HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-16-1993 - VII-A . r
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 16, 1993
Action Agenda
Item # Vii'-Pr
SUBJECT: REPORT: RURAL CHARACTER STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
11-23-92 Public Hearing Minutes Dave Stencil, Extension 2590
1-21-93 RCSC Recommendations
1-25-93 Planning Board Minutes
Staff Memorandum TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Proposed Implementation Process Hillsborough - 732-8181
Proposed Timeline Chapel Hill - 967-9251
Proposed Charge to Participants Durham - 688-7331
Citizen Comments ( see 1-25-93 Mebane - 227-2031
Planning Board packet)
PURPOSE: To receive a report on conceptual
strategies to protect rural character in
Orange County, as recommended by the
Rural Character Study Committee and the
Planning Board.
BACKGROUND: On November 12, 1992, the Rural Character
Study Committee completed 30 months of
deliberation on a set of strategies to
help preserve the character of Orange
County's rural areas. During this time,
the Committee examined a broad spectrum of
data and considered numerous techniques
for the preservation of rural character.
Three series of township meetings were
held to solicit public input.
The strategies call for the creation of
three products: a design guidebook,
specific ordinance language to implement
the development options recommended by the
Rural Character Study Committee, and
a Rural Character Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The strategies were presented for formal
public comment on November 23, 1992 .
Twenty-nine citizens spoke at the public
hearing, with 75% of the speakers
expressing concern with Development Option
2
6 contained in the Committee's Conceptual
Guidelines for Rural Orange.
The Committee met on two occasions in
December and January to address concerns
raised at the public hearing. In December,
the Committee agreed to consider two areas
of possible revision: the issue of density
in Development Options 4 and 6, and the
question of active private recreation land
as open space.
On January 21, the Committee was presented
a joint Chair/staff recommendation to
address these issues. This recommendation,
with changes as noted on the attached
January 21 document, was agreed to by the
Committee and referred to the Planning
Board for consideration on January 25 .
At its January 25 meeting, the Planning
Board recommended approval of the
strategies as presented, with three
proposed changes:
1. Keeping 0.92 acres as the
minimum lot size for conventional
residential development (the
Committee's strategies call for an
average lot size of 1 .84 acres,
requiring developments with lots
averaging less than 1.84 acres to
provide open space within the
development) .
2 . Adding a sentence noting that the
strategies are designed to complement
the "Basic Concepts" section of the
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element.
3. Clarifying language on the
definition of open space on pages
23-24 of the Conceptual
Guidelines.
NOTE: The implications of the Planning
Board recommendation on conventional
development density (item #1 above) are
summarized in the attached staff
memorandum. Because the Committee's
sliding scale development package is
complicated and inter-related, the
Planning Board may wish to review their
decision, considering additional
3
information about the "ripple effect" of
changes shown in the attached staff memo.
A process for the implementation of the
strategies has been agreed to by the
Rural Character Study Committee and the
Planning Board. This process is designed
to allow for equitable and participative
review of the recommended design
guidebook and accompanying ordinance
language by all interested parties. A
timeline for the implementation phase is
attached.
As a part of this process, it is
recommended that the different
participants be charged by the Board of
Commissioners with specific duties or
actions . A proposed charge is also
provided in this agenda item.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that both
the Rural Character strategies and the
alternative options outlined in the staff
memo be referred back to the Planning
Board for further consideration.
The Administration further recommends
that the Board consider Option #2B in
particular because of the following
attributes:
1. Addresses concerns about down-
zoning of the county by retention
of the current 40, 000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size standards;
2 . Utilizes Randall Arendt's density-
neutral approach, a method advocated
by many citizens;
•
3 . Addresses the issue of open space
quality by permitting advisory
boards and/or interest groups to
develop specific criteria, and
density bonuses are based on
quality rather than quantity
standards;
4 . Permits property owners to utilize
conventional development plans, offers
real incentives for open space set-
asides� and encourages greater amounts
of open space; and
5. Is compatible with pending State-mandated
watershed protection standards.
4
MEMORANDUM
To: Orange Co ty Boar f mmissio ers
From: Marvin Co line, anning Director
Date: February 10, 1993
Subject: Rural Character Study Recommendations
Copies: Orange County Planning Board
Rural Character Study Committee
John Link, County Manager
Geofrey Gledhill, County Attorney
David Stencil, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning
On January 25, 1993, the Planning Board recommended adoption of the strategies proposed
by the Rural Character Study Committee with the following revisions:
1. Retain 40,000 sq.ft. [0.92 acres] as the minimum required lot size;
2. Add a sentence noting that the strategies are designed to complement the
"Basic Concepts" section of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and
3. Clarify language concerning the definition of open space on pages 23-24 of the
Conceptual Guidelines.
Revisions #2 and #3 do not affect the development options or represent any change in
the intent of the strategies. Revision #1 does, however, have implications for
developments in rural areas that differ from those proposed by the Committee.
On the following pages, examples are provided which illustrate the similarities and
differences between the Rural Character Study Committee's strategies and the Planning
Board's recommendation. To evaluate the impact of retaining the 40,000 sq.ft. lot size
requirement, two versions of the Planning Board's recommendation [#1A and #18] are
presented as applied to a 50-acre tract.
In addition to the Planning Board versions, a second series of options is presented
which are variations of Randall Arendt's "density-neutral" option. The first Arendt ,
option [#2A] combines the density-neutral approach with an increase in the minimum lot
size requirement to 80,000 sq.ft. Such an option has been advocated by at least one
member of the Rural Character Study Committee. The second [#2B] and third [#2C] options
are based on the Grafton, Massachusetts ordinance [prepared by Mr. Arendt] and seeks to
address the following issues:
1. Concern over retaining the 40,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size standard;
2. Definitions of quality open space; and
3. Use of an Arendt density-neutral approach.
These versions were not specifically recommended by the Planning Board or Mr. Arendt
but were developed by the Planning Staff to show the implications of various options.
When the Planning Board prepared a recommendation on the strategies, neither it nor the
staff was fully aware of the impact of retaining the 40,000 sq.ft. lot size standard on
the Rural Character Study Committee's sliding scale. It would seem advisable to refer
the proposed strategies as well as the options presented on the following pages back to
the Planning Board for further consideration.
5
COMPARISON OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGY OPTIONS
PLANNING BOARD OPTION #1A
In this option, the Planning Board's recommendation is compared to that of the Rural
Character Study Committee without any adjustment to the sliding scale of density bonuses
and open space requirements. The analysis is based on a tract size of 50 acres, but the
template is set up so that any tract size can be evaluated. Average lot size calculations
include the area in the lot as well as the street right-of-way. Under the Planning
Board option, a range of soil conditions is presented to illustrate the impact of the
option under different constraints.
TRACT SIZE = 50 ACRES
Planning Board Option h`lA
Poor < Average > Good
Soils Soils Soils
RCSC Option Lot Yield
Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg
% Open Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot
Open Space Gross Lot Size Gross Size Gross Size Gross Size
Space Acres Acre Yield [SqFt] Acre Lots [SqFt] Acre Lots [SqFt] Acre Lots [SqFt]
CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
0% 0.0 0.50 25 87120 0.25 13 174240 0.50 25 87120 1.00 50 43560
BONUS PROVISIONS
20% 10.0 0.80 40 43560 0.80 40 43560 0.80 40 43560 0.80 40 43560
30% 15.0 0.90 45 33880 0.90 45 33880 0.90 45 33880 0.90 45 33880
40% 20.0 1.00 50 26136 1.00 50 26136 1.00 50 26136 1.00 50 26136
50% 25.0 1.10 55 19800 1.10 55 19800 1.10 55 19800 1.10 55 19800
60% 30.0 1.20 60 14520 1.20 60 14520 1.20 60 14520 1.20 60 14520
70% 35.0 1.30 65 10052 1.30 65 10052 1.30 65 10052 1.30 65 10052
OBSERVATIONS:
1. For tracts with "average" soils, the Planning Board option results in the same number
of lots as the RCSC option.
2. For tracts with "poor" soils, the options would also produce the same results. In
essence, owners with the most restricted land stand to gain the most from the density
bonuses. The example provided above assumes that sufficient "good" soils would be
available for the owner to cluster units and use an alternative system.
3. For tracts with "good" soils, the options produce the same results with one exception.
If the sliding scale of "Units Per Gross Acre" is left unchanged, a property owner
would not be able to achieve any bonus until he/she set aside at least 50% open space.
4. Under the "Bonus Provisions" shown above, alternative systems would have to be utilized
in all except one, the 20% open space option. Because one-acre lots could be provided,
individual wells and septic tanks could be used.
6
COMPARISON OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGY OPTIONS
PLANNING BOARD OPTION #1B
Under the Rural Character Study Committee's recommended strategy, the number of "Units
Per Gross Acre" increases by 60% from "Conventional Development" to entry level under
"Bonus Provisions" [e.g. , 0.5 to 0.8] . Thereafter, the bonus scale increases by a
decreasing percentage [e.g. , 0.8 to 0.9 = 12%, 0.9 to 1.0 = 11%; etc. ] . In this
example, the sliding scale of density bonuses under the Planning Board option has been
adjusted for each soil condition to reflect the same percentage distribution.
The analysis is based on a tract size of 50 acres, but the template is set up so that
any tract size can be evaluated. Average lot size calculations include the area in the
lot as well as the street right-of-way.
TRACT SIZE = 50 ACRES
Planning Board Option #1B
Poor < Average > Good
Soils Soils Soils
RCSC Option Lot Yield
Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg
% Open Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot
Open Space Gross Lot Size Gross Size Gross Size Gross Size
Space Acres Acre Yield [SgFt] Acre Lots [SgFt] Acre Lots [SgFt] Acre Lots (SqFt)
CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
0% 0.0 0.50 25 87120 0.25 13 174240 0.50 25 87120 1.00 50 43560
_
BONUS PROVISIONS
20% 10.0 0.80 40 43560 0.40 20 87120 0.80 40 43560 1.60 80 21780
30% 15.0 0.90 45 33880 0.45 22 68063 0.90 45 33880 1.80 90 16985
40% 20.0 1.00 50 26136 0.50 25 52558 1.00 50 26136 2.00 100 13092
50% 25.0 1.10 55 19800 0.55 27 39817 1.10 55 19800 2.20 110 9919
60% 30.0 1.20 60 14520 0.60 30 29223 1.20 60 14520 2.40 120 7266
70% 35.0 1.30 65 10052 0.65 32 20256 1.30 65 10052 2.60 130 5036
==
OBSERVATIONS:
1. For tracts with "average" soils, the Planning Board option results in the same number
of lots as the RCSC option.
2. For tracts with "poor" soils, the options would produce similar results. Owners with
with the most restricted land still stand to gain from the density bonuses but not at
the same levels. The example provided above also assumes that sufficient "good" soils
would be available for the owner to cluster units and use an alternative system.
3. For tracts with "good" soils, the Planning Board option produces "bonuses" which are
twice those recommended by the RCSC.
4. Under the "Bonus Provisions" shown above, alternative systems would have to be utilized
in all except a few, including the 20% open space option [RCSC and PB "poor" and
"average" soil conditions] , and the 30% and 40% open space options [PB "poor" soil
conditions] . Because the density bonuses are so high for "good" soils, even the use of
alternative systems may not allow an owner to reach the maximum number of units.
7
COMPARISON OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGY OPTIONS
ARENDT OPTION #2A
In this option, an alternate strategy is presented as proposed by a member of the Rural
Character Study Committee. The option includes: (1) increasing the minimum required lot
size from 40,000 to 80,000 sq.ft. ; (2) providing no density bonuses; and (3) limiting
the number of lots to the number which can be achieved under a conventional plan.
Although open space acreages and percentages are shown for this option, they reflect
owner preferences and have no relation to density bonuses. This option is based on
Randall Arendt's approach, combined with increased minimum lot size.
The analysis is based on a tract size of 50 acres, but the template is set up sp that
any tract size can be evaluated. Average lot size calculations include the area in the
the lot as well as the street right-of-way. A range of "constraint" conditions is
presented to illustrate the impact of the option. "Constraints" can include poor soils,
wetlands, steep slopes, etc.
TRACT SIZE = 50 ACRES
_
Arendt Option #1A
Severe < Moderate > Slight
Constraints
RCSC Option Lot Yield
Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg
% Open Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot
Open Space Gross Lot Size Gross Size Gross Size Gross Size
Space Acres Acre Yield [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres
CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
0% 0.0 0.50 25 2.00 0.25 13 4.00 0.375 19 2.67 0.50 25 2.00
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
==
20% 10.0 0.80 40 1.00 0.25 13 3.20 0.375 19 2.13 0.50 25 1.60
30% 15.0 0.90 45 0.78 0.25 13 2.80 0.375 19 1.87 0.50 25 1.40
40% 20.0 1.00 50 0.60 0.25 13 2.40 0.375 19 1.60 0.50 25 1.20
50% 25.0 1.10 55 0.45 0.25 13 2.00 0.375 19 1.33 0.50 25 1.00
60% 30.0 1.20 60 0.33 0.25 13 1.60 0.375 19 1.07 0.50 25 0.80
70% 35.0 1.30 65 0.23 0.25 13 1.20 0.375 19 0.80 0.50 25 0.60
______
OBSERVATIONS:
1. These options produce very different results due to the lack of density bonuses under
the Arendt option. An equally important factor is the "starting point" or how many
lots a property owner can obtain under a conventional development plan.
2. The Arendt option, including the two-acre lot size requirement, is more restrictive
than the current RB-Rural Buffer zoning. For example, an owner limited to 13 lots under
a conventional plan could "cluster" under the existing ordinance and attempt to achieve
the maximum number of units allowable - 25. The Arendt option above would no more than
13 lots and is thus less flexible than the current RB standards.
3. The Arendt option would permit individual wells and septic tanks to be used in all
options except the "moderate constraints - 70% open space" and "slight constraints -
60% and 70% open space" categories.
8
COMPARISON OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGY OPTIONS
ARENDT OPTION #28
In this option, an alternate strategy is presented based on the Grafton, Massachusetts
Flexible [Cluster] Development ordinance. The option includes: (1) retaining the minimum
required lot size of 40,000 sq.ft. ; (2) providing density bonuses based on the quality of
the open space; (3j requiring at least 40% open space to qualify for any bonuses; and
(4) applying density bonuses to the number of lots which can be achieved under a
conventional plan. The Grafton ordinance was initially developed by Randall Arendt
and modified to provide density bonuses based on compliance with design guidelines.
A comparison of the Grafton bonuses with those provided in this option is as follows:
Bonus Design Guideline Compliance Open Space Quality
20% 6 out of 12 F - Fair
25% 9 out of 12 M - Moderate
30% 12 out of 12 G - Good
The definition of "quality" would be undertaken during the ordinance/design guidelines
preparation phase. The "F, M, and G" symbols in the cluster option below are indicative of
the lot numbers that could be obtained for "Fair, Moderate, and Good" quality open space.
The analysis is based on a tract size of 50 acres, but the template is set up so that
any tract size can be evaluated. Average lot size calculations include the area in the
the lot as well as the street right-of-way. A range of "constraint" conditions is
presented to illustrate the impact of the option. "Constraints" can include poor
soils, wetlands, steep slopes, etc.
TRACT SIZE = 50 ACRES
x== xxsa szza =
Arendt Option #1B
Severe < Moderate > Few
Constraints
RCSC Option Lot Yield
Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg
% Open Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot
Open Space Gross Lot Size Gross Size Gross Size Gross Size
Space Acres Acre Yield [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres
a === =
CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
0% 0.0 0.50 25 2.00 0.2500 13 4.00 0.50 25 2.00 1.00 50 1.00
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
20% 10.0 0.80 40 1.00 At least 40% open space required
30% 15.0 0.90 45 0.78
40% 20.0 1.00 50 0.60 F 0.3000 15 2.00 0.60 30 1.00 1.2000 60 0.50
M 0.3125 16 1.92 0.63 31 0.96 1.2500 63 0.48
0 0.3250 16 1.85 0.65 33 0.92 1.3000 65 0.46
50% 25.0 1.10 55 0.45
60% 30.0 1.20 60 0.33
70% 35.0 1.30 65 0.23
OBSERVATIONS:
1. In terms of the maximum number of lots achievable, the numbers are the same - 65.
This option is similar in many respects to the "status quo" or conventional method
of subdividing land; e.g. , a property .owner can only obtain as many lots as the
land [or the market] will allow.
9
COMPARISON OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGY OPTIONS
ARENDT OPTION #2B [CONTINUED]
OBSERVATIONS [CONTINUED] :
2. Alternative systems would be required under the "few constraints" option of the Arendt
approach and under all options in the RCSC approach except the "20% open space" option.
3. While the number of lots achievable under "severe" and "moderate" constraints is
limited, owners in those situations would have the advantage of being able to use
individual wells and septic tanks. Owners of property with few constraints need an
additional incentive to cluster; e.g. , greater lot numbers, to offset the cost of the
alternative system.
4. In the Hillsborough Open Space Area, property owners, because of the availability of
public water and sewer, would start at one unit per acre, since densities less than
that would make it difficult to justify the cost of public utilty extensions.
5. As shown in the next option, Arendt #1C, the number of lots achievable with 20% and 30%
open space options does not result in a sufficient number of lots to serve as an
incentive for clustering.
10
COMPARISON OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGY OPTIONS
ARENDT OPTION #2C
This option is the same as #18 except an additional bonus factor is introduced.
Density bonuses are awarded not only for the quality of the open space but the amount.
For each 10% increase in open space set aside, a bonus of approximately 5% is awarded.
Similar density bonuses [approximately 5%] are also awarded based on the quality of the
open space. In an attempt to keep the ceiling of 1.3 units per gross acre in tact,
the number of units per acre achievable under a conventional development plan is
used as the first step in the bonus provisions.
TRACT SIZE = 50 ACRES
Arendt Option #1C
Fair < Moderate > Good
Open Space Quality
Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg
% Open Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot
Open Space Gross Lot Size Gross Size Gross Size Gross Size
Space Acres Acre Yield [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres
= a
SEVERE CONSTRAINTS
Conventional Plan
0% 0.0 0.25 13 4.00
Cluster Plan
20% 10.0 0.25 13 3.20 0.26 13 3.05 0.27 14 2.91
30% 15.0 0.26 13 2.67 0.27 14 2.55 0.29 14 2.43
40% 20.0 0.28 14 2.18 0.29 14 2.09 0.30 15 2.00
50% 25.0 0.29 14 1.74 0.30 15 1.67 0.31 16 1.60
60% 30.0 0.30 15 1.33 0.31 16 1.28 0.33 16 1.23
70% 35.0 0.31 16 0.96 0.33 16 0.92 0.34 17 0.89
====
MODERATE CONSTRAINTS
Conventional Plan
0% 0.0 0.50 25 2.00
Cluster Plan
20% 10.0 0.50 25 1.60 0.53 26 1.52 0.55 27 1.45
30% 15.0 0.53 26 1.33 0.55 27 1.27 0.58 29 1.22
40% 20.0 0.55 28 1.09 0.58 29 1.04 0.60 30 1.00
50% 25.0 0.58 29 0.87 0.60 30 0.83 0.63 31 0.80
60% 30.0 0.60 30 0.67 0.63 31 0.64 0.65 33 0.62
70% 35.0 0.63 31 0.48 0.65 33 0.46 0.68 34 0.44
_ =s
SLIGHT CONSTRAINTS
==========a=
Conventional Plan
0% 0.0 1.00 50 1.00
Cluster Plan
20% 10.0 1.00 50 0.80 1.05 53 0.76 1.10 55 0.73
30% 15.0 1.05 53 0.67 1.10 55 0.64 1.15 58 0.61
40% 20.0 1.05 53 0.57 1.10 55 0.55 1.15 58 0.52
50% 25.0 1.10 55 0.45 1.15 58 0.43 1.20 60 0.42
60% 30.0 1.15 58 0.35 1.20 60 0.33 1.25 63 0.32
70% 35.0 1.20 60 0.25 1.25 63 0.24 1.30 65 0.23
SEE OBSERVATIONS - NEXT PAGE:
11
COMPARISON OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGY OPTIONS
ARENDT OPTION #2C [CONTINUED]
OBSERVATIONS:
1. The ceiling of 1.3 units per gross acre is exceeded slightly [1.35] , even when awarding
no bonus for the first step of the open space options.
2. Alternative systems are not needed when faced with "severe constraints" except for
the 70% open space option. When confronted with "moderate constraints", an owner must
use alternative systems for half the options, while property with "slight constraints"
must be developed using such systems for all open space options.
3. In the Hillsborough Open Space Area, property owners, because of the availability of
public water and sewer, would start at one unit per acre, since densities less than
that would make it difficult to justify the cost of public utilty extensions.
4. The number of additional lots obtained under the 20% and 30% open space options
suggests that little incentive may exist to use them, and the open space
requirement should start at 40%. As shown on the following table, deleting the
the 20% and 30% open space options also permits the "1.3" ceiling to be retained.
5. The same lack of incentive for using the 40% open space option may exist with the
revised version of Arendt #1C, and it may be more advisable to use. Arendt
version #1B.
12
COMPARISON OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGY OPTIONS
ARENDT OPTION #2C REVISED
____
TRACT SIZE = 50 ACRES
______________________
Arendt Option #1C
Fair < Moderate > Good
Open Space Quality
Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg Units Avg
% Open Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot Per Lot
Open Space Gross Lot Size Gross Size Gross Size Gross Size
Space Acres Acre Yield [Acres] Acre Lots (Acres] Acre Lots [Acres] Acre Lots [Acres
SEVERE CONSTRAINTS
_
Conventional Plan
0% 0.0 0.25 13 4.00
Cluster Plan
40% 20.0 0.263 13 2.28 0.275 14 2.18 0.288 14 2.08
50% 25.0 0.275 14 1.82 0.288 14 1.74 0.300 15 1.67
60% 30.0 0.288 14 1.39 0.300 15 1.33 0.313 16 1.28
70% 35.0 0.300 15 1.00 0.313 16 0.96 0.325 16 0.92
MODERATE CONSTRAINTS
_
Conventional Plan
0% 0.0 0.50 25 2.00
Cluster Plan
40% 20.0 0.525 26 1.14 0.550 28 1.09 0.575 29 1.04
50% 25.0 0.550 28 0.91 0.575 29 0.87 0.600 30 0.83
60% 30.0 0.575 29 0.70 0.600 30 0.67 0.625 31 0.64
70% 35.0 0.600 30 0.50 0.625 31 0.48 0.650 33 0.46
SLIGHT CONSTRAINTS
Conventional Plan
0% 0.0 1.00 50 1.00
Cluster Plan
40% 20.0 1.05 53 0.57 1.10 55 0.55 1.15 58 0.52
50% 25.0 1.10 55 0.45 1.15 57 0.44 1.20 60 0.42
60% 30.0 1.15 58 0.35 1.20 60 0.33 1.25 63 0.32
70% 35.0 1.20 60 0.25 1.25 62 0.24 1.30 65 0.23
13
Approved: 12-7-92
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 23, 1992
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board held a
Quarterly Public Hearing on November 23, 1992 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom, New
County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , Commissioners Verla C. Insko,
Stephen Halkiotis, Alice M. Gordon and Don Willhoit.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill ,
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Planners Mary Willis, Emily Cameron, Gene Bell and
David Stancil , Planning Director Marvin Collins, Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy,
County Engineer Paul Thames, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, and Deputy Clerk to the Board
Kathy Baker.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Carol Cantrell , and Members Paul Hoecke, Joan Jobsis,
Bill Waddell , Jr. , James Gray, Elizabeth Eidenier, Kent Scott, Clinton Burklin, Jean
Hamilton, Virginia Boland, and Larry Reid.
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE
CLERK'S OFFICE.
NOTE: THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING WILL BE LEFT OPEN UNTIL THE PLANNING
BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION IS RECEIVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
A. OPENING REMARKS
County Manager John Link gave an update on the tornado that hit Hillsborough at about
2: 30 a.m. on November 23rd
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the Public Charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1 . PROPOSED RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGIES
Planning Board Member and Chair of the Rural Character Study Committee Clint
Burklin welcomed everyone and acknowledged the committee members for all of their dedicated
work. He asked that speakers offer concrete suggestions on how to improve this plan.
This item was presented by David Stencil for the purpose of receiving citizen comment
on the recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee.
In summary, since November 1987, the Rural Character Study Committee has been studying
strategies and development options which would preserve open space in the rural portions of
the County. In September 1990, the Committee began developing strategies for those portions
of the County outside municipal planning jurisdictions and the Orange County-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Joint Planning Area. The strategies developed by the Committee over the past two
years attempt to balance resource protection and land development interests through managed
14
growth and the preservation and protection of agriculture, managed forestry, natural
resources and visual resources. The management of growth and the creation of flexibility for
property owners are also goals of the study.
On November 12, the Committee agreed upon a set of recommendations and presented the
package at the putrlic hearing for comment and feedback. A citizen information session was
held on November 17 to preview the presentation and answer questions from the public.
Sixteen people attended this session.
The Committee's recommendations are included in the "Conceptual Guidelines for Rural
Orange" . A summary sheet of recommendations is also provided. In the package, the Committee
recommends two broad administrative actions to implement their findings.
1 . The Committee recommends the creation of a Rural Character Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, as allowed under Section 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. This
element would contain the Committee's findings, goals and action strategies and
incorporate them into County policy.
2. The Committee recommends a series of six development options that serve as a
catalyst for the Committee's program, representing ways to encourage rural
character protection through flexibility and environmentally-sensitive design.
The Committee recommends that these development options be incorporated into the
County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations - with the creation of a
Rural Orange Design Guidebook as a resource for rural character-enhancing
development.
The development styles represent an attempt to expand upon current standards and
introduce incentives for using new options which result in open space as a part of the
development plan. As a part of the overall strategy, the current zoning density of 40,000
square feet in most rural areas would be changed to a range of densities from 10,000 square
feet in a planned community to 200,000 square feet in large-lot development. The base
conventional development density would be reduced to 80,000 square feet (1 . 74 acres) .
However, density bonuses, the use of private roads, and in some cases, access to water and
sewer service would be available to those developments which preserve floodplains, wetlands,
natural areas, historic/archaeological sites, farmland, and/or forest land.
Proposals are also made for preparing plans for Rural Crossroads and Rural Community
Centers, including the active participation of community or area residents.
The rural character strategies are presented tonight in concept form as the first step
in the process. Approval of these rural character strategies and development options in
concept form by the Board of Commissioners will provide the basis for preparation of
ordinances and plan amendments to implement the strategies. These amendments will be
presented at a subsequent public hearing, along with the Rural Orange Design Guidebook -
illustrating how to use and apply the development options to protect rural character.
BOB STRAYHORN, a member of the Rural Character Study Committee (RCSC), indicated that
he was a resident of the New Hope Community. He mentioned that although he was interested
in keeping the rural character of the county, compromises must be made. He indicated that
the committee's recommendations offer a way to sell a portion of your land without having to
sell all of it to a developer. It should be the owners option as to how they use their open
space. Incentives are being offered to the land owner which encourage them to set higher
standards for their land.
LIVY LUDINGTON stated that she is working with the Triangle Land Conservancy and is a
member of the RCSC. She stated that the Rural Character Study Committee realizes that the
issues surrounding the use of open space and the concept of a rural village are
controversial . They welcome citizen comment and hope that constructive suggestions are
offered.
15
CAROLE CRUMLEY, a member of the RCSC and the Solid Waste Task Force indicated that she
believes consensus needs to be reached. She asked for respect for the hard work and long
hours this committee has worked over the years.
COMMENTS AND/OR _QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD
In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Clint Burklin indicated that many
meetings were held with members of the various Township Advisory Councils (TAC) . He also
indicated that TAC members were specifically invited to each meeting. Information gathered
at the meetings with the TAC members was used to determine goals and strategies.
COMMISSIONER INSKO thanked the RCSC for the work they have done and mentioned that this
plan has many positive qualities. It is important to preserve the quality and character of
Orange County. Strong regulations will be required to protect against future zoning
increases in the number of allowable units per acre.
In response to a question from Clint Burklin, Geoff Gledhill indicated that dedicated
open space can be protected in three ways: ( 1 ) development rights may be permanently
transferred or deeded to the Triangle Land Conservancy, (2) purchasers may be awarded a legal
right to the preservation of the open space of the development, or (3) the developer of the
project agrees not to change the land use. Gledhill also stated that the Board of County
Commissioners can not be committed to certain actions 20 years into the future, however, land
owners have presented successful court cases which have stopped developers from using "set
aside" land.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
MICHAEL WARNER stated that he is in agreement with the mission of the Rural Character
Study Committee. Density determines what is rural or urban. His research indicates that 15
units per one hundred acres is the norm in rural Orange County and 47 units per 101 acres is
. the norm in Chapel Hill/Carrboro. He spoke in opposition to the Planned Community option and
the one-half acre open space development. A copy of his comments and the back up material
is located in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office.
ROY W. ROTH spoke in opposition to the Planned Community option. He indicated that it
is a neo-traditional- village and does not preserve the rural character. A copy of his
comments are in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office.
ROBERT NUTTER, a dairy farmer, spoke in support of the committee's recommendation.
PAUL ANDREWS, a rural Orange County resident, spoke in support of Options 1 through 4
and against Option N6, the Planned Community option. He indicated that this is a social
experiment which is not in the best interest of the community.
ROBERT HARRELL expressed pride in Orange County for undertaking this study. He asked
that the Planned Community option be deleted.
CINDY IDOL commended the county for the farsighted approach to land use. She asked
that zoning changes be carefully considered so that the rural character of the County is
preserved.
16
CHERIE ROSEMOND spoke in opposition to the Planned Community Option. She expressed
support for the remainder of the Study,
LES RAY, a former member of the RCSC and a dairy farmer, indicated that his family has
lived in Orange County for over 300 years. They are a part of the land and the land is a
part of them. He spoke on behalf of the landowners need to sell or develop land they have
had stewardship over. He supports the plan in general but asked that open space be clearly
defined. He also indicated that the higher densities would not allow farm land to survive.
He requested that special attention be given to the protection of the watershed. Farmers
generally use pesticides more wisely then golf course operators and home owners and water
quality must be the County's first priority.
ALLEN SPALT commended the County and the RCSC for their hard work. He indicated that
he is concerned about the higher density development. Open space needs to be defined
excluding golf courses and other developed land. A copy of his statement is in the Permanent
Agenda File in the Clerk's office.
ROBERT CANTWELL spoke in opposition to the Planned Community option. He asked that it
be excluded from the plan.
AL JOHNSON, a New Hope Church Road resident, indicated that although increasing the
number of homes per acre would increase the tax revenue for the county, it would also
increase the need for services. He asked that the higher density strategy be removed from the
plan.
CARL WALTERS indicated that he has designated his farm as an Agricultural District.
He mentioned that the landfill and the reservoir have both threatened his land in the recent
past. He also indicated that he believes that low density subdivisions increase his share
of the property tax unless the homes are in the higher price range.
JANE MASKE spoke in opposition to the Planned Development option. Her statement is in
the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
JENNIFER MILLER spoke in opposition to the Planned Development option. She asked that
the impact on the schools be considered. Her written statement is in the permanent agenda
file in the Clerk's office. A fact sheet on the Farmview Community in Lower Makefieid
Township, Pennsylvania. is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
CALLIE WARNER spoke in opposition to the Planned Development option. She indicated
that water and sewer would be required for this option. She asked that the County not
consider golf courses as open space. A copy of her statement is in the permanent agenda
file.
LEE REFALOW stated that there are both urban and rural areas in Orange County. He
asked that rural strategies not be used to manage urban growth.
ALAN SEIFERFELD spoke in opposition to allowing golf courses and driving ranges to be
considered open space. He asked that the Planned Community option be removed from the list
of options.
NEIL BANERJEE spoke in support of the goals of the Rural Character Study Committee;
however, he indicated that they are on the wrong path with this plan. Voluntary compliance
17
' x e
is naive because profit, rather than protection of the rural character, will be the goal of
many developers and land owners. He asked that the Planned Community option be eliminated.
