HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 040695ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
li 9y i
s
b#,i
MEMORANDUM
Rec e,
�• 1
MAR 3 11995
TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates
PROM: Gene Bell, Planner III 0-1-3
SUBJ: Second Meeting of Planning Group on April 6, 1995
DATE: March 29, 1995
Enclosed are the agenda materials for the second meeting of the Stoney
Creek Basin Planning Group. The Phase I schedule presented at the March 16
meeting has been slightly revised. Presentation of the Rural Character
Alternative has been moved to the May Planning Group meeting to allow more
time for the student presentations. The revised Phase I schedule is as follows:
Meeting Date
Meeting Topic /Issues
1 March 16, 1995 Organizational Considerations
- Introductions
- Review of Charge to Planning Group
- Introduction of Facilitator
- Operating Guidelines for Group
- Working Definition of "Consensus"
- Plan Alternatives (Definitions)
- Proposed Schedule(s)
- Other Organizational Matters
2 April 6, 1995 Review of Alternatives
- Suitability Analysis
- Status Quo Plan Alternative
- Open Space Plan Alternative
- Neo- Traditional Plan Alternative
3 April 27, 1995 Impact AnalyseslRecommendations
- Status Quo Impacts
- Open Space Impacts
- Neo - Traditional Impacts
- Recommendations to Planning Group
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
d� ♦�y� r, _^ r�P
AGENDA
Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 2
New Hope Elementary School Dance Studio, Room 508
Thursday, April 6, 1995
7:30 PM
TIME AGENDA ITEM
7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER - Verla Insko
7:31 2. OPENING COMMENTS - Commissioners Willhoit and Halkiotis
7:35 3. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from March 16
7:40 4. INTRODUCTION OF STUDENT TEAMS AND OVERVIEW OF
PRESENTATIONS - Verla Insko
7:45 S. SUITABILITY ANALYSIS - Various team members
8:00 6. CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (STATUS QUO) - Lauren Tedder,
Donny Lang, Jeff Bandini, Dan Baechtold
8:35 7. DENSITY - NEUTRAL DEVELOPMENT (OPEN SPACE) - Jean
Robbins, Tracy Swagler, Jeff Bowyer, Jennifer
Clinger, Jennifer Zadwick, Ron Sissem
9:10 8. NEO- TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT - Heidi Merkel, Eric
Fladager, Kaoru Oka, Rick Kos, Shannon Sexton, Travis
Pollack
9:45 9. OTHER BUSINESS
10:00 10. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP
MARCH 16, 1995
MINUTES
The organizational meeting of the Stoney Creek Basin Small
g March 16,
area Planning Group was held on Thursday, Hill.
p.m. at the New Hope Elementary
MEMBERS
Hanker,
Zehnder,
Ra f a 1 ow
Rafalow,
Burklin,
1
Bobby Nicholson, Trudy Cuffe, Gary
PRESENT: Steve Price, Dean
Meg McKean, Dan Teichman, David Yelton, Curtis Bane,
lkiotis, and Don Willheet, Trish
Commissioners Stephen Ha
(alt), Bob Strayhorn, Dr. Angelaurelio Soldi, L Clint
Judson Edeburn, Keith Cook, Bob Hall, Bill Bracey,
Cherie Rosemond.
OTHER ALTERNATE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Irene VanDyke.
John Ringland, Dan Kenan, and
Cameron, Mary Willis,
STAFF PRESENT: Planners Gene Emily McCalip, and Deputy
David Stancil, Transportation
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Kathy Baker.
FACILITATOR PRESENT: Verla Insko
was convened by Commissioner Willhoit who thanked all
The meeting
participants for the ir willingness to
the TTown of
r1Hillsborough
energy to this issue. He mentioned
is reconsider their decision not to participate futures
:. process. Hopefully, they will be in attendance
meetings.
the Charge to this group was adopted at
Gene Bell mentioned that That charge
the December 6, 1994 Board of Commissioners eetind. That
for
is "to prepare a land use plen'CreekuBasin Planning Area
implementation, for the Stoney The basin area is bounded
southeast of the town of HiOlon °thegnorth; Stoney Creek and the
generally by U.S. Highway 7
east; the Joint Planning Area
Chapel Hill railroad spur on the I -40, the proposed I-
(Rural Buffer) boundary to 86 on
40 Old N.C. Economic Development District, and N.C. Highway
the west ".
and Regional
Graduate students from the UNC Department of city b
Planning students will be assisting with this project will
evaluating land use alternatives for
e evaluate and present three alternative latatususe Qplans
Plan,
prepare, S
for the basin. Those plans are as follows: The Planning
2) Open Space Plan, and the
lternative #4) the Rural Character
- Staff will then present
z
Alternative. There will be no soil testing in this Phase,
however, the students will contact the Environmental Health
Division to gather soil characteristic data. Phase II will
involve the task of deciding what to do about each of the plans
and which ones the Work Group would like to recommend for
implementation. In response to a question, Bell mentioned that
the flexible development options which are being developed by the
Planning Board will probably be completed for review prior to the
completion of this project.
