The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 05-23-1988 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMISSIONERS AM ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARIN13 (MONDAY, MAY 23, 1988 7:30 P.M. SLPERIOR COURTROOM - NEW ORANGE COUNTY COURTHEUSE 106 EAST MARGARET LAW HILLSBOROUSH9 NORTH CAROLINA Page # A. BOARD C-OMPENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the printed agenda (if anyone wishes to speak to matters on the agenda, we would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) 2. Matters not on the printed agenda C. PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. D. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 001 a. Cheeks Township Component 021 b. Eno Township Component 043 C. Hillsborough Township Component 065 d. Chapel Hill Township Component (North of Joint Planning Area) Y Page # 2. Zonina Ordinance Amendments 079 a. Article 9-Signs (Noncommercial Copy) 083 b. Article 6-Application of Dimensional Requirements (Flag. Lots) C. Article 22-Definitions (Flag Lots) 3. Subdivision Regulations Amendments 087 a. Section IV-S-5 Lot Layout (Flag Lots) b. Section II- Definitions (Flag Lots) E. ADJOURI�E7HT 4 0 R A N G E C 0 V N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: NU 23. 1988 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: DRAFT LAND USE PLAN FOR CHEEKS TOWNSHIP DEPARTMENT:: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X—Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell Draft Cheeks Land Use Plan Text 5-4-88 Cheeks TAC Meeting Summary 3-23-88 Hunter Amendment Request TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Aft PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plant Section 3.8 - Cheeks Township. BACKGROUND: Updating the Cheeks Township component of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is an objective of the FY 1987-88 Work Program. Work on this project began on January 21, 1988 with a meeting of the Cheeks TAC wherein the update strategy was presented. Public information meetings were held at Efland Cheeks School on February 10, 1988 and March 91 1988 to, inform citizens of the process and solicit input on plan proposals. A final meeting was conducted on May 4 to present the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan does not differ drastically from the current plan which was adopted in 1984. Main differences include: The designation of an additional 3.6 acres for inclusion in the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node on the north side of U.S. 70 (see Hunter request) ; Ask The designation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at Efland Cedar Grove Road and Lebanon Road; The designation of Moorefields and County-owned It lands in the Seven Mile Creek Basin as Public Interest Area; The designation of additional Rural Residential areas to the north of Lebanon Road; and The designation of the Back Creek Water Supply Watershed in the northwest corner of the Township. RECOMMMATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.8 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the Plan amendment at its June 20, 1988 meeting. The Board of commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on July 5, 1988. Ip 3.8 CHEEKS OT�SJP �PLAN TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Cheeks Township, located in the west-central portion of Orange County occupies 32,700 acres and contains 13% of the total County land area. The Township is bisected east-west by the transportation , Interstate 85 an corridor made up of US 70 d the Southern Railway line. This corridor serves, in effec t, as a focus for current and future development in the Township as the greater population densities occur in areas near these highways and rail lines . The small, unincorporated village of Efland, in the center of the Township, is where much of the population is concentrated outside of the portion of Mebane that extends into Cheeks Township. North and south Of the transportation corridor the. Towaship is rural in character with agriculture constituting the major land use. Spgio-Economic Fea� The 1980 U.S. Census count for Cheeks Township was 4,821 persons or 6% of the total County population. This JAk represents a 3.5% annual average growth rate during the 1970-1980. The number of dwelling units increased at a faster rate during this same period, from 1,076 units in 1970 to 1,691 units in 1980, a 57 .2% increase. A related 3.3 trend is the average household size which decreased from n 1980. The persons per household in 1970 to 2.84 persons i smaller household size parallels a nationwide trend toward small families. The rapid growth of Cheeks Township during the 1970's is in Langed population count between contrast to the virtually- unck . 1960 and 1970 when the Township experienced a negative growth rate. Much of this new growth is associated with non-farm, residential development, housing people who work for local industries Or work in Mebane or Hillsborough. The unincorporated village of Efland is the focal poof int the for most central portion of the growth occurring in th e -600 persons. Township, with a population of an estimated 500 has rate .of ggpwth exiaelrKligAW in the 19�70's remained u a relatiy-9.1-y nchan unchanged du the 1980ls . The 19_87 p_otion es Ay&racLe annual owt-h estimate jf� 6, 026 translates into an than the 8 1s711ig_h_t_1J ,lower rate of 3.2 since 1-9 0, a rate county overall 11-7-02111 for the same gear-ii—odd. 3.8-1 Land Use Distribution and Infrastructure Most of Cheeks Township north and south of the 1-85 US 70 corridor consists of agricultural land uses and scattered : non-farm rural housing. All of the medium and higher intensity residential, commercial and industrial uses occur along the 1-85 - US 70 transportation corridor. The village of Elfand and the portion of the Town of Mebane which extends into Cheeks Township serve as the focal points for most of this medium- and higher intensity development. There are several industrial uses along the portion of 1-85 which forms the southern boundary of Mebane's extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. Efland is the site of a few small-scale textile manufacturing firms, several commercial uses, some associated with farming, and a post office. Priol: to 1988, the only municipally sewrd area in Chea TOMA orate lim which of Meba extends into Oran a County and an indu J park between I- . 85 and U.S. 70 in the southeastern :C owns .rn part of =e extra_,_,,,,,teZZItorial Ju Scheduled for completion in the sipring of 1988 is the rigaZi Pha 21 the Efland sewer. A 10-inch for main is b ea, extended from the Town of Hillsborough ZX.Ltem and �U serve th_e _Efland Chltp Sc 001 and . . _ slightly=� over es along tie U.S. 70 c2g X IAo g which fie_ eer ien M&Zere se tank Ask ]2ro)21gmL. F U p_n_e will ut' iz, out _50.L000 o gg l I U er'P__ , dU (GPD) 21 the total 0 00 gM of treatment elan ca2cy t allocated -to the project._ Futu e extensions g the system are awaiting the _ado_pJI_on of a p glicy on sewer line extenisigns_ and tap=_0_Ds. The Town of Mebane also supplies water within its corporate limits and within the immediate vicinity Of the Town. The Orange* Alamance Water System supplies water beyond Mebane and along US 70 between Mebane and the Eno River. Their dam and filter plant are located on the Eno River just north of where it intersects with US 70. Distribution lines for this system extend throughout the road network in the Efland area. Household ligg and Anaging Stock 4- 1980, he housing stock -01 'C peeks- _Tqy�shjp consisted of - 1, 693 units... Seven years lat that ag Mber hod increased 25% to actu :.e& ho made gR a majority estimate§, 24J_2_2 units. MaRuf From 1980 to 1987g 65% Of large majori of _that ;Lncrease the. newly occupied inc units in Cheeks _T_own5_hi,2 were Overall Oucft, jj=,g bui- ho manufactured homes. th___ na In comprise a definite mgialrdi= Of tM hour' u the accounting I!Or 10 stock Township, of the hou Cheeks Township.. at this time, does not see Z to be fallowing the trend of gradual —declines iron the -s-Lz—e 21 A-n- AY&gA-q-e household which has been ftylgj= in other towns A_IRs- T-4e, 3 .8-2 19_80 figure of 2 .84 glKsons pgr household remain-s- unchced in the 1987 estimates of housing and population. Circulation A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System has been used to describe the road network in Cheeks Township. The system describes parts of the road network based on factors of mobility and access. The most important roads (interstate and arterial highways) provide the best service (shortest travel time) to and from important employment, shopping, education and population centers. Roads of lesser importance (collector roads) do not provide as good a service function, but do provide an area with access to the major road system. The least important roads (local roads) function in the most limited service capacity, but in aggregate provide large land areas with access to the more important roads -and highways. Cheeks Township contains the principal east-west transportation corridor through Orange County. Nine and one- halt miles of interstate highway (1-85) , over seven miles Of a major arterial highway (US 70) , eight miles Of rail line (Southern RR) and several miles of locally important roads make up this corridor. The principal collector routes are: Efland Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004-1357) , Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) , Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120) , Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) , Bowman Road (SR 1142) , West Ten Road (SR 1144) , Lebanon Road (SR 1306) and mill Creek Road (SR 1343) . The objective of any component of a transportation system. such as a street or highway. igs = accommodate a sRecific amount _o_f traffic while providing the operator with an acceptable level of love-1, of isery Ict is Irgaue ntl_y gled as &A appropriate criterion for hi and_cih str -urRo"e and is defined by the North Car, olina _�at des' 1D Department artment of Transportation-_ . n (NCDOTL as a zone of stab flow ely controlled bV with svend and manauveZ:aI2i_lity more cl higher volmel Lev_e s of service ran�Le =o which is a L ad condiLi_on marked by 12w-volume and h,= §2pe_d _ to the forced fl_ow onerations at low speeds marked by an 'F' level Of sorvice. All of Ile Township's collector roads are well within canacit-y c Eiven a LQL level of service. The 1987 average daily. volumes ganced from a hi of 1 ,400 vehicles 2ftr day (yRd) on Mill Creek Road a st north of Lebanon Road to a— low of 300 vpd on mt. Willing _Road at the intersection Of Buckhorn Road. the capacities of the Township' s collector roe given a level of service ICI and a 45 ap_h Umit range upward to 5,250 vpd, placing _q1J of the collector roads well under caoacity., At 55 M2h,,_ caRa ty drops as low as 21100 vpd ffic. flow. still allowing for a stable tra 3. 8-3 The To_wnship's only arterial,. U.S. 70, is operating well under desirable capacity. For two Lane urban artgla the NCDOT Highway Capacity Manual give 8,000 v-pd as g&2LQitZ for a ICI level of service and A 45 mi3h speed imit. 1987 traffic rom 24600 vpd j11st east of affic cou for U.S.q.S. 70 rang odd Brgokhollow _Road to 4,000 v at the Buck horn R irate_ section. The g_e capacity -at level 2f sery cl = an integgtate with fgar lanes total is 54.000 -vp—d. The 1987 avagaae daily traffic count = 1-85 —between the Mt. WilliA9 Lod and A-ughb-o—rn Road interchanal-s- is 32.800 y9g. Eve at level of service LBI, which indicates stable flow at speed equal, to or greatgr than 9-5 Mpb�., the traffic count is well Mft the capacity 2f 48,00_0 yod. Cheeks Township's transportation network adequately- connects the Township with such population centers as Burlington, Durham and Chapel Hill. The ggoM21etion of the Interstate 40 extension will bring Raleigh and the Research Tria:6gle Park within closer traveling time of the Township. In addition, Cheeks Township's transportation system places it in direct line of the northern Piedmont growth area of North Carolina. Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point, Burlington, Chapel Hill, Durham and Raleigh are the major centers of this A6k growing region. The strategic location of the Township in qV the region, as well as the large land areas within it which have convenient access to interstate 85, US 70 and the Southern Railway lines, make Cheeks Township attractive to industrial development interests. Acrigulture Although agriculture is a dominant land use throughout Cheeks Township, development pressures in recent decades have contributed to the conversion of farmland for non-farm uses. Reported Cheeks Township croplandi both harvested and idle, diminished by over 30% between the years 1955 and 1977 (Table 3-6) . TABLE 3-6 CHEEKS TOWNSHIP FARMLAND TRENDS -------------------------------------C - HANGE------ ----------------- % 1955 1977 1955-1977 CHANGE ---------- ------------------------------------ - ---- ---------- TOTAL CROPLAND 7294 ac. 4992 ac. -2302 -31.6% TOTAL PASTURE 2519 ac. 3085 ac. +506 +19 .6% TOTAL FARMLAND 9873 ac. 8077 ac. -1796 -18.2%--------- ----------------------------------------------------- 3 .8-4 SOURCES: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; Triangle J Council of Governments . As shown, the cropland base of the Township decreased in this period by 2,302 acres. In contrast, the pastureland base increased over the same period by almost 20% or just over 500 acres. overall, the combined total of cropland and pasture land in Cheeks Township declined by about 1,800 acres between 1955 and 1977, representing an 18% loss. Part of this loss probably occurred as a consequence of the construction of Interstate 85 through Cheeks Township. The three Townships through which the Interstate was built lost an average of more than 26% of their total crop and pasture land, as compared to an average loss of 19% for the four remaining Townships. Such major highway construction can cause farmland loss both through direct acquisition of rights-of-way and through the commercial industrial and residential development that is stimulated by improved transportation access. The proposed widening of 1-85 to six lanes through this part of North Carolina, as well as the coMpjeti2a of 1-40 will provide additional means of access to regional population and employment centers from Cheeks Township. Development responding to these changes in the transportation system will stimulate additional pressures for the conversion of crop and pasture land to non-farm uses. Recent statistics from the Orange County Agricultural Extansign Service indicate a continued in t�L=_ land decl acreagA_. The Service estimates that between 1981 and 1987, approximate 400 acres of crp wngship were lost to development p and pasture land in Cheeks To . _ activity, Even zLt—h the changes that have occurred over the Past two ftcades remains An important agricultural -, Cheeks Township rem center. Thirty bee Pgoducers, yielding 15% of the total beef cattle in grng County., are locate in tb_e_ Townsh1p_4 along yA—th seven Grade A dairies, one poultry farm and three tobacco farms. overall,- JL% p t the County`s total farm inc a percentage that income comes fgom Chalks Tpwnshj2p trgnslAtes Into approximately $3,000,000 annually based on Natural Environmental Constraints Cheeks Township contains the following natural environmental constraints to development activity: floodplaias, water supply watersheds, steep slopes and poor soil conditions. FLOODPLAINS. Approximately 1 ,070 acres lien 100-year floodplains. Floodplains occur along Seven Mile Creek, Crabtree Creek and Rocky Run in the southeastern part of the Township; along the Eno River and its tributaries and McGowan Creek in the north-central part of the Township; and along 3 .8-5 Back Creek (Tributary A) northeast of Mebane. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. Most of the Upper Eno watershed, which is drained primarily by the Eno River and Seven Mile Creek, is located in cheeks Township. In general, this watershed encompasses the eastern two-thirds of the Towns hip. Water from this area supplies both the Hillsborough and r-IF Orange-Alamance water systems. The constru_ction of the —Back the T ms of Graham and Creek Resery jn._Alamanca cou-METLa .2-w--a of! the ZO .30r.1 - Mebane adds the northwest co-„ rner Lj2 to the Water 1 uippja Wat rshad. 91A-lass_i±irat_jon, The existence of a W-1 watershed crossed by an important transportation corridor requires serious consideration. of the trade-offs between environmental protection and industrial development opportunities and is the critical issue facing Cheeks Township in the near future. STEEP SLOPES. Steep .slopes represent only very limited the constraints in the Township, Occurring along sections of Eno River and Seven Mile Creek in the eastern part of Cheeks ox' ate 9_80 ar Township. Jhere are es -o-t land iJn the e a of slo 15% or ZLt&t_er. Towns= on which the degree tr SOILS. As would be expected poor soil conditions are found to generally coincide with identified floodplains. �There are ap - es of 1 od- ro e. j;o which lie • prox ma 940 armies ady LrAt to t ide ntified loo year fl , ood RIAL11s• The only exist other significant patterns of poor soil conditions in the north-central area and ,on scattered sites in, the south-central part of the Township where there is some limitation due to heavy clay content and shallow depth to bedrock. Cultural and Na_ --esou _tural R --rce Of ghee s 1Qnshj2 29ises Aniaue and exem- lary ceirtaj-n areas r1stigs Zjat age of 2r.P—at, lue. natur &rLd physical cha Act 1 It may be_'hL=r_� ZtLe value is not nec �s�saril monetary. ess. biological.. 