HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-23-2005-d3ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 23, 2005
Agenda
Item No. D.3
SUBJECT• Update on Residential Zoning Density and Minimum Lot Size Text Amendments
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Table -Residential Zoning Density
Options & Associated Buildout
2) Table -Planning for the Future:
Sustainability and Quality of Life
3) Table -Planning for the Future:
Reaction to Changing Conditions
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, ext, 2592
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, ext. 2579
Robert Davis, Current Planning
Supervisor, ext. 2580
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: This Update is aNon-Public Hearing item and serves as a continuation of the
county's efforts to inform its citizens of the zoning amendments that Orange County's Planning
Staff is recommending to implement the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Update
currently underway.
BACKGROUND: The County s Planning Department completed over four (4) years of data
collection and analysis since the release of year 2000 US Census data, to develop
recommendations to implement goals and objectives for inclusion in the county's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Update. Two of the recommendations involve
amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance: Residential Zoning Density and
Minimum Lot Size.
During the spring of 2004 and early this year, Planning Staff conducted a series of public
outreach meetings throughout the county to present Staffs recommendations for Residential
Zoning Density and Minimum Lot Size and receive informal public comments.
Planning Staff will present their zoning recommendations as aNon-Public Hearing item as a
precursor to formal Public Hearings that maybe initiated later this year. Issues raised by the
public during outreach meetings will also be presented along with a staff response A handout
that summarizes the issues and staffs responses will be distributed at the meeting.
it?Comb zhonsi~:l".~nnine I~i~UC~ CC'u05 Public Hcuriges'.~in - ~lnninc -+incnam:nc~.Ahsvsri 0.`,I i05 doc
Following provides a brief summary of Planning Staffs recommendations for Residential Zoning
Density and Minimum Lot Size:
1. Residential Density
The proposed Residential Density zoning amendment implements policy options within the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element by reducing urban and rural sprawl potential
through a reduction in future housing density. This regulation, along with other existing
policies, are necessary to address identified growth challenges in the areas of air and
water quality, water resources, environmental protection, open space preservation, traffic
control, and efficient provision of public services.
Existing studies, conditions and future trends identify limited and fragile resources that
need to be measured with future growth potential. Planning Staff will present six (6)
options for Residential Zoning Density within the County's rural planning jurisdiction, that
range from existing zoning density (Option 1) to increasingly resource-based, limited-
density plans (Options 2-5 proposals) addressing water and air quality and limiting traffic.
No changes are being suggested far Urban Transition areas and Rural Activity Nodes.
Option 1 -Existing Maximum Density Plan (Present zoning plan could allow over
130,000 additional units)
Option 2 -Medium-Low Density Plan (Trends show that aver 100,000 additional units is
possible)
Option 3 -Low Density/Low Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Plan (This plan lowers density
the farther one travels from employment centers and major transportation routes, thereby
decreasing total traffic miles)
Option 3.1 -Low Density Plan (Resembles Historic Density. The average long-term rural
density is approximately 2.8 acres per dwelling, and this plan approximates this density
excepf in critical watershed areas, which are matched to the existing Cane Creek and
University Lake)
Option 4 -Lowest Density Plan (Cane Creek and University Lake watersheds have
existing low density rules (1 dwelling unit per 2-5 acres) which could be applied to other
watersheds.)
Option 5 -Lowest Density Plan (Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan and Cape
Fear River Basin Assembly) (Matches recommendations from the Upper Neuse
Watershed Management Plan and suggests rules to be consistent in the Cape Fear
Basin)
Maps illustrating each of the options above will be on display at the meeting.
Attachment 1 provides a summary of growth projections for each of the density options
provided above. It should be noted that "Option 1 -Existing Maximum Density Plan",
which is based on the county's existing residential zoning densities, could ultimately
~ .{ umprchenbi~c l'I;wnin~ ilia illNli.^OOS Public Ri~ann s i!trii ?3 Jonne .lmondmrnL~Absu a~~ opt lti~ dnc
3
result in an additional 130,000 dwelling units and an associated population of
approximately 300,000 at build-out (all developable land exhausted),
Planning Staffs recommendation to lower residential zoning density is based on the
premise that natural resources and infrastructure are limited and that existing zoning
density, which could allow 130,000 new dwelling units in rural Orange County, is not
sustainable and would prohibit the county from reaching many of its goals. Furthermore,
there is a point where the impact of growth on the environment, transportation network,
and provision of public services has a significant negative impact on the quality of life,
Attachment 2 is an attempt to illustrate how growth under each of the six density options
will have a different impact on population, traffic, air and water quality, and loss of
farmland, and that at some point growth reaches a quality of life threshold after which
quality of life deteriorates.
