Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 6-a - Greene Tract Conceptual PlansORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 20, 2018 Action Agenda Item No. 6-a SUBJECT: Greene Tract Conceptual Plans DEPARTMENT: County Manager and Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Conceptual Plan Overview 2. Environmental and Cultural Features Map 3. Land Use Conceptual Plans 4. Land Use and Density Outcomes 5. Affordable Housing Potential Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, 919-245-2308 Craig Benedict, Director, 919-245-2575 Ashley Moncado, Planner II, 919-245-2589 PURPOSE: To consider development and preservation alternatives for the Greene Tract and authorize staff to communicate the Board’s preferences to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. These preferences include decisions on: 1. Reconfiguration of the Headwaters Preserve area; 2. Size of the development and preservation areas within the Greene Tract; 3. Density of the development area; 4. Land uses and affordable housing preferences in the development area such as a. Single use (residential) versus mixed use development (residential and commercial) b. Affordable housing versus mixed income/market rate housing c. Goals for the number or proportion of affordable units BACKGROUND: The Greene Tract is a 164 acre parcel of which 104 acres is jointly owned by Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. The remaining sixty (60) acres is owned by Orange County and has been designated as the Headwaters Preserve. Last year, the owners of the jointly owned portion of the Greene Tract agreed to have the Mayors and BOCC Chair consider different preservation and development options for the property. This discussion resulted in three alternatives that illustrate high, medium, and low development intensities. All of the alternatives include an elementary school site, a site for a future park, the preservation of significant environmental and cultural areas, and a preliminary road network and infrastructure design. The three alternatives also consider the project area’s current environmental conditions, elements of the 2002 Joint Governments’ Resolution, the Rogers Road Task Force report, the Mapping Our Community’s Future report, and previous land use discussions. These three alternatives are contained in Attachment 3. In addition to the high, medium, and low development intensity scenarios, the Mayors and Chair requested an examination of the entire Greene Tract, including the Headwaters Preserve, in an effort to preserve the most environmentally sensitive areas and to develop the most appropriate areas of the entire 164 acre Tract. As a result, staff amended the proposed conceptual plan, reconfiguring the Headwaters Preserve and the jointly owned areas. This reconfiguration 1 maintains the same total acreage for each of the areas but aligns them differently. The reconfigured tracts were drafted with environmental staff from the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County in order to create new parcels which endeavored to protect environmental features and habitats located on site. The proposed reconfigured Headwaters Preserve area alternatives are also contained in Attachment 3. Attachment 4 includes land use and density outcomes for the different alternatives. Attachment 5 includes potential affordable housing outputs based on different affordable housing proportions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact related to this item. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to this agenda item: • GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. • GOAL: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CULTURE THAT REJECTS OPPRESSION AND INEQUITY The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color; religious or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or ethnic background; age; military service; disability; and familial, residential or economic status. • GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board define its preferences for the Greene Tract in terms of 1. Reconfiguration of the Headwaters Preserve area; 2. Size of the development and preservation areas within the Greene Tract; 3. Density of the development area; 4. Land uses and affordable housing preferences in the development area The Manager further recommends the Board authorize staff to communicate the Board’s preferences to Chapel Hill and Carrboro town staffs and request feedback from the towns by May 1, 2018. Upon receipt of feedback from both towns, County staff - in concert with town staffs - will prepare a draft resolution for future approval by the Board of Commissioners, the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen to codify the preferences/input from all three entities. With adoption by all three governing boards, the resulting resolution would supersede the 2002 Resolution that outlined the County and Towns’ intentions for developing the Greene Tract. 