HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-02-2010 - 4lORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 2, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. 4 - I
SUBJECT: Contract Award for Professional Services Related to the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Request for Proposals (RFP) (pp.3-9)
2. List of RFP Finalists (p. 10) Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2575
3. Proposed Contract (pp. 11-18) Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245-2597
3.1 Scope of Services (pp. 19-22) Tom Altieri, Planner III, 245-2579
3.2 Consultant Proposal in Response to
RFP (UNDER SEPARATE COVER
pp. 23-157)
4._ Project Timetable (pp. 158)
PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Professional Services Contract with Clarion Associates
to assist in the development of a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
BACKGROUND: In this year's 2009-2010 fiscal year budget, the BOCC included funds for
professional services to assist in the development of a UDO. On October 23, 2009 the Planning
Department released a Request for Proposals (RFP), which is provided as Attachment 1.
Staff received eleven (11) proposals and interviewed five (5) finalists (Attachment 2) in January
of 2010. The interview team consisted of:
• Mr. Willie Best, Assistant County Manager
• Ms. Judith Wegner, Vice-Chair of the Planning Board
• Mr. Craig Benedict, Planning Director
• Mr. Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
• Mr. Michael D. Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Based on the consultants' responses to the RFP and interviews, the interview team is
recommending Clarion Associates to provide professional planning services associated with the
completion of the UDO.
Clarion Associates, an Orange County based firm with offices in Chapel Hill and Denver,
Colorado was selected due to its understanding of the project, demonstrated ability to remain
within established budgets, work on similar projects, and ability to meet the County's work
schedule. Clarion has recently completed similar projects in Cary and Jacksonville, North
Carolina, as well as Henrico County, Virginia.
z
Clarion Associates was also selected for its extensive knowledge and understanding of Orange
County. In addition to the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Clarion completed the
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Strategic Growth Plan and is under contract with the Town
to complete a UDO and an Annotated Outline.
The proposed contract with Clarion Associates, including the complete Scope of Services, is
provided as Attachment 3. The contract amount is $30,000. In general, services are to include:
1. Task One -Project Initiation and Assessment: The Consultant will meet with
County staff to review/assess existing regulations and graphics. During this Task,
the Consultant will identify areas within ordinance text where graphics would be
beneficial to support written regulations and improve understanding.
This step will also involve identification of improvements to existing regulations that
could be addressed through this, and future processes.
2. Task Two -First Draft UDO: The Consultant will propose and County staff and
Consultant will agree on an outline for the restructuring and format of the revised
UDO. The Consultant will also provide formatting suggestions and identify the
topical areas in the new UDO where graphics/illustrations can/should be included.
The Consultant will not be expected to re-write existing regulations for inclusion
within the UDO. This is staff's responsibility. During this Task, the Consultant will
be compiling options on how to possibly revise other regulations to be expressed in
the Implementation Bridge, described in Task Three, which is a primary focus of the
Consultant's contract.
3. Task Three -Public Hearing Draft UDO and Annotated Outline for the August
23, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing: The Consultant will be responsible for taking
the first draft UDO, prepared by the County, and reformatting it to serve as a draft
for Public Hearing. The Consultant will not be reviewing the document for content or
substance, but focusing on formatting and presentation of the regulations. This
Task will include inserting graphics and reformatting for publication quality fit and
finish. During this Task, the Consultant will also be working to complete the
Implementation Bridge.
The Implementation Bridge that will be prepared as part of this Task will include a
summary of issues, comments, suggestions, and concerns, along with proposed
strategies to address. The Implementation Bridge will discuss the structure and use
of the new UDO and identify issues and opportunities for inclusion in subsequent
amendments to the new UDO.
Attachment 4 includes the complete project timetable.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The BOCC provided $32,600 in this year's 2009-2010 budget,
Departmental Contract Services Account, to complete this BOCC priority. The costs of
consulting services as outlined in the proposed contract are not to exceed $30,000. The
additional $2,600 not included in this contract was budgeted for advertising, copying and printing
expenses.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the attached
contract with Clarion Associates for $30,000 and authorize the Chair to sign the contract.
Request for Proposals (REP)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS
Attachment 1
DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAx)
www.co.orange.nc.us
306E Revere Road
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough,
North Carolina, 27278
Request for Proposals to provide professimral services related to the development of a
Unified Development Ordinance for Orange County, North Carolina
L Overview:
Orange County, North Carolina is releasing this Request for Proposals (hereafter `REP') seeking
responses fiom qualified consultants to assist County Planning Staff with the development of a
conventional Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) consisting of:
i. Zoning Ordinance,
ii. Subdivision Regulations,
iii. Erosion Control Ordinance,
iv. Stormwater regulations,
v. Plood Damage Prevention Ordinance, and
vi. Land use development standards.
The purpose and intent of the project is to allow Orange County Planning staff to produce
development regulations that address contemporary development and zoning practices that are
easily understood by administrators, the public, and the development community and support the
goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in November of 2008.
