Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-17-1994-X-B 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 17, 1994 Action Agenda Item # X—d SUBJECT: REPORT: RURAL CHARACTER STUDY ALTERNATIVES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES % NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Cover Memo Dave Stancil, Extension 2590 "Issues to be Resolved" Alternative Development Options TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Possible Next Steps Hillsborough - 732-8181 January 1994 meeting comments Chapel Hill - 967-9251 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider issues and possible alternative development options that reflect comments from the January 1994 Rural Character community meetings. BACKGROUND: In January 1994, the Rural Character Study Committee Chair, staff, and the Dispute Settlement Center conducted three community meetings in northern, central and southwest Orange regarding proposed development options that have been recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee and/or staff. The results of the community meetings were reported to the Board on March 1. A work group was authorized to look into unresolved issues and alternative development options that reflected comments received at the meetings, augmented with guidance from the Board. The work group idea was deferred in favor of Board discussion of a staff report. The report (attached) outlines "unresolved" issues and presents ideas for discussion on ways of accommodating community comment (also attached) into the package. Finally, a proposed schedule for consideration is included. RECOMMENDATION: For review and discussion. z MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN LINK County Manager FROM: DAVE STANCIL Planner II/Land Use and Environment DATE: MAY 99 1994 SUBJECT: RURAL CHARACTER STAFF REPORT Please find attached follow-up materials on the Rural Character Study Committee recommendations. I have prepared the staff report that was initially planned for the work group on rural character. The staff report includes: • A summary of comments from the January community meetings, • A listing of "unresolved issues" regarding the study recommendations, • Ideas for discussion of alternative development options, based on community meeting comments, and • Procedural recommendations on "next steps" for the recommendations. Please feel free to call me with any questions, suggestions, or changes to the attached (extension 2590). copies: Board of Commissioners Marvin Collins, Planning Director 3 RURAL CHARACTER STUDY "ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED" April 21, 1994 BACKGROUND On January 21, 1993, the Rural Character Study Committee completed 29 months of discussion and deliberation on "Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange", a set of strategies for protecting rural character in the rural portions of Orange County (outside of the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area and County Transition Areas). On January 25, 1993, the Orange County Planning Board considered the Committee's recommendations, endorsing the proposal with one substantive recommended change. The County Commissioners and Planning Board met on March 10, 1994 and agreed to hold a series of community meetings to solicit opinion from rural citizens on the issues of rural development options. The community meetings were held in January 1994 after watershed plans were finalized. 53 persons attended three community meetings held in the northern, southwest and east-central parts of the County. The following list of issues is compiled from several sources, with overlap among several. These sources are the Rural Character Study Committee discussions in December 1992/January 1993, the January 25, 1993 Planning Board recommendation, the March 10, 1993 joint worksession, and principally the January 1994 community meeting comments. Most of the issues revolve around the Committee's recommended development options, but one dates back to Committee discussion. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 1. 2-ACRE LOT OR 1-ACRE LOT CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT The Rural Character Study's recommended development options call for a range of development options to be available for rural property owners. These options are 1) a five-acre lot conventional development option with incentives, 2) a two-acre lot conventional development option, and 3) a series of Open-Space Development (OSD) options which provides a density bonus of up to 1.3 lots per acre depending on the amount of permanent open space protected. Lots of 1/4-acre or more, averaging an overall density, could be created as part of this option. Finally, lots of record would also be permitted to subdivide up to five 1-acre lots. The current zoning in the rural areas is a mixture of two-acre minimum lot size in north central, northeast, west-central and southwestern Orange; and one-acre lots in the eastern, northwest and extreme southwestern parts of the County. With passage of the new watershed protection plans 1 4 , on January 1, 1994, the Little River and Cane Creek watersheds joined the Upper Eno Critical Area and the University Lake Watershed as areas where zoning requires minimum lot sizes of at least two acres. As of April, 1994, approximately 63% of the land designated as "rural" in Orange County requires a minimum lot size of at least two acres. The Committee development options would not allow one-acre conventional development as is currently allowed in 37% of rural areas. The Committee's rationale for moving to a two-acre conventional lot standard is that the average lot size in rural areas is over two acres, and that one-acre lot zoning encourages sprawling suburban-style development which is counter to rural character protection. The Planning Board, on January 25, 1993, argued for keeping the one-acre lot conventional development in the package of development options. The Planning Board's expressed rationale for this was that this type of development was allowed under current zoning (this predated new watershed zoning for parts of the rural areas), and deletion or modification of the standard would take away one means of development from property owners. Concerns over affordable housing and property rights were also raised by Planning Board members. The Committee's rationale for moving to a two-acre lot standard, i.e., that the average lot size in rural areas is approximately two acres and one-acre lot zoning encourages suburban-style development, is strengthened by the implementation of the watershed protection standards. This issue was explicitly addressed at all three community meetings in January 1994. A strong preference emerged at each meeting in favor of the Committee's recommendations (two-acre lot conventional development). A number of reasons were espoused for this preference, principal among them that two-acre lots were the norm in the rural areas anyway, that they represented a good compromise between too-dense and too-restrictive zoning, that many areas already had two-acre zoning, and that two-acre lots would provide an incentive to do open-space developments. 