in their opinions of whether or not they think the Town should take an active role in preserving open spaces and views within Green Level, a clear majority of the community is opposed to any approach in which the Town would seek to purchase properties for open space, or even purchase conservation easements. Further, as noted in Section F.3., above, even if the Town were to preserve the most significant fields and views, such open space preservation would only be able to keep – at most – about three principal historic buildings within their existing rural context.
Recommendation. Staff therefore does not recommend that the Town pursue further open space preservation within Green Level for the purposes of attempting to maintain the community within its historic rural context. The Town may, however, as part of its separate open space program, seek to acquire properties as permanent open space in order to further the goals of the Town’s Open Space Plan.
4. Green Level Church Road
Analysis. Green Level residents are clearly split in their preferences between widening the existing Green Level Church Road and constructing an eastern one-way bypass. However, the bypass options were proposed as alternatives in the event that the community wished to preserve its open spaces and views and maintain its rural context, while protecting historic structures. Thus, the bypass options are not necessary or helpful considering that the community is opposed to both local historic preservation ordinances and to Town acquisition of open spaces and conservation easements for view protection.
Recommendation. Staff recommends against both of the bypass options for Green Level Church Road, based on (a) staff’s recommendation that the Town not pursue an program of open space acquisition for historic context purposes, and (b) the operational difficulties associated with the bypass options as discussed in Section F., and (c) the fact that NCDOT is already requiring a widening to three lanes for the Saxonbury-Singh subdivision. Staff offers the following recommendations:
(a) Amend the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to re-designate Green Level Church Road as a major thoroughfare, and that it be widened along its existing alignment. Remove the 2004 thoroughfare bypass that crosses Bachelor Branch.
(b) Plan for an asymmetrical, context-sensitive widening of Green Level Church Road, in order to best protect Green Level Baptist Church and any other historic structures whose owners elect to voluntarily preserve their historic buildings.
(c) Move forward with developing an asymmetrical, context-sensitive functional alignment and proposed cross-section for Green Level Church Road, based on community preferences and input – such as the community’s preference for the use of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as opposed to swale and ditch.
5. Other Recommendations
(a) Develop a Comprehensive Town-Wide Approach to Historic Resources. Development of policies, plans, and recommendations for historic resources within isolated parts of Cary’s planning jurisdiction will continue to be difficult as long as the Town lacks consensus and clear policy direction for all of the Town’s historic resources. Staff recommends that the Town develop a comprehensive approach and plan for historic preservation. Such a plan should:
· Separate the historic resources element from the open space element in the Town’s existing Open Space and Historic Resources Plan, and give clear and unambiguous attention to historic resources;
· Update the Town’s official goals and objectives for historic preservation;
· Include a jurisdiction-wide inventory of all historic structures;
· Prioritize the relative importance of each historic property – from most important to least important – so that the Town and staff can most effectively target their resources and attention; and,
· Clearly identify the ordinances, programs, policies, funding mechanisms and funding amounts that the Town will use to further historic preservation.
(b) Focus financial resources on Carpenter. As noted in Sections F.3.d. and F.5., above, with the same or lower level of financial resources, the Town could successfully maintain several times as many historic buildings within their historic rural context in the Carpenter district as could be done at Green Level. Further, due to the planned thoroughfare and collector roadway alignments in Carpenter, it will be both feasible and practical to preserve that community. Staff recommends that financial resources be targeted for preservation within Carpenter, rather than Green Level.
Summary of Green Level Survey Results
Green Level Preservation Initiative Update &
Recommendations (PL08-016)
The following sections provide a summary and interpretation of the tabulated responses from the survey questionnaire distributed at the September 13, 2007, Green Level community open house.
Survey Results – Historic Preservation
· A clear majority of citizens agree that historic buildings in Green Level should be preserved, although the magnitude of this majority opinion shrinks considerably when we consider only the affected parcels in Green Level. (See responses to Question #1.)
· Citizens representing properties within Green Level and its affected area clearly opposed to Town involvement in historic preservation (see Question #2 responses); indeed, when considering just those responses from citizens within the affected area, the majority opposed to Town involvement reaches a level of 2-to-1 against.
· By contrast, citizens from outside of the Green Level area tend to be in favor of the Town taking an active role in historic preservation. (Inferred from Question #2 responses.)
· For all three classes of respondents a slight majority of about 56% (averaged) tend to agree with the use of density bonuses as a reasonable zoning tool for encouraging the retention of historic structures. (See responses to Question #3.)
· Green Level residents are evenly split in support and opposition to a regulatory approach that would impose a 1-year waiting period on demolition permits. However, a majority of respondents from outside of Green Level are in favor of such an approach. (From Question #4a. responses.)
