Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-06-1994 - VIII-N 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 6. 1994 Agenda Abstract Item#�N SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE - SPECIAL.JUNE 30, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Legal Notice Planning Director X2592 Proposed Public Hearing Items PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider the legal notice and items for discussion at a special public hearing scheduled for June 30, 1994. BACKGROUND: At its May 17, 1994 meeting, the Board of Commissioners received a report on proposed Rural Character Strategies. Discussion was continued to the May 26, 1994 budget presentation meeting. At that meeting, the Commissioners decided to conduct a special hearing at the end of June to consider the following items: 1. Rezoning of the remaining 37% of the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction from one dwelling unit per acre to one dwelling unit per two acres to establish a "baseline" from which to implement rural character strategies; and 2. Receipt of citizen comment on the following open space preservation issues: a. Whether clustering was a desirable and marketable form of development; b. Whether a 50 percent open space requirement was appropriate, and how should open space be defined; and C. Whether density bonuses should be provided as incentives for preserving open space. The Board of Commissioners reviews proposals scheduled for public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance seek to establish a"base-line"minimum lot size requirement of two acres throughout the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction from which proposed Rural Character Strategies may be implemented. Proposed Zoning Ordinance teat amendments to be considered at the special June 30, 1994 public hearing are listed below. 2 r 1. Article 5.1.1 - Schedule for Residential Development, Single and Two- Family, Multi-Family, Residential Hotels, Rooming Houses, Etc. 2. Article 5.1.2 - Schedule for Non-Residential Development Lot-By-Lot, Planned Development 3. Article 6.2.4 - Density Averaging in AR and R-1 Districts 4. Article 6.23.2 - Residential Densities The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance include a proposal to change the minimum required lot area per dwelling unit from 40,000 square feet (0.92 acres) to 87,120 square feet (2.0 acres) in AR Agricultural-Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts. A related amendment concerning "density averaging"allows developments to provide varying lot sizes so long as the overall density does not exceed one dwelling unit per two acres.(after excluding street rights-of-way) and no lot is less than 40,000 square feet in size. Another amendment is also proposed to insure consistency with Protected Watershed Overlay Districts; e.g.,the minimum lot size requirement in the Hyco Creek and Flat River watersheds are increased from 40,000 square feet to two acres. Approval of the notice by the Board of Co**+*+issioners will enable staff to advertise the public hearing June 15 and 22, 1994 as required the N.C. General Statutes. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments will require notification of individual property owners whose property is currently zoned AR or R-1. The notice must be mailed on or before June 14, 1994. Copies of the proposed text amendments as well as issue papers related to the desirability of clustering,amount and type of open space,and density bonuses are provided as an attachment to the abstract. RECONIIMIENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the notice of public hearing. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 3 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS AND RURAL CHARACTER PRESERVATION STRATEGIES FOR ORANGE COUNTY,N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina,Chapter 153A,Section 240,323 and 343,and Articles 20.5, 20.6, 2.2.12 and 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance,and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse(New), 106 East Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,North Carolina,on Thursday,June 30, 1994 at 7:30 p.m.for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. Minimum Lot Size in AR and R-1 Zoning Districts: All but 37% of the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction is already zoned in a manner which requires a minimum lot size of two acres or more.This proposal involves amendments to Articles 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 and would,if approved,change the minimum required lot area per dwelling unit from 40,000 square feet (0.92 acres) to 87,120 square feet (2.0 acres) in AR Agricultural- Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts. The net effect of the proposal is require a two-acre minimum lot size in the remaining 37% of the County's jurisdiction. The proposals are based, in part, on a Rural Character Study Committee recommendation that a minimum average lot size of 80,000 square feet (1.84 acres) be established as the"baseline"zoning density for the rural portions of the county. The proposed amendment would implement this recommendation but sets a higher standard; e.g., 2.0 acres. A second reason for the two-acre standard is that studies of development between 1987 and 1991 have shown that lots created through the major subdivision approval process in rural portions of the county have averaged approximately two acres in size. Citizens whose property is presently located in the Rural Buffer zoning district or a Protected Watershed Overlay District which requires a minimum lot size of two acres or more would not be affected by this proposal. 2. Density Averaging: This proposal involves an amendment to Article 6.2 and would, if approved, allow developments to provide varying lot sizes so long as the overall density does not exceed one dwelling unit per two acres (after excluding street rights-of-way) and no lot is less than 40,000 square feet in size. 3. Minimum Lot Size in HYCO-PW and FLAT-PW Protected Watershed Overlay Districts: This Proposal involves amendments to Article 6.232 to insure consistency between amendment #1 above and the Protected Watershed Overlay Districts; e.g., the minimum lot size requirement in the Hyco Creek and Flat River watersheds are increased from 40,000 square feet to two acres. Citizens whose property is presently located in a Protected Watershed Overlay District which requires a minimum lot size of two acres or more would not be affected by this proposal. RURAL CHARACTER PRESERVATION STRATEGIES Related to the above proposals are a variety of options recommended as methods by which to preserve rural character and/or open space. Because of the number of available options, the Board of County Commissioners is focusing on several basic issues and would like to receive citizen comment on the following: 1. Whether clustering is a desirable and marketable form of development; 4 2. Whether a 50 percent open space requirement is appropriate, and how should open space be defined; and 3. Whether density bonuses should be provided as incentives for preserving open space. Specific ordinance amendments are not being proposed. Comments received at the public hearing will be used to developing specific rural character/open space preservation proposals. Copies of the proposed teat amendments and issue papers as described in this notice are available for public inspection at the Orange County Planning Department. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing.Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center,306F Revere Road,Hillsborough,North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 am.to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill- Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: June 15, 1994 June 22, 1994 5 PROPOSED ORD12VANCE/PLAN AMENDAUM ORDlNANCEIPLAN.• Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE- Article 5.1.1 Schedule for Residential Development, Single and Two-Family, Multi-Family, Residential Hotels, Rooming Houses, Etc. Article 5.1.2 Schedule for Non-Residential Development Lot-By-Lot, Planned Development Article 6.2.4 Density Averaging in AR and R-1 Districts Article 6.23.2 Residential Densities See "Existing/Proposed Ordinance/Plan Revisions"below. ORIG12V OFAMEIVDMENT.• Staff Planning Board X_BOCC Citizen Other. STAFF PRIORITYRECOMMENDATION. X High Middle Low EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE.•June 30, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDIr[E1VT.- The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance seek to establish a "base-line" minimum lot size requirement of two acres throughout the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction from which proposed Rural Character Strategies may be implemented. WACTS/ISSUES The Board of Commissioners received a report on proposed Rural Character Strategies at its May 17,1994 meeting.Discussion was continued to the May 26,1994 budget presentation meeting.At that meeting,the Commissioners decided to conduct a special hearing at the end of June to consider the following items: 1. Rezoning of the remaining 37% of the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction from one dwelling unit per acre to one dwelling unit per two acres; and 2. Receipt of citizen comment on the following open space preservation issues: a. Whether clustering is a desirable and marketable form of development; b. Whether a 50 percent open space requirement is appropriate, and how should open space be defined; and C. Whether density bonuses should be provided as incentives for preserving open space. Summary of Proposed . The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance seek to implement item #1 above by changing the minimum required lot area per dwelling unit from 40,000 square feet (0.92 acres) to 87,120 square feet(2.0 acres)in AR Agricultural-Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts.A related amendment concerning "density averaging" allows developments to provide varying lot sizes so long as the overall density does not exceed one dwelling unit per two acres (after excluding street rights-of-way)and no lot is less than 40,000 square feet in size.Another amendment is also proposed to insure consistency with Protected Watershed Overlay Districts;e.g., the minimum lot size requirement in the Hyco Creek and Flat River watersheds are increased from 40,000 square feet to two acres. 6 Rte- The rationale for the proposed amendments is threefold First, in its January 21, 1993 report Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange, the Rural Character Study Committee recommended that a minimum average lot sine of 80,000 square feet(1.84 acres)be established as the basic zoning density for the rural portions of the county. The proposed amendment would implement this recommendation but sets a higher standard; e.g., 2.0 acres. A second reason for the two-acre standard is that studies of development between 1987 and 1991 have shown that lots created through the major subdivision approval process in rural portions of the county, including those served by public water and/or sewer, have averaged 1.92 acres in size. If lots served by public water and/or sewer are excluded, the average lot size increases to 2.12 acres. This finding is identical to studies conducted in the early 1980's and is a reflection not only of zoning standards but the variable soil conditions found in the county. A final reason for the two-acre standard is the comments received at a series of community meetings held in January, 1994.In each of the three meetings(northern, central, and southern), support was voiced for a two-acre standard. In some cases, suggestions were made to couple the two-acre standard with other provisions to allow flexibility; e.g., higher impervious surface ratios, five one-acre lots (for children/relatives), density averaging, etc. Only the density averaging concept has been included as part of the amendments. Other amendments may be presented at subsequent public hearings to"fine-tune"the development options. E�CISTING/PROPOSED ORDEVANCE/PLAN REVISIONS 1. Amend Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements (Schedule forResidential Development,Single and Two-Family,Multi-Family,Residential Hotels, Rooming Houses, Etc.)by changing the required"Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit"in AR- Agricultural Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts as follows. Fxis�tir Proposed Lot Individual Lots in Conventional Subdivisions 40,000 SgFt 87,120 SgFt PD-1 Planned Development w/o Low-Income Housing 40,000 SgFt 87,120 SgFt PD-2 Planned Development w/Low-Income Housing 40,000 SgFt 87,120 SgFt PD-MHP Planned Development/Mobile Home Park 40,000 SgFt 87,120 SgFt The required"Minimum Gross Land Area (Planned Development's Onlyr is also proposed for change from 80,000 square feet to 172,240 square feet for PD-1 and PD-2 developments, and from 400,000 square feet to 871,200 square feet for PD MHP developments. Existing ordinance provisions and proposed amendments are summarized on the attached table. 2. Amend Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements (Scheduk for Non-Residential Development; Lot-By-Lot, Planned Development)by changing the required"Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit"in AR-Agricultural Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts as follows. EE Proposed Lot Individual Lots in Conventional Subdivisions 40,000 SgFt 87,120 SgFt PD All Planned Developments 40,000 SgFt 87,120 SgFt The required"Minimum Gross Land Area (Planned Development's Onlyf is also proposed for change from 80,000 square feet to 172,240 square feet for all PD Planned Developments. Existing ordinance provisions and the proposed amendments are summarized on the attached table. 3. Amend Article 6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (Modification of Dimensional Requirements) by adding a new subsection to read as follows: 6.2.4 Density Averadw in the AR and R-1 Districts Within the AR Agricultural-Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts, individual lots in conventional subdivisions may have lot areas less than the"Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit" of 87,120 square feet (2.0 acres) as required by Article 5.1.1 of this Ordinance. In such situations, the overall density of development in the subdivision may not exceed one(1) dwelling unit per two(2) acres,after excluding proposed new street rights-of-way. In addition, no lot may be less 40,000 square feet (0.92 acres) unless approved as part of a "cluster development" pursuant to Article 6.2.2 or as part of a"planned development" pursuant to Article 7. 4. Amend Article 623.2 of the Zoning Ordinance - Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (Residential Density) by changing the "Maximum Density" permitted in the HYCO-PW Hyco Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District and FLAT-PW Flat River Protected Watershed Overlay District from "1 du/40,000 square feet(0.92 acres)' to"1 du/2 acres Existing ordinance provisions and proposed amendments are summarized on the following table. EBISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY CANE-CA CANE-PW 1 du/2 acres U-ENO-CA LITTLE-PW HYCO-PW 1 du/40,000 square feet (0.92 acres) FLAT-PW PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: DISTRICT MAIMVI[TM DENSITY CANE-CA CANE-PW U-ENO-CA 1 du/2 acres LITTLE-PW HYCO-PW FLAT-PW »r»r»»»»»»r»rrr»rrrr»»»»»rrrr»»rrrrrr»rrrr»rr»»rrr»»r»r»rrrr»»»rr ORDEV"CE REVIEW COJaGrM REVIEW.• PLANWWG BOARD REVIEW BOCC REVIEW y N M M M N M M M N M M M 6. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ay ay %nkn kn W) kntn t^ tn tn kn in W) cc Cw Q aay aay O 3 � A � xo aoa 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 00 00 00 00 00 00 az a l o 0 o I o 0 0 o 0 0 c a 1 0 0 0 l � 0-4 w zo y O a to I N N N I N N N a I N N N I N N N t- 0.0 rr 00 , aka Az � :. ... Ap N N z N N N z Aa a � a � ftl id •' 0 0 8 ° A _ x F I C-4 E• I 4 v� E• I N Ey I 14 I O A A A O A A A O O A A A O A A A ,.aaaa ,.� aaa C aaaaaaaa IL am a � p a 06o > A as 34 w ° ao z z < O � Q� O I I I I C7 � 0 I I I I .......... ............ IF a 0-4 w z 0 z O C � � � � I � I � � w � � I � I oc 0 a ...... ...... cu, 0 lz 0 a 0-� 19 10 Excerpt from Conc62tual Guidelines for Rural Orange Development Option 2: Two-Acre Lot Development DEVELOPMENT OPTION 2: Conventional Two-Acre Lot Development ET 1.84 ACRES AVERAGS: 80,000 SQIIARS FE ) OPSE SPACE REQQZREII: ::::>:>:>::'::>::>::><:: -NONE i:``:'::>s: `:>'? 1 ACRES .... . ......... ..... .:::::::.::.::: PGTENTIAt::LOT.;:, ZELII*.,:;;;:;:;:;:;::;;::<:::;: UP TO 51 LOTS PER 00 .51 0 (Density t Y ) PERbQTTSD' : :. -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL O SINGLE NLY P ATE ROADS S RIV * - without site cons rain s. Traditional development consisting of lot sizes of one to two acres in size without open space reserves does little to preserve rural character unless situated in wooded areas so that significant amounts of tree cover are preserved to screen the view of homes. However, there is reason to maintain an option that allows this development style. A development option which permits lot sizes of approximately, two acres is the closest fit to the prevailing average lot size in rural portions of the county. While current. zoning and/or subdivision standards allow lots as small as 40,000 square feet, lots created through the major subdivision approval process in Rural Orange have averaged 1.9 acres in size - or twice the minimum required lot size.during the five-year period 1987-1991. The pattern of larger-than-required lot sizes is the result of several factors, including soil suitability for ground absorption sewage disposal systems, the market demand for larger lots, and changing development regulations. As an example of the last factor, the precedent for larger lot sizes in Orange County was established in 1984 when the Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) zoning designation and a 1.84-acre lot size requirement .was first applied in areas near existing and proposed water supply reservoirs. Later, in 1987, the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning designation and a two-acre lot; size requirement was applied to 38,000 acres surrounding Chapel Hill and Carrboro. More recently, in 1990, a five-acre lot size requirement was put into effect to protect University Lake watershed. For any open space development option to work; e.g. , for a developer or land owner to cluster units and set aside permanent open space, there must be some real incentive to do so. The system of density bonuses proposed in the development options which follow seeks to provide such an incentive. Thus, the 80,000-square foot development option is proposed as a "base line" for those who wish to retain traditional subdivision patterns. The most significant aspect of this development option, though, is that it establishes the basic zoning density for the rural portions of the county. Instead of a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, 80,000 'square feet would be required as the minimum average lot size for any ' 11 development. For a property owner or developer to achieve a higher density, he/she would have to ' utilize one of the development options which. require open-space set-asides. The lot size of 1.84 acres (80,000 square feet) is consistent with the current average of 1.90 acres and consistent with the lot size standards applied in both the WQCA and RB zoning districts. Lot sizes can be decreased if enough permanent open space is set aside to maintain the same density of development (clustering) . Site studies conducted to examine the application of this option indicated that the buildable part of a tract (excluding road rights-of-way) is approximately 93 percent of the total site. Thus, this development option could optimally yield 51 lots on 100 acres. Compared to conventional two-acre lot developments, open-space developments generally offer more opportunity to achieve the goals of preserving rural character. However, these techniques are somewhat new to development in Orange County. Experimentation with open-space techniques is encouraged as a means of discovering the potential for environmentally-sensitive development. Therefore, to provide opportunities for property owners and developers to visualize the possibilities of open-space development, it is recommended that all conventional development projects under Option 2 creating more than 15 residential lots/units must submit two concept plans for subdivision: 1) a conventional subdivision plan under the appropriate option, and 2) an open-space subdivision plan under one of the open-space development styles below. The choice of development style would be voluntary for' the property owner/developer. TABLE 1A MAJOR SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY - RURAL ORANGE INCLUDING SUBDIVISIONS SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER & SEWER 1987 - 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBDIVISION CHARACTERISTICS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Avg Lot Size [Acres] Street Open -------------------- Number of Total ROW Space Acreage Number Excluding Including Township Subdivisions Acreage Acreage Acreage in Lots of Lots ROW & Open Space Bingham 23 601.39 50.53 30.74 520.12 219 2.37 2.75 Percent 100.0% 8.4% 5.1% 86.5% Average 26.15 2.20 1.34 22.61 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cedar Grove 13 338.63 17.27 6.98 314.38 158 1.99 2.14 Percent 100.0% 5.1% 2.1% 92.8% Average 26.05 1.33 0.54 24.18 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cheeks 11 318.06 17.96 11.21 288.89 120 2.41 2.65 Percent 100.0% 5.6% 3.5% 90.8% Average 28.91 1.63 1.02 26.26 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eno 13 237.57 14.87 0.92 221.78 130 1.71 1.83 Percent 100.0% 6.3% 0.4% 93.4% Average 18.27 1.14 0.07 17.06 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hillsborough 13 238.60 18.05 2.60 217.95 183 1.19 1.30 Percent 100.0% 7.6% 1.1% 91.3% Average 18.35 1.39 0.20 16.77 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Little River 12 288.26 13.50 0.00 274.76 146 1.88 1.97 Percent 100.0% 4.7% 0.0% 95.3% Average 24.02 1.13 0.00 22.90 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RURAL ORANGE 85 2022.51 132.18 52.45 1837.88 956 1.92 2.12 Percent 100.0% 6.5% 2.6% 90.9% Average 23.79 1.56 0.62 21.62 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOT SIZE DISTRIBUTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.6 3.1 More Than 1.0 Acre to 1.5 to 2.0 to 2.5 to 3.0 to 5.0 5.0 Township or Less Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bingham 35 47 34 37 16 29 21 219 Percent 16.0% 21.5% 15.5% 16.9% 7.3% 13.2% 9.6% Cedar Grove 79 18 15 8 6 18 14 158 Percent 50.0% 11.4% 9.5% 5.1% 3.8% 11.4% 8.9% Cheeks 33 26 14 14 8 13 12 120 Percent 27.5% 21.7X 11.7% 11.7% 6.7% 10.8% 10.0% Eno 26 55 21 10 6 10 2 130 Percent 20.0% 42.3% 16.2% 7.7% 4.6% 7.7% 1.5% Hillsborough 128 10 5 16 5 14 5 183 Percent 69.9% 5.5% 2.7% 8.7% 2.7% 7.7% 2.7% Little River 40 40 22 12 11 17 4 146 Percent 27.4% 27.4% 15.1% 8.2% 7.5% 11.6% 2.7% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RURAL ORANGE 341 196 111 97 52 101 58 956 Percent 35.7% 20.5% 11.6% 10.1% 5.4% 10.6% 6.1% 100.0% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: (1) "Open Space Acreage" includes land dedicated to Orange County for recreation purposes and/or open space set aside for a homeowners association. Such acreage also includes easements and/or dedications to a land conservancy. Y 13 TABLE 16 MAJOR SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY - RURAL ORANGE EXCLUDING SUBDIVISIONS SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER & SEWER 1987 - 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------SUBDIVISION CHARACTERISTICS Avg Lot Size LAcres3 Street --- Number of Total ROW Spsce Acreage Number Excluding Including Township Subdivisions Acreage Acreage Acreage in Lots of Lots ROW & Open Space -----------------2 ------ - ---- ---- --- ----'- ------2.37 ----- Bingham 3 601.39 50 53 30 74 520 12 219 2.75 Percent 100.0% 8.4% 5.1% 86.5% Average 26.15 2.20 1.34 22.61 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cedar Grove 13 338.63 17.27 6.98 314.38 158 1.99 2.14 Percent 100.0% 5.1% 2.1% 92.8% Average 26.05 1.33 0.54 24.18 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cheeks 11 318.06 17.96 11.21 288.89 120 2.41 2.65 Percent 100.0% 5.6% 3.5% 90.8% Average 28.91 1.63 1.02 26.26 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eno 13 237.57 14.87 0.92 221.78 130 1.71 1.83 Percent 100.0% 6.3% 0.4% 93.4% Average 18.27 1.14 0.07 17.06 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hillsborough 9 193.05 9.64 0.00 183.41 77 2.38 2.51 Percent 100.0% 5.0% 0.0% 95.0% Average 21.45 1.07 0.00 20.38 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Little River 12 288.26 13.50 0.00 274.76 146 1.88 1.97 Percent 100.0% 4.7% 0.0% 95.3% Average 24.02 1.13 0.00 22.90 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RURAL ORANGE 81 1976.96 123.77 49.85 1803.34 850 2.12 2.33 Percent 100.0% 6.3% 2.5% 91.2% Average 24.41 1.53 0.62 22.26 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOT SIZE DISTRIBUTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.6 3.1 More Than 1.0 Acre to 1.5 to 2.0 to 2.5 to 3.0 to 5.0 5.0 Township or Less Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bingham 35 47 34 37 16 29 21 219 Percent 16.0% 21.5% 15.5% 16.9% 7.3% 13.2% 9.6% Cedar Grove 79 18 15 8 6 18 14 158 Percent 50.0% 11.4% 9.5% 5.1% 3.8% 11.4% 8.9% Cheeks 33 26 14 14 8 13 12 120 Percent 27.5% 21.7% 11.7% 11.7% 6.7% 10.8% 10.0% Eno 26 55 21 10 6 10 2 130 Percent 20.0% 42.3% 16.2% 7.7% 4.6% 7.7% 1.5% Hillsborough 22 10 5 16 5 14 5 77 Percent 12.0% 5.5% 6.5% 8.7% 6.5% 7.7% 6.5% Little River 40 40 22 12 11 17 4 146 Percent 27.4% 27.4% 15.1% 8.2% 7.5% 11.6% 2.7% RURAL ORANGE 235 196 111 97 52 101 58 850 Percent 27.6% 23.1% 13.1% 11.4% 6.1% 11.9% 6.8% 100.0% NOTES: (1) "Open Spree Acreage• includes land dedicated to Orange County for recreation purposes and/or open space set aside for a homeowners association. Such acreage also includes easements and/or dedications to a lend conservancy. 14 ISSUE PAPER DESIRABUM OF OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENT (CLUSTERING) Background In the past 20 years,many counties across the nation have examined or implemented the concept of"rural cluster" or "open-space development" ("OSD"). The term, popularized by Randall Arendt of the Natural Lands Trust, denotes the difference between high-density urban"cluster" development and low- density rural"cluster" developments. In general, Open-Space Developments are residential or mixed-use developments that differ from conventional subdivisions in that development activity is focused on a portion of the site, leaving part of the tract in some type of open space. As an example, a 100-acre tract of land could be developed as a conventional subdivision with 47 two-acre lots, excluding street rights-of-way.An Open-Space Development might preserve 50 acres of the site in permanent open space, clustering 47 homes on one-acre lots adjacent to the open space. This development style has found favor primarily in high growth counties on the edge of urbanizing regions, such as Loudoun County,Virginia;Newcastle and Sussex Counties, Delaware; Gwinnett County, Georgia; Bucks County, Pennsylvania; and several counties in California, Oregon, New Jersey, and Washington.In some counties,Open-Space Development is mandatory.In others,developers are required to prepare and submit conventional as well as OSD concept plans, but the option of which plan to implement is the developer's choice. Advantages and Opportunities A significant advantage to Open-Space Developments is the creation of permanent open space. Open space may be set aside to protect special natural areas, and wildlife habitats and corridors (such as sites in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats)from development impacts.Open space may also be used to protect a scenic vista or historic site, thus protecting the rural character and heritage of particular areas. Where agricultural operations exist, it can be used as an method for farmers to receive monetary return on their property,while still continuing to farm the unused portion of the development. Another advantage is indicated by studies conducted in Massachusetts and New Jersey. In comparative studies of lot sales in Open-Space Developments and conventional subdivisions, open-space lots have appreciated at a higher value than lots in conventional subdivisions without open space. Disadvantages and Limitations Accompanying the advantages listed above are some possible disadvantages to Open-Space Developments. First, there have been few open-space or cluster developments in the county or region. Because of this, it is difficult to gauge the marketability or desire for open-space lots. Another disadvantage is that financing from lending institutions for innovative development styles is often more difficult to obtain than for conventional development.Because they may require public water and sewer, or alternative sewage treatment systems, Open-Space Developments could be more costly to develop than conventional subdivisions. Finally, open-space lots may carry a higher price tag per acre to go along with a possible higher value.If Open-Space Development is mandatory,conventional development styles would not be permitted, limiting the type of lots on the market and possibly affecting the affordability of certain housing types. Implications for Rural Land Use Pattern 15 If Open-Space Developments are permitted in Orange County, the long-term land use pattern of the county may be changed considerably,dependent on whether OSD's were optional or mandatory. The amount of subdivision development encompassing entire tracts of land would be replaced with developments where home sites were interspersed open space corridors. The application of mandatory OED's may accelerate the change in pattern over an optional program.The impact and use of an optional program of Open-Space Development would be largely dependent on perceived and real incentives(eidsting and/or new) which accompanied the program. Another approach might be some combination of optional and mandatory programs. In that case, Open Space Developments would only be mandated where significant, defined resources were impacted by a proposed development. lb ISSUE PAPER DEFINITION &AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE Background Two concerns are of particular importance to the issue of Open-Space Developments (OSD) in Orange County: • What defines open space within an open-space (rural cluster) development?Stated another way, what types of uses should be permitted in areas designated permanent open space? • Is 50% of the total tract an appropriate percentage of land to require as permanent open space in an Open-Space Development?A related question is - 50% of what?Total site area? Buildable area? Rural Character Study Committee Recommendations The Rural Character Study Committee considered the issue of open space during 1990-92. The question of allowed uses within designated open space was one with which the Committee spent many hours in deliberation. Issues of active recreation use, utility easements, and wastewater treatment fields were debated over several meetings.The Committee eventually came to a compromise definition on these issues.This definition can be found in the Committee report,Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange(see attachment). In general, the Committee defined open space as natural, scenic or agricultural areas. Under certain conditions or situations, however, other uses would be permitted in open space areas, including entrance roads, historic and archaeological sites, wastewater nitrification fields, and open, vegetated playfields and recreation sites - both public and private. The Committee also spent a great deal of time on the issue of percentage of open space that should be required for Open-Space Developments.A number of draft development strategies were devised, and arguments were presented in favor of higher open space percentages for resource protection-and lower percentages for financial considerations. In the end, the Committee folded both arguments into a compromise package. The Committee recommended that open space requirements be tied to density bonuses for Open-Space Developments in a sliding scale.The more open space protected,the greater the density bonus.The Committee also recommended a range of open space requirements at 10%increments. On the low end of the scale, an Open-Space Development with 20% open space could attain 0.8 lots per gross acre. On the top end, an Open-Space Development with 70% open space would be allowed 1.3 lots per acre. In this way, the Committee attempted to provide for a wide range of options as an incentive to pursue Open-Space Developments. University Station Work Group Efforts In the spring of 1994, a work group of County and Town of Hillsborough officials was formed to prepare a small area plan to resolve development issues on the proposed 852-acre University Station development site. Using a design studio approach, members of the work group attempted to design the optimum project under each jurisdictions'goals. Using the ideas of open-space planner Randall Arendt, the work groups considered defining areas to be protected or preserved by identifying "primary" and "secondary conservation areas." There was agreement on the types of area within each to be protected in "primary conservation areas"; e.g., unbuildable areas such as water bodies, steep slopes, alluvial soils, tloodplams,and wetlands. In terms of "secondary conservation areas", there was less agreement.The Hillsborough team included historic sites, a significant hardwood forest area a golf course, and landscape buffers as part of its "secondary" area, 17 while the County team included a wildlife corridor,the same hardwood forest area,the same historic sites, old farm fields and a viewshed (scenic vista). A third plan was prepared, for purposes of comparison, based on the methodology advocated by Randall Arendt. The "primary conservation areas" were the same as identified by both the Hillsborough and County teams.In terms of"secondary"areas, the"Arendt Plan"preserved significant areas of upland pine and hardwood forest in lieu of viewshed areas,and included all golf course and grassy common areas. The percentage of open space required was the basis for the starting point of the work group,since both jurisdictions had adopted different standards.The Hillsborough team worked on the premise that at least 30% of the total site should be protected in open space,with a density of two units per acre on the remainder of the site.The County team worked under the standard of at least 30% of the buildable area of the site as open space, with a density of two units per buildable acre. The"Arendt Plan"was based on the premise that after eliminating"primary conservation areas",at least 50% of the remaining"buildable" area had to consist of"secondary conservation areas".Attachments are provided which summarize/illustrate the Work Group's efforts.Estimates of the amount of open space resulting from each option are as follows: Hillsborough Team 33.5% Orange County Team 42.2% Arendt Method 65.9% Definitions and Amounts of Omen Space Used in Other Areas I The two issues of open space uses and percentage are not exclusive to Orange County. These questions have arisen in other counties around the nation. In his design guidebook for Sussex County, Delaware, Randall Arendt argues for a standard of 50% of the buildable area of a site as open space, although he has also recommended 40%of the buildable area in other locales.Arendt also calls for a more protective stance on secondary conservation areas(mature hardwoods,bluffs,natural sites,vistas).Chicago Newcastle County, Delaware uses a formula to designate a percentage of designated"protection areas", which can range from 50-100%depending on the assumed value of the area Loudoun County,Virginia has no percentage standard but requires certain types of areas on site to be protected - similar to Arendt's approach. 18 Excerpt from Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange Definition of "Open Space" OPEN SPACE: Generally, open space is defined as natural areas, scenic vistas or lands used for agricultural purposes, in accordance with the goals of the Rural Character Study. However, the quality of open space is very important. Further definition of qualifying natural areas will be accomplished by a participative implementation process (see Attachment 3) . This process will involve citizen participation and review of the package by a number of organizations and civic groups, before the draft ordinances are presented to the Ordinance Review Committee plus representatives from each group. In this manner, assistance in defining quality natural areas/wildlife habitat open space may be solicited from the Triangle Land Conservancy and other similar organizations. Assistance in defining qualifying scenic vistas may be solicited from the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee - currently working on the Scenic !Roads Study. Finally, assistance in defining quality agricultural open space will be solicited from the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board. Additionally, the following uses are permitted in voluntary open space: 1. New entrance roads bounded on one or both sides by open space as defined herein, provided they do not extend through portions of the site occupied by those features identified in #2, #3, and V. Existing roads in site may be utilized where no adverse impacts to features identified above are created. 2. Sites identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats, including wildlife corridors, and the Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geologic Interest. 3. Structures and sites identified in the countywide inventory of historic and archaeological sites. 4 . Sites other than the above which are identified as significant as part of a required Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . 5 . IIp to 50 percent of the area of nitrification fields for community and/or individual ground absorption sewage disposal systems, provided approval of such systems is obtained from the Orange County Division of Environmental Health or the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, whichever is applicable. 1 19 • However, there are two means by which 100% of the field may be counted as open space: A) Where nitrification fields are designed in accordance with environmentally-sensitive development recommendations in the Rural Orange Design Guidebook, provided the open space uses would not be active recreational facilities, or other uses deemed inappropriate as per state and local health regulations. B) Additionally, open space left entirely in its natural state (where the natural state is not active recreation) . Nitrification fields may not occupy portions of the site identified in #2, #3, and #7. 6. Agricultural and forestry activities which involve the cultivation of soil for the production of crops, including but not limited to fruits, vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants, the planting and production of trees and timber; and the raising of livestock, for individual and public use, consumption, and marketing. Open water bodies may also be counted as open space 7. Active and passive public recreation sites identified in the County's Master Recreation & Parks Plan, including district and community parks owned by the County. S . Private or other public recreational facilities such as open vegetated fields for recreational activities such as golf courses, driving ranges, baseball and soccer fields may count partially in fulfilling open space requirements. However, since many of these facilities may not, fully achieve the goals of this study, this type of open space should count only as 50% of the required open space set-aside. Furthermore, these types of open space should comply with applicable design standards and monitoring and maintenance requirements to be developed. Further study is recommended on the subject of specific criteria evaluating the quality of such open space. Provision must be made for permanent protection of the open space through: a) Conservation as private property through platted ownership or conservation easements. b) Ownership by a Homeowner's Association as shown on the recorded plat, including specific upkeep requirements as part of its bylaws and restrictive covenants; or c) Public dedication to Orange County or another unit of local government, a; nonprofit conservation organization, or the State of North Carolina. 20 PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREAS Open Space Acreage Feature Hillsborough Orange County Plan Plan Arendt Plan Floodplain 91.4 Acres 91.4 Acres 91.4 Acres Alluvial Soils Included in Moodplain" Farm Ponds 5.7 Acres 1 5.7 Acres 5.7 Acres Water Bodies Beaver Ponds Included in"Floodplain" Steep Slopes [>25%] 54.8 Acres 1 54.8 Acres 54.8 Acres Wetlands Included in"Floodplains" Total Area 151.9 Acres 1 151.9 Acres 151.9 Acres NOTE: Acreage in"Steep Slopes"reduced from 56.2 to 54.8 acres to exclude 1.4 acres incorrectly picked up beyond project boundaries in original GIS plot. . 21 University Station primary Conservation Areas \\ borough & County Plans) \ ,rte j i t t t Owe Power am >wAdWO t lriMd eV• Old NC 10 f Ckopd M aw LEGEND Water Bodes 5.7 Acres somp sioM 54.8 Acres ORANGE COUNTY PLANNIING Dwr Fkm*ain 91.4 Acres nbc ZMA 22 SECONDARY CONSERVATION AREAS Open Space Acreage Feature Hillsborough Orange County Plan Plan Arendt Plan Prime ............................................... ............... ... ... . ... . .... ......... ............ ....... ....... ......... . ........... .... .... .............. State & Local .. ..................... ................................... Farmland .................................. ............... ............. . ....... ............ ........... Other ..... ............... .......... ................. .. ............. ............ ....... .. ...... .. ..... ........... ..... .... ... . .. ....... ...I .... .... M . ...... . ... .... . ..... .... ....... . ........I .. ........ .....I .....111 .......... Beaver Ponds ........ .............. ....... ......... ............ ..... .... .............................. ............. ...... .......... Natural Areas Bottomland Hardwood 63.3 Acres 20.0 Acres/1 20.0 Acres/1 Beech Bluffs 32.8 Acres 19.5 Acres/1 19.5 Acres/1 Wildlife Corridor 130.5 Acres 130.5 Acres .......... X MO. Upland Hardwood Upland Pine 135.1 Acres/6 XZ: ......... ........... ............ ................ ... . .... .. Early Pine .. ..... ........ Vegetation ........... Old Field Acres ................. .......... :............... .................... ......... x", ........ . ............. ..... .... ...... ..............I I Old Pasture Dairy Farm 2.0 Acres 5.0 Acres 5.0 Acres Strayhorn Cemetery 2.0 Acres 5.0 Acres 5.0 Acres Historic & Boyd House 2.0 Acres 5.0 Acres 5.0 Acres Archaeological Craig Manor Ruins 2.0 Acres 5.0 Acres 5.0 Acres Sites Mac House 2.0 Acres 3.4 Acres 3.4 Acres ....... ... Steep Slopes [1596 to 2596] 11 MO g gg`f- n Golf Course/Recreation - >; < :`::::>;: X ......... ..... 169.0 Acres/4 93.5 Acres/5 .. ............... ,. .......... .......... ........................ .MX.. Viewshed ZQ 26.5 Acres/2 25.9 Acres/2 .............. ....... Landscape Buffers I.............. 49.2 Acres/3 Total Area 248.8 Acres 309.7 Acres 523.4 Acres NOTES: 1/Includes area outside other Secondary Conservation features. 2/Includes area along east side of New Hope Church Road and south side of Old N.C. 10. 3/Includes area outside other Secondary Conservation features. Q Includes all 155 acres of golf course and 13 acres in-grassy commons. 5/Includes only 50% of golf course. 61 Shown on plot as"Forest Land" and is comprised predominantly of upland hardwood forest. 23 Station University Secondary Conservation Areas (County Plan) �1 0" PftVW ww i SWAMM M*4" ot► OY Nc 10 �0 i --- -- 0rw /rww s s LEGEND W ldM 1C Beech Blutff 9.5 Acres Bommand 24.4 Acres /z c 23.4 Aces M4 Not To lode Old Field ORANGE COUNTY � 89.8 Acres PLANNING DEPT obc Z94 lHll�l �' 26.5 Acres University Station 24 Secondary Conservation Areas (Hillsborough Plan) 'D%ft pow-- �uw w re 10 g s Ai �o�wr f ww • s i s ® C�110 ❑ LEGEND Boma 633 Access Beech Bluff 32.9 Acres j Historic mw "a To sab - 10.0 Access ORANGE COUNTY � Golf Course PLANNING DEFT 50% - 93.5 Acres Mk 2094 lq�al Lanascape Buffers 492 Acres University Station 25 Secondary Conservation (Arendt Option) ww ■ ■ ■ �IIIIIIIIIIHIM IIlu llnl am mc 16 Dwa P~ ww LEGEND 130.5 Acres Beach Bluff 19.5 Acres :I�III�I� '1 ■■ IIIIIIIiII; / — _ .Ill�ullll - .: Idyll �r Bottom6nd �r 20.0 Acres o mdmic ij I� Acres MCWShed mw Mw To 1 �I Acres i Golf Course •R"GE COUNTY • s Acres 1 l' Land mbc 2M Forest 135.1 Acres 26 SUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR UNIVERSITY STATION SITE Plan Category Hillsborough Plan Orange County Plan Arendt Plan OPEN SPACE CHARACTERISTICS Primary Conservation Area 151.9 Acres 151.9 Acres 151.9 Acres Secondary Conservation Area 133.3 Acres 209.0 Acres 408.1 Acres Total Open Space Area 285.2 Acres 360.9 Acres 560.0 Acres Open Space as % of Total Project Area 33.5% 42.4% 65.9% DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS Total Project Area (Acres) 850.0 850.0 850.0 Less: Rights-of-Way (Acres) 24.0 24.0 24.0 Net Project Area (Acres) 826.0 826.0 826.0 Primary Conservation 151.9 151.9 151.9 Area Open Space (Acres) Secondary Conservation 133.3 209.0 408.1 Area Total Area 285.2 360.9 560.0 Buildable Area (Acres) [for density calculation] 540.8 465.1 674.1 Development Area (Acres) [for building purposes] 540.8 465.1 266.0 Density Standard (Units/Acre) 2.00 2.00 1.83 Allowable Units 1,082 930 464 Total Project Density Area 1.27 1.09 0.54 (Units/Acre) Development Area 2.00 2.00 1.74 Average Lot Size (SgFt) 21,739 21,785 24,972 (County University Station 27 Plan) ,,. `►,�� vuuvo Yru YUU....0 FAdmmd ON mc le own pamw ww Chow me Ipw /•Y..- .At\.... �-.-�■■f...I. Air--! ►.... I ,J r .• = LEGEND ; �- ORANGE COUNTY 151-9 Acm PLANNING DEPr Sewndary Conswiation Azws U*C 1494 2M.0 Acms University Station • (HiUsborough I as ww am Me 14 00..........: uuu..�• to IR . w ror ■►.► _- P .rr•lam- �' �.� _.YY 1 is \I: -, u •. .,�,/.err.\ , rlr...\r 1. ■ .,Nr■. \', r■■:lr■lI l■w■.N��I ■■ll■■ `` i Yr='/ our Y ■°�. Lf o •:■. emu, - •rll - Jlr Ir • 11 I■Ilf ■■Y ■Vf - � lll•J 1/1 . •` r•• , •lJl •• -• �� i Chmpd MR SP- , Mp Ma TO Seem / humary Conservation Arms ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING :A' Secondary• . • 1 • • 1 Areas mbe Z94 133.3 Acres (includes 1 ' of • course) University Station Option) am me 10 OAS P-m- ....... ........... 1.� /i:u::.....iu■uuu.o a _u. ■r u...o. ow.• .uaa■a.0 u...a:. aoo •..aru uuu.aua..sau. :r:.a.:.•"irr 1l..a...► ...ra.• .aah / -:uu ■'.o::a.r....•v.u...iiir .u.uuuu..ua.o.-.- `. . r r.uuuu\./.zay.a■ u.uuuuuuur ' ..�suuo.or..o .u.uaurwsry aoaauuu.wsuala.lua.w .�v• ea..uay.._..a. uuuu.af u.uua..p..a.. uuu.-...o.ul vuu...u.uu.sa■■r u.rr ...........rn.. uo.uouarn.a .uuuni a■ur � :l.•■ ur _ u:::: .aai ■ l.,n -..■ ....r .. ....0 MW Jhb sow %s� • a.■ .uo.ouu....-.0 • ousuu.o.• •� :.T r :: ...........:::::: LEGEND ftmary • ■ , Arew Acms ORANGE COUNTY Smwduy Consavafiou Ann PLANNING DEFI 408.1 M mk 7M 3C ISSUE PAPER ALLOWING DENSITY BONUSES FOR OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENTS Background The Rural Character Study Committee has recommended the use of Open-Space Developments as a means to protect the County's natural, agricultural, and visual resources. The Committee has also recommended incentives for property owners/developers who choose to protect open space within their development projects. The primary incentive recommended is a density bonus. However, some citizens have argued that density bonuses are not necessary for Open-Space Developments. They argue that the natural tract"yield"should be the density of development allowed,and that-there are incentives inherent with the Open-Space Development style(design and service efficiency,lower infrastructure costs,etc.)that make density bonuses unnecessary. The Case for Density Bonuses Because Open-Space Developments represent something new and different for many developers of conventional subdivisions, proponents of density bonuses argue that incentives are needed to open the door and make developers and financial institutions willing to change from the old style. The Rural Character Study Committee density bonus is part of a sliding scale, where the greater the open space preserved, the greater the density bonus. The bonus is coupled with a proposed "disincentive"for conventional subdivision development-an increase in the minimum required lot size for conventional development from one acre to two acres.Property owners/developers who opt for Open-Space Developments can "regain" or even emceed the maximum one-acre density, depending on the amount of open space protected. Beginning at a starting point of 20% open space and 0.8 lots per acre, developers would realize a density bonus of 0.1 lots per gross acre for every additional 10% of open space protected. At 40% open space, the development density would equal the one-acre lot maximum density. The scale stops at 70% open space, which allows 1.3 lots per gross acre in the development. Studies to date have indicated that density bonuses must be of a substantial lot yield in order to generate response from the development community.Bonuses in the range of 10-15%in some jurisdictions have not generated use of this development style. The Case Against Density Bonuses Opponents of density bonuses base their case on three factors: (1) that the natural carrying capacity of the tract should not be altered; (2) that there are ample incentives for Open-Space Development use without density bonuses; and (3) that the needed bonus is so great that it turns rural projects into projects with urban scale. The first factor relates to the "yield plan". This concept ties project density to the site's natural capacity. A conventional subdivision design is done to generate the number of lots that could be created and served with adequate sewage disposal sites. That number then becomes the density for the Open- Space Development design.This means that tracts with severe environmental constraints will have a lower density than tracts with few constraints. Open Space Development design,by its very nature, produces compact form. Roads are shorter, utility line expansion less necessary, and previously unusable corners of the tract are buildable. Service provision is also thus more efficient, covering more houses in less time or distance. Opponents of density bonuses assert that these incentives,once realized by the development community,will produce the desired increase in Open-Space Development style. 31 Finally,an argument sometimes advanced relates to the amount of density bonus needed to make a switch to Open-Space Development financially feasible.Although there is no density bonus threshold that is widely-accepted,bonuses on the order of 30-100%may be needed to accomplish the goal of encouraging more developments of this style.Development projects with more than one unit per acre overall represent an increase in the number of lots that could be currently created. Experiences in Other Counties Counties like Loudoun County,Vuginia and Clallam County,Washington have seen significant use of Open-Space Development styles in their counties since adoption of standards.However,in both counties the starting base density was considerably lower than Orange County.In Loudoun County,the basic rural zoning requires three acres per lot. In Clallam County, base rural zoning is one unit per 15 acres. Thus, a significant amount of density bonus was available to offer without approaching urban densities.In other locales like Concord, Massachusetts, open-space design has been little used, perhaps because of a low density bonus.