2 Greene Tract Conceptual Plans Information on Factors Considered During Creation Process The staff-created conceptual plans for the Greene Tract are a result of several months of iterations and input from a variety of staff from the three jurisdictions. While planning staffs were the lead on creating the conceptual plans, input was also sought and incorporated from environmental and stormwater staffs. The following information addresses some anticipated questions regarding why the conceptual plans are presented as they are. Environmental Features Although the Greene Tract lies entirely within the planning jurisdiction of the Town of Chapel Hill, 104 acres of the Greene Tract are co-owned by Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro while 60 acres are owned solely by Orange County. Planning staffs chose to apply the most stringent development regulation of the three jurisdictions when determining stream and wetland buffers and preservation of other environmental features such as forest types. For example, if one jurisdiction requires a 50-foot stream buffer and another requires a 65-foot stream buffer, a 65-foot stream buffer was used as the stream buffer on the conceptual plan. The Upland Hardwood Forest areas were slated for preservation as at least one jurisdiction would normally request/require preservation of these types of forests if a development proposal were made. Road Configuration All previous planning efforts of the Greene Tract/Rogers Road area have strongly stated that Purefoy Drive and/or Lizzie Lane should not be the only access to the Greene Tract. Connections to the south, north, and/or east must be made. The early iterations of maps (not included in materials) sought to avoid a stream crossing and connected to Merin Road, near the southeast corner of the Greene Tract, by traversing the area between two stream buffer areas. However, this configuration was revised as environmental and stormwater staff members stated that a stream crossing would be preferable to impacting the Upland Hardwood Forest areas while also bisecting preserve connectivity. Staffs have spoken with Norfolk Southern railroad representatives regarding a crossing on the east side of the Greene Tract. While Norfolk Southern is amendable to reviewing any requests, the railroad generally requires closure of at least one existing crossing for each new crossing. Staff has not been able to identify existing crossing(s) that could be proposed for closure in order to make a connection from the Greene Tract to Weaver Dairy Road Extension to the east. 3 A connection to the north (to Eubanks Road) might be possible through an edge corridor of the “Neville Tract” if an alternative site can be found to conduct the Solid Waste activities occurring on the Neville Tract. Reconfigured Preserve Area Quarterly “Managers, Mayors, Chair” (MMC) meetings have been taking place to provide the opportunity for staffs and the Town/County managers, Town mayors, and County chair to meet and receive updates/guidance on Rogers Road sewer system and planning issue status, including progress on Greene Tract planning. Staff received direction to consider the reconfiguration of the County-owned 60-acre portion of the Greene Tract to encumber the most preservation-worthy lands. Staffs conducted the analysis and the conceptual plans incorporate a reconfigured County-owned preserve area. If a reconfigured preserve area is desired, future work would include re-platting the parcels to reflect different parcel boundaries and ownership from those that currently exist. 4 Greene Tract - Environmental & Cultural Features 5 LIZZIE L N� ........................... � II O a X z w O + X II CL II PUREFOYII R Z i � II C7 i � II W 1 m n 0 Z i Q II �i II �i II �� 0 J 0 �1 ■ ■■■■ Access Trail Easement ® Upland Hardwood Forest Historic Site Wetlands Parcels QGreene Tract 'Joint Owned Property (104 ac.) Ephemeral Stream O QCounty Owned Property (60 ac.) Intermittent Stream Foot Bridge QProposed Headwaters Preserve (County Owned) Perennial Stream Proposed Joint Owned Property (104 ac.) —'— Unknown Stream © Mature Hardwood Historic Road Bed Orange County and Chapel Hill = Buffers/Wetlands ® Mixed Hardwood /Pine Forest © Significant Tree .^. Cultural and Envrionmental Features Data Source: Town of Chapel Hill Stormwater Management (Oct. 2017) 1 in = 400 feet 0 200 � Feet 1 Three alternatives were drafted which included a project area of approximately 164 acres of land divided into proposed land uses based on the project area's environmental conditions, elements of the 2002 Chapel Hill Resolution, Rogers Road Task Force report, Mapping Our Community's Future report, and local government leaders' objectives for the Greene Tract. Alternatives must provide three levels of development and incorporate: – School site – Recreational facility site – Park space – Natural preservation areas – Development – Road network and infrastructure – Environmental buffers – Cultural areas of significance Additional consideration will be required for several elements of the Greene Tract: – Roadway design – Site infrastructure (i.e. water, sewer, fiber) – Open space, recreational facility, and tree canopy preserva- tion – Environmental (i.e. wetlands, streams, buffers, stormwater