HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-06-1994-X-C 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 6, 1994
Agenda Abstract
Item #
SUBJECT: REPORT - RURAL CHARACTER PRESERVATION PROPOSAL
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X_No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Planning Director X2592
NOTE: "DRAFT PROPOSAL" TO BE
DISTRIBUTED FRIDAY - 9/2/94 - PHONE NUMBERS:
IN RED PACKETS. Hillsborough 732-8181
Mebane 227-2031
Durham 688-7331
Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive a report on a staff-generated rural character/open space preservation
strategy.
BACKGROUND: During the past year, a series of meetings, work group sessions, and/or public
hearings has been held for the purpose of finalizing a set of rural character/open
space preservation strategies. These meetings are summarized below:
• December, 1993 - At a work session involving the governing boards of
Orange County and Hillsborough, agreement is reached to establish the
University Station Planning Group.
• January, 1994 - Meetings are held in the northern, central, and southern
portions of the county to present alternative rural character preservation
strategies.
• January-April, 1994 - The University Station Planning Group completes
its work and presents its recommendations to the Board of
Commissioners.
• May, 1994 - A proposal to create an Open Space Development Area Land
Use Plan category is presented at public hearing. The proposal also
includes its application to the University Station property.
• May, 1994 - A proposal to create an Open Space Development zoning
district category is presented at public hearing.
2
• June, 1994 - A proposal to rezone the remaining portion of the county to
require two-acre minimum lot sizes is presented at public hearing. Citizen
comment is also requested on the desirability of clustering, mandatory
open space requirements, and density bonuses.
• July-September, 1994 - The Planning Board reviews all
materials/evidence received, including the Rural Character Study
Committee recommendations (January, 1993), and prepares
recommendation.
At its regular August meeting, the Planning Board conducted a straw vote on
basic issues to give the staff direction in preparing a proposal for consideration.
• 5 out of 10 In favor of leaving one-acre zoning as is.
• 3 out of 10 In favor of having two-acre zoning throughout the county.
• 8 out of 9 In favor of an "optional" versus a "mandatory" approach.
• 7 out of 9 In favor of allowing use of alternative systems and
extension of public water and sewer consistent with
Water/Sewer Policy.
• 8 out of 9 Against placing size limits on open space developments.
The Planning Staff has reviewed the Planning Board's comments as well as the
material produced and/or received, including comments provided by citizens
through township meetings and public hearings. While a variety of approaches
and options exist, the three basic approaches which have been recommended to
date include:
• The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations;
• The "Status Quo"; and
• A "Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space
requirement and density limits based on the carrying capacity of the soils.
In an effort to focus the discussion and "balance" the many interests expressed to
date, the Planning Staff has prepared a proposal (TO BE DISTRIBUTED
FRIDAY IN RED PACKETS), consisting of two parts - "Goals and Action
Strategies" (as recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee) and a
"Flexible Development" option which contains the following provisions:
• The existing one-acre minimum lot size requirement would be retained.
• The provision of open space would be optional, however, a developer
would be required to submit two concept plans - one for a conventional
subdivision and another for a "flexible" or open space subdivision.
• At least one-third (33%) of the subdivision must be preserved as open
space.
• Open space may be preserved through:
3
o A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land
saved through such reductions is dedicated to the County or a land
conservancy, or owned and maintained by a homeowners'
association; or
o A "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots,
and open space is preserved through the use of conservation
easements held by the County or a land conservancy; or
o An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four
(4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50%) are established
for each lot, and the open space outside such limits is preserved
through restrictive covenants and/or conservation easements; or
o Some combination of the above, including the use of "density
averaging" to allow flexibility in areas where two-acre minimum
lot size requirements exist.
• Density bonuses are provided, based on compliance with design guidelines
rather than the amount of open space provided. Bonuses are also limited
by the type of water supply/sewage disposal service available to the
development.
• Water supply/sewage disposal service may include, where permitted by
local policy:
o Individual wells and septic systems on each lot, including
subsurface disposal or spray irrigation on open land; or
o A community water and/or sewage disposal system, including
subsurface disposal or spray irrigation on open land, designed,
constructed, and maintained in conformity with all applicable state,
federal, and local rules and regulations; or
o Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by
a municipality, association, or water or sewer authority. System
extensions will be sized only to serve the open space development
for which the system is extended.
The "Flexible Development" option has been prepared in the format of an
amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. The basic strategy is to substitute it
for the current "Cluster Development" standards. Associated with the amendment
would be the preparation of a Rural Design Guidebook to illustrate, through a
case study approach, how to use the option is designing open space or "flexible"
developments.
4
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the report be received as
information.
The Planning Board will consider the staff proposal at a special meeting
on September 8, 1994 and is to finalize a recommendation at its
September 19, 1994 meeting. The Board of Commissioners is scheduled
to receive the Planning Board's recommendation no sooner than its
October 3, 1994 meeting.
CEOU
SUMMARY OF it ,
RURAL CHARACTER/OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION PROP '
k1
f:as a�
During the past year, a series of meetings, work group sessions, and/or pub c _
held for the purpose of finalizing a set of rural character/open space preservation strategies. These
meetings are summarized below:
• December, 1993 - At a work session involving the governing boards of Orange County and
Hillsborough, agreement is reached to establish the University Station Planning Group.
• January, 1994-Meetings are held in the northern,central, and southern portions of the county
to present alternative rural character preservation strategies.
• January-April, 1994- The University Station Planning Group completes its work and presents
its recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.
• May, 1994 -A proposal to create an Open Space Development Area Land Use Plan category is
presented at public hearing. The proposal also includes its application to the University Station
property.
• May, 1994 - A proposal to create an Open Space Development zoning district category is
presented at public hearing.
• June, 1994 - A proposal to rezone the remaining portion of the county to require two-acre
minimum lot sizes is presented at public hearing. Citizen comment is also requested on the
desirability of clustering, mandatory open space requirements, and density bonuses.
• July-September, 1994 - The Planning Board reviews all materials/evidence received, including.
the Rural Character Study Committee recommendations (January, 1993), and prepares
recommendation.
The Planning Staff has reviewed the material produced and/or received, including comments
provided by citizens through township meetings and public hearings. While a variety of approaches and
options exist, the three basic approaches which have been recommended to date include:
• The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations;
• The "Status Quo"; and
• A "Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space requirement and density limits
based on the carrying capacity of the soils.
In an effort to focus the discussion and "balance" the many interests expressed to date, the
Planning Staff is preparing a proposal which consists of two parts - "Goals and Action Strategies" (as
recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee) and a "Flexible Development" option which
contains the following provisions:
• The existing one-acre minimum lot size requirement would be retained.
• The provision of open space would be optional, however, a developer would be required to submit
two concept plans - one for a conventional subdivision and another for a"flexible" or open space
subdivision.
• At least one-third(33%) of the land within a"flexible"or open space subdivision must be set aside
as open space which may be preserved through:
Summary 1
o A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such
reductions is dedicated to the County or a land conservancy, or owned and maintained by
a homeowners' association; or
o A "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open space is
preserved through the use of conservation easements held by the County or a land
conservancy; or
o An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in
size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot, and the open space outside such
limits is preserved through restrictive covenants and/or conservation easements; or
o Some combination of the above,including the use of"density averaging' to allow flexibility
in areas where two-acre'minimum lot size requirements exist.
• Density bonuses are also to be provided, based on compliance with design guidelines rather than
the amount of open space provided. Bonuses are also limited by the type of water supply/sewage
disposal service available to the development.
• Water supply/sewage disposal service may include, where permitted by local policy:
o Individual wells and septic systems on each lot, including subsurface disposal or spray
irrigation on open land; or
o A community water and/or sewage disposal system, including subsurface disposal or spray
irrigation on open land, designed, constructed, and maintained in conformity with all
applicable state, federal, and local rules and regulations; or
o Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a municipality,
association, or water or sewer authority. System extensions will be sized only to serve the
open space development for which the system is extended.
The "Flexible Development" option is being prepared in the format of an amendment to the
Subdivision Regulations. The basic strategy is to substitute it for the current "Cluster Development"
standards. Associated with the amendment would be the preparation of a Rural Design Guidebook to
illustrate, through a case study approach, how to use the option is designing open space or "flexible"
developments.
Summary 2