52-iri-t-RA-1-1- 2-r -0t YAI-u-e —to the b-�n �n P-t2p__ River in Ch_eLks The Catalina s eqLa Al—ina _Da_r_te_r&. a fish found in the Eno _I concern j as __I s e Township, hU been Darter, -a j2ftpj_es 2__ b This deli_ and U2121—es when the spe Les 4 the StAte. face4 with major, hAaiba�itat exisj;s in —sm-a-11 22.2214tiPA-L is loss-, or j& the tam of eXolSL11=1,an. Four 2riyat homes in the _Townshi]2 have been ideiajifLEA 1?or q - Ly as historically and L_ the —Division f —chives and History . o Of gAgs-e-L architecturally iMportan , to t gi olL Two 17 use date gXoM the _1ate _�QV s Moorefields and the Rice L2-q 1��_Nation Rea .s_ter of _Pla_ces- and are listed In. the --.a' op and co unity Li is served 12y f,.e of the T2XqSh_i_2 The spirit community its twent -one- actim-e gchu�rches and 3.8-6 i cen Exist incr Land Use The existing land use of the Township's 32,700 acres can be broken down in the following manner: Acres of Township commercial 71 0.2 Industrial 84 0.3 institutional 433 1.3 Public/Quasi Public Open Space 660 2.0 Residential 1,847 5.7 <1 ac./unit (296) (0.9) 1-5 ac./unit (934) (2.9) 5.01-10 ac./unit (617) (1.9) Managed Forest 642 2.0 Agricultural 10,024 30.6 Road/RR/Utility 1,067 3.2 . Urban 2,342 7.2 Undeveloped/Other 15,530 47.5 TOTAL 32,700 100.0 II CHEEKS TOWNSHIP LAND USE, 1988 Raat/Unllty 9ss r b.01-10 88A>t Urban ?AS rcrm 2.OX ••••• T W RMdrntW SO% Pu3lls OMo space Q.0X l—S 500% space ~ cl MON All Land Use Residential Acreage/Unit i SOUM I.Ch.'s.uadswj0;'W i 3 .8-7 ricultura J�ands refe to those -e-n-r—olled Adk and 1p KKajnLc I _ a 3gith Led f�orest ac - pXrS grams_ 7u7se value tjKati= . A' rt :3.n the 99==L1 they nrovide An im or an PA Public and Quas.1=2gblic ands of the �ship's 2pen j2jce- _Trends. a gbeeks Township -e- in 2 for tb The Mgj_or development gj-.dentia; subdjv- s-ons- �� RIZ:Iod 1980-1987 has been Z-el �e greated, I Minog sub visions were j that t.1mg U-0 major and La 1;.jL n wit �Ln Th accounted for 265 lots t01 6 7_7 acre_es- gaged of new lots ra av_er e t of 2 .55 acres ggagtigL4 _0 -jEe� hLgh of 70 in 12.9-7. L 2=t-e—rn 4 in 1983 to A Ly 21 the fXom a low ot dis .:Md with thge MLtoar-it was f airl - M 0 of, devela meat located in the _.dal --t -1--8-5- subdi is*O s in Sal AKMA n0-r-th AlS durin- the same period —646 residue bj1M Remits j -- jLn_cjj e tuber Lgere _ &_ IAX we were issued. of his n , h2M_es. Of, and 494 were j§ Sued o Mgb_ile a i1 fo ce D1 construction rgolas� Oje mob �0_;e 54% were issued new UUil—s- tesult n in i _ h2M—e RIM311A gn -Z2 7 mob _je ; KARged from a low Of 11 .1-A Issuance gingae fami1v permits--- . _ �h of 32 in 1987 - Mobji ,-e- home 21W.1ts jLko And 2 to A 5• ran p from A low o f 40 in ;2-8Z to A hi-aA —Of 9_2 hits 3" _to Cheeks T This adoed 37.9 resit e s—i-d-eAQeM- ot over the 128-0 pmup—t Ah the period 1900-.!1987,-, a 22% iRPS-e-as-A W 1 9 ous ng ani—ts. PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND APPLICATION of _the Plan's fr work bftgi_ns w_tA the The structure noli_cy statements o n wh the Land organizina 229-9-e-P-t—s - p-t-s- ga�r Th_ese 22n2-22-t-s Use Plan for gb&e_ks jg� is constructed. g ---. what are the desirable State A general 22901110-4 as what jnjW0- account patterns of cir for the area a n d 1;.h_e patterns of dg veto 2meat j- environmental c0nstK&!nts--` _state deli es — _ of area cons' of frampwork co , fN=_re The iecond coMRO-a-e'= Of the ock d ea�do ro '10AA for y0Dulatj4A, h2RE199 Lt the 21=_3 ons are not a g2MM-A.- -4 requirements- -u TIMSM M:)"( =e - y ;ej�l n_cLi�cae the desirab of, A=gcted growth. Z L AM2unt of gggwth gNpe-eted D-a—ed On ah �so ica =Sn-d—s ' r2j.�� are then d to , The organ___ izin gc2ong_ep—ts And used — ich 7 gKitgri a ALR, _esl�_g11h-�d Xhl-1- create L- -aligsg== 'd li e —j-a jtLall .Le dlAtKlhA:�ft _1a — -- a dist land into Land Use Plan cat' I n ,e Element of the 90,092- Lefined in the b2_dy of the I�A_nd Use Distribution i-s reflected in both refleF Co -pComre—hensive —Plan- text and mar) :form. qp 3 .8-8 - OrganizinQ Concepts The following Township policy statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Cheeks Township has been constructed: 1) The .Towns ' of Mebane and Hillsborough extra- territorial planning jurisdictions are the designated Ten Year Transition Areas for immediate and near future residential development at urban densities. 2) The community of Efland,, though unincorporated,, is considered to be urban in character and is designated Ten Year Transition for immediate and near future residential development at urban densities. 3) Residential development at urban densities will occur much later in the development pattern in the area north of US 70 and north of the Town of Mebane's extra-territorial planning jurisdiction. Such development i*s also likely to occur along the US 70 corridor extending both east and west from Efland. 4) The remainder of the study area is considered appropriate for low density rural residential development. 5) The areas in the immediate vicinities of Efland, the 1-85/Buckhorn Road interchange and the US 70/Buckhorn Road intersection are suitable for commercial and industrial uses. These areas are referenced as the Efland Center (CK-1) Miles South (CK-3) and Miles North (CK-2) Commercial Industrial Transition activity nodes. 6) Duke Forest, undeveloped county-owngd._ lands in tb_e Seven Mile Creek drainage basin.- and the Mo=efAelds Estate are considered public interest areas. 7) The portion of the Upper Eno Watershed in the study area, including, but not limited to, McGowan Creek, Lake Ben Johnson and Seven Mile Creek subbasins, is designated as a protected water supply watershed providing public water supplies to Hillsborough and the Efland-Mebane area. 8) The portion of the Back Creek Watershed in the study area, including, but not limited to, Back Creek and Mill Creek, is designated as A protected. water supply watershed providincr Rublic water 3. 8-9 supt�lies to Mebane and --raGhaM- EgnIkl_ation and _Land R•eauirementsz _1980-2000 One of the initial and th fundamental steps in the land use planning process is e 6alculation of the amount of land required to accommodate projected growth in an area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential and commercial uses is directly tables related to the size of the populationci. The following summarize p the poulation projections and estimated land Cheeks Township during the plan period: requirements for iection. summarizes o u at" on ester tes and c) .Table 2--7 — w_hile _Table 3-8 -rojects the number Of _new ho__ g1gMJ_red 'to meet the demands new residents, and Ta ble _3-8a arpd—ects land use rea irements for the plan 21LI_od. TABLE 3-7 CHEEKS POPULATION I PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES: 1980-2000 ------ -------------------------------- ------------- --------- a b c c c c 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 --------------------------------------------------------- --- TOTAL POPULATION 4,821 -6-L-0-26 -6-,6-09 7-7-08 8'9 10.487 POPULATION CHANGE 4 , _5, FROM 1980 (NUMBER) ---- 1,205-1_788_2.887_ -- - - - ------------------ -------- - --- ------ -- ----------------------- a Sources: 1980 Census of population and Orange County Planning Department statistics b So u_ce. ggAnge Count p J&A jning RgRgL n C the _1970- onenti extr RRJ&t_3_on 2-f —Based on A standard e .�13% 19_87 average_ annual _qgpwth rate of 3 _ II 3.8-10 TABLE 3-8 CHEERS TOWNSHIP HOUSING PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1980-2005 ------------------------------------------------------------ 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 a TOTAL POPULATION 41821 6,026 6, 609 7f708 8,991 10,487 c b d AVG. HOUSEHOLD SIZE 2.84 2.84 2.81 2 .75 2.70 2 .70 (Persons/household) b d TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 1, 693 2,122 2.352 2,803 3,330 3,884 UNITS CHANGE FROM 180 429 659. 1,110 1, 637 2, 191_ a From Table 3-7. b Source: 1980 Census Housing and Orange County Planning Department statistics. c Assumes continual nronortional decrease of average household size to 2.7 persons/household in year 2000. d Source: Orange County Planning Department statistics. TABLE 3-8a CHEEKS TOWNSHIP LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, 1987-2005 ------------------------------------------------------------ 1987-1995 1995-2005 1987-2005 ----------------------------------------------------------- a DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 681 11081 1,762 RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE b c REQUIRED 1,737 2,162 3,899 I TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 1 ,_824 2 ,270 4,094 ------------------------------------------------------------ a j From Table 3-8 b Based on a density of 2.55 acreslunit. This is the average size of a lot subdivided from 1980-1987. c Based on a density of 2 acres/unit. 3.8-11 I of 10 487 residen:11t in the ypar 2005 AOL _p S - j jo:jn_-d qP The Rr it s b _the I S�c�e�d p© a�j�_on 62 hRAIIA-2 "'n 1"adaveranellot��9 t ,_,Ould �rtgaLj .re an estimated 1,7 in ;8j would 21A-Ce an st a ixi s t�in . 197 - !his 1 acres into resident u se ThrcMah __99.5, _the . determine &c�a g is ba_sed on the Ayagage lot used to is assumed site a �Uc L and 1987 . After -1-99-5-1- it be—tureen _19SU 7allaShit Of subdivided 2��a_gj:�Jni�shin � aly i hat escalatin land RKLC_A� ts an as ciown. _Two _ac_res a res lot siz rwri _and will force __ restrictive jre��siden�tigl -�-u jMrjj7th -M-9-s-t restrc arbitrar _-a r 7_ A=i.ng lot size in use dALIL_nZ j.e between 1987 and 2005 takes into gjgLj_ it, red 1 and j�tiona� _To_tal acreage lna�t commerci-a-L& accgunt residential most Institution a-11 and 0 a cia uses A-r-e- n industrial �needs- and a -0f dir tied to residential incrIgEse-01-j- Lcrea for ev Z;-Itutional 2qe — one acre 2f new commercia t—wen= acres of new rdeo s dnent thv-L-e a�tcg�rhe e a_dS j_re-_C.t u_a se d. ciaint- duOn st acreage rial -residential uses do_- _ntial Agrjga_qe that other — I resid—ei-i s7itable areas ±22M_Sh_i2 that are a`�� Th however._ such 2R-rD�Ses-� for industrial uses and set Aside f=. All—ocation 2-f Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically nship in allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Tow goals and policies and the g accordance with the County-wide 0 amount of land Township Policy statements. In actuality, the ate ths rowt will be ubstantial allocated to a cco=nod for s variations ly in greater than the calculated i need oh allow the availability Of land and the exercise of market choice. The following allocation guidelinesr which incorporate the descriptive framework of the county land use classificat lici6s'ion system, are derived from the county and Township POto of determining the location of new' facilitate the process growt h in Cheeks Township; ommercial and 0 Medium and higher intensity C Indust development that would be most tralized water and appropriately served by a can the US z-'85 i' should be located within sewer system the Efland community to the co-r-riduor from MMn�� Mebane. planning extraterritorial nlan ndustrial and 0 Low and medium intensity cOm:�ercial, i residential development which would create minimal the upper D_ Efland's Transit Eno water supply negative impacts on n ion watershed should be located Elk, Areas in proximity to the desig nated activity nodes. 0 The und M-12P-e-d —areas south of McGowan Creek and 3.8-12 15 South of the 1-85 corridor are suitable for medium And higher intensity residential, commercial, And industrial .devel-opment toward the end of the Plan period.- • Low intensity rural commercial land uses, occurring outside of the Urban and Transition Areas, should be located in proximity to activity nodes to minimize and prevent strip development. • The area of the Township which contains the Eno water supply watershed and Back Crook Water Supply watershed should be afforded the protection necessary to minimize adverse development impacts. In light of these allocation guidelines, information about land in Cheeks Township was "filtered" through the set of locational criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of certain locations to contain various land uses. This information was then utilized in the classification of land throughout Cheeks Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Cheeks Township has been classified into the following Land Use Plan categories according to the public policies expressed in the Plan, the set of locational criteria defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental context for future development and the Township's projected population change and resulting land requirements. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: and classified as such consists primarily of slo2es greater than 15% and f loodiplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL AREAS: The classification refers to land aBBsseg under County Pro-visions for use value taxation of farm and managed forest lands, as well as for active agricultural lands not enrolled in Lb_e use value taxation program. These lands are evenly distributed to ILhe apgth and , south —of- the U.S. 2-0-ZI-85 corridor outside the Men and Twenty Year Transition Areas. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interest Areas are Public or ,q-u_asi-i3ublic landsA such as Duke Forest. County owned laTd-S in the Seven Mile Creek watershed, and the Moorefields Estate that are significant from An -educational, hi-storig, biological. or scientific standpoint. These lands also form a crucial component of the County's open space system. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: The southern areas of the Township where agriculture and forestry are important land uses are 3 .8-13 X_er Eno classifie in this mma-n-n—erz teas gdj_a_c_p-nt to the pp -bufferinreexinSaandfjotentialls i Fr W ter QA41it =m a m1an _anne3� as g reservoir sites. third of hi_ch RESIDENTIAL: much- of the land in the _norther� _RURAL '�-aTi-eri�dent�ial w_ the Township is classified as Ru: - TT = t-Y AgAz-f—arm indicates a re ominant land useResidentaalsl and has been enti al devel ment. Ru �oad and designated in the north 21: Lebanon R de area to a lesser sztent so of West Ten Road. —There —Ar—eas are ben cted demand for such land designated in response to p;Mg__ ;-� it, a so VgAding the coz� aletion of I-40. The de 0A.16-3-ailE a QRAP-r-al .1ack of ref lects ,grq3.ng de,Mlnpment patterns —And am 4i �lt identified agricultural lands_ in _these TEN YEAR TRANSITION: Land in .the U-S- c.orridor .n rth .o gEj to the PIM—er FnQ of 1-!�5 and extgenDgding from the Meb _ er. Critical Area las clams Tn :t=hii.mann. Water gnajLlty Cr Ice and i�Las- Lnd —sawer ZI—ce the .111i;! jd xgt-e-r- anQ In-e area alrei mited _first to 1AA—r-s of additional acity ;Ls j2MActed in the plan g1;:Lg_d. Efland in the _McGowan WENT)[ YEAR TRANSITION: Areas north —0f ,;--�ast E�n7-_R—oa7d- are .Creek AMIAaal —basin south of 1-85 t 1— iajpAt_ed that It is ant �d A-S Twe year Transition. w , desig=t 7--serve th_ese _ar_ear. 13V the end 1Mgn1g1pA; water and sewer will t if:: the paan ,period. WATER SUPPLY g_SHED*. The ma,pKLItZ of ghpel�s Zownshj-p- lies guSM�11 Watersheds. The eastern in 229;i3n-15- of three Water Watershed r DR5 two-thirds of the 123Ms_hip_ lies the p2p�e r gn_o �—f— Lake Ben Johnson. _10ws Into Qq��, 1:,A_ke and — —3' �- which s northwest corner Lhe —Back _About =0% of the Towns_ lies7;;;Ff'04Graham and mebane�-- ad which !PP-R tor .creek Watershed Watershed ge_xt�and KIng1ly, _small R2=LJo_ns of the ca C_reek W f the across _the se bounds OT Township R OU Crjt_ica� Area WATER ALITy CRITICAL AREA: The Water QnAL -n bounda Rn�j the eastex h=9917- for the Upper Eno Watershed lies al — =� 'land* about 20% 0 f th e, ';W—and of the 122M-Shi and —coerts -7 t a teres d It contains the TownWAR_sion area- I �astern estern —0f _defines t -e limits for the _Efland and resyectivel rte. the o classifying the land in the County In addition t been to identify and County' s land use planning strategy has odes in the Township. The ntial activity n and; evaluate pote ty node is to direct commercial a purpose of the activi the industrial uses to the most appropriate areas 3 development, and promoting a Township, Preventing strip-type pattern focused on major more compact and efficient land use P 3.8-14 17 intersections in the Township. A total of four activity nodes have been designated in Cheeks Township: REFERENCE: CK-11 Efland Center LOCATION: Efland Commercial Area PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: An existing commercial/industrial node is located in Efland, focused on the intersection of Southern Drive and Mt. Willing Road. This node currently serves as a focal point for lower and medium intensity residential, commercial and industrial uses. As Efland develops, new growth should "infill" suitable vacant land within the immediate area to take advantage of the existing infrastructure which includes the water supply from a central system and the first -p-base of the Efland Sewer Project. Due to the location of this node entirely within a water supply watershed, industrial and commercial uses should be limited to those types which have a demonstrated record of not generating Pollutants, either through the industrial process or the size of the operation, and which are known not to degrade or harm water quality. Those uses which do meet this initial criteria should be designed and built in ways to minimize any other potential negative impacts on the quality of water draining to the Upper Eno watershed. REFERENCE: CK-2, Miles North LOCATION: U.S. 70 and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition ANALYSIS •AND EVALUATION: This node is located I at the intersection of at arterial (US 70) and a collector. Existing commercial uses at or near this site include a small mill outlet and two gas stations, one of which is also a small store. There are no environmental constraints imposed by sensitive lands, but the area does lie in the extreme southwestern corner of the Back Creek Watershed. A rail line is nearby. This site is presently served by a central water system with possible future sewer line extensions. These facts, combined with its proximity to Mebane, create the potential for fairly intensive commercial and industrial uses during the initial phase of the Plan since this node falls within the _10-Year Transition Area that extends beyond the Mebane ETJ. As this site becomes more intensively developed, care should be taken to ensure that the highway intersection is upgraded sufficiently to handle the increased load. REFERENCE: CK-3, Miles South LOCATION: Interstate 85 and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the 3.8-15 intersection of interstate 85 and a collector. Existing land ' uses include a small residential community (miGeneral les) r a gas station, and a small vacant store. The Electric -85 a short a� cf node. This site is currently served by plant is located on 1 1 water supply entra ines from Mebane. system. The GE plant is served by sewer 1 ition Area s within the designated 2o-year Trans This node tall its development for the Mebane urban ar ea. Thereforet When additional commercial or potential is long-term. te locad here.-, attention should be given industrial uses are to minimizing any nega tive effects on the residential area nearby. REFERENCE: CK-4, Fairfield LOCATION: Lebanon Road (SR 1306) and Efland cedar I Grove Road (SR 1004) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood This .node is located at the ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: roads. Existing land uses at intersection of two collector r farmland, rural this node are currentl , ode is As this n residential developmeal water supply located in a w watershed, new commerciimited to one or two small- development should be I e the needs- of the surrounding scale ru--, -ral stores designed to sery area. 3 .8-16 ' p Ilfwrr�� ,� •''. t ' ,�,Rej� .was�•awaN.�� .. � rsO;t• ^MarwE.� , Y'A�=�•,_. .o��,a�r"�!1/rrw11CJ'LS�/ww7w I—.._�`�,��Mrrw�rwr �� _ ...; : ,. + .F•r�`L i-. wM'�.tir^.+r^.talMlw r...