HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-24-1999 - 1-2ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 24, 1999
Agenda Abstract
Item # C 1 & 2
SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes- X No .
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Lincoln, Extension 2583
Proposed Amendments with PHONE NUMBERS:
Staff Notes Hillsborough 732-8181
Mebane 227-2031
Durham 688-7331
Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on proposed text amendments to the Orange
County Zoning Orolinance and Orange County Subdivision Regulations
provisions for flexible development.
No decision is made by either the Planning Board or the Board of County
Commissioners at the public hearing.
BACKGROUND: Flexible development provisions were adopted in May, 1996, to foster more
creative subdivision design that would preserve agricultural and forestry
lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might
be lost through conventional subdivision .methods.. One long-range
intention/goal of preserving those areas was to provide a contiguous, county-
wide network of open space.
Yearly reports tracking use of flexible development options have indicated
that the conservation approach is the most commonly used option of flexible
development subdivisions. Such subdivisions have not demonstrated any
g:\may99ph\flexdev.not\5-17-99Vc1
2
creativity in design to preserve open space as intended by the flexible
development provisions and most frequently, those subdivisions do not
reserve/protect any natural areas that would not be protected by other
existing provisions in the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.
In December, 1998, the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee
initiated the proposal to amend flexible development regulations to address
issues regarding the conservation option of flexible development. An
attached report "Additional Information", outlines that committee's
considerations.
Staff has expanded the purview of the proposed amendments to clarify other
flexible development provisions and to address inadequacies of the
conservation option that are common for other flexible development
approaches. An attached document giving current ordinance language and
proposed amendments contains staff annotation after each proposed
amendment.
g:\may99ph\flexdev.not\5-17-99\kl
3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation
Planning staff recommends amendments to Orange County Subdivision
Regulations, Section IV-B-10 Flexible Development that will:
• Delete undesirable elements of the conservation approach and
combine the desirable elements of that approach with the cluster
approach to create the conservation-cluster approach;
• Clarify and define configuration and placement of open space (i.e.
contiguous stretches);
• Add provision fora 100 foot buffer along adjacent public roads to
enhance preservation of rural character; and
• Modify setbacks and percentage of open space allowed for
placement of septic systems for the estate approach.
Planning staff recommends amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance Article 22, Definitions, to define flexible development and
open space in a manner that is consistent with ~ existing and proposed
provisions of the subdivision regulations.
Administration Recommendation
The Administration Recommends that the proposed amendments to Article
22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV-B-
10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations be
referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the
Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 1999.
g:lmay99ph\flexdev.not\5-17-99\kl
4
Proposed Amendments with StafF Notes to the
ZONING ORDINANCE, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
(Amendments proposed by the Planning Board are highlighted in bold underlined;
deletions proposed by the Planning Board are shown in-s#file~g# print. Additional
amendments proposed by the Planning staff are highlighted in bold italic- print;
deletions are noted by "print.)
g :\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
5
Proposed Amendments to the
ZONING ORDINANCE, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
(Amendments proposed by the Planning Board are highlighted in bold underlined;
deletions proposed by the Planning Board are shown in print. Additional
amendments proposed by the Planning staff are highlighted in bold italic print;
deletions are noted by print.)
ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and
forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community
character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four
(4) acres or greater in size, building s{5A~6} lot area including
setbacks are established on 50% #e~ of each lot, and the land
area outside such li~-i~t6 area is preserved as open space
provided that front and side yard setback areas shall not be
counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement
except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10 Section
D.1: or
STAFF NOTE:
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CLARIFIES THE PROVISIONS FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDABLE LOT AREA
FOR THE ESTATE APPROACH.
~~ ~~
STAFF NOTE:
DELETING THIS DEFINITION IT NECESSARY FOR CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
g:lmay599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
6
ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS
(c b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open
space on separate lots owned and maintained through a
homeowners association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of
state of local government; or
STAFF NOTE:
THE AMENDED NAME, "CONSERVATION-CLUSTER", PRESERVES THE CONNOTATION OF
CONSERVATION. .EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CONSERVATION OPTION HAS DONE LITTLE TO
PRESERVE OR CONSERVE OPEN SPACE, THE PERCEPTION OF DELETING THE "CONSERVATION"
OPTION COULD BE THAT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD DELETE THE ONLY CONSERVATION
OPTION WHEN , IN FACT, ALL OPTIONS ARE DESIGNED FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.