The primacy responsibilities for the consultant shall be:
1. Develop new and revised graphic representations/illustrations that will serve as practical
examples of the development standards contained within the UDO,
2. Assisting with the re-packaging of the revised regulations,
3. Assisting staff with the documentation and cataloguing of all public comments and/or
suggestions related to the development of the UDO throughout the process, and
4. Assisting staff to complete an annotated outline, which explains the organization of the
UDO, as well as providing the following:
a. A detailed synopsis of all public comments received during the process,
10/23/2009
4
b. Identifying potential future amendments to the UDO that may be necessary in
order to address public concernslcomments or various objective of the
Comprehensive Plan, and
c. Providing a rough work planlschedule for the Board of County Commissioner's
review on possible future UDO amendments.
The annotated outline will provide a tentative schedule for the possible presentation and
review of future amendments seeking to modify various land use regulations in an effort
to further implement the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. This document is
intended for presentation at the August 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing after the
presentation of the draft UDO.
II. Background:
Orange County is centrally located in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. Development
within the County ranges from highly urbanized (i.e. the municipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro,
Hillsborough, and Mebane) to rural areas where farming activities still serve as the predominant
land use.
The County is approximately four hundred (400) square miles in area with a population of
approximately 128,000 with approximately sixty percent (60%) of local residents living within
the aforementioned municipalities.
Over the past several years, the County has undergone an extensive revision to its
Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in November of 2008. One of the many goals of the
plan was the consolidation of existing land use regulations into a more user friendly format to
avoid unnecessary confusion amongst individuals attempting to develop property. In order to
accomplish this task, staff proposed and received authorization from the Orange County Board of
Commissioners to develop a UDO for the County.
III. Scope of Services:
The UDO shall impact development activities outside of the incorporated areas, extraterritorial
jurisdictional (ETJ) boundaries, and established Joint Planning areas of the Town's of: Chapel
Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and the City of Mebane.
A staff person within the Department of Planning and Inspections shall serve as the County's
primary contact for the selected firm and shall be responsible for coordinating, implementing,
and administering the project's timeline and deliverables.
The consultant team is expected to attend select public meetings and workshops, along with pre-
determined Planning Board advisory meetings, as part of the work program associated with the
project.
10123!2009
5
This project will involve four (4) distinct phases:
i. Working with staff, the consultant will evaluate the existing development regulations and
existing graphics contained within the various Ordinances. This process will involve
reviewing various graphics and diagrams for:
a. Compliance with all applicable Local, State, and Federal regulations (i.e. NC
DOT standards, DENR stormwater standards, etc), and
b. Success at conveying the intended standard,
2. Review, with staff, all proposed revised regulatory standards and identify ways to
represent proposed regulations in a visuaUgraphic manner,
3. Re-package all graphics/diagrams into the draft UDO by March 2010 for public review
and presentation at the August 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing, and
4. Assist staff with the completion of a final UDO synopsis outlining all public comments
relating to the development of the document as well as identifying possible future
amendments to address citizen concerns. This document shall also be presented at the
August 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing.
lp• Procedures -Submitting Response:
Completed proposals shall be submitted to the County Planning Department no later than noon
on Wednesday November 25, 2009.
All interested firms shall send an e-mail indicating their ~co orat ~~ nctusent of filing a response
to Michael D. Harvey by November 6, 2009 at
All e-mail notifications, as well as any other correspondence sent to the County relating to this
RFP, must contain within the subject line of the e-mail the words "Orange County UDO RP'P".
The purpose of this e-mail notification requirement is to allow staff to send to all interested firms
any modifications, updates, or answers to general project questions that would benefit all parties.
Interested bidders are invited to submit written questions they may have relating to this project.
All questions must be N vember 11, 2009 ~ All questions ew it be compiled, and aecomplete list
Michael D. Harvey, by
of written questions and answers will be forwarded to all firms that have sent an email indicating
intent to respond to the RFP.
The proposals must conform to the requirements set forth in this RFP, and shall include the
following:
1. A cover letter identifying the firm, or firms proposed for a team approach for the project.
2. An explanation on how the consultant will adhere to the scope of work including a
proposed work timeline/schedule that corresponds with the timeline outlined herein. This
narrative should include an explanation of the following:
a. An indication of your understanding of the project,
b. The proposed approach to the project consistent with the timeline outline 0/23/2009
6
c. The proposed scope of work for the project, including a detailed description of the
proposed deliverables. The scope should be responsive to the draft scope items
presented within this RFP.
3. Identification of the roles and responsibilities of all team members with the firm
including:
a. Team orgarrizatiersonneldthatawill ber working on the p ojeetultha role of any
manager, key p
proposed sub-contractor, etc,
b. A statement of qualifications for ail team members including references and
educational background, and
c. A description of the current workload for identified individuals.
4. Examples, if any, of similar work product or involvement with the development of a
UDO and/or the development of graphics/drawings intended to provide a visual
explanation of a regulatory standard.
5. A minimum of three (3) references for similar projects including:
a. The name and date of the project,
b. The location of the client, and
c. A contact name including relevant contact information.
6. A cost estimate/proposed budget including anticipated payment schedule coordinated
with the completion of identified milestones.
All proposals, exhibits, responses, attachments, reports, charts, schedules, maps and illustrations
shall become the property of Orange County upon receipt.