-Mw�rwwwY `� t WIN ICw �..t:MArl �aa raves•-+��rwaF irna X11 1. '••• .it.1Jl' 11y�1 n'Har-+aa.:' C4C.i* _ pr7�� , ;� ,,. �^�wI N.,�.�wwt•.nnrwrwa.�Flinn�}:/ a►vwwswl �, t�rrr.1�--„wialwww�w�R _ wwaw►�J "'_�!I .'�: FR x'�� rwrar�..JM �r•w�. 7fr '�' .:” •+ ►"'"' t' rr�aWo _•, "�!!rA t< N�'� s "^'�.w� r»aw e � �p y`!p rrraaaa�r^s+�;+S d' . dee '�Y ;.ter r• i "am: aar►i�r ' }! " ° �% � aarra w�rrraa■ �. i MIN' T ay'y"'+ Ck't�it.� ry.,•1' /ltt�,�i'� JI', G„4, �s. M'_ t� v • JliL ..,. �J—`~~+ x�z�', - -t:�c� 1 '��4�r'�,��r�� 4 �1��n'°.rr',��:��•�j �`� Al '..� _ e walwawzawzl!o.ra!rasar• �► 7�{, y. � 1'i �r��nar■cy n�^+www� �rrrrrr + i ._,LT '„-1' �cbw�wrra ♦rr-- r OWN. `1 +J ,7ra�No4� ji 4%F i F 1 0 �r . JIM A1111i d Mr ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNTY HANASER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PLANNING BOARD FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 23, 19s8 SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY MODE (CHEEKS TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN COMPONENT) COPIES: PLANNER III (COMPREHENSIVE) As part of the Cheeks Township Land Use Plan update, a petition was submitted by Dolly A. Hunter to include property on the northeast corner of U.S. Highway 70 and Oak Street in the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node. (See attached letter and map. ) Such petitions are not without precedent inasmuch as several are to be considered as part of the Joint Planning Area public hearing •on June 30. Others were received •during the initial preparation and consideration of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Such petitions are also different in that they are considered within the context of a larger plan amendment. Upon consideration of the request, the Planning Staff has proposed, as part of the Cheeks Land Use Plan update7 that the Activity Node be extended . in an easterly direction approximately 560 feet and 290 feet in a northerly direction - the approximate depth of the Red 4 Wh.ite Food Store lot. The expansion was proposed because of Staff concurrence with some of the• points made in the Hunter petition. Specifically, the availability of water and sewer will increase growth pressures, and traffic increases along U. S. Highway 76 will cause residential to non-residential use conversion on both sides of the highway. Since the preparation of the proposal to be presented at public hearing, the petitioner contacted adjoining property owners to inform them of the request. Subsequently, one or more adjoining arid/or nearby property owners contacted the Planning Department with concerns about the Activity Node expansion. The concerns focused on the desire to retain the residential character of the area with no -expansion of the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node. However, there may be other adjoining owners-who are not opposed to the expansion. If the Planning Hoard wishes to recommend, and the Board of Commissioners approve, expansion of the Activity Node to cover on the Hunter property, it is possible. The Activity Node extends along -the south side of U.S. Highway 70. The expansion can be accomplished by extending the boundary line across U.S. 70 to incorporate the Hunter lot. Marvin Collins planning Director i Rt. 3, Bo*x 685 Hillsborough, NC 27278 March 20, 1988 Mr. Gene Bell Land Use Planner 0 D Orange County Planning Department Corbin Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Bell: I understand Orange County is revising its land use plan for Ef land Cheeks Township, and am writing to urge you to consider changing the designation of the strip of land in Ef land north of U.S. 70. As 1-40 is completed this fall, the Ef land area can expect a quantum Increase In traffic. This is reflected in the current 10-year transition area designation surrounding Ef land, and in the existing industrial/ commercial designation of much of Ef land proper. It is clear urban density is expected and planned for. We feel, therefore, that the exclusion of the north side of U.S. 70 in "downtown" Ef land is inappropriate for the following reasons: 1 ) The recent addition of the Infrastructure of water and sewer will hasten growth of both sides of U.S. 70; 2) The traffic patterns along U.S. 70 will force less residential use on both sides of U.S. 70; 3) The present land-use designation makes the Red & White store akin to "spot zoning;" and 4) The forces shaping growth in the area demand more designations to support non-industrial commercial and office uses. In short - Ef land is going to be,Orange County's newest town-center, and there is no designation allowing for orderly, attractive non-industrial ORION Hunter, page 2 "town" growth. Designation of the north side of U.S. 70 as commercial/ transitional (rather than commercial/industrial) would allow office and retail use without fear of industry moving in next door. Such a designation would, of course, allow the county to review each re'quest for re-zoning individual parcels on a case-by-case basis, controlling speed of change and type of use. We have spoken to several of the land owners along this strip, and they have not objected to such a change in designation (once it was explained that their tax basis would not change until their use changed). , This is not a disinterested request, of course. We are. in the process of buying a house at the corner of Oak Street and U.S. 70, and would like to use it as an office some day. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to pursue this further. Sincerely A, I f 30-1-K 7 Dolly A. Hunter Alp H U N T E R R E Q U E S T 4 . 40 Existing Mode a rj j Proposed Expansion i ! o #tI Hunter Property A I ! � j O Ij 40 I' E) : I ! I • Y ! I O � I UJ MJ1 KYIIlD ron rAxrvraoscs oNU —� _�_ ORANGE COUNTY N.C. N . rrr m K trc• • arc wtt-�fi +•'•*•, •L .e.r, pt M,M[ t ...".. •w• nfif AV".St.M. �� —� — - - _�� • C?}EEKS TOWNSHIP 38 1 r�+rla•r•rt yr;mprq-�-rprrrP'�1'�•f�t' •rte t 1 .rw 21 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 23. 19-88 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: ENO TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes —No ATTACHNIENT[S] : INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Torgan Draft Eno .Township Land Use Plan Summary of differences between NUMBERS: existing and draft Plans Hillsborough 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Orange County comprehensive Plan, Section 3.10 - Eno Township. adopted in I BACKGROUND: When the Orange County Land Use Plan was 1981, a five year update schedule was specified. n accordance with the schedule the Little River and e revised in 1986 and 1987, Ili Cedar Grove components were Township component has been respectively. The Bingham T prepared and will be presented at the next Joint hearing. The Township components for Planning public he - Cheeks, Hillsborough, and Chapel Hill north of the Joint Planning Area have also been prepared and will be presented along with the Eno Township Land Use Plan a at the May 23, 1988, regularly scheduled orange County public hearing. The Plan update process for the area officially bn 1988, public information meeting on January 6j, A ega with a pub strategy was presented. which time the plan st at from Hillsborough,the TACs public meeting involving Eno, and Chapel Hill Townships was held on February 21 1988 for the purpose of presenting background data and Ask distributing questionnaires on community Preferences. 1988 to 9r A final public meeting was held on March 3 joint present alternative plans. At a May Hillsborough/Eno TAc meeting a quorum from the Eno TAC '2 2 was not present. As such, no recommendation was made• by the TAC. The main land use classification differences between the draft Plan and the existing Plan, adopted in 1981 with amendments in 1984 and 1986 are as follows. The Rural Residential area is pulled farther north in Palmers Grove area, and pushed farther south in the center of the Township. The 10 Year Transition area is expanded to include existing , subdivisions along Lannie Drive and o1d- NC10. - The 20 Year Transition is expanded to include two new areas; undeveloped land adjacent to 10 Year . Transition, and the area north of the Southern Railroad near the Durham County line. - Commercial-Industrial Transition and Commercial Transition Node boundaries in the I-85/US70 corridor are altered to follow the boundaries of Transition 1901h. An qP Areas. RECOMMMATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.10 of the Land Use Element of the Orange . County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the Plan amendment at its June 20, 1988 meeting. The Board bf Commissioners will consider the .proposal for decision on. July 5, 1988. 2.3 Ask ZINO TOWNSHIP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXISTING PLAN AND 1988 DRAFT PLAN _Land Use Distribution and Infrastructure Notes farthest proposed expans ion of Durham water system into the Township. Also notes Durham Urban Growth Area Housing Stoc and Household jj= Added to 1988 Plan Circulation The existing Plan simply describes the road system- The 1988 Plan places more emphasis on circulation patterns and traffic volumes on major roads &g1icu1_ture Section added on economic impact of agriculture on the Township. Cultural and _Natural Resources Added to 1988 Plan. River Eno _ State Park Section deleted in 1988 Plan. References to Park and its Master Plan are incorporated into cultural and Natural Resources. Ii Existing Land Use Added to 1988 plan Development _Trends Added to 1988 Plan. Focuses on influence of Durham and the impact of manufactured housing. Distribution of Land Use Categories 1) Resource Protection Areas are added Township-wide in the 1988 Plan. 2) Agricultural Areas are added Township-wide in the 1988 Plan. Ah 24 3) Rural Residential is pulled farther north in Palmers Grove- area, and pushed farther south in the center of the Township. 4) 10 Year Transition is expanded to include existing subdivisions along Lannie Drive and Old NC10. 5) 20 Year Transition is expanded to include two new areas; undeveloped land adjacent to 10 Year Transition, and the area, north of the Southern Railroad near the Durham county line. Activity Nodes Commercial-Industrial Transition and Commercial Transition boundaries are altered to follow the boundaries of Transition Areas. 25 Aft 3.10 ENO TOWNSHIP TOWSHIP PROFILE: sufaMY AND ANALYSIS Eno Township, c24, eriOges 000 n acres and contais 9% of the total Countyr occupi County land area. The character of ' the TownsThhe is def in6d by a number of use features. area of the Township north Of existing land urally based and marks the St. Mary-Is Road is agricult belt that extends north into southern limit of the tobacco Little River Township and Caswell county• . The southern portion of the Township is traversed by interstate 85, us line of the southern Railway, all Of Highway 70, and a main ion. which roughly parallel each other in an east-west direct The Eno River flows east from Hillsborough to the center of the Township and then flows directly south before trnng east again just north of the intersection Of US70 and 1u-85i The southeastern portion of the Township lies adjacent to the City of Durham. Residential development focused on Durham has been and continues to occur in the area. Development pressure will continue in this area during the twenty year plan period. Soci -Economic Features Population figures from the 198o Census reported that Eno Township gained 1,900 residents from 1970 to 19801 jumping from 2,550 resiavera ents in 1970 to 4,450 ten years later. This f growth of 7.05% an10aS11YAA represented an g e rate 0 w At that rate more than douEno Townshi ble; that of thwoul e Cou:atdouble r as a 1Po la -ion is.......... ra d a FUT....................... .................................... every e-c-a-d e- 3 of the 1970's has leveled off sin" The hi h Frowth rat( T_ �I I 111111111 . 11'11111' _residents 11 ,I -u a t-on estimate f 5 ME The 1987 0 annual cT t into averaqe =Ow_th rate of 3.04% translates _g _2w -he !9W owe- than that of zountyo since 1980, a rate s1_1_q_u_v-_LN_-L .............. 0" that Eno Towns has become salsas " lies t This in no w im—A r o�wt h B r -contrast the Townsh:1 live. 5 desirable place to live. desi orinq Durham 0 is still e al to that of nei - fug rate since 198 11 UEF—action and Count LThe s-Lowing of t irowtn rate City )ig�� 11- . The 0 numerous factors � man'r sRARII-12 -;) the iven of land for develODment at a include�_ P_ and 1 a�b a theil 1 ty _L 3� and ca Ot. infrastruct"- ttime, aVa abilitr _a _�11.......... in of no River Stata, Park. 2 6 Land Use Distribution and infrastructure The bulk of the suburbanization that the Township has experienced in recent years has occurred in the southern ,and eastern portions, closest to Durham and to Hillsborough. The northern tier of the Township, which includes the largest of the County I s Eno River Stgte Park tracts, retains a more agricultural and rural quality, characterized by low density residential development and very few commercial activities. Eno Township is not currently served by a public sewer system. Sewer mains from the Town of Hillsborough and City of Durham,, however,, come within a few hundred feet of - the Township and both municipalities do have plans for extension of sewer service into the area. The Greater Durham 201 Facilities Plan, first adopted in the. mid 19701s, proposed extensions of the City's sewer system to provide sdf Vice n the UM 7-1-85 -corridor as far east as Stoney Creek by -the year 2005. Hillsborough has proposed sewer or force mains ai.ong a portion of 9-t. Mary's Road during the same time ttame. Water lines from the Town of Hillsborough do extend into 'Eno Township. North of 1-85, water lines with a diameter of six inches or greater extend as far east as Piney Grove ChurcH ' Aft, Road (SR1711) . South of the Interstate, lines with a six inch diameter I or greater extend as far east as the junction of Old NC10 (SR1716) and the Southern Railroad right-of-way. City of Durham water lines extend into Orange County for about one- half mile along US70. * The extension was made , to serve residences of mobile home parks and other residences in the area whose water supplies had been contaminated by malfunctioning on-Bite sewage disposal systems. Insofar as the Hillsborough water system is concerned,- excess capacity is rapidly diminishing and will require_-enlargemen before 7—major-expansions can take place. Further extensions from the I Y of Durham should also be expected during. the an period. A roximatel 1,400 acres of Eno Townshi roug y bordered by the Eno River, Stoney Creek, and the Southern Railroad line, lies -within the Durham Urban Growth Area as defined in the goo Durham 2005 Cppr-ehensive Rted p. kl_an, the area for which Durham ex ects to eventually provide public services. Household Size and MgMaAag Stock The housing stock of Eno Township consisted in 1980 of 1,770 units. Seven years later that number had increases aimosE`23T to an estimate 2,186_ units. Manufactured housing made up a Ask large majority of that increase. 2 AM W 1987, fully 63% of the newt r occupied housing From 1980 to t a rj412 1:) were manufactured Eiiii 111 in units in Eno q iu�e� �T the County had a higher -t_3Me n y one other Township I --Ell,'''', ..... '' - , , 91 11� units millre not sl Q ul t I'le,iiii b liaBX' pro or 110''n, of .. .......... I j Overall, thought site built homes form a sli t ma ority Of .............. t aq or 5 5% of t e he .11111ownsil-tip- account _tff e- LLnJ.L-b J-LL --- --7— . , nousing I units al:!g number Of multi-famili housin JOUBincg stOC the ownshi 'a stock. -I— e represent3 nag i b ousina stock. Eno Township has followed the state and national trend of a ..........F,I of an averacre ' o -_slehold. The gr al declines in the size a .......... ................. ... ....... 2 arsons 1�97O 'i�e_ownLn avera Eno T s1 'household had 3.22 p ; I_ ___ A 0 figure "E' at dr Ad to 2 1.98 Circulation modified version I of the North Carolina Highway Functional A mod network in Classification System is used to describe the road Orange County. The system describes segments of The network based on mobility and access factors. most important roads, Interstates and arterial highways, provide the best level of service as measured in travel time to and from major activity centers. Roads of lesser importance, high a level Of service, do not provide as h collector roads, but do provide areas with access to ma jor roads and secondary centers. Local roads provide the most access to activity rovide limited service capacity, but, in the aggregate,, P_ large land areas with access to more important roads and highways. Orange County's principal east/west id ion o corroor traverses the southern half of Eno Township. crridr consists Of Interstate 85,, the arterial US Highway 70, the collector road Old NC10 (SR1710) and a main line of southern Railroad. The north/south transportation network is I-much less pronounced with the collector pleasant Green Road/Schley Road (SR1567/SR1548) serving as the major route. The arterial St. Mary's Road (SR1002) and the collector New Sharon Church Road (SR1538) also serve as important ortant components of the Township circulation network, an ling northeast out Of Hilllh2g_0� towards .Tre rburn in northern Durham Count . - d1tion-a-1 t.1 rs Lifaw collec rs New kj�ghurch and two roaff,�NC751 �d into the- �SR1569) fee — i an �e V and Road, SR1723 d Cole t i m � Fs jr sM � at c cul the very- southern If own-sVi;0 circulation eastern Periphery. The obiactive Of any component of a transportation system, 3 such as a street or hi hway, is zO accommodate a specific:) er-ator with an traffic whi ovidin the amount rcr is acc level of s A level of service fre entl used as an a ro riate criterion for highway and 3 28 street design PuE2oses and is defined by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as a zone of stable flow with speea and maneuverability more closelv con trollea by hi-gWe-r yolumes. Levels of service range from 'A, ' which is a condition marked bv low volume and high' speed, to the forced flow operations at low speeds marked- by an _IF' level---o-T - service All of the Township's collector roads are well within capacity given a ICI level of service. The 1986 average daily volumes range from, 1,300 vehicles per day (�� ) on Cole Mill Road to 600 vpd on New Sharon Church Road. St. Mary I s Ko-acu an arterial, had an average of 1,600 yod at the Durham County j.jLne, bu-t-It-dropped to 1,10.0 ypd just west of Pleasant Green Road. The capacities of the Townshi s collector roads given a level of service IC a forty-five mile per our speed limit range upwa d from 5,250 vehicles per (lay, placing all of the collector roads well under capacity. At frtty-tixe MP capacity dropsas low as 2,100 YPd, -+^J11 allowing for a stable traffic flow. Of the Township's other arterialp, most are operating well under desirable capacity. For two lane- urban arterials the No-r-tF Carolina Department of Transp-qrtation Hicfhwgy Ca acit Y, Manual gives 8,000 -vpd as capacity for a IC' level of service and a forty-five mph speed - limit. Only US70 B=asz approaches this caj2acityx with a 1987 average daily traffic coup f 7,500 vehicles per clay. The general capacity at level of service ICI for 4 interstate with four total is 54,000 vehicles per day. The 1-986 average dally traffic count for 1-85 at the Durham County line is -slightly less than J 1" ' hat,- .reachina- 260700 vehisles per day. Even---A-tjeve1 'go ' -which indicates stable flow at speeds egual-to. or greater than 55 mph, the traffic count is well under the canacitv of 48,000 vehicles per d Agriculture Even with the rapid development that has occurred over the past two decades_, Eno Township-- remains an impFirtant agricultural center. Thirty beef . producers, ;ileldincr- 20% - of the total beef cattle in Orange County, are -located in the Township, along with one Grade A dairy and two hog- farms. Overall. 