2. DENSITY OF OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENTS Many community meeting attendees stated concerns over the density of open-space developments presented (in both the Committee and staff alternative/Planning Board based development options). Both versions allowed open-space developments to reach up to a maximum of 1.3 lots per acre (or 130 lots per 100 acres). This density is provided in both cases as an incentive to pursue open-space developments which were viewed by the Committee and Planning Board as more protective of the rural character. A strong preference at the northern and east-central meetings was voiced for lowering the density of the open-space options to a maximum of one house per acre (100/100 acres). Meeting attendees were concerned about the tightly-packed nature of the more-dense clusters, and about traffic and farm nuisance issues that might accompany OSD's of more than one unit per acre. A number of persons at the east-central (New Hope) meeting questioned the validity of density 2 5 bonuses altogether for OSD's - arguing that there is incentive enough in allowing cluster. However, the County's existing cluster development provisions in the Subdivision Regulations do not allow for density bonuses. Additionally, only two cluster developments have actually been built in the five years these guidelines have been in effect. 3. SIZEISCALE OF DEVELOPMENTS Another issues that was raised, in both Committee deliberations and in the east-central community meeting, was that of development scale. Committee members considered acreage limits on the scale of development projects in 1992 but opted against recommending limits. However, several persons at the east-central meeting at New Hope School raised the issue again as an important one in rural areas - citing concerns about the scale and cumulative impacts of large projects. The rationale against imposing limits is, among others, that size limits promote piecemeal development and work against coordinated, master-planned developments. Additionally, size limits would also limit the amount and contiguity of open space that could be preserved. 4. WATER/SEWER PROVISION IN OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENTS This issue in actuality contains two sub-issues: public water and sewer line extension, and the types of alternative wastewater systems/oversight methods that are appropriate. The study recommendations call for public water and sewer service only for OSD's in the Hillsborough "open-space area", and non-discharging, land-application alternative systems for OSD's in the remaining rural areas -only where those systems are designed, installed, monitored and maintained by the County Health Department's Monitoring and Maintenance (now the Wastewater Treatment Oversight) program. (Note: Since the Committee's consideration of this matter, the proposed program now involves only monitoring oversight). The public water and sewer provision issue was only discussed at the east-central (New Hope) meeting. Persons in the northern and southwestern areas did not voice any expectations of public water/sewer utility service. Citizens in the Hillsborough "open-space area" expressed several concerns with how service would be provided and whether there would be safeguards to ensure that sprawl would not result from the extension of Hillsborough water/sewer service in the area. Questions of economic feasibility and service standards were discussed. In the northern and southwestern meetings, many citizens expressed concern over the use of alternative systems (on the heels of the Piney Mountain subdivision system failure). Several persons recommended keeping septic tanks as the means of wastewater provision, while others had questions about monitoring, maintenance and future expansion or takeover of alternative systems. 3 6 5. DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS IN LITTLE RIVER, CANE CREEK AND UPPER ENO (CRITICAL AREA) WATERSHEDS Throughout the Little River and Cane Creek watersheds, and in the 1/2-mile critical area of the Upper Eno watersheds, current zoning requires a minimum lot size of two acres and an impervious surface limit of 6%. Thus the Committee's open-space development options, which exceed one unit per two acre density, would not be compatible with current zoning. The possibility of a density contradiction has been recognized for some time, both by the Committee and by staff. The Committee considered an early draft set of development options in 1991 that provided for watershed and non-watershed options. This approach was rejected by the Committee because of its complexity. Although the same zoning standard applies in all three of the aforementioned watersheds, the basis for the standards differ in each case. In the critical area of the Upper Eno watershed, the state mandates two acre lots or 6% impervious surface limits. In Cane Creek, the two-acre lot/6% impervious standard is based on requests from the Orange Water and Sewer Authority and previous preliminary recommendations in technical studies. In Little River watershed, the standard is based on recommendations from a technical study of the watershed. Possible resolutions of this dilemma might be adherence to either the two-acre lot, or the impervious limits, or by providing some other type of incentive for OSD's in watersheds (please see attached). OSD's can be used to protect water quality, by providing greatly-enhanced stream buffers within the protected open space. 