· The majority of Green Level respondents – 69% on average – are clearly opposed to regulatory approaches similar to that used by the Town of Apex, where the Town would impose delays on subdivision approvals in cases where historic structures are not preserved. However, a strong majority of the 14 respondents from outside of Green Level are in favor of such approaches. (From Question #4b and #4c responses.)
· Citizens representing properties within the affected area of Green Level are almost evenly split in support and opposition to a regulatory approach whereby the Town would regulate the architectural design of exterior modifications to historic buildings, although other respondents from Green Level are clearly opposed to the notion. However, a wide majority of respondents from outside of Green Level are in favor of such regulation. (From Question #5 responses.)
· By a ratio of about 2-to-1, Green Level and affected area respondents are opposed to preservation approaches in which the Town would purchase historic properties or preservation easements. Conversely, by a ratio of about 3-to-1, respondents from outside of Green Level would favor direct Town purchase of properties or easements. (From Question #6 responses.)
· Respondents provided a variety of answers in response to the question “What other comments and ideas do you have about preservation of historic buildings?” These answers follow:
Transcribed Comments from Open-Ended Survey Question #7
from the September 13, 2007, Community Open House
Question 7: What other comments and ideas do you have about preservation of historic buildings?
Responses from forms associated with affected properties in Green Level:
· Only some buildings should be preserved. I believe the church should be preserved, but not the crossroads or my home unless Cary wants to buy it.
· Beyond the church and lodge, there isn’t anything worth preserving! The farmland which was the basis for this community is gone. The Woodlands at Green Level, the Singh Development, the Manor at Green Level, will all be visible in some way and the style of the homes will not be in character with the older homes in the area. Therefore there is no consistent “historic fabric” to work with.
· The Town should drop this idea of a historic district! The church is only thing worth saving.
· The Town should not consider this area for a historic district! Only the church should be preserved.
· Preserving historic structures is a noble idea, but if the Town wishes to preserve, it needs to purchase the property.
· I want the uncertainty to end; make a decision one way or the other! I don't see any part of this area as "historic"!
· [You should] bypass Green Level altogether.
· "Historic Buildings" should also include the surrounding land, fields, woods, roads, etc., to truly preserve the buildings within their original setting.
· There is not a house on Green Level West Rd. worth having as a historic place! As for myself, our land should be commercial.
· All participation should be voluntary.
· Property owners should have voluntary participation.
· Property owners of historic buildings or homes should be shown respect & involved in all decisions concerning their property.
· It looks good with trees and plants.
Responses from forms associated with properties outside the affected area, but still located within Green Level:
· You have to first determine if your taxpayers want to preserve history. Then you should purchase if possible, what is historic, and guard it jealously. It’s more valuable than cheap construction, or other waste of space. Every one has a right to see history preserved. Purchase what you can and you will never be sorry. You have to look beyond today, and your tenure here. History will attract tourists and prospective new residents. We don’t want just residents, we want contributors. Usurpers are easy to find, contributors are not.
· I think that other structures outside of the mapped historic area also need to be addressed, esp. structures built before 1930 that are separated by farm fields and development. (Outside of your parameters for the district you have now.)
· Keep historic to its time in history.
· Town of Cary should leave property owners alone! We are perfectly capable of managing our own property and don’t need your “help” or your annoying interference. Public hearings and then continuing on with Town plans is a waste of time, money.
· The citizens of Green Level have gotten along fine for 150 yrs. Without the help of the Town of Cary. I am confident that the citizens of Green Level are capable and competent to protect and preserve that which needs protection and preservation. Witness what you claim to want to protect today!
Responses from forms associated with properties located outside of Green Level:
· I prefer Ordinance to incent preservation vs. outright purchase by taxpayers. Consider longer waiting period for the item in survey question #4, and consider keying the waiting period to the size of the property to prevent hardships on small lot owners.
· Yes for survey question #3, but only to extent it doesn't detract from character. For survey questions 4b and 4c, I suggest 4-5 years. For survey question #6, only when other methods fail. The buildings at southern end of district are most important, from church southward and eastward. The idea of preserving the Green Level store as a sales office is brilliant and worthwhile. We need to preserve as many historic buildings as possible – these contribute greatly to the district.
· Seek public/private partnerships to finance purchases of historic properties.
· Cary needs to leave historic buildings alone. They have no business trying to run all the areas close to them. They should have no say on areas outside of Town limits.
· Reduce the density allowed in this area to maintain rural-ness and reduce traffic and consequently reduce road widening efforts.
· A stop light at Green Level Church Rd. & Green Level West Rd. is needed. Many accidents occur there now.
· Preservation of historic buildings. should depend on context of the building, appearance and state of the building. We shouldn't work hard for buildings that are falling down.