15%-Q - the Cgunty's '--=3 farm innoMe comer, from Eno Township, a percents that translates into approximately 53i,000,000 annually based on 1995 data. End Township is also currently home to five lorcle commercial stables with a large - horse RP-Pulation. This- sector of the AML qP Tarm economy is one of the few expanding in orange Count)L. 4 29 While agriculture is still important to the Township, the conversion of agricultural lands to non-farm uses over the last three decades has been continuous ' and significant. Between 1955 and 1977, the year the North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service discontinued its township cropland countst Eno Township lost 37% of its crop and Wence from two sources since pasture lands. Anecdotal evi( then indicates the trend has continued. The first source of information is the Orange _CountX _ nM� S—ervice- between Service. They estimate that rtar:t'xtension KUH-C—Urtur Pa5_V_UL 1981 .-and 1957F approximately 500 acres of crop and -land e owns*E!p_i#_as71_01i_t to development acilv.'tY- The second source of evidence is enrollment trends in the 1 - 6 5 --began In EEKB 6-ran vala—etaxation j2rogfdi�, whic _ se 12roperty The 'proc Y S. o [ram allows land owners W110 337F t -meets certain agrMultl�rii ro c 13—nor - forest management criteria to have that property taxed at its use value rat her et value. In the five ear neriod from enrolled in the �ro in :he ro am to 1987 the overall acres �e enrolled t ro �t the r�a r s within r e�Wi;7 4� rends - the roqrM aEctua ffyincreased. Specifi,q � t �y _� coweveri still s u ort the conte ntion nti-- continual conversion rom fa rm to nonfqrmu�es is taking place. There are two land classifications within the use val a icul - EV_e_U_ MaMlon --—�Ia-m�, a icultux:- d ma a ed t. P land �tu& ogram increased roilah the overall acr2ekage 11 00 tural declined L�60 c=assifiect as -a acres. The increase came entirel in the m anaged forest d from 2,650 to 50 acres,, Forty catec - zogy ::w�3:6h 12M R6 d tht r)erc- nt of the increase in manacred forest an was e resul . of iust one new property . beincL_ enrolled in the Dro am a ="li-_ of conversion of An-oEher 25% of the increase is the re n - the pro - culture to mana ed forest. The j=at��I`n_the�vroqram�from ail��Irri d f� _a;��f from and n s M� stria' anr c L le a o---_nt the B ri t er I a or manacied forest I M required land use less intensive than for ro e t classified as algilica tura . Because of this reduction in use intensity- a - ransition tural to manacred forest !—and may t or en - uture deve o2 meat_0r. the affected ""n'r The remainder of the increase can be attributed to the -WF- enrollment of much smaller oarcels than In nast years.. a t p this i Br than utting fidicates is that. ........ new farm or have dec forest land into productiong, smaller landowners ja�t_ions are now worth tne tax saviaas thiit the -additional re eats. As a Enat accrue in -cue ace o increasers -assessme genera ru e, the minimum lot size that can be enrolled in e pro is ten acres. For an averageten acre Parcel in am 178-2 the differince bet market value and use value was Tat gap -110 five years later. 4 had ideas to Mr 5 The Land Use Plan designates those agricultural and managed Mrgs-c uses t1lat are antiMpated to canttilue tri the baM, -status M - --tffe— San period. A iculfuFal and manage lorest lands within transition area are expected to convert to more 1HE-ensive uses as publiZ water and sewer are .extended into those areas, Natural Environmental Constraints There are three natural environmental conditions that pose constraints to development in Eno Township; flooplains, steep slopes and poor soils. Mlood2lains: Approximately 1,250 acres, excluding land in Eno River State Paz-K, 15 Iloodplain or has poorly UraineZl I associated with floodplain. The majority of the floo=way fringe is liong Ehe no aver. In some spots the floodplain extends as far. as 800 feet from the floodway. OtH—er significant amounts of floodplain can be found along Stoney Creex, Buckwater Creek, and Little Creek-* . Steep- slones: Steep slopes present a constraint to development by cfegtTnq tHe poEgfftlai roF Increased runoXE an erosion. steep slopes and the soils associated with them also oseroblems for the use of se tic tanks. An area o'er plo es reater than 15%, roughly cuts diagonally across the owns h12, northeast to southwest. Another area of steep slopes can he found along the Durham County line in the vicinity of Eno—River State Park. Poor Soils: Poor soils in the Township tend to be of the Tatum-Goldston association, and are usual1v associated -w-11-t-h steev sloDes. -Another area of soils generally rated poor for urban development activities exists alone New Sharon Church Road. Cultural and Natural Resources Certain areas of Eno Township- possess unique or exemplar natural and physical characteristics that are of great value. - TH—evalue is not necessarily monetary. it may be historical $15 logical, s p1ritual, or of value lotge planning process. First and foremost among these resources is Eno- River State— Park, which stretches., along the Eno River in orange and Purham Counties. Its natural and historical resources and recreational opportunities are a tremendous asset to the Entire region Park lands in 0 which e State e' State range County for h Lae_e gMOMtS__gZ Zra__Sjmp1-a ownerrahip 1 ia in one of three Ate's Ford -access, Co-!-Q Mill 6 31 access, and Cabe's Mill also known as Cabesland access. has one of the The Lar areas cate's -Egrd- best natural exposures of the 2yroclastic rock that is widei-p—read throughout the Piedmont. Pyroclast-ic refers to 5eing vo canic in ors. in. Po vu ation- 0 Neuse River a er o s a sa amander and Roanoke Bass -have................been noted at ate'9 Ford. Both are classified as nngrlas Of s0 cial concern b the state. This desi nation a lies when the V L - specie-s in Oran ge- -Coung6y in small 22ulations is with major habitat loss r or are tarqqts of faced -5 "il concern 4 -th e 1-o—n. Another �fish s eci 0 sl -e-- Darter. has been identi id in the Cabe's Mill 4= of the Park. Flora in the Park is also of great biological 'sicinificance. Exemp ary pan communities In State Park an; Eno River stern el��CCWEHLL-—;a, more common in the we ric pin trom xe at stands, ffo-unEaIns of vort h Carolina, to bottom land hardwoiod-J ore §1L th—e .:Fiver- Ginsengj_ e" tj cation -identified in the Cabe'. ill access area._ classifi ;thrpat o t reate e areater than of a special status c3agsifi The Eno River State Park Master Plan calls for the development of the Park in two phases. in orange County, the first phase called for the development of the Cate's Ford and Cabe's Mill access area to provide primitive camping, picnicing and hiking. The second phase of the development plan calls for completing the linear character of the park by purchasing land and easements for connecting pieces along the river. Phase two also calls for additional access points with canoe launches at Lawrence Road and Pleasant Green Road and expansion of Cate's Ford. Populations of species of_special concern have been noted in areas of Eno Townshi outside the e ining Park boundaries. ee s ecies sn articular the Alewife Floater qeuse River Waterdoq, and Carolina Darter all re he rlvcr Z-0 sustain-'life and reinforces the importance of the Eno River to the naturFl-—environment of Orange Countv-- In addition to its natural resources, EnoTown.-hip is rich ern r most) in the --t filstoric wealth. Five vat e homes I western portion or tWe7—Townsh have been identi€ied by the Divisi�Q� - iv`-ives and Historr as historical)y- and,/—or arc s.,gf—Ar I dr-ura or Ant- to the re ion. St. Ma 's Chaipeu ,- d churchyard in the no corner of the Town hio es from the 1750's and is listed in the National Regist r jisEF-rlc Places. fifteen recorded o There are h "nd .ou side arc��ical sites in he Tgvi-s—hko b withi qf Eno River State Park. 7 32 The spiritual and community life of the Township is served by Its 37=een ac7lve- churches and additional Community centers. Many, sucF as Pleasant Green United Methodist C lurch 4---serve as the nuc leus of long ndina rural communitie g-- zzistknj Land Use The existing land use of the Townshig'-s- 24 000 acres can be Yr-oTc en own-i it He following- - - manner: Acres of Township 'Commercial/Industrial 220 0.9--- , Institutional 100 0.4 '7 Public/Quasi-Public open Space 1,650 6.9 lCe-sidential 2,290 9.5-- <1 acre/unit (290) 1-5 acres/unit g550) 5,0MO acres (1,450) Managed-Forest 5,r640 23.5 Agricultural 3,,600 15.0 und eve-Lo2ed/Other 10,500 43.8 TOTAL 24,000 100.0 ENO TOWNSHIP LAND USE ywadVoLhW ........ :::::X 7 aos—so ears lbw RMd4butud "X ......... 1-5 24LOX .......too Agrlmdbir4 I&OX <s is 7sc All Land Use Residential Acreage/Unit Managed forest and agMic—u-1t-MA1 -1-ands r those to hose- enrolled in the County's use value taxation . zo am. Alon with Public and --qd—as1-Pj1 is ia7n-As,- it _part 8 33 of the Township's open _space. Development _Trends In reviewing development and construction atterns in Eno Towns F3_ two items become a the extent to _wnign_P!I in MUrrilffi '1n=u6ncescfro h -patterns in the UPW OT 11 a IV an t5e Impact of manufactured housing_._ _J 16ts created in su Eno Township from- 1980 to 1987, ninety-two_ were ARA-t of Pleasant Green cihlpy Road an area borderina Durham County and 7only_reRresentina slightly more than one-cmarter of the Township's total area. At least jt� 1 li r Iro osell Kithiz-the-Arl." one hundrRr- a 1,11 11 ''L('), r! filff��io W a he end 2f Furing that time but ;had. not been acted u on b TI-87: The Trey mixed use developmentp iect in northern Durham burn _ro accelerate subdivision County has the potential to greatly a The SF20.0 acre and in Eno Township._project is ex. acted to create between 20,000 anCL 40, new_ -35-Us-and 4, housing units fo_ra 2rojected 12,_6.00new rest w'-bVEhe _V_ear 2005. If iust 5% of the new_4p.U§,tAQ dents , dema-HU'—dreated by Tri"y_burn locates west of the r -jec t J.L This no owns pWards_ of 550 new -units would be built. 12 u e in F-umber, repre-Be ng one-sixth of the orojected increase Township's housing stock between 1987 and 2009, is Q2lX tVat WN-IcH- is directly related to Tr n- 92QUQ= development activity related to Treyburn will in turn create its own a,_e_m_andA f or new 1 ruction�activity. const- 11Treyburn and other large Durham developments could- have .. a signs scan F t impaut on more than ju, ousi, Stock.-tTC—. Mai rovide rptct a ca s in and--ont-af. rev i j nt-12. urn e Mill_ Road provides direct AC-CARA reinforce the already strong west Durham. Treyburn would I art of the ship commuting patterns eastern 2 with Durham and traffic on northern and eastern sections of Tffe"7 owns Hln's roa-d-system could increar-a Five tril2s=daioly homes could - ene ate 5,_500 hundred fiftv new or from - im along with 345 vehicles trAXILIM-3- so, work during the eak rush_hour Manufactured housing is a more inte al art of the housing other to wn s h je -hi2 than Rerha2s- any sitocx--in no -Towns - rounty, regresente 0 Tnumnhln accounted _f Qr only aloe f th aill- I ;20vula_tion increase outside of Cha .2el 11 1 and Car 1980 to 1987. Yet, the Township_- a� t f2r 0 the, 181 k_ ng 2ermits issued for mobile homes Burin 1ha -time. Of -re for replacement units. 9 34 Of ev amount of ,-4-.. mobile home park spaces in. Eno Townshig -relative to the 'rest of tne CouEt ully 5-ne-third of t Di le nome par spaces in orange County outside the municipal I I Many or saictions are 17a ownsWit'. -ex-Mrafe—PrIto L no T MiesE spaces are in parks of high density. reaching in_ some instance of over six- units Rer -acre, hich are served b ta y r vate or communiwells and septic systems. Given t" genera y poor nature ot Eno- Townshi2 soils,. -for septic suitanilityf i the— notential for wzdes nrand contamination of private water su plies exists ands could eventually require -OM6r§ency extensions . of public setvices from neighboring municipalities. . 10 35 FUMING AND FRAM WOVM ANALYSIS The structure of the Plan's framework be c'rins with _ the fi- -- Land 16Y Eve I -GC:LL,.ments around iv organize corLCeOtS - O-LICV 5 r - - - U-s—e —Pla—n for Eno T constructed. -_ The concepts, -se- state., a ceneral consensus as to what are the desirable area a, ke �Into�ac?�O�Tt patteTur, 81 eve T111111 ,avi constraint ntS, a�nal;ae -pNtterns BE I 9v—el—opmen t.............. ............. ronmental . const -s-tatea desires 0--arA r�es_,__;�_Ris. The second comoonent of the framework consists of future projUbtions or o elation housina StOCK and - lan2l =the reguirements. These ro jections are n ot a comment on—th-e desiiabijit5r of ex ectea -owth. The m _iG;_c_t_ed based historical trends. amount of growth W ed on hi is and 'D The organizing conCe roiections are then used to create t , elin rite_ria are established which aliocar-lon cu 7rjStFj5Ute land into Land Use Plan cate ories initially ' WeElned tife--bodv of Efic`�..............Land Use element- of the Lve Plan. D' str' ef _ text and ma form: Organizing gggg-ep—ts The following policy statements regarding Eno Township represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Eno Township is constructed: 1) The agricultural and rural character of the northern tier of Eno Township should be maintained and protected from adverse environmental and economic impacts. 2) Low density residential development should be the predominant land use in the southern portion of the Township. 3) commercial and Industrial development is appropriate in intersections within the &a areas around maior jor transportation- corridor. 4) Existing Eno River State Park lands and land designated for future development in the Eno River State Park Master Plan should be protected from adverse development pressures. 5) Duke Forest tracts in southern Eno Township, which are a valuable research, teaching, and recreational asset, negative impacts of should be protected from the surrounding development. 36 TABLE 3- ENO TOWNSHIP HOUSING PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1980-2005 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 a TOTAL POPULATION 4,450 5,489 6,284 7,874 9,865 12,360 .c b AVG. HOUSEHOLD SIZE 2.51 2.51 2.46 2.43 2.4 2.4 (Persons/household) b d TOTAL HOUSING UNITS, 11770 2,186 2,558 31243 4,110 5,150 UNITS CHANGE FROM 180 416 788 1,473 2,340 3,380 a From Table 3-. Source: 1980 Census Housing and Orange County Planning %pepartme-HE RaEls=lcs. c Assumes continual proportional decrease of average household `size to 2.4 -Dersons1household in year 2000.- d- Source: Orange County Planning Department statistics. TABLE 3- ENO TOWNSHIP LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, 1987-2005 1987-1995 1995-2005 1987-2005 a DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 1r057 1,907 2,964 C. RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE 2642 .3,814 6,466 REQUIRED TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 2,,849 4,179 7,,028 a From Table 3- b Based on a density of 2.5 acres/unit. This is the average size of a lot suba- jWja-fr6m` 19-90-1986o c Based on a density of 2 ,acres/unit. The projected population of 12,360 residents in the year 2005 13 37 would require an estimated 2,964 housing units beyond the px3ce an auu`tioaal 6,466 stock existing in 1987. This WOUla 5 the I average lot acres into resideln'FMa use. Through 199! the 2 L _ size used to determine acres is a ed on the averse O, T � Ater 1995, 'r- 15 79 0 and 8 7 0 f subdivided-in between 19 - A- assumed that land alating Dricer and sizes No acres land 1111,1_11 )t s down.will force lot availability O:t most restrictive e the most re resents an arbitrar number but is size in use durin-q-1217., resi ential-zoning_ lot d ial z Total acreage re wired between 1987 and 2005 takes into account residential commercial institutional, and ut commercial uses are mosr- industrial needs. Institutional an multiplier of derect i;__�� esidentlal increases, and a mu - one acre of new commercial/institutional acreage for every twenty acres of new residential acreage is used. Industrial acreage requirements do not have the direct association j rest Q - a *dep teal uses !40. There acres e that oth suitable far are however areas of the j93M_Shi_R that are set aside for such purposes. industrial uses and should be Tw,0 hundred f if t acres IS set Aside ZOF .in-d-us-ttia requirements during the course of the 51an period Allocation of growth The primary task of the a land use plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with County-wide goals and policies, as well as the Township organizing concepts. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accommodate this growth will be substantially greater than the calculated need in order to allow for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of free market choice. The following allocation guidelines incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification system: *The rural and agricultural areas in the northern and central portions of Eno Township, which contain the Township's prime agricultural soils, should be maintained in those uses. *Low density non-farm residential development is most appropriate in th e southern tier of Eno Township commercial and industrial *Low and medium intensity development is appropriat e in the area focusing on the intersection of 1-85 and US70, and extending southeast toward the Durham County line. *Duke Forest and Eno River State Park tracts, which 14 L; 38 provide significant educational and recreational opportunities,, should be protected as public interest district lands. With the allocation guidelines in mind, information about Eno Township land is filtered through a set of criteria that evaluates aluates the suitability of certain land uses to specific areas. The information is then used in the classification of land throughout the Township. Distribution of Land Use plan Categories Land in Eno Township is classified into the land use categories listed below. Distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the Township Land Use Plan, allocation guidelines contained in the Land use Component of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and the potential effects of the physical change projected for the Township. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists .primarily of slopes greater than 15% and Ilo- -Tains. is _gr oap land is considered unsuitable for most- eve iopment activlEy. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: The classification refers to land assessed under County provisions or use va1u,e taxaElon or. farm an Z( manage a Forest lands, as well as tor active agr!MulturaT lands not----enrolled in Ene use value taxation grogram. Most -of these lands are concentrated in the northern sec ion ol the Township. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interests Areas are public or quasi-public lands, such as Duke Forest and Eno River State Park,, that provide significant educational and recreational opportunities. These lands also form a crucial 'component of the County's open s]2ace sXstem* AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: The central and northern areas of the Township, where agriculture and forestry are important land uses, are classified in this manner. Areas to the west of Pleasant Green Road and south of the Cafe,r% -Fo—ref n0F= ol Eno River State Park are also classified in this manner as a means of buffering-the Park. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: Much of the land in the southern third of the Township is classified as Rural Residential, which indicates a predominant land use of low density non-farm residential development. The Rural Residential lands in Eno Township have good access to both Hillsborough and Durham and are likely to attract much ol tFe subur an development expected during the plan period. TEN YEAR TRANSITION: Land along the western border of the . 15 39 indicates Township has been classified in this manner. This indi`k ry MMt -p-u73Tc services- from Vie - own oT_ H3_11sborou re i e within ten years. Most Of—this Ten Year area ` served with a qonslsta ol; JUIRdlum aenFil—v subdivisions already subd' ]public water eu ly from TWENTY YEAR TRANSITION: The area along US70 and 1-85 from the Durham County line west to Stoney Creek and south to the Southern Railroad is classified as Twenty Year Transition. The area is within the Durham City urban growth area and part of it is already served by the City's water system. other urban services are expected in the area by the end of the plan period. The transportation system within the area is. adequate for more intensive development.. Two areas of TwqA� Year Transition have also been desigaated aloe a the western edge—--of---fli-e-_T_o'w'_n_ s,-hi—p_-_ The--first ar__e_a in the southwest corner--o - 1�6* ToWndhip, generally sufi6ajidg" Ten Year TF—M-1—flon Areas. The second area is north of the Eno River along St. Mary's Road. In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use strategy has been to identify appropriate activity nodes in each Township. The purpose is to direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas, avoiding strip development and promoting an efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections. Three activity nodes have been designated in Eno Township. REFERENCE: E-1 (Law's Store/Palmer's Grove) LOCATION: US70 Business/US70 Bypass and Palmer's Grove Church Road (SR1562) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood EVALUATION: This node, located at the intersection of two arterials? US70 Business and Bypass, has no environmental constraints to hinder small scale commercial development. REFERENCE: E-2 (Eno) LOCATION: US70 and 1-85 PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition EVALUATION: This node is focused on the intersection of two major highways. It is also serviced by a spur of the Southern Railroad. There are a number of existing commercial uses in the area and relatively little residential development. New commercial and industrial uses should - generally be confined Eo ENF—areas south -6F - the- negative impacts on Eno River State Park. REFERENCE: E-3 (Duke Forest) LOCATION: US70, NC751, and Old NC10 (SR1710) . PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition 16 GU 40 = . EVALUATION: This node is focused on the intersection of two arterials and the collector road Old NC10. It is bordered on the south by a main line of the Southern Railroad. Existing land uses include commercial, and medium and high density residential. The node is within Durham's 201 sewer planning area and is served by the Durham city water system. Land to the east of NC751 and a small portion_north of he ka-11r-CLaare tart of Duke Fore t node. 17 t ~, . . .~ ~; _; ENO TOgMSH1P I.HND llSE P~HM - f1AY 1'4$8 [ORHFT) rax7u irsA cATEGOnti:s ACiTVITY xonES N 1® Agricultural Arena ~ Rura1 Neighborhood ^^ Resources Psottction Areas © Public Intesess Areas ` I , ~. , 1 ^ Agricultural Residential Corgsnerciai Transition L _ . 1 ® Rural Residential ~ Commercial-Industrial Transition 10 Year Transition ROADS Q 20 Yeas Transition ~ Interatsse SCAI.B e ~ Anerial ,~„ Collector 0 2000' 4000' 7. 43 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May Z3--,- 1988 Action Agenda Item #_A SUBJECT: HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING:x Yes No ATTACHMENT[S] : INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Torgan DRAFT Land Use Plan, Hillsborough Township Summary of differences between TELEPHONE NUMBERS: existing and draft Plans Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham * - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Section 3.9 - Hillsborough Township. BACKGROUND: When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five year update schedule was specified. In accordance with the schedule the Little River and Cedar Grove components were revised in 1986 and 1987, respectively. The Bingham Township component has been prepared and will be presented at the next Joint Planning public hearing. The Township components for Cheeks, Eno, and Chapel Hill north of the Joint Planning Area have also been prepared and will be presented along with the Hillsborough Township Land Use Plan at the May 23, 1988, regularly scheduled orange County public hearing. The Plan update process for the area officially began with a public information meeting on January 61 1988, at which time the plan strategy was presented. A public meeting involving the TACs from Hillsborough, Eno, and -,Chapel Hill Townships was held on February 2, 1988 for the purpose of presenting background data and AOL distributing questionnaires on community preferences. A final public meeting was held on March 9, 1988 to present alternative plans. At a May 3 joint Hillsborough/Eno TAG meeting a quorum from the 44 Hillsborough TAC was not present. As such, no recommendation was made by the TAC. The main land use classification differences- between the draft Plan and the existing Plan, adopted in 1981 with amendments in 1984 and 1986 are as follows. - Water Quality Critical Areas are added to the draft Plan. - The Rural Residential area north of 1-40 and west of Old NC86 is changed to 20 Year Transition, as is land between Old NCIO and 1-85. - The Agricultural Residential area west of Dinimocks Mill Road is changed to Rural Residential. - The boundaries of Commercial-industrial Transition are changed to encompass all US70 road frontage to approximately 4500 feet from junction with NC86. On the south, the node is pulled back to the Southern Railroad right-of-way. RECOV=16ATIiON: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.9 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the Plan amendment at its June 20, 1988 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on July 5, . 1988. 45 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXISTING PLAN AND 1988 DRAFT PLAN Socio-Economic Features Notes increased influence of 1-40. Land Use Distribution and Infrastructure Documents extraterritorial jurisdiction expansion of the Hillsborough water distribution system. Household _size and Housing Stock Added to 1988 Plan. Circulation The existing Plan simply describes the road system. The 1988 Plan places greater emphasis on circulation patterns and traffic volumes on major roads. -Cultural and Natural Resources Added to 1988 Plan. Existing Land Use Added to 1988 Plan. Development Trends Added to 1988 Plan. Focuses on subdivision activity, influence of 1-40, and influence on Durham. Organizing Concepts _ Two new policies added to 1988 Plan regarding protection of Duke Forest and Water supply watersheds. Population And Land Requirement Proiections Revised upward in 1988 Plan. Industrial acreage requirements are added to land requirement proiections. Allocation Guidelines Discourages intensive development that creates negative Ii Mh 46 impacts on Public interest Areas or Water Supply Watersheds. Distribution of Land Use Categories Categories do not include any land within the Hillsborough extraterritorial jurisdiction. 1) Resource Protection Areas are added Township-wide to • the 1988 Plan. 2) Agricultural Areas are added 'Township-wide to the 1988 Plan. 3) Water Quality Critical Areas are added to the 1988 Plan. 4) Rural Residential area north of 1-40 and west of Old NC86 is changed to 20 Year Transition, as is land between Old KC10 and 1-85. 5) Agricultural Residential area west of DimmockB Mill Road is changed to Rural Residential. Activity Nodes The boundaries of Commercial-Industrial Transition are changed to encompass all US70 road frontage to approximately 4500 feet from junction with NC86. On the south, the node is pulled back to the Southern Railroad right-of-way. 3.9 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Hillsborough Township, located in the center of orange County, occupies 15,100 acres, approximately 6% of the total County land area. The major growth and development center in Hillsborough Township is the Town of Hillsborough, located in the Township's geographic center. The Town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, which together encompass 5,200 acres, splits the Township into northern and southern tiers. The section of the Township south of interstate 85 is influenced, to some degree, by the northward development patterns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. This level 4U as tra of influence , will increase with the completion of Interstate Park I Hill, ---Ua—rrboro and �Researca- ti-me to Chape -ija�—J-w --- decreases. Township wide, though, the Town Of Hillsborough remains the dominant urban influence. socio-Economic _Features According to the 1980 Census, Hillsborough Township had 8,599 persons,, 11.2% of the County's total population. Ten years prior, the Township had a population of 5,866 residents, average growth rate of 3.91% annually indicating an the throughout the decade. This rate was sligh ly hi her than - that of the Count_ y w a. During that Sam e time, Hill from 11444 to 3j,019 increase Towi6f sborough grew of that over 7% per year. growth rate averaging took place as the result of annexat The growth rate of the 1970's has continued throe h the wn to an Township had qro estimated h rate -from -427� s translates to-an -aver- T1j, peop e. 1 -- hp- 1"o to 1987 o 4.15 er ea r wh e. As a result of natural in -=atign, as a i t s and Wn-ne n the Town o Hillsbo rou h alno kA]Rt psirip-nts- in gro rate re -In the An estimated additiona), 60Q- Towli*s extra erritoria The economic character of the Township is shaped by two factors. The first is the major transportation corridor that 48 0 crosses the Township east/west. The corridor, made up of I- 85, US70, and Southern Railroad, provides a transportation network attractive to industrial development by linking Hillsborough with the major urban areas of the. Piedmont Crescent. The second factor is the area's. proxim ty 0 major ` employment centers TH Durham an soEt-Sern Orange Count X_ -T Influence ol -t-Us actor will Increase with t gletloa I-40. Land Use Distribution and infrastructure The Town of Hillsborough constitutes the major development center in Hillsborough Township. In the southern portion of the Township, outside , the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction, the land use pattern consists of low to medium density residential development, several commercial, and a few industrial uses. The northern tier of the Township is characterized by a mix of farms and low density residential development, with a small scattering of commercial and industrial activity. Most of the area within the corporate limits of the Town of Hillsborough is served by public water and sewer. Large areas outside Town limits also receive Public services from town's -the Town. in 1987, 22�roximateLy one-half_a customers re outside the corporate limits. Areas. wa:Eer d td- ta south east, and to a lesser extent, north of Town are al-so sewered by gravity lines or force mains. some, but 11111i terri f _;—ot raterri o _Jal not Ell these areas D in the 7 - expect to L32 Avant Jurdl j7 ;n_�2d can , The major limitation to eXpansion of the Town water d1str Ution system, as well - as the sewer systemV is dimznis i n ex S11Aca2aci v in Lake Ben -Johnson the Drimary new at for the Town. There are no sites for aw im—poundme:- planning u diction, so 1�oun ent within the Town dm solutions Mus e re q.. J�- e ona in scoPe. Impacts ansion ; b i expansion is wMI als—o -Fe- whether the throu- interlocal agreements with other water producers or an lHc ease in the - size OZ t per no waters ed�. Household Size And Housing _Stock The housing stock of Hillsborough Township, -according- to- the __.�toc� By 1987, that number had 198D -C—_ens_u_ s, was 3,23.F�units- units,increased-5y" an estimated one-third to 4,312 AM6 qP 2 9 4 more than half of which were in the Town of Hillsborough. The increase of 1 079 housinct units was based on the. issuance i nits t e C1 1,602 bui 'I nct Perm ts or hous ng units own ; ip wide. The difference between the figures is primari y because -of units that were permitted but not buil-L amd- mot-DIre- homes rep!acin of e 6 in mobile home Parks. of the building permits issued from 1980 to 1987, onlX one - :r were- 11 )-ul-�tsinqle family homes.—Manufactured hauxin g accounted the-permits issued while mu- i f-am-3-1-y housing accounted for the 13% -remai Ing. overall tnou,-gh, 6if-e-built homes still predominate throughout the To—whsSIDA, ouL-huifibe- rin mobile homes 63% to family units makinq up the remainder. As Fi re 3- shows-, the pr 2ortion, of mobile e homes as a erce ag of the housing 012 the Town ly, a_ units decil es the closer one gets to -thin the higher proportion of mu ti- am3-1-y--units are Wit :5 municipal Puunclarie5 becauEp6 the- IntrastrucEure necessary r E ' Fn r ErI serve mu:Lti-tamj,.L.Z 12f6jec-U5 does not e RIF or muc o F l—ownshi§ outside the Town's boundFr-i—es Figure 3- HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, 1987 of units in each region eo.oz ........... .................. .............................. ......... ...................... so.ox ...................... ..................... ......... . ............. .. .......... ......... ......... ...... ........... I . ........ ..................... ......... ..................... ................... OAZ TOWN(W Hn_T_qB0R=H TOWN 8T1 Region WWI.H.med q==K o=Mn Cm Ph=ftz Dept: Hillsborough Township has followed the state and national Alk 3 GG 50 trend towards smaller household sizes In 1970, the Census reported that the average house old in Hillsborough Township has 3.-41 persons. 53 1980, that had- dropped to 2.66 *fiersons. Circulation The County's major east/west and north/south transportation routes intersect in Hillsborough Township, making it a central point in the County transportation network. The east/west corridor consists of I-85r US70, and the Southern Railroad. The north/south system consists of two State Highways,ghways, NC86 and NC57f along with two important local roads, Old NC86 (SR10'09) and Orange Grove Road (SR1006) . Upon completion, 1-40 will link up with 1-85 just west of Town. A modified version of the North, Carolina Highway 'Functional Classification System is used to describe the road network in Orange County. The system describes segments of the road- network based on mobility and access factors. The most important roads, Interstates and arterial highways,, provide- the best level of service as measured in travel time to and from major activity centers. Roads of lesser importance, collector roads, do not provide as high a level Of service, but do provide areas with access to major roads and secondary access to activity centers. Local roads provide the most limited service capacity, but, in the aggregate, provide large land areas with access to more important roads and highways. Interstates 40 and 85 are designated as Interstates, while five roads in the township are classified as arterial roads; US70 and its Bypass,, NC86, NC57,, Old NC86, and St. Mary's Road (SR1002) . St. Mary's Road angles . northeast out of Hillsborough and provides a major route between Hillsborough and northern orange County. Orange Grove Road (SR1006) and Old NC10 (SR1710) are classified as collector roads. All other roads provide a local level of service. The objective of qLay comp transportation 9nent of a trans tion system I c cl way such h to acc odate-a Q22 amount of traffic while providing the 22erator with an service C 31.8 accept3BIe 1 eve 1 o 68-jVilce. -A level of -nVay an as an appropriate criferion or niq street design-purposes and is defined by the North Carolina tat�ion as a zone of stable with Department of Transoor e tIOW ab! more c ontrgll - . ' _ volumes. Levels of service ran- -ce from 'A which is a 4 4P condition marked _b r low volume and hi h B eed to the forced ow o stations at low B e .marked by 33 -fl5 'F' level of service. , While all the i�� Townsh roads are currer'll'' v overatinQ within :............ its, the, Hillsborouan hfare Plan acceptable limits -agd-ob'L-t-d—b the Town of TI ..........I ill............ h re ported that man of 9 outside the Town I -" are the mayor area roads IFIrton des!I r-a-b-le- 1, ts and one road within the ToZr7_Im3-ts.- C -Street, IS ON 11 rer capac." ty. T e Nort"11111i licaroly-n-a De ar M Transportatioa way Capacity Mar"11 nu al gives 8,000 vilhicleS per day (vpd) as the capacity for a two-lane urban- arterial with a e Ir-O an a ort _3' :kvP service r- �T 1 of AP_rvI, '�: 7 C� Qa7 _jpd for UN-lu R4'cor ed traffic count 1-987 were 7,500 Vbd �6 South ass east a I Bypass. end_6,50 for NC86 the Township The remaining arterial and collector roads in h`33 t r a:t is counts well within acce table limits. —Averacre roads �!he__ 19Fj ra ic counts on the remainin arterial r where Da!q Oran ge-Grove enter�the ToWnshi ran ed f LL 0-0 n they Nr57 1 1987 count of St. Mary's Road had i ese in neigh oring Eno Townshi p. CapAgities on th level o e r-I and a ji2_M2__ f serve s2eed limit 5-d-. Even at 55 moh, capacities range upwar- s !FO—M5 250 vi.. NC57. ran a from 2 100 on St. Mar 's Road to 2 790 on The general capacity at level of service cl for an 5-ti I 1111111111111111�;I i:VOO'vehicles per day r a as t rn-t �ae�Wi Eff-i—Our "I T-F-e '1986 avers daily traffic count for I-85 at Hillsborough,,,,.... 