6. DEFINITION OF OPEN-SPACE (%, TYPE, QUALITY, AND CALCULATION) This issue is the only one not directly tied to the development options. Discussion of this question dates back to hours of Committee deliberation, and it was also discussed at the east- central (New Hope) community meeting. The question revolves around the definition of what constitutes quality open space, how much should be required, and how it should be calculated. In terms of open space definition, the Committee discussed issues such as whether or not golf courses or other active recreation areas should count as open space in meeting requirements for OSD's? Are septic fields and utility easements, or portions thereof, quality open space? In the end, the Committee recommended a compromise approach which allows private or other public recreation facilities (including golf courses) to count one-half of the used land as open space. Up to 50% of septic nitrification fields may also count as open space, and 100% may count in cases where special conditions are met. Entrance roads to the development may count as open space if they adjoin undeveloped, platted open space on one side. Utility easements may count as open space. 4 Many citizens, particularly at the East-central (New Hope) meeting, questioned the above uses as open space in terms of calculating the amount of open space to be set-aside. Others, however, argue that visual resource protection and the economic viability of "used" open space will serve to encourage OSD development and enhance the amount of open space protected. Regarding the amount of open space to be set-aside, the Committee considered a number of variables in attempting to find the right "sliding scale" between density/lot yield and open space. The Committee's recommended development options provide for a sliding scale of open-space developments, with 20 to 70% of the total tract to be set-aside as open space in return for density bonuses. An attachment to the Committee recommendations outlines ideas that call for further study into the issue of linking quality of open space to density bonuses (see attached). Related to this issue is that of calculation of open space. There are methods of calculating open space that take into consideration the quality or type of open space in terms of meeting set-aside requirements. For example, Randall Arendt of the Natural Lands Trust argues that the amount of open space should be calculated from the buildable area of the tract - disregarding areas ("primary conservation areas") that could not be built upon anyway. Arendt's work in communities in Massachusetts and Delaware calls for between 40 and 50% of the buildable area of a tract be protected within open space, and that certain "valuable" resources within the open space be protected at a specified level, such as protecting a percentage of mature hardwood areas. Former Rural Character Study consultant Lane Kendig also recommended using a similar approach with a formula of open space types that should be protected as open space. Finally, the current recommendations for the University Station project included consideration of the ideas of Arendt, and calls for either 30% of buildable area of the development or 30% of the gross tract area, to be open space. The Committee recommendations on the use of open space calculations reflect comments from a number of citizens at community meetings in 1990 and 1991. In those meetings, members heard that calculations and formulas were complicated and confusing - and that a more tangible, simple means of protecting open space would be better - thus the absence of formulas or calculations regarding the type of open space. However, the issue was one of the more-debated components of the Committee's work, and the attachment to the recommendations reflects the Committee's concern about the subject. 5 Attachment 1 H Rural Character Stucy Committee Report 1/ 93 NOTES FOR DISCUSSION ON "SLIDING SCALE" GUIDELINES FOR ,,THE CALCULATION OF OPEN SPACE Rural Character Study Committee Meeting Dec. 17, 1992 Carole L. Crumley • strict 25-50-75% categories do not allow needed flexibility for future uses • clearly, some open space is more desirable than other open space, but to a great extent this is culturally determined • based on previously arrived at definitions of rural character, can the RCSC agree on what categories of impact should be monitored? Some possibilities: sensory impact : aural (birdsong, threshing machine, go-cart track) visual (ducks on a pond, driving range, water slide) olfactory (new-mown hay, piglot, sewage treatment plant) use-value: "open space should not have a negative environmental impact on surrounding areas" (quote from public hearing) . If we adopted the spirit of this comment, we would have to ensure that proposed open space not violate: noise restrictions preservation of wildlife habitats a "rural " definition of visual attractiveness maintenance of water quality restrictions on terrain modification landscape integrity expected traffic patterns etc. Thus, candidate open space could pass scrutiny by having the develope.-r submit to the Planning Board plans, models, and drawings , applicable research on other similar use/areas, anticipatory studies of traffic patterns, noise and water pollution levels , etc. , which would allow proposed open space in each development to be considered on its own merits and in the proposed geographic and cultural context . Open space allowances in developments over 100 ( 50? ) units would be subject to review in an open meeting of the Planning Board or in public hearing. Committee recommendation: Staff to use these ideas in linking open-space quality to adopted development options of Committee - incorporate in implementation phase. 9 AN ALTERNATIVE PACKAGE OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS - Based on Community Meeting Comments In early-February 1994, staff and Rural Character Study Committee chair Clint Burklin met to discuss incorporating community meeting comments into a third alternative set of development options that reflecting desires for different options in different areas. This work, with minor recent modifications, is provided to the Board of Commissioners as an alternative for discussion. NORTHERN ORANGE Summary of what we heard...two-acre lots OK (but don't mandate larger than two)...one-acre lots too suburban (increases traffic and nuisance to farms)...4.6-acre lots with incentives good idea...OSD's don't really fit - the clusters look too urban...If allow OSD's, lower density to 1 lot/acre overall—Don't like alternative systems. Alternative 3? 1. All other RCS strategies as adopted. 2. Meet all applicable design guidelines. 3. Because no water/sewer expectations or desire, lower the density of options in keeping with character of area. Option I: Five-acre* lots with incentives (0.21 lots per gross acre) Option II: Two-acre* lot conventional (0.51 lots per gross acre) Option III: Five one-acre lots per lot of record Option IV: Open Space Developments (OSD's) (2 levels): IV(a). 33% open space. Meet all design guidelines. Number of lots based on site yield - up to maximum of 0.67 lots per gross acre, or 67 lots per 100 acres. Water and Sewer: Wells and septic tanks. IV(b). 