ADDING THE LANGUAGE TO SPECIFY THAT OPEN SPACE MUST BE SEPARATE LOTS THAT ARE
NOT OWNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER, CLARIFIES THE OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN
SPACE FOR THIS OPTION.
(d cJ A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are
clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the
village is surrounded by open space; or
(e ~ Some combination of theabove
g :\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
7
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
Open Space - 1) Open space is the total horizontal area of uncovered open space plus
half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject to limitations set forth
below. 2) Uncovered open space is total gross residential land area not covered by
buildings, plus open exterior balconies and roof areas improved as recreation space. 3)
Covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky, but having two clear
unobstructed open or partially open sides. Partially open sides is to be construed as
fifty percent or more. Examples of covered space are covered balconies, covered
portions of improved roof areas, or space under buildings supported on columns or
posts or cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open space shall not
exceed the square footage of the open space sides. 4) In a flexible development
subdivision, open space is defrned as "Primary Conservation Areas" and
"Secondary Conservation Areas" which are preserved through conservation
easements.
STAFF NOTE:
THE EXISTING DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE IS FOR LAND USE INTENSITY REQUIREMENTS
PURPOSES. THAT DEFINITION IS CONFUSING WHEN CONSIDERING FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
REQUIREMENTS. THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO DEFINE "OPEN SPACE" IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF "OPEN SPACE" IN THE FLEXIBLE
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. '
g:lmay599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
8
Proposed Amendments and Staff Notes to the
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
(Amendments proposed by the Planning Board are highlighted in bold underlined;
deletions proposed by the Planning Board are shown in-s#~ilg# print. Additional
amendments proposed by the Planning staff are highlighted in bold italic print;
deletions are noted by "print.)
g:lmay599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
9
Proposed Amendments to the
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
(Amendments proposed by the Planning Board are highlighted in bold underlined;
deletions proposed by the Planning Board are shown in-~s#~ilc~e~# print. Additional
amendments proposed by the Planning staff are highlighted in bold italic print;
deletions are noted by "print.)
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.3 Ownership of Open Space
Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any
of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be
permanently restricted from further subdivision.
• Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local government, the
State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
• Dedication of conservation easements to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners
association and/or to all or portions of individual lots owned by one or more
property owners.
• Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development
restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and
restrictive covenants which are irrevocable.
Ownership by individual property owners; esyesia~ of estate lots ewfle~s only,
where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are
included as part of restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation
easements applicable to such lots.
STAFF NOTE:
THESE MINOR CHANGES 1) EMPHASIS THAT. OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION RESTRICTIONS
CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY THE LANDOWNERS AND 2) CLARIFY
THAT THE ESTATE OPTION IS THE ONLY OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT WHICH ALLOWS
THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE (AND INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING OPEN SPACE.)
g:\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
10
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.3 Owners-hip of Open Space
Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of
a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easement may be counted
toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement provided it is a
portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided.
g :\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-991k1
11
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or
more of the following development options.
D.1 Estate Lot Option
For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply:
• Each estate lot shall have a lot size of at least four (4) acres..
• For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of
sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family detached dwelling and customary
accessory. uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages,
patios and decks, lawns, and driveways.
• The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary
Conservation Areas.
• Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area
shall be continuous to open space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and
shall not include required front yard and side yard setbacks unless the
front or side vard contains significant primary or secondary conservation
areas.
STAFF NOTE:
THIS AMENDMENT CLARIFIES WHAT MAY BE COUNTED AS OPEN SPACE. THE AMENDMENT IS
PROPOSED TO PREVENT A PROBLEM PREVALENT IN SUBMITTED PLANS USING THE
CONSERVATION OPTION WHICH ALLOWED THE OPEN SPACE TO BE ON INDIVIDUALLY OWNED
LOTS. ALTHOUGH THE ESTATE OPTION HAS NOT BEEN USED, RELATED AMENDMENTS PROPOSE
THAT OPTION TO BE THE ONLY OPTION IN WHICH OPEN SPACE MAY BE PRESERVED ON
INDMDUALLY OWNED LOTS.
g :\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99Vc1
12
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.1 Estate Lot Option
• Aseptic system and/or well site may be located outside of a building e~ve/e~e
lot area provided it does not occupy more than ~4al~one quarter of the
conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area.