All proposals received will be reviewed by a selection committee composed of County staff
against the selection criteria set forth in this RFP. A short list will be developed. Short-listed
2x009. Based on thewterviews,ra fi alwlection will be made on or about December 11,,2009 ber
V, Selection Criteria:
All proposals will be ranked based on qualifications. Orange County will establish a short list of
candidates and schedule interviews accordingly. The following criteria will be the basis on which
consultants will be selected for further consideration (in no particular order):
• Specialized or appropriate expertise in the type of project,
Past performance of the lead consulting firm, subcontractors, and their employees on
similar projects,
• Adequate and experienced staff and proposed team for the project,
• Recent experience with successfully maintaining project schedules and budgets,
• Current workload and firm capacity,
10123/2009
• Proposed design approach for the project(s) and schedule for completion,
• Understanding of the area where the project is located,
• Rate structure for proposed staff including all sub-contractors, and
• Other factors that may be relevant to the project.
~, Project Timeline:
The timeline for this project is as follows:
------------------Process------------------2DDzl-------------- ---2D1~------------
Task a s o n d l j f m a m j a s o n d
Task 1
1. BOCC Adoption of Process X
2. Draft UDO Outline X
3• Ouheach -Countywide Mtgs. (2)
4• Joint Board Mtg.
5. Consultant RFP Process
6• BOCC Update -Approve UDO
Outline
Task 2
7. Draft Sections of UDO -New
Regulations
8• Courtesy Review
9• Staff/Consultant Coordination -
Graphics
10. Outreach -Countywide Mtgs. (2)
11. plamring Board (PB) Review
12. BOCC -Staff Report
Task 3
13. Complete First Draft UDO
14. Outreach -Countywide Mtgs. (2)
15. Courtesy Review
16. planning Board Review
17. Consultant Final Deliverables
1 g• Complete Public Hearing Draft UDO
19. BOCC -Staff Report
20• Joint BOCC/PB Public Hearing
X
X
XXX
X
X X
- XX
- XXX
X
XX
X
X X
X
X X X
X X X
X
X
X
10/23!2009
8
The various critical dates for the consultant are as follows;
A, Review existing land use development regulations with staff and discuss existing
limitations on graphics and other similar depictions of regulatory standards:
December 2009 through January 2010.
B, Begin developing revised graphics. Fitst draft package due for review by County
staff on or about January 29, 2010.
C. Consultant shall attend the two (2) outreach meetings scheduled for February or
March 2010 (actual dates, times, and meeting locations are pending). At this
meeting the consultant shall be prepared to explain any proposed graphic change and
will provide a few examples of possible amendments for public review/comment.
D. Consultant shall attend the February and/or March 2010 Planning Board meeting to
review revised graphics package.
E. Final graphics package for inclusion witlun draft UDO due to County staff by the end
of March 2010.
F, Consultant shall attend the April and/or May 2010 Planning Board meetings to
participate in the review of the draft UDO.
G. Beginning in May 2010 (actual dates, times, and meeting locations are pending)
consultant shall begin meeting with staff to begin developing the final report
documenting possible future amendments and a rough timeline for possible
implementation.
g. Completion of final document end of June 2010.
1, Consultant shall attend August 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing and shall be prepared
to participate in the presentation of the UDO.
J. Consultant shall make revisions, as necessary, to the graphics to address
comments/concerns received during the public hearing, and subsequent advisory
board review, begimting in September tluough November 2010,
g. Final exit interview with consultant, and closing out of project, occut7ing sometime in
December 2010.
VII. Deliverables -Work Product:
All completed work product shall be delivered electronically in a format mutually agreed upon
by the consultant and the County that will allow County staff to modify, reproduce, and amend
any and all information generated as part of this project.
10/23!2009
9
VIII. Submission Requirements:
As previously indicted, interested firms are required to submit ten (10) copies of their proposal
by noon on November 25, 2010 and include all information as detailed herein. The proposals
inay be mailed to:
Orange County Planning Department
Attention: Michael D. Harvey AICP, CZO -Planner III
PO BOX 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
The County will not accept proposals for review that are received after the 12:00 p.m. deadline,
even with a November 25, 2009 postmark. It is the responsibility of the consultant to ensure that
the proposal is received by the deadline date and time as detailed herein.
If you plan to hand deliver copies, please contact the Planning office first at (919) 245-2575 to
verify the drop off point.
Questions relating to the RFP can be directed to Mr. Michael D. Harvey in writing at the
aforementioned address, emailed to mhaveynco oran~e.nc.us, or you may contact Mr. Harvey at
(919) 245-2575.
10123!2009
10
Consulting Firms Selected for Interview Attachment 2
Contact:
Consultant:
Location:
Bud et:
N Focus Richard Flowe Corporate office in Kannapolis, $67,499.90
(owner/president) NC
Clarion Associates Roger Waldon Field office in Chapel Hill, NC $30,000.00
(Chapel Hill office
representative)
Studio Cascade William Grimes Studio Cascade office is in
(owner/president) Spokane Washington
In partnership with
The Brough Law Firm
phis (Brough
Mor
C
office is in
I / $57,500.00
'
N
L NC
Chap I H I
representative)
Benchmark CMR Inc. Jason Epley
Vi Benchmark office is in
NC
Kannapolis $28,500.00
ce-
(Executive ,
In partnership with president)
Studio Hill office is located in
Hill Studio Firm Roanoke, VA
Reno and David Kleinfelter Both firms are based out of $30
000.00 plus
Cavanaugh Nashville, TN ,
travel expenses
PLLC (i.e. air travel,
accommodations,
In partnership with food, etc.)