Commissioner Willhoit mentioned that this group will have a
facilitator rather than a Chair. He also indicated that having
the stakeholders reach consensus is the objective of this
process.
Verla Insko, Director of the Center for Peace Education,
introduced herself and explained her role as facilitator. She
mentioned that the goal for this meeting was to establish the
group. Members will be asked to introduce themselves and then
list their concerns and hopes for this group as well as deciding
upon the groundrules. She shared the story of the lute maker and
the mammoth hunters. The moral of which was that through
exchanging our gifts and allowing individuals to contribute what
they do best, communities are greatly strengthened and their
members are happier and more fulfilled. She pointed out that
people grow up in different settings and they bring different
points of view and values to their communities. out of those
differences often grow misunderstandings. People use words
differently and they make assumptions based on the words that are
used; we gather information and then make conclusions based on
that data. At that point, instead of communicating with each
other, we are more like two ships passing in the night. The role
of the facilitator for this group is to listen carefully to what
is being said without making assumptions that are not tested.
She will observe and not participate. Everyone else will
participate as well as observe. Each member will introduce
themselves, identify the neighborhood or organization they
represent, choose a groundrule they like, state what outcome they
hope will occur, and what concerns they have about this
process. A list of the concerns, groundrules, and desired
outcomes mentioned by group members are included as attachments
to these minutes.
INTRODUCTION OF WORK GROUP MEMBERS
David Yelton, a representative of Strayhorn Hills, mentioned that
the groundrule that he liked was "focus on interests and not
positions ", and his concern was that this group stay in touch
with the reality going on outside of these meetings.
Dan Teichman, a representative of Strayhorn Hills, mentioned that
the groundrule he would like to see used was "agree on the
3
meanings of important words" and his concern was whether the
outcome would be timely.
Dean Zehnder, a representative of Wyngate neighborhood, mentioned
that the groundrule he wanted to include was "focusing on
interests and not positions ", and that he hoped to understand the
alternative proposals and communicate those clearly to his
neighbors. He indicated that his concern was that the outcome
could be derailed by other interest groups, such as the Town of
Hillsborough, who are not represented.
Judson Edeburn, the Resource Manager for Duke Forest, chose the
groundrule of "keeping the discussion focused ". He hoped to
communicate clearly to other Duke University staff members about
what is being discussed at these meetings. His concern was that
preexisting biases regarding alternatives may exist.
Verla Insko mentioned that an important issue for this group is
to what extent is a representative able to speak for the group
they represent.
Bob Strayhorn, an at -large member and landowner, mentioned that
the groundrule he wanted to include was to "discuss the
nondiscussable issues." One outcome he hoped to see was for
everyone to understand each other better and the common concerns
more thoroughly.
Bob Hall, a representative of the Economic Development
Commission, chose the groundrule of "sharing all relevant
information ". He mentioned that having enough handouts for
everyone in the audience was important.
Keith Cook, a representative of the Orange County School Board,
indicated that he is more interested in the process than in the
outcome.
Steve Halkiotis, Orange County Commissioner, is concerned that
Hillsborough is not represented at this meeting. He committed to
working towards having the Town Commissioners represented at the
next meeting. The outcome that he hoped for was that the members
of this group would hold reasonable discussions and come up with
workable solutions. He mentioned that one of his concerns is
that as a member of the Board of Commissioner he must stay
focused on the needs of all of the community, not just one group.
The groundrule he wanted included was "no cheap shots ".
Don Willhoit, Orange County Commissioner, chose "discuss the
undiscussable topics" as the groundrule he wanted to include and
indicated that he hoped that enthusiasm is generated for Phase
II.
Trudy Cuffe, a representative of the NC 86 Area, mentioned a
4
concern that Hillsborough was not represented. She hoped to
understand this issue better and be able to articulate that
understanding to her community. She hoped that the groundrules
of "discussing undiscussable issues" and "eliminate cheap shots
and other distractions" would be included.