5 r:E�I_o se reached .31 00 vehicles ner d r areater stable flow at gn2jds equal o IB, ' which indica_tes than 55-MR . the ra 01.1 48.000 vehicles per dfi-Ly, Agriculture Hillsborough Township has experienced a continuous and significant loss of agricultural lands as a result of farmland conversion over the last three decades. Between 1955 and 1977, the year the North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service discontinued its township cropland counts, Hillsborough Township lost 27% of its crop and pasture lands. Anecdotal evidence from two sources since then indicates the trend has continued. The first source is the Orange County Agr icultural Extension estimate that 45U acres gervice. They AOk 5. 52 Hillsborough Township crop and pasture land had been removed from production- between 1981 and 1987. The second source or. 6VDdence is s- 2ecific- enrollment trends in the Oranqe County use value taxatson program. The program, which began in the early 1980"s allows land owners whose property meets certain o h a icu ural production or forest management criteria To ave that property taxed at its use value rather than the higher market valug. In the five Year Period from 1982 to 1987 the overall acreage enrolled in the program remained re atively unchanged, increasing less- than 1% from 3,665 acres to 3,,698 acres. If prope ty that was .ex2Mt from all taxation in 1982 but taxe and enrolled in the p ogram in 1987 is removed from the total, though, the total acreage dr7pPe 77% in the f iye y ear-parlod. More telling, the number of parcels enrolled in the program increased from 43 to 66 while-the average parcel size dropped from 85 acres to. 56 acres. Tg3w.-Simplies -two th�S. First, seta lli—r1and owners, V o ma initial ave t touqnt that the ax ene its or enrolling in the program were- not worth the increased regulation, re now taking advantage of the program in the face- of increasing assessments. Second, the trend imp l es that parts of large 2arcels are beina subdivided Io purposes. -MH the� new d for eve o wi _paent Even with the conversion trends, agriculture is still ampor an to the n-6—rt-Hern tier of the Towns ip. During 1 - I --- ten beef producers, dairy. farm, hog, one arm,, and one -poultry- farm were located in Hillsborough Township. raLiLL in-come rom 1 llsbordligh Township comes—TO—Mout luf Of 7 - f 9 County total,- Mut $z.5 Milton in 1935* Natural Environmental Constraints Hillsborough Township contains four natural environmental flood plains, steep constraints to development activity; slopes, water supply watershed, and poor soils. Flood2laifts: Floodplains cover 306 acres of the Townshin 1 Z outside the municip-a tori al u Elie own. Areas of flood r oils account for another 329 acres.-Together, the -account for 7% of the land area in the Coun WE plannin jurisdiction. The lar est ortion o g 0 t 1 15 exists along Z P, flood rove so t E f Too .151gln/ one ek and Strouds at-he r3 cant area- exist alon Cates Cre Smote_ep Slopes of 15% or greater present a constraint Slopes: AlOkk W 6 • C;G, to development because of the hi erosion Potential that can -lop—, y. Steep slopes in —tTle resuIE__Tk_Ok _de__veI o, ment activit TMUBEI—p are genera y associated with stream val ley s r � Fa � iv_ - nL are of steep the M( ever. The most Big I scant are slopes in the Townshi is drM_cconeechee an a Ena-River in the extraterritorial Isdiction of Hilislio—rouqh. Water suppi __y Watershed: A portion of the upper Eno Watershed extends into Hillsborough Township from the west. Two .impoundments in the watershed Corporation Lake and Lake Ben jonnson respective l serve as the drjn water suo-Plies or Ene ---Oran qe-AIanA_nce __ Water S stem and the Town of Vlllrsboroug�h. Poor Soils: most of the area outside the Town's planning jurisdiction contains soils that are suitable for both agricultural and urban development. Scattered areas, thought especially in the. northern tier of the Township, are characterized by soils with a heavy clay content. Poor percolation and the potential for shrink-swell associated -wTE%7t'FFse_soils create problems for building foundations and the use of septic tanks. Cultural and Natural Resources Certain areas . of Hillsborouch Township Possess lunic al M!� oof r that are exemplary natur and physical characteristics great- value. The value is not necessaril moneta L ma value to t ie iritual or of be nistoricalf,--I�a-016qj-ca.L,-- sp -p-1—anninQ The most important biological resources in the TownshiI2 ar e Me no Rivet 3-n-d- -Odd6neechee -' Mountain. Two sOeCier. of spa-c-I-Al conci—rn, the Atlantic Pigtoe an Notched Rainbow . -L — -- - t of Town. A species have been recorded in Eno River east l - of special- cB-ndern 1-n oone that exists in smal po ulat1522j -tat loss in Orange or Is the is faced with -ma or habitat 11 A F tar e o, e cconeechee Mountain one of tn6 County. The 15ra biological sites in orange 1post significant b 11 rantlItIr!B as ain And the nor slope area Know-M of tne mount -- ---a ver Den' include large stands of mature mesic harUw oo as, twenty specie s of terns, and at least Your specles Tdenttft he state as enaand ere d or threatene The Town of Hillsborough has one of the richest histories of ary town in-North Carplipa wealth th private homes east of Town have been Town limits. Two _ 7 54 identified by the State Division of Archives and History as arch tectural. :ii iiii or historical I to th 9-Area. One of Elfe7homes, Ayr Mounti- is on the National ster- of Historical Places, The eighteenth century grgue sites -of QOM� 'ThomaW—Burke and one of-1he oldent Aleetl no of Pri WAS J-n i-h State are north of Town. Eight archaeological-Asate _ g3atsid the Town's corporate limits have been recorded with -the-State IMc'E5g_olFq_v -Branch., The spiritual and community life of the Township is focused on EFid__T'v_wn of Hillsborouah. Several -r_u"a churches,--though, serve as t e nucleus of long standing, stable _ruzal commuA-Ities. , Existing Land Use Hillsborough Townsh p's 15 100 acres can be broken down into three a0ministrativejurisdictions, the Town 6:E-Hlllsborou h, Ounty P, in ,- - -_and the Mill SD5-ro-ugli Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ETJJ which is land acent to .the Town's municipal boundaries for which Town land use reguia ions may s II apply. The acreages for each area are es Tollows: Acreage Percentage of Township Hillsborough _Town . . 1,950 12.9. HIMIBorouga ET3 .31250 21.5 county jurisdiction 9,90U TOTAL 15,100 100.0 Land use within the 9,900 acres in the county's jurisdiction can be broken down in the following manner: classification Acreage Percentage Commercial 96 0.9 InHu-itrial 20 0.2 InsEltut ions l 48 Residential 1,299 13,1 -<I NF—re/unit (327) __(3.3) 175 acres unit (640) (6_.4). 5.01-10 acresjunit, (332) (3.4) . Public/Quasi-Public Open Space 413 4.2 anacie MME 493 - ,-- 5.0 23.9 324, " 42riculture 2 !9-2—.6 Undeveloped/other 5,207 TOTAL 9,900 100.0 8 ti Figure 3- portrays the breakdown ra icall . with the exception o less a icuLT- an more dense rest enti.a eve o_pmen_ , t ese igure are semi ar of t ose ou e extrateerrritotria jur.is action o e own o i Figure 3- HILLBOROUGH TOWNSHIP LAND USE, ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION P+sbftumn—Pu P sex �, 1"X corama�i�l a.ox YaneDed _....— &01-10 assn RertidentW 87.791 1-5 49.SX aQr9euttaer u sX ————,-———_——— <S 8�an ii All band Use Residential Acres/Unit 8cm-m OmMm Cm Maidna D"t.,5687 development Trends The level of development activity in Hillsborough Township from 1981 to 1987 was among the highest in orange county. During tat time on y Chapel Hill Towns ip saw Lae crew i n ot more sul3aivictea lots Enan Ene Township Fully 70% of those lots were located in the County _planning jurisdiction south of--Town, - with 87 lots accessing O._a Nt,o6 and 180 accessing onto new state highway NC86. Eighteen percent of the lots were created in the Town of Hillsborough and its extraterritoria �uris is ion_ , while e- re malnsng twelve percent were created in the County's jurischction north of Town. 9 i 56 The opening of 1-40 will further stimulate development--ju th Township. The proportion of development -activity in each region of the, Township., however, is unlikely to va significantly solely as a . result of q-;;,=, ;Y_ interstate s c2Mjerion. CurreEtly, -the only access to -r-o-M----ne northern tier of the Township is Churton Street J;hrou center of' Town. The average 1987 daily traffic count for the street was 12,000 vehicles j?er day, a figure far over esiriBle capacity. This could easily rusnobrage eve IopmenE in the northern tier of the Towns ip that might otnerwise Take advantage of increased- access to Chapel HIII NUM southern Durham County. The 1987 Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the Town' of, Hills-55-rouqft, t ou=, Pr RS-ses loop around the Town to alleviate the congestion that Churton Street currently faces. The Treyburn development, covering 5,200 acres in northern Durham County, has the potential to stimulate development in Hillsborough Township, particularly in th9 Town and poInts AMR; 'Me firoject is expecteTJ Eo crSNEE 20,000 EU 00 new j5bs and 00 hous ts ing uni for a projecEed 12,600 ffeW 4,0 residents By The year 2005. CeTtutn-1-TI Orcrage e0anty attract some of the new housing demand generated by Treyburn, cilthougH mosU- or Orange County' s share wttt likeiy �1" ter Little River and Eno Tawnshi s. The imnact on Hillsboro= Township will likeli-- be as an activity center to provide servs ces for outlying rest dintial deve lopm-eftE. Tfaff±C ±'Uto ' t T-o-w-H-7--f—or schools, _shoppini5, -9 i3 other non-empl, 557men ZcElvity will increase as a result ot Trey urn. 10 PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS The structure of the Plan's framework begins with the orqanizinq concepts - policy statements around which the Land Use -Plan- for ou_qh _.' i -i _q_on_sjU M=e conce is state a general consensus as to what are the deilra patterns of growth 6i the §Lfpq.,. ta e int ble pa account patterns of develonment, environments coast and the stated desires of area residents. The second coLu2onent of the framework consists of future Projections for poRulation, housing stock, and recruirements. These proiections are not a comment on desirability of expected growth. They meE917 IndicaEe E e amount of growth expected based on historicaI xTends. The organizing concepts and projections are then used to create allocation 9uMelines. criteria are es is WITIM aistribute and into an use FINN categof 3 Tftttt=y 21511n9d in the body of the Land Use element of the Orange -CounEy ComprEnensive Plan. Distribution is retlecteU in BoEn text and map form. Organizing Congp9ts The following policy statements regarding Hillsborough Township represent the organizing concepts around which the Land use Plan for Hillsborough Township is constructed: 1) The Town of Hillsborough is the major growth and development center in the Township. 2) The more intensive commercial, industrial, and residential land uses are most appropriately located within the Town's -corporate limits and areas adjacent to the Town likely to become urban. 3) The agricultural and rural character of the northern tier of Hillsborough Township should be maintained and protected from adverse environmental and economic impacts. 4) The rural residential character of the Township- south of Town should be maintained. 5) Duke Forest lands, which are valuable for their 11 research, recreational, and open space use, should be protected- Trdm the averse surrounalng adyelo 61 Public water supply-watersheds in the Towns uld be de--yelopAd.- onXyin a manner . that minimizes adverse mAacts on water-Q u 4-1—i-t-y-, Population and Land Requirement Projections One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process Is calculating the amount of land required to accommodate .projected, growth in a given area. Generally,, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential uses are directly related to the size of the population. Tables 3- through 3- summarize the population trends and estimated land requirements for Hillsborough Township during the plan period. Table 3- summarizes population estimates and projections for population, while Table 3- projects the number of new homes required to meet the demands of new residents. The average household sizes used for projections in Table 3- assume that the trends towards smaller household sizes will continue, ,leveling off towards the end of the "Plan peri5ai TABLE 3- POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1987-2005 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, ALL JURISDICTIONS a b c c C c 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total Population 8,599 11,427 12,858 1.5,653 19,055 23,196 Population Change from 2,828 4,259 7,054 10,456 14,597 1980(number) a source: 1980 Census of population b Source: Orange County Planning Department c Based on an exponential extra-DOlation of the average growth r FMe --f m -1970-1y8 7 of 12 r Alk TABLE 3- HOUSING PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1987-2005 LLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, ALL 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total a Population 81599 111427 12,858 15,653 19,055 23,196 Avg. Household Size 2.66 2.65 2.62 2.56 2.50 2.50 Total b o ng Units 3r233 4,312 41908 6,114 7,622 9,278 Change in Units from 50 ---- �1 079 11675 2,811 41389 6r045 a From Table 3-. b Source: 1980 Census of Housing and Orange County Planning Department statistics. nnnn��n—��nnor�i�.a .�nn-nioo.r+�®n® TABLE 3- LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, 1987-2005 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, ALL JURISDICTIONS 1987-1995 1995-2005 1987-2005 a `---- DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED b 1,802 3,164 41966 RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 2,946 3,417 51363 TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 2, 193 3,738 5,931 a From Table 3-. b Based on a_ density of 1.08 acres/unit, the averacte size of a lot subdivided from 1981 to 1987. `� 60 1P The projected population of 23 196 residents in the year 2005 .==Lj== would require an estimated 4,966 dwelling units beyond what existed in 1987. This would place an additional 5,363 acres into resideffEMST uses. This is based on an avers�10�tSi�ze of 1.08 acres, the -size —o=-an ameracii.- = a- in all urisdict ons of the T wnshi from 1980 to 1987. The. lot size usedr muc smaller than in other townshi s. reflects ,the ablil o t Total acreage required, between 1987 and 2005 takes into account residential, commercial, institutional, ' and industrial needs. Institutional and commercial uses are most directly tied to residential increases, and a multiplier of one acre of new commercial/institutional acreage for every twenty acres of new residential acreage is used., Industrial acreage requirements do not have the it ags -301-JOU residential acreage that of h "S 16F the Township that are suitable for indust ial ujgS�_�nnld M-ser- asMe FFF such U osel. A nt-vpm -ER a" dsl Pie or in ustrial reggiremen s during the co Ran erio� . 0 Allocation of Growth The primary task of the a land use plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with County-wide goals and policies,, as well as the Township organizing concepts. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accommodate this growth will be substantially greater than the calculated need in order to allow for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of free market choice. The following allocation guidelines incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification system: *Higher intensity residential and commercial development, which would most appropriately be served by a centralized water and sewer system, should be diricted first to suitable vacant land within the Town of Hillsborough and secondly to the Town's transition areas. *Commercial and industrial development occurring outside the Town's planning jurisdiction should be located in 14 qP activity nodes, which provide a more reasonable and efficient alternative to strip development. *Agricultural lands in the northern tier of the Township should be maintained in acknowledgment of the viability of the land for that use. *Rural non-farm residential development should be allocated to the southern tier of the Township to avoid negative environmental or economic impacts on agricultural uses in the northern portion of the Township. *Development at levels of intensity _tAAt_a=&t& ne q4triv Meacts on public _interest areal o r public water su __lV watersheds should bp,directed those areas. ijai from With the allocation guidelines in mind,, information about Hillsborough Township land. is filtered through a set of criteria that evaluates the suitability of certain land uses to specific areas. The information is then used in the classification of land in the Township outside the municipal boundary and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough. Distribution of Land use Plan Categories Land in Hillsborough Township outside to Town's planning jurisdiction is classified into the land use categories listed below. Distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the Township Land Use Plan, allocation guidelines contained in the Land Use Component of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and the potential effects of the physical change projected for the Township. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists rimari Y BE s es greater than M and Mo aMs 7-TTas an is considered unsuitable for most development -act=. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: The classification refers to an assessed under County Provisions for use value taxation =- farm and managed forest lands, as - well as or -d-sTf-My�p I agricultural lands not enrolled in the use value taxation program. Most of these lands are concentrate d in the nortEerT section ot the Township, 'Th6se . lan are not iden e within transition areas. 15 62 t qP PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interests Areas are public or quasi-public lands, such as Duke Forest, that provide significant educational and recreational opportunities. These lands also form a crucial component of the County's open space system. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: A small portion of the Upper - Eno watershed, which furnishes the Town of Hillsborough and, the Orange-Alamance Water System with its water supply, lies along the western boundary of the Township. WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA: Land in the Water Supply Vlate-FIM7 Eli a rains yin-to water suPP ly impoullual and IT-re-ams De-10W rlig- MCI; trtbuMEY _iMP0aJ11d=r ar --�Ue5a. 2107-Tater Qual.-Y efftmTtift] �"� e CLe prijt-e-cion IF—= Eh=ea r0 . AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: The northern area of the Township, where agriculture is an important land uses, is classified in this manner. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: much of the land in the southern third of the Township is classified as Rural Residential, which indicates that the most suitable land use is low density, non-farm residential development. TEN YEAR TRANSITION: Land classified in this manner indicates that ublic services from the Town of Hillsborough are likelv within en- ears. Most Of the land adjacent to the Town's or in - close proximity to p arming action and rhe intersections is designated as Ten year Transition use inm-u-c=of Ten Year Transition area consists Of—medium v wit ladblic water cLensity drVisionS area Ber�qd �uppiy from the Town of Hillsborou gh. TWENTY YEAR TRANSITION: Most of the land adjacent to the Town's planning jurisdiction that is less deve lOP an an I=the Ten Year Transition areas- is designated as TweatX year TransiEion._This an is re Rr—Town. In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land : use stratecry .has been to identify appropriate activity nodes in each Township. The purpose is to direct commercial and industrial uses that choose to lo.cate outside of the Town's planning jurisdiction to the most appropriate areas, avoiding strip development and promoting an efficient 16 Maw— L; 63 an arterial road, contains a number of existing commercial and industrial uses. A satellite to this node exists farther South on NC86, separate rom the rest of the node by a mauium enatty residenfial neighborhooa. There are no MUjor environmental cons Erain ts to in er more intensive development in the main portion of the node. With the possible exception of the area immediately to the south of the intersection of Old NC10 and NC86, there would be no disruption of areas with a residential character. Additional development in the satellite should be restricted to avoid 9cLverse IBM 'Es on Duke Forest and neld"oring-- residealIA communities. Although the ability of -- NC8k - to handle addit3:6n-al traffic may hinder some developm t, thr. 92-istence of sower, service and the r2ad- gyst= wjj;hin the node ma!ke it a_ _good site for new commercial and industrial a;-eve.Lo men t 18 !_ y i a arR Yw' MrAF ■■■/• ■a � r • � JM� 8 .. maar d -*Can'. rv./ri,c fu arum■'■■■. A. ■� r�rrsr■mmrrr rmi. ml/C7—...::�►tml 1■r■.t■■mm/' -r •mrm■r1■mHma+ In AM/!m■rY•t■■$Itarf■■■rr�mt•r �.%m1. ■r■SOL VAN4 armMmm■■■lirrmmr.�■m■ p1.mOYm■�V■■r\ II•rW!■m■■m/■m'. :■■Hm ROM �F,•.,,jy1m1�"a nraaom■■aur ^+m■■m/■i■mammmr 11 1 1 I • n J 65 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 231 1988 Action A eada Item SUBJECT: CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X_Yes No ATTACHMENT[S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Torgan Draft Land Use Plan, Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area TELEPHONE NUMBERS., Hillsborough 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amen dment to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Section 3.12 - Chapel Hill Township. The proposed amendment addresses land use in the a rea north of the Joint Planning Area. BACKGROUND: When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five-year update schedule was specified. In with the schedule, the Little River an accordance d- Cedar Grove components were revised in 1986 and 1987, respectively. The Bingham Township component has been prepared and will be presented at the next Joint Planning public hearing. The Cheeks, Hillsborough, and Eno components have also been prepared and will be presented along with this Land Use Plan at the May 23, 1988, regularly scheduled Orange county public hearing. The Plan update process for the area officially began with a public information meeting on January 6, 1988, at which time the plan strategy was presented. A public meeting involving the TACs from Hillsborough, Eno, and Chapel Hill Townships was held on February 2, 1988 for the purpose of presenting background data and distributing questionnaires on community preferences. A final public meeting was held on March 9, 1988 to present alternative plans. Because of limited Chapel Hill TAC involvement in the ' initial stages of the process, no TAC recommendation was sought on this plan. The draft Plan differs little from the current Plan adopted in 1981., The main differences include: - Extension of Twenty Year Transition area from Eno Township south to southern Railroad - Drawing Commercial and commercial-Industrial Activity nodes to coincide with Twenty Year Transition Area. RECOMMMATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.12 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the Plan amendment at its June 20, 1988 meeting* The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision On. JulY 5, 1988- Aah CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP, north of the Joint Planning Area TOWNSHIP PROFILE: summARY AND ANALYSIS Chapel Hill Township, located in the southeastern part of Orange County, occupies 46,700 acres and contains about 18% of the County's total land area. The towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro are within the Township. Most of the Township's land use is governed by the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, first adopted as an amendment to the Orange County Land use Plan in October 1986. Approximately 4,240 acres, however, lie to the north of the Joint Planning Area, representing approximately 9% of the land area in Chapel Hill Township. This section of the Township lies within the overlapping spheres of influence of Chapel Hill/Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Durham, leading to substantial residential growth pressure. Sccio-Ecanqmic Features In 1980 approximately 551 people lived in Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area (JPA) . This amounted to less than 2% of Chapel Hill Township's total population of 50,572 residents. By 1987, the area had grown to an estimated 886 persons, an average annual growth rate of 7% per year. This growth rate translates into a doubling of population every eleven years and is more than double the growth rate of both orange County (3.26% per year) and Chapel Hill Township as a whole (3-05% per year) during the same period. Much of this growth can be explained by placing the area in a regional context. Virtually all of Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA is within ten miles of major employment and commercial centers in Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Durham. Upon completion, 1-40 will bisect the area, providing direct access to additional employment centers in Research Triangle Park and Raleigh. HoMsi ► Stock Ili The Housing stock of Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA in 1980 consisted of 204 units. In 1987 that number had increased by 62% to an estimated 331 homes. Single family, site built homes predominate in the area, outnumbering manufactured housing by a ratio of two to one. Of the approximately 110 manufactured homes in the area, 68 fifty-one are in mobile home parks. Those parks cover less than 0.5% of the area's total land area. Circulation A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional road Classification system is used to describe the County's describes p network. This system des arts of the network based on , The most important roads, mobility and access factors. the shortest travel interstates and arterial roads, provide time between activity centers. Roads of lesser importance, collector roads, do not -provide as good a service function, but do provide large areas with access to major roads. Local roads function in the most limited service capacity, but in the aggregate serve to provide large land areas with access to the collector and arterial systems- In part because of the area's physical boundaries, the circulation system for Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA from either the Joint Planning Area cannot be separated out north. to the south or Hillsborough and Eno Townships to the no1/4 At its most narrow north-south Point the region is Only mili wide and nowhere exceeds 1 1/2 mile wide. While all major north-south routes between Hillsborough .and Chapel Hill pass through the area, few east-west roads traverse the h the area. There are no major intersections in the area.' althoug jvnction , of the collector road New Hope Church Road (SR1723) NC86 lies just to the south within the , and the arterial road Joint Planning Area. Agriculture forest lands make up only a While agricultural and managed eals total land area, they nonetheless small portion of the area of the rural character much of provide an important a pressures and the area has. With the increasing development radiating from. Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, Durham, however, it is a comp onent that is rapidly declining. , The Orange County use value taxation program, begun in the property meets certain early 198016, allows land owners whose t management criteria to have agricultural production or foxes the higher that property taxed at its use value rather than in program enrollment can give some idea of the trends in farmland conversion taking place. ' in the five year period fr om 1982 to 1987, the amount land- in Township north of the JPA enrolled in t57$rogam Chapel Hill T 94 acres, a drop of For declined from 875 acres to 4 cultural, as Opposed to as agri land in the program classified precipitous, managed forest, the decline was even more 2 69 dropping 85% from 557 acres in 1982 to only 82 acres in 1987. Land enrolled in the program as managed forest increased slightly, from 318 acres to 412 acres during the same time. Of the 494 acres in the program in 1987, two-thirds had converted from agricultural to managed forest during the preceding five years. The criteria for a managed forest designation are less stringent than for an agricultural designation and require less intensive use of the land. In some instances, the transition of land from the more intensive agricultural use to the less intensive managed forest use may portend future development of the property. Natural Environmental Constraints Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area contains the following environmental constraints to development activity; , f loodplains, steep slopes, and poor soils. Floodplains: Virtually all of the area's 100-year floodplain acreage lies along Stoney Creek and its tributaries. The stream flows through a relatively narrow valley so the extent of flooding during 100-year floods is not great. The floodplain rarely extends further than three hundred feet from the center of the stream and covers only sixty-seven acres, less than 2% of the area. Poorly drained soils associated with floodplains cover an additional 129 acres or another 3% of the region's land area. Steen Slopes: Steep slopes present a constraint to development by creating the potential for increased runoff and erosion. Steep slopes and the soils associated with them also pose problems in the use of septic tanks. Steep slopes in the portion of Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA are fairly extensive, encompassing some 787 acres or almost 19% of the total land area. Most of the steep slopes are confined to the Couch Mountain tract of Duke Forest and the stream valleys of Stoney Creek and its tributaries. Soils: Two soil associations predominate in the area; Appling-Helena to the east and Georgeville-Herndon-Tatum to the west. The soils of the latter association tend to be well-drained and are suitable for most land uses. Appling- Helena soils, however, are somewhat more clayey, posing problems for septic tank absorption fields and many building types because of poor absorption and shrink-swell problems. 3 70 Existing _Land Use Chapel Hill Township as a whole consists of 46,700 acres, with the section north of the joint planning Area containing about 4,240 acres, 9% Of the Township's total. Current land uses of the 4,240 acres can be broken down in the following manner: Acres of Township 13 0.3 Commercial 18 Institutional 13.8 Residential: . 584 19.5) (3.3) <1 unit/acre ( :1-5 acres/unit (341) (58.4) (223) (38.2) 5.01-10 acres/unit 04 9 .5 411 Public/Quasi-Public open Space 9.7 Managed Forest 82 1.9 . Agriculture 2,728 64.3 Undeveloped/other TOTAL 41,240- 100.0 Land Use, Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area 1." H=nod Fwwt V-V% 5.01-10 max Mer. 1-5 ors US% <1 asz All land uses Residential Acreage/unit *thee hobldw unameloped This breakdown of land use is similar to that of the Joint Planning Area. 4 71 Development Trends As mentioned above, the housing stock of Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA increased almost by almost two-thirds from 1980 to 1987. This means that as many homes will have been built between 1980 and 1990 as the 204 homes that existed prior to 1980. Subdivision activity in the area has also been high. From 1980 to 1987, seventy-eight new lots were created, covering 218 acres or 5% of the total land area. High rates of development and subdivision activity are expected to continue in Chapel Hill Township, as in surrounding Townships. Development pressures from Chapel Hill, Durham, and Hillsborough will continue to expand into the area and the completion of 1-40 and the interchange at New Hope Church Road will significantly decrease travel time to other employment centers in the Triangle. 5 72 PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND APPLICATION The structure of the Plan's framework begins with the organizing concepts - policy statements around which the Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area is constructed. These concepts state a general consensus as to what are the desirable patterns of growth for the area. Because Of the region's close interrelationship with surrounding townships, some of 'the policy statements for the region will mirror those of Hillsborough Township, Eno Township, and the Joint Planning Area. other variables represented d velpmen enironmental tpoly ttg patterns of otv constraints, and . the stated desires of area residents. The second component of the framework consists of future projections for population, housing stock, - and land requirements. These projections are not a comment on the desirability of expected growth. They merely indicate the amount of growth expected based on historical trends. The organizing concepts and projections are then used to create allocation guidelines. Criteria are established which distribute land into Land use Plan categories initially defined' in the body of the Land Use element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Distribution is reflected in both text and map form. Oraanizina gRpAepts The following policy statements represent the organizing concepts ar oun d which the Land Use Pla for Chapel Hi 11 Township north of the Joint Planning Area is constructed. 1. The rural residential character of the, area should be maintained and be the predominant land use. 2 . Duke Forest tracts, . which are a valuable research and teaching facility and are available for public use, should be protected from adverse development pressures. 3. The existing open space system in Chapel Hill Township, including the area north of the Joint Planning Areal which includes Duke Forest and existing agricultural and forest lands, should be protected from intrusion by incompatible land uses. 4. Rural lands currently existing between the Chapel Hill/Carrboro urban area and Hillsborough should be IW preserved and maintained. 6 73 Population and Land Requirement Projections One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is calculating the amount of land required to accommodate projected growth in a given area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential uses are directly related to the size of the population. Tables 3- through 3- summarize the population trends and estimated land requirements for Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA during the plan period. Table 3- summarizes population estimates and projections for population, while Table 3- projects the number of new homes, required to meet the demands of new residents. The average household sizes used for projections in Table 3- assume that the trends towards smaller household sizes will continue,' leveling off towards the end of the plan period. The projected averages, though, are greater than those used for other townships. This is a reflection of construction trends in the area. The square footage of new site built homes in Chapel Hill Township has been larger than other areas of the County, approximately 46%, or 780 square feet greater during 1987. As such, a slightly higher average household size is projected. TABLE 3- POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES, 1980-2005 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP NORTH OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA a b c c c c 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total Population 551 886 1,086 1,524 2,140 3,005 Population Change from 1980 (number) --- 335 535 973 1,589 2,454 a Sources: 1980 Census of Population and Orange County b Planning Department statistics c Source: Orange County Planning Department Based on a standard expontential extrapolation of the average growth rate from 1980-1987 of 7.02% annually. 7 74 TABLE 3- HOUSING PROJECTIONS AND ESTIXATES.r .1980-2005 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP NORTH OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 TOTAL POPULATION a 551 886 1,086 1,524 2,140 3,005 b AVG. HOUSEHOLD SIZE 2.7 2.68. 