Town Planning and
Urban Design
Collaborative
(TPUDC)
11
Attachment 3
NORTH CAROLINA SERVICES AGREEMENT OVER $25,000.00
RFP - NO REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
ORANGE COUNTY
This Services Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), made and entered into this 2nd day of
March, 2010, ("Effective Date") by and between Orange County, North Carolina a body politic
and corporate of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter, the "County") and Clarion Associates,
(hereinafter, the "Provider").
WITNESSETH:
That the County and Provider, for the consideration herein named, do hereby agree as
follows:
1. Services
a. Scope of Work.
i) This Services Agreement ("Agreement") is for professional services to be
rendered by Provider to County with respect to: assisting with the completion of
the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) consistent with the
included scope of services and deliverables.
ii) By executing this Agreement, the Provider represents and agrees that Provider is
qualified to perform and fully capable of performing and providing the services
required or necessary under this Agreement in a fully competent, professional and
timely manner.
iii) Time is of the essence with respect to this Agreement.
iv) The services to be performed under.this Agreement consist of Basic Services, as
described and designated in Section 3 hereof. Compensation to the Provider for
Basic Services under this Agreement shall be as set forth herein.
2. Responsibilities of the Provider
a. Services to be provided. The Provider shall provide the County with all services
required in Section 3 to satisfactorily complete the Project within the time limitations set
forth herein and in accordance with the highest professional standards.
b. Standar___ d of Ca~'e•
i) The Provider shall exercise reasonable care and diligence in performing services
under this Agreement in accordance with the highest generally accepted standards
of this type of Provider practice throughout the United States and in accordance
with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the
performance of these services. Provider is solely responsible for the professional
12
quality, accuracy and timely completion and/or submission of all work related to
the Basic Services.
ii) Provider shall be responsible for all errors or omissions, in the performance of the
Agreement. Provider shall correct any and all errors, omissions, discrepancies,
ambiguities, mistakes or conflicts at no additional cost to the County.
iii) The Provider shall not, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement,
subcontract the performance of any work under this Agreement without prior
between the Corunty and theosubcontractor; any oo it act o any othergielationsh'pe
iv) Provider is an independent contractor of County. Any and all employees of the
Provider engaged by the Provider in the performance of any work or services
required of the Provider under this Agreement, shall be considered employees or
agents of the Provider only and not of the County, and any and all claims that may
or might arise under any workers compensation or other law or contract on behalf
of said employees while so engaged shall be the sole obligation and responsibility
of the Provider.
v) Provider agrees that Provider, its employees, agents and its subcontractors, if any,
shall be required to comply with all federal, state and local antidiscrimination
laws, regulations and policies that relate to the performance of Provider's services
under this Agreement.
vi) If activities related to the performance of this Agreement require specific licenses,
certifications, or related credentials Provider represents that it and/or its
employees, agents and subcontractors engaged in such activities possess such
licenses, certifications, or credentials and that such licenses certifications, or
credentials are current, active, and not in a state of suspension or revocation.
3. Basic Services
a. Basic_ S___ eraices•
i) The Provider shall perform as Basic Services the work and services described
herein and as specified in the County's Request for Proposals (the "RFP") "RFP
Number 09-001 for "Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)"
issued October 23, 2009, and the Provider's proposal, which are fully
incorporated and integrated herein by reference together with Attachments One
(Scope of Services) and Two (Clarion Associates 1ZFP Response). In the event a
term or condition in any document or attachment conflicts with a term or
condition of this Agreement the term or condition in this Agreement shall control.
Should such conflict arise the priority of documents shall be as follows: This
Agreement, the County's RFP together with attachments, Provider's Proposal
together with attachments.
ii) The Basic Services will be performed by the Provider in accordance with the
following schedule: (Insert task list and milestone dates)
Revised February 2010
13
Task Milestone Date
1. Review existing regulations and graphics March 10, 2010
2. Meeting to discuss findings March 31, 2010
3. Community Outreach (2 meetings) March/Apri12010
4. Document/eatalogue public comments April 17, 2010
5. Assist with first draft UDO Apri121, 2010
6. Community Outreach (2 meetings) May 2010
7. Preparation of Annotated Outline July 9, 2010
8. Prepare public hearing draft of UDO July 16, 2010
9. Attend August 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing August 23, 2010
10. Project close out December 17, 2010
iii) Should County reasonably determine that Provider has not met the Milestone
Dates established in Section 3(a)(ii), County shall notify Provider of the failure to
meet the Milestone Date. The County, at its discretion may provide the Provider
seven (7) days to cure the breach. County may withhold the accompanying
payment without penalty until such time as Provider cores the breach. In the
alternative, upon Provider's failure to meet any Milestone Date the County may
modify the Milestone Date schedule. Should Provider or its representatives fail to
cure the breach within seven (7) days, or fail to reasonably agree to such modified
schedule, County may immediately terminate this Agreement in writing, without
penalty or incurring further obligation to Provider. This section shall not be
interpreted to limit the definition of breach to the failure to meet Milestone Dates.
