Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-23-2004-CORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 23, 2004 Action Agenda Item No. C SUBJECT: Outreach Report of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element Update Process DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): Outreach Report of the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element Update Process (Appendix E, Staff Responses to Township Meeting Questions, to be completed and forwarded under separate cover) PUBLIC HEARING:- (Y /N) No A. INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Director, ext. 2592 Tom Altied, Planner III, ext. 2579 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 336 - 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To receive a report on the public outreach meetings that were conducted during March and April of this year as part of the informal input process for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Update. The main purposes of the report are: (1) to provide a summary of the outreach process; (2) to respond to questions and comments that were voiced during the process; and (3) to convey how Staffs ideas have changed thus far as a result of public input. BACKGROUND: During March and April of 2004, Planning Department Staff conducted a meeting in each of the County's seven townships to receive public input on Staffs ideas for the Land Use Element update. At the outreach meetings, Staff recorded citizens' questions and comments and also distributed a survey to measure citizens' preferences for which "issues of concern" are most significant in Orange County, Staff considered citizens' questions and comments and tabulated their preferences in order to prepare this outreach summary, which will serve as the official Staff response. The following provides an outline of the topics discussed in the Report: I. Introduction a. Purpose of Outreach b. Description of the Land Use Element c. Citizen Participation and Outreach in Orange County Ga'wyq hmsi,e Miming Di, GENUS 004 Pub lie Ncannps ',Up'_3'Wo,k SnesildOM=Ich 9nm131an,084196x AbstracWcm Outreach Process a. Advertising the Outreach Meetings b. Outreach Meetings c. Outreach Meeting Attendance d. Staff Responses to Township Meeting Questions e. Outreach Survey Results f. Land Use Element Map Amendment Requests III. Results /Conclusions a. What Was Learned b. Outreach Outcomes c. Next Steps The Outreach Report (attached) will also be provided on the County's website under "Comprehensive Planning / Land Use Element Update / Township Meetings ". All individuals who attended outreach meetings and provided a mailing address will be notified of the Report's availability. Copies of the report are also available for public review at the Planning Department. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION(S): For informational purposes. GCGnm pre hcnsicc I9muiine Pie'GLMi do(W I'vhlie 1 23 %\ (jr), Sussinnfluircuch Summary` *0904 Ahsinftdnc Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Update art Of �r Lira Prepared for Board of County Commissioners / Planning Board Joint Work Session Held August 23, 2004 at Judge F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 5 "Vd 1 OT i 5 Table of Contents 1. Introduction A. Purpose of Outreach B. Description of the Land Use Element C. Citizen Participation and Outreach in Orange County I1. Outreach Process A. Advertising the Outreach Meetings B. Outreach Meetings C. Outreach Meeting Attendance D. Staff Responses to Township Meeting Questions E. Outreach Survey Results F. Land Use Element Map Amendment Requests III. Results /Conclusions A. What Was Learned B. Outreach Outcomes C. Next Steps Appendix A - Newspaper Advertisement Appendix B - Posted Bulletin Appendix C - Map of Posted Bulletin Locations Advertising Township Meetings Appendix D - Township Meeting Issues Survey Appendix E - Staff Responses to Township Meeting Questions (To Be Completed) Appendix F - Comparison of Density Regulations Before and After Outreach Process I. Introduction Purpose of Outreach This outreach summary describes the process of and results from gathering citizen feedback to update the Land Use Element (LUE) of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department held a series of public outreach meetings to inform the public of Staffs ideas for updating the LUE. These ideas were designed to improve air and water quality, reduce traffic congestion and limit sprawl in Orange County. The outreach meetings were also held to collect citizen input on the update process and draft of the LUE by garnering citizens' perspectives on existing and future conditions in the County. This public outreach process follows years of input from committees and task forces. At the outreach meetings, Staff recorded citizens' questions and comments and also distributed a survey to measure citizens' preferences for which "issues of concern" are most significant in Orange County. Staff also accepted requests for mapped zoning amendments to the LUE during this process. Staff researched scenarios and analyzed data pertaining to citizens' questions and comments and then tabulated their survey preferences in order to prepare this outreach summary. Also included in this report is a discussion of how public outreach has shaped staffs recommendations. This outreach document will be presented in its entirety to the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners in August of 2004. Furthermore, this report is available for public review: (1) on the county's website http• / /www co orange.nc.us under Comprehensive Planning / Land Use Element / Township Meetings, and (2) at the Planning Department (306F Revere Rd., Hillsborough). Staff sent a notice to all citizens who attended the outreach meetings thanking them for their participation and informing them about where to review a copy of this report. 1 -A -1 I, I. Introduction Description of the Land Use Element The public outreach process is an important component of the process to update the LUE of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a support document that sets goals, objectives and policies that guides regulation decisions concerning development and redevelopment throughout the County. Although there are several elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Element is the unifying component that spatially links the other elements. These other elements include the following: • Transportation • Housing • Economic Development • Open Space (includes natural resources) • Recreation • Services and Facilities • Water Resources The LUE sets policy guidelines to determine what types of use and /or development should occur and where in Orange County each type of development is most appropriate. To ensure an appropriate and desirable pattern of land use, Orange County must coordinate its land use guidelines with other Comprehensive Plan components and base them