50% open space. Meet all design guidelines. Number of lots = 0.84 lots per gross acre, or 84 lots per 100 acres. Water via wells or community water system, wastewater by low-pressure or gravity community wastewater systems (only if monitored by the Health Department WTOP program). In Little River watershed... • Allow both IV(a) and IV(b) open-space developments, modified as below: • For IV(a) and IV(b), require two-acre lots overall (0.51 lots per gross acre overall), but allow impervious surface bonus on the developed portion of site (where overall impervious surface limit is still less than 12%, perhaps as low as 8%). For IV(b), allow a slightly higher impervious rate on the developed portion, because of greater open-space set-aside. Require open space be used to widen and enhance stream buffers. In Upper Eno Critical Area...Allow open-space developments, but only in keeping with two- acre/6% impervious standard. 1 10 SOUTHWEST ORANGE Summary of what we heard...Like five-acre lots with incentives- best of the bunch...two-acre lots more in keeping with area, one-acre lots not appropriate - leapfrog development from rural buffer...worried about alternative systems...OSD's got mixed reviews, not really in keeping with area - but some thought could work for larger-scale developments...OSD's too dense. Alternative 3? 1. All other RCS strategies as adopted. 2. Meet all applicable design guidelines. 3. Because no water/sewer expectations or stated desire, lower density of options more in keeping with character of area. Option I: Five-acre* lots with incentives (0.21 lots per gross acre) Option II: Two-acre* lot conventional (0.51 lots per gross acre) Option III: Five one-acre lots for lots of record Option IV: Open Space Developments (OSD's) (2 levels): IV(a). 33% open space. Meet all design guidelines. Number of lots based on site yield - up to maximum of 0.67 lots per gross acre, or 67 lots per 100 acres. Water and Sewer: Wells and septic tanks. IV(b).50% open space. Meet all design guidelines. Number of lots = 0.84 lots per gross acre, or 84 lots per 100 acres. Water provided via wells or community water system, wastewater by low-pressure or other gravity community wastewater systems (only if monitored by Health Department WTOP program). In Cane Creek watershed... In the Critical Area...allow open-space developments - but only in keeping with two-acre/6% , impervious standard. • In rest of watershed...allow both IV(a) and IV(b) open-space developments as shown below: • For IV(a)and IV(b), require two-acre lots overall (0.51 lots per gross acre overall), but allow impervious surface bonus on the developed portion of site (where overall impervious surface limit is still less than 12%, perhaps as low as 8%). For IV(b), allow a slightly higher impervious rate on the developed portion, because of greater open-space set-aside. Require open space be used to widen and enhance stream buffers. 2 11 CENTRAL ORANGE (WATER/SEWER and TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR) The area is located in central Orange County (outside of, but adjacent to, Transition Areas). It is different from other rural areas because of the proximity or water and sewer service, and a major transportation and/or transit corridor. In general, the area includes areas north and south of Efland, and areas between Hillsborough and Durham. NOTE: Additionally, the work of the University Station Planning Group is relevant to development options in this area. The products of the Planning Group will be presented at a special public hearing on May 5, 1994. The standards under discussion as part of that process may affect the recommended development options herein. Summary of what we heard...Need to tighten up open space uses...one-acre conventional developments bad idea...encourage OSD's - but based on yield plans...cap OSD density at 1 lot/acre...Water/sewer provision a concern. Recommended Development Options Alternative 3 1. All other RCS strategies as adopted. 2. Meet all applicable design guidelines. 3. Municipal water/sewer preferable to alternative systems. Allow Hillsborough (and eventually Durham) water/sewer for OSD's. 4. Define water/sewer corridor where these to be applied. Option I: Five-acre* lots with incentives (0.21 lots per gross acre) Option II: Two-acre* lot conventional (0.51 lots per gross acre) Option III: Five one-acre lots per lot of record Option IV: Open Space Development (1 level): IV. 40 to 60% of gross tract size as open space. Meet all design guidelines. Number of, lots: 1.0 lots per gross acre, or 100 lots per 100 acres. Municipal water and sewer service required for open-space developments. Alternative 1 = Rural Character Study Committee Recommendations Alternative 2 = Staff Alternative/Planning Board Recommendations *: "5-acre lots" = 4.59-acre lots with incentives option as proposed by RCSC. "2-acre lots" = 1.84-acre lot option as proposed by RCSC. 2/8/94, revised 4/14/94, 4/21/94 3 12 POSSIBLE "NEXT STEPS" FOR RURAL CHARACTER RECOMMENDATIONS May 17, 1994 Board of Commissioners considers report on rural character, including meeting comments, issues to be resolved, alternative development options and next steps. Board provides guidance on issues list and all recommendations. June 20, 1994 Planning Board considers revised Study recommendations. August 1, 1994 Board of Commissioners consider study recommendations as decision item. If recommendations acceptable, staff instructed to prepare implementation language(plan and ordinance amendments, design guidebook). Guidebook to be prepared by 1) Randall Arendt as part of APES proposal, or 2) staff. Review and comment procedure includes opportunity for wide range of comment on implementation. August-November 94 Staff or Arendt drafts design guidebook and/or amendments. December 1994- February 1995 Draft proposals sent for review to advisory boards and interest groups (15). March 1995 Review comments, revise draft. April 1995 Revised draft presented to Ordinance Review Committee. May 1995 Final draft presented to Planning Board and other advisory boards. June 1995 Special public hearing. August 1995 Board of Commissioners report. August 1995 Planning Board recommendation. September 1995 Board of Commissioners decision. 