Steve Price, a representative of Colonial Hills, stated that he
hoped to gain knowledge from this process. He chose the
groundrule of "staying focused ". His concern was that the
landowners and homeowners might not resolve the issues they
confront during the process.
Dr. Elio Soldi, an at -large representative, indicated that he
hoped the process would not cause divisiveness. He chose the
groundrule "stick to the facts and be specific ".
Curtis Bane, a University Station Road area representative,
stated that his concern is the cost to the landowners. He chose
the groundrule "share all relevant information ". He also asked
for the timeline on this plan. How far into the future is this
plan targeting? How long will it take for all of this area to
get water and sewer? He also requested that schools and
police /fire protection be considered as well.
Gary Hanker, a representative of the Old NC 10 South area, stated
that an outcome he wanted to see was that trees would be left.
He acknowledged that growth is going to occur. He wants to see
the community remain as rural as possible while accommodating
that growth.
Meg McKean, a representative of the Stoney Creek neighborhood,
asked for clarification regarding the legality of what this group
accomplishes. She mentioned that reaching consensus, or
unanimity, is important to the effectiveness of this group's
work. Other parts of the County are more likely to emulate this
process if consensus is reached.
Lee Rafalow, an at -large representative, mentioned that he wanted
to identify the characteristics of the neighborhood that make it
special and assure that they are preserved. His concern is that
not everyone who wanted to participate was allowed at the table.
Trish Rafalow, a representative of the New Hope /Powder Mill area,
mentioned that she hoped that this group would create a small
area plan that preserves the rural character. Her concern was
that this would not occur. The groundrule that she chose was
"emplain reasons behind questions and statements ".
Clint Burklin, a representative of the Orange County Planning
Board, indicated that consensus was critical to the effectiveness
of this process. He hoped that this group could speak as one
voice when the process was complete. That would send a powerful
5
signal to the Board of Commissioners.
Bobby Nicholson, a representative of the Joppa Oaks Community,
hoped that his knowledge and years of experience in this
community could be helpful to this group. He chose the
groundrule of "reaching consensus ".
Bill Bracey, a representative of the Triangle Land Conservancy
and a member of the Economic Development Commission, mentioned
that his concern was that not all parties are represented on the
group. He chose the groundrule of "discussing undiscussables and
disagreeing openly ". This is how consensus will be reached. He
hoped that the outcome would be that the possibilities would be
clearly articulated and members of this group would educate
themselves as well as possible. He hoped that very specific
recommendations would be made to the Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner Willhoit stated that Mr. Cogswell as well as
Hillsborough had been invited and would receive copies of the
minutes. He also mentioned that a newsletter would be created by
staff to facilitate the dissemination of this information. A
list of the names of other stakeholders will be solicited so that
they can receive a copy of the newsletter and meeting notices.
Cherie Rosemond, is a representative of the Orange County
Planning Board, and lives on Old NC 10. Her concerns are the gap
between the recommendations of this group and the possibility of
their implementation. There is power in consensus and she hoped
that this group would work toward that end. She requested more
information regarding exactly what land is open for development
within the area on the map. The outcome she hoped to derive from
this group work was that she would continue to enjoy living here
in 20 years.
Irene VanDyke, introduced herself as an alternate representative
from the Strayhorn Hills area.
Dan Kenan, an alternate member from the Stoney Creek area,
mentioned that he hoped to maintain a quality of life that
encouraged family life. He indicated that a groundrule he would
like to see added to the list was "exchange relevant information
with non -group members ".
John Ringland, an alternate member from the Old NC 10 South area,
chose as a groundrule "that participants explain reasons behind
statements, questions and actions ". He hoped that a plan be
developed that would be both reasonable and respected by all
interested parties.
Rex Bentley introduced himself as a non -group member.
Heidi Merkel and Eric Fladager introduced themselves as UNC
6
students. They are both members of the class that will be
working on this project.
BREAK
In response to a question, David Stancil indicated that this
group will decide how specific a land use plan will be developed.
Bob Strayhorn asked if a layer of planning was being added by
this process. He asked if Chapel Hill and Carrboro were going to
have authority because part of this area is in the Rural Buffer.
Gene Bell indicated that land use considerations, such as the
Rural Buffer, the Joint Land Use Plan, and whether Chapel Hill
and Carrboro would be a part of this plan, will be addressed at a
subsequent meeting.
Bob Hall suggested that input be solicited from members of other
Small Area Plans.