upon projections about the future state of the County. The LUE is based on an analysis of economic and demographic forces contributing to the existing land use pattern and forecasts future conditions. It presumes that the County can exert some measure of control over its future character by understanding the factors, which defined its past and present character. Analyzing social, environmental and economic factors allows the County to make conscious decisions about what is desirable and appropriate concerning the future management, growth and development of Orange County. I-B -1 I. Introduction Citizen Participation I Outreach Essential to this decision- making process about the future character of the County is the participation of Orange County citizens in the land use planning process. Shaping Orange County's Future (SOCF) was a countywide community outreach effort of seven years that began identifying changes resulting from growth and challenges associated with future growth. More recently, Planning Staff has conducted outreach meetings to inform the public of its current land use ideas and to collect constructive feedback on the LUE before formally presenting it to the Planning Board and County Commissioners. This public outreach process is a valuable base resource of community ideas that can also help shape the future of Orange County. The citizen participation strategy adopted by Orange County considers the citizen involvement experience as one that provides the opportunity for achieving a more responsive and effective public decision- making process. It is through the open and inclusive participation of the County residents that broad support of the Orange County Comprehensive Land Use Element and process and its effective implementation can be assured. The primary legal tools for implementing the LUE are the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, which serve as the means to achieve desired land uses and development patterns. Other freestanding ordinances also provide avenues for implementation, such as the Open Burning, Erosion Control and Adequate Public Facilities' Ordinances (APFO). INFORMAL PROCESS Orange County provides an informal citizen input process (as shown in Table 1) and a formal method for offering input for the LUE. The informal public input process began as early as 1990 with task forces and boards appointed to study land use in Orange County. Over twenty meetings were held with appointed boards to discuss ideas prior to outreach. The County will continue to collect informal input until a Public Hearing on the LUE is held.. I -C -1 I to 1. Introduction During the informal input process, eight public township meetings were conducted throughout the county, where Planning Staff presented its ideas and then fielded questions and comments from citizens. Planning staff also distributed a survey at the conclusion of each township meeting to gauge the most important development - related issues to county residents and received requests for zoning amendments. Staff has prepared answers to these fielded questions and tabulated results from the survey; both of these items are presented in this outreach summary, along with a response to the zoning amendment requests. This document concludes with an official response to the citizen input collected during the informal outreach process. Citizens will have an additional opportunity to provide formal input during a public hearing with County Commissioners later this year. This opportunity for formal public input will last until the Planning Board has made its recommendation and the LUE is brought back to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. I -C -2 I. Introduction Table 1 LUE Update Process Activity Informal Formal Timeframe Input Input Boards/Task Forces /Studies RCS, SOCF, Water X 1990-2003 Resources, and UNRBA Rot. Compilation by Staff and Data collection & analysis X 1999 - Present Planning Board CPLUC Reviewed data, X June '02 — challenges, 64 tools, & Jan. '03 selected tools for use in OC Planning Board (PB) Input Staff updates /feedback at X 1999 - Present and Review Develop Professional mt s. Assimilate info &offer X March '03 - Solution options Present Policy Choices Presentation Advisory Presentation format X Jan. '04 Committee C.1..1 Outreach Township Mtgs. X March — April '04 C.1 _,2 Report Outreach X Aug. 23,'04 Findings to BOCC and PB Feedback From citizens, BOCC, and X March — PB Dec. '04 Recompile Policy Choices Based on feedback X May — Sept. '04 Final Draft Consideration given to any X Aug. '04 additional PB feedback Quarterly Public Hearing Present final X Sept. - Nov. '04 recommendations Feedback at Hearing Citizens, BOCC & PB X Sept. - Nov. '04 PB Recommendation to X Sept. — Nov. '04 BOCC BOCC Consideration Approve, approve with X Sept. — Nov, '04 amendments, or den I -C -3 ll. Outreach Process Advertising the Outreach Meetings The advertisements requested that citizens attend at least one of the seven township meetings to listen to Staffs ideas regarding changes to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and to offer insight and comments to improve its update process. The planning department used five different medias to advertise for its seven township meetings. 1. Newspaper Advertisements (see Appendix A for a sample) 2. Posted Bulletins (see Appendix B) 3. Direct Mailings 4. E -mails 5. Public Announcements NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS The planning department ran advertisements for the seven township meetings in the three local newspapers listed below in Table 2. The advertisements ran three times in each paper, for a total of 102,000 circulated advertisements. T ill 2 a e Newspaper Circulation Dates News of Orange 3/10, 3/17, and 4/7/04 1" County 7,500 (Wednesdays) News of Orange County 500 3/9, 3/16, and 4/6/04 2. Northern Orange Xtras (Tuesdays) 3. Chapel Hill Herald 26,000 3/14, 3/22, and 4/9/04 (Sunday, Monday, Friday) 102,000 (combined through 3 Total Circulation 34,000 cycles) 11 -A -1 13 14 11. Outreach Process DIRECT MAIL The planning department sent two direct mailings. The initial mailing advertised all seven township meetings and the follow -up mailing advertised the Hillsborough Township meeting only. 1.) The initial mailing on 3/12/04 for all seven township meetings went to: 100 churches (requesting their assistance in notifying their members); • 32 civic groups (requesting their assistance in notifying their members); The Board of County Commissioners; o The Planning Board; o The Board of Adjustment; The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC) and citizens added to CPLUC mailing list; and County Boards /Committees (Advisory Board on Aging, Board of Social Services, Housing Advisory Board, Rural Character Study, Commission for Environment, Historic Preservation Commission, Economic Development Commission, and Shaping Orange County's Future). 