|
4
<br />Residential 7,oning Density Options and Associated Buildout Conditions
<br />ATTACHMENT]
<br /> Optiou 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3.1 Option 4 Option 5
<br /> Existing Maximum Medium-Low Density Plan Low Density/Low Vehicle Low Density/Low Impact Design Lower Density Plan Lowest Density Plan (Upper Neuse
<br /> Density Plan Miles Traveled (VMT) Plan (LID) Plan (Cane Creelc/LTniversity Watershed Management Plan and
<br /> Lake Ca a Fear River Assembly
<br />Description of • Presented at outreach • Presented at outreach • Presented at outreach • Not presented at outreach Presented at outreach • Not presented at outreach
<br />Option meetings meetings meetings meetings but within range of meetings meetings
<br /> • Status Quo - No • Varied densities based on the • Planning Staff's options • Countywide 1 du/5 ac • Within Cane Creek and
<br /> change to existing location of unprotected, recommendation prior to • Within Upper Eno, change density, first 5 lots of University Lake Watersheds, No
<br /> zoning densities protected, and critical outreach meetings density to match that which a subdivision maybe Change to existing density
<br /> watersheds and proximity to • Vaned densities based on currently exists for Cane Creek 2 ac • Balance of County Jurisdiction, 1
<br /> urban areas the location of unprotected, and University Lake Watersheds du/5 ac density
<br /> protected, and critical • Balance of County .Iurisdiction,
<br /> watersheds and greater 1 du/3 ac density
<br /> emphasis on proximity to • Low Impact Design (L,ID)
<br /> urban azeas than that of
<br /> Option 2
<br />New Dwelling 148,759 74,294 62,728 56,560 49,565 38,517
<br />Units Possible
<br />New Population 354,046 176,820 149,293 134,613 117,965 91,670
<br />Possible
<br />Total Dwelling 162,358 87,893 76,327 70,159 63,164 52,116
<br />Units at Buildout
<br />Total Population at 386,411 209,185 181,658 166,978 150,330 124,035
<br />Buildout
<br />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
<br />Density at
<br />Buildout
<br />Assumptions:
<br />1, Population projection calculations use an average household size of 2,38 persons per household. (2000 Census average).
<br />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
<br />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.
<br />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.
<br />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
<br />density are removed from the calculation, the existing Average Developed Density is 1 dwelling unit per 2.82 acres.
<br />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])
<br />6. Average Density at Buildout calculation =total number of acres in county planning jurisdiction (211,899 acres) /projected number of dwelling units at buildout
<br />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
<br />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
<br />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).
<br />Source: Orange County Planning and Inspections Dept, 10/28/04
<br />G:\Comprehensive Planning Div\GEblE\2005 Public Hearings\May 2.3\Zoning AmendmentsWttachment 1 Options and Buildout.doc
<br />
|