STAFF NOTE:
THERE SHOULD BE AMPLE AREA WITHIN A MINIMUM 2 ACRE BUILDING LOT AREA TO LOCATE A
SEPTIC SYSTEM (THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 4.0 ACRES WITH AT LEAST 2 OF THOSE ACRES
- 50% - PRESERVED AS OPEN SPACE.) PER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF, WITH AVERAGE
CONDITIONS, SEPTIC SYSTEM AND REPAIR AREA FOR A THREE TO FOUR BEDROOM HOME
REQUIRES 10,000 SQ. FT. -.15,000 SQ. FT. AREA OF SUITABLE SOILS. AREA NEEDED FOR THE
SEPTIC SYSTEM AND REPAIR AREA SHOULD NOT EXCEED 0.5 ACRE IF LOCATED IN THE OPEN
SPACE.
• Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing
standards:
Building Envelope Spacing Standards for Estate Lots
Minimum spacing between building envelopes on adjacent lots 58100 feet
Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision ~S 150 feet
boundary or off-site public street right-of--way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 48- 50 feet
or private street right-of--way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot 58 50 feet
line
Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet
water bodies (lakes, ponds, streams, etc.)
STAFF NOTE:
THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN SPACING REQUIREMENTS ARE REASONABLE FOR THE LARGER LOT
SIZE (4.0 ACRE MINIMUM TO ENHANCE RURAL CHARACTER.
g:\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99Vc1
13
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.1 Estate Lot Option
Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas;
provide convenient access for emergency service vehicles; and satisfy all
building envelope spacing standards,
0 The minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet
for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and ."T' turnarounds.
STAFF NOTE:
THE AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY FOR CONSISTENCY WITH PROPOSED CHANGES IN SPACING
REQUIREMENTS.
• Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be. restricted
against further development through conservation easements and/or deed
restrictions.
g:\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
14
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DELETE ENTIRE SECTION
0
.,
•~
r~rwnr, r.ie }he~e.~ ~ra.~4~~ re~n
t t
'
f
~~R~°..~maTo'°C-r'C'a~dvCa +~s'vT1~ZG$a ~4'C~'iaTr~~~r°.GZ
i ~
g:\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
15
STAFF NOTE:
DELETING THE CONSERVATION OPTION:
• Addresses the problems encountered with previous conservation option
developments in which open space was scattered along required setback areas
and open space areas were not wide enough to meet the desired objectives.
• With the exception of the estate option, addresses problems with enforcement of
conservation restrictions on privately owned open space.
• Addresses the problem with open space being privately owned and not usable for
passive recreation for the surrounding community.
• Removes open space from individual lots, thus eliminating the problem with not
enough space on a lot of minimum (40,000 square foot) lot size to site a
residence, accessory buildings and septic system and repair area.
g:\may599\flexdev. not15-13-99Uc1
16
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
A conservation-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together
through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract. Smaller lots than
those required in conventional subdivisions are permitted, provided such lots and
subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following standards:
STAFF NOTE:
THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO DELETE THE CONSERVATION OPTION OF FLEXIBLE
DEVELOPMENT. THIS AMENDMENT WILL KEEP THE "CONSERVATION" NAME BY COMBINING IT
WITH THE "CLUSTER" OPTION. THE AMENDED OPTION COMBINES PROVISIONS OFFERED BY THE
"OLD CONSERVATION OPTION" THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY OFFERED BY THE CLUSTER
OPTION.
• Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary
and/or Secondary Conservation Areas.
• The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation
Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall
comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the
subdivision.
• Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided
preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly
to create larger conservation units Has that may be enjoyed by all residents of
the subdivision and, if possible, enjoyed visually by the general public.. Such
undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the
development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided
open space to .provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and
convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots
shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas
vulnerable to human disturbance. The design must meet Section F
Evaluation Criteria which sets forth conservation area design
characteristics:
STAFF NOTE:
THIS AMENDMENT POINTS USERS TO DESIGN CRITERIA FOR OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
AREAS WHICH IS ALREADY INCORPORATED INTO THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS.
g:lmay599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
17
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.2 Conservation-Cluster-Option
• Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels,
no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have alength-to-
width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for
neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands,
watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife corridors; or trail links.
• Each lot must contain a buildable area of sufficien# size to accommodate a
single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but
not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and
driveways. A septic system and/or well site may be located in an open space
area provided it does not occupy more than #~ar€- one quarter of the
conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation -Area.