4. Duration of Services
a. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from March 2, 2010 to December 17, 2010.
b. Scheduling of Services
i) The Provider shall schedule and perform his activities in a timely manner so as to
meet the Milestone Dates listed in Section 3.
ii) Should the County determine that the Provider is behind schedule, it may require
the Provider to expedite and accelerate his efforts, including providing additional
resources and working overtime, as necessary, to perform his services in
accordance with the approved project schedule at no additional cost to the
County.
iii) The Commencement Date for the Provider's Basic Services shall be March 2,
2010.
5. Compensation
a. Compensation for Basic Services. Compensation for Basic Services shall include all
compensation due the Provider from the County for all services under this Agreement.
The maximum amount payable for Basic Services is thirty-thousand Dollars
($30,000.00). In the event the amount stated on an invoice is disputed by the County,
the County may withhold payment of all or a portion of the amount stated on an invoice
Revised February 2010
14
until the parties resolve the dispute. Payment for Basic Services shall become due and
payable in direct proportion to satisfactory services performed and work accomplished.
Payments will be made as percentages of the whole as Project milestones as set out in
Section 3(a)(ii} are achieved. (For example, if there are 10 Project Tasks with Milestone
~knorvledge~entt of the satisfactoryorem~pletion of Task tone.iil2Upon~he County's
acknoxdedgement that the second Task has been satisfactorily completed Provider may
im~oiee for the next 10% of the whole.)
b. Additional Services. County shall not be responsible for costs related to any services in
addition to the Basic Services performed by Provider unless County requests such
additional services in writing and such additional services axe evidenced by a written
amendment to this Ageement.
6. Responsibilities of the County
a.
Coo eration and Coordination. The County has designated the (Plamling Director) to
act as the County's representative with respect to the Project and shall have the authority
to render decisions within guidelines established by the County Manager and/or the
County Board of Commissioners and shall be available during working hours as often as
may be reasonably required to render decisions and to furnish information.
7. Insurance
a. General Requirements. The Provider shall purchase and maintain and shall cause each of
his subcontractors to purchase and maintain, during the period of performance of this
Agreement:
i) Worker's Compensation Insurance for protection from claims under workers' or
workmen's compensation acts;
ii) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance covering claims arising out of or
relating to bodily injury, including bodily injury, sickness, disease or death of any
of the Provider's employees or any other person and to real and personal property
including loss of use resulting thereof;
iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance, including hired and non-owned
vehicles, if any, covering personal injury or death, and property damage; and
b. Insuran__ ~e Itating• The minimum insurance rating for arty company insuring the Provider
shall be Best's A.
iv) Professional Liability Insurance, covering personal injury, bodily injury and
property damage and claims arising out of or related to the performance under this
Agreement by the Provider or his agents, Providers and employees.
c. Limits of Coverage. Minimum limits of insurance coverage shall be as follows:
Revised February 2010
15
INSURANCE DESCRIPTION MINIMUM REQUIRED COVERAGE
• Worker's Compensation Limits for Coverage A -Statutory State ofN.C.
Coverage B -Employers Liability
$100,000 each accident and policy limit and disease each
employee
• Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 Each Occurrence; $2,000,000 Aggregate.
• Automobile Liability Cornbined Single Limit $500,000
• Professional Liability NOTE: Insert coverage limits required by Risk Manager if
applicable.
d. Additional Insured. All insurance policies (with the exception of Worker's
Compensation and Professional Liability) required under this Agreement shall name the
County as an additional insured party. Evidence of such insurance shall be furnished to
the County, together with evidence that each policy provides the County with not less
than thirty (30) days prior written notice of auy cancellation, non-renewal or reduction
of coverage.
8. Indemnity
a. Indemnity. The Provider agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harnrless the County
from all loss, liability, claims or expense, including attorney's fees, arising out of or
related to the Project and arising from bodily injury including death or property damage
to any person or persons caused in whole or in part by the negligence or misconduct of
the Provider except to the extent same are caused by the negligence or willful
misconduct of the County. It is the intent of this provision to require the Provider to
indemnify the County to the fullest extent permitted under North Carolina law.
9. Amendments to the Agreement
a. Changes in Basic Services. Changes in the Basic Services and entitlement to additional
compensation or a change in duration of this Agreement shall be made by a written
Amendment to this Agreement executed by the County and the Provider. The Provider
shall proceed to perform the Services required by the Amendment only after receiving a
fully executed Amendment from the County.
10. Termination
a. Termination for Convenience of the County. This Agreement maybe terminated without
cause by the County and for its convenience upon seven (7) days prior written notice to
the Provider.
b. Other Termination. The Provider may terminate this Agreement based upon the County's
material breach of this Agreement; provided, the County has not taken all reasonable
actions to remedy the breach. The Provider shall give the County seven (7) days' prior
written notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement for cause.
c. Compensation After Termination.
Revised February 2010
16
i) In the event of termination, the Provider shall be paid that portion of the fees and
expenses that it has earned to the date of termination, less any costs or expenses
incurred or anticipated to be incurred by the County due to errors or omissions of
the Provider.
ii) Should this Agreenda ist at tno laddttdionai oo t, r all deliv e tiles including any
within seven (7) Y
electronic data or files relating to the Project.
d, Waiver. The payment of any sums by the County under this Agreement or the failure of
the County to require compliance by the Provider with any provisions of this Agreement
or the waiver by the County of any breach of this Agreement shall not constitute a
waiver of any claim for damages by the County for any breach of this Agreement or a
waiver of auy other required compliance with this Agreement.