regulations) – Low Impact Development – Cultural and historical features – Density, land use, and zoning regulations – Transit • Further evaluation will impact and alter the proposed alternatives in the future • Site plan review process will address additional land use issues and help shape the plan for the Greene Tract Land Use Categories Proposed Joint Owned Preserve: Includes areas of existing wetlands and streams located on the Greene Tract. Wetland and stream information is based on information collected from Town of Chapel Hill, Town of Carrboro, and Orange County staff. Buffer standards were determined based on a review of the Towns' and County's standards and utilizing the most restrictive. Additional analysis and delineation will be required moving forward. These areas would not be developed, but will remain as natural preserve areas in the future. Additional Preserve: Includes areas for future preservation and upland hardwood forest which are not contained in the required preserve areas. In addition to the acreage proposed to be preserved, approximately 10 – 20% of the acreage pro- posed for development will be utilized for open space to provide areas of on -site preserve and connections to other areas of offsite preserve. Proposed Headwaters Preserve (County Owned): Includes the original 60 acres designated for preservation by the Towns and County. Elementary School Site: Includes acreages allocated for a future elementary school site. The proposed school site has been relocated to the southern portion of the site due to environmental constraints and is not included as part of the original 18 acres designated for development in the Rogers Road Task Force Report. Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools staff has re- viewed the proposed alternatives and provides support for the proposed location. Recreational Facility Site: The proposed recreational facility site is also located on the southern portion of the Greene Tract in order to provide access to the future elementary school students. Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools staff provides sup- port for the proposed recreational facility site, which could also support community usage. Development: Includes areas proposed for development in the short term. The location for this category was determined based on site elevations and proximity to existing infrastructure. In addition, the proposed location for development in- cludes the original 18 acres identified for affordable housing in the Rogers Road Task Force Report. Includes possible loca- tions for on -site stormwater facilities. Road: The preliminary roadway design was based on existing environmental concerns and elevations contained on site. The proposed alternatives recognize a need for additional roadway connections in the future. Land Banking: Includes areas without environmental concerns and access to infrastructure which may provide an oppor- tunity for future development. These areas will remain undeveloped in the short term, but may be evaluated for develop- ment (i.e. residential, commercial, health services, and /or park /recreational facility) in the long term (5 -10 years) depend- ing on the needs of the community and planning partners at that time. 7 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan -Alternative 1 (High) (Headwaters Existing) 1 60 ac —5 X z W O = 1.2 ac �a PUREFOY DR 5.7 ac Fir_7 w -- m 0 z a U) 20.8 ac 10.8 ac Additional Preserve Elementary School Site Headwaters Preserve (County Road Owned) Land Banking -Proposed Joint Owned Preserve Approximate Land Area Needed for Stormwater Development Management 46.2 ac 1.9 ac 6 ac Ephemeral Stream Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream Unknown Stream Parcels Wetlands 4.7 ac MIMI 111111 1 ,, f- 0 200 mmmmz= Feet 8 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan -Alternative 2 (Medium) (Headwaters Existina) = Additional Preserve Road Headwaters Preserve (County Land Banking Owned) Approximate Land Area Needed — Proposed Joint Owned Preserve for Stormwater Management Development Additional Wetland Buffer Elementary School Site 177771150')(recommended by environmental staff) Ephemeral Stream Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream — Unknown Stream Parcels Wetlands 1 in = 400 feet o zoo Feet Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan - Alternative 3 (Low) Possible Modifications to Headwaters Preserve Arch VA 7- - LIZZIE LN 0 X — z — W O 2 - a PUREFOI Z J C7 W 0] Q Z Q Cn Possible Modifications to Headwaters Preserve Area 11 Total Preserve Area 21 ac. Proposed Headwaters Preserve (County Owned) Proposed Joint Owned Property Proposed Joint Ownership Preserve Parcels 60 a 0 1 in = 400 feet 0 200 Feet Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (11/30/2017) 12 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan -Alternative 1 (High) 13 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan -Alternative 2 (Medium) 14 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan - Alternative 3 (Low) (Headwaters Modified) 1�4� 22.5 ac LIZZIE LN 60 ac X c X z W O X CL PUREFOYIDR z 0 w JIM a z a