13 WALNUT GROVE (NORTH ORANGE) RURAL CHARACTER MEETING: GROUP COMMENTS - FROM FACILITATOR RECORD (With staff/facilitator notes) January 20, 1994 * - Indicates more than one person agreed with the comment # - Indicates majority (or unanimous) agreement with the comment • Concerns with density included need for electricity, increased traffic, needed facilities (shops, etc. ) . • Should density be contained in one area or scattered with open areas in-between? *• The one-acre lot option will be far too dense to preserve rural character. *• Concerns with the landowners right to develop land - a balance should be reached that allows development but provides guidelines. • Low density raises land owners tax base. *• The sample of cluster houses shown looks like suburbia because they are so close together. • Which option allows special family farm allowances - is it option #4? *• Cedar Grove area probably wouldn't pass the Health Department for some of the cluster designs. • Because the Cedar Grove Efland Road is planning to be widened and possible reservoir - so some of the cluster may be too dense. •* Do not want to accommodate something out of character (e.g. beyond the one acre average) . • Likes limited access. •* Concerns over how to protect farmers activities (e.g. pig/egg farms that are already operating) when development moves in. • Will the performance standards to happen next take care of these questions? • How to protect people moving into a rural area to be informed of rural farm operations that may affect their life-style (e.g. smell, etc. ) ? • Farmland preservation guidelines to help protect farmers from suits. 14 • Question: Which option allows for least density? Answer: All things considered, about equal. • If this plan is adopted, how long would it last? Answer: Recommendations provide for incremental, five year review. • For the long range future, septic system should not decide lot size as technology may solve this. • (Aside - development tends to follow highways) #• Likes two acre minimum, but doesn't like impervious surface regulation as it does not allow you to build a big house with six percent limit. (Go up to 12%) Two acres is a good trade off / compromise. • Question: What is the usual desire of farmers for development? Answer: In Cedar Grove, it is about 2 .5 (acres per lot) . In Little River, it is about 1. 5 acres. Seems to be a mixed bag. *• Do not want to make it too restrictive as you want to improve the tax base, but do not want overly transient population. #• Local Orange County folks cannot afford four acres. Two acres is enough to restrict the area of Little River from over- development. • Business and industry is thriving south of Roxboro and those folks are often moving into North Orange. • Clint asked the group for input - two acre as a calculation tool to allow one acre if some cluster and open space. • Numbers of people increase costs to residents, schools, impact fees - taxes. • Why reduce from two acre to one acre for open space? Why not two acre average and open space? • Affordable housing in subdivisions increases tax burdens on citizens, e.g. schools - septic fields. • If one child average household - if subdivision does not provide 175, 000 taxable then citizens end up subsidizing subdivisions. So add this consideration to the size allowed. • Do not maximize cluster density in such areas as Cedar Grove and Little River. • Question: Where is commercial allowed (not shown on maps) ? #• Two acres sounds more reasonable to the majority of people - cluster options do not sound "rural" - what is "rural?" 15 • Question: There is a big difference between Bingham and Cedar Grove. Are the options going to be the same overall or will they be different for different areas? Answer: So far, the decision has been to apply the same rules for everyone, but some have argued for differences that need to be considered. Perhaps bring up to Commissioners that there are differences, (e.g. allow cluster in the mid-section of the county but not up in the northern area) . • When people move in next to farmers with cattle there is often incompatibility, (e.g. dogs running cattle) . Summary (group recommendations) : #• Most people agree that two-acre minimum lot size is preferable. #• No one prefers one plan over the other. #• No one even has a "light" preference of RCA over the planning staff alternative. #• Rural character study: seems the group is O.K. with options one and two, but not density allowed by option 3 . Do not average less than one acre lots in clusters. *• But concerned about the density allowed by option 3 . i 16 NEW HOPE RURAL CHARACTER MEETING: GROUP COMMENTS FROM FACILITATOR RECORD (With staff/faciliator notes) January 25, 1994 * - Indicates more than one person agreed with the comment - Indicates majority (or unanimous) agreement with the comment GROUP A • Developer will not pay for extending water and sewer below certain density thresholds (@ 1. 3/acre) . • 1.2 million people will be coming into the Triangle area in the next 20 years. • Build now into this game the ability to deal with water and sewer extensions. • Options allow for 1-acre lots with open space: not too dense in rural areas? A person who wants to do five 1-acre lots cannot do or will not do quality open space (so don't mandate it) . And, who could maintain five lots well? • Allow for payment in-lieu to go from small (5-10 acre) subdivisions. • Staff build-out analysis: 2010 = 140, 000 population. #• Strong objection to tennis courts, swimming pools, nitrification fields (could sometimes be natural areas) , and golf courses as open space. (Others agree) . *• Group members appreciate the committee's work and their taking other's views into consideration. *• Concerned with development options and "too many/too much. " • We cannot have too much open space. Look at Arendt's ideas for cluster development. *• Clustering is a good idea. • Active owner's association. Builds community. Makes lots affordable. *• How best to balance density and cluster? This is hard to tie down. Quality is most important - trees, paths, networks. It is hard to compare the packages. • Prefer the package that designates the most open space - which is that? Like the idea of yield. The staff alternative looks at the land and asks: what can be supported? 17 • A spreadsheet analysis concluded that the rural character options might result in more units - but more open space. Also higher density and smaller lots. Neither package constrains the population buildout by 112030" (way out in the future) . • Rural character option: more open space and a denser population. Staff alternative: fewer units in a given time and less open space. • Question: Should we restrict growth? Answers: 1) No, give me balance, not caps. 2) Give me sustainable growth, not sprawl (as in other areas) . 3) Don't want development everywhere. Identify places for agriculture, low density. • Diversity in housing values? It was suggested that open space will lead to higher densities which will in turn lead to affordability. But, truly affordable housing is located in urban areas where infrastructure is in place. *• I don't know how to read actuality into these options. We don't want surprises, like University Station. • We are looking to design guidelines for real protection. Design guidelines exist for both. �#• Concern was expressed over the staff alternative allowing 130 units on 100 acres. *• Make design guidelines good for conventional as well as open space. • Agriculture is permitted in open space. Expressed interest in Transfer of Development Rights. Cluster. "Action Strategies." *• Public wastewater systems need to be carefully designed,, monitored and controlled to protect users. • Trailers with aprons are o.k. Summary (group recommendations) : #• Strong consensus about allowed uses in open space. • Ideas about restraining growth included balance and sustainability. #• The trade-offs between density and open space are difficult to say in general. One-acre conventional lots not good idea. *• Cluster development: lots of open space should be pursued. *• Diversity in housing values should not be discouraged but goes against the idea of large open space. 18 Group B • A maximum of fifty percent of a nitrification field can be set aside as open space, unless the design guidelines change this. Fifty percent of a golf course can count as open space. The justification for this is that if a person can farm an open space for income than a golf course should also count towards open space. • A counter-point was raised regarding the preservation of agriculture and separating farming value from development value. • Transfer of development rights is being considered by a separate group from the RCSC. • Apparent inconsistencies in the treatment of water and sewer - "yellow areas" are candidates for RCSC, but it seems that these plans allow for the extension of water and sewer into areas large enough. The staff recently issued a report equating water and sewer to urban development. *• A clustering plan that calls for water and sewer probably will not happen because you need the town and the County to make it happen. • Community sewer systems provide a cap on the size of development. *• Current cluster development would possibly allow for urban/town size growth. • We do need places near towns for density because if we don't, development will be scattered all over - e.g. the Hogan Farm development is probably good for everyone. *• Five acre lots are necessary to preserve rural character. It should be made easier for a rural person to do small developments. #• No one likes the one acre lots. All support the five 1- acre lot RCSC - "lots on record" - describing "family" option. *• The staff's alternative yield plan is a positive option. We do not want to exceed the county's carrying capacity. • Question: Can five 1-acre "lot of record" be done again later? Answer: No. Question: Is there a limit to this? Answer: Yes, the total limit is a minimum of five acres per lot of record or five 2-acres per lot of record. • For a yield plan, how would do you define "severe restraints?" Is just a characterization term for low level development allowed? 19 • Should look at issues such as transfer of development rights to help landowners keep the rural nature of their farms. • Question: Where will you allow density? Answer: Near towns. Do not allow urban in rural areas. *• Should have tax breaks for agricultural uses. Make it affordable for rural residents to keep their land. *• It seems like the planning staff alternative has less open space overall. *• The RCSC option allows for higher density bonuses. #• The group has trouble choosing one option over the other, but would rather pick out the positive and negative parts of each plan. #• There is more room to be creative in balancing density and development. Would like less density than is in these proposals. • Need to address development by landowners who are not original rural landowners. How to keep these original rural landowners in control of their land? Financial incentives are necessary. *• Those of us who have been here a long time feel differently about balancing future growth than those who have moved here more recently. • Discussed what was going to happen next. A group of people are trying to address some issues not necessarily covered by the RCSC. This came out of the John DeGrove conference and covers the planning of county-wide, broader issues amd conflicts. Need a vision for twenty years later. What comes after RCSC? A furthering of RCSC. • What do farmers need to protect agriculture and continue farming? Young farmers are interested in a re-activation of the Farm Bureau. It is hard to farm and make a living in the Triangle. All the land is not prime agricultural land. We have to compete with other areas. Tobacco farmers, (our biggest $) , are in trouble. Try to find some industry in - need employment - work part-time. • Summary (group recommendations) None recorded, but as part of report to combined groups the following were identified: • Clusters may be too dense for a rural area - and water/sewer provision is a concern. • Five-acre lots are a good idea - provide incentives. • One-acre lots without open space a bad idea - but allow five 1-acre lots for lot of record as in RCSC. • Cannot select one plan over the other. 20 BINGHAM/SOUTHERN CHEERS RURAL CHARACTER MEETING GROUP COMMENTS - FROM FACILITATOR RECORD (With staff/facilitator notes) January 27, 1994 * - Indicates more than one person agreed with the comment - Indicates majority (or unanimous agreement) with the comment • Concerns regarding the right to sell "lots of record" to anyone. • The amount of percable land determines which option to choose. This is especially true in the RCSC option. • Question: Would these open space options affect the current requirement to pay money for recreation or donate land to avoid open space? (This is currently up to the Recreation Department) . *• A recommendation was made to combine some incentives of the RCSC with the planning staff alternatives - e.g. five acre lot incentives. #• Two acre lots look good as a minimum to protect rural character. If you do this for one section of the county, you should do it for the entire county. • Open space options do not seem in keeping with rural character. If you develop a "hamlet" it would seem almost as congested as if you were in a town. *• How do we guarantee that package sewers will work? e.g. the Piney Mountain problem that occurred before county guidelines (no environmental management) . #• Many medium and large size land owners would do better with large-lot options because so much of the land will not perk or is in a floodplain. *• But, cluster development may work if you run city water and sewer and do not depend on private co-op systems. For instance, the Hogan Farm area will get water and sewer. But, a little north of there is land that will not perk, leaving the landowner dead in the water. They have invested in the land and cannot do anything with it. Take interstate corridors - two or three miles on each side water and sewer along corridors. • Agriculture is already endangered by taxes and tobacco is being threatened. The land is here, if you cannot do anything with it without spending a great deal of money, then the county should do a detailed survey of all the land and make recommendations as the best economic use of each piece. Spend money to put in water and sewer so the land can be put to its 21 "highest and best use. " The use of tax revenues is for everyone in the county, so it should be used to do this overall study. • Capture all streams, develop potential reservoirs - recreation around lakes. This will produce revenue/tax base. • Look at the difference between the development in Orange and Alamance Counties over the past twenty years. Take advantage of our weather (beautiful climate) and land - great potential for development. • Question: Which watersheds allow for water and sewer? Answer: It is only permitted in the Transition areas. Water and sewer is not permitted in clusters. *• How realistic are the cluster options for developers? We need County Health involved in private sewer systems because alternative systems will eventually fail. How do developers look at this? They are cheaper than tying into public systems. The larger subdivisions (i.e. 100 lots) may make it economically feasible. • There is so much land in watershed areas and you cannot go below two-acres - so other areas should not take away development rights. • It seems like it will get as restrictive in Cane Creek as it is in University Lake. ,f• Currently, people are going outside of the rural buffer (with a two acre minimum) , so they can develop on one-acre lots. This creates sprawl and traffic. , 00 The so-called rural buffer was created for a particular group of people. It limits development but is next to two major interstates. The rural buffer should actually be in rural areas and the rural buffer, as it is now defined, should allow for denser development which would protect the rest of the rural areas from such development. *• Whose benef it is this rural protection for? These plans restrict the former or long-term land owners from doing what they want to do with their land. • We will always have open space because so much of the land in non-perkable. • The rate of Orange County growth is very fast. will this plan have to be redone in ten years or are we planning for the future generations and what they can do with the land? 22 *• Like the RCSC page 18-19 where development is off the hichway (i.e. buffered) . This solves the issue of aesthetics. Development should be buffered wherever possible. • Because each tract is different, each area will require special study as to where and how much open space and development will occur. The current plan does not try to designate where open space should be. *• Where are the population centers going to be to support the mass transit for which we now pay $5 per car to support? There are no park and rides and no buses - except in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. *• Farmers in South Orange feel like their days are numbered. They feel like Chapel Hill residents do not want us to have cows here. *• No one option works well throughout the entire county. Different areas need varied options. Small area planning development. *• In regards to the landfill issue, some areas feel they have "been done to. " We are sensitive about this and the RCSC may be just one more thing to worry about. We have lost so much flexibility in this area (particularly Bingham and the watershed area) . Summary (group recommendations) • None recorded. 23 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: DAVE STANCIL, AICP Planner II/Land Use and Environment DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1994 SUBJECT: MEETING SUMMARIES FROM JANUARY RURAL CHARACTER COMMUNITY MEETINGS COPIES: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MARVIN COLLINS, AICP, PLANNING DIRECTOR GENE BELL, AICP, PLANNER III This memo serves to supplement information in the March 1, 1994 agenda abstract on the results of the three rural character development options meetings in rural Orange County. As you know, the County Commissioners and Planning Board Commissioners asked staff in March 1993 to conduct meetings with the rural Township Advisory Councils to solicit further input on the specifics of recommended development options to help protect the rural character of "Rural Orange", as defined by the Rural Character Study Committee (RCSC). Specifically, citizens were to be asked to compare the Committee's development options of January 21, 1993 with a Planning Staff Alternative of March 10, 1993 - which addressed Planning Board concerns. Staff suggested using facilitated meetings to enhance input from residents, and Andy Sachs of the Dispute Settlement Center agreed to help design the meetings for optimum input. Originally planned for May 1993, the community meetings were postponed to allow for adequate notification and further work on meeting design. In July 1993, Planning and Dispute Settlement Center staff noted the potential for substantial confusion about the ongoing watershed zoning and its impact on development options, and recommended that the meetings be delayed until watershed zoning issues were resolved in the rural areas. This was anticipated to occur in October 1993. However, deliberations on watershed standards required further time, and the watershed zoning was not adopted until December 21, 1993. During the interim, staff had designed three facilitated, small-group based community meetings to be held in Northern, East- Central and Southwest Orange. These meetings would be the fifth round of community/township meetings held on the Rural Character Study since 1990, and were built around the basic format of the successful 1991 Community Information Meeting at the Hillsborough Exchange Club. On January 18, 25 and 27, community meetings were held at three locations in the rural portions of the County. The January 18 meeting was held at Walnut Grove Methodist Church Fellowship Hall in northern Orange, while the January 25 meeting was held at New Hope Elementary School. The January 27 meeting was held at the Orange Grove Community Building in southwest Orange. A total of 261 notices were mailed to citizens on a number of 24 committees/mailing lists and the local media. In addition, 200 flyers were distributed at convenience stores and other locations in the rural areas. Citizens were invited to attend any of the three meetings. Meeting #1 (Northern Orange). Walnut Grove Church, January 18, 1994 At the Northern Orange meeting on January 18, 15 citizens braved temperatures in the teens to attend. Despite the size of the group, attendees agreed that it represented a cross-section of the community - containing five farmers and several other longtime residents, as well as a three to four new residents in the area. (All comments from this and the other meetings are an agenda attachment). There were a variety of comments received from the citizens at the meeting, but a few common themes did emerge. None of the citizens recommended one-acre conventional development without open space. A number of reasons were given for this, including farm nuisance suits, traffic, less newcomers in the area, and loss of community character. Conversely, there seemed to be consensus that two-acre lots were more in keeping with community character and represented a good compromise. Several noted that most of Northern Orange was zoned for two-acre lots anyway. The group was unable to select either the RCSC or Planning Staff Alternative development options, finding positive and negative components with both. A slight preference for a modified Committee version, with lower density open-space developments, was noted in the meeting summary. The group unanimously liked the five-acre lot incentive proposal in both packages. Several residents did not like the "clustered" effect of the higher-density open-space developments, recommended capping cluster density at one unit/acre, and were concerned about alternative wastewater systems. Several citizens noted the unique community character of northern Orange and suggested some development options be different in different areas. Meeting #2 (East-Central Orange) New Hope Elementary School, January 25, 1994 24 persons, including one County Commissioner and two Planning Board members, attended this meeting. The majority of attendees were residents of nearby communities in the New Hope community, although several citizens from other areas around Hillsborough, Durham and Caldwell were also present. This group broke into two small groups and provided input on the development options(see attached summary). Again, there were a number of different comments on a variety of subjects, but the following were consistent themes. Both groups indicated that one-acre conventional development was not appropriate as part of a rural character package. Open-space developments were generally preferred, but the groups recommended that open space uses be "tightened up" to restrict some uses (recreational uses, golf courses, et al). Additionally, the groups seemed unanimous in indicating that the open-space developments (OSD's) should be less dense - on the order of one unit per acre overall. Like the Northern Orange group, citizens universally liked the five-acre lot option with incentives - and were unable to select one package over the other. There were a number of other comments about considering yield plans (at two-are lot minimum) and carrying capacity/sustainable development in crafting new development options. T 25 Meeting #3 (Southwest Orange) Orange Grove Community Center January 27 1994 On January 25, 15 citizens attended the meeting at Orange Grove. This group was almost exclusively longtime residents, with several farmers and large property owners from Bingham, the Efland-Cheeks area, and Cedar Grove Township. Comments at this meeting were similar to those at Walnut Grove. Citizens expressed confusion with the Rural Buffer mandating two-acre lots while higher density (one-acre) was allowed in the more rural areas further removed from the towns. Several citizens thought this density should be reversed. The five-acre lot option was widely-supported as a way to provide lots for family members. The future of farm activities and the need for buffers from open-space development were mentioned. Putting the denser development in urban areas and along a potential mass transit corridor was mentioned as well. Flexibility was recommended for the placement of open-space within OSD's- although several persons expressed worries about alternative wastewater systems. Finally, the idea of different development options for different areas was suggested. Summary The comments received at the community meetings were remarkably similar in scope. At each meeting, the facilitator conducted a meeting evaluation -and asked about the relatively-low level of turnout. Responses to this question were 1) the weather (at Walnut Grove), and 2) the fact that there had been four previous meetings in the past three years soliciting input on the same study. More than one person suggested we "just do it." Along with the preference for two-acre conventional lots and lower open-space development densities, a third consistent theme was heard at all three meetings: that there were distinct, unique areas within rural Orange County with different land constraints, character and thus, the need for one or two different development options than those in other areas. (This idea of different options in different areas was considered by the Rural Character Study Committee in early 1991. The Committee eventually opted for a consistent set of options for all rural areas). , There was no opposition stated to either the proposed design guidebook, or the goals, objectives/ action strategies of the Rural Character Study Committee recommendations. Staff met with the RCSC chair on February 15 regarding the compilation of a recommended set of development options, based on the comments received. It is our plan to bring the Planning Board a "hybrid" package of development options that consider the RCSC and staff alternative packages in light of the comments received from citizens in March. as stated in the abstract, this package will attempt to incorporate concepts such as two-acre conventional development, "yield plans", lower-density OSD's, water/sewer compatible development, and impervious surface bonuses in watersheds. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the meetings or comments received (732-8181, 967-9251, 688-7331, 227-2031 - extension 2590).