STAFF NOTE:
UNDER AVERAGE CONDITIONS, 10,000 SQ. FT. TO 15,000 SQ. FT. OF ADEQUATE SOILS ARE
REQUIRED FOR PLACEMENT OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND REPAIR AREA FORA 3 - 4 BEDROOM
RESIDENCE. TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE MINIMUM (33%) OPEN SPACE WOULD
ACCOMMODATE APPROXIMATELY 22% - 33% OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND REPAIR AREAS FOR
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS ALLOWED. FIFTY PERCENT OF THE OPEN SPACE COULD
ACCOMMODATE 44% - 66% OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND REPAIR AREAS OF THE SUBDIVISION.
g:\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
18
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas,
minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article
4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth
below.
0 Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%)
of the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district including any
overlay district requirements
#eet; however, minimum lot area may not be smaller than 40,000 square
feet within a watershed protection overlay district where lots are served
by individual septic systems.
STAFF NOTE:
THIS LANGUAGE PROVIDES CONSISTENCY BETWEEN FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS AND
STATE PROVISIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS IN PROTECTED WATERSHEDS. EVEN
THOUGH FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS ALLOW REDUCED LOT SIZES AND OFF SITE SEPTIC
EASEMENTS IN CONSERVATION AREAS, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROVISIONS REQUIRE
SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND REPAIR AREAS TO BE LOCATED ON THE INDIVIDUAL LOT THE SYSTEM
SERVES IF LOCATED WITHIN A PROTECTED WATERSHED. THE LOT AREA NECESSARY TO
PROVIDE FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM AND- REPAIR AREA IS 40,000 SQUARE FEET.
g :\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
19
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
~-Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced °
to 100 feet in the AR and R1
Districts. Minimum lot width requirements maybe reduced by 30% in all
other zoning districts.
STAFF NOTE:
THIS AMENDMENT IS NEEDED TO FACILITATE CLUSTERING PROVISIONS. UNDER CURRENT
PROVISIONS, LOT SIZE MAY BE REDUCED BY 65% WHILE LOT WIDTHS MAY BE REDUCED BY
ONLY 20%. WHERE MIN. LOT SIZE IS 40,000 SQ. FT .: IN THE AR DISTRICT, MINIMUM LOT SIZE
MAY BE REDUCED TO 14,000 SQ. FT. AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REDUCED TO 120 FEET; IN THE
R-1 DISTRICT, MINIMUM LOT SIZE MAY BE REDUCED TO 14,000 SQ. FT. AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
REDUCED TO 104 FEET. COMPARED WITH CURRENT PROVISIONS OF THE ESTATE AND
CONSERVATION OPTIONS WHERE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH MAY BE REDUCED TO 100 FEET,
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRE FROM 4 FEET TO 20 FEET MORE ROADWAY PER LOT
(EXCEPT FOR LOTS ON CUL-DE-SACS AND "T" TURNAROUNDS. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
"COMBINE" THAT ASPECT OF THE CONSERVATION OPTION (WHICH A RELATED AMENDMENT
PROPOSES TO DELETE WITH THE CLUSTER OPTION IN THE AMENDED "CONSERVATION-
CLUSTER" OPTION. PLEASE REFER TO THE ATTACHMENT TABLE "FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS" FOR COMPARISON OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE, OPEN SPACE REQUIRED, MINIMUM LOT
WIDTHS AND OWNERSHIP OF CONSERVATION AREA.
0 Minimum front, rear, and side setback requirements may be reduced by
twenty-five percent (25%) but shall be no less than ten (10) feet.
0 Minimum lot frontage requiremints may be reduced to twenty (20) feet for
lots fronting on cu/-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds.
STAFF NOTE:
THIS AMENDMENT CLARIFIES WHERE LOT FRONTAGE MAY BE REDUCED TO 20 FEET.
g:\may599\flexdev, not\5-13-99\kl
20
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
0 Minimum spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision
boundary or off-site public street right-of-way shall be 100 feet and may
be counted as open space.
STAFF NOTE:
THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO BUFFER THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION FROM ROADS AND ADJACENT
PROPERTY THEREBY PRESERVING THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA FROM THOSE VIEWS.
• Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of-local
government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or
a homeowners association.
i~ D.3 Village Option
D.4 Street Standards
8:6 D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities
g:\may599\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ZONING OPEN TOTAL # MIN LOT OWNERSHIP OF
OPTIONS MIN LOT SPACE OF LOTS WIDTH CONSERVATION
SIZE (MIl~ ALLOWED AREA
AR R-1
District District
Estate 4 acres 50% 25 100 100 Individual Landowner
Conservation 40,000 sq. ft. 33% 108 100 100 Individual Landowner
Cluster 40,000 sq. ft. - 33% 108 120 104 Homeowners Association
14,000 sq. ft.
Cluster ~ 27,023 sq. ft. - 34%-57% 109-132 120 104 Homeowners Association
with Density Bonus 14,000 sq. ft.
(Transition Areas only)
Conservation/Cluster 40,000 sq. ft. - 33% 108 100. 100 Homeowners Association
14,000 sq. ft.
Conservation/Cluster 27,023 sq. ft. - 34%-57% 109-132 100 100 Homeowners Association
with Density Bonus 14,000 sq. ft.
(Transition Areas only)
Conventional 40,000 sq. ft. 0% 108 150. 130 N/A
Assumptions: Calculations based on 100-acre subdivision exclusive of any right-of--way.
N
g:\craiglflex-dev\5-14-991dg
22
Additional Information:
Proposed Amendments. to Flexible Development Provisions of the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations
Since the institution of the flexible development program, the majority of
applications submitted for major subdivision concept plan approval under the
flexible development provisions have used the .conservation option (during FY
1997-98, five of the eight submitted a concept plan using the conservation
option). The conservation option provides advantages of locating septic systems
within the conservation areas, reducing minimum lot width to 100', and reducing
the minimum lot frontage. Those provisions allow more lots to be established
along subdivision roads thus reducing the cost of road construction per site. The
conservation option allows subdividers to incorporate the open space within
individually owned lots; thus, eliminating the need for establishment of
homeowners associations charged with owning and preserving the established
open space. Because the open space is incorporated within the individual lots,
the open space has often been designated in the required front, side and rear
setbacks. Such open space is fragmented with no area(s) large enough to
render any of the intended benefits.
The Orange County Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee convened in
December, 1998, to consider amendments to the flexible development provisions
to remedy the inadequacies of the conservation approach. The Committee first
identified the following issues of concern with development plans submitted
using the conservation option.
1. The majority of plans submitted using the conservation option include
required front, side and rear setbacks as part of the open space. Open
space scattered along front, side and rear setback areas does not meet
the flexible development objective to create compact neighborhoods
accessible to open space amenities and with a strong identity.
2. Subdivisions submitted using the conservation option look like conventional
subdivisions and provide no buffering or open space along the outside
boundaries of the subdivision to shield the view of the development from
the public roads. (Fails to meet the flexible development objective to
preserve scenic views and elements of the county's rural character,
and to minimize .perceived density by minimizing views of new
development from existing roads.)
3. A 40,000 square foot lot is not large enough to accommodate adequate
area for building site, accessory buildings, septic system and repair area
when a portion of the lot is restricted for conservation purposes.
g:\may99ph1flexdev.nnt\5-13-99\kl
23
4. Conservation easements/open space restrictions on privately owned land
are difficult to enforce. Even with a homeowners association, homeowners,
generally do not monitor their neighbor's yards for compliance with
conservation requirements. Landowners are less likely to violate provisions
of conservation easements/open .space reservations on individual lots
owned in common by all landowners in the development and landowners
are more likely to take action against such a violation if the land is held in
common.
5. Privately owned open space is enjoyed by the private landowner and does
not provide for larger passive recreational areas for the entire
neighborhood. (Fails to meet the flexible development objective to
provide for the active and passive recreational needs of county
residents, including implementation of the Master Recreation & Parks
Plan.)
5. The conservation option, in general, does not provide/protect any more
open space (primary and/or secondary conservation areas) than would be
provided by a conventional subdivision. (Fails to meet the flexible
development objective to encourage the preservation and
improvement of habitat for various forms of wildlife and to create new
woodlands through natural succession and reforestation where
appropriate.) Typically, the open space provided consists of flood plains,
stream buffers (in developments located within drinking water supply
watersheds), areas where the soils are not suitable for septic systems and
in required setback areas. Subdivision regulations are already designed to
protect those areas from development.
Staff then prepared proposed amendments and the committee invited eleven
(11) surveyors and developers who are active in Orange County to meet with the
committee and staff to comment on the proposed revisions. (The attachement
"Mailing List" lists surveyors and devlepers who .were notified. Two surveyors
attended that meeting. Both surveyors commented that the conservation option
offers no .incentives to provide more open space than what would be restricted
from development within a conventional subdivision. The Ordinance Review
Committee revised it's recommendation based on the surveyors comments
before submitting options for review of the full Planning Board.
The options presented to the board were 1) to delete the conservation option
and combine the desirable aspects of that option with the cluster option to
become the conservation-cluster option; or 2) to amend the conservation
option provisions to require that front and side yard setback areas not be
counted toward open space requirements unless those areas contain significant
primary or secondary conservation areas and the conservation area is at least
g:\may99ph\flexdev.not\5-13-99Vc1
24
100 feet wide. The committee recommended the first .option and the
Planning Board agreed to that recommendation.
In preparing Planning Board recommendation for public hearing, planning staff
noted areas where the flexible development provisions may be misleading
without full knowledge of .other provisions within the zoning ordinance,
subdivision regulations, and other county requirements. Staff has incorporated
proposed amendments to clarify those portions of the. regulations and has
also included proposed amendments that address concerns pointed out with
the conservation option that should be addressed for the estate option. Staff
has also included a proposal to buffer flexible development subdivisions
from adjacent off site public roads to minimize the perceived density from
those roads and to preserve rural character.
g:\may99ph\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
25
MAILING LIST:
REVISION TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Steve Yuhasz
ENT Land Surveys, Inc.
226 S. Churton St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dolly Hunter
5311 Dodsons Crossroads
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Thomas H. Heffner
103 Porter Place
Chapel Hill NC 27514
J.D. Cecil
Callemyn-Parker, Inc.
104 North Churton Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
John Hartley
302 W. Weaver St
Carrboro, NC 27510
Jeff Peloquin
Peloquin Construction, Inc.
3212 Twin Streams Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Brady H. Goforth & Associates, Inc.
121 West Clay Street, Suite A
Mebane, NC .27302
Michael D. Barr
Post OfFce Box 30217
Raleigh, NC 27622-0217
TSA Development, LLC
5523 Wall Street
Mebane, NC 27302
g:\may99ph\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
26
MAILING LIST:
Arthur Cogswell, FAIA
619 Greenwood Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Scott Radway
John R. McAdams Company
P.O. Box 14005
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4005
g:\may99ph\flexdev. not\5-13-99\kl
27
Section F EVALUATION CRITERIA
For any given site, resources may vary widely in importance; e.g., a natural area
compared to a historic site. Likewise, for each type of resource, there may be
examples of greater or lesser significance; e.g., a notable example of local
vernacular building traditions compared to a much altered older home. Priorities
for conserving such resources should therefore be based upon a thorough site
analysis and an understanding of what is more special, unique, noteworthy,
environmentally sensitive, and/or historic as compared with other similar features
or different types of resources.
In evaluating the layout of lots and open space, the following criteria will be
considered as indicating design appropriate to the site's features and meeting
the intent of the Flexible Development standards. Whereas diversity and
originality in lot layout are encouraged, it is recognized that not all objectives may
be achieved on a given site. Each applicant must therefore to achieve the best
possible relationship between development and preservation objectives.
F.1 General Criteria
The following criteria apply to all Flexible Development projects:
• The shape of the open space shall be reasonably contiguous, coherently
configured, and shall abut existing or potential open space on adjacent
properties. Long narrow segments must be avoided except in the case of
trail or stream corridors, or landscape buffers adjoining street rights-of-
way and/or neighborhood boundaries.
• The pedestrian circulation system shall be designed to assure that
pedestrians can walk safely and easily on the site, between properties
and activities or special features within the neighborhood open space
system. All roadside footpaths should connect with off-road trails, and link
with existing or potential open space on adjoining parcels.
• Protect and preserve all wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes from
clearing, grading, filling, or construction except as may be approved by
the Board of Commissioners.
g:\subregsllV-B-10.new
t
28
• Landscape common areas (neighborhood greens),
and both sides of new streets with native specie
flowering shrubs with high wildlife conservation value.
F.2 Forest Land/Natural Areas Conservation
cul-de-sac islands,
shade trees and
Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to conserve forest land
and/or natural areas and wildlife habitats, the following criteria apply:
• Dwellings should be located in unwooded parts of the site away from
mature forests, natural areas, and/or wildlife corridors.
• When any woodland is developed, care shall be taken to locate buildings,
streets, yards, and septic disposal fields to avoid mature forests, natural
areas, and/or wildlife corridors.
• To the greatest extent practicable, development should be designed
around existing hedgerows and treelines between fields or meadows. The
impact on larger woodlands (greater than five acres), especially those
containing mature trees, natural areas, and/or wildlife corridors, should be
minimized.
F.3 Farmland Conservation
Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to conserve farmland, the
following criteria apply:
• Locate building lots in forested areas away from existing pastures,
cropland, feedlots, and similar uses.
• If development must be located on open fields or pastures because of
greater constraints on other parts of the site, dwellings should be sited in
locations at the far edge of a field, as seen from a public road.
g:lsubregs\IV-B-10.new
d
29
• Identify the most productive portions of existing fields, pastures, and
cropland, and locate building lots on less productive land.
• Provide buffers of at least 75 feet in width between building lots and
cropland and pastures to reduce the potential for conflict between
residents and farming activities.
F.4 Conservation of Scenic Views
Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to conserve scenic views,
the following criteria apply:
• Leave scenic views and vistas unblocked or uninterrupted, particularly as
seen from public roadways. Consider "no-build, no-plant" buffers along
public roadways where views or vistas are prominent or locally significant.
In wooded areas where enclosure is a feature to be maintained, consider
a "no-build, no-cut" buffer created through the preservation of existing
vegetation.
• Where development is located in unwooded areas clearly visible from
existing public roads, it should be buffered from direct view by a
vegetative buffer or an earth berm constructed to reflect the topography of
the surrounding area.
• Protect rural roadside character and scenic views by providing larger lots
(e.g., two acres or more) adjacent to existing public roads.
• Protect rural roadside character and vehicular carrying capacity by
avoiding development fronting on existing public roads; e.g., limiting
access to all lots from interior rather than exterior roads.
• Unless buildings can be effectively screened or buffered with trees, avoid
siting new construction on or close to prominent hilltops or ridges where
rooflines are seen above the horizon.
F.5 Historic and Archaeological Features
g:\subregs\IV-B-10. new
a
30
Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to conserve historic and
archaeological sites and structures, the following criteria apply:
• Design around and preserve sites of historic, archaeological or cultural
value so as to safeguard the character of the feature(s), including fences
and walls, farm outbuildings, burial grounds, abandoned roads, and
earthworks.
• New streets, driveways, fences, and utilities must be sited so as not to
intrude unnecessarily on rural, historic landscapes. Wherever possible,
streets and driveways are to follow existing hedgerows, fence lines, and
historic farm drives.
• New developments must include plantings which incorporate native
species and historic landscape materials so as to harmonize with the
character of the area.
• Building designs and styles used in new construction should be
compatible with the architectural style of historic buildings located on or
adjacent to the site, especially in terms of scale, height, roof shape, and
exterior materials.
F.6 Recreation Provision
Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to provide recreation and
parks facilities for neighborhood residents and/or the general public, the
guidelines contained in Section IV-B-7-B shall apply.
g:\subregs\IV-B-10. new
OWASA
ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
Quality Service Slnce 1977
By Facsimile Transmission
Dr. Alice Gordon, Chairman
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Dr. Gordon:
May 24, 1999
2 5 ~c,-~~
I am writing in regard to the proposed Flexible Development text amendments to Orange
County's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances that will be the subject of tonight's public hearing.
OWASA recognizes that the County's Flexible Development provisions are an important
component of the Creative Open Space Design - or clustering -approach that we have
recommended as a development option in the Cane Creek watershed. OWASA believes that the
proposed amendments would appropriately strengthen some of the current open space
requirements for cluster developments in ways that will more adequately protect the Cane Creek
water supply.
Although our Board of Directors has not had sufficient opportunity to review the proposed
amendments in detail, we generally support their adoption and look forward to providing
additional written comments before the hearing record is closed.
Sincerely,
V v~-,~~.v ' ' ~2.tJ~"
Dan C. VanderMeer, Chairman
Board of Directors
cc: Mr. John Link, Jr., Manager, Orange County
Mr. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Orange County
OWASA Board of Directors
Mr. Ed Kerwin, Executive Director, OWASA
400 Jones Ferry Road Equa/ Opportunity Employer Voice (919) 968-442 ]
PO Box 366 Printed on Recycled Paper FAX (919) 968-4464
Carrboro, NC 27510-0366 www, owasa. org