N 3.6 ac 24.6 ac 5.7 ac 2.5 ac - Additional Preserve Road - Ephemeral Stream Proposed Headwaters Preserve Land Banking Intermittent Stream (County Owned) Approximate Land Area Needed Perennial Stream - Proposed Joint Owned Preserve for Stormwater Management Unknown Stream Development Additional Wetland Buffer ® (150')(recommended by Parcels - Elementary School Site environmental staff) 0 Wetlands Recreational Facility 1/ �l 1 in = 400 feet * #" mmmmK== 0 200 Feet Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (1/11/2018) Preserve Development Land Banking 20.8 ac. 20% 78.5 ac. 75.5% 4.7 ac. 4.5% Alternative 1 Based Low Density Medium Density High Density Illustrates a high development option with the greatest amount of acreage designated on (4 -6 units /acre) (6 -10 units /acre) (10 -20 units /acre) for development compared to the other 59.1 alternatives. acres 236-354 354-591 591-1182 Pros Cons — More acreage designated for development in the — Additional stormwater treatment will be needed due to greater short term amount of potential development and increased impervious surfaces — Provides greatest opportunity for highest number of — Protects the least amount of mixed hardwood /pine forest from short affordable housing and market rate housing to help term development meet housing demand in the urban area — Only allows for the required 80 foot wetland buffer — More acreage available for development to offset — Depending on density, may have greater traffic impacts to Purefoy infrastructure costs Drive and Merin Road — Allows for double road frontage to offset road and infrastructure costs — More development and residential units to support transit Alternative 2 Preserve Development Land Banking Illustrates a moderate development option by shifting acreage away from the develop- 23.8 ac. 22.9% 66 ac. 63.4% 14.2 ac. 13.7% Based Low Density Medium Density High Density ment land use with the transfer of acreage to additional preserve and land banking. Al- on (4 -6 units /acre) (6 -10 units /acre) (10 -20 units /acre) so allows for a 150 buffer along a portion of 47 the existing wetlands located onsite. acres 188-282 282-470 470-940 Pros Cons — Proposes 150 foot wetland buffer adjacent to wildlife — Less acreage is available for development in the short term or to off - corridor set infrastructure costs — Allows for additional areas of preserve — Less opportunity for affordable housing and market rate housing to — Provides opportunity for a mid -range of affordable housing and market rate housing to meet the general help meet housing demand in the urban area housing demand — More acreage available for development to offset in- frastructure costs — Allows for double road frontage to offset road and infrastructure costs Preserve Development Land Banking Alternative 3 34.3 ac. 33% 43.6 ac. 41.9% 26.1 ac. 25.1% Illustrates a low development option by Based Low Density Medium Density High Density shifting additional acreage away from the on (4 -6 units /acre) (6 -10 units /acre) (10 -20 units /acre) development land use category to the addi- 24.6 tional preserve and land banking. acres 98-147 147-246 246-492 Pros Cons — Proposes 150 foot wetland buffer adjacent to — Less acreage is available for development in the short term wildlife corridor — Provides lowest opportunity for affordable housing and market rate — Allows for additional areas of preserve housing to help meet housing demand in the urban area — Strives to protect the existing wildlife corridor and — Less acreage available for development to offset infrastructure costs provide for landscape connectivity — Does not allow for double road frontage to offset road and infra- - Protects the greatest amount of Mixed Hardwood/ structure costs Pine Forest from short term development — Less development and residential units to support transit — Depending on density, may have less traffic impacts to Purefoy Drive and Merin Road 16 Affordable Housing Potential M Alternative I (High) — Potential Number of Residential UnitsA� Low Density Medium Density High Density Unit Based on 4 - 6 units /acre 6 - 10 units /acre 10 - 20 units /acre 59.1 Acres - 236 - 354 units 354 - 591 units 591 - 1182 units 47 Acres 24.6 Acrree s 35 — 53 units 53 — 88 units 88 — 177 units 15% 20% 47 — 70 units 70 —118 units 118 — 236 units 35% 82 —123 units 123 — 206 units 206 — 413 units WAlternative ?_(Medium) — Potential Number of Residential Unit Low Density Medium Density High Density Based on 4 - 6 units /acre 6 - 10 units /acre 10 - 20 units /acre 47 Acres 24.6 Acrree s 282 - 470 units 470 - 940 units 188 - 282 units 98 - 147 units 147 - 246 units 70 — 141 units 15% 28 — 42 units 42 — 70 units 20% 37 — 56 units 56 — 94 units 94 —188 units 35% 65 — 98 units 98 — 164 units 164 — 329 units Alternative 3 (Low) — Potential Number of Residential Units Low Density Medium Density High Density Based 4 - 6 units /acre 6 - 10 units /acre 10 - 20 units /acre 24.6 Acrree s 98 - 147 units 147 - 246 units 246 - 492 units 14 — 22 units 22 — 36 units 36 — 73 units 15% 20% 19 — 29 units 29 — 49 units 49 — 98 units 35% 34 — 51 units 51— 86 units 86 — 172 units