· Best approach is a combination of the approaches described in survey questions 4a. & 4b. The preservation approach described in survey question 4.c. does not provide any protection without also using the approaches specified in questions 4.a. & 4.b. – especially that of question 4.a.
· Offering tax-incentive conservation easements should be considered.
· I think it's great that Cary's getting ahead of the curve on this issue.
· Save the view.
Survey Results – Historic Character
· Green Level residents are fairly evenly split between support and opposition to a regulatory approach that would increase the required separation between buildings in order to maintain the character of the community. Interestingly, respondents from the affected area were slightly more supportive of this approach. In stark contrast, all but one of the respondents from outside of Green Level favor this approach. (Question #8a.)
· Respondents from the affected area are evenly split in their support or opposition to the notion of downzoning the permitted residential densities in and around the historic district to maintain the character of the community. In contrast, Green Level residents from outside of the affected area oppose this approach by a ratio of 4-to-1. At the opposite extreme, respondents from outside of Green Level favor this approach by more than 5‑to‑1. (Question #8b.)
· A very slight majority of Green Level and affected area respondents would favor regulations that require new construction to adhere to specific architectural design standards. For respondents from outside of Green Level, support for such regulation is over 75%. (Question #9.)
· Respondents from the affected area are evenly split in their support or opposition to the notion of regulating the size and height of new buildings and homes in order to maintain the character of the community. In contrast, Green Level residents from outside of the affected area oppose this approach by a ratio of 3-to-1. At the opposite extreme, respondents from outside of Green Level favor this approach by almost 4‑to‑1. (Question #10.)
Survey Results – Rural Views and Open Space
· 60% of Green Level and affected area respondents agree that the existing rural views and open space around the historic district should be preserved. All but one of the respondents from outside of Green Level favor view preservation. (Question #11.)
· A slight majority of Green Level and affected area respondents believe the Town should take an active role in preserving rural views and open spaces within and adjacent to the historic district. For respondents from outside of Green Level, support for such regulation is over 85%. (Question #12.)
· However, while support for viewshed preservation seems high, by a ratio of about 2-to-1 respondents from Green Level and its affected area do not think the Town should actively seek to purchase properties or conservation easements in order to protect open space. In dramatic contrast, respondents from outside of Green Level support such purchases by over 5-to-1. (Question #13.)
· Respondents provided a variety of answers in response to the questions “What scenic views are most important to you?” and “What other comments do you have about preservation of historic character and views?” The answers follow:
Transcribed Comments from Open-Ended Survey Questions #14 and 15
from the September 13, 2007, Community Open House
Question 14. What scenic views are most important to you?
Responses from forms associated with affected properties in Green Level:
· None. The views are no longer there.
· There are no views.
· Green Level Baptist Church, Masonic Lodge and surrounding open spaces.
· The view in front of Green Level Baptist Church.
· View across from church.
· Pasture with the horses, fields, woods; Beaver Dam Rd., seeing the church on the hill.
· Horses, pasture, ducks on the pond, church, woods.
· "Open" spaces up & down Green Level Church Rd., and small 2 lane country roads winding thru the open space and old homesteads.
· Field & forest across from 8621 Green Level Ch. Rd, down to Green Level Baptist Church. View south of Toll Bros. on W. side of Green Level down to church.
· None.
· Green Level store and the horses.
· Green Level community store and pastoral views.
· The natural landscape represents the natural view of preserving history
· The old store and the horses.
· The rolling hills, field, and pond in front of Green Level Baptist Church; Green Level store
Responses from forms associated with properties outside the affected area, but still located within Green Level:
· Fields and open, woods, to stay as they are.
· Sky, earth, water, woods. Not banks of ugly houses, clay, etc.
· Green Level Baptist Church.
· Green Level Baptist Church.
· The church.
· All of the viewsheds from Green Level Rd. up past Green Hope School Rd.
· Opposite Green Level Baptist Church. View of Beaver Dam Road. View south of Green Level West Rd. between Beaver Dam Rd. & Green Level Ch. Rd.
· Farmland.
· No new/widened roads in or near the area. Go back to the routing of the road with the original plan even if it takes longer to get all the approvals and costs more money to construct. Raise more money by charging developers more (through taxes/fees/permits, etc.) These are the people who are profiting from development and quit driving current land owners away.
· The ability of the landowner to enjoy the use of his/her land as they see fit.
Responses from forms associated with properties located outside of Green Level:
· Views adjacent to Green Level Baptist Church.
· The view of the immediate property of the historic structure is enough.
· The tract directly across from the church, with the pond.
· The view from Green Level Baptist Church across the Mills farm, to the other side of the creek.