DISCUSSION ON DEFINITION OF CONSENSUS
Lee Rafalow indicated that one idea of consensus is that if
anyone strongly objects then consensus is not reached. He
participates in a group of approximately 150 members who use this
model and it works very well for them.
Keith Cook indicated that he does not believe that one person
should be able to scuttle the process.
Meg McKean spoke in support of the definition of consensus that
if one member strongly disagrees then consensus is not reached.
She pointed out that members of this group would take that
responsibility very seriously. She did not believe that they
would disagree capriciously.
David Yelton indicated that consensus is a goal. He defined
consensus as being able to resolve all disagreements and agree on
a common statement. However, it.is not a necessity to have
complete agreement. It is possible to offer a dissenting view
point that could be included in the final report.
Dan Teichman, mentioned that consensus is not unanimity by
definition. Dissenting voices, can agree to live with the group
decision. They can agree that their disagreements are not
sufficient to derail the process. The criteria can be whether or
not a member feels that they could live with the decision or not.
It is important that a public record of the meeting be kept.
After further discussion regarding how the word consensus would
be defined for this group, Dan Teichman indicated that this is
not just about the individual members of this group. The
7
individual members are each representing a community of people.
It is important to stay in communication with the community which
is being represented.
Bob Hall asked for clarification of what it means to represent a
group. It does not mean that no decisions can be made until
everything is agreed upon the represented group. It does mean
that individuals will make an effort to be in communication with
the group they represent. Information needs to be shared both
with the group that is represented and with this Planning Group.
Verla Insko asked if all of the members of this Planning Group
agreed that it was possible to share relevant information and
make an attempt to reach a solution that everyone can live with.
Elio Soldi mentioned that it is important to look for win /win
solutions. If we reach consensus but somebody is not part of the
process then we have not won as much. He felt that the fact that
interested parties are not present was a real difficulty. They
may very well not buy into the solution agreed upon here.
Dan Teichman agreed that people not at the table can impede the
movement from advice to implementation. The Board of
Commissioners can try to encourage all interested parties to
attend, however, decisions need to be made even if everyone does
not participate.
Clint Burklin repeated that it is very important to keep the
community informed so that when consensus is reached it is
actually a community consensus, not just a consensus of this Work
Group.
Lee Rafalow mentioned that the power of consensus lies in its
creativity, not in its power as a voting tool. He repeated that
representation by a larger number of community members would
result in a more powerful consensus. He can live with the
composition of this group but would strongly suggest enlarging
it.
Judson Edeburn suggested holding a Public Hearing for the
community to come and voice its concern.
Verla Insko asked if there was agreement that everyone in the
group could live with, and no one had strong objections to, the
guideline that each member could live with the outcome. If the
whole group agrees that a dissenting voice would be included in
the final report, that would be consensus. There was no
disagreement with this statement. The group agreed that a
working definition of consensus would be that the members of this
group come together in good faith to make an attempt to resolve
all disagreements and find outcomes that everyone can live with.
8
It was suggested that minutes and /or a newsletter be mailed to
all interested parties. Also, a community meeting was again
suggested.
Verla mentioned that prior to the next meeting a packet of
reading material will be sent to each member. The effectiveness
of this process depends on everyone reading this material. At
the next meeting, a proposal for each of the three alternatives
will be presented by the UNC students. Each proposal will
require approximately 30 minutes to present.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
1
GROUND RULES
1. Focus on interest not positions **
2. Agree on meanings
3. Stay focused *
4. Discuss undiscussables **
5. Share all relevant info **
6. Steve gives rides - NO CHEAP SHOTS
7. Be factual
8. Don't meet on full moon
9. Reach decision by consensus **
10. Explain reasons behind statements
11. Focus on concensus
12. Disagree openly
13. Exchange relevant information with non -group members
* = Comments in support of statement
2
1. Keep in touch with reality (long process)*
2. What is consensus * **
3. Outcome derailed by absent stakeholders
5
4. Preplanned alternate - bias
5. Have voice in process
6. Hillsborough not at table
7. Optimistic but worried about conflict
8. Past divisiveness
9. Cost to landowners
10. How far out is target to implement
11. Trees left
12. Is this just a frivolous exercise
13. Is it too late to preserve what is special about Orange County
14. Limited voice of citizens
15. Won't get plan implemented
16. Won't reach consensus
17. University Station developers not here
18. Giving Advise -- Implementation
19. What is possible in this area
20. Not everyone is here **
21. Lots of work -$ will prevail
22. Rural Buffer Chapel Hill- Carrboro- -Deal with our own plan