2.65 2.62 2.6 2.6, (Persons/household) b d 823 1, 156 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 204 331 409 581 UNIT CHANGE FROM 80 --- 127 205 377 619 952 a From Table 3-. -b Source: 1980 Census of Housing and Orange County Planning Department statistics. G Assumes continual proportional decrease of average household size to 2.6 persons/household in year 2000. d Source: Orange County Planning Department statistics. TABLE 3- LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, 1987-2005 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP NORTH OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA 1987-1995 1995-2005 1987-2005 DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED a 250 575 825 b c RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 700 1,150 1f850 TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 950 1,165 1r880 a From Table 3- b Based an a density of 2.8 acres/unit. This is the average size of a lot subdivided from 1980-1986. c Based on an average density of 2 acres/unit. 8 75 The projected population of 3,005 residents in the year 2005 would require an estimated 825 homes beyond what existed in 1987. This would place an additional 1,880 acres of land into residential use. Through 1995, new residential acreage is based on the average size of a lot subdivided from 1980 to 1987. Beyond that point, escalating land prices and a diminishing availability will likely push the average lot size down. Two acres represents the most restrictive residential zoning category of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance in 1987. Residential development creates in its wake the need for land to accommodate commercial and other non-residential uses. The non-residential acreage requirement of thirty acres is not based on a quantitative formula. It is based, rather, on the expressed desires of area residents and the belief that the commercial and other non-residential needs of area residents can be adequately- served in Hillsborough and Eno Townships, along with that portion of Chapel Hill Township within the Joint Planning Area. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate growth throughout the area in accordance with County-wide goals and policies, as well as the area's organizing concepts. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accommodate projected growth is likely to be greater than the calculated need. This allows for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of market forces. The allocation guidelines that follow for Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA are derived from County and area policies that create the process for channelling the directions of new growth. *Most of the area is best suited for low density, rural residential purposes and should be maintained in that use. *Duke Forest lands, which provide major educational and recreational opportunities, should be protected as public interest lands. *New commercial and industrial development should be discouraged in the area, and should instead be directed -to more appropriate locations in Hillsborough and Eno Townships. 9 76 QP With the allocation guidelines in mind, information about -land use in the area was filtered through a set of location criteria, including the allocation guidelines, to determine whether a specific land use is 'appropriate for a particular area. Resulting analysis creates the basis for the classification of land in the area. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area falls into five land classifications. The distribution is based an expressed .policies outlined in the land use plan for -the area, the location criteria contained in the Land Use Component of the orange County Comprehensive Plan, and, the potential effects of projected growth on the area. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: The classification refers to land assessed under County provisions for use value taxation of farm and managed forest lands, as well as - for active agricultural lands not enrolled in the use value taxation program. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interest Areas are public or quasi-public lands, such as Duke Forest, that provide significant educational and recreational opportunities. The Couch Mountain tract of Duke Forest, in -the eastern poition of the area is also an important component of Orange County's open space system. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: most of the land in Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA is classified as Rural Residential. The predominant use under this classification is low density, non-farm residential development. TWENTY YEAR TRANSITION AREA: Approximately fifty acres north on the Southern Railroad, along the border with Eno Towns hip, lies in an area that could be served by public water and/or sewer within the next twenty- years. The area is within the Durham Urban Growth Area, as defined in the _Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan. There are no activity nodes in Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA. A commercial-indistrial transition node in Eno- Township, however, extend as far south as, the southern Railroad in the northeastern corner of the area. 10 ,y • , OINT 2 • 0 +}a • �M�rS• t e s• Ills • OOL ,• = CAMP M 1�C1Pe e• • s••• 1'i' ?''- CIR. 66 i a 1 AN '1'i {'Ifn. mufti MY ,pi: 'a'_•i. `_�"�.11 �r � � ., •.'i'..."i:.IN ( f'�.'. � ITI7 I • I lJ8 CHflPEL HILL TOHHSH t P„ NORTH OF THE JO t HT PLRNH I HG RRER, !'. 1824 PR LRHD USE PLflN - RRY 1900 [LIRHFT] '' lKINS I '. OR I' M LAND USE CATEGORIES ACTIVITY NODES : ! = j tr T Agricultural Areas ® Commercial Transition RD, I _ 1 Resource Protection Areas N Public Interest Areas ROADS Rural Residential Interstate SCALE: 20 Year Transition Arterial p 2000' 4000' Collector `4 ' � � BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 23. 1988 � SU13JECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 9 - SIGNS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING —X—YeS NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Proposed Ordinance Amendments Letter from County Attorney TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-733,1 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed amendment to Article 9 (Signs) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Section 9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance is pr oposed to be amended by adding a sentence which demonstrates that the sign section does not favor commercial signs over non-commercial signs. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the proposed wording in another sign RECOMMENDATION: The Planning --___ --____--___ _==-_ '__ of the proposed. � � 80 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE'-- Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article Aigns ORIGIN OF AMENDMEXT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public x Other: County Attorney. STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMNDpTION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 25, 1988 ------------------------------------------------ PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Article 9 will be amended by adding a sentence which demonstrates that the sign sec-ion does not favor commercial signs over noncommercial • signs. I11ZACTS/ZSSTjES: The United States Supreme Court has Upheld the Droposed wording in another sign Ordinance as demonstrating it did not favor commercial signs Over noncommercial signs. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS: Section 9 .5 will be amended to include the :allowing sentence after the first sentence: An—v sign allzthg�_ized by L-1-Li—s ordinance may Zon-a noncommercial cORv -in lieu of anv other co, IDV. 9.3 Prohibited Locations For Signs A-1 Except where specifically permitted by this ordinance. all signs, including .�.tme supports,ts, frames and embellishments thereto, small not be located within any required setback area or public -ion& of way, nor shall any s.ion be attached, affixed or painted upon any utility poles, any tree, rock, or other natural object within 4-me public right of way. No sign snail be permitted on the side street fronteoe of a corner building, if such building is located within of a Resioential District-. one hundred -9.4 Restrict-ions On Illumination. Etc. No source of illumination on a sign, such as floodlights, spotlights , unshielded bulbs, etc. , small be directly visible from any public right of way, W ' from any residential -,-dis. rict or from adjacent• premises.• Animated, routing, or other mDv- ing or apparently movinng installations are prohibited. Sions Subiect To Control.. All sions visible. from the public ioh,6. Of way shO.1*1 be- erected, Mai 7 n'ained and operated in accordance with this ordinance and other relevant controls unless specifically excepted. Signs not subject to the provisions of this ordinance are listed in 9.6 * Sioms Not Su Pe_ms R eou;-ements I�ect 0 PL_ ine following sions are not subject to the permit reouire- ments ordinance: 8) N'on-illuminated sions not exceeding 2 per lot and 2 square feet in area, - of a non-commercial nature and bearing only property identification numbers and names, post 6 ofT1"e- box -numbers and names of- O-Wcupants of the premises. b) Flaos and insionia and sions Of any government, when displayed in connection with a non-commercial activity. one flao of the United States displayed in connection with a comme;-Zal activity. C) Legal notices, identification and informational sions and traffic L directional sions erected by or on behalf of a oov' ernmen-tal body. d) 1nte-,r2_1 O*eC--24- 'vo Or architectural f features O buildin' os, except letterS, trademarks, moving 6 1 9 Parts or moving lights. a) Sions'dire--ting and ouicina tzaffim on P:ivate property, not exceeding 4 square feet each, and bearing no advertising me-- ESL -F) Sions, not exceeding 16 square fleet and lm"-' � in area i a - -6-d to 2 single-faced sion - s Or 1 double-faced sian at ea=n point of ec7ass, giving the name Of residential SuDdivieionS, Multiple family housing develooments, 0:' mobile home courts. CoIbA. BL?,NmoL,7,, DiCKEMN, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHUL &Z HAR=n ATropj,=AT IAw P.O. DRAwr:.R isn 129 E. TRYox Sr. HIUSWROUCk N.C. =8 919-732-2196 March 8 , 1988 915•94240M CHNIM HUL OFFICE sum 20,MUMUN B=DC W r.FVAMW SUM CfLVW-H"K.C.22514 919429MR AWM S.COMMN,JL STVM A.BMH= Mr. Marvin Collins DOWID L IXCXDWN RO=L OWN= Director CZ0FN= HA L RM=MM VE Orange County Planning Department POW"S G.MCHCUS HERMAN 306F. Revere Road IOM L STEPPAN Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 X&THMEL L CLEKEM HAMYS tWSON Of c4umd Re: Sion Regulations Contained in the 80)WR D.S4W= County Zoning ordinance Orange Dear Marvin: Enclosed is a Copy of a document I received from the Winter County Attorneys Conference related to sign control. After reviewing this material and Affik comparing it with Article 9 in Orange County' s zoning regulations I have only one recommended change to the zoning regulations. I recommend that Section- 9 .5 be amended to include a sentence after the first sentence which states: Any sign authorized by this ordinance may . contain noncommercial copy in lieu of any other copy. It strikes me that our Sion ordinance is, for the most part, content neutral. However, the Unitedj States Supreme Court has approved the language above as demonstrating that a sign ordinance containing it did not favor commercial signs over noncommercial signs. When an opporitunity arises I would like to -review with you the _ A. status 04 the County' s Sion survey and compliancei deadline. Very truly yours, re E Gledhill Amok GEG/Isg Enclosure 8 3 Amhk ORANGE C 0 U N BOARD OF CONNjs6jON8RS ACTION AGENDA ITE14 ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Kn 23, �1988 Action Agenda Item PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS SUBJECT: (ARTICLE 6 APPLICATIO14 OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS) (ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS) --------- PUBLIC SEARING L_X—Yes DE NT: PLANNING 0 CONTACT: Eddie Kirk AT CSMENT(5) proposed ordinance Amendments TE AFRONE pUMBBRS° Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham _ 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 . Consideration of proposed amendments to Article 6 Ordinance. PURPOSE: and Article 22 of the Orange County Zoning BACKGROUND: Section 6.2 .3 of the Zoning ordinance is proposed to flag lots be amended to add a new se�tion addressing e the Flag lots are irregularly shaped lots wher buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag l " . The proposed amendment will reference applicabotle provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations lots- whic identify permitted locations an.d types Of lag h Article 22 is proposed to be amended to add a definition Of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will help clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE V1 SECTION 6.2.3 FLAG LOTS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: StaffPlanning Board BOCC Public Other:--- STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: I —Com_meHnI'h____MIddle_x_Low EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: May 23, 1988 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To add a new section addres lots. Flasing flag shaped lots whg er lot$ are e the Irregularly Of the lot buildable area by a smaller is connower ected to the street narr lot* This narrower portion Of the an arm of the Portion extends as the name nflaglOt to the street, thus amendment will lot".. This proposed correspond and refer to the Orange County Subdivision pegula tions Loge types of flag I various P-laces and allowed. lots that will be IMPACTS/ ISSUES: T'e' ZonIng Ordinance establishes width/frontage req esta minimum lot -ships -which no ,requirements in zoned w Prevent flag lot.. town- Proposed guidelines accommodate flag or standards The lots wl I I. 'here , topography, in certain situations soil configuration or access impose lot PrOvJdI.nQ suitable building hardships in sites. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None. Flag lots are not Zoning Ordina addre Ordinance. ssed In the PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 6 .2.3 Flag locle 22 Of this ordinance ts as defined In Arti are in Section accommodated force provided ly-B-5-d Of the Subdivision Regulations , as County PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance T_LDINU� REFERENCE: Article 22 UJJA_1 _U x_ p, ,,, Ing Board K Staff � ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: BOCC Public Other: High middle X STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: comment: EXPECTED pUBLI C HEARING DATE: Mpy 23,. 1988 .** e 22 will be amended b*y adding AMENDMENT' Article Lots used In PURPOSE OF AM the definition of Flag t requirements proposed the Lot LaYOU' IV-5-5-d Of the as a new section Subdivision Regulations` to the Zoning the proposed amendment definition With I lots, a def IMPACTS/ ISSUES: Ordinance concerning flag .'ection. - This in the definition s * lot- is and . is needed clarify what .5 flag "* lot. Will help legal definition of flag provide a following term b te o ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: The - alphabetically PROPOSED ORD added Article 22. Lgz;u d A n n ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: RP O R A N G 2 C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date.- X-ay -2-3--, 1988 Action Agenda Item #bJ a, SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (SECTION IV-B-5 LOT LAYOUT) (SECTION II DEFINITIONS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X—Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Proposed Ordinance Amendments TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed amendments to Section IV- B-5 and Section II of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. BACKGROUND: Section IV-B-5 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding additional wording to address to incorporate provision for flag lots in a subdivision lot layout. Flag lots are irregularly shaped lots where the buildable area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as an arm of the lot to "the street, thus the name "flag lot" . The proposed amendment will identify permitted locations and types of flag lots. Section II of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed amendment will clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal definition. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. PROPpSED ORDINANCE AMENDM-11, -ORDINANP%r SUBDIVISION R_v REFER,vNCE.- SEC'T'ION !V-B-5 ORIGIN OF AM."ENDYZM,: S ai f BOCC Planning Board Other: Public STAFF PRIORZTYX RECOMM,,NDATJON: Comment: _X—Low Z 1:X-T'EC'pE ED PUBLIC HEAR-rN, February 22, 1988 PURPOSE OF A.M!:Nl)mr: NT: To add to the Se Sao `first Par T _10n 117-B-5 n of Regulations De subdivision ,ions and also new 1 0 and a whoae se tiOn a6dress. relation - L t _1 n C) ng lot layout - lots. Flag . : rre9ulazlY shaped I., , 104-B are "s where Duil6able area - D& -. he Connec-�Zed - L 6,De 10 is 0 the street * narrower r) ' oy a smaller ortion 0-7 be lot. narrower, I- the lot t- e7tencs as an arm_rm 0 tne streetr thus d- "flag jot Thi name will i6e -amen amen Z. 6 s 0.2 _10L :)laces and -nat W411 be The 7'DnL ;-n9 Ore-Inance estahii o d.;. snes minimum townships w..j.. - -eguiremenl_-s in Zoned unzoned Prevent- _Lag Jo4..S. in fronta tofnsh';Ps, howevezi the ge zeC1,J -!men.&. is on! minimum 104- ZHg io.;-s -Y 20 Feet. result. such n us r ' in' - -'L 4-e d access a- lots provia. Wav 716 Preven-,,: e.*r.tens , Zure riqht-or- .1 on. The Dro'Dosed Cuia stanaards T":L" .L - elines or ce:-am Dr oh 4- ': - 11 - -aln -'=Uations whe in C on d.. re tot�o r V. ons lot confa nvr SO41 m-Pose or -C-ess d'n- sites. in suza-abile EXISTING; ORDINANCE PROVZ s:r C)Ls =5-5 LC?' LAZOVT The -shape an6 Drientatio sha2l be avDrovrlate 0 4' 10 oca.6;.:on .L Of the subdivision and the the develo-omeit 2 Commercial and Sufficient size -shall be of service facile Zo ;nclu6e tiest and 4.. L. d off-street Parking all vehicles used by all employees. Patrons and PROPOSED AM£Nj)yjrhT: !V-B-5-a. The shape and orientLation Of lots shall be aPPrOPziate to the subdivision ocation o&L. 4- on and t-he 6evelo-O the - ment intended. 4 t>m--m i 4- 114 rM F Sri X t Commercial lots si-,all be Of an 6us�rpl Sufficien _-L z size 44,--o i n I service facil C ude _1 4tiesf and Of F- s rLe*, parking Of all�vehicles used by ayl Patrons and empl ovees. 7 Pm DIM t .IM—N7 ?r- I r r- W. r 4t) C rn EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None, r'60 lots are not Subd-Lvision Regulations. addressed in the PROPOSED AMrhDMrvm. ,,,................. i4--XZ 64 JIM v W S, t7 11 v p- cr I�tp ZC S cr Ir M,-a CY rh X wars 4tl* =all 5~ze a« keaulaz Low ~1D, D00 sc. ~ ~, ~G 1 acre 1-~aczes 40 2 acres 2-i'aCre5 FcegLired *:iai:num h'iG';.i1 c« Recula: Low 130 «eet 130 «ee4 ~30 ~ee~ FLAG LDT -- _._.. ~-- .___ ,_.. .,~ I R GJLAR LOT - ~ f 4. .., "e?1C;.}2 G« =lag S~a~t ~:llc~wed 306 to 336 «ee;~ 3s7 'co 671 «ee~ 6i2 to 700 «ee~ r~eximum 1eng~z~ glowed length of flag s~aff allowed wid4h of reoular Joy ~ 30 feet ---.--.~ ~ - - STR....7 ~XAHPL~ ~'nc Ti'i~ ~' _• fiL7T 'i p.,..i. ~ ~ rySap%~ rr~ ~tyy~~ 1 ,...~ ~ C ~ _~ ". ~yp~ ~t1C 1 ..wc . :.aal„ ''ri^,o 5l-!~n~'7G "~~ -Lyr... ~.~~, --...tip qra +;" c- ron+1~- - . .. ~~~ (^ Yew .1 s...~ yy . ..~~~....L,~~.~ nn .r ter. p...+.~_.y rs - - " a (T+t y ~•. o +,... G ~ ~ ~.. r-. `1 i" ~- t+ C t7 n p r G 1') p r. p ~ +.~- .. ~ . °-rCL+T°- ~~jbr++uGl~ ?^rpcc W . ~- _ iL1 ~. 5r ~' . ~<< ~ , • \ • d i` ~ - ,~r w.,ti~ i~.w ~, • ~! • w _~* , ~\\\\~~\ - tdJTP,lrl~ki'ION - - I - ~ - (r'IuUR~ ~~ • ..:-_G_ . ~ ~~ ~i