|
Chapel Hill Township • and
<br />Educational • • •
<br />naffff • • • 11
<br />Members Present: Wendy Bryan, Jay Bryan, Gloria Faley, Delores Simpson, Judson
<br />Edeburn, Johnny Randall, , Doris Murrell, Robb English, Judy Margolis, Terri Tyson,
<br />Matthew Barton, Kathy Kaufman, Nick Didow, Patrick Sullivan, Jeanette Moore, John
<br />Herrera. Members Absent: Joe Herzenberg, Elizabeth Brown, Margaret Brown, Alice
<br />Gordon, Renee Price, Bill Strom, Kory Wilmot
<br />Staff Present: David Stancil, Lori Taft, Steve Scroggs, Bill Mullin, Kimberly Siran, Tina
<br />Moon, Carol Rosemond, Craig Benedict, John Link, Gwen Harvey.
<br />David Stancil called the meeting to order, and asked for the group's agreement to serve as
<br />convener for a worksession of the Work Group (which was agreed to by consensus). Stancil
<br />suggested that for this evening, having visited the site and learned about the site, the Work
<br />Group begin to move into the implications of what the site information means. Kimberly
<br />Siran would be asked to pick up with where the group left the October meeting, and discuss
<br />how the site analysis map was created and other ways to look at the site using the available
<br />data. Once that is done, feedback could be received from the group on opportunities and
<br />constraints that are seen (from site visits and the information presented). A summary list of
<br />opportunities and constraints was distributed. It was proposed that the meeting conclude
<br />with requests for information and wrap up with the information on the field trips.
<br />Siran explained that the goal of site analysis is to reflect allow the natural features of the
<br />land to reflect the traditional pattern of rural development — in this case the site has always
<br />been a farm, so where was the farmstead, cropland; the pastures? Once this is know, the
<br />designer tries to embed this new pattern of playing fields, schools into that traditional
<br />pattern. The site analysis maps involve an overlay process, using orthophoto maps (1993 &
<br />1998), wetlands & hydrology maps showing stream and slopes, streams, a land use map,
<br />topography and soils maps shows severe slopes and suitable soils for development potential,
<br />and vegetation patterns. All of these combine all the information to develop the site analysis
<br />map. From that map the land unit areas that are suitable for development should begin to
<br />emerge, to reflect the land's traditional rural pattern. A discussion followed on the possible
<br />developable areas, how to determine where soil borings should be pursued, suggestions of
<br />providing cut outs to place and move around on the scale, building on the land without
<br />disturbing it as much as possible. Siran displayed two perspectives that were drawn to
<br />provide another look at the lay of the land. Stancil added that the dividing lines of the pods
<br />on the map should not be seen as lines that cannot be crossed, only natural dividing points
<br />for the purpose of site evaluation.
<br />Information from the previous meeting discussion was noted regarding the opportunities and
<br />challenges was reviewed. Others identified were:
<br />• One of smaller schools sites (12 -15 acre) may be separated by the connector road.
<br />• Consider moving connector road up so the schools campus would not be bisected.
<br />• But the separation of one school site might not be a bad thing
<br />• Keep the road from crossing Jones Creek.
<br />• Lot of opportunities to create place for folks to enjoy the property.
<br />• More parks needed to accommodate county residents for active recreation.
<br />• There is enough land to put elementary school co- located with active recreation
<br />facility similar to Efland Cheeks.
<br />draft
<br />MN
<br />
|