*= Additional comments in agreement
3
OUTCOME
1. Understand alternatives Communicate to neighborhood
2. Communicate back to group
3. Understand each other - consider others
4. Enough handouts for everyone and disseminate information
5. Description -broad information land profile
6. Leave with working knowledge
7. Reasonable scenarios
8. Enthusiasm for outcome
9. Understand and be, able to communicate
- government doesn't hear
10. Knowledge of content & process
11. Better community through sharing
12. Balanced results
13. Be successful model for other groups in county
14. Identify character (special) - preserve
15. Emerge with small area plan that presereves rural character
16. Most powerful outcome= consensus
17. Positive outcome
18. Don't waste our time
Firm grasp of issues \alternatives
19. Long term hospitality \quality of life
20. Children can enjoy this community have special childhood
21. How can citizens have input
22. Community meeting
23. Workable, reasonable plan that is respected
24. WE HAVE HOPE WE CAN REACH CONCENSUS
4
CONSENSUS
-No strong objections
-One strong objection doesn't stop -No Veto
- Resolve all disagreements -is a high goal
(send dissenting viewpoint)
-Not unanimity
-Can live with -can support /can support
Come together in good faith to resolve all disagreement and
find solutions everyone can live with
- Newsletters
- Community Meeting
*= Additional comments in agreement
DRAFT
STONEY CREEK BASIN
AREA PLAN
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
SCENARIOS
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Department of City and Regional Planning
Land Use Workshop
Spring 1995
Introduction
This report has been prepared by the land use planning workshop at the UNC Department of City
and Regional Planning, under the direction of Dr. David Godschalk and Dr. Phil Berke. At the
request of the Orange County Planning staff, the class has designed three development scenarios
for the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area. These designs will be considered by the Stoney
Creek Planning Group in developing a small area plan for the area.
CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: based upon the use of existing regulations and the
continuation of current development patterns.
DENSITY - NEUTRAL DEVELOPMENT: envisions cluster development as a strategy for the
preservation of large open spaces and environmentally - sensitive lands.
NEO- TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT: the establishment of a mixed -use, rail- centered
village core with surrounding, interconnected neighborhoods to foster a strong sense of
community.
Following is a brief summary of each design concept, beginning with a description of the land
suitability analysis performed for each. The suitability analysis provided the foundation for the
conceptual designs which are shown in this packet. The text describes the design concepts,
objectives, and land use estimates for each development scenario. The next phase of the project
will consist of impact analyses for each of the three proposals so that the study group will be able
to fully ascertain the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page]
Land Suitability Analysis
A suitability analysis is a process used to determine the appropriateness of a given tract of land
for a specified use. When viewed collectively the hydrology, geology, and biology of the land
yield insights into the types of uses suitable for a particular parcel of land. Suitability analyses
can be conducted for any type of land use being considered for an area. For the purposes of this
project, the suitability of land for residential uses was the primary concern.
The following three steps were followed in developing this suitability analysis:
1. Identify important land features which may constrain development, including:
• streams and ponds
• floodplains and wetlands
• steep slopes (greater than 15 %)
• natural areas and wildlife corridors
• soils unsuitable for septic systems.
2. Map the land available for development, including:
land not included in established subdivisions
large unused parcels
parcels with minimal existing development at least 10 acres in size which are
contiguous to large undeveloped tracts.
Areas unavailable for planning purposes were masked with a gray screen on the planning
map. Once this was accomplished, it was then possible to determine the number of acres
available for development.
3. Map specific development constraints for each design group:
All three design groups were interested in general constraints such as floodplains and
steep slopes. Differences between group objectives, however, required varying degrees
of focus on certain constraints. For instance, the Density- Neutral design group was
concerned with preserving Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas, while the Neo-
Traditional design group concentrated more upon infrastructure needs. Copies of the
development constraint maps generated for each design group are attached.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page2
��.. ..mom...
oeveiopment Gonstre
Cnnvantinnai naninn
x
ac
conservation Area
[lp- mitt'- Nmitrai nit
ievelopment Constra
4an-Traditinnal Desir
MWOF
w
Conventional Development
Design Concept
The term Conventional Development refers to the type of neighborhood design that has
predominated in this country since World War II. Conventional Development incorporates
primarily single- family homes into neighborhoods characterized by large lots and curvilinear
streets, many of which terminate in cul -de -sacs. These low- density, residential areas are
separated completely from other types of land uses, including commercial and office centers.