2.) The follow -up mailing on 4/21/04 for the Hillsborough Township meeting went to: • The Board of County Commissioners; • The Planning Board; • The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC) and citizens added to CPLUC mailing list; and • County Boards /Committees (those identified above with Hillsborough mailing address). E -MAIL The planning department sent three sets of e- mails. The first two a -mails advertised all seven township meetings and the third e -mail advertised the Hillsborough Township meeting only. 1.) The 3/8/04 e-mail for all seven townships went to: • The Board of County Commissioners • The Planning Board • Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham, Mebane, and Hillsborough Planning Staffs • Sunshine list maintained by County Clerks Office 2.) The 3/12/04 e-mail for all seven townships went to: Department Heads (Orange Public Transportation, Dept. on Aging, Cooperative Extension, Economic Development Commission, Environment Resources Conservation, Environmental Health, Health Dept., Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools, Orange County Schools, and Solid Waste) ll -A -2 H. Outreach Process 3.) The 4/19/04 follow -up e-mail for the Hillsborough Township meeting went to: Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham, and Hillsborough Planning Staffs POSTED BULLETINS The planning department posted over thirty vivid, color bulletins advertising the seven township meetings in public locations throughout Orange County. Locations included convenience stores, gas stations, supermarkets, firehouses, post offices, and government buildings (see Appendix C for a map of specific locations). PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS The planning department made three types of public announcements, including: announcements at meetings, a TV announcement, and an internet announcement. 1.) Meeting Announcements Announcements were made at Board of Commissioners Meetings and at a Joint Assembly of Governments Meeting, 2.) A TV Announcement An additional scrolling announcement was provided by the People's Network (local cable access channel) and aired during the broadcast of the Commissioners Meeting. 3.) An Internet Announcement A flashing announcement at the top of Orange County's Homepage provided a link to the complete schedule of township meetings. 11 -A -3 I�D 1-7 ►►. Outreach Process Outreach Meetings SUMMARY OF MEETINGS The Planning Department held numerous outreach meetings to receive feedback for updating the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Before the official outreach meetings began, Staff held a number of preliminary meetings beginning in 2000 with the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners to develop ideas for updating the LUE. The first meeting was a Joint Orange County Boards and Commissions meeting, held at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill on May 14, 2003, intended to get initial feedback on Staffs ideas and to begin generating interest and discussion. The second meeting was a Presentation Advisory meeting held on January 21, 2004 to receive constrictive criticism on Staffs presentation, to be delivered at each of the subsequent township meetings. Then, the Planning Department held an open house for Orange County Staff to view the presentation and comment on the proposed changes to the Land Use Element. Next, Planning Staff held a series of seven public township meetings. Each township meeting lasted approximately two hours, and the dates and locations for these meetings are listed below in Table 3. Since completion of the township meetings, Staff made one additional formal presentation on May 26, 2004 at the Holiday Inn Express in Hillsborough for the County's Chambers of Commerce and area Civic Groups. Additional informal presentations have been delivered to the Triangle J Council of Governments Smart Growth Committee, the Orange County Board of Health, and New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee. Table 3 Township Meetings County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zoning —­All Meetings to be held from 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. -- -- Township Date Meeting Location Chapel Hill March 23 2004 Southern Human Serv. Ctr., 2501 Homestead Rd. Little River March 30 2004 Caldwell Community Center, 7607 NC 157 Bingham Aril 12, 2004 Orange Grove Comm. Bldg., 6800 Oran a Gr. Rd. Cheeks Aril 15, 2004 Efland- Cheeks Comm. Ctr., 117 Richmond Rd. Eno Aril 19, 2004 Pleasant Green Comm. Ctr., 3030 Comm. Ctr. Rd. Cedar Grove Aril 22, 2004 Northern Human Services Center, 5800 NC 86 N. Hillsborou h Aril 28, 2004 F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, 106. E. Margaret Ln. fl-B-1 TALI It. Outreach Process TOWNSHIP MEETINGS The seven township meetings were conducted in locations within each township commonly used for community functions. Light refreshments were provided. Each township meeting began with a registration period when citizens signed the attendance sheet and had an opportunity to talk with staff while viewing posters and maps, provided at five stations around the room. DISP J� ^ ^� Each station represented a key topic for the LUE and are as follows: • Process and Citizen Participation • Farm Economy • Rural Character Population • Environment STAFF PRESENTATIONS The staff presentations (available on the Orange County website under Comprehensive Planning /Land Use Element Update/Township Meetings) had three components: (1) Defining the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element; (2) Why Orange County is updating the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element; and (3) Ideas for updating the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Following the presentation, Staff entertained citizens' questions and comments. Staff provided answers to questions when appropriate, and recorded all questions for additional research, In addition, Staff collected citizens' questions, written on notecards, which were provided at each station in the room. Both questions requiring additional research and notecard questions are compiled in this report, in addition to questions that reoccurred at multiple township meetings. All of these questions have been researched and will be presented at the August 23, 2004 joint work session of the Planning Board and County Commissioners. After the question and comment session, Staff discussed Next Steps for the County, while still accepting citizen input. ONE -ON -ONE DIALOGUE AND SURVEY At the conclusion of Staffs presentation, citizens were provided more time to review the material on display and to interact with Staff to further discuss points of interest. Before leaving, citizens were encouraged to complete a survey regarding issues of greatest concern within the County. The results from this survey are also reported in this document. 