Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 081795ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ITy 3_ s AGENDA Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 7 ursday, August 17, 1995 7:30 PM TIME AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - Verla Insko', Facilitator 7:35 2. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from July 20 7:40 3. STATUS REPORT ON SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLANS IN THE STONEY CREEK BASIN - Mary Willis 8:15 4. BREAK 8:20 5. REVIEW OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES - Verla Insko /Gene Bell 9:50 6. SUMMATION OF MEETING 9:55 7. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING 10:00 8. ADJOURNMENT ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING ]DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ot, o/ MEMORANDUM Received AUG 15 1995 Managers Office TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III SUBJ: August 17 Meeting of Work Group DATE: August 11, 1995 Enclosed are the agenda materials the planning group. We have two main the meeting which are detailed below. for next week's meeting of items for consideration at Status Report on Subdivision Concept Plans Between September 1994 and February 1995, concept plans for four subdivisions in the vicinity of Old NC 10, New Hope Church Road, and University Station Road were approved by the Planning Board. Current Planning Supervisor, Mary Willis will give a short presentation and respond to questions on the plans as well as the subdivision approval process. She has prepared a short report which is enclosed. Review of Plan Alternatives In June we began the process of defining a "vision" for the Stoney Creek area which would translate into a series of goal statements to guide preparation of the plan. Our July 20 meeting was a continuation of the process we began in June. By the end of the July meeting I detected two distinct group viewpoints; one, that we had spent enough time on defining a "vision" and it was time to move forward, and two, consensus had not been reached on a "vision" and additional discussion was needed. Group members wanting to "move forward" asked that maps of the plan alternatives be brought to the August meeting so that they could begin evaluating them. I understand the desire to move forward and begin reviewing the alternatives. However, as lead planner for the project, I definitely see the need for a clearly defined vision to guide the remainder of the process. Verla Insko and I have discussed these issues and in an effort to try and address both viewpoints expressed by the group, suggest the following for our next meeting: 1) I've prepared a listing of various statements relative to a "vision" for the area. These come from two primary sources, the Rural Character Study and what I've heard group members saying in meetings. In my efforts to avoid redundancy I may have overlooked some relevant statements so please review the list carefully. For each statement a response of agree, disagree, or undecided is requested. There is also a comment line provided and space is left at the bottom of the form for additional comments. Please` fill the sheets out and bring them to the meeting next week where they'll be collected. Planning staff will tabulate the results which will be reported at the September meeting. 2) The second part of the process will involve a cursory review of the various plan alternatives at our meeting. Included in this mailing is a revised student report* which includes color maps and documentation on the Conventional, Density- neutral, and Neo- traditional plan alternatives (refer to your May 18 materials for the Rural Character alternative) . I will also try to have wall maps and /or overheads of the plan alternatives at the meeting. For each alternative we'll go around the table and ask group members to list features they like /dislike and why. We will record the responses and compile them along with the results from the "vision" list discussed above. Following the meeting, planning staff will compile and group the responses to 1 and 2 above and bring them to the September meeting for discussion. There should be several areas on which consensus is obvious, requiring only acknowledgment by the group. On other issues, it is hoped that discussion and minor modification will result in consensus. The desired outcome of the meeting will be a fairly well - defined set of "vision" statements which we will use to guide us in a design studio proposed for October. The design studio will be discussed in greater detail at our September meeting. * The appendices for the revised report are in excess of 110 pages and I have not included them in this mailing due to limitations on copier time and also in an effort to hold down postage costs. I will bring copies of the appendices to the meeting for those who desire a copy. MMI V STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP JULY 20, 1995 NIINUTES The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, July 20, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the Fellowship Hall of the New Hope Presbyterian Church on Highway 86. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Cook, Clint Burklin, Bob Hall, Dean Zehnder, Bob Strayhom, Judd Edebum, Dan Kenan, (alternate), Robert Nicholson, Meg McKean, Curtis Bane, Irene VanDyke (alternate), Bill Bracey, Renee Price, Dr. Angelaurelio Soldi, Lee Rafalow, Dan Teichman , and Kim Price (alternate). MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Hanker, Michael Warner, Steve Price, Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis, and Commissioner Don Willhoit. STAFF PRESENT: Planners Gene Bell and David Stancil and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. FACILITATOR PRESENT: Verla Insko ANNOUNCEMENTS: Gene Bell mentioned that future meetings will be held at the Emergency Management Services facility. Planner Mary Willis is scheduled to give a status report on the Concept Plans for the area that has become known as University Station. This report will be presented at the next meeting. Cheri Rosemond, Planning Board representative, has resigned and been replaced by Renee Price. MINUTES: The minutes of the June 1821995 were approved by consensus. Lee Rafalow mentioned that the last newsletter stated that general consensus had been reached on a number of items. He felt that this was a misrepresentation and that, in fact, consensus had not been reached. Keith Cook reported that he recently heard a report on proposed activity in the Stoney Creek area which led him to question if any development plans have been finalized for this area. Gene Bell replied that Mary Willis will be reporting on those concept plans at the next meeting. The developers have presented the concept plan which means that the plans are not finalized. However, when proposed developments meet the requirements established by County ordinances, those plans will be approved regardless of where this Work Group is in its process. He explained that if recommendations from this group were adopted by the Board of Commissioners, all proposed developments, which had not already received Preliminary Approval, would be required to meet the new standards. Clint Burklin said that any recommendations made by this group would have a greatly increased impact if those recommendations were a result of a consensus by the group. Verla Insko mentioned the importance of articulating core values out of which guidelines are created. For example, valid information means that it is correct and accurate as well as complete. Also, being committed to the outcome is critical to the success of this work. If information appears to be missing it is important to bring that information to the table now rather than at a Public Hearing. DEFINING RURAL CHARACTER: Verla Insko suggested that each participant share their definition of Rural Character. Dr. Soldi felt that the Rural Character Study was a good model for this group to emulate because it did not force solutions upon people but rather provided incentive for them to chose something better. Lee Rafalow commented that it was important to use this process to envision what can be achieved as a community. After the vision has been clarified is the appropriate time to deal with existing limitations. Bob Strayhom requested that everyone keep in mind the overall effect on the entire community not just individual segments. The Rural Character Study was developed as a voluntary program. The intention was to make options available to landowners who were considering developing agricultural land. It was mentioned that at the last meeting there was consensus that everyone wanted 1) value, 2) preservation of rural character and 3) preservation of property rights. It was understood that there could be some inherent conflicts between 2 and 32 but it was important to strive for those goals. Dan Teichman mentioned that the goals from the Rural Character Study were listed in Newsletter #4. Those goals were: Preservation of Agriculture and Managed Forest Land; Protection of Natural and Cultural Resources; Protection of Visual Resources, Orderly Growth, and Flexibility for Land Owners. Those goals could be considered with the intent of determining if they embody rural character for this group. They could be used as a starting place for discussion. Lee Rafalow suggested that he would like this community to retain natural systems wherever they currently exist. For example, on the University Station tract, the preservation of rural character would mean that the natural systems remain the dominant systems. One example of a natural system is creek beds. This would not exclude development but it would be a means to preserve these areas. Clint Burklin indicated that his defination of rural character would be a mosaic of neighborhoods that range from 1 to 5 acres in equal amounts, no strip commercial development on Highway 86 or on I -40 and preserving the streams in their present state. Dean Zehnder hoped that development would be encouraged in such a way as to allow it to remain invisible from the roadways. Maintaining view scapes is necessary for the maintenance of rural character. A lack of urban noises is critical for the successful outcome of this project. It is important to be able to hear the noises which are typical for the changing seasons. Bobby Nicholson mentioned that, although