Most of the existing residential neighborhoods in the Stony Creek Basin incorporate the basic
principles of Conventional Development design. For instance, individual lot sizes range from
one acre to over ten acres per unit. Also, existing single - family and mobile homes in the basin
are served by on -site septic tanks and wells. All water supply and wastewater treatment needs of
new neighborhoods will be served similarly.
Objectives
Preservation ObJectives
Protect sensitive natural areas,
including:
- wetlands
- flood plains
- steep slopes.
Protect the character of the area
defined in part by:
- Duke Forest
- the designated Rural Buffer
- historic areas.
Preserve existing neighborhoods by:
- avoiding undue disruptions
- providing density transitions.
Development Objectives
Provide a range of housing,
including:
- a range of densities
- a range of costs.
Provide appropriate support
structures, including:
- a community park
- roads.
Maintain the beauty and character of
the area by:
- ensuring that buildings are
aesthetically integrated with the
topography
- encouraging conservation
easements and dedications to
preserve natural corridors
- limiting development in the Rural
Buffer.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page3
Design Process
Two design scenarios were developed to illustrate the continued application of Conventional
Development practices in the Stony Creek Basin. The first scenario allows for intensive
residential development in the basin in accordance with existing zoning ordinances. In the
second scenario new residential development occurs at a density more consistent with that of
existing subdivisions in Orange County. Several assumptions were made in developing the two
design scenarios for Conventional Development:
• New development in areas constrained by steep slopes ( >15 %), soils unsuitable
for septic tanks, floodplains, or wetlands must conform to applicable ordinances
and guidelines.
• Within the Rural Buffer (RB), new development will occur at a density of no
more than one dwelling unit per two acres.
• An allowance of 15% is made to account for that portion of available land used
for new roads and infrastructure.
• All new residential development will be serviced by individual water wells and
septic systems.
• The pattern of new residential development will likely resemble traditional single -
family neighborhood design.
• A 50 -acre community park is planned for the corner of N.C. 10 and New Hope
Church Rd.
• While zoning densities may change within the planning area, no land use rezoning
is anticipated (i.e., no rezoning of land from residential to commercial).
Additional assumptions were made to achieve the goals of each design scenario:
Scenario I: Build -Out at Highest Allowable Density
Existing zoning (one dwelling unit per acre) in the planning area will not be
altered.
The net density for new residential development in the planning area will be one
dwelling unit per acre.
Scenario H: Build -Out at Lesser Density
The net density of new residential development in the planning area will be the
same as the current average net density for existing subdivisions in Orange
County (one dwelling unit per 1.85 acres).
The siting and density of new neighborhoods will account for natural constraints
and take advantage of natural features for recreational and aesthetic purposes
where practical.
The planning and design of new neighborhoods will take into account the existing
character of nearby areas.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, Page4
Results
The following chart illustrates the two development scenarios anticipated under the
Conventional Development design:
'To calculate the total number of buildable dwelling units, Total Acreage is equal to the
total undeveloped acreage in the planning area (1,999 acres) less 33 acres for an existing
commercial area and 50 acres for a planned community park.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, pages
Scenario I
Scenario H
Total Acreage'
1,916 acres
1,916 acres
Adjusted Acreage less
Infrastructure (15 %)
1,629 acres
1,629 acres
Net Density of Planning Area
1 dwelling unit / acre
1 dwelling unit / 1.85 acres
Total Dwelling Units
1,629 units
879 units
'To calculate the total number of buildable dwelling units, Total Acreage is equal to the
total undeveloped acreage in the planning area (1,999 acres) less 33 acres for an existing
commercial area and 50 acres for a planned community park.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, pages
WMWA I
Density - Neutral Development
Design Concept
"Density- Neutral" refers to a type of open -space oriented development that reserves 50% of the
buildable land as undivided, permanent open space. In a density- neutral development, the same
number of houses are built in a subdivision as permitted under existing zoning, but the houses
are clustered together on smaller lots to leave at least 50% of the land open. Half of the open
space in such a development is left in a natural state, while the other half can be used for more
active recreation such as community greens, parks, or ballfields. Density - neutral subdivisions
are often described as "golf course developments without the golf courses" (Designing Open
Space Subdivisions, Arendt)
Density- neutral developments allow residents immediate access to open space and natural areas.