2. Minimum Lot Size
The proposed Residential Density zoning amendment implements policy options within
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element by protecting groundwater resources
through an increase in Minimum Lot Size from 0.92 acres (40,000 sf) to 2 acres (87,120
sf). The proposed amendment is necessary to address identified growth challenges in
the areas of sustainability, water and air quality, and groundwater recharge including
more land area for normal residential activity without disturbing private infrastn~cture.
Planning Staff's recommendation to increase Minimum Lot Size is based on a 1996 U.S,
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report completed for Orange
County that suggests acounty-wide Minimum Lot Size of approximately 2 acres is
necessary to ensure that private well groundwater withdrawal rates do not exceed the
natural process of recharge,
3. Planning for the Future: Reaction to Changing Conditions
Orange County has an opportunity to be proactive in its adoption of policies to address
the changing conditions and development pressures that Planning predicts will result as
neighboring jurisdictions (such as Chapel Hill and Carrboro) reach their projected build-
out. Attachment 3 provides an illustration of three possible ways to form policies in
response to changing conditions: 1) Proactive--Long Range, 2) Reactive Change, and 3)
Desperate Response. In summary, Attachment 3 shows that the more proactive a
governing body is in establishing policy choices, the greater their success in achieving
goals.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with hearing an update on
Planning Staffs ideas for Residential Zoning Density and Minimum Lot Size Text Amendments,
RECAMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the BOCC receive Staff's
update as information.
citmpithei ~ti~. I lunninc h~'U(f~1F ~pni Public llaniit,.'h1a~73'Zuning,lmcndm nl; .bsLUCt a=~liii do::
4
Residential 7,oning Density Options and Associated Buildout Conditions
ATTACHMENT]
Optiou 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3.1 Option 4 Option 5
Existing Maximum Medium-Low Density Plan Low Density/Low Vehicle Low Density/Low Impact Design Lower Density Plan Lowest Density Plan (Upper Neuse
Density Plan Miles Traveled (VMT) Plan (LID) Plan (Cane Creelc/LTniversity Watershed Management Plan and
Lake Ca a Fear River Assembly
Description of • Presented at outreach • Presented at outreach • Presented at outreach • Not presented at outreach Presented at outreach • Not presented at outreach
Option meetings meetings meetings meetings but within range of meetings meetings
• Status Quo - No • Varied densities based on the • Planning Staff's options • Countywide 1 du/5 ac • Within Cane Creek and
change to existing location of unprotected, recommendation prior to • Within Upper Eno, change density, first 5 lots of University Lake Watersheds, No
zoning densities protected, and critical outreach meetings density to match that which a subdivision maybe Change to existing density
watersheds and proximity to • Vaned densities based on currently exists for Cane Creek 2 ac • Balance of County Jurisdiction, 1
urban areas the location of unprotected, and University Lake Watersheds du/5 ac density
protected, and critical • Balance of County .Iurisdiction,
watersheds and greater 1 du/3 ac density
emphasis on proximity to • Low Impact Design (L,ID)
urban azeas than that of
Option 2
New Dwelling 148,759 74,294 62,728 56,560 49,565 38,517
Units Possible
New Population 354,046 176,820 149,293 134,613 117,965 91,670
Possible
Total Dwelling 162,358 87,893 76,327 70,159 63,164 52,116
Units at Buildout
Total Population at 386,411 209,185 181,658 166,978 150,330 124,035
Buildout
Average 1 du /1,31 ac 1 du / 2.41 ac 1 du / 2.78 ac I du / 3,02 ac 1 du / 3.35 ac 1 du / 4,07 ac
Density at
Buildout
Assumptions:
1, Population projection calculations use an average household size of 2,38 persons per household. (2000 Census average).
2. The number of existing dwelling units is determined by the number of existing lots less than 15 acres in size with a building value of at ]east $50,000 (11,365 units) + the number dwellings within Mobile Home
Pazks (2,2.34). This criteria was determined to yield the most accurate results with available data using GIS queries. Total number of existing dwelling units = 1.3,599.
3, The amount of developed acreage is determined by calculating the number of existing lots less than 15 acres in size with a building value of at least $50,000. Total number of developed acres = 32,359.
4. Existing Average Developed Density =1 dwelling unit per 2.38 acres (32,359 developed acres / 13,599 existing units) (includes units in Mobile Home Parks). If Mobile Home Parks, which have a higher
density are removed from the calculation, the existing Average Developed Density is 1 dwelling unit per 2.82 acres.