LARRY BOHS spoke in support of the plan in general , however, he asked that the Planned
Community option be excluded. His statement in its entirety is in the permanent agenda file
in the Clerk's office.
DEBBIE LEONARD spoke in opposition to the Planned Development option.
BEN LLOYD stated that Orange County needs economic development to increase the tax
base. He stated that the property owners have rights which need to be protected by the
County.
BARBARA ROBERTSON spoke in opposition to the Planned Development option and asked that golf
courses not be used as open space.
VIC KNIGHT indicated that both the Planned Development option and the Half-acre open
space option would need to have a comprehensive water and sewer policy which would allow them
to use a package treatment plant. If that is not available to them it would be impossible
to develop at the suggested density.
BOBBY NICHOLS commented that options 1 through 4 would not preserve farm land. He
spoke in support of the Planned Development and Existing Lots of Record options. He stated
that we need to concentrate on running water and sewer lines.
LIBBY SEARLES spoke in opposition to golf courses being considered open space. She
opposed the Planned Development option.
MARGARET McKEAN spoke in opposition to the one-half acre open space development and the
Planned Community.
PHILIP PRICE spoke in opposition to the one-half acre open space development and the
Planned Community.
ANN MOSS JOYNER indicated that she has been involved in this process since its
inception. She commented that many of the options will not be economically viable. She
suggested approving the intent of the plan while reworking the figures so that they will be
economically feasible. She asked that clustering be allowed.
MARK O'NEAL, the development liaison with the RCSC, indicated that this plan is a
compromise within a framework that will be effective for the County. The question that needs
to be asked is "where do we want the people to live?"
Letters from the following citizens opposing the Planned Development options were
received: (1 ) Elizabeth L. Woodman, (2) J. Edwin King, (3) Alice Carlton, (4) Carolyn F.
McCain, President Stoneridge-Sedgefield Property Owners Assoc. , and (5) Betty D. & Rudy A.
Renfer. A telephone message from Susan Nickell opposing the Planned Development is in the
Permanent Agenda File.
Printed material addressing the issues of pesticide use on golf courses is in the
permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
18
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
refer the proposal to the Rural Character Study Committee for final adjustments on December
3, and that the proposal then be referred to the Orange County Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 4, 1993.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS -
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
a. CP-2-92 Proposed Open Space Development Area Land Use Plan Category
This item was presented by Marvin Collins to receive citizen comments on
a proposed text amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal
would add language to include a new plan category entitled "Open Space Development Area" .
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1981 as the Orange County
Land Use Plan. In 1989, the Board of Commissioners recognized the County's planning policy
documents under the guise of a Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Use Plan became the Land Use
Element.
The Land Use Element is a policy document which guides decision-making on land use
related issues. As such, the Element contains a number of land use categories which reflect
these goals and policies, and correspond to zoning districts containing development
standards. There are currently 19 land use categories.
The proposed "Open Space Development Area" category would address innovative open space
development styles and their evaluation/application under the existing County plan. The
amendment is also designed to address concerns regarding the consistency between the
Hillsborough-Orange County Cooperative Planning Agreement and the Comprehensive Plan.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD
COMMISSIONER GORDON asked if this proposed amendment will go to Hillsborough for their
review? Marvin Collins indicated that would not be a normal part of this procedure but it.
could be given to them for review. Commissioner Gordon asked that they have an opportunity
to review it. She also suggested that the RCSC review the citizen comments and separate the
strategies into rural and urban.
COMMISSIONER INSKO asked that the Planning Board take citizen comments into
consideration in their recommendation.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: None
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
adjourn the public hearing until 7:30 on January 4, 1993 at the County Courthouse,
Hillsborough, N.C. , to receive the Planning Board's recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
a. Z-4-92 Hancor, Incorporated
This item was presented by Mary Willis to consider a proposed zoning atlas
amendment. Hancor is a plastic pipe manufacturing facility located on the south side of
Highway 70 between Efland and Mebane. The Hancor property contains 15.9 acres, extending
from Highway 70 to the Southern Railroad at a depth of about 1100 feet. The existing
structures, which include a 9000 square foot manufacturing building and several metal
buildings, are all located on the southernmost 150' of the property, adjacent to the
19
CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES
FOR RURAL ORANGE
REPORT OF THE
RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE
ORANGE COUNTY, N.C.
JANUARY 21, 1993
20
CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR RURAL E
HIGHLIGHTS/CHANGES FROM NOVEMBER 23 , 1 O992 RANGPACKAGE
JANUARY 21, 1993
Added language shown in boldface.
Language deleted shown in 04#1#4.
New Language Language for Deletion
Page 6-7 Page 10
Page 9 Page 14
Page 11 Page 19 (2 )
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
>DEVOPTION :. OPEN SPACE DENSITY
0% 21 LOTS/100 AC
OPTION .:(2AC) 0% 51 LOTS/100 AC
OPTION 3 (.OSD} 20% 80 LOTS/100 AC
30% 90 LOTS/100 AC
40% 100 LOTS/100 AC
50% 110 LOTS/100 AC
" 60% 120 LOTS/100 AC
70% 130 LOTS/100 AC
* ALL OPTION 2 DEVELOPMENTS GREATER THAN 15 LOTS MUST SUBMIT TWO
CONCEPT PLANS (CONVENTIONAL, AND OSD)
* ONLY 50% 0F VEGETATED PRIVATELY-OWNED RECREATIONAL LAND COUNTS
TOWARD OPEN-SPACE REQUIREMENT (FURTHER STUDY ON CRITERIA) .
* PRIVATE ROADS AND EXPEDITED REVIEW (TO BE DEFINED) FOR ALL
OPTION 3 DEVELOPMENTS . DESIGN GUIDELINES MUST BE FOLLOWED.
• WASTEWATER DISPOSAL FOR OPTION 3 DEVELOPMENTS MUST BE LAND
APPLICATION - EXCEPT IN HILLSBOROUGH OPEN SPACE AREA
* COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED (UNDER DESIGN GUIDELINES ) FOR
OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENTS BUT MUST BE LOCALLY-ORIENTED.
•
21
1-21-93 Final Version
SECTION I . INTRODUCTION
Background
"Rural" is defined in The American Heritage Dictionary as "of or
pertaining to the country as opposed to the city" . The same source
defines "character" as "the combination of qualities or features
that distinguishes one thing from another" . In its simplest terms,
"rural character" could thus be defined as "those qualities or
features that distinguish the country from the city" . It is the
identification of the distinguishing features of the "country" and
how to preserve them that the Rural Character Study Committee has
concerned itself with since 1988 .
A Case Study - the Rural Community of Cedar Grove
The character of "Rural Orange" - areas deemed to remain rural over
the foreseeable future - can be found throughout the County. The
historical context of rural communities and their flavor and
importance in the rural way of life, cannot be overstated as a
factor in describing rural character.
One such example is the community of Cedar Grove. Cedar Grove
Township lies in northwestern Orange County. In the center of the
Township, at the intersection of Efland-Cedar Grove Road and Carr
Store Road, is the community of Cedar Grove. As an unincorporated
place, Cedar Grove has no legal boundaries. Depending on how one
defines the Cedar Grove community, the crossroads contains between
100 and 500 persons. The Township itself has 3700 residents
scattered across 80 square miles. The principal land activity in
Cedar Grove Township is as it has been for centuries - farming.
Dairy and tobacco are the main products .
Like many areas in Orange County, Cedar Grove has a long and
storied past. Native American tribes such as the Occoneechee
resided in the vicinity for many years before European settlement.
Scots-Irish Presbyterians were the first European settlers of Cedar
Grove, arriving in the 1740 's. By the time of the Revolutionary
War, Germans and Quakers had also settled there. Starting in the
late 18th century, Africans became a significant part of the
community - initially as slaves, later as free landowners .
The concept of community grew strong in Cedar Grove as well.
Agricultural harvesting became a yearly celebration, yielding
"Harvest Festivals" and "Community Pots" for area residents.
Much of Cedar Grove 's heritage can still be seen in the landscape -
the old houses, barns, and structures, the tobacco fields , the
dairy farms and the many churches which still survive today.
. 1
22
1-21-93 Final Version
Slow residential growth tied to agriculture continued well into the
20th century. In fact, land use and land ownership patterns in the
community center from 1938 are similar to the types of land use in
1992 . By contrast, the Township as a whole has changed in the last
20 years through the pace of subdivision activity. Almost 500 new
housing units were constructed in the 1980 's in Cedar Grove
Township, and new projects are planned or under discussion. In
addition, the Town of Hillsborough's proposed reservoir in Cedar
Grove Township would dramatically alter the landscape of the area.
A similar history, and a similar onset of change, face Bingham,
Caldwell, and other rural Orange communities . The challenge for
Cedar Grove and other comparable communities is to find a way to
protect a distinct character, while accommodating necessary growth.
Achieving such a balance is a concern repeatedly raised by rural
residents in meetings with the Rural Character Study Committee, and
is the challenge the Committee has endeavored to address through
these recommendations.
Phase I - Rural Buffer Strategies/A Historical Perspective
This initiative began in January, 1987 when the Board of County
Commissioners rezoned approximately 38,000 acres surrounding the
towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The application of Rural Buffer
zoning standards, including a density limitation of one dwelling
unit per two acres of land, concerned many county residents,
especially from the affected area. In response, the Board of
Commissioners asked that additional studies be conducted to
identify ways of preserving open space in the Rural Buffer with
minimal impact on affected property owners.
In June of 1987 , an Assembly of Governments meeting was held at the
Institute of Government. Attended by representatives of Orange
County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, there was consensus among those
present that ways and means of preserving open space in the Rural
Buffer should be identified in lieu of the two-acre minimum lot
size requirement. While the focus of such an effort would initially
be the Rural Buffer area, attention was also to be given to the
remainder of the county. Subsequently, a citizens advisory
committee was appointed by the Board of Commissioners in November,
1987 to undertake such a study. The citizens advisory committee
developed a set of options and strategies which were presented at
a public hearing attended by elected representatives of Joint
Planning Area, Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, and
residents of the Rural Buffer area. The Guidelines, while praised
for their thrust, sensitivity and consensus-building, have not
received unanimous adoption by the all of the Joint Planning Area
jurisdictions. Nonetheless, completion of the recommendations has
set the stage for Phase II of the Rural Character Study.
2
23
1-21-93 Final Version
Phase II - Recommendations for Rural Orange
In September of 1990, the Rural Character Study Committee embarked
on Phase II its charge. Whereas the first phase focused on rural
character protection strategies for the Rural Buffer, Phase II
involved a similar set of strategies for the remaining rural areas
of Orange County; e.g. , "Rural Orange" . After 18 months of
deliberation and meetings with residents in Bingham, Cheeks ,
Hillsborough, Eno, Cedar Grove, and Little River Townships ,
recommendations have been drafted which attempt to balance the
sometimes-competing interests of resource protection and land
development. The Committee has tried to incorporate voluntary
programs, incentives , and innovative techniques to keep the "old"
and provide for the "new" to create a framework for rural character
protection and development.
To produce these recommendations, the Committee engaged in what
became an extended educational process . This process included two
series of meetings with rural residents, along with assessments of
land use patterns and the natural and man-made environments of the
rural areas. Finally, in October 1991, the Committee embarked on a
three-month re-evaluation of buildout/carrying capacity and
economic analyses . A report was produced examining the time and
impact of buildout in rural areas in January 1992 .
The economic analysis was designed to determine the feasibility of
various development options proposed in this report. Three farms
were selected to serve as models for conducting economic analysis .
Site plans were prepared for each model using conventional and open
space strategies. The costs and profits associated with carrying
out each design plan were then calculated. The application of
current and proposed development options to specific sites and the
economic analysis of these models eventually led to modifications
in the recommended development options.
Affecting the overall recommendations of the Committee was a range
of related projects already underway. Included among these are the:
- Natural Areas Element of the Comprehensive Plan
- Scenic Roads Study
- State-Mandated Watershed Protection Standards
- Purchase of Development Rights Program
- Voluntary Agricultural Districts Program
- Inventory of Historic/Archaeological Sites
- SCS Land Evaluation & Site Assessment (LESA) System
- Hillsborough Cooperative Planning
- Economic Development District Proposals
- Private Road Study
Many of the strategies recommended in this report relate to one or
3
24
1-21-93 Final Version
more of these projects, as well as to other activities being
carried out by the Triangle J Council of Governments . Because the
these efforts are unfinished, the Committee recommends two broad
strategies for the Board of Commissioners ' consideration.
STRATEGY 1 : A RURAL CHARACTER ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In its deliberations, the Committee has developed a set of action
strategies which accompany the previously-defined goals of the
study. These strategies range from recommending the continuation of
current efforts to proposing new programs to foster the protection
of rural character, including cooperative efforts with other local
and regional jurisdictions .
The Committee recommends that these action strategies be
implemented and incorporated into County policy through the
Comprehensive Plan. Although the recommended action strategies
affect policy in a number of different areas, the strategies are
inter-related. Rather than scatter the recommendations across the
range of County policies and programs, the Committee feels that
this subject warrants consideration on its own as a stand-alone
element of the Comprehensive Plan. This is consistent with the
Plan, which already contains several such elements. The Plan itself
recommends this approach to allow elements on special subjects to
be added as a package rather than as scattered recommendations .
Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Board of Commissioners
authorize the preparation of a Rural Character Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. This element would embody recommendations in
Section II of this document (Goals and Action Strategies) as well
as make reference to the development options and appendices which
would be contained in other sections of the County's ordinances .
STRATEGY 2 : IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS THROUGH
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The catalyst for the Committee 's proposed program is contained
within the series of development options proposed to replace the
current standards. The development options represent the most
effective means of encouraging the protection of rural character
through flexibility and environmentally-sensitive design.
As such, the Committee recommends that the development options
contained within Section III of this document be prepared for
inclusion into the County's development regulations. This process
will involve amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations, as well as the creation of a new appendix and
amendments to other related ordinances and policies. A proposed
Rural Orange Design Guidebook (explained in more detail later)
would also be created as a resource document.
4
25
1-21-93 Final Version
SECTION II . GOALS AND ACTION STRATEGIES
Early in this process, the Committee concluded that Rural Character
means different things to different persons. As such, defining
rural character and setting goals for the protection of that
character are no simple task.
To adopt goals for the study, Committee members visited with
residents from each portion of the County on several occasions. The
Committee also contemplated data on the resources, activities and
long-term plans for the County. From this work, goals for
protection of rural character were developed. The goals fell into
four broad categories :
GOALS OF 'THE 'RURAL CHARACTER STUDY
1 . PRESERVE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURE AND MANAGED FORESTRY
2 . PRESERVE AND PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES
3 . PRESERVE AND PROTECT VISUAL RESOURCES
•
4. MANAGE GROWTH WHILE PROTECTING THE ABOVE
The following sections contain action strategies recommended by the
Committee to accomplish each of these goals.
GOAL 1: PRESERVE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURE AND MANAGED FORESTRY.
Agriculture is Orange 's County's oldest economy and is the source
of much of the area's "rural character" . References to dairies,
tobacco farms, and livestock operations can be found in the
earliest colonial records of the County. While active agricultural
operations exist in Rural Orange today, the amount of land involved
in agriculture has declined dramatically. Between 1959 and 1987 ,
farmland acreage has decreased by almost 45 percent. Even so, in
1987 almost 32% of the County was in farm use. Of this amount, 60%
was cropland or pastureland.
Forest land managed for timber production and/or the provision of
wildlife habitats is also a crucial component of the County's rural
character. Forest resources, both private and public, provide homes
for a wide variety of plant and animal species .
ACTION STRATEGIES
Strategies recommended for inclusion in the Rural Character Element
of the Comprehensive Plan include the following:
1 . Implement open-space development options that permit
residential subdivisions and farming/forestry operations to
co-exist. Encourage development options that allow farming to
5
26
1-21-93 Final Version
occur in open space set-asides and enable farmers to realize
a return on portions of their land without converting all land
for development purposes . Where developers use open-space
options to keep farmland in cultivation or pasture, allow them
to utilize density bonuses elsewhere on the tract. Encourage
the Planning Department to provide design assistance and model
covenants to landowners/developers willing to utilize this
approach.
2 . Pursue Voluntary Transfer of Development Rights (VTDR)
legislation for Orange County. TDR can be an important tool in
protecting critical masses of agricultural land by creating
receiving areas where concentrations of employment and
residences occur along future transit corridors. An Orange
County TDR Support Group should be established to work
parallel with the regional effort in order to lay appropriate
groundwork for implementing this tool when legislation is
adopted. Further study should be given to a regional program
with other Triangle-area counties .
3 . Encourage property owners interested in managed forestry to
preserve forest lands through participation in the N.C. Forest
Stewardship Program. This program is designed to improve tree
management and enhance wildlife habitats, while offering the
potential for tax breaks and/or cash payments to landowners
who actively pursue management practices such as selective
timber harvesting and who enhance wildlife habitats.
4 . Promote participation in the voluntary agricultural districts
program, thus minimizing potential nuisance suits.
5 . Encourage the Economic Development Commission to pursue its
Strategic Plan objective of promoting agriculture as an
industry, including assistance in product diversification.
6 . Support efforts by the Agricultural District Advisory Board
to implement a Purchase of Development Rights program to
preserve "critical masses" of farmland, including the
development and use of a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
(LESA) system with which to rank/compare sites for development
rights acquisition.
7 . Support construction of the planned Rural Education Center,
which would serve as an educational facility for County-based
rural agencies, and serve to enhance agribusiness
opportunities in the county.
8. Following implementation of voluntary OSD options, prepare an
annual report for the Board of Commissioners and Planning
Board evaluating the impact of various development options on
6
27
1-21-93 Final Version
agricultural operations, assessing the possible need for
additional development strategies to protect agriculture.
GOAL 2 : PRESERVE AND PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES IN RURAL ORANGE.
Orange County is blessed with an abundance of natural resources,
including clear streams and rivers, a wide variety of plant
species , and wildlife habitats of significant animal species - some
of which are now rare and endangered. Many of these resources have
been identified, while others have yet to be discovered. Protection
of these resources often conflicts directly with private property
rights. Balancing environmental protection with property rights
through voluntary programs and incentives is encouraged as an
effective approach to ensure the continued existence of Orange
County's natural resources.
ACTION STRATEGIES
Strategies recommended for inclusion in the Rural Character Element
of the Comprehensive Plan include the following:
1. Create Open-Space Development (OSD hereafter) options that can
protect identified natural resource sites by placing them
within open space. Such options should use the resource as an
opportunity for innovative development rather than as a means
of penalizing landowners for having sites on their property.
2 . To facilitate natural resource protection, a Master Resource
Areas Map should be compiled to identify and link critical
environmental, natural, wildlife, cultural, historic,
biological, and geological resources. The map should be used
to show landowners/developers locations of sites on their
property and encourage the voluntary protection of such sites
through Open-Space Development and/or conservation easements -
which can allow the site to remain in private ownership.
3 . During the development approval process, facilitate the
protection of natural and wildlife habitats by continuing
current County policy of initiating dialogue between
developers and land conservancy organizations . This
facilitates an opportunity for mutual protection of the
site. Further dialogue is at the discretion of the
developer/conservancy.
4 . In accordance with the recommendations of Section III ,
prepare a Rural Orange Design Guidebook to provide written and
illustrative guidelines to show property owners and developers
how to voluntarily develop sites in an environmentally-
sensitive manner. Preparation of the Guidebook should involve
the Planning Department staff; and design professionals ,
7
28
1-21-93 Final Version
citizens, and advisory board representatives currently serving
on the Rural Character Study Committee. The Guidebook will
examples of how innovative site designs protect areas of
special natural or cultural significance. Use of the Guidebook
is mandatory for open-space options, and voluntary for
traditional options, with incentives provided to those who
utilize the environmentally-sensitive techniques suggested.
5 . Study the feasibility of designating portions of the Eno and
Haw Rivers as North Carolina Scenic Rivers to promote
recognition of these critical river resources . The N.C. Scenic
Rivers program may provide a means of recognizing these
critical resources without limiting the potential of
developable riverside property.
6 . Promote implementation of the New Hope Creek Corridor Study
and use the study approach to protect other strategic stream
corridors as well as wildlife habitats and natural areas
contained therein. These stream corridor studies would not
result in greenways .
7 . Following implementation of voluntary OSD options, prepare an
annual report for the Board of Commissioners and Planning
Board evaluating the impact of various development options on
natural areas and wildlife corridors, and assessing the
possible need for additional development strategies which
would protect these values.
8 . Support potential future connection of Orange County's
wildlife corridors with a proposed Triangle-wide system.
Such inter-connection is important for wildlife movement along
inter-basin corridors.
9 . Support efforts by the Agricultural District Advisory Board
to implement a Purchase of Development Rights program to
preserve natural areas, wildlife corridors, and historic
sites, including the development and use of a Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment (LESA) system with which to rank/compare
sites for development rights acquisition.
10 . Pursue local Voluntary Transfer of Development Rights (VTDR)
legislation and establish an Orange County TDR Support Group
to work parallel with regional efforts to protect natural
areas , wildlife habitats and corridors , and
historic/archaeological sites .
GOAL 3 : PRESERVE AND PROTECT VISUAL RESOURCES IN RURAL ORANGE.
The County's visual resources, farm fields and forests, are often
the forgotten component of rural character. When considered as a
. . 8
29
1-21-93 Final Version
resource, what is visible to the human eye represents a great deal
of what makes up "rural character" . In many cases, however, the
importance of scenic views and rural landscapes are not
discovered until they are gone. A program that encourages
innovative techniques to balance development with visual resource
protection is of critical importance.
ACTION STRATEGIES
Strategies recommended for inclusion in the Rural Character Element
of the Comprehensive Plan include the following:
1 . Implement open-space development options that protect and
preserve existing visual resources. Produce a series of
educational brochures to illustrate how open space set-asides
enhance the value of property to be developed and adjacent
properties which benefit from "borrowed" open space.
2 . Promote the importance of scenic vistas and landscapes in
maintaining rural character through completion of the Scenic
Roads Study. Provide expedited plan review and lower fees for
developers who use the Rural Orange Design Guidebook and the
standards of the Scenic Roads Study to preserve scenic vistas
along select roads and ridge lines, and adjacent to open
fields.
3 . Evaluate the feasibility of a Viewshed Overlay Zoning District
to be used in conjunction with the Scenic Roads Study to
protect special rural landscapes and travel corridors where
visual resource protection is of the utmost importance .
4 . Support efforts by the Agricultural District Advisory Board to
implement a voluntary Purchase of Development Rights program
to protect scenic roads and vistas, including the development
and use of a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system
with which to rank sites for development rights acquisition.
5 . Pursue local Voluntary Transfer of Development Rights (VTDR)
legislation and establish an Orange County Support Group to
parallel regional efforts to protect scenic roads and vistas .
6 . Following implementation of voluntary OSD options, prepare an
annual report for the Board of Commissioners and Planning
Board evaluating the impact of various development options on
the County's visual resources, assessing the possible need for
additional development strategies to protect these values .
GOAL 4: MANAGE GROWTH WHILE PROTECTING RURAL CHARACTER
Growth management is often misunderstood and thought of as a
. . 9
30
1-21-93 Final Version
concept that means "no growth" . However, all cities and counties
practice growth management in some fashion. If growth management is
balanced with property rights and a long-term vision of the future,
it can discourage poorly-planned urban expansion, as well as
subdivision sprawl along rural roadsides.
ACTION STRATEGIES
Strategies recommended for inclusion in the Rural Character Element
of the Comprehensive Plan include the following:
1. Create open space development options that manage growth by
encouraging the creation of cluster developments enhancing
efficient service provision and discouraging environmentally-
destructive and costly forms of "rural sprawl" - such as new
lots created in "cookie cutter" fashion along rural roadways .
2 . Link rural character preservation efforts to other County
goals and programs . Specifically, acknowledge that protecting
rural character may also enhance watershed protection, the
creation of agricultural districts, future transit corridor
creation, and more cost-efficient infrastructure and services
for rural and urban residents.
3 . Recognize long-term land stewardship efforts by rural
landowners, and communicate their needs and rights to the
county's urban officials.
4 . Continue to pursue cooperative planning efforts between urban
and rural areas to ensure rural involvement in planning for
areas likely to experience future urban expansion. These
efforts, guided by past efforts such as the Orange
County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area, the
Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Area, and the New Hope
Corridor Master Open Space Plan. Long-term planning efforts
are recommended in the future with the Town of Mebane and the
City of Durham.
5 . Promote "grassroots" planning efforts in rural areas, such as
the Efland Area Study, the Pantry Area Study, and other
similar community plans. The importance of citizen involvement
in creating a "vision" for their community should be stressed.
6 . In conjunction with other Research Triangle communities,
pursue a vision of growth management which recognizes that the
region is bound together geographically, economically,
culturally and in quality of life.
OI:.:::.st:.::at y.,,:!>:::deleted:.�::: .; . . . a :::.:...:. : ace.::.:...< : .:::,:ur n
cent
. . 10
31
1-21-93 Final Version
7 . Following implementation of voluntary OSD options, prepare an
annual report for the Board of Commissioners and Planning
Board evaluating the impact of various development options on
the management of growth in rural areas, assessing the
possible need for additional development strategies to enhance
growth management.
11
32
1-21-93 Final Version
SECTION III. DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR RURAL ORANGE
FINDING THE APPROPRIATE "BALANCE"
A number of action strategies for the protection of rural character
have been recommended above. The common denominator for all is a
focus on balancing land development impacts on agriculture, natural
and visual resources, and managed growth. In seeking to achieve
this balance, a difficult conflict arises between the often-
competing values of "land as a natural resource" and "land as a
commodity" . However, land development and rural character
protection need not be mutually exclusive. In some locales across
the nation, development styles have been adapted to serve both the
right to develop land and the need to preserve traditional rural
landscapes, resources, and ways of life.
This balance becomes most critical in areas where development and
growth pressures are strong. As part of the Research Triangle,
Orange County is inexorably linked to the positive and negative
components of growth. This linkage to the Triangle offers a healthy
regional economy and a good quality of life. However, these same
factors make Orange County and the Triangle area magnets for growth
and a highly-mobile labor force.
This magnet effect can be seen in the population growth of Orange
County over the past 50 years. In 1940, as the Great Depression
ended, the County contained 23,072 persons - gaining less than 2000
persons since 1920. By 1960, the population had nearly doubled to
42, 970. The decades of the 60 's and 70 's saw the most dramatic
population growth in the County's history, yielding a 1980
population of 77 ,055 . In 1992, the County population is nearing the
100, 000 mark, with a current estimated population of 97 , 000. In
this 50-year period, the County grew by an annual rate of almost 3%
per year - a remarkable rate for such a lengthy period. While
population growth has slowed somewhat in the late 80 's and early
90 's, long-term trends indicate the County population will continue
to rise at a significant rate, with an additional 15-20, 000 persons
expected by the end of this decade.
Counties and regions across the nation that have developed programs
to balance rural character and development rights have, like Orange
County, been on the edge of an urbanizing region. The challenge for
such jurisdictions is to find development styles that do not
compromise agricultural or natural resources and visual resources.
In almost every case where a rural character program has been
implemented, open-space development and a means of purchasing or
transferring development rights have been key components, and have
led to higher values for properties in open-space rather than
conventional subdivisions .
12
33
1-21-93 Final Version
Complicating the task of identifying balanced development options
for Rural Orange the fact that it contains distinct, separate
communities of interest defined both geographically and socially,
spread among seven different townships . There are also rural
communities and crossroads centers, focused on the intersection of
important transportation routes that require differing development
styles and options suited to their unique character.
The most pressing external factor affecting this process is the
mandate by the North Carolina General Assembly to protect water
supply watersheds. More than 60 percent of Orange County is within
water supply watersheds, with part or all of 11 watersheds in the
County. As watershed plans are created in 1993 , they will likely
dictate modifications to the recommended development options . These
modifications may affect the amount of area covered with impervious
surfaces , and densities of development may or may not be altered.
The following development options attempt to shape internal and
external factors into a form that finds the balance and "common
denominator" among competing values.
CATEGORIES OF RURAL ORANGE
In this study, Rural Orange refers to all of the areas designated
in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to remain rural
over time, specifically the Rural Residential and Agricultural-
Residential land use categories. These areas consist of farms ,
forests and rural subdivisions and are not subject to urban
services . Areas within urban areas, extraterritorial jurisdictions,
and urban transition areas are not a part of this study.
Within Rural Orange, there are two localized types of activity
centers, Rural Communities and Rural Crossroads. The Rural
Crossroads and Rural Community Centers represent different levels
of service provision for rural residents.
Rural Crossroads are locations where one or two neighborhood-level
commercial uses have been established over the years. These areas,
termed "Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes" in the Comprehensive
Plan, are focused on the intersection of and/or collector roads .
Rural Crossroads generally serve a rural population of less than
1, 000 persons, and commercial uses in these locations are within
one-fourth mile of the intersections.
Rural Community Centers are similar to Rural Crossroads Centers in
that they are also focused on the intersection of arterial and/or
collector roads. There are important distinctions, however, in the
two types of activity centers. Rural Community Centers, termed
"Rural Community Activity Nodes" in the Comprehensive Plan, have a
greater number of commercial uses, usually within one-half mile of
- • 13
34
1-21-93 Final Version
the intersection. They also serve a larger rural population ranging
from 1 , 000 to 5 , 000 persons . Although not true communities in every
sense, Rural Community Centers have a special character as central
places for rural residents, and this feature is recognized through
the provision of special development options and standards.
The development options that follow attempt to expand upon current
development standards, and introduce new concepts . Some of the
proposed options are traditional/conventional in nature, while
others are Open-Space Developments (OSD' s) which cluster lots on a
portion of the tract while protecting the remainder as some t e of
oPe_n. ..spdCe•.. Rp .50 .- wrau�.d tae 's ..
pew ���d ,b�:,.. �t �,�t ��.� c�� tie
Rural<;;t,ran. e::>a e...,<:; .;. :.:: ,:.,.
p:::::.:;eta.�ted:.;:.�..:::::��.. .ht:::: . .:::.:.:,. :, . . .
DEVELOPMENT OPTION 1: Conventional Large-Lot Development
AVERAGE"LOT:SIZEr 200,000 SQUARE FEET (4.59 ACRES)
OPEN :SPACE 'REQUIRED: NONE
POTENTIAL LOT'SYIELD* UP TO 21 LOTS PER 100 ACRES*
(Density 0.21)
PERMITTED LAND USES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONLY
INCENTIVES PRIVATE ROADS
EXPEDITED STAFF-LEVEL REVIEW
LOWER APPLICATION FEES
* - Without Site Constraints
Large lots (approximately five acres or more) are one means of
protecting rural character. Generally, lots of this size provide de
facto open space of 40-80%. However, such lots may not be the most
effective means of protecting open space and natural sites because
there is no guarantee that the de facto open space within lots will
continue as such. Nonetheless, of the traditional development
options, this type of development does offer more benefits, since
only 15%-20% of a five-acre residential lot is likely to be used
for the home site, one-half of the frontage road, driveway, yard,
and nitrification fields.
For this reason as well as the lower densities involved,
consideration should be given to affording this type of development
expedited subdivision approval and accordingly lower fees .
Consideration should also be given to allowing reductions in the
required lot size of 200,000 square feet (4 . 59 acres) if enough
permanent open space to maintain the same density of development is
set aside. Site studies conducted to examine the application of
14
35
1-21-93 Final Version
this option indicated that the buildable part of a tract (minus
road rights-of-way) is around 95%. If applied to a 100-acre tract,
this development option would allow a maximum of 21 lots.
DEVELOPMENT OPTION 2 : Conventional Two-Acre Lot Development
AVERAGE LOT SIZE: 80,000 SQUARE FEET (1 .84 ACRES)
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED NONE
POTENTIAL LOT YIELD* UP TO 51 LOTS PER 100 ACRES
(Density 0.51)
PERMITTED LAND USES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONLY
INCENTIVES PRIVATE ROADS
* - Without site constraints.
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
. 15
36
1-21-93 Final Version
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
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 (8q, 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.
16
37
• s
1-21-93 Final Version
DEVELOPMENT OPTION 3 : Open-Space Development (OSD)
AVERAGE LOT SIZE: DONN TO 10,000 SF
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED:; FROM 20 TO 70% OF TOTAL TRACT
(Includes entry roads and other
permitted uses)
POTENTIAL LOT YIELD: FROM 80 TO 130 LOTS PER 100 ACRES
(Density 0.80 - 1.30)
PERMITTED LAND USES RESIDENTIAL, LOCALLY-ORIENTED
COMMERCIAL
INCENTIVES: ., DENSITY BONUS
PRIVATE ROADS
POSSIBLE OPEN SPACE TAX BREAKS
Option 3 is in itself a sliding scale of many possible development
options . Open-Space Development provides that a certain portion of
the tract is left in permanent open space . This open space can
serve a number of purposes, as discussed in Section II of this
document. It may be used to protect sites on the Inventory of
Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats . It may be used for
agricultural purposes . It may be used to preserve scenic vistas or
other sites of cultural interest. Open space also serves as a
buffer for adjoining uses, and it provides homeowners within the
development an open space preserve that will not be subject to
development. Such developments also provide flexibility in terms of
lot sizes and housing types.
In exchange for protecting open space within the tract, a density
bonus is provided as an incentive for use of open-space
development. The sliding scale shown below allows an increase of
one house or dwelling unit for each additional percentage of open
space preserved. The base, or starting point for this sliding
scale, provides that at least 20% of the tract must be open space .
Where this is done, 80 lots per 100 acres (density = 0. 80) is
permitted on the remainder of the tract.
17
38
1-21-93 Final Version
OPEN SPACE PERMITTED
REQUIRED (%) MAXIMUM DENSITY
20% 0.80 lots/acre
(80 per 100 ac)
30% 0.90 lots/acre
(90 per 100 ac)
40% 1 .00 lots/acre
(100 per 100 ac)
50% 1. 10 lots/acre
(110 per 100 ac)
60% 1.20 lots/acre
(120 per 100 ac)
70% 1.30 lots/acre
(130 per 100 ac)
Open-space developments created under these provisions would be
required to adhere to certain standards (to be developed) , but
would also gain incentives for development.
Open-space developments created under Option 3 would have the
following incentives for development:
• Private Roads, as per Private Road standards (to be amended)
• Expedited development review (with thresholds of review - to
be determined by Ordinance Review Committee/liaisons)
• Possible open space tax breaks
The following provisions would be required of all open-space
developments :
• Developments must meet guidelines in Rural Orange Design
Guidebook (to be developed)
• Wastewater disposal for OSD projects must be land application
systems (no point-source discharge systems) - except in the
Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Area as per the
Hillsborough-Orange County Cooperative Planning Agreement.
• Commercial activity must be locally-oriented and in
accordance with standards in the Rural Orange Design
Guidebook.
18
39
1-21-93 Final Version
• No more than 50% of the land platted as permanent open space
may be used for vegetated privately-owned recreational
activities such as golf courses, ballfields, etc.
Open-space developments (outside of the Hillsborough Cooperative
Planning Area) which do not meet minimum lot sizes for on-site
disposal (i.e. , 40,000 square feet for septic tanks) must utilize
a land application wastewater system (i .e . , systems which do not
discharge into streams) that is designed, monitored and maintained
under the Orange County Health Department Monitoring and
Maintenance Assurance Program.
The Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement permits extension
of water and sewer service in the Hillsborough Open Space Area,
provided the development is carried out in accordance with adopted
open space strategies. Public water and sewer service is thus used
as an incentive for conserving open space .
The types of uses permitted within open-space area(s) can be found
in DEFINITIONS (Section IV) at the end of this document.
NOTE: Open-space projects in some water supply watersheds may have
density or impervious surface limitations as per State watershed
rules.
OTHER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR SPECIAL CASES
A. DEVELOPMENT OPTION $ (4) - FOR EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD
•OP'TO .FIVE :('5) .LOTS OF.;40,000 SQUARE FEET PERMITTED FOR EACH LOT OF :RECORD
3;IMITED';>ROAD:;FRONTAGE
When watershed protection standards were upgraded for University
Lake in 1990 , property owners of existing lots of record were
permitted to subdivide their land to create up to five lots which
not did meet the minimum required lot size standard. A similar
provision is provided to assist existing property owners by
allowing up to five lots of 40 , 000-80 , 000 square feet to be created
from existing lots of record as of (Date of adoption of
strategies) . Where lots of less than 80 , 000 square feet are created
under this provision, the lots must conform to the provisions of
the Rural Orange Design Guidebook and must have access provided by
way of an internal subdivision road. Future development of the
remainder of the tract must be in accordance with the options
outlined above.
19
40
1-21-93 Final Version
B. RURAL CROSSROADS
There are eight RURAL CROSSROADS recognized by the County as "Rural
Neighborhood Nodes" . These are locations where the provision of
services to neighborhood-area residents occurs. RURAL CROSSROADS
represent specific locations where convenience-level services have
been provided over time. Most of these services are linked closely
to the transportation network - specifically the automobile .
These recommendations recognize and augment these important
crossroads for their importance in regional service provision.
RURAL CROSSROADS IN ORANGE COUNTY
1 . WALNUT GROVE CHURCH ROAD AT LITTLE RIVER CHURCH ROAD
(CEDAR GROVE TWP)
2 . NC 86 AT CARR STORE ROAD (CEDAR GROVE TWP)
3 . NC 86 AT WALNUT GROVE CHURCH ROAD (CEDAR GROVE TWP)
4 . NEW SHARON CHURCH ROAD AT SCHLEY ROAD (LITTLE RIVER/ENO TWPS)
5 . NC 86 AT COLEMAN LOOP ROAD (HILLSBOROUGH TWP)
6 . US 70 BYPASS AT US 70 BUSINESS (HILLSBOROUGH TWP)
7 . MEBANE-OAKS ROAD AT OAK GROVE CHURCH ROAD (BINGHAM TWP)
8 . NC 54 AT MORROW MILL ROAD (BINGHAM TWP)
RURAL CROSSROADS DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
1. ALL OPTIONS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN RURAL COUNTRYSIDE (ABOVE) .
2 . Crossroads Commercial Development
This development option would allow non-residential development
within the 1/4-mile radius of the crossroads. Specific uses and
standards will be developed as part of a Small Area Plan process in
1993-94 .
Small Area Plans in each of these areas will be conducted as part
of the regular update to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. When these plans are completed and adopted by both residents
and the County Commission, existing standards may be replaced or
added to with community-designed standards.
C. RURAL COMMUNITY CENTERS
There are five RURAL COMMUNITY CENTERS with historic and
traditional significance recognized by the County Comprehensive
Plan as special places. These communities all date over 100 years
in some form and are strategically located along former and/or
existing regional transportation corridors . They are defined as
one-half mile from a strategic transportation intersection.
The Rural Orange Study seeks to enhance and protect the community
• • 20
41
1-21-93 Final Version
character of these five distinct places. The recommended options
below are drawn from comment of citizens in these communities,
study goals and strategies , and other sources . As with the RURAL
CROSSROADS, all development options permitted by right in the RURAL
COUNTRYSIDE area are also permitted here. Non-residential
development would be permitted as currently available. Other
options may be added as a part of the Small Area Plan process for
these communities in 1992-93 . These plans will attempt to maintain
the community's vitality as a community center.
RURAL COMMUNITY CENTERS IN ORANGE COUNTY
The CARR Community (NC 49 and Carr Store Road)
The CEDAR GROVE Community (Efland-Cedar Grove Road/Carr Store Road)
The CALDWELL Community (NC 57 and Guess Road)
The SCHLEY Community (NC 57 and Schley Road)
The WHITE CROSS Community (NC 54 and White Cross Road)
RURAL COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
1 . ALL OPTIONS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN RURAL COUNTRYSIDE.
2 . Community-Scale Commercial Development
This development option would allow non-residential development to
enhance the historic community, helping to ensure its viability in
the future as a center for surrounding rural countryside.
Specific uses and standards will be developed as a part of the
development of community Small Area Plans in 1992-93.
Small Area Plans in each of these areas will be conducted as part
of the regular update to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. When these plans are completed and adopted by both residents
and the County Commission, existing standards may be replaced or
added to with community-designed standards.
SECTION IV. DEFINITIONS
CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Residential subdivision development where
all property within the tract is subdivided into private housing
lots . No open-space is required to be set aside.
DENSITY RATIO: A representation of the number of houses/dwelling
units permitted per acre of land. Divide total number of units
permitted by total acres in the tract (Density of 0 . 87 = 87 lots
per 100 acres) . Often used as a permitted/required cap per tract.
INVENTORY SITES: Sites of special resource importance that have
been identified on either the Inventory of Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats or the Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic,
Recreational, Biological and Geological Interest. These sites (or
. 21
42
1-21-93 Final Version
prioritized portions thereof) will be shown on the Comprehensive
Resource Areas map as areas to be protected from development
through purchase, open-space set-asides, or conservation easements .
MASTER RESOURCE AREAS MAP: A map combining all areas of special
environmental, cultural and historic interest from several
existing sources, including:
1 . The Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats,
2 . The Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational,
Biological and Geological Interest,
3 . Resource Protection Areas ( floodplains, alluvial soils and
steep slopes) as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, and.
4 . Wildlife Corridor Connectors, which are necessary for inter-
watershed wildlife preservation and protection.
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 Hoard.
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 #7 . 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.
. . 22
{
43
1-21-93 Final Version
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 . Up 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.
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.
8 . 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
.23
44
1-21-93 Final Version
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.
OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENT (OSD) : Residential (and mixed-use)
development that clusters lots on a portion of the tract that is
most appropriate for development, while other areas (often
containing important resources) remain in permanent open space. A
density bonus of smaller lot sizes and increased number of lots
often accompanies this approach.
OPEN SPACE RATIO: A representation of acres in permanent open space
to the total acreage of the tract. Divide acres in open space by
total acres (OSR of 0 .5 = 50 acres open space per 100 acres) .
OPEN SPACE SET-ASIDE: As a portion of open-space developments, the
portion of the original tract for development to be left as
permanently dedicated open space. This open space can be publicly-
dedicated to the County or a non-profit conservation organization,
owned by a Homeowner's Association with specific upkeep
requirements as part of the legal contract, or maintained in
private ownership through the use of conservation easements - where
the County or a non-profit conservation organization has certain
limited rights of inspection, as part of the contract.
Any development containing a site listed on the Master Resource
Areas Map (to be defined) should be encouraged to utilize open-
space development, and the sites contained must be part of the
open space set-aside. (See OPEN SPACE for specific permitted uses) .
PERMITTED-BY-RIGHT: Uses of property that are permitted without a
special approval process. Such uses are allowed as a matter of
right, provided necessary building permit approval, environmental
• . 24
45
1-21-93 Final Version
health approval, and other basic and standard approvals necessary
for the protection of the health, safety and common welfare are
approved.
PRIVATE ROADS : Roads constructed to county standards that would not
be maintained by the State Department of Transportation. These
roads would be legally the responsibility of homeowners '
associations. Unpaved private roads should be permitted in
traditional development options, and in open-space options where
the overall density of development is less than 1.0 units per acre .
In higher density Open-Space Developments (1.0-plus) , only interior
streets would be permitted to be private - although these would
need to be paved roads in accordance with the County's Private Road
Standards .
PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (PDR) : A program where a non-profit
agency or governing body purchases in fee-simple the rights to
development of the land in question from the property owner. The
property owner retains the title to the land, and agrees in a
legally-binding document to convey his/her rights to develop in
selling development rights to the agency.
RURAL COMMUNITY CENTERS: Traditional and historic centers of rural
life, these areas are recognized on the Comprehensive Plan as Rural
Community Nodes . Their strategic location as hubs of rural activity
make their continued viability important to rural character. These
centers are the places in Rural Orange where small-scale retail and
non-residential services are provided.
RURAL CROSSROADS: Crossroads locations on the transportation
network that provide neighborhood-level service needs, primarily of
a convenience nature. These areas are recognized as Rural
Neighborhood Nodes in the Comprehensive Plan. These crossroads play
an important role in service provision and growth management.
RURAL ORANGE: Areas within Orange County jurisdiction.
Specifically, all of CEDAR GROVE Township; all of LITTLE RIVER
Township; CHEEKS Township - north and south of Transition Areas;
HILLSBOROUGH Township - north and south of urban areas; ENO
Township - east of urban/Transition Areas; BINGHAM Township - west
of the Rural Buffer (University Lake Watershed) ; CHAPEL HILL
Township - north of the Rural Buffer. (See map, page 11. )
RURAL ORANGE DESIGN GUIDEBOOK: An illustrative manual showing how
development can be accommodated and designed in rural areas using
the land as an opportunity to help preserve rural character and
enhance property value. A series of drawings for different tracts
with differing types of land resources and development constraints
will be prepared. Recommendations will accompany these
illustrations. Compliance with the recommendations and guidelines
. 25
46
1-21-93 Final Version
would result in an expedited review process and lower fees. The
Guidebook will be designed by staff, design professionals,
developers and community liaisons currently serving on the Rural
Character Study Committee.
SMALL AREA PLANS: A localized community plan for a defined small
area. These plans focus on localized issues and activities, while
cognizant of the overall Comprehensive Plan and its goals. Small
Area Plans allow for substantial citizen participation in the
design and creation of the plan. Small Area Plans are proposed for
each of the County's Rural Community Centers and Rural Crossroads .
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) : A program where development
rights on one property are transferred to another property, in
exchange for some type of compensation. This approach can allow a
tract with unique resources or constraints to transfer its share of
expected development to another property where development might be
more practical because of existing services or location.
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS: As a part of the Comprehensive Resource Areas
Map, defined corridors along streams and other natural areas that
are used by wildlife species across the bio-region. These corridors
are critical to species survival, in that they provide for the
natural migration and interaction between localized animal groups .
26
Attachment 1
47
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:
Anoise 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
developer 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 .
Attachment 2 48
LUDINGTON POSITION ON 1/21/93 RCSC RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The overall density is too high. We will be adding significant density to
the County with the proposed plan, much greater than what is currently
allowed (See attached figures).
Although Randall Arendt's density yield plan was never given serious
consideration, I believe such a plan provides a far superior method for
determining density than a sliding scale. I would modify his process,
however, to allow for more "buildable land."
2. Commercial development permitted is far too vague, Most troubling is
the fact that it is not confined to any particular area but is allowed in any
open space development.
Further, to allow unspecified development with no limit on size of tract is
asking for trouble. Andres Duany's Traditional Neighborhood Design
ordinance should be studied carefully.
A public hearing is in order if commercial development is to be permitted
anywhere that open space development is allowed.
2 -2'E
To: \Rural Character Study Committee 49
from: Bob Hall
Date: 6 anuary 21, 1993
Re: Why is considering density bonuses important?
The current proposal to offer density bonuses in return for saving open space
could backfire. It could become a plan for promoting "urban/rural sprawl" as
much as preserving "rural character" IF (1) the density-bonus options are
calculated on a fixed scale, or IF (2) water/sewer service promotes their use
in large- sections of the county, channeling development from "transition areas"
to the "open space development area. "
Here's hcw this could happen.
A. On average, the "status quo" permits 1 unit per 2.12 acres in rural
Orange, because of the county's poor land quality for development.
B. The "open space" options help overcome the county's poor land quality.
and include a fixed scale of bonuses that allow, on average, 1 unit per 1 acre
(actually more than 1 unit per acre; the scale goes from .8 to 1.4 units/acre.)
So every acre that goes into an "open space development" (CSD) allows
twice as many units on the same land — and twice as many people .
If 36,000 acres are developed in CSD, which is a conservative estimate
used by the Planning Department, this allows more than 18,000 additional units
and 45,000 additional people than what would be allowed under current land
conditions. The end of this memo summarizes tables appended that show
increases using different assumptions about how the unbuilt portion of the
rural county gets developed over the next 100+ years. Are you really getting
enough new, protected "open space" to justify the huge population increases —
and burden on services, etc. — allowed by higher density developments?
C. The provision to allow water & sewer service in parts of the rural
county makes it easier for developers to choose the CSD options, and increase
density. Water and — especially — sewer service is a magnet for greater
density developments. The sliding scale, with a fixed bonus regardless of the
land's natural condition, gives every landowner in the water/sewer service area
a tremendous boost to the market-value of his or her land.
The fairer method is to start with what the land allows — which is what
now largely determines its market value. That should be the base density on
which any bonuses are added. Those bonuses will increase the land's market
value. So landowners are still winners.
SUMMARY OF FOUR DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
(Planning Department estimates there are 139,581 acres undeveloped in rural Orange; 34,895 are undevelopable.)
% Land Nuiber
Acres % Land Saved Lots in Total % Chancre New % Change Average
Development in Open in Open in "Open Open 4 of in Lots: People in People: Lot
Option Space Space Space' Space Lots Status 2.5 Per Status Size in
(details attacned) Develpa. Develpa. or Undev. Develpa. Quo Lot Quo Acres
• Status Quo 0 IN 25.0% 0 46,269 0.0% 115,673 0.2% 2.12
New Sliding Scale - 1 36,291 26% 35.9% 36,989 67,683 46.3% 169,208 46.3% 1.22
•
New Sliding Scale - 2 55,833 40% 41.4% 56,391 77,118 66.7% 192,796 66.7% 8.98
New Sliding Scale - 3 48,8533 35% 39.9% 50,109 72,203 56.3% 180,757 56.3% 1.07
WHAT ARE TEE CONSEQUENCES OF DIFFERENT DEVELP.'`'.E
ONT STRATEGIES FOR RURAL GRANGE?50 2
This comparison of new lots, new people, new density, anti new open space follows
the general format of the charts prepared by Marvin Collins in his "Rural Orange
Buildout" package.\ It compares the different consequences of development under
current conditions \(STATUS QUO) versus those recommended by the Rural Character
Study Committee (most recent sliding scale option) . As with Marvin's charts,
assumptions have to be- Made about how much of the remaining rural land gets
developed in what way. Three different charts describe the consequences of
using the Sliding Scale, with three different assumptions about the portion of
land that is developed under various options.
THE STATUS QUO
Unbuilt Land Minus Minus Net Allow- New Average
Development Remaining in 6.3% for °nen buiioable able t of People Lot Size
•
Option Orange County R.O.W. Space Acres Density Lots c.5 Per in Acres
Distri. Acres Lot
Una eve iaped Land 25.0% 34.895 N/A 34,895 0 0.00 0
0 2 12
Current Standards
based on 87-92 75.0% 104,686 6,595 N/A 98,091 0.47 46,269 115,673 2.12
experience
Totals 100.0% 139,581 6,595 34,895 98,091 0.33 46,269 115,673 2.12
% Land in Open Space (incl. undeveloped land) 25.0
•
NEW SLIDING SCALE - Plan 1
Unbuilt Land Minus Minus Net Allow- New Average
Development Remaining In 6.3% for Open Buildable able * of People Lot Size
Option Orange County R.D.W. Space Acres Density Lots. 2. Per in Acres
Distri. Acres Lot
Undeveloped Land 25.0% 34,895 N/A 34,895 0 0.00 0 0 2.12
5-Acre Lots 10.0% 13,958 879 N/A 13,079 0.21 2,931 7,328 4.46
2-Acre Lots 39.0% 54,437 3,430 N/A 51,'.7 0.51 27,763 69,407 1.84
.8-Acre Lot 5/22% Open 5.0% 6,979 448 1,296 5,144 0.80 5,583 12,958 0.92
.9-Acre Lots/30% Open 5.0% 6,979 440 2,094 4,446 0.90 6,201 15,703 0.71
1.0-kt e Lots/40% Open 5.0% 6,979 440 2,792 3,748 1. 6,979 17,448 0.54
1.1-Acre Lots/50% Open 5.0% 6.979 440 2,490 2,858 1.18 7,677 19,192 0.40
1.2-Acre Lot s/60% Open 4.0% 5,583 252 2,250 1,882 1.20 6,7.•- 16,750 0.28
1.3-Acre Lot s/70% Open 1.0% 1,396 88 977 331 1.30 1,815 4,536 8.18
1.4-Acre Lots/80% Open 1.0% 1,396 88 1,117 191 1.40 1,954 4,885 8.10
•
Totals 100.0% 129,581 6,595 58,109 82,876 0.48 67,683 169,207 1.28
% Land in Open Space (incl. undeveloped land) 35,9%
2-4
NEW SLIDING SCALE - PLAN 2 51
Unbuilt Land Minus Minus Net Allow- New Average
Development Remaining In 6.3% for Open Buildable .able t of People Lot Size .
Option • Orange County R.O.V. Space Acres Density Lots 2.5 Per in Acres
Distri, Acres Lot
Undeveloped Land 25.0% 34,895 N/A 34,895 - 0 0.00 0 8 2.12
5-Acre Lots 10.8% 13,958 • 879 N/A 13,879 8.21 2,931 7,328 4.46
2-Acre Lots 25.8% 34,895 2,198 N/A 32,697 8.51 17,797 44,491 1.84
.8-Acre Lots/20% Open 7.0% 9,771 616 1,954 7,281 0.80 7,817 19,541 8.92
.9-Acre Lotsi3O% Open 7.2% 9,771 616 2,931 6,224 8.90 8,794 21,984 0.71
1.0-Acre Lots/48% Open 18.0% 13,958 879 5,583 7,495 1.00 13,958 34,895 0.54
1.1-Acre Lots/58% Open 18.8% 13,958 879 6,979 6,100 1.10 15,354 38,385 0.48
1.2-Acre Lots/68% Open 4.8% 5,583 352 3,350 1,882 1.20 6,708 16,758 8.28
1.3-Acre Lots/78% Open 1.8% 1,396 88 977 331 1.30 1,815 4,536 8.18
1.4-Acre Lots/88% Open 1.0% 1,396 88 1,117 191 1.40 1,954 4,885 8.10
Totals 100.8% 139,581 6,595 57,786 75,199 0.55 77,119 192,796 8.98
% Land in Open Space (incl. undeveloped land) 41.4%
NEW SLIDING SCALE - PLAN3
Unbuilt Land Minus Minus Net Allow- New Average
Development Remaining In 6.3% for Open Buildable able M of People Lot Size
Option Orange County R.O.W. Space Acres Density Lots 2.5 Per in Acres
Distri. Acres Lot
Undeveloped Lana 25.8% 34,895 N/A 34,335 8 0.00 0 0 2.1E
5-Acre Lots • 15.8% 28,337 1,319 N/A 19,618 8.21 4,397 10,992 , 4.46
2-Acre Lots 25.8% 34,895 2,198 N/A 32,697 8.51 17,797 44,491 1.84
.8-Acre Lots/28% Open 5.0% 6,979 440 1,396 5,144 8.30 5,583 13,958 0.92
.9-Acre Lots/38% Open 6.8% 8,375 528 2,512 5,335 8.98 7,537 18,843 0.71
1.0-Acre Lots/40% Open 8.0% 11,166 703 4,467 5,996 1.88 11,166 27,916 8.54
1.1-Acre Lotsi58% Open 18.0% 13,958 879 6,979 6,100 1.10 15,354 38,385 0.40
1.2-Acre Lots/6+3% Open - -4.0% 5,583 - 352 -.3,358 -. 1,982 1.20 6,700 16,750 - 8.28 -
1.3-Acre Lots/70% Open 1.0% 1,396 88 977 331 1.30 1,815 4,536 8.18
1.4-Acre Lots/80% Open 1.8% 1,396 88 1,117 191 1.48 1,954 4,885 0.18
Totals 108.8% 139,581 6,595 - 55,693 77,293 0.52 72,303 180,757 1.07
% Lana in Open Space (incl. undeveloped land) 39.9%
Attachment 3 52
RURAL CNARACTER COMMITTEE
• (Strategy recommendation
A Process
PreparaE/Dresented to
Planning Board)
for
Itpletneritirig ''lpr
the PLANNING BOARD
Rural (Prepares recommendation
• to Board of County ORDINANCE REVIEW
ChCl ara cter -Commissioners) COMMITTEE
i (With representative from
Strategies each group, prepares
final craft of ordinance
and guidelines)
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
[Adopts strategies and '
charge to staff and
advisory boards) ;
PLANNING BOARD
■ (Reviews final draft and
T prepares recommendation
as to whether draft
should be presented at
PLANNING DEPARTMENT public hearing)
(Prepares draft ordinance
and draft rural design
guidelines based on
111!,
adopted strategies)
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
,lr (Approves notice of
public hearing)
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ■
(Draft ordinance and
design guidelines
submitted to advisory
boards and interest PUBLIC REARING
groups for comment) (Citizens as well as
advisory boards and
. interest groups provide
comment on proposals)
Agricultural Districts
'-y Historic Preservation
PLANNING BOARD
Transportation (Prepares recommendation
based on proposal and
comments received during
Economic Development public hearing process)
Cws
Land Conservancy/Sierra BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
(Decision on proposals
based on public hearing
Duke University
comment and Planning
Board recommendatioj
Design Council
IMPLEMENTATION
.--Tornchip Advisory Councitl
Municipalities
Recreation i Parks 1 -
Attachment 4
53
Hunter's Position: Rural Character Study
2/4/93
I. Observation
A. Planning Dept. analysis has shown that most of the Nov. '92 RCS
development options were not economically feasible in most areas of the
county. Most options worked in south-central 0. Cnty, but only with
private roads. Very little worked in the rest of the county. Jan. 93 RCS
options are similar but even less dense, so you
county n w II beeun developable
work either. If adopted, a majority of the
(and thus un-saleable). The options don't work because of the increased
lot size, lowered density and the percent of open space.
B. The current Cluster (20% open space/100 lots per 100 acres) is
rarely used now, so why would proposed 20% O.S./80 lots be viable?
Proposal:
All RCS development options must be economically feasible in all
areas of the county.
The lot/bonus ratio schedule should start with one-acre lot
minimum and progresg,so that the lots allowed as a bonus for open space
off-sets the cost of the open space. This can only be determined by
economic analysis.
In addition, all options should have incentives such as private roads
and expedited review guaranteed.
II. Observation
Jan. 93 proposed options 50% O.S./110 lots through 70% O.S./130 lots
may support water/sewer where water/sewer is already available
(Hillsborough), but will not support the cost of extending water/sewer.
Density is too low. Density with water/sewer is crucial to responsible
growth management where appropriate and desireable along major
transportation corridors.
Proposal:
The scale for high-density options must be sufficient for water/
sewer to be economically-feasible in geographically-appropriate areas.
If these things aren't planned for now, they will be even harder to manage
in the future. The commissioners need to take the lead to ensure that
future high densities in appropriate places are not precluded by current
planning (i.e. this rural character regulation).
54
III. Observation
The elimination of the one-acre minimum lot size has not been
addressed publicly and honestly. There is no clear, specific statement in
the plan, stating that the one-acre minimum is being eliminated, and there
has been no public discussion of this issue. The loss of the one-acre
minimum is too important to just "slip in," because:
1 ) Abolishing the one-acre minimum is down-zoning without public
awareness and discussion of its ramifications. At the early township
meetings, the public was assured that the one-acre minimum would be
retained. Conversations with citizens have shown that they are not aware
that the one-acre minimum is being eliminated.
2) All RCS 11/92 and 1/93 development options will increase cost of
lots, with affordable housing already scarce. The current minimum one-
acre lot size is the only economically-feasible choice for most of of rural
Orange County and working-class people. The current standard has created
an average of 1 .9-acre lots. Given the soil in rural Orange, this option
will not be over-used, if allowed to .stay.
3) A 2-acre minimum will increase the average lot size and make
housing even less affordable for those who can least afford it. Duany
criticized the 2-acre minimum in the Rural Buffer for creating inefficient
suburban/rural sprawl.
The planning board has recoginized this, and recommends keeping the
one-acre minimum.
Proposal:
Maintain 1-acre minimum lot size/100 lots per 100 acre as a
baseline. Any lots given as bonus must build upon this assumption.
IV. Observation:
Jan. 93 RCS proposals penalizes recreational space within open
space. This was caused by an over-reaction to Citizens Against University
Station bias against golf courses. The penalty is unfair because:
1 . Recreation space is a valuable asset, serving a county-recognized
need, regardless of whether it is specifically within the goals of the
RCS.
2. All developoments are required to create recreation space or
make payment-in-lieu. Adding open space penalties to this is
unreasonable. It will cause increased lot prices.
3. Ecologically, recreation is no worse than farming. Recreation
55
space can be established and maintained in a responsible manner.
Proposal:
We should set design standards to ensure this, rather than to penalize all
recreation space. Recreation space should be counted 100% as long as it
meets county design standards.
56
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
THE RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE'S
CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR RURAL ORANGE
On January 25, 1993, the Planning Board recommended approval of the
Rural Character Study Committee's Conceptual Guidelines for Rural
Orange strategies as amended by the Committee on January 21, 1993,
with three recommended changes:
1. Keeping 0. 92 acres (40,000 square feet) as the minimum
lot size for conventional residential development. This
would alter Option 2 of the Committee's
development options (page 15-16 of the Conceptual
Guidelines) .
NOTE: The Committee's strategies call for an average lot
size of 1 .84 acres (80, 000 square feet) , requiring
developments creating lots averaging less than 1.84 acres
overall to provide open space within the development.
2 . Adding a sentence noting that the rural character
strategies are designed to complement the policy
statements in Section 3.2 of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan ( "Basic Concepts" section) . This
sentence might be most appropriately added as a "Growth
Management" action strategy on page 10 of the Conceptual
Guidelines.
3 . Clarifying language on the definition of private
recreational open space on pages 23-24 of the Conceptual
Guidelines.
The remainder of the document was recommended for approval as is.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 1-25-93
� rl
� 57
MOTION: Waddell moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff . Seconded by Gray.
VOTE : Unanimous .
AGENDA ITEM #11: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (11/23/92)
a. Proposed Rural Character Strategies
Presentation by David Stancil .
On November 12 , 1992 , the RCSC agreed upon a set
of recommendations and agreed to take the package
to public hearing for comment and feedback. A
Citizen Information Session was held on November
17 to preview the presentation and answer
questions from the public. Sixteen persons
attended this session.
•
The recommendations were then presented at public
hearing on November 23 , 1992 . Twenty-nine ( 29 )
citizens provided comment on the recommendations,
and five other persons submitted written comment.
Twenty-two ( 22 ) of the speakers expressed
opposition to the proposed University Station
project/Option 6 of the committee's
recommendations .
The Committee 's recommendations are included in
the "Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange"
which was distributed as part of the November 23
agenda. A summary sheet of recommendations is
also provided. (These items are on file in the
Planning Department,. ) In the package, the
Committee recommends two broad administrative
actions to implement their findings.
1 . The Committee recommends the creation of a
Rural Character Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, as allowed under Section 2 of the
Zoning Ordinance. This element would contain
the Committee 's findings, goals and action
strategies and 'incorporate them into County
policy.
2 . The Committee recommends a series of
development options that serve as a catalyst
for the Committee's program, representing
ways to encourage rural character protection
through flexibility and environmentally-
sensitive design. The Committee recommends
that these development options be
incorporated into the County Zoning Ordinance
58
D
and Subdivision Requ' ns - with the
creation of a Rurr range Design Guidebook
as a resource for rural character-enhancing
development.
The development styles represent an attempt to
expand upon current standards and introduce
incentives for using new options which result in
open space as a part of the development plan. As
a part of the overall strategy, the current
zoning density of 40, 000 square feet in most
rural areas would be changed to a range of
densities from 10, 000 square feet in a 70% open-
space development to 200 , 000 square feet in
large-lot development. The base conventional
development density would be reduced to 80 , 000
square feet ( 1 . 84 acres ) . However, density
bonuses, the use of private roads, and in some
cases, access to water and sewer service would be
available to those developments which preserve
floodplains, wetlands, natural areas,
historic/archaeological sites, farmland, and/or
forest land.
Proposals are also made for the preparation of
plans for Rural Crossroads and Rural Community
Centers, including the active participation of
community or area residents .
From December 3, 1992 - January 21, 1993 , the
RCSC met to consider public comment received and
final modifications to the package. A consensus
of the Committee agreed that there were two areas
to be reviewed:
1. Allowable uses for "open space" .
2 . Ensuring quality of the "open space" .
The Committee adopted a final package at their
January 21 meeting. This package is a part of
the agenda materials and is on file in the
Planning Department.
Approval of these rural character strategies and
development options in concept form by the
Planning Board and Board of Commissioners will
provide the basis for preparation of ordinances
and plan amendments to implement the strategies .
These amendments will be presented at a
subsequent public hearing, along with the Rural
Orange Design Guidebook - illustrating how to use
and apply the development options to protect
rural character.
59
h IS Stancil referred to the summary sheet (page 91 of
�
agenda materials) , and reviewed and explained the
9 ) � p
changes from the November 23 , 1992 package. A
copy of this summary is an attachment to these
minutes on page
There were also some changes to the definition of
open space. Those changes are indicated in bold
print on pages 23 and 24 of the final version of
the Conceptual Guidelines document which is on.
file in the Planning Department. Stancil
reviewed and explained the changes in the
definition. ,
Stancil referred to position statements from Livy
Ludington and Dolly Hunter. These statements are
attachments to these minutes on pages
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Rural Character strategies as adopted by the
Rural Character Study Committee.
The documents referred to in this item are all on
file in the Planning Department .
MOTION: Scott moved to accept the Rural Orange Guidelines
but retain the current 40, 000 square foot minimum
lot size which does not have an open space
requirement. Seconded by Eidenier.
Waddell expressed concern with asking developers
to submit two concept plans as stated under
Development Option 2 - Conventional Two-Acre Lot
Development which states :
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 . The choice of development
style would be voluntary for the
property owner/developer.
Waddell noted that it seemed to be just another
costly burden on the developer. Stancil
responded that the Committee had discussed the
cost and that was the reason for requiring it
60
[1) c only at the concept level. HE continued that the
conce t is that b e� P by requiring the creation g tion of an
open space development plan, the concept is
introduce and, also, may find innovative ways of
dealing with environmental constraints that would
not be found otherwise. At the concept plan
level it may not be so expensive.
Burklin noted that it would affect approximately
40% of the plans reviewed by the Planning Board.
He continued that the object is to have
applicants consider open space and cluster
development. He noted that these options are
already available in the ordinances but are not
being used.
Eidenier asked if the Planning Staff prepares
concept plans noting that Cameron had, on
occasion presented a plan indicating how a
project would appear as a cluster subdivision.
Willis responded that Staff has worked with
applicants on several occasions when there has
been some sensitive portion of a site that should
be protected and it is specifically appropriate
based on the tract. Eidenier noted that if two
concept plans are required, then, more work is
being required of staff as well as the developer.
Willis responded that is a possibility that more
assistance/involvement with the applicant would
be required.
Scott stated that there would also be a increase
in surveyors fees for the extra time and plats
that would have to be provided.
Waddell indicated it may feel good to have two
plans for large subdivisions, but still expressed
concern with additional work and costs.
Burklin noted that the Planning Board may wish to
set the limit higher than 15 lots. He indicated
that it is a method that is being tried in other
areas and is helpful in getting developers to try
new ideas. He noted that the design guideline
book and material to be available from the County
will also have up-to-date information regarding
the successes and failures of open space
development. He emphasized again that the
acceptance is voluntary, but, it does make more
options available to developers and forces them
to think about cluster development.
Waddell noted that he had envisioned the
different options to be an inducement and
61
Tsomething positive for the developer. He
! applicant with a plan
- expressed concern that an pp P
P
under option 3 would also have to provide a plan
for option 2 . Burklin responded that was not the
intent. The intent is that if an applicant
presents a plan under Option 2 , he is also being
asked, at the concept plan stage, to present a
plan under Option 3 . Waddell and Scott both
agreed that the language/intent is unclear.
Burklin stated that the language could be worked
on to clarify the intent.
Scott continued to express concern that the
Committee wanted to persuade developers to try
other development options but felt the incentive
was not such that would justify the additional
cost to developers/property owners .
Burklin pointed out that it is included in the
text that the complete package be reviewed
annually and a report be presented to the
Planning Board and Board of Commissioners .
This "report card" would include subdivisions
created under all of the options and would
determine whether open space, quality open space
and other goals had been achieved.
Scott responded that until the options had been
in place and tried for a period of time, whether
a year or longer, he felt the present minimum lot
size of 40, 000 square feet should be retained.
Dolly Hunter asked about the next step in the
process and Stancil referred to the Process for
Implementing the Rural Character Strategies as
outlined by Collins. A copy of this process is
an attachment to these minutes on page
Scott emphasized again his concern for the
property owners who would be the losers if the
40, 000 sq. ft. lots were not retained. The
owners would receive less money for the sale of a
tract because the developer would be so limited
in the number of lots that could be created.
Mr. O'Neal expressed support for the motion made
by Scott. He encouraged the Planning Board to
determine where the growth should go, but, he
stated that affordable lots are not just going to
happen, someone must give "a helping hand" . He
continued that Scott was in line with his concern
regarding the developer passing the cost on to
the buyers. Mr. O'Neal also stated he felt
Orange County is becoming more and more exclusive
62
-� n and affordable lots will not be available.
1 _
Burklin noted that he had heard the argument that
quality is added when lots become very salable.
He continued asking Mr. O'Neal about the
subdivision, Whitfield' Glen with the average
lot size of 5 . 32 acres, for which he is the
agent. Mr. O'Neal responded that it is location
driven. He noted that the lots are in the Chapel
Hill School District and will sell for $25 , 000 -
$30, 000 per acre. The lack of good percs
restricted the number of lots . While the lots
are salable near Chapel Hill, such lots would not
be salable farther north. He noted also that the
subdivision has four access points .
Burklin notes that this speaks to one reason
that the Committee felt there is value to asking
applicants to submit a plan that has open space
so that they would look at some of the site
conditions .
Eidenier stated there is a way to get the second
concept plan without additional cost to the
developer; instruct the Planning Staff to do the
concept plans.
Collins stated that he felt the Planning Staff
could draw alternative open space plans if they
did not have to do all of the site analysis. If
concept plans were submitted with topo maps with
the basic information that would be used for an
open space plan, such as treelines, distinguish
between evergreen and hardwood, floodplains, then
if would be fairly simple to do sketch plans of
open space plans . If Staff had to do all of the
site analysis and then draw up a concept plan, it
could be very time consuming.
Cantrell asked that Collins estimate what that
would demand of the surveyor in terms of extra
time to provide this information. Collins
responded that while it would vary, the surveyor
may already have the information available if a
traditional subdivision is being planned. He
felt it would not be difficult for the surveyor
to provide the information and noted he did not
feel there would be a lot of cost increase.
In response to a concern of Scott's regarding the
cost increase, Collins stated that when some
surveyors present concept plans, they are almost
complete enough to be a preliminary plan. This
puts the surveyor ahead, if the concept plan is
53
p T approved, there is very little left to do to move
\ on to the preliminary plan stage . Since the
`' surveyors seem to already be doing this he felt
there should not be a great increase in cost.
Gray asked what would have to be done to require
the surveyor to provide the information on the
concept plan. Collins responded that in the
ordinances in the section regarding concept plans
the statement would be added: provide the
following information and list the information
to be required. Then, the Staff could be
directed to prepare a sketch plan, which, while
not a detailed plan, lot sizes would be accurate.
Waddell indicated he found this more agreeable
than asking the applicant to prepare two concept
plans .
Gray asked how much time and additional personnel
would be required if the sketch plan was prepared
by the Planning Staff . Collins responded that
there are two vacant positions in the department.
When those are filled, there may be a special
projects planner to handle such projects . It
would not require additional staff.
Jobsis asked why the 1-acre option had been
eliminated and, also, why not keep the maximum
density at 100 units regardless of the amount of
open space as suggested by Dr. Crumley. Burklin
responded that all of the options would only be
100 units per 100 acres . Burklin continued
that the density bonuses may be one of the more
important parts of the incentives package.
Jobsis indicated she felt that the density
bonuses and cluster development should be used
where large tracts have lots of unperkable land.
Jobsis asked Stancil to explain the "Arendt"
approach of calculating density. Stancil noted
that density is based upon the buildable land in
the tract. If a tract of land could only have 50
lots in traditional subdivision, there could only
be 50 lots in a cluster subdivision. Density
bonuses would not be allowable.
Bob Hall asked that the following statement be
added after the first paragraph under "Strategy
2" :
These options are intended to complement,
rather than replace, the statement of
Basic Concepts contained on page 3 . 2-1
and 3 . 2-2 of the Comprehensive Land Use
C U1.1 64
Element, which defines the overall priorities
for development in Orange County.
A copy of the letter Mr. Hall referred to and
distributed to the Planning Board is an
attachment to these minutes on page
Waddell suggested a wording change in the
guidelines under OPEN SPACE, #8 , second sentence:
However, since many of these facilities may
not fully achieve the goals of this study,
only 50% of this type of open space should
count towards the required open space set-
aside.
Stancil noted that wording change did not change
the context.
Jobsis noted that one of her concerns is that if
some of the rural strategies are followed, some
of the high densities places will be leap frogged
right into what are now the rural parts of the
County. She felt that this should develop around
the already established cities. She noted that
the larger lots and costly houses are right
outside Chapel Hill and those unable to afford
expensive houses and lots are moving farther out
into the county. She felt this natural expansion
is not going to change in Orange County. She
expressed concern that without giving overall
consideration to the Comprehensive Plan there
will be leap frogging and there will be
development in the middle of rural areas that
does not fit and totally destroys the rural
character. She also expressed concern with
losing the basic 1-acre lots . She noted she
understood the concern to save open space, but,
she felt there could be some 1-acre lots and
there definitely is the need for the smaller
lots .
Boland stated that she lives on a 1-acre lot in a
rural area, Cedar Grove, and that there is
nothing undesirable about it.
Jobsis responded that a lot of the people in the
rural areas agree with that statement and they
understand the need for the 1-acre lots much
better than people in the Chapel Hill area.
Burklin responded that the Committee had tried
very hard to strike a balance between the
densities.
65
m,
Eidenier stated that she had assumed that
everything is complementing or following the
Comprehensive Element of the Land Use Plan and
asked if that was in the RCSC document. Stancil
responded that it is not in the document but,
that there is no intent to be inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Element of the Land Use Plan.
Stancil continued that there will be some land
use element amendments as a part of this process
that deal with the structure of how land use
patterns are developed in the rural part of the
County.
VOTE : 7 in favor.
2 opposed (Burklin and Waddell - both noted
reasons previously stated) .
MOTION: Waddell moved to change the wording on pages 23
and 24 as previously stated: .
However, since many of these facilities may
not fully achieve the goals of this study,
only 50% of this type of open space should
count towards the required open space set-
aside.
Burklin stated that the original concept was to
allow 100% of the activities listed to count,
but, they could not make up more than 50% of the
open space. He continued that if the statement
was reworded as requested by Waddell, only 1/2 of
the activities would count, but, they could make
up 100% of the open space.
Discussion between Waddell and Burklin indicated
the wording was unclear and needed further
clarification. Chair Cantrell asked that the
wording in this section be cleared up before the
preparation of ordinances . The motion regarding
this was dropped.
MOTION: Eidenier moved that somewhere in the text,
perhaps the introduction, that there be a
sentence that states the options are intended to
complement rather than replace the concepts in
the Comprehensive Land Use Element. Seconded by
Jobsis.
VOTE: Unanimous.
MOTION: Eidenier moved a Resolution of Appreciation for
members of the RCSC, Staff, and citizens for the
work that had been done. Seconded by Gray.
66
n 5\
VOTE: Unanimous .
b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
( 1 ) CP-2-92 Proposed Open Space Development
Area Land Use Plan Category
Presentation by Marvin Collins .
The proposed "Open Space Development Area"
category was presented at public hearing in
November.
Given the fact that the University Station
applicants have formally withdrawn their proposal
to amend the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, the need to enact such a land
use plan category at this time is questionable.
An alternate approach would be to table the
proposal at this time and consider it within the
context of the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning
Area Land Use Plan. Provided the preparation of
that Plan continues on schedule, it will be
presented for citizen comment at the quarterly
public hearing in May, 1993 .
The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed
amendment be tabled.
Eidenier stated that she felt it would be better
to refer this to the CPZ Study Group rather than
tabling. Collins expressed agreement.
Burklin expressed concern that it seemed the
work of the CPZ group had stopped. Collins
responded that the Clerk to the Board of
Commissioners will be attempting to set up a
meeting between the two governing boards within
the next two weeks . Collins continued that he
had asked Staff to wait until that meeting
occurs to get a clear direction. Once that
occurs, Collins indicated Staff would be ready to
move ahead with the Plan.
MOTION: Gray moved to accept the Planning Staff
recommendation to table. Seconded by Burklin.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
1 opposed (Eidenier - felt it should be referred
to the CPZ work group) .
(Cantrell out of the room during this vote. )
AGENDA ITEM #12 : MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/1/92)
•
67
m
, , RURAL CHARACTER COMMITTEE
'd [Strategy recoamentlation
A Process prepared/presented to
Planning Bard]
for
Implementing
111,'
the PLANNING BOARD
[Prepares recommendation '
Rural to Board of County ORDINANCE REVIEW
Commissioners)
COMMITTEE
Character (With representative from
I each group, prepares
Strategies 7 ,final draft of ordinance
and guidelines)
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
t--,
[Adopts strategies and
charge to staff and
advisory boards)
PLANNING BOARD
(Reviews final draft and
prepares recommendation
T as to whether draft
should be presented at
PLANNING DEPARTMENT public hearing)
(Prepares draft ordinance
and draft rural design
guidelines based on
lir
adopted strategies)
lir ,BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
(Approves notice of
public hearing]
m
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
(Draft ordinance and
design guidelines
submitted to advisory
boards and interest PUBLIC HEARING
groups for comment) (Citizens as well. as
advisory boards and
. A interest groups provide
convent on proposals)
Agricultural Districts r
—{ Historic Preservation 1 *l i
PLANNING BOARD
Transportation I [Prepares recommendation
based on proposal and
I comments received during
Economic Development public hearing process)
—11 i CAUS y T •
i Land Conservancy/Sierra 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
(Decision on proposals
I
based on public ublic hearing
Duke University 1 content and Planning
r Board recoame elation)
iDesign Council 1
IMPLEMENTATION
ilounship Advisory Council
—{ Municipalities 1
Recreation i Parks 1-�
PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGIES
Products
Rural Orange Design Guidebook
Rural Character Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
Amendments to Subdivision Regulations
Amendments to Land Use Element, Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to Water and Sewer Policy
Date Activity
February 16, 1993 Board of Commissioners instructs staff to begin implementation
process.
March 1, 1993 Staff Work Group convenes, work duties assigned, internal
deadlines set.
March 1 - June 30, 1993 Staff prepares draft products.
July 1, 1993 First draft due (internal review)
July-August 1993 Staff revisions, second draft created.
September 1, 1993 Second draft completed, ready for "Citizen Participation" phase.
September 8, 1993 Draft and cover letter sent to all identified review agencies/groups.
Staff presentation and assistance is offered.
December 1, 1993 Specific comments/recommendations due from review
agencies/groups/municipalities.
December 1, 1993
January 31, 1994 Staff collates comments received,prepares third draft of products.
February 1994 Third draft presented to Ordinance Review Committee. Committee
comments and changes.
March 1994 Final draft products prepared by staff.
April 1994 Presented to Planning Board for review/comment prior to public
hearing. Final draft submitted to review
agencies/groups/municipalities
May 1994 Public Hearing.
June 1994 Planning Board recommendation.
August 1994 Board of Commissioners action.
Proposed Implementation Date: October 1, 1994.
69
r '71"
PROPOSED CHARGE TO STAFF AND REVIEW AGENCIES
In accordance with the Process for Implementing the Rural Character
Strategies, agreed to by the Rural Character Study Committee and
the Planning Board, the following is suggested as a charge to both
staff and review agencies/groups/municipalities.
Charge to Planning Staff
The Board of Commissioners directs Planning Department staff to
prepare a draft version of all products (see timeline for list of
products) needed to implement the Rural Character Strategies by the
fall of 1993. These draft products will then be submitted to a list
of agencies/groups for review and comment. This list includes (but
is not limited to) :
The Agricultural Districts Advisory Board
The Historic Preservation Commission
The Transportation Advisory Subcommittee
(of the Orange County Planning Board)
The Economic Development Commission
The Township Advisory Councils (7 )
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC)
The Design Council of Chapel Hill/Carrboro
The Duke Forest Advisory Council (Duke University)
The Town of Hillsborough
The City of Durham
The City of Mebane
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority
The Triangle Land Conservancy
The Sierra Club (Triangle Chapter)
Citizens Against Urban Sprawl (CAUS)
. . .Others to be named later.
Staff will offer to present the Rural Character Strategies to each
group, and will also be available for assistance in clarifying the
strategies and providing advice on how to submit comments.
w74
: w y
Upon receiving comments from these groups, staff will then produces
a second draft of the products. Comments that have been used will
be specifically noted in the new draft. Comments that have not been
used will be summarized on an attached appendix, with an
explanation of why the comments were not included in the draft.
Staff will present this second draft to the Ordinance Review
Committee in the first quarter of 1994, where the products will
proceed through traditional public hearing and review processes.
Charge to Agencies/Groups/Municipalities Reviewing the Strategies
The Board of Commissioners offers submittal of the first draft
products for review to each of the agencies/groups/municipalities
shown on the preceding page, as well as staff assistance in
understanding the proposed products and in helping agencies through
the comment process (this assistance would be limited to procedural
advice. The agency would be responsible for the content of its
comments) .
Since this review largely involves detailed ordinance language and
design guidelines, the Board requests that each
agency/group/municipality be specific in its comments on the draft
products, proposing replacement language or graphics in areas where
the agency proposes a different approach.
Each agency/group/municipality is requested to return comments or
other specific suggested replacement language within 90 days of
receipt.
Each agency providing comment will be provided copies of the final
draft products one month prior to the public hearing.
-t .
r RCS.XLC ■
J J
POPULATION INCREASE VERSUS NEW OPEN SPACE
50
m 46%
a 45
a
40%
z 40
W
d
O
35
z
30
■POP INCREASE
tu
25
D NEW OPEN SPACE
Ix
z 17%
p 15
F
j 10 12% 14%
a 5 11% 3%
7%
0
OPTION 1A OPTION 20 OPTION 3B OPTION 4B
38
e/W Am t,.'r'k,' 6"74
/ c, xanins �zn5, t6 e!;.
Page 1
a.
FV
DISCUSSION
The guile of a plan should be to
• Preserve rural character
• Provide realistic development options
• i<noourage Open Space development
• Be "population neutral" (or as close to neutral as possible)
Have era four pienns for discussion:
OFTl0N 1A: is the RCS's recommendation. It uses the two-acre lot as a base, but
allows very high bonuses:
OPTION 28: Uses the "yield" of the land as a base, but allows the yield to be as high
u one-acre lots. Has very low bonuses.
OPTION 38: (For discussion), A variation of 2B where the maximum yield is a two-
acre lot rather than one-acre.
OPTION 48: (For discussion). Same as 3B but with higher bonuses to encourage open
space development.
The four plena are outlined on the 'POUR PLANS FOR DISCUSSION" sheet.
All options allowmitlemi , m €'.ratusa
• 1A allows two-acre conventional as a base (density a 50 units per 100 acres).
• 215 allows densities of up to 100 units per 100 acres for good soil.
• 38 and 48 allow 25 or 50 units per 100 acres, depending on soil.
Bonuses for 1A ere based on open space, while the bonuses on 25, 38, and 48 are
based on the quality of the open space ("fair", "moderate", or "good") and a
minimum open space of 40%.
ANSLYSIS: (see the four separate apresdsheete)
The most important considerations are:
• Population increase
• Amount of Open Space expected
• Proper incentives to build Open Space
ASSUM §ONCE=
• Remaining land has soil equally distributed among Poor, Fair, and Good (33%
each).
• Under option IA, 26% of lend will be developed with en open apace option,
equally distributed among the 8 options (except for the last two).
• Under option 28, with the conventional one-acre option available, there's less
incentive to onoose open space: only 18% of land will be developed with an open
space option, equally distributed among the nine possible combinations of open
space quality and soil condition,
• Under option 3B, 30% of land will be developed under open space, as the relative
incentive is higher (with the conventional one-acre option no longer avellebie),
• Under option 49, 38% of land will be developed under open space, as the bonuses
are higher,
RESULTS (see graph):
Option 9 A results in a 46% increase In population with new open space at 11%.
Option 28 results In slightly lower population increase than 1 A, and lower new open
space. The high population of conventional one-acre development Is offset by lower
bonuses for open apace development, (Is there proper incentive for Open Space
development here?)
Option 36 is elrnost "population neutral", and provides 12% new open space.
Option 46 has an 11% Increase in population, with 14% open space.
CONCLUSION:
Perhaps a plan between 39 and 413, where:
• The density le based on yield (like 20)
• Maximum base yield Is 2-acre lots (a RCS conclusion)
• Proper Incentives are given for Open Space development
• expected population change Is minimal (population neutral)
PA-64r 2
J
t
RG 12-�"
NG UWYS PER 100 A S!
ovu m Downry mcumm TOTAL 1lEW _
ACRES tNm PEOPLE OPEN
UNDEVELOPED LAND 25% 34,895
CC11 VENTMAL 5-ACRE 21 10% 13,M 2931 7328
CO NVENTIMAE 2-ACRE 51 39% 54;437 27753 59407
20% 80 5% 6,979 5583 13958 1396
301% 90 5% 6,979 6281 15703 2094
40% 100 5% 6,979 6979 17448 2782
50% 110 5% 6,979 7677 19182 3490
80% 120 4% 5.583 6700 16750 3350
70% 1310 2% 2,792 3629 9073 1954
TOTAL 100% 139,581 67,543 1 68,858 15,075
%POPULNU M FICREASE = 46% %F E1fl/OPEN SPACE- 11%
Face Y -
1
L -
•
, ,•„.„ „
' •.••-•
' •
, •-, .
. . . ..„ , ..„ . r.. .. • ,• .
. . . . • .„.. . :
„ • , n.7 • . •
1• . • - ••r.
- • • • •
C
• iULT Z62.6 /96 616 NU C3(113Z13
. 'd 1 2661'51-Z0
• ----- A Aoleir012-/6 A6e_
". • /--ez k e&t. cc
. .
Febr,i.ary 15,
• •
Dear Orange County Commissioners:
.• I know that you are probably being overwhelmed with numbers,
charts:and more information concerning the Rural Character Study
. •.. Committee. I hope,however,that,you will take the time to look over the
graph and charts which I am enclosing,especially the bar graph. I think that
z. -
they convey something critical that.has not.been closely examined'. the
..ercentacif population incre se,,especially in relation to the percentage ni
quality open space preserved.
„.„ ,•
Please note that in the four proposed scenarios (the RCSC's,the
Planning Staffs,and two new proposals not previously discussed),the
• in open space. bar
increase in population is compared to the increase p ce.
graph illustrates this clearly.
• • v
I feel strongly that we will be cow• ng disaster if .7e increase the
• population of the County so dramatically• It is essential to take several stone
back away from the work dons so far in order to examine the consequences
of the propsed changes on population growth.
I look forward to discussing this information with you further. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
- •
• •
Livy Ludin-ton„Member
- - • Rural Character Study Committee
•
. .
. .
•
. •
l \
1 1 l 1
\
A
11m.XLC
tiAa
W 46%
w 40%
W
d
�I .15 -�
30 pop p4mEnE
25 � EJ NEW OPEN SPACE
o is
19 3%
0 5
OrlIONIA MON 20 opinem 3B OF"- 45
F�CS2.�.S
OPTION 2B MMWIFIED: MAX YIELD = ONE Ate)
(DENSW = HOUSING UMn PER 100 ALMS)
L
t pm% SOIL TOTAL H0tMG NEW NEW
ACRES urm PEOPLE OPEN
LNMEVELOPMLAND 25% 34,M
COUVMTlOr &SAME 211 10% 13,958 2,931 7,328
COMVEN- POOR 25 9% 12,562 3,141 7,$51
T10N- AVER 51 19% 26.520 13,525 33,813
AL GOW 102 19% 26,520 27,051 67,627
40%-FAIR POOR 30 296 2,792 837 2,094 1117
40%-MOD POOR 31 2% 2,792 8% 4164 1117
� I
40%-GOOD POOR 33 2% 2,792 921 4303 1117
40%-FAIR AVER 60 2% 2,792 1,675 4,187 1117
40%-MM AVER 63 2% 2,792 1,759 4,397 1117
au, 4096-GOOD AVER 65 2'% 2,7$2 1,815 4,536 1117
40%-FAIR GOOD 120 2% 2,792 3,350 8,375 1117
40%--MUD GOOD 125 2% 2.792 3,490 ° 8,724 1117
40%-GOOD GOOD 130 2% 2,792 3,629 9,073 1117
TOTAL 100% 139,581 641969 IC-4472 10.050
�+POI'BXATKM 1 = 4096 !9L 111E1fIT tlP13a0 SPACE = 796
F
A5StImAt' ONS:
11 SOIL OF REMAIMM LAND IS 33%POOR,33%FAIR,AND 33%CWM
21 THE 5.7ACRE CCHVffMOWL VALL FOR THE MOST PAR'S'BE ON POOR AIL.
3111YMf ONE-ACRE CONVENTIONAL AVAILAM E,LESS 94CEN7M TO O1400S_
OPEN SPACE.ONLY 18%WILL CHOOSE t3PEtl SPACE. -I�
s
f
Peon 2
RCS.)U-S
FOUR P'LANS FOR DISCUSSION
= HOUSING I.MS PER 100 ACRES)
OPTION ?A OPTION 2B 'OPTION 39 10-E QFWNI 40(MM
41 �iA}
M"70 Om AM LOTS) 2MYEILD TO MO ACM 2BnWO ACrWJHM 00IM06
% SOR 7Y s OPEN% UK DEI iY
0 POD 25 0 POOR 25 p POOR 25
2-ACRE COINVEP 51 AVER 51 0 AVER 51 0 AVER 51
�00
GOOD 702 0 GOOD 51 0 GOOD 51
20% A0 40%-FAIR Fom 30 40%FAIR POOR 30 40%-FAIR POOR 3�5
3 %% I0 40%-IYIW POOR 31 40%-MD POOR 31 40%-MOD POOR 40
4fD76 too X40%-GOOD POOR 33 40%�D POOR 33 40%-G005D POOR 45
50% 110 40%-FFA;R AVGR 60 40%+AIR AVER 00 40%-FAIR AVER 70
60% 120 40%-MOO AVat �63 40"00 AVER 63 40%-MOD AVER 9D
70% 130 40%-GOOD AVER 65 409"000 AVER 65 40%-WOO AVER 90
40%-FAIR GOOD 120 49%-FAIR GOOD 60 40%-FAIR Gom ?o
40%-MD GOOD 725 40%-MOD GOOF► 63 40%-MD GOOD so
40%-GOOD GOOD 130 40%-GOOD GOOD 65 4016-GOOD GOOD 80
MM YIELD=.5 Ut+l MACRE `"MAX YIELD IS.5 AND
BONUSES: MUSES(ON 40%OPM SPACE): BONUSES(ON 40%OPEM SPACE): e0MUSES WdCREASED T
20%OPEN =6"E304NEIS FAIR OPEN SPACE =20% FAIR OM SPACE = 2M FAIR OPM SPACE =40%
30%OPEN so%mmus IMODBIATE OPEN SPACE =25% MOOMTE OPEN SPACE =25% MODERATE OPEN SPACE = 50%
40%OPEN - 100%9004VS GOOD OPEN SPACE=30% 11 GOOD 13M SPACE = 30% GOOD OPEN SPACE -60%
50%OPEN = 120%O(WVS
60%OPM = 140%BONUS
70%OPM = l w%emus
P�t
2
RCS2.XLS
< � OPTION 48: (2B.VATH RIAX YND = TWO ACRE AND HMER BONUSES)
fj ( - HOUS08 UMYS PER 100 ACRES)
OPEOM TWAL wmsm my NEW
ACRES f uwffS PFH'OLE OPEN
J 071 'm rt ce,✓ UMOEVELOM LAND 25% 34,895
u
7
CONyENUMAL -ACM 21 10% 13,958 2,931 7.328
v
CQWEN- POOR 25 3.00% 4,187 1,047 2,617
Tm- AVER 51 13.00X+ 18.146 91254 23.136
AL GOOD 51 13.00% 18,146 9,254 23,136
40%-FAIR POOR 36 4.00% 5,583 1,954 4,885 2233
40%-MOD POUR 38 COD% 5,583 2,122 5,304 22733
40%-GOOD POOR 40 4.00% S,5kT+3 2.233 5.583 2233
40%-FAIR AVER 70 4.00% 5,583 31908 9,771 2233
40%-MM AVER 75 4.00% 51sm 4,187 10,469 2233
40%-GOOD AVER so 4.00% 5.583 4,467 11,166 2233
40%-r-AIR GOOD 70 4.00% 5,583 3,9$ 9,771 2233
40%-MOD GOOD 75 4.00% 5,583 4,187 10,469 2233
40%-GOOD GOOD 80 4.009E 5.583 1 4A67 11,166 2233
TOTAL 100% 139,581 53.920 134,800 20,100
PIIPIAATM I KUWASE= 1796 %NEIL 4PM SPADE - 14-%
A dEPTIOM:
11 SOIL OF REMAFMG LAND IS 33%POOR,33%FAIR,AND 33%GOOD.
2)THE 5-ACRE COWENTKKAL WILL FOR THE MOST PART BE ON POOR SOIL
31 MORE WILL CHOOSE OPEN SPACE TO GET DENSITIES HCHER MiAN 50,AND
MCM►WILL CMOSE OPEN SPACE BECAUSE BONUSES ARE FEIGd-1M THAN 28 OR 3B.
4)36%VAM CHOOSE AN OPEN SPACE OPTION DIVA)ED EOLALLY AMOUNG OP710NS.
Page 4
Z
RC52.XL.S
OPTION 38: V%WITH MAX TWO fie )
A /3 -
i < SM DOUM TOTAL.. HOUS161 Mw _ um
t ACM umn VEOPLE DPI
UNMVELOPED LAND 25% 34,895
CONVENTIONAL 5-ACRE 21 10% 13,958 2,931 7.328
C ONVF-W- POOR 25 5.M^% 61979 1,745 4,362
TION- AVER 51 15.00% 20,937 10,678 �28,6
AL. GOOD 51 15.00% 20,937 14,678 26,695
40%-F-AIR POOR 30 3.33% 4,648 1,394 31486 1859
40%-MOD POOR 31 3.33% 4,648 1,441 3,002 1859
40%-GCkW POOR 33 3.339 4,6" 1,04 3.335 1
40%-FAIR AVER 60 3.33% 4,648 2,785 6,972 18"
v 40%-MOD AVER 63 _3.3396 4,648 2,928 7,321 1859
;1 p pp 40%-GOOD AVER 65 3.33% 4,648 3,021 7,553 1859
t -`azze 40%-FAIR GOOD 60 3.33% 4,646 2369 6,972 185"9
40%-SOD GOOD X63 3.33% 4,648 2.928 7,321 1859
40%-GOOD GOOD €5
Er---- -
3.3.3% 4,M 3,421 7,533 1859
TOTAL 100% 139,581 47,,878 119,694- 16,733
- ; MT9f1FN WCHUSE -^ 3% 9 NEW OPEN SPACE - 1296
ASSUWT1ONS:
11 Std OF FWM94M LAPS IS 33%POOR,33%FAJR,AND 33%GOOD. -
23 THE 5-ACHE CMIVENTIONAL VAL.L"THE MOST PART IE ON POOR&,'W-
31 W6L H CONVENTMAL OWACRE NOT AVAR ADLF,MOM VVIU- OPM SPACE
'rO GU CI ES HI GHM TfU N 50 FITS PM 1 Ate.
4)-V%YRLL CHOOSE AN fWW SPACE OrTION VMDW MU LL Y AMOUNG OPTK)"S_