Comparative studies show that property values in such subdivisions appreciate faster than
conventional subdivisions, even though the lots are significantly smaller. In addition, density -
neutral designs allow lots to placed with more consideration for environmentally sensitive areas
and other constraints. Thus, in this type of development, streams, trees and forests, historic sites,
habitats, and other amenities can be preserved for the enjoyment of the residents. At the same
time, lots can be sited away from negative impacts of major roads or railroads.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page6
Objectives
Preservation Objectives Development Objectives
Preserve "primary conservation • Provide the same amount of units on
areas," including: the site as permitted under current
- floodplains zoning regulations. This is where
- wetlands the term "density- neutral" is derived.
- steep slopes.
These areas are unbuildable. Provide a range of housing types and
densities.
Preserve 50% of the remaining
buildable land for open space.
Protect "secondary conservation
areas," including:
- lowland hardwood forests
small tributaries
- unsuitable soils for septic systems
- historic areas
• Reduce engineering, construction,
and maintenance costs by
implementing environmental
protection measures.
• Consider a combination of sewage
disposal and water supply
alternatives based on the unique
features of each neighborhood.
• Provide every household views of
natural open space. Carefully consider site topography in
the siting of roads.
• Provide social and/or recreational
open space within walking distance
of each household.
• Provide vegetative buffers between
neighborhoods.
• Protect the character of the
surrounding area.
Design Process
The design process for a density - neutral development consists of a "yield" analysis from which
the site design is based. The yield plan involves calculating the total number of lots permitted by
existing zoning. For the Stoney Creek area, the yield was calculated using the county average of
1.85 acre lots. The design process follows four - steps:
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page?
1. Identify potential open space areas:
Locate primary conservation areas which cannot be built upon. For the Stoney
Creek Basin, primary conservation areas consist of flood plains, steep slopes, and
wetlands. These areas form the spine of open space in the area.
Identify secondary conservation areas which contain significant natural or
cultural resources. For Stoney Creek, secondary conservation areas consist of
hardwood forests, open meadows, historic sites, and soils unsuitable for septic
tanks.
Map Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas.
2. Locate sites for residential uses:
No lots are placed in primary conservation areas. To the extent possible, lots are placed
around but not in the secondary conservation areas. An optimal outcome would give
each house direct access to an open space, either in the front or the back. Space should
be left between lots to allow access to open space lying behind a row of houses. In the
Stoney Creek development, lots next to stream corridors, open meadows and wooded
hilltops were maximized to provide views and access to open space for each household.
Because of the size and scale of the design area, this scenario uses relatively uniform lot
sizes ranging from 1/2 acre to 1 acre.
3. Design roads:
Roads should basically follow the alignment suggested by house sites. Some adjustments
between the road design and house sites will have to occur to accommodate the width of,
the road. In Stoney Creek, access points onto major roads were a major concern given the
built -up nature of much of the area.
4. Draw lot lines:
Because of the smaller size of lots in density - neutral developments, lot lines can be
drawn close to one side of the buildings (zero lot line set back) to give larger, usable side
yards on the other side of the house. In general, the access each lot has to large open
areas is more important in these subdivisions than the personal land at each house. It is
still important, however, to make the personal space on each lot a useful and pleasant
space that relates to the larger, surrounding open spaces. Due to the size and scale of the
design area, this step was not performed in this design scenario.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page8
Results
The following charts illustrates the development anticipated under the Neutral - Density design
scenario:
'To calculate the total number of buildable dwelling units, Total Acreage is equal to the
total undeveloped acreage in the planning area (1,999 acres) less 42 acres for a planned
community park.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page9
Density- Neutral Design
Total Acreage
1,957 acres
Adjusted Acreage less Infrastructure (15 %)
1,664 acres
Net Density of Planning Area
1 dwelling unit / 1.85 acres
Total Dwelling Units
899 units
'To calculate the total number of buildable dwelling units, Total Acreage is equal to the
total undeveloped acreage in the planning area (1,999 acres) less 42 acres for a planned
community park.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page9
Acreage
Percentage
Total Area in Open Space
1,171 acres
59%
Primary Conservation Areas
302 acres
- --
Secondary Conservation Areas and
Other Open Space
869 acres
- --
Total Developed Area
828 acres
41%
Total Area Available for Planning
1 999 acres
100%
'To calculate the total number of buildable dwelling units, Total Acreage is equal to the
total undeveloped acreage in the planning area (1,999 acres) less 42 acres for a planned
community park.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page9
Neo- Traditional Development
Design Concept
Interest in neo- traditional design has been growing in recent years as the negative effects of low -
density sprawl are becoming more apparent in the form of traffic congestion, loss of open space
and social isolation. The primary aim of neo - traditional development is to reproduce the strong
feeling of community found in older, established neighborhoods by creating pedestrian- friendly,
mixed -use environments. This goal can be accomplished by emphasizing:
• Reduced automobile dependency
• Integration, not separation, of land uses
• Inward neighborhood focus, not dispersal of destinations
• Streets as focal points, not mere thoroughfares
• Revival of social interaction and shared community vision
• Flexible design guidelines, not rigid engineering standards
Applying these principles results in a development pattern centered around a village core,
featuring a vibrant mix of shops and residences. Surrounding the core will be residential
neighborhoods with densities decreasing with distance from the core. The development design
can accommodate a variety of single and multi - family options. Public gathering spaces, human -
scaled streetscapes, and appropriate architecture will link neighborhoods throughout the
development together.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page10
Objectives
Preservation Objectives:
Protect environmentally sensitive
areas, including:
- floodplains
- steep slopes
- wildlife habitat corridors
- the designated Rural Buffer.