11. Additional Provisions
a. Limitation and Assi¢mnent. The County and the Provider each bind themselves, their
successors, assigns and legal representatives to the teens of this Agreement. Neither the
County nor the Provider shall assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the
written consent of the other.
b oforespec~e partiesshegeunderrshall be governed by the~laws of tlgetStateaodf North
Carolina.
c. Disyut,____ e Resolute°n• Any and all suits or actions to enforce, interpret or seek damages
with respect to any provision of, or the performance or non-performance of, this
Agreement shall be brought in the General Court of Justice of North Carolina sitting in
Orange Comrty, North Carolina. It is agreed by the parties that no other court shall have
jurisdiction or venue with respect to such suits or actions. The Parties may agree to
nonbinding mediation of any dispute prior to the bringing of such suit or action.
d. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the RFP and its attachments and the
Proposal and its attachments, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
County and the Provider and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or
agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written
instrument signed by both parties. Modifications may be evidenced by facsimile
signatures.
e. Severability. If any provision of tlils Agreement is held as a matter of law to be
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be valid and binding upon the
Patties.
f. Ownership of Work Product. Should Provider's performance of this Agreement generate
documents, items or things that are specific to this Project such documents, items or
things shall become the property of the County and may be used on any other project
without additional compensation to the Provider. The use of the documents, items or
Revised February 2010
17
things by the County or by any person or entity for any purpose other than the Project as
set forth in this Agreement shall be at the full risk of the County.
g. Non-Anyronriation. Provider acknowledges that County is a govermnental entity, and
the validity of this Agreement is based upon the availability of public funding under the
authority of its statutory mandate.
In the event that public funds are unavailable and not appropriated for the performance of
County's obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement shall automatically
expire without penalty to County immediately upon written notice to Provider of the
unavailability and non-appropriation of public funds. It is expressly agreed that County
shall not activate this non-appropriation provision for its convenience or to circumvent
the requirements of this Agreement, but only as an emergency fiscal measure during a
substantial fiscal crisis.
In the event of a change in the County's statutory authority, mandate and/or mandated
functions, by state andlor federal legislative or regulatory action, which adversely affects
County's authority to continue its obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement
shall automatically terminate without penalty to County upon written notice to Provider
of such limitation or change in County's legal authority.
h. Notices. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by
certified or registered mail, return receipt requested to the following:
Provider's Name & Address
Orange County Clarion Associates
Attention: 101 Market Street Suite D
P.O. Box 8181 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Hillsborough, NC 27278
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, by and tluough their authorized agents, have
hereunder set their hands and seal, all as of the day and year first above written.
PROVIDER:
ORANGE COUNTY:
By:
Valerie Foushee, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
By:
Prnxted Nmrze arut Trtle
Federal Tax ID #:
Attest:
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
[SEAL]
Revised February 2010
18
Tlils instrument bas been approved as to technical content.
Craig Benedict, Department Director
Tlils instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act.
Clarence G. Grier, Finance Director
This inshument has been approved as to form and legal sufficiency.
John L. Roberts, County Attorney
Revised February 2010
19
Attaclmlent 3.1
CONTRACT ATTACHMENT ONE -SCOPE OF SERVICES:
The following is a detailed scope of services outlining the timeline and deliverables for
the UDO project. This expands on the information detailed within the attached contract,
specifically the milestone dates contained within Section Three -Basic Services:
A. Task One -Project Initiation and Assessment: Clarion will meet with
County staff as outlined below in this section, to review/assess existing
regulations and graphics. During this task, Clarion will identify areas within
ordinance text where graphics would be beneficial to suppott written
regulations and improve understanding.
This step will also involve identification of improvements to existing
regulations that could be addressed tlttough this, and future processes.
Meeting Targets: March 10, 2010 -One meeting with consultant and staff
to review process fot• project, begin reviewldiscussion of
existing reformatting and gtaphic issues, and review
timeline. The Consultant shall review graphics for the
new UDO with staff, and review with staff the
goals/objectives of the County contained within the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. The consultant shall review with
staff existing examples of modern UDO's from other
communities, for identification of ideas to include in
Orange County's new UDO. The consultant will also
discuss with staff the operation of existing regulations,
from the staff perspective.
March/April 2010 -Consultant will attend, with staff,
two (2) community outreach meetings to review new
regulations to be incorporated into the UDO and
formatting options with the public. Staff shall be
responsible for documenting and summarizing public
comments, suggestions, and concerns.
These comments, suggestions, and concerns shall become
part of the Implementation Bridge, described below in
Task Three.
March 31, 2010 -Consultant shall deliver to staff an
initial memorandum (expected length of approximately
five pages) summarizing initial findings fiom the March
meetings described above, including preliminary
recommendations addressing existing contradictions and
inconsistencies in the UDO that have been identified,
issues with existing graphics, and possible reformatting
options for the UDO with a follow-up meeting or
conference call.
20
Deliverables: Initial memorandum of existing issues and opportunities
for the UDO as identified in the March meetings,
including preliminary recommendations for addressing
existing contradictions and inconsistencies (expected
length of approximately five pages). This report will
identify topics that are candidates for graphic illustration,
but will not include any graphics at this point in the
project. -due March 31, 2010
B. Task Two -First Draft UDO: The Consultant will propose and County staff
and Consultant will agree on an outline for the reshucturing and format of the
revised UDO. Consultant will also provide formatting suggestions and
identify the topical areas in the new UDO where graphics/illustrations
can/should be included. When the revised structure of the revised UDO is
agreed upon, the Consultant will provide County staff a skeletal framework,
with templates, of the revised organizational structure for the UDO, in Word,
for County staff to use as it revises the UDO. Consultant will also spend up to
one-half day instructing staff on how to use the Word fiamework. County
staff will then place existing ordinance text into the new template format for
refinement and adjustment by Consultant.
The Consultant will not be expected to re-write existing regulations for
inclusion within the UDO. This is staff's responsibility. During this Task, the
Consultant will be compiling options on how to possibly revise other
regulations to be expressed in the Implementation Bridge, described in Task
Three, which is a primary focus of the Consultant's contract.
The Implementation Bridge is intended to detail public comments and
suggestions relating to the development of the UDO, outline ideas on possible
future amendments (including where they would be placed in the UDO),
suggest timelines (following discussion with staff), and provide the County
with a road map on how future Comprehensive Plan implementation efforts
could be initiated by the BOCC.
Meeting Targets: March through April 2010 -Review of preliminary
recommendations by Planning Board, advisory boards,
and staff. Consultant to attend meeting of Planning
Board, with staff.
Apri12010 -Consultant shall meet with staff, as needed,
to review reformatting options for the UDO project and
the Implementation Bridge. Estimate two meetings with
staff, and additional telephone consultation as needed.
May 2010 -Consultant will attend, with staff, two (2)
conununity outreach meetings to review proposed
Ordinance amendments with and present formatting
zl
structure to the public. Staff shall be responsible for
documenting and detailing public comments, suggestions,
and concerns.
These comments, suggestions, and concerns shall be
addressed in preparation of the Implementation Bridge.
C. Task Three -Public Hearing Draft UDO and Annotated Outline for the
August 23, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing: Clarion personnel will be
responsible for taking the first draft UDO, prepared by the County, and
reformatting it to serve as a draft for Public Hearing. Clarion will not be
reviewing the document for content or substance, but focusing on formatting
and presentation of the regulations. This task will include inserting graphics
and reformatting for publication quality fit and finish. During this Task, the
Consultant will also be working to complete the Implementation Bridge
described below. $5,000 of the project budget will be set aside for production
of graphics to include in the new UDO.
The Implementation Bridge that will be prepared as part of this Task will
include a summary of issues, comments, suggestions, and concerns, along
with strategies for addressing these. The Implementation Bridge will discuss
the structure and use of the new UDO, and identify issues and opportunities
for inclusion in subsequent amendments to the new UDO. (The length of the
Implementation Bridge is expected to be 15-17 pages.)All comments received
as part of the review of the initial drafts of the UDO shall be compiled within
the Implementation Bridge as well.
At the August 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing the Consultant, along with staff,
will present the public hearing draft of the UDO and the Implementation
Bridge to the BOCC and Planning Boatd for review and comment.
Meeting Targets: May through July 2010 -Consultant shall meet with
staff, as needed, to review reformatting options for the
UDO project and the Implementation Bridge (two on-site
meetings, and telephone discussions as needed).
August 23, 2010 -Quarterly Public Hearing. Consultant
to attend.
September through November 2010 -The Consultant
will work with staff to address necessary revisions to the
Implementation Bridge in person or via conference call
(estimate one on-site meeting). Consultant will commit
up to $1,500 of project budget for time related to
revisions to the UDO. Consultant shall be available to
complete additional revisions on a time and materials
basis.
22
November 16, 2010 -Consultant will attend the BOCC
meeting where the UDO and Implementation Bridge are
to be reviewed for adoption.
December 17, 2010 - Exit interview and project
closeout.
Deliverables: July 9, 2010 - Consultant shall submit the
Implementation Bridge for review and comment.
July 16, 2010 -Delivery of public hearing draft UDO
(contingent upon timely delivery of staff draft to
Consultant for formatting).
November 3, 2010 -Delivery of revised copies of the
Implementation Bridge. The Consultant shall also be
responsible for• assisting staff with any revisions to the
UDO necessary to address comments made during the
public hearing review process, up to a limit of $1,500 of
consultant time.
Consultant shall deliver one paper copy and one digital
copy of all deliverables to the County.
Z 1 A~'~"o.c~ ~'1ev~}' .~j.Z 23
,.:_
.;: i
,,,. ,;::
ASSISTANCE IN `~
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
''
~,
i
s
~
a
~
t*
fi~
~YY1~`k7f 4 ~ 1
~t~{~ ,
~
~
~
~
~,
~ _
2030 Comprehensive Plan
>,'+~ < <
b !rte°'~
pUOPRD
i. ~~y ~
November 24, ~ZOO~g
' ~,
,,~~~~
Su6mlftetl b~~ }
~,--c>a
CLARION ASSOCIATES
101 Market Street, Sulte'D°""`
c•
Chapel Hill, NC>275`l6' •`
919.967.9.188;:';;,?
vrww. cla rionasso ci rites: co m';;~:
!n Associption W..ifh;"i
Tetra Tech`-' .
24
25
IOIMarket Street Zoning
SuiteD Growth Management
ChapelHifl,N.G 27516 Comprehensive Planning
919.967.9188 Real Estate Consulting
Fax 919.967.9077
~ ~, ~ ~ 1 ® ~
November 24, 2009
(VIA HAND DELIVERY)
Mr. Michael D. Harvey, AICP, CZP
Orange Couniy Planning Department
30bF Revere Road
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245-2575
RE: Request for Proposals to Provide Professional Services Related to the Development of a Unified
Development Ordinance for Orange County
Dear Mr. Harvey,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide professional services related to the
development of a Unified Development Ordinance for Orange County. Clarion Associates is a
national land use and zoning consulting firm with a strong North Carolina presence. Firm
professionals have substantial experience in assisting local government clients in evaluating, drafting,
and updating development regulations in North Carolina, the southeast, and nation. We are excited
about the prospect of working with Orange County on this project.
If we are selected, Roger Waldon, a Clarion Principal working out of our North Carolina office, will
manage the project. He will be assisted by Craig Richardson and Leigh Anne King, both professionals
in our North Carolina office.
We also describe in this proposal the qualifications and experience of Tetra Tech, an environmental
management and engineering firm with specialties in stormwater management, erosion control, and
flood damage prevention. Available for assistance to Orange County would be Kimberly Brewer, a
long-term Orange County resident specializing in water quality issues. Other resources available
from Tetra Tech include Jonathan Smith, a stormwater management engineer and Regina Scheibner,
a graphic designer and illustrator.
As is discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this response, we have extensive relevant
experience in assisting cities and counties in the evaluation and updating of development regulations.
Our team's strengths are summarized as follows:
We know Orange County well. We live and work here, helped Orange County prepare and
adopt its Comprehensive Plan, and have worked to prepare and help implement
intergovernmental agreements here (which are important components of this new UDO}. We
understand the context intimately.
26
• We have substantial experience in drafting effective development codes adopted by
communities in North Carolina, the southeast, and across the nar wth strategies, area plans,
We specialize in implementation of comprehensive plans, g
special studies, and similar long range planning documents.
• We have extensive experience in drafting award-winning, user-friendly' codes that are written
in plain English and made available through web-based technology.
We are experts at integrating illustrations, diagrams, and graphical depictions of complex
regulatory concepts into code documents.
• We have broad experience "re-tooling' outdated development codes for growing
communities.
• areasa wh ch are kelevaeng fo Obanger Ctounty ~ su h' as !mode rnz ngllzonedd str ctstafotc~
standards, infill development standards, design regulations, planned development regulations,
traditional neighborhood development, and mixed-use development standards.
We are experts in revising development standards to "raise the bar' for development quality in
areas such as parking, landscaping, tree protection, signage, and community appearance.
This response is organized into six sections:
1. Cover Letter
2. Proposed Approach and Project Schedule
3. Roles and Responsibilities
4. Examples of Relevant Experience
5. References
6. Budget
We also include, as samples of our work, an Annotated Outline for a new UDO for Hillsborough
(work currently underway), and an excerpt from a UDO we are preparing for Fayetteville. One of the
anyAnnotatednOutline and assistO ennelayout andDg phicsf or use iln the f nal document pThose a~e
specialties of ours.
opporfunity't s ubm'rttthis scope ofiserv cesk' We look forwOa d go d socussyngnoua leas wath youu for the
Very truly yours,
~.~ S 1,,.) .~.,Cv_.
Roger S. Waldon _. - -
Principal, Clarion Associates. --- -
27
We are pleased to prepare a proposal for Orange County
to assist in the preparation of a new Unified Development
Ordinance. In this proposal we describe services that we
are prepared to offer immediately, and also identify
options for the County`s consideration as work proceeds in
subsequent phases of UDO production.
We understand Orange County's regulatory context very
well. We assisted the county in preparation and adoption
of the current Comprehensive Plan. We have worked on
intergovernmental agreements involving Orange County,
Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill. The project
manager for Clarion's work on this initiative will be Roger
Waldon, who served as Chapel HiII's Planning Director for
iwo decades prior to joining Clarion Associates in 2005.
We are currently working with the Town of Hillsborough on
preparation of its UDO. We have been advising Chopel
Hill regarding growth management strategies.
~q ~m
~.b;,~
And we understand what it takes to craft a UDO that meets community goals. Clarion has extensive
experience in drafting of development codes for communities in North Carolina, the southeast, and
across the nation:
o We have written zoning regulations for cities and counties in North Carolina, the
southeast, and the nation that are well-illustrated, written in plain English, and made
available through web-based technology (including codes in Cary, NC; Mooresville,
NC; Folly Beach, SC; Rock Hill, SC; Franklin, TN; Greenville, SC; Alachua, FL;
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY; Forf Collins, CO; Colorado Springs, CO; Anchorage,
AK; and Henderson, NV).
o We have re-tooled development codes for growing communities, to encourage
development objectives (inlud ngtcodes in Folly Bealch,tSCcRock Hi I, SCIaCary, NC;
Mooresville, NC; Alachua, FL; and Franklin, TN).
o We