he would like to see a more rural character remain in the Stoney Creek community, the reality he sees is toward controlled growth. The growth that he envisions would preserve the peaceful character of this community with view scapes, wildlife corridors, protected stream banks, etc. He hoped that consensus is reached so that the recommendations forwarded to the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners will hold the power of unanimity. Irene VanDyke indicated that maintaining wildlife corridors was important to her vision for the community. However, the community must financially support the preservation of vistas and not expect others to do it for them. Dan Kenan indicated that cooperation among landowners between Duke Forest along Stoney Creek to the Eno River would preserve a cooridor to the Eno River. The flood plains also need to be protected. Meg McKean stated that this area does not need to bear the burden for every imaginable kind of growth. The design guidelines need to be a part of a larger plan for concentrating additional growth and development near areas which are already densely populated. Curtis Bane said that maintaining the current character while protecting vistas and buffers was a part of his vision. He suggested that members of this work group read the Economic Development District (EDD) guildelines. This is a good plan. The introduction of water and sewer into a neo- traditional setting would greately increase density, however, the homes would be affordable. It is important to create affordable housing so that young families can remain in Orange County. Lee Rafalow stated that maintaining small agricultural operations is one of the outcomes he would like to see for this community. Bob Strayhorn indicated that he supported the Rural Character Study Report. The voluntary aspect of the Study was critical to its success. A part of his vision would be for low density. Judd Edeburn questioned how anticipated development would affect the current transportation corridors. At what point would roads need to be widened and traffic lights added. Those events will greatly affect the character of the region. He suggested looking at existing density and commercial development trends and continue those trends. Bob Strayhom felt that the landowners around the interchanges are limited in what can be done with their land. With the right kind of plan, it would be possible for them to develop their land in a way that was not detrimental to the community. He suggested development options be provided that would be in keeping with the existing character. Bill Bracey mentioned that a completely voluntary plan for the community would be great, however, experience suggests that some regulations will be necessary. It is important that a workable plan be the outcome of this work group's efforts. Staff could present a report defining exactly what a small area plan could accomplish. It is important that this group receive proper guidance from County staff so that it does not come up with a plan that cannot be implemented without regulations which are unrealistic. Gene Bell mentioned that if nothing is done thru this process, the current plan will stay in effect. Several months ago he distributed information explaining what the different classifications meant and how they translated into zoning, etc. The students' Conventional Development Plan of one or two acre lots is what would probably be the outcome for the areas on the map that were highlighted in yellow. The green areas would be two acre lots. The northwest portion could be a denser type of development due to the possiblity of water and sewer being extended into that area. Renee Price suggested that the group consider what they would envision 5 and 10 years down the road. Also, it would be helpful to consider what types of development is happening in surrounding areas. There are alternatives to the traditional land control methods. It is possible to plan for a community without establishing restrictive rules. Verla Insko commented that there appeared to be general agreement about what the group likes. It is not important to discuss those further. Now it is possible to discuss the mechanism for getting there. Lee Rafalow suggested that a map be created for the next meeting which would display the different types of development that the group as a whole envisions. Irene VanDyke felt that everyone's needs could be met if the 1 and 5 acre plans were abandoned and cluster development is encouraged. Meg McKean mentioned that the plans presented by the students were intended to be reviewed by the Work Group. It is important to apply the principles this group agrees upon to those plans. Then the results could be distilled into a new plan. She suggested that one of the students' plans be chosen for review at the next meeting. Everyone could read it carefully prior to the meeting and come with suggestions and comments to the meeting. Bob Hall suggested that the next 20 years be considered so that population density could be determined for the future. Renee Price suggested reviewing types of development and how much of each type of development would be optimum for the community. Lee Rafalow