· [views along] Green Level Church Rd. and Green Level West Rd.
· Farm land.
· Farm pastures and trees.
· Open fields, wooded areas. And my idea of open space does not include a ball park!
· Fields, streams, trees (esp. hardwoods & deciduous trees)
· Mosaics of open fields and forested lands offer the most habitat variety for wildlife, and provide corridors for wildlife to travel without getting onto roadways.
· Pond, fields, wooded areas.
· The church, the fields, farm houses.
· The church, fields, and trees down to the stream, and less density around the preservation area.
Question 15. What other comments do you have about preservation of historic character and views?
Responses from forms associated with affected properties in Green Level:
· Forget about it! Are you going to un-do the Woodlands at Green Level subdivision and downzone it?
· None. The views are no longer there.
· Stop chopping the view areas with roads, sewer lines, and trails.
· I am not sure what is meant by "historic buildings." I don't know of any that I consider important.
· Have Cary stay out.
· 4 lane highways are not compatible with "historic" rural areas.
· Expanded roads in the historic area will drastically take away from the historic character.
· Widening any roads will change our old way of thinking!
Responses from forms associated with properties in outside the affected area, but still located within Green Level:
· [The views] would not be interesting and therefore not observed, if crowded by inappropriate junk, and they need to be away from strip malls.
· I think if you are trying to preserve the character of this area you need to preserve not only the structures but land as well. Plus, keep in mind the curves and winding roads to enhance the viewsheds.
· Preservation on historic land and buildings of the Green Level District area only - not surrounding land.
· Well putting a 4-5 lane road through the middle of it all another 2 lane within sight of existing 2 lanes doesn’t do anything for the historic character or the view. Town of Cary doesn’t care. Go back to the original plan or find a different alternative.
Responses from forms associated with properties located outside of Green Level:
· Should include streetscape, landscape, in addition to structures.
· Preserve the existing buildings, but allow growth around them to enhance area & make people friendly.
· Keep new development to the north of the district. For Question #13, Yes only if other methods fail. For Question #12, yes if necessary
· It seems to me that Cary needs to leave historic Green Level alone. Cary needs to discourage further growth. There is not enough water, roads, or schools.
· The transportation issue is unfortunately conflicting with this initiative.
· I am very sad as I drive along many of the roads leading out of Cary at the loss of beautiful countryside.
· This area is close to Brooks Park & USA Baseball complex. Preserving it offers visitors to our community to see the area, to know Cary isn't just about high-density development, and these areas represent Cary's rural "roots."
· Save the view.
Survey Results – Thoroughfare Options
As can be seen below, it is a difficult matter to ascertain where the public stands regarding the three roadway options for Green Level Church Road. (Questions 16a-16c.)
· By a ratio of more than 3-to-1, respondents from outside of Green Level overwhelmingly oppose widening Green Level Church Road along its existing alignment. These respondents favor creating a bypass around the historic district by more than 3-to-1. The responses show a slight preference for the one-way bypass west of the historic district as opposed to the bypass east of the district.
· Respondents from within the affected area of Green Level are split. Almost as many people favor a one-way bypass east of the historic district as favor widening Green Level Church Road as their first choice. However, at the same time more respondents ranked the road widening as their third choice versus either of the bypass options. That is, the road widening seems to be the most divisive option for this group. This may explain why the western bypass was uniformly chosen as this group’s second choice.
· Respondents from within Green Level but outside of the affected area clearly prefer that Green Level Church Road be widened as their first choice. However, at the same time more respondents ranked the road widening as their third choice versus either of the bypass options. That is, the road widening seems to be the most divisive option for this group. This pool of respondents showed no preference between either the eastern or western bypass option as their second choice.
· If we consider all the respondents from within Green Level as a whole – including those from the affected area – there emerges a clear first-choice preference to widen the existing Green Level Church Road, followed by a clear second-choice preference for the eastern one-way bypass, and finally a clear third-choice preference for the western one-way bypass.
In terms of the design characteristics for Green Level Church Road:
· Across all respondent groups, a sizable majority clearly prefers that Green Level Church be widened asymmetrically, if the widening option were to be selected. (Question 17.)
· By a wide majority, respondents from Green Level and its affected area clearly prefer that Green Level Church Road be widened using curb, gutter, and sidewalk – as opposed to using a “rural” swale and ditch section – if a widening is pursued. Respondents from outside of Green Level were evenly split in their preferences. (Question 18.)
Respondents provided a variety of answers in response to the question “What other comments do you have about roadway options?” The answers follow:
Transcribed Comments from Open-Ended Survey Questions #19
from the September 13, 2007, Community Open House
Question 19. What other comments do you have about roadway options?
Responses from forms associated with affected properties in Green Level: