Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 051895ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 . ., o Received " '- MAY 12 1995 (vianagers Off c- MEMORANDUM TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III SUBJ: Fourth Meeting of Planning Group on May 18, 1995 DATE: May 11, 1995 Enclosed are the agenda materials for the fourth meeting of the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group. At this meeting, Planning Department staff members David Stancil and Emily Cameron will be presenting the Rural Character alternative. Please note the change in meeting Mace. A map is enclosed for those not familiar with the Whitted Center (the Orange County Public Library is located on the main floor) . Facility fees and limitations on time have prompted me to explore alternatives to the school. My recommendation for future meetings is the Government Services Center. meeting room at 200 South Cameron Street in Hillsborough. It is not available for May, but will be in subsequent months. COR 1 Srnccr ��� �lowr O 7 W 12 r I r t t N / W r - - -L -N / 15 I CORurw- I • 1 I I 'TI REET �I 1 8 I s 17 = I —' I WEST ORANQE fT. I CAST �� L J -1 A: � N :,ON— 1I�.A _ 19 _ I r WEST UEE N T. _EAST QUEEN ST. 28 ' I = Q N WEST TRY T. pp EAST TgTON ST ja I Y Tq T 30 WEST KING STREET I % I EAST . ST < ( W iT MARSARET I g E ST 'MAR AR T ST Y 34 ' 35 I 36 rl L STREET � y ` I • ` \ C/,I a Parkt'n : There is a parking lot at the corner of West Tryon Street and Hassell Street. Additional parking is available at the rear of the building. Richard E. Whitted Center 300 W. Tryon St. Hillsborough, N. C. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE. ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 d . o AGENDA Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 4 Thursday, May 18, 1995 7:30 PM TIME AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER - Verla Insko, Facilitator 7:31 2. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from April 27 7:35 3. THE RURAL CHARACTER ALTERNATIVE - Verla Insko 7:40 4. RURAL CHARACTER OVERVIEW - David Stancil - History - Rural Orange Recommendations - Rural Buffer Recommendations 8:10 5. RURAL CHARACTER DESIGNS FOR THE STONEY CREEK BASIN AREA - David Stancil and Emily Cameron 9:00 6. CASE STUDY - RURAL CHARACTER DESIGN FOR THE STRAYHORN FARM - Emily Cameron 10:00 7. CONCLUDING COMMENTS /OTHER BUSINESS - Verla Insko 10:15 8. ADJOURNMENT STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP APRIL 27, 1995 MINUTES M �affi� The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, April 27, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the New Hope Elementary School, New Hope Church Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis, Keith Cook, Judson Edeburn, Bob Hall, Dean Zehnder, David Yelton, Gary Hanker, Bob Strayhorn, Clint Burklin, Meg McKean, Lee Rafalow, Bill Bracey, Dan Teichman, Elio Soldi, and Curtis Bane. ALTERNATE MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Kenan, Irene VanDyke, and Trish Rafalow. OTHER ATTENDEES: Commissioner Evelyn Lloyd, John Pettitt, Professor David Godschalk, Professor Phil Berke, and Marion Clark, Teaching Assistant. STAFF PRESENT: John Link, County Manager, Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board, Gene Bell, Planner and Planners Slade McCalip, Dave Stancil, Don Belk and Mary Willis. STUDENTS: Members of the UNC -CH Department of City and Regional Planning Land Use Workshop. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Gene Bell. He stated that the outline for the evening would be presented by Rick Kos and that reports would be given by students Jeff Bowyer, Jennifer Clinger, Kaoru Oka and Travis Pollack. Those reports would be on the Environmental, Transportation, Air Quality, Public Service and Fiscal impacts of the potential development options. MINUTES: The minutes of the April 6, 1995 meeting were approved by consensus. Lee Rafalow announced that there would be a half -day workshop at the Chapel Hill Municipal Building on April 29th from 9:00 until 12:00. This workshop has been planned in order to allow time for the developing of a vision. He invited members of this Work Group to attend. The Land Use Workshop students presented the following reports. INTRODUCTION: Rick Kos mentioned that this report has been prepared by the Land Use Planning Workshop at the UNC Department of City and Regional Planing. At the request of the Orange County Planning staff, the class has designed three development scenarios for the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area. The Conventional Development scenario was based upon the use of existing regulations and the continuation of current development patterns. The Density- Neutral Development envisions cluster development as a strategy for the preservation of large open spaces and environmentally - sensitive lands. The Neo- traditional development establishes a mixed -use, rail- centered village core with surrounding, interconnected neighborhoods to foster a strong sense of community. The reports which follow will analyze the impacts of these three scenarios. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Greg Haus mentioned that Stoney Creek Basin planning area is a 4,696 acre area defined primarily by the drainage basin of Stoney Creek. For simplicity, the edges of the planning area were drawn to include entire parcels where those parcels cross the boundary of the actual drainage basin. He mentioned that there were 795 total dwelling units with a current estimated population of 2,135 people. The existing zoning consists of 4,515 acres of residential (one unit /acre), 150 acres of Rural Buffer (one unit /two acres) and 33 acres of commercial. The residential land consists mostly of single family detached with some mobile homes. The commercial area does have some commercial developments on the major roads. He also mentioned that the Use Value parcels are land currently in, and taxed at, agricultural production. Finally, the total undeveloped areas consist of 1,999 acres. He reviewed a fact sheet of proposed development scenarios. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Jeff Bowyer gave an overview of the Impact Tables for Conventional, Density- Neutral and Neo- Traditional development scenarios. He then reviewed the specific impact of each of the scenarios on the natural and historic resources. He stated that the Stoney Creek Basin is characterized by a variety of natural and historic resources. The natural resources include the floodplain along Stoney Creek, wetlands, steep slopes, large forested areas, and wildlife habitat /corridors. These resources are significant for both functional and aesthetic reasons. Floodplains provide the area needed to accommodate flood waters from Stoney Creek. Wetlands filter rainwater as it travels to groundwater reserves, which may be pumped from drinking water. They also provide wildlife habitat and migration corridors and are home to a variety of plant species. Steep slopes can create viewsheds' with aesthetic value. Forested areas minimize stormwater runoff (compares to developed land), provide wildlife habitat, and have energy- saving effects on adjacent development by providing natural cooling. In addition, their aesthetic value is significant. The historic resources in the basin include several structures, sites of former structures, and a small cemetery, all of which have been identified by the county as potentially being of historic significance. At a minimum, it is important that any future development in this area allow for the preservation of these resources until their true historic significance can be established. The floodplain, wetlands, steep slopes, and natural areas, including wildlife corridors and the county designated Rural Buffer, were the basis of the suitability analysis used by each design group. As a result, each group generally tried to incorporate these areas into its design while minimizing the impact of development on them. However, there are several notable differences in the impacts of each sign. Those impacts were summarized. Dean Zehnder asked for clarification regarding the space requirements for a wildlife corridors to actually support wildlife.. Bill Bracey mentioned that deep forest is required for many of the animal species residents would like to have their communities support. The presence of deer is not an indicator that sufficient space exists for a wildlife corridor. Dan Teichman asked for further clarification of water quality. Specifically, is the water to be used as drinking water or is it expected that it would not meet that standard. He requested that for the next meeting, a watershed map be created for overlay on the Stoney Creek Map so that this Work Group could be clear about how the watershed standards affect this community. TRANSPORTATIONJAIR QUALITY IMPACTS: Jennifer Clinger reviewed this portion of the developmental impacts. Transportation: She mentioned that Stoney Creek Basin is currently served by a network of rural two lane roads. All of the intersections in the area are unsignalized, most are served by stop signs, and a few are enhanced with flashing warning signals. Existing traffic volumes are very low on most roads, and there is considerable excess capacity. New residential and commercial development in the Stoney Creek Basin will generate additional vehicular traffic, which has serious impacts on the road network in the surrounding area. Residential development will generate trips for work, shopping, etc. Retail and office development attract people from other parts of the community, bringing even more cars into the area. If enough new trips are generated, traffic volumes will exceed available capacity, causing congestion, and possible delays at nearby intersections. Congestion problems will possibly necessitate widening of existing roads, installation of traffic signals, and construction of new highway facilities. She noted that the transportation impact analysis for the Stoney Creek Basin was problematic for a number of reasons. Most transportation impact studies are for smaller, single -site developments. The Stoney Creek Basin, on the other hand, has multiple development sites spread out over 4,5000 acres. As the Planning Group decides more specifically which types of development should occur in the basin, Orange County will conduct more in -depth transportation analysis. Nevertheless, a first -cut analysis of transportation impacts for each of the three development scenarios was completed. Increased traffic volumes impact the flow of traffic at intersections long before service levels decline on the open roadway. In light of this, traffic impact analyses has been performed for three heavily traveled intersection in the basin. The impact of development on the capacity of these intersections was assessed using a three step process. The components were then discussed. Those components are trip generation, trip assignment, and capacity analysis. Air Quality: Ms. Clinger reported that air quality is an important component of overall environmental quality. Currently, air quality in this area is well within acceptable ranges. However, air quality is of regional concern in the Raleigh- Durham area. The Triangle is currently in a state of moderate non - attainment for Carbon Monoxide, which means that air - quality violates federal standards by no more than 82 percent. This is not an uncommon state for an urban area of this size and its implications are that the region must use re- formulated gasoline during the winter months and must coordinate its transportation improvements with its air quality goals. If air quality in the entire region were to deteriorate significantly, the area would be re- classified as a serious non - attainment zone. That would require the enactment of strict transportation control measures to bring air quality down within EPA s standards. Increasing vehicular traffic through increased development in the Stoney Creek Basin area will produce higher levels of vehicular emissions, potentially having adverse effects upon the health and property of residents'in the area. The EPA standards for carbon monoxide in this area are 9 parts per million (ppm) for concentrations over an eight hour period and 35 ppm for a one -hour period. The analysis was conducted with the CAL3QHC model which requires three main inputs: the layout of the intersection and adjacent street network; the projected traffic flows through the intersection at buildout; and the location of receptors , or points at which the carbon monoxide concentrations would be tested. The finds of this analysis were that carbon monoxide concentrations would not have significant adverse impacts upon the air quality. Even with slightly higher levels of traffic, it seems unlikely that carbon monoxide concentrations would exceed federal standards. Dan Teichman asked if the work Group would be reviewing each of the intersections in this area? Gene Bell replied that he anticipated that they would each be studied. PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS: Kaoru Oka reported on these impacts. Schools:_ The Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area is currently served by the New Hope and Cameron Park Elementary Schools, and Orange High School. The area will be served by the New A.L. Stanback Middle School, slated to open in the Fall, 1995. To estimate the impacts produced by each development option on the Orange County school system it was necessary to determine the number of households, the number of school age children by school type and, finally, to determine the extent to which current school facilities are capable of handling the projected number of new students. It was determined that only Conventional Development- Option II could proceed without the necessity of creating additional middle school space. The County public school impact fee of $750 for each new residential dwelling could be increased to offset a larger portion of the impact of new development on the need for schools. Parks: New development results in increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. There is currently no park within or near the Stoney Creek Basin planning area. These is a private golf course and quasi - public swimming pool located adjacent to the planning area. Also, Duke forest, located in the western portion of the planning area, provides opportunities such as biking and hiking in the planning area. The existing demand of current residents for recreational facilities has not been met which indicates that additional development will greatly increase the deficiency unless they are provided for in the planning process. The student committee addressed the following issue. First, they projected the future demand for parks and recreational facilities. Second, they compared the demand with the proposed parks by each design. Finally, they estimated the size of dedicated land by developers. After compiling this information, they concluded that the conventional design does not offer any guarantee that neighborhood parks would be provided. The proposed community park would be adequate to serve the entire planning area. In the Density - Neutral design, typical neighborhood parks will not be provided. Therefore, the existing deficit will not be mitigated, however, common green spaces would be able to serve as neighborhood parks with adequate design and facility installation. The proposed community park would be able to serve the entire planning area. In the Neo- Traditional Design, three neighborhood parks would be provided. One of them would serve existing neighborhoods in the planning area and the others could be used by adjacent residents outside of the planning area. Public Safety: The need for additional public safety services provided by police, fire and rescue squad departments also increases with additional population. The three design scenarios envision between one thousand and seven thousand new residents upon buildout. As the Basin grows and develops, staff increases of public safety officers will be needed to maintain or improve current levels of service. Public safety services are provided entirely by Orange County and volunteer departments. However, as the population of the Basin increases, portions of the area may be annexed into Hillsborough while other areas will continue to remain unincorporated. This will split the responsibility for service provision among two separate jurisdictions. Therefore, service levels provided by both governments were examined in order to determine the impacts. It was determined that each scenario would require an increase in both sheriff's deputies and police officers. The impacts on Fire and Rescue Squad protection would be minimal except for the Neo- Traditional design. Water & Sewer: The undeveloped portions of the planning area could be served by extending Hillsborough's existing water infrastructure. Individual wells or community water systems are also viable supply mechanisms for residential uses. The Conventional and Density - Neutral alternatives would receive adequate water from Hillsborough. The Neo - Traditional alternative would require that Hillsborough purchase water from Durham until the new reservoir was completed. Sewage service could also be served by Hillsborough. Septic disposal must contend with the soil limitations which occur throughout the site. On -site testing would be required to ensure septic disposal conditions were adequate before residential development would be approved by the Health Department. The Conventional design would cause no significant impact if individual septic systems were utilized. The Density- Neutral would also cause no significant impact. However, design modifications could be necessary to ensure adequate disposal conditions exist. The Neo - traditional design would cause significant impact which could be mitigated by proper planning. It-was also pointed out that the extension of water and sewer infrastructure to the site could stimulate development on adjacent undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels by relieving existing development constraints created by lack of these services. FISCAL IMPACTS: Travis Pollack reported on the potential fiscal impacts of the three design scenarios. He indicated that the Service Standard Approach was used. This method determines the total number of additional employees, by service function, required as a result of the development. This approach uses average county government costs per person, average school costs per pupil, an employee to population ratio, and average operating expenses per employee for each service category (such as policy, education, etc). Then these average costs are weighed against per capita and per pupil revenues to project the total net fiscal impact of the development. Pollack reported that all development scenarios generated a positive annual net fiscal impact. However, discussion followed about the necessity of including some additional costs, such as new schools. After reviewing the figures on the fiscal impacts of residential development, it was determined that some of the larger potential impacts, such as new schools, had not been included. With those items included, the projected fiscal impacts would be more in line with what Orange County has actually experienced, that new residential development does not pay for itself.. Thi - -s material will be reassessed and presented in the final report. The non - residential fiscal impact assessment indicated that both the Conventional and Neo- Traditional scenarios produced an annual positive net impact for County Government. However, Neo - Traditional produces a significantly larger net revenue per square foot. There was a brief review of the advantages and disadvantages of each design scenario. Commissioner Halkiotis thanked the students and Dr. Godschalk for their work on this project. Mr. Dave Yelton mentioned that the Martin Marietta property is being timbered within the next several weeks. Members of the immediate neighborhood are in negotiation with the owners in an attempt to purchase an adequate buffer. He requested information from anyone who had experience with issues such as these. There being no further business this meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, May 18, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. The location of this meeting will be determined and members notified in the next agenda packet. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN RURAL CHARACTER DESIGN SCENARIO Orange County Planning Department (Final Draft) May 10, 1995 STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN RURAL CHARACTER DESIGN SCENARIO The Rural Character Design Scenario has been prepared as an alternative for consideration by the Stoney Creek Area Plan Work Group. In this scenario, the recommended development options outlined by the Rural Character Study Committee in their 1993 report' Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange, have been used to create a plan for the undeveloped portions of the planning area. The data, suitability- analyses, maps and terminology (where applicable) is similar to those used by the UNC Land Use Planning workshop class for consistency. The Rural Character Study (initially titled the "Open Space Study ") began in November 1987 with the formation of a citizen's task force to work with an outside consultant in developing a plan to preserve and protect the County's Rural Character. The initial thrust of the project focused on the Rural Buffer area, culminating in a 1990 report, Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer. From 1990 -1992, the Committee developed a set of recommendations for the remaining rural areas of the County. The history of the study encompasses a number of milestones and events from 1987 - present. A chronology of the Rural Character Study is attached as Appendix A and is provided for background information on how the Study Committee came to its recommendations. Along with the goals and action strategies of the Rural Character Study, a series of development options; were proposed which would amend or replace current conventional and cluster zoning standards with a range of development options2. The options are shown in the following table: ' - In the Rural Buffer portion of the area, the 1990 Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer are used. In areas currently designated 20 -Year Transition, the Rural Character options do not apply and urban design alternatives are used. 2 - It is important to note that the choice of which development option to utilize under the Rural Character strategies is that of the property owner. Therefore, the design scenario created herein is only one version of what could occur under a Rural Character plan. 1 5 -Acre Lot Conventional 0.21 lots /acre 0 % required 2 -Acre Lot Conventional 0.51 lots /acre 0 % required 1 -Acre Lot Open -Space 0.8 lots /acre 20% Development (OSD) 3/4 -Acre Lot OSD 0.9 lots /acre 30% Half -Acre Lot OSD 1 1.0 lots /acre 1 40% 50% Open Space OSD 1.1 lots /acre 50% 1/3 -Acre Lot OSD 1.2 lots /acre 60% 1/4 -Acre Lot OSD 1 1.3 lots /acre 1 70% 5 1 -Ac lots per lot of record 1 51 -Acre lots I 0% Incentives, such as private roads, lower fees and expedited review, are provided on both ends of the development density spectrum, for five -acre lot development and for developments that preserve open space. These latter options, termed Open - Space Developments (or OSD's), utilize some common incentives plus a sliding scale of density bonuses based on the amount of land preserved in permanent (public or private) open space (see table above) . In the creation of this design scenario, the suitability analysis of the previously - developed Density - Neutral alternative was used, since it most closely resembles the goals and action strategies recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee. (A map of the suitability analysis can be found in the April 6 work group agenda). The initial step in preparation of this design scenario involved review of the Rural Character Study goals. Parameters and findings were developed based on the following approach. 2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Preserve agriculture: The preservation of agriculture was cited as an important component of the rural character and culture. Allowing farming in open space areas, while other parts of the farm are developed, was identified as a way to encourage agricultural activities while still allowing economic return for the farmer on his investment. 0 Protect natural and cultural resources: The protection of natural resources, as identified on inventories of habitats and significant sites, was found to be of critical importance, and OSD options provide means of protecting such sites in permanent open space while allowing development on other portions of sites. • Protect visual resources: The Committee found that much of the rural character that is noted by residents is visual - vistas, old farmsteads, barns, etc. The development options also offer means of preserving these resources in open space without sacrificing development rights on the land. • Manage orderly growth: The importance of orderly growth in rural areas was noted for planning of efficient service provision in rural areas, and to discourage suburban sprawl of subdivision after subdivision. • Provide flexibility for landowners: The Committee recognized the centuries of land stewardship by long -time landowners, and found that new development options and plans should provide flexibility for property owners through a variety of development styles - at the choice of the property owner. INVENTORY OF THE STATUS OUO Having reviewed the goals of the study, the design team examined the existing land use pattern in the area. In particular, the implications of the pattern on service provision and a comparison on existing patterns with Rural Character options were considered. Areas considered developable were then identified in the basin. ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN /OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS A survey of the area was conducted using the suitability analysis previously - mentioned and the concepts listed below to determine opportunities and constraints 3 for both preservation and development in the planning area. The following is a summary of some of the primary staff observations and concepts developed /used by staff. Agriculture • Need to focus on active and contiguous farmland. • Strayhorn farm is the only substantive operation in area. Natural (and Cultural) Resources • Duke Forest • Wildlife corridor along Stoney Creek • Identified natural areas in inventories • Number of historic properties /sites • Impact on schools /by schools Visual Resources • Vistas along New Hope Church Road, Old NC 10, I -85. • Guernsdale dairy; Strayhorn farm. • Encourage development off ridgelines and in wooded areas. Manage orderly growth • For efficient service provision, density should be generally higher in areas to north and west near Hillsborough, lower to south and east near Rural Buffer. • Any commercial activity should be internally- oriented. • The potential exists for master - planned project in center of area. • Explore potential for transit - compatible development around I -85 and Railroad. Flexibility for Landowners • Farming is allowed in open space. • Open -Space developments (OSD's) allow site design flexibility, potential for lower infrastructure costs, and use of otherwise unbuildable land. • Variety of development available at choice of landowner. • Address family lot and other concerns by using five one -acre lots per lot of record provision. • Others as outlined in RCS goals. 0 DESIGN PROCESS / ANALYSIS OF UNDEVELOPED AREAS To begin the physical design process, some important assumptions were made about the scenario: 1. Areas currently developed are assumed to remain in their current use (no redevelopment). 2. Undeveloped areas in the "Transition Area" to northwest are not within the Rural Character Studv by definition, and should instead be developed under an urban scheme in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Assume a general pattern of decreasing density moving south and east from Hillsborough. To develop the Rural Character plan, undeveloped areas were evaluated on the basis of the above variables (including physical man -made and natural features), and were combined into "project sites." These sites were based not necessarily on property lines, but on the potential for coordinated development - combining a landlocked parcel with an adjacent one, for example. Nineteen sites were identified for potential development, and were labeled "A" through "S" (sites "E" and "F" are developed in conjunction with each other). All 18 development sites were evaluated in the following manner: • Locational analysis • General site opportunities and constraints • Physical site analysis •Location of prioritized "important features" with RCS goals •Estimate of development yield • Selection of "best" development option • Investigation of alternative patterns DESIGN RESULTS The following tables outline some of the notes and observations of staff as the plan was developed. The sites were planned working generally west to east in the order shown. Following the site tables are tables showing cumulative results of the design. CM e eee■ e e� C* m CIO bgm G3 co Amm COD � 1= C my — cyan U-5 v-v c ais c � o o CD CD as o 0 Ly aB c�v Cl o n _n cC> <3 �' Q -CC �1 CP a �a SITE: "N" LOCATION: West side of NC 86, across from new Middle School. ACREAGE: 5 acres NOTES: Low topo near road, limited frontage on NC 86. Probably would utilize 5 1 -acre lot provision. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 4 lots Use "Five one -acre lots per lot of record" - yield probably four lots because of road frontage, buffer and topo. ALTERNATIVES: Cluster doesn't gain anything. Could do two two -acre lots. SITE: "O" LOCATION: North side of Old NC 10, between mobile home park and across from Chandler Concrete. ACREAGE: 13 acres NOTES: Good topo, few constraints. Inside Transition Area and Major Transportation Corridor. Water and sewer available. No preservation sites. With location - and service availability - could address affordable housing here with "Culbreth Park" style development (small -lot single family in $40 -75K range). Avoid power lines in design. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: Develop 9,000 square foot lots with water and sewer. 100 - buffer (54 urban lots) along I -85 - effectively 150 feet. 0.69 acres not able to use. Save (45 urban lots) two lots for "tot lot ". Yields 54 lots averaging 9000 square feet. ALTERNATIVES: Could step down density, but is adjacent to dense MHP. This is place where density may be appropriate. Could also go with multi - family attached housing. SITE: "P" LOCATION: South side of Old NC 10, east of Joppa Oaks and west of Byrdsville MHP. ACREAGE: 11 acres NOTES: In Transition Area. Access is a problem, must cross RR if access from Old 10. Lot of density around the site. Could be a park - but access? Creek and railroad buffers would apply. Could get access from Workman Drive in Joppa Oaks. Access would be from single - family area - don't cross RR, come from west. Could pursue infill development as extension of Joppa Oaks in keeping with character of area. 50 -foot buffer along railway. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: Develop 9,000 s.f. lots with water and sewer. 50- buffer along (45 urban lots) rail. Keep 2 lots as tot lots, yield 45 lots at 9000 square feet. 7 ALTERNATIVES: Could cluster, or do high- density multi - family. Could develop consistent with Joppa Oaks density - 15,000 s.f. lots (would yield 27 15K lots and 1 tot lot). SITE: "B" LOCATION: Between Strayhorn Hills and I -85. Includes portion of Duke Forest residual land (trade with adjacent land to west). ACREAGE: 159 acres NOTES: Located in Transition Area, except for NE corner. Water at site, but no sewer. Drainage a concern. Steep slopes on eastern buffer. Power line and I -85 present. Could cluster off ridge. RCS options do not apply except for small corner. Preserve open space to east (slopes, pond) and cluster higher density to west. Greenway to west along stream? Use 8 acres along NC 10 as park. Access via Duke Forest parcel to NC 10, and via Strayhorn Hills. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: Even through RCS doesn't apply, site lends itself to urban -scale (279 urban lots) OSD. Do 15,000 s. f. lots and 33 % open space as patterned above. 52 acres in open space (35 to north /east, 17 along stream). 107 acres for development - assume high infrastructure (10%). ALTERNATIVES: Yields 279 lots averaging slightly over 1/3 acre. ALTERNATIVES: Since transition, could pack density in tight with less open space. Could expand park. SITE: "D " LOCATION: Northeast corner of basin, between I -85 and RR, east of University Station Road on Stony Creek. ACREAGE: 33 Acres NOTES: Substantial development constraints on site, and constraints are concentrated to west. Located on RR tracks - transit station? (Works location -wise, but not enough density around it). Isolated from rest of area, creek is extension of wildlife corridor coming out of former University Station project. 50% of site in constraints (floodplain and wildlife corridor). Adjacent to several mobile home parks. Access would have to cross creek and floodplain (and wildlife corridor). DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 39 lots Lends itself to substantial OSD. Use 60% open space/ 1/3 -acre lot option. Yields 39 lots on 13.2 buildable acres averaging almost 1/3 acre. 19.8 acres in open space. ALTERNATIVES: Extension of public sewer necessary assumption, but cost? No room for alternative system. Could extend MHP from west to help pay for bridge entrance. May not be a good project from economic standpoint. • SITE: "E" LOCATION: Eastern part of area, east of University Station RR spur. Narrow access to Old NC 10. ACREAGE: 37 Acres NOTES: Poor soils across site. Needs sewer or potential very limited. Little frontage for access. RR buffer required. East part of tract bisected by power line. Split by Chapel Hill and Eno Townships. Other than soils, no other constraints. Could use a narrow country lane entrance. Use OS as a buffer along RR to west and power DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: line to east, cluster in middle. Assume sewer available. Combine ALTERNATIVES: with Site F to west, and develop in conjunction. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 49 16ts Soils lend to OSD. Use 40% OSD, and combine with "F" - putting all lots on site "E ". Thus 49 total acres and 49 lots allowed on 29.5 acres (average 26,314 s.f.). Open space of 19.5 acres. No lots on "F" part of site. ALTERNATIVES: Conventional two -acre would provide lower lot yield, as soils constraints may make lots larger. Could do a 60% OSD with tighter cluster. SITE: "F" LOCATION: Eastern part of area, landlocked between existing development and railroad spur. Contiguous to site "E" across railway. ACREAGE: 12 Acres NOTES: Poor soils cover site. Access a big problem. Only possibility is via private drive - but may be no easement possibility. Best option is to develop in conjunction with "E" (see above). Allows development to be coordinated with site "E ", keeping this in open space - as playing fields, perhaps? DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: Develop with site "E" (see above). No lots on "F" part of site. ALTERNATIVES: Only chance is to negotiate easement to University Station Road. If so, then need sewer and could do OSD. SITE: "G" LOCATION: Eastern part of area, between University Station Road and RR spur. ACREAGE: 12 Acres NOTES: Poor soils on part of site. Railroad spur and University Station Road isolate site. Creek in northeast corner of site, slopes 10% and up in area around creek. Near Windy Hill development. FJ DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 8 lots Given isolated nature and distribution of constraints, pursue a conventional two -acre lot option. Assuming use of five one -acre lots provision, total lot yield is 8 lots averaging 1.4 acres. No viable open space or sites to be preserved. ALTERNATIVES: OSD may not be economically feasible. Conventional seems most appropriate. May have some difficulty getting yield even with "five one -acre lots per lot of record" because of soils. SITE: "I" LOCATION: "Bubble" site in between constraints, wrapping from University Station to Rigsbee Road. Undeveloped portions of multiple lots. ACREAGE: 18 Acres NOTES: Slopes and creek pose a constraint in middle of site. Access to Rigsbee Road problematic. Should be able to cross a draw and DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 11 lots use back portion for lots. Need to protect frontage on Riggsbee with open space - creates nice entrance way with pasture and creek at entrance. Do OSD and cluster next to slopes. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 16 lots Lends itself to OSD. Use 30% option with conservation easements. 5.52 acres of open space, with 16 lots on 12.1 acres (32,942 s.f. average lot). Protect frontage, creeks and slopes in open space - makes nice entrance vista. ALTERNATIVES: Could pursue a tighter cluster with 50 % OS. Conventional development at 2 -acre lots could work, but only 9 lots. SITE: "C" LOCATION: Across New Hope Church Road from University Station project, bounded on west by Duke Forest. ACREAGE: 36 Acres NOTES: Few constraints, lot of frontage and much open land. Creek runs across front, but no soils problems. Adjacent to large -lot homes. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 11 lots Doing an OSD with so much open, developable land may not be practical. In keeping with character of surroundings, do five -acre lot incentive option (with five one -acre lot package). Total yield is 11 lots averaging 3.04 acres, with no dedicated open space (but substantial private open space). Appears to be a market for five- acre lots in this area. Shorter roads, amenity of being adjacent to Duke Forest further makes case. ALTERNATIVES: Two -acre conventional a viable alternative, close second. Open - space developments could be done, but houses would lie in open field. 10 SITE: "J" LOCATION: East side of NC 86. Site lies between New Hope Elementary and ACREAGE: new middle school. ACREAGE: 56 Acres NOTES: Lies between schools sites, about half shows poor soils - most on NOTES: frontage of site. Slopes exist on site although not shown along double - knoll. About 50 foot rise from 600' frontage on NC 86. Lot of rock in area, installing water /sewer could be costly. Recreation field to north and south. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 61 lots A tough call. With schools and field on either side, question of DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 68 lots most appropriate density /pattern comes into play. Best site for lots is in middle, with open space conservation easement along back of knoll (connector trail for school kids ?). Second access point needed - Benton Drive? Investigate all options for this site. All ALTERNATIVES: things considered, select 50% open -space development with 61 lots on 28 acres (18,595 s.f. average lot), and 28 acres of open space protecting slopes on knoll. Other options close second. ALTERNATIVES: Two -acre conventional, five -acre lots and 30% open space all make a case. Ultimately, after site constraints, what pattern is best between two schools? SITE: "K" LOCATION: East side of NC 86, with some access. Wraps around back of ACREAGE: existing lots, bounded by Stoneycreek development on east, Duke Forest to north, middle school to south. ACREAGE: 68 Acres NOTES: Lot of developed land in area. Duke Forest to the north provides pocket between creek and forest. Soils generally good. Creek and slopes provide constraint /opportunity in middle of site. Could use road from commercial use on NC 86 to avoid crossing stream with new road. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 68 lots Tailor -made for OSD. Pursue 40 % OSD using land between Duke Forest and stream to enhance and "expand" open space feel. 68 lots with average lot size of 23,522 s.f. Open space totals 27.2 acres. best developed in two phases with south side (50 lots) first. ALTERNATIVES: Two -acre conventional, perhaps 30% open -space (although may have to have closer to 40 %). SITE: "M" LOCATION: West side of NC 86, across from "K ". ACREAGE: 45 Acres 11 NOTES: Mobile home park wraps around back and side of site. Some open space in the MHP - coordinate with this. Across from commercial uses on NC 86. Creek, with poor soils and slopes in middle, is best place for open space. With moderate - density in area and potential open space, 50% OSD may be feasible. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 49 lots At 50% OSD, protect stream and areas in middle of site, with lots on either side. Using "five one -acre lots" provision, total yield is 49 lots averaging 18,602 s.f., with 22.5 acres in open space. ALTERNATIVES: Low- density probably not appropriate given location. Possibility of a tighter OSD with 60 % OS exists. SITE: LOCATION: West side of NC 86, boundary of basin - adjacent to Hillsborough -scale developments. Adjacent on western boundary to I -40 /Old 86 Economic Development District (EDD). ACREAGE: 94 Acres NOTES: Northern-most developable land on NC 86, close to higher- density areas due north in Hillsborough. Very little constraints and no real open space of significance. Adjacent to higher density uses and EDD - has a lot in common with Transition Areas to north. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 75 lots Since no open space of significance, choices are 1) 20% OSD protecting little more than an entrance vista, or 2) conventional development utilizing "five one -acre lots" and two -acre lots on remainder. Yield would be: 20 % OSD - 75 lots averaging 43,676 square feet with 18.8 acres of open space, or Conventional - 49 lots averaging 83,500 square feet with no open space. Go with 20% OSD to achieve density in this locale. Yield is 75 lots averaging one -acre, with 18.8 acres of open space. ALTERNATIVES: Place in Transition area and do higher density? 50 % OSD gets 1.1 units /acre, but what to protect as open space? There are several assumptions and special notes that are specific to the final five sites "A ", "H", "Q", "R ", "S ": 1. Sewer can be extended to projects that preserve open space. 2. Site yield for site "R" (Strayhorn farm) will be created via an actual site design. 3. Site "S" incorporates existing very-large lot development on Cedar Pass. 4. All of site "Q" and 40% of "R" lie in the Rural Buffer. 12 SITE: "A" LOCATION: University Station project site. I -85 to RR'spur, New Hope Church Road to University Station Road. ACREAGE: 852 Acres NOTES: Substantial previous research on site documents historic NOTES: properties, wildlife corridor, two scenic vistas and meadows present on site. Stoney Creek bisects site. Slopes present in northern portion of area, I -85 vista to south along border. Golf course a potential land use. Scale and location of site has potential for multi- phase, planned community development. Wetlands present on site. Other constraints and site analysis as noted in previous efforts on this site. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 852 lots Use opportunity to master plan development. Pursue plan similar to Fearrington Village, with internally - scaled service and commercial activities like market, bank, restaurant, and bookstore located in small internal community center. Remainder of site to be developed in phases with golf course and mixture of single - family lots of 1/4 to 1 -acre, townhomes along golf course, and garden apartments. 1. All of above could be accomplished under 40 % OSD option. Project yield would be 852 housing units (generally 100 two -acre lots, 270 half -acre lots, 160 quarter -acre lots near the community center, 80 fairway townhomes, and 160 -unit garden apartment complex). Total open space 340 acres (golf course land counts 50% toward open space). ALTERNATIVES: Soils appear to be able to support conventional development, however, scale of development could impact aquifer recharge. Higher OSD's yield more open space, but smaller lot sizes. 40% OSD a compromise. SITE: "H" LOCATION: Due east of University Station project site, borders University Station Road on east. Borders Old NC 10 on north, touches Rigsbee Road on south. ACREAGE: 105 Acres NOTES: Historic property located on site. Creek with significant slopes on west, band of poor soils to south. Property has been recently timbered. Access to Old NC 10 could make for attractive entranceway to development. Could be marketed as high -end development adjacent to large lots and possibly golf course in University Station. This, plus location on eastern fringe of area may make case for larger lot development. 13 DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 55 lots Larger -lot single - family appears best option. Close call between five -acre lots with incentives, or two -acre conventional. Go with two -acre average lots (plus five "one -acre" lots) - yield is 55 lots averaging 1.77 acres in size. If golf course in vicinity, could design lots to borrow vistas and views. ALTERNATIVES: Five -acre lots a viable alternative, would yield 21 lots. Open - space development a possibility, but given location conventional two -acre may be more marketable and feasible. SITE: "S" LOCATION: Cedar Pass Road area south to railroad spur, located southwest of University Station project. ACREAGE: 155 Acres NOTES: Combination of several unbuilt lots or large lots with single NOTES: house. Access is a big concern. Large lots with houses may have covenants restricting further development, but not known at this time. Lack of easement or road maintenance agreement for Cedar Pass makes access via University Station project important. This project may not be able to occur until site "A" develops. Undeveloped lots to west contain creek and slopes, band of poor soils in center. Pond located in north - center. Access to Powder Mill Road, but use unlikely. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 35 lots Five -acre lots may be most in keeping with area character. Lower - density OSD a possibility as well. Go with five -acre lots (with five one -acre lots). Yield is 35 lots averaging 4.1 acres in size. Use conservation easements in northern part of site to protect pond, slopes. ALTERNATIVES: 30% OSD with 0.9 lots per acre a possible alternative. OS could cover northern and western areas with constraints. Would produce 139 lots averaging 3/4 -acre in size. SITE: "T LOCATION: West side of NC 86 on both sides of New Hope Church Road. In Rural Buffer. Multiple properties combined for potential coordinated development. ACREAGE: 47 Acres NOTES: Site is in Rural Buffer. Historic structure (maybe two) located on sites. Bands of poor soils wrap around west and south. Best land at intersection. OSD would need public sewer, not enough land for nitrification fields. Could use OS to protect historic sites. Located adjacent to Camp New Hope /church - use OS to connect with camp /church property? Because of soils distribution, OSD most feasible and productive alternative. 14 DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 33 lots Place all development yield from total site together - focus on LOCATION: south side. Two OSD options in RB package - one -acre lots with 40 %, and half -acre lots with 67 %. Both could work. Close, but select 67 % option because of large areas of poor soils. Would ACREAGE: allow to focus open space on south side to connect with Camp NOTES: New Hope and put smaller lots in narrow area of site - adjacent to open space. Yields 33 lots at 19,034 square feet. ALTERNATIVES: 40% OSD would yield 28 one -acre lots, but lots would likely need sewer because of soils constraints. Could do conventional two -acre lots with 23 lots. SITE: "R" LOCATION: Strayhorn farm plus landlocked tract to south. East side of NC 86 on south side of New Hope Church Road. Part of site in Rural Buffer. ACREAGE: 172 Acres total NOTES: Part of site is in Rural Buffer and development in this area must meet RB options. Scenic vista, active farmland and 10 -acre lake on northern part of site along New Hope Church Road. Significant natural area on southern tract - chestnut oak forest with wild turkey population. Soils in interior and far south with restricted development potential. Spring located to northeast along creek. Pastureland extends south and east, hogs in center of site. DEVELOPMENT /YIELD: 35 lots Most viable alternatives are five -acre lots with incentives, two - acre lots or one -acre OSD. Location of site adjacent to Rural Buffer and farthest away from urban areas should make larger -lot development marketable. High density neither desired by owner nor consistent with locale. Go with 5 -acre lots. See site design for specifics on option and yield. ALTERNATIVES: 30% OSD on non -Rural Buffer part would yield around 126 lots averaging slightly over 3/4 -acre in size. Conventional two -acre lot development could be pursued on all of site yielding approximately 85 lots - but lake and vista may be carved up. 15 ;t ^j L� 1 44) N yy •� 4�i �v � o o Z - •}� �'�I � ?• t ,..... .. nL cif_ � - .:a. _ �`r�'� F'�� • 'air er• �; a �, i; � x ' r _. �. ti, 'rrA 15:�• i y�a� {� ,YS�'�[y�'G�y �rs��v �' - � � d s C r 1 f/' GJ ul �G t� Lo ef 1 LO •• v c+i, • . Cl V� .. N Z-ft Q '161 o � N ■ �j W ON ■ tp ca t tD in m ■ r7 c+i % � t i ■ ■ CD ■ i% tD eV - N � ■ t+rj ` ■ ■ CO � ■ M cq N ■ 7 m ■ o� 41 CUMULATIVE DESIGN RESULTS The following tables indicate 1) the totals generated by this design exercise, and 2) a "sensitivity analysis" to see what other alternatives would yield. Under the staff design, approximately 32 % of the area would be preserved as permanent open space (not including private open space preserved in five -acre lot developments). A total of 1,391 lots would be created at a gross density of one lot per 1.3 acres. If the urban developments in sites B, O, and P are added in, the total number of lots rises to 1,769 lots on 1,936 acres. In comparison with the previous alternatives presented by the UNC students, the number of lots generated in this design is higher than the two -acre conventional and density - neutral alternatives. There are three important distinctions in this design process that explain a great deal of the difference in lot yields. First, the previous alternatives did not plan urban -scale development in the Transition Area sites. The Rural Character strategies do not apply in these areas, and they are targeted for urban services and urban -scale development. Therefore, this Rural Character design develops these areas at just over two lots per acre. Second, the previous alternatives assume that 15% of the buildable land is taken "off the _ top" as an infrastructure assumption, yielding a considerably smaller amount of land available for residential use. A number of actual site designs over the years in the Rural Character Study have indicated that the percentage of land needed for infrastructure in these options is considerably lower, on the order of 6% to 8%. The infrastructure multiplier for this design was computed on a case - by -case basis, ranging from 6% to 10%. There are no planned new roads that would increase this percentage, and most easements for utilities could be incorporated in the open space without additional infrastructure acreage needs. Finally, the site -by -site design analysis resulted in the selection of a higher ratio of open -space developments. Since the choice of development style is that of the property owner, it is likely that the area will develop with a different "mix" of development options, which could substantially alter the total number of lots and open space created. A second table follows the site design table which shows the potential lot yield under each of the Rural Character development options, ranging from 380 lots under the 5 -acre lot option to 2,507 lots under the 1/4 -acre OSD. 19 TOTAL. NUMBER OF NEW 19391 DWE,Y.IIG UNITS .....: (1,769)4 - Does not include nrivate oven space which might be nresery easements as part of five -acre lot developments. ation a - The 378 lots on 183 acres of Transition Area development not included (shown in parentheses). Note: Difference in totals explained by rounding of site acreage. May 10, 1995 W z cn CL W LLI �Cz'30 Q J J W Z QUO C) W 0- YUO LLI W Z U = W U� W _j O O > 0 N CA r O CA 00 Lo CD T Co Lo CA � LO M LO CD : r a) Ce) Lid CD C*) LO l` T M d' LO T CO CO f� 't LO It M ce) cy) CD d�t- p� N L) C9 -7U) T L► / V d T T Q� A � CD N CO CO LO co N 00 NN 00 CD CD Nt I LO N N O Lo i o:: Q m W E. Q) O CZ M:: c A N oo MCA00�CDT I� .- N d- CD Lo M CD M CD CD NNOJd'min NNCDm in rrLf7r0o T 0) (V M _:. O 3 •U) N X — .,.: cn .. O Q C:: Q +_ Q _ U O I� �t CA CD M Co Lo c) ,- ct M CA Lo d' N T^- Lo c) O TMT M M Lr) T T T CD 1_ O d" T T La / (M 1- �: N X L. C ,,AA Ca: (1) Q� O N o m Q U U .a ' � � >I7 � N Lynn CD M M CA 'Ct N LID O 00 CD 00 It LO Ln CY) 00 CO M r T LO CO M �' T T I M 1 i � T T T T a) c V .,....'� CU:� Qm A CpM NCn 't Od'CDOrd'OCf'T -CANOO M N 't M Lo CD M d' T BCD C'7 :3 O c C/) �� (C13 o CO 4-1 ( U) v. ca m OONNNM r�- CC) CD CA rn 'Cl d- .1 LO CD d- O 00 r COT �nI�M MCN M o a) La/ .Q..�� w .O �//^� VJ > L cn a) G cn Q CTJ ca CA000D'tLnNOOtI`NN CDLnMAI` n7 co LN t� N In N M d' N N 00 1` C/) CL (1) v1 0 0O p O U) U(DU U O d co O o I— I OONCA O c. - + C) OMNrMTM00C ,- NNMLo.,- O T co N r T T M CO CO N M .. O Q N > N to ca — cn () _ -0 — >' a) o �_ a) Q cn co a) a)cc� mO ^ U �m�DMMNLnc ^ .-. ow"t4LnMTI`�Ln ^ v a) a) o � > � � � cn a) O.T..�CD�d'...Trd'�rtoQ � �ii� CO to > O �ln 4c M I— cn c� c rA Qmc�owC'3 =_�YJ�Z0CLa ccn l— OCDz E --UI -- -� APPENDIX A CHRONOLOGY OF THE RURAL CHARACTER STUDY November 1987 Citizen task force created to study open space issues in the Rural Buffer. Planning consultant Lane Kendig of Chicago later selected as consultant. March 1988 - September 1989 Committee and consultant hold information meetings in Townships, with mixed reviews from citizens. Committee broadens focus, changes name to Rural Character Study Committee. Consultant analyzes data and prepares preliminary recommendations. October 10, 1989 Consultant presents preliminary recommendations to Planning Board, recommending site evaluation system and range of development styles for implementation, including Rural Estate areas and a 20 -acre lot zoning category, among others. November 1989 Committee and consultant meet at Colonial Inn with County /Hillsborough elected officials. January 11, 1990 Consultant presents preliminary recommendations to Chapel Hill, Carrboro and County elected officials. Many citizens in attendance express dissatisfaction with consultant's preliminary recommendations; meeting is adjourned (after tempers flare) due to unproductive nature of dialogue. January 17, 1990 Committee meets, decides to take different direction with study. Subcommittees formed to meet and listen to citizens in rural areas on goals /needs of study. Second subcommittee begins created to draft goals and action strategies for Rural Buffer plan based on comments received. February 1990 Community meetings held across County with - citizens to make a fresh start and gather resident input into goals and what plan should encompass. April 1990 Committee meets in Rural Buffer with area residents at two meetings to discuss draft goals and strategies, and solicit citizens ideas. May 1990 Draft recommendations developed as a report, titled Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer. Draft receives positive reception at a final meeting with Rural Buffer residents. August 30, 1990 Conceptual Guidelines... presented at Joint Public Hearing in Chapel Hill before elected officials from Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Proposal receives positive reviews from both urban and rural speakers. September 1990 Committee begins informational meetings about second phase of study - Rural Orange. Fall 1990 Conceptual Guidelines... adopted by Carrboro Board of Aldermen and recommended for approval by Chapel Hill Planning Board. Chapel Hill Town Council defers action until concerns over alternative sewer system overview addressed (which does not occur until 1994). November 1990 Committee holds informational meetings in rural Townships to discuss next steps and solicit citizen ideas on goals and strategies for Rural Orange. January 1991 Strategies Subcommittee begins work on draft recommendations for Rural Orange, using Rural Buffer report as guide and adding comments from Committee and citizens. April 1991 Committee begins consideration of goals and action strategies. Draft recommendations prepared for community meetings. May 1991 Countywide Citizen Information Session held in Hillsborough. Meeting is facilitated and small groups meet to address basic concepts of draft plan and identify concerns /issues of rural residents. June 1991 Committee discusses draft and revises based on Info Session comments. August - December 1991 In response to issues raised about economic feasibility and carrying capacity, further action is delayed to address issues. Reports prepared on economic feasibility of draft development options, open space tax incentives, and potential buildout analysis of rural areas. February 1992 Final version of reports presented to Committee. Committee begins preparation of revised recommendations. April 1992 Third round of community meetings held to gather comment on revised draft. May -June 1992 Draft of Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange prepared and presented to Committee. July- October 1992 In response to issues /concerns, further revisions made to draft. October 22, 1992 Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange adopted by Committee, to be forwarded for November public hearing. November 17, 1992 Citizen Information Session held in Hillsborough, with mixed reviews from citizens. November 23, 1992 Rural Orange recommendations presented at public hearing. Item is on same agenda as University Station item, and most comments relate to planned community development options in report. Most speakers praise study, but recommend changes to Rural Village /Planned Community development options. December 1992 Committee considers public comment from hearing and makes revisions to report/recommendations. January 21, 1993 Committee adopts final version of Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange, completing its charge. Late - January 1993 Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange presented to Planning Board, which endorses package - but recommends that one -acre lot conventional development be added to proposal. Board of Commissioners consider the proposal two days later, and call for worksession. March 1993 Worksession held with Planning Board and BOCC. Both groups agree to solicit further citizen input on identified issues via community meetings. January 1994 After an eight -month delay for consideration and adoption of watershed plans, facilitated community meetings held across County. 52 citizens attend, and recommend some changes but endorse overall plan. May -June 1994 Report on community meetings presented to Board of Commissioners. Matter referred to Planning Board. June 30, 1994 Public hearing by Board of Commissioners is " held on proposal to rezone rural areas to two -acre lot zoning. Comment on concepts of cluster, mandatory open space and density bonuses also heard. Majority of speakers oppose the two -acre zoning proposal. July 1994 Planning Board considers the proposals and community meeting comment, beginning a series of meetings to identify issues and discuss alternatives. These meetings lead to creation of the "Flexible Development" proposal.