suggested that a small group be empowered to create a "straw" plan to be reviewed at the next meeting. The plan would suggest what the Stoney Creek area would look like 20 years from now. Judd Edebum suggested that the lower buildout number be used to develop a plan that accomodates that number in a creative way so that the 5 rural character goals are preserved. Meg McKean felt that the plans need to be critiqued and then distilled into something that the group can reach consensus on. Bobby Nicholson felt that it was important to formulate a direction before reviewing the plans. If not, he was concerned that the group would get bogged down. Verla Insko summarized that there were three suggestions on the floor. The first was for a subcommittee to take the guidelines, Land Use Plan, and population number and develop a plan. The second suggestion was to review each of the plans presented by the UNC students. The last suggestion was to pick only one of the previously presented plans and work on that one as a group. Keith Cook suggested that all five plans be considered by the group at the next meeting. The elements of each plan that gets support from the group could be used to create a plan that has consensus. Bob Hall suggested that different members of the group present the strengths and weaknesses of each of the five plans. They could indicate how each plan could be used to accomplish the group's goals as well as point out inherent weaknesses. Renee Price suggested that a weighted voting process could be used. She felt that this process would work very well. Verla Insko suggested that a mechanism be established for the next meeting so that the plans could be reviewed systematically in order to come up with a goal that would incorporate the rural character guidelines. David Stancil mentioned that he felt the need to stress the importance of making sure that all of the goals had been completely and adequately covered. He felt that some issues had not been discussed and that some goals appeared not to have been completely discussed. He encouraged all members to be sure that they felt that they had adequately addressed the whole range of goals. There is a danger in skipping steps in the process because assumptions may be made that need to be addressed further at a later date. He felt that it was important not to skip steps in the process. Bob Hall agreed that several issues had not been adequately addressed. One of those was respect for property rights. The community being discussed -here is-Pretty much developed already. The undeveloped land belongs to someone and they must be fairly compensated for their land. That discussion is important because it will open up the conversation about voluntary vs. regulatory. Another issue that has not been thoroughly discussed is affordable housing. Curtis Bane suggested that the people who actually owned the developable land be encouraged to share their vision of the future for this land. Meg McKean suggested that the five plans be reviewed by each member, not with the intention of picking a winning plan, but rather to select features that seem workable for this area and merge them into a single plan. Verla Insko summarized that the consensus seemed to be that each member would review the UNC students five development options prior to the next meeting and come prepared to discuss them, select winning features, and begin to create an ideal plan for this community. Lee Rafalow mentioned that the convergence on the Rural Character Study guidelines is not something that he agrees with. He took exception to the notion of orderly growth. He has a goal of having an orderly community which may or may not include growth. He also took exception to the goal of landowners being able to do anything that they want to do with their land. He felt that a reasonable goal was that they get fair value for their land if they choose to sell. Everyone in the community has a stake in the community. Also, everyone gets value out of their own land as well as out of the land around them. Bob Strayhorn stated that flexibility is not intended to mean that landowners can do anything they want but rather that they would have the option of selling their land in a variety of different ways. This was intended to correct an exisiting situation which encouraged landowners to subdivide all their land in the same way. Lee Rafalow said that developers want to know exactly what they can do with land that they own and he would also like to know exactly what his neighbors can do with their land. He felt that everyone in the community would be well served by knowing what constraints are being agreed to ahead of time. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The next meeting of this Work Group will be held on Thursday, August 17, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the Emergency Management Services facility on New Hope Church Road. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk M E M O R A N D U M TO: Stoney Creek Basin Workgroup FROM: Mary Willis, Planner III DATE: August 10, 1995 SUBJECT: Status Report - Concept Plans Approved in Stoney Creek Area Attached is a report concerning the status of Concept Plans which have been approved in the Stoney Creek Basin Area. The report was presented to the Board of Commissioenrs on June 26, 1995. The Board directed planning staff to present the report to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council, the Orange County School Board and the Stoney Creek Basin Workgroup for review and comment. (Please note that the Preliminary Plan for Stoney Creek I was not submitted as anticipated on page 2 the report.) to SUBJECT: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 26, 1995 Action Agenda Item # X - A STATUS REPORT - CONCEPT PLANS APPROVED IN STONEY CREEK AREA DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHIYIENT(S): Composite Subdivision/Site Features Map Recreation Master Plan Community Park Schematic Plan Recreation Service Area Map Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area Map PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X -No INFORIYIATION CONTACT: Mary Willis - Extension 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill -967-9251 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane -327-2031 V1 PURPOSE: To receive information concerning the status of Concept Plans which have been approved in the Stoney Creek area. BACKGROUND: Between September 1994 and February 1995, Concept Plans for four subdivisions in the vicinity of NC 10, New Hope Church Road and University Station Road were approved by the Planning Board. Combined, the Concept Plans propose a total of 493 residential lots as outlined below: Concept Plan Number of Lots Acres Density* (Lots /Acre) Average Lot Size* Guernsdale • Phase I 10 25 0.40 2.50 • Phase H 72 137 0.53 1.90 Stoney Creek Farms • Phase I 60 99 0.61 1.65 i Phase 11 35 75 0.47 2.14 • Phase III 79 147 0.54 1.86 Craig Manor 79 120 0.66 1.52 University Trace 158 245 0.64 1.55 Total - All Plans 493 848 0.58 1.72 *Calculation includes street rights -of -way. Development of this area presents an opportunity to preserve and protect natural resources, and obtain area for a community park proposed in the Recreation and Parks Master Plan. 2 • Stoney Creek flows in a northeasterly direction through the area bounded by the Concept Plans. Approximately 130 acres along the creek and its tributaries consist of floodplain, wetlands, natural areas, and steep slopes. These features are located generally in a wildlife corridor designated in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats. In addition, five sites have been identified as part of the Orange County historic inventory. These features were considered extensively as part of the University Station Planning Group initiative (see attached descriptions and maps). They are currently under consideration by the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group (see attached vicinity map and Planning Group chronology). For the purpose of this report, the features have been combined into a composite overlay to show their relationship to the approved Concept Plans (see attached composite map). • The Master Recreation and Parks Plan proposes a community park in the vicinity of New Hope Church Road and NC 10. The minimum size needed for such a park is 25 acres, and the average service radius is 1 -2 miles. Such parks generally serve several neighborhoods, providing active recreation opportunities such baseball and softball, tennis, volleyball, basketball, and jogging. A water body is a component typically located in a community park as well as natural areas for passive activities such as picnicking and hiking (see attached Master Plan and schematic diagram of Community Park). The Concept Plan approval for each of the subdivisions containing area along Stoney Creek includes a condition that floodplain, wetlands, and other natural areas be preserved. The approvals did not address the issue of parkland dedication or payment -in -lieu of dedication. Normally, the size of a subdivision is not sufficient to require dedication of land. However, in the case of a single, unified development, or, in the case of several contiguous subdivisions, parkland dedication rather than payment -in -lieu would be considered. Options to Address Resource Protection Although the Concept Plans are contiguous and interconnecting, the land included in the Concept Plans is in separate ownership, and each tract may be developed independently of the others. As noted previously, each Preliminary Plan must provide protection for the natural resources along Stoney Creek. There are several options which may be used to accomplish this goal, including the following: • Inclusion of the natural features within the boundaries of individual lots, with protection provided through recordation of a conservation easement held by Orange County, a non -profit land conservancy or a homeowners association. The boundaries of the conservation easement would be set to include those features warranting protection. The easement agreement would contain provisions to insure protection of the resources and would be enforced by the holder of the easement. • Creation of a separate parcel which includes those features warranting protection, with dedication of the land to Orange County, a non - profit land conservancy or a homeowners association. • Some