11 -B -2 ti IL Outreach Process Outreach Meeting Attendance The Planning Department would like to thank all of those who attended the outreach meetings, which were designed to gather public input for updating the Land Use Element of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff is pleased with the overall attendance at the seven township meetings. Having a good citizen turnout at the outreach meetings ensures that a significant sample of the county population is represented and allows staff to capture a diverse set of opinions and suggestions. A summary of the township meeting attendance is presented below in Table 4: T�LI A 1 aule Y Township Meeting Citizens BOCC/Planning Total - County Staff Total with Date Board Excluding Staff Chapel Hill 3/23/2004 10 5 15 7 22 Little River 3/30/2004 16 3 19 8 27 Bingham 4/12/2004 18 2 20 5 25 Cheeks 4/15/2004 14 6 20 7 27 Eno 4/19/2004 16 2 18 7 25 Cedar Grove 4/22/2004 27 6 33 10 43 Hillsborough 4/28/2004 30 8 38 10 48 Totall 131 32 163 54 217 Average 19 5 23 8 31 People who did not sign the attendance sheet at the township meetings are not reflected in these numbers. On average, 31 people attended each township meeting. Of these 31, about 19 were general citizens, 5 were County Commissioners (BOCC) or Planning Board members and 8 were Planning Department Staff members. The County Commissioners' Chairman attended every meeting. A total of 163 citizens and board members attended the township meetings to offer their input. Since these meetings, Staff has continued to discuss ideas with some participants. An additional 20 people (excluding staff) attended the Joint Boards and Commissions meeting on May 14, 2004 and 12 people (excluding staff) attended the ,Joint Chambers of Commerce and Civic Groups meeting on May 26, 2004. 11 -C -1 It. Outreach Process Meeting attendance climbed gradually from the first township meetings to the latter ones (see Figure 1). Attendance at the final Hillsborough township meeting more than doubled that of the first township meeting in Chapel Hill. Figure 1 II -C -2 2.0 V 11. Outreach Process Staff Responses to Township Meeting Questions Following the presentation at each of the township outreach meetings, Staff entertained citizens' questions and comments. Staff provided answers to questions when appropriate, and recorded all questions for additional research. In addition, Staff collected citizens' questions, written on notecards, which were provided at information stations around the room. Staff prepared detailed responses (see Appendix E), with the most recent data available, to address both questions requiring additional research and notecard questions, in addition to questions that reoccurred at multiple township meetings. Staff has categorized the questions into the following seven topic headings: 1. Existing Conditions and Population Projections 2. Growth Management — Sustainability 3. Development Standards — How Sustainable Growth is Designed 4. Environmental Constraints 5. Cost of Public Services 6. Affordable Housing 7. Economic Development 11 -D -1 *Abbreviations: Bigm = Bingham; CG = Cedar Grove; CH = Chapel Hill; Cks = Cheeks; LR = Little River; Hills = Hillsborough ZZ IL Outreach Process Following are the questions listed by topic headings. After each question, a township abbreviation is provided indicating the township at which the question was posed and frequency. Staffs responses can be found in Appendix E, under the same topic headings shown here. 1) a) Population i) In general terms, explain the different population forecasts that are available for Orange County and their varying results. (CG, Cks) b) Build -out I) When is build -out anticipated for Chapel Hill and Carrboro and what effects could this have on Orange County? (Bigm, Hills) c) Determining Acreage I) How is undeveloped acreage determined by the county's Geographic Information Systems (GIS)? (Cks) 2) Growth Management -- Sustainability a) Density /Minimum Lot Size i) What is the difference between density and minimum lot size? (LR) ii) Do lower densities and larger lots encourage sprawl? (CG, Eno, LR) iii) Would the density and minimum lot size recommendations apply if public water and sewer were provided? (Cks) iv) In siting a mobile home, are the same density and minimum lot size standards required as those for a stick/site built home? (Cks) v) Density (1) How many years of data are used in the calculations that determine "Historic Density? (Cks) (2) If Historic, Density is low, why is Staff recommending reduced densities? (LR, Hills) (3) What technical tools have been considered to reduce density? (Hills) (4) Why is Staff providing varying density recommendations for different areas of the county? (Hills) (5) Will all lots be subject to the proposed reduced density requirements even if soils present on a particular tract are better than average for a septic system? (Eno) (6) What impacts will reducing density have on our neighboring counties? (LR) (7) What is the desired density within the county's Transition Areas and what is the capacity to accommodate new development in these areas? (Eno) (8) How do the recommendations increase density near urban areas? (Eno) (9) What impacts may a reduction in density have on the mobile home industry? (Cks, Eno) II -D -2 'Abbreviations: Bigm = Bingham; CG = Cedar Grove; CH = Chapel Hill; Cks = Cheeks; LR = Little River; Hills = Hillsborough Z3 IL Outreach Process vi) Minimum Lot Size (1) Does the methodology used in the Water Resources Report, which supports a countywide 2 -ac minimum lot size average, take groundwater recharge from septic fields into consideration? (Hills) (2) Will larger lots decrease land value? How will this affect property- owners who depend on the equity in their land? (CG) (3) Will existing lots less than 2 acres in size become "non- conforming" if Staffs recommendations are adopted? (CG) (4) What is the difference between a lot and a farm? (LR) b) TDRs i) When will a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program be available in Orange County? (Cks, Eno) ii) Where in the county could a receiving area for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) be applied? (CH) c) Zoning i) Has Staff considered creating any agriculturally exclusive zoning districts? (CH) ii) Has Staff considered creating a zoning district that would allow agricultural subdivisions or "farmettes'? (CH) d) Transit i) What are the plans for public commuter rail through Orange County? (Hills) ii) Are there plans for public transportation in the Efland- Cheeks area? (Cks) 3) Development atanuarus - nvw 0uZ)LaJJJ0uJV ���•y••� a) Subdivision Type and Design i) Conventional (1) Is Staff proposing that the county do away with the conventional development option? (CH) ii) Dev. Nodes (1) What is a "Rural Activity Node" and what are the recommended uses within them? (Bigm) (2) What is the process and what are the requirements to create a new or expand an existing Commercial Node? (Eno) iii) Multifamily (1) Where in the county can multi- family development be accommodated? (Eno) iv) Major, Minor, & Exempt (1) Will the definitions of Minor and Major Subdivisions and their respective approval processes remain the same? (Eno) (2) Is the minor subdivision process the same for those who are subdividing for relatives and those subdividing for profit? (Bigm, Cks, Eno) (3) Is there any way to expedite the minor subdivision approval process? (Bigm, Cks) (4) Will the proposed recommendations encourage exempt, 10 -acre lot, subdivisions? (CH) 11 -D -3 *Abbreviations: Bigm = Bingham; CG = Cedar Grove; CH = Chapel Hill; Cks = Cheeks; LR = Little River; Hills = Hillsborough 24 IL Outreach Process v) Homeowners Associations (1) Will every subdivision be required to have a homeowners association? (Eno) b) Open Space I) Explanation (1) What are the changes that are being recommended relevant to the provision of open space within subdivisions? (Eno) (2) What is the difference between Primary and Secondary open space? (Eno) (3) How is open space taxed? (Cks, LR) ii) In -lot v. Shared (1) What are the pros and cons of in -lot versus shared open -space in subdivisions? (Cks) (2) How are in -lot open space requirements enforced? (CH, Cks) (3) What can shared open space areas be used for within subdivisions? (Cks, Eno) iii) Used for Agriculture (1) Is it possible to use shared open space for agricultural purposes? (CH, LR) (2) If open space can be leased for farming, how does it affect the residents of the subdivision and farmland? (LR) (3) How do you get the residents that are leasing the farmland to agree on what is leased? (Cks, LR) (4) How is the leased area that is being used for agricultural purposes taxed? (Cks, LR) 4) Environmental Constraints a) Air quality I) How will the land use recommendations reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and what effect will this have on Orange County air quality? (Hills, LR) b) Septic i) What is the failure rate of septic systems in the county? Is there data available specifically for 40,000 square foot lots? (Eno) c) Water i) What is the capacity of the existing water reservoirs in the county? (Hills) d) Wastewater i) In flexible or cluster developments, are community well and septic systems better than individual private systems? (Bigm) ii) Several years ago, there was a wastewater sludge disposal issue in the Bingham Township, Is this issue still a concern? If so, what are the plans for addressing it? (Bigm) 5) Cost of Public Services a) Will the proposed land use changes would this raise taxes? (Hills) increase the cost of public services? If so, H -D -4 'Abbreviations: Bigm = Bingham; CG = Cedar Grove; CH = Chapel Hill; Cks = Cheeks; LR = Little River; Hills = Hillsborough 25 IL Outreach Process b) At what point, in assessed value, does a single family residential home provide enough tax income to equal what it costs the county to provide services? (Hills) 6) Affordable Housing a) What is the definition of affordable housing in Orange County? (Eno) b) What impacts will the density and minimum lot size recommendations have on affordable housing? (Bigm, CG, CH, Cks, Hills) c) Are there any financing implications /barriers that may result from having small, affordable homes on fairly large lots? (Cks) 7) Economic Development a) What is being done to bring jobs to Orange County? (CG, Cks) b) What types of industry/manufacturing are encouraged in Orange County? (CG) c) What is the county proposing that will encourage the farm economy? (CH) d) Why is there a large emphasis on agriculture when it is such a small part of the county's economic base? (Eno) e) What is Orange County doing to address the "wireless revolution" and the siting of telecommunications towers? (Bigm) II -D -5 'Abbreviations: Bigm = Bingham; CG = Cedar Grove; CH = Chapel Hill; Cks = Cheeks; LR = Little River; Hills = Hillsborough II. Outreach Process Outreach Survey Results Planning staff distributed surveys (see Appendix D) to citizens at the conclusion of each township meeting as an additional means of determining the planning issues of importance in Orange County. Although most citizens voiced their opinions during the open discussion portion of the outreach meetings or while talking with planning staff members after the meetings; some citizens elected to express their opinion by filling out the "issues" survey. Thirty -nine citizens responded to the survey, but an uneven number from each township responded. Hillsborough and Little River township meetings had the most respondents. Due to the relatively small sample size and a few surveys that were not properly completed, Staff can only make general inferences from the survey data. Therefore, staff has not provided actual statistics from the survey tabulation in this summary. Growth and Development The survey found that respondents overwhelmingly feel that growth and development are major issues of concern in their townships. Issues of Importance In addition to concern about growth and development in Orange County, the survey asked about the degree of importance for issues under the following three categories: 1.) Environment/Conservation • Air pollution • Natural resource protection • Open space /wildlife corridor establishment • Stormwater management • Watershed protection 2.) Economic Prosperity • Business development / employment opportunities • Efficient public services • Promotion of farming opportunities • Maintaining property values • Manageable tax rates 3.) Community Character / Equity • Equitable distribution of new facilities • Greater regional coordination • Historic preservation • Maintaining rural character • A livable built community 11 -E -1 Z'1 M II. Outreach Process Of these fifteen issues, respondents found the following five (in no particular order) to be the most important: 1. Manageable tax rates 2. A livable built community 3. Air pollution 4. Business development / employment opportunities 5. Maintaining rural character Of the fifteen issues, respondents found the following six (in no particular order) to be somewhat important: 1. Natural resource protection 2. Watershed protection 3. Efficient public services 4. Promotion of farming opportunities 5. Maintaining property values 6. Greater regional coordination Of the fifteen issues, respondents found the following four (in no particular order) to be the least important: 1. Equitable distribution of new facilities 2. Stormwater management 3. Open space /wildlife corridor establishment 4. Historic preservation Citizen Reactions to Staff's Proposal After attending the outreach meetings, most respondents either remained undecided or agreed that the ideas described during the presentations and at the stations (posters) around the room would be beneficial to Orange County. In other words, some respondents understood the implications of Staffs proposal and were satisfied, while others were still unclear about the effects that Staffs proposal would have on the County, Few respondents were completely unsatisfied with Staff's proposal. How Citizens Found Out About Outreach Meetinns The most common way that respondents heard about the outreach meetings was via a direct mailing or e-mail. Some respondents heard about the meetings by word -of -mouth from a neighbor or friend and others saw a posted bulletin at a convenience store or other prominent public location. Few respondents attended the meetings on account of a newspaper advertisement. 11 -E -2 Z`i IL Outreach Process Land Use Element Map Amendment Requests During the informal citizen input process, which will continue until a Public Hearing on the Land Use Element (LUE) update is held, Staff received three separate requests for LUE Map amendments, These requests were made as a necessary step prior to applying for re- zonings. Staff informed those who made the requests that Staff would provide a response to their request as part of this report. The response would indicate that their amendment request had either been incorporated into Staffs recommendations for the LUE update or excluded and why. The following provides a brief summary of these requests: 1. Change from 10-Year Transition Area to a classification that would allow for commercial development at the northwest corner of the E. Washington Street/Buckhorn Road intersection; 2. Change from Agricultural Residential to a classification that would allow for commercial development at the northwest quadrant of the New Sharon Church Road /St. Mary's Road intersection; and 3. Change from Agricultural Residential to a classification that would allow for commercial development at the southern corner of the NC 57 /Mile Branch Road intersection. The Planning Department will draft a staff response to each of the informal requests summarized above after completion of the following small -area planning efforts: Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Urban Transition Area Task Force and the update to the 1991 Efland Area Study. These small -area planning efforts are particularly germane to request numbers 1 and 2 above. If Staff finds that there is sufficient information available to respond to these requests before these small -area planning efforts are complete, earlier responses may be provided. 11 -F- 1 M 11L ResultslConclusions What Was Learned Through listening, documenting, and responding to the questions and comments voiced by citizens during the outreach meetings, Planning Staff are able to identify prominent issues and concerns. The most frequently asked question or concern was the effects of lowering density and increasing minimum lot size on housing costs. Staff has recognized a paradox that surrounds the issue of housing affordability. Many of Orange County's citizens desire their own property value to increase while maintaining housing affordability on a countywide basis for relatives and others. The concern over affordable housing is not new in Orange County. In fact, "adequate, reasonably priced, safe housing in an appropriate variety of types in proximity to jobs and daily activities for all citizens' was a Goal included in the 1981 Orange County Land Use Plan and continues to remain an important goal. Although not nearly as prominent as affordable housing, questions and concerns over the existing Minor Subdivision approval process and effects of lowering density on sprawl were voiced. Regarding the Minor Subdivision process, the comments involved the length of time required to obtain approval and the feeling that it was too long and onerous; and in regard to sprawl, the question was whether a decrease in density would encourage sprawl to take place. Following is a list of some additional general topic areas of discussion and questions posed during outreach meetings: • Economic development and demand for additional jobs • Open space requirements and uses of open space • Sprawl • North Carolina's exemption of lots 10 acres and larger from subdivision regulations • Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and possible receiving areas for density A complete list of relevant questions and comments, including those discussed above, raised during outreach is provided in Appendix E. Planning Staffs responses to these questions have also been provided. 111 -A- 1 32 33 111. ResultslConclusions Outreach Outcomes The following provides a summary of changes to Staffs recommendations or new initiatives that have resulted from comments and/or questions received during public outreach: 1. Review of Minor Subdivision process for possible amendment(s); 2. Review of Flexible Development Standards for possible amendment(s); 1 Change in Staffs recommendations for Targeted Densities; 4. Research ways to lessen impacts of Targeted Densities on affordable housing; 5. Creation of Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Urban Transition Area Task Force and update of 1991 Efland Area Study Further description of items included in the above numbered list are as follows. 1 Review of Minor Subdivision process for possible amendments)_— Following the Land Use Element Update and associated zoning amendments, Orange County will be pursuing the development of an Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), The main purpose of the LIDO will be to create a user - friendlier document by combining all of the County's land use related ordinances under one cover and eliminating inconsistencies. During the development of the UDO, the Minor Subdivision process can be reviewed to identify ways to streamline the process. Several citizens expressed their dissatisfaction with the existing process during outreach meetings. 2 Review of Flexible Development Standards for possible amendments) —The Planning Board, together with Staff, will be assessing the effectiveness of the County's Flexible Development Standards at achieving their purpose which is "to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might be lost through conventional development approaches." Should this assessment result in the identification of incentives that could improve the Flexible Development Standards and their effectiveness, required amendments could be addressed during the development of the LIDO. 3 Change in Staffs recommendations for Targeted Densities — As a result of questions and comments received during outreach, Planning Staff have made changes to their recommendations for Targeted Densities. In summary, the changes to Staffs Targeted Densities reflect a less aggressive density reduction than those presented prior to and during outreach meetings, The changes to Staffs density recommendations were in response primarily to the following two issues: 1) housing affordability; and 2) lot size required to enable a property owner to subdivide for a member of their family. Appendix F provides a table summarizing Staffs recommendations for Targeted Densities before and after outreach. 