Protect the character of the area
defined in part by:
- Duke Forest
- the designated Rural Buffer
- historic areas.
Protect existing neighborhoods by:
- buffering existing and proposed
neighborhoods
- providing density transitions.
Development Objectives:
Reduce dependence on automobiles
by providing for transportation
alternatives, including:
- expanded bus service
- potential light rail service
- extensive pedestrian and bike
paths.
Maximize public access to natural
areas from all neighborhoods.
Foster a sense of community by:
- establishing a village core
- designing attractive streetscapes
- linking neighborhoods visually and
physically.
Emphasize topographical features by
utilizing ridge tops as focal points.
Provide a variety of housing,
including:
- single - family homes
- apartments above shops
- multi - family dwellings.
Provide public amenities, including:
- parks and greenways
- public schools and day care
- emergency services.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page] I
Design Process
The following steps describe the process which culminated in the final design concept:
1. Determine the most suitable location for the village core:
Using the maps generated in the land suitability analysis and site visits, the design team
analyzed several potential village core locations. Sites were assessed based on proximity
to the rail transit corridor defined by the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) and proximity
to existing main roads. Other criteria included contiguity of developable land,
topography and environmental constraints, visibility of the site, and potential for water
and sewer extensions.
2. Identify other neighborhood sites:
The suitability of neighborhood locations surrounding the village core was based upon
proximity to the village core (and its proposed rail transit station) and centered around
historically or topographically significant focal points. Moderate - density neighborhoods
were sited within 3/4 mile of the village core in order to support the proposed rail transit
station and to provide an adequate market for the commercial uses in the village core.
3. Establish strong connections between focal points:
To link the surrounding neighborhoods to the village core, and to enhance the sense of
community within the village, strong visual and pedestrian connections were established.
Connections were designed to take advantage of, and highlight, the existing topography.
4. Develop independent pedestrian and auto networks:
New road alignments were designed to provide access between neighborhoods and the
village core, and to structure each neighborhood around its focal point. Existing
alignments were preserved wherever feasible. Sidewalks and connecting greenways will
be used as pedestrian and bicycle routes. Greenway path alternatives were identified by
highlighting linear environmentally sensitive features, and assessing their suitability as
pedestrian linkages between neighborhoods and the village core. Duke Forest was
considered as a potential link between the western parcels and the village core, creating a
circular greenway system.
5. Define neighborhoods:
Neighborhoods were designed to possess individual identities as well as to support the
village core. Wherever possible, greenways were used to define neighborhoods. Each
neighborhood is centered around a focal point, such as a hilltop or historic site. Specific
design guidelines will be proposed for each neighborhood, in order to establish and
maintain its unique character.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page] 2
Results
The following chart illustrates the development anticipated under the Neo- traditional design
scenario:
Residential Density
Dwelling
Unit / acre
Gross
Acreage
Net
Acreage*
Total Dwelling
Units
Low Density
1
800
600
600
Medium Density
7
370
278
1 946
Mixed Use
7
15
11
79
HE Density
22
41
31
682
Total Residential
1,227 acres
920 acres
3,307 units
Other Land Uses
Commercial
10
Civic Areas
29
Transit Stop
1
Parks, Greenways and
Utility Easement
748
Total Proiect Acreage
6
* Net acreage is the gross acreage adjusted 25% to allow for roads, sidewalks, and alleys.
** Result obtained by assuming average household size of 2.34 persons (source: 1990 Census for
Orange County) multiplied by 3,307 dwelling units.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page13
f I Ilr I••I �
�� �` �i,