5. Existing Population in unincorporated, non-ETJ/Transition Areas portion of county = 32,365 persons. (48,487 [2000 Census] -16,122 [population in ETJ and Transition areas])
6. Average Density at Buildout calculation =total number of acres in county planning jurisdiction (211,899 acres) /projected number of dwelling units at buildout
7. Acreage calculations use unconstrained total acreage. Constraints, such as environmental considerations, generally remove approximately 14% of the total acreage. Unconstrained acreage numbers were used
because as lot sizes become larger, constrained percentages decrease as constraints aze "absorbed" into the lot or common area open space(i,e,: wildlife corridors can become less of an issue on a 5 acre lot
or 2 acre lot with a 3 acre common area donation vs, a 1 acre lot; a 5 acre lot is more likely than a 1 acre lotto have a buildable area that excludes wildlife corridors).
Source: Orange County Planning and Inspections Dept, 10/28/04
G:\Comprehensive Planning Div\GEblE\2005 Public Hearings\May 2.3\Zoning AmendmentsWttachment 1 Options and Buildout.doc
5
ATTACNMENT2
O
.~
f~
.Q
.~
-7.~J,
L
i
L
.~
~.~
~~
c
~ o
O
'k
O
~I
Q
a
L
'"'
N O N O
C
G ~ ~ ~
= O g O
o °- oa
0 o O o
O c 0 0
r M ~ N
'~' '~' .~" .0.
6t R
G `
~ A
s `,
X9 9
`~ N
7 ~
`~ .
S
9 ~
~ ~.
~'
~_
4®
M ~
'~
O ~'
® O, a.
~ O
B. _.
® o0
® Q
® O
~ r
°a° $
~~
~ ~
~` ¢
~v
a
` -
~ ` ~\
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
•~
~~
~~
\~
~,
~ ~
~ ~ ~~
~~
:,
_ ~ O
m E
O ~o.
= o
m o a
~ O O
`a N°
as
pue~uaae~ ~.o sso~
`uoi~n~~od aa~eM pue airy
`o~}~.eal `uoi~e~ndod
~uisaaaau~
r.+
m
d
~_
F-
O
O
O
N
c
C
o ~
O G
o m
~n .~
N c
~ o
U
t ~
~ 'iv
E o-
N ~
~ O
~ ~
.n ~
_~
~ ~
o a
U v-
O
3 ~
o ~
ca
~a
C 'p
N ~
0.
~ ~
~ O
N
.~ ~
~~ ~
C
~ o
E "-
~ ~
O
~~ ~
~~
3
~~
~~
O r
Q. a"
~ ~
. ~
~ .~
Q~
l
Q U
C ~
O N
v~`-
C C
N,
H ~
c :C
m
.o Q.
~ o-
~ ~
~ ~
T ~i
> ~
N ~
m t0
c
.c o
~ c
~ c
c -o
m ~
m m
c ~
~ U
-o .E
~ ~
~ c
m
m .n
w ~
~ o
U
Q'7L
.~ ~
~ O
N -p
N `~
N ~
~~ C
aro
o ~
U -0
N ~
~~
~~
mN
_~
~~~
o~~
~~~
.~
~ fn (~E
6
ATTACHMENT 3
~ N
V
.-.
+ ~C
~
_
'
!C
....
Q. C
•
~ ..
..
~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~.
~ 6uisnoH ~ ~
~ ~
~,
,
~
~
"> `sqo~ `coeds uadp `uo~~onpa~{ ~
~, o
o
°~ oi}}eal `~(~i~en~ aa~eM pue ~iy ,
a
~ ~'
. ~
Q :6uiniq a~geuie}sns
spaepue}g a~i~-~o-~C~i~en~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ o
~- ~
~
U1 tl~ ~ d o E s v
~ ~~ ~ C OU t6 O.
~ ~ ' (,~
i (0 cq N O .C
~-.
L
°
~ ~ i y ~ > v C N
~
++ '
G i ' U
~ C O ~
°' ° ~
~
~ ~-+
~
~
~ E c
i ~ 'D C~ N
~ ~ C N
C O O
~
~ ~ N O
(9 i U ~
O
~ O ~ O
~ d~ .~ C
O ~-
4_ ._ $1 ~ '
1
V ~ C ~ .'~' ~
~,
~ Q ,
~ ~
®
~ '~
'O ~'
~ .V 7
O Q'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~N ~ ~ ui ~
- Q N
U .-.
±~ 07 O)
~ p ~ ~
•~ G!
L X- °~a
`
~
X i~0
~
d
~ ®
V N
N ~
- 'O
S O W X ~
O C
RS "' ~ ~ U ~
Q.
V ~ ,~. ~ O U U T
i
~
®
G)
> '~ ~ ~
t6 :_+ ~ (6
N N
~ O' O v ~ rA
. O U
~ N 0
O O C .-~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
'V N Q'.~ N N
.~ O U
N ~
O O- ` N ~ O
e~ U 'O >
;~, N
(0
O U L U
(0 +-~
°
~ N
O. N O `
C U N N
~ .Q
Y ~~
~"p L
~O
^~
C
C lV _
4= S