4 Research ways to lessen impacts of Targeted Densities on affordable housing — Although Planning Staff believes that the impacts of Targeted Densities and a larger minimum lot size on affordable housing in Orange County will be minimal (See W -B- 1 34 ►►►. ResultslConclusions Appendix E for Staffs response), it was such a widespread concern during public outreach that additional consideration is necessary. Planning Staff will be meeting with affordable housing developers like Habitat for Humanity, EmPOWERment Inc., and Orange Community Housing and Land Trust to discuss affordable housing and measures that can be taken to offset any negative impacts on affordable housing that may result from the implementation of Targeted Densities and a larger minimum lot size. The additions of exemptions or density bonuses for subdivisions that include affordable housing are two possible mitigating actions for consideration. 5 Creation of Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Urban Transition Area (UTA) Task Force and U date of 1991 Efland Area Stud — A sentiment expressed often during outreach was the need to provide some locations for higher density residential development if density were to be lowered in the majority of the County. Staff agrees that if the proposed Targeted Densities are adopted there should be areas identified in the County were higher densities can be accommodated and permitted through the rezoning process. Planning Staff have identified the fringe areas of Hillsborough and Mebane /Efland as possible areas for higher residential density within the County's area of jurisdiction. However, additional study of these areas is necessary to further determine their potential for development. Therefore, the County has started working on the following two initiatives: 1) Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Urban Transition Area (UTA) Task Force; and 2) Update of 1991 Efland Area Study. In June 2004, Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough appointed members, representing their respective governments, to serve on the Orange County/Town of Hillsborough UTA Task Force. The Task Force will be meeting in August and September to complete their work and make recommendations for inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element Update to be completed later in the year. In July 2004, a group of citizens, some of whom were involved in the original 1991 Efland Area Study, were asked to serve on an informal committee to work with Staff to review and update the Study. This Committee will work within the same schedule as the UTA Task Force, August — September, so that recommendations from this update can also be included in the Land Use Element Update. Ill -B- 2 35 Ill. ResultslConclusions Next Steps The following table provides a summary of next steps to be taken toward adoption of the Land Use Element Update and associated zoning amendments. Tahia 1 w LUE Update Process Activit Timeframe 1. BOCC informational Present outreach report Aug. 23, '04 Meeting with PB 2. Meeting with affordable Discuss ways to minimize Aug '04 housing builders in Orange impacts of zoning County amendments 3. Orange County/Town of Study development Aug. — Sept. '04 Hillsborough Urban potential of Transition Transition Area Task Force Areas 4. 1991 Efland Area Study Update text to reflect any Aug. — Sept. '04 Update changes in conditions 5. Draft zoning amendments Consideration given to any Sept. '04 additional PB feedback 67 Draft Land Use Element Consideration given to any Sept. — Oct. '04 LUE Text additional PB feedback 7. Quarterly Public Hearing Present Draft LUE Update Nov. '04 and zoning amendments 8. Feedback at Hearin Citizens, BOCC & PB Nov. '04 9. PB Recommendation to For or against Dec. '04 10. BOCC BOCC Consideration Approve, approve with Dec. '04. —Jan. '05 amendments, or den 111 -C -1 36 Appendix A — Newspaper Advertisement ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING UPDATE PROCESS TOWNSHIP MEETINGS FOR IDEAS AND FEEDBACK Who: Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. What: Orange County is in the process of updating the Land Use Element of its Comprehensive Plan originally adopted in 1981. portion When: Township Date/Time Meeting Location All meetings, 7:00 — 9:00 pm Chapel Hill March 23, 2004 Southern Human Services Center 2501 Homestead Rd. Little River March 30, 2004 Caldwell Community Center 7607 NC 157 Bingham April 12, 2004 Orange Grove Community Bldg. 6800 Orange Grove Rd. Cheeks April 15, 2004 Efland- Cheeks Community Center 117 Richmond Rd. Eno April 19, 2004 Pleasant Green Community Center 3030 Community Center Rd. Cedar Grove April 22, 2004 Northern Human Services Center 5800 NC 86 Hillsborough April 28, 2004 F. Gordon Battle Courtroom 106 E. Margaret Ln. Why: The update process is required by County ordinance. Orange County and its citizens can create an update that addresses the many challenges that impact quality of life now and in the future. Theme: Studying growth trends and projections and identifying challenges. The Land Use Element guides development patterns and affects what a landowner can do with their property. 3-1 Land use discussion topics include: • Water Quality • Air Quality • Traffic Congestion • Urban Sprawl • Population Density Appendix A — Newspaper Advertisement • Protection of Farmland • Preservation of Open Space • Rural Character • Environmental Preservation • Community Building You are invited to come ask questions, offer your insight, hear ideas for zoning, and provide your verbal and /or written comments at the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Township Meetings. This is a great opportunity to meet with Planning Staff on an informal basis. Similar to an Open House format, various maps and data prepared for the Land Use Element Update will be on display for your review and comment. County Planning Staff will also conduct a brief presentation that will include, among other items, Staffs recommendations for Zoning. Light refreshments will be provided. There will be additional, more formal, public hearing opportunities during this Land Use Element Update and Zoning Ordinance amendment process, to review and comment on strategies that are designed to address the challenges in the County. For directions or other questions, contact Tom Altieri, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Planning and Inspections Department, at 245 -2579. COMPLIANCE WITH THE "AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT" - interpreter services and /or special sound equipment are available with prior notice. If you need this assistance, call the County Clerk's office at 732 -8181, ext. 2130. If you are disabled and need assistance, contact the ADA Coordinator at extension 2300 or TDD# 644 - 3045.. iT r ,.: County Comprehensive Plan 11. �%< \rr Of �+� (v 1 C Ql Appendix B — Posted Bulletin Land Use Element and Zoning 31 You are invited to come ask questions, offer your insight, hear ideas for zoning, and provide your verbal and /or written comments. Staff will conduct a brief, 30- minute presentation. The remainder of the meeting will be informal and structured to receive your input and ideas. Llcrht / -el6resh inents [till/ he j,-to vi 'ed. All Meetings Conducted 7:00 -9:00 p.m. For directions or other questions, contact Tom Altieri, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Planning and Inspections Department, at 245 -2579. Appendix C — Map of Posted Bulletin Locations Advertising Township Meetings 4t Land Use Element Update Township Meeting Notification GIS Map Prepared by Miriam Coleman, orange County Planning Department, 5118101 ns nd or, Location 1,US Pod Otloo 2, N-inem Hoorn SeMm Certer 3,Cerbot Con -only Slart 4. HohdYMdV5 5. Fenn a Gorden 6. Mi. Mr. ado i. LIN.W Sloe a, The FWd Mad S. Telaw COmeN -ce Stoe 10, S.'e Food Mod i t, E. 0onvehenee Slone 12. EOOM Superd.,kel end Herd-le 13.P1 -Wng11 igrduou eCerter, PlmNrq 61vP <.ibm D <paM1m<nl Luepua H.Alen F. mm<obMO l So, Las<nae- 14, Econmd De Ietrdo tCommlclon 15. Goo .e Sore. Cooler Tv DmP< UN R—ld, Flere Deol d 46L ib. M, Mel. Ce-voHe ev Slone 17, Tcmm SIMloo Cer"hee —Store 18,A Ouk Slop 19. ADC Sloe 20,necy�ly Corder 21, Trod der Moudeln (2) 22.0 -ngc Omve Fbe Slm`m 23. Moge Ve Feon Iw Co. 24, Locdled'e Trvdog Peet and 011 25. E.h Mel. 2a, PloodnW. Feed a SUPP7' 2T.6P Mo . 20. E.n Mod. 29, Me Sell. 30,OCSddWede Cerdo 4� 43 Appendix D — Township Meeting Issues Survey TOWNSHIP MEETING ISSUES SURVEY Directions: Please complete this survey after the presentation. 1.) To what extent do you feel growth and development are issues of concern in your township (please circle one)? Not an issue Minor issue Major issue 1 2 3 4 5 2) Do you feel that growth and development are issues of concern in your township (please circle one)? Not an issue Minor issue Major issue 1 2 3 4 5 3) Please rank the five (5) "environment /conservation" issues from the following list (with "1" being the most important): Air pollution reduction Natural resources protection open space /wildlife corridor establishment Stormwater management Watershed protection 4) Please rank the five (5) "economic prosperity" issues from the following list (with "1" being the most important): Business development /employment opportunities Efficiency of public services Promotion of farming opportunities Maintaining property values [. \CnmPr-ehensive Plenning uiv�TAl'icr i'..I::nd aye element \Outreech D'3 p; \(hrt�'ench P,cker \A.ppendice5\AppendiKD do: W Appendix D — Township Meeting Issues Survey Manageable tax rates 5) Please rank the five (5) "community character /equity" issues from the following list (with "1" being the most important): Equitable distribution of new facilities (shopping, employment, etc.) Greater regional coordination Historic preservation Maintaining rural character Liveable built community 6) In general, to what extent do you believe the ideas described in the presentation and at the stations around the room can be beneficial to Orange County (please check one)? Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Somewhat Disagree ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7) How did you hear of the meeting tonight (please check one)? Newspaper Direct Posted Neighbor Other Mailing Bulletin Friend ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Please drop off this survey with a staff member before you leave. Thank You! "emurenersi•e clanninn N'\ r?ITMr`bnd Urse ^lement�,Ouir=ach 03 05',pu':rrnch P�ckt \Appendices \Anpendi;:G do- Appendix E — Staff Responses to Township Meeting Questions This section to be completed and mailed to County Commissioners and Planning Board in advance of Joint Work Session on Monday, August 23rd 4s m Appendix F — Comparison of Density Regulations Before and After Outreach Process 47 A B C D E Option 1 No Option 3 Option 3.1 Change Proposal Proposal Abbrev. Watershed Existing before after Density Outreach Outreach 2 h( (1 rfyco vFeetc - VI:1 V1 Y uuvul _ . , 3 shcp South Hyco Creek - Protected 1 du / 0.92ac 1du / 5ac 1 du / 5ac* 4 frp Flat River Protected 11 du / 0 92ac 1du / 5ac 1du / 5ac* 5 nbcp North. Back Creek Protected 1 du 104C, '1 5ac* 1 du / 3ac s sbc South Back Creek - Protected 1 du / 0.92ac 1 du / 3ac* 1du / 3ac* 7 nlrp North Little River - Protected 1du / 2ac 1du / 5ac 1du / 5ac* s slrp South_L�ttle i�1vel Protected, _ , 1 du / 2ac,___ _ 1 du / 3ac* __ _ g uec Upper Eno - Critical 1du / 2ac 1du / 5ac* 1du / 5ac* 10 ue n Upper Eno - Protected - North 1du / 0.92ac 1du / 5ac* 1du / 5ac* 11 ue m Up er Eno - Protected - Middle 1du / 0.92ac 1du / 5ac* 1 du / 5ac* 12 ue s Upper Eno - Protected - South 1du / 0.92ac 1du / 5ac* 1du / 5ac* 13 uet of Upper Eno -Transition Efland 1 du / 0.92ac No Chan e No Change 14 nhc me North Haw Creek - Mebane, part), 1 du / 0.92ac No Change._ No Change 15 shcu South Haw Creek Unprotected „ 1du / 0.92ac 1du / 3ac* 1du / 3ac* 16 lepa '. � Lower Eno Protected a (lepa) y 1du / 0.92ac - 2 du /lac No Change 17 lepb ;Lower Eno Protected ti` (lepbj :: 1du / 0 92ac f+ 1du / 2ac 1du/ 3ac* 1s lepe Lower Eno Protectedey(lepe) 1du10.92ac 6 1du1.2ac 1du /3ac *i .___.. Lower Eno -Protected d led ldu / 0.92ac 1du/3ac* 1du / 3ac* 19 lepd 20 lepe Lower Eno Protected 21 leua Lower Eno - Un ro Hills ei a N/A N/A N/A 22 leub Lower Eno Unpro (Hills et1) b _ N/A N/A N/A 23 leuc Lower Eno Unpro (Hills rem) c 1du / 0 92ac 1du / 2ac 1du / lac* 24 feud Lower Eno- Unpro (Hills rem) d ldu/0.92ac 1du / 3ac 1du / 3ac* 25 cec Cane Creek - Critical 1 du / 5ac* No Change No Change. * First 5 lots of a subdivision at 2 ac. minimum. Bold indicates a change to this in option s. i Light Grey: Indicates higher density in Option 3,1 Dark Grey: Indicates lower density in Option 3.1 4/21/04 Appendix F — Comparison of Density Regulations Before and After Outreach Process * First 5 lots of a subdivision at 2 ac. minimum. Bold indicates a change to this in Option 3.1. Light Grey: Indicates higher density in Option 3.1 Dark Grey: Indicates lower density in Option 3.1 4/21/04 M A g C D E 26 Abbrev. Watershed Option 1 No Change Existing Density Option 3 27 CCP Cane Creek - Protected 1du / 5ac* No Change No Change 26 shrp South Haw River •- Protected 1du / 0.92ac 1du / 5ac 1du / 5ac* 29 nhru North Haw River- Unprotected 1du / 0.92ac 1du / 5ac 1du / 5ac* 30 ulc University Lake - Critical 1du / 5ac* No Chan e No Chan e 31 UIP Universit Lake - Protected 1du / 5ac* No Change No Change 32 ilp Jordan Lake •- Protected 1du / 2ac* 1du / 3ac* 1du / 3ac* 33 nrbu North Rural Buffer - Unprotected 1du / 2ac 1du / 3ac* 1du / 3ac* 34 cfu Cape Fear - Unprotected (Chapel Hill & Carrboro ) I N/A I N/A I N/A * First 5 lots of a subdivision at 2 ac. minimum. Bold indicates a change to this in Option 3.1. Light Grey: Indicates higher density in Option 3.1 Dark Grey: Indicates lower density in Option 3.1 4/21/04 M