combination of the above such as a situation where a separate parcel is 3 created and owned by a homeowners association, but a conservation easement is held by Orange County or a non - profit land conservancy. Associated with such an approach is the potential for the land owners or developers qualifying for tax credits if the land is voluntarily protected through a conservation easement. Information regarding such an approach was recently presented to the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board. Options to Address Parkland Dedication/Payment-In-Lieu Provisions Section IV -B -7 -b of the Subdivision Regulations requires at least 1 /35th of an acre to be dedicated for each dwelling unit planned or provided for in the subdivision plan. An exception to this standard is where land characterized by floodplains and/or steep slopes is dedicated, the requirement is 1 /20th of an acre. Upon finding that no recreation/open space sites have been designated on the Comprehensive Plan for the property in question, the Board of Commissioners may approve a payment -in -lieu of dedication. Such a payment must equal the number of acres required to be dedicated multiplied by the fair market value of the land to be dedicated. Fair market value is determined by dividing the tax appraisal of the property at last revaluation by the current year assessment ratio. Since the adoption of the dedication/payment -in -lieu provisions in 1987, Orange County has collected $5,040 in payments from subdivisions in the Eno Community Park Service Area (see attached Recreation Service Area Boundaries Map). The amount of land dedicated or payments -in -lieu which could be expected from the four subdivisions is shown below. * Based on average assessed value of $2,470 per acre. To put the payments -in -lieu in context, land purchased for the New Hope Elementary School cost $15,000 per acre. Nevertheless, options to address dedication/payment -in -lieu requirements include the following. Dedication Requirement Payment -in -Lieu Number (Acres) Requirement* Concept Plan of Lots @ 1/35th @ 1 /20th @ 1 /35th @ 1 /20th Guernsdale • Phase I 10 0.286 0.500 $706 $1,235 • Phase II 72 2.057 3.600 $5,081 $8,892 Stoney Creek Farms • Phase I 60 1.714 3.000 $4,234 $7,410 • Phase II 35 1.000 1.750 $2,470 $4,323 • Phase III 79 2.257 3.950 $5,575 $9,757 Craig Manor 79 2.257 3.950 $5,575 $9,757 University Trace 158 4.514 7.900 $11,150 $19,513 Total - All Plans 493----1-- 14.085 24.650 - $349791— -- $609887 * Based on average assessed value of $2,470 per acre. To put the payments -in -lieu in context, land purchased for the New Hope Elementary School cost $15,000 per acre. Nevertheless, options to address dedication/payment -in -lieu requirements include the following. 4 • Dedication of a single park site (25 + acres) to collectively satisfy dedication/payment -in -lieu requirements for all of the developments. This would require collaboration on the part of the individual developers and property owners. During consideration of the University Station project, dedication of a park site was proposed on the north side of NC 10 near its intersection with New Hope Church Road (between NC 10 and the Southern Railroad). Another possibility is dedication of a combination of resource protection area along Stoney Creek and dry, upland area adjacent thereto. In the case of the upland area, approximately 12 -13 acres would be needed for active recreational facilities. The adjoining resource protection area might be planned for nature walks and used for educational purposes. • Acceptance of the required payments -irl -lieu if property owners and developers are unable to collaborate on the dedication of a park site. Should this prove to be the only option available, the Board of Commissioners may wish to direct the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council and the Planning Board to review the current ordinance provisions to assure that the dedication/payment -in -lieu requirements are adequate to meet the long -term recreational needs of county residents. Anticipated Preliminary Plan Review Schedule The Planning Staff anticipates submittal of a Preliminary Plan for the area covered in the Stoney Creek I Concept Plan in July, with a tentative Planning Board meeting date of September 18. The area covered by the Preliminary Plan is approximately 100 acres bounded by NC 10, New Hope Church Road, and Stoney Creek. Approximately 30 acres is included in floodplain, wetlands, natural areas, and steep slopes. This will be the first Preliminary Plan to be submitted for the area covered by the Concept Plans. Preliminary Plans for the remainder of the area may be submitted during the next year. The Planning Staff is tentatively scheduled to present information concerning the Concept Plans to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC) at its meeting on July 11. The recommendations of RPAC would be considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. If the Planning Board makes a recommendation at its meeting on September 18, then the proposal could be submitted to the Board of Commissioners for a decision on October 2. RECOMMENDATION: Although this item is presented to inform the Board of the status of the above mentioned subdivisions, comments and/or direction from the Board would be appreciated. to � 5 lz o o P� w� raw V Fl I c o u w r Y 30 1 z v � u E APPENDIX E fi i RECREATION SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES ENO COMMUNITY PARK SERVICE AREA INC.kREA 3' r Legend: • Community Park ■ District Park I Community Park Service Area Boundary MEN. District Park Service Area Boundary EXHIBIT 5 -3� 4, 0V �f 0 ! TYPICAL .:.....:... CO1vFMUNITY PA'R,Kl. 25+ ACRES _ 29 �OCI�i ►�.tC Tt'dlL PIGS! cc dr'r�, �— Vo LLE`l ESL L af-yj klG . t � V-� GALL r" --(ql eo ukrD �-- PAL.YJ kiq CDA1cE5 5101 6U1 L� IA1Ct ORANGE COUNTY MASTER RECREATION .AND PARKS PLAN i Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area =2 OR-ME CC4-*M ..,.K„. 't` v9/95 Sc* 1:1000 Legend: Planning Area Economic Development Districts ® Duke Forest N Neighborhood Boundaries J urn —cd —1 'JJ:) 1b; 15 r r :ui i UMHNUC u 1 r i U 1 Na Drti— l i UN!=i H. J� M M V a' 26REWAX � U D fl CREEX MEA Planning Director Mervin Collins pre nted information as contained in the agenda. He showed on a ge map the four concept plans that have been received between Sep tuber 1994 and February 1995. Comments received from the Board of Count Commissioners are listed - below: Commissioner Gordon said that the wo of wisdom is to revisit the provisions of the dedication of land or p ent -in -lieu provisions. Commissioner Wiilhoit - made reference o the conservation area and asked how Craig Manor and University Trac participate in that. Commissioner Gordon asked about the F and Marvin Collins said that there is notl developers want to do a cluster subdivisic Commissioner Willhoit made reference how that helped.with conservation. Is it would like to see an effort put into enhan wildlife corridor into some kind of park c that were possible would there be addition area. Are they required to preserve it an indicated that by complying with the wetla requirements,, they are preserving some of ownership. A conservation easement could provide more protection. Commissioner Wil for this area.-to be protected. 'otection for the green area ng to protect it unless the . :o the nature trail and asked lossible to have both. He inq the conservation and incept or nature trail. If 1 acreage put into this way? Marvin Collins ds and stream buffer t but it is still in .private I t on top of this and hoit stated he would like Commissioner fa1kiot s asked if the d velopers would be more hesitant to:i i messing around with that sn elike piece in the middle or would they rather get you off their bac ,by working out an agreement for the designated park area. The bottom ine is that a bunch of homeowners don' °t want a bunch of people ru ing around their back yard. Marvin Collins said that the developers ha a $ome interest in both. Commissioner Gordon asked Marvin what could be done to facilitate this. She later suggested taking the dedi ation of land /payment in lieu provisions to . public hearing_ in .Augus Commissioner Willhoit stated he likes the idea of folding the recreation area into the greenway concept. He also asked that the plan be shown to orange County Schools to see i they are specifically interested in a school site in this area. The parcel referred to as a location for a park may be appropriate for a school site. Commissioner- Wil.1ho t said that this needs to be presented to the Stoney Creek Study committee. It may give em some incentives to consider sc me of the alternative proposals Marvin Collins.said that they plan to how this map to the schools and the Stoney Creek Study.Committee, Recr Lion and:Parks Board and others. TOTAL P.02 RURAL CHARACTER GOALS 1. Preserve agriculture Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 2. Protect natural and cultural resources Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 3. Protect visual resources Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 4. Manage orderly growth Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: S. Provide flexibility for landowners Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: PLANNING GROUP COMMENTS 1. Retain current character of area; preserve as much as possible Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 2. Keep density low; set a population or density cap Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 3. Provide more public lands, parks, trails..... Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 4. Save open space when area is built out Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: S. Encourage diversity /sense of community Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 6. Allow owners to realize value from their land Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 7. Maintain viability of natural systems Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 8. Screen development from the roads Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 9. Maintain wildlife corridors Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 10. Encourage higher density adjacent to existing urban areas Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: 11. Affordable housing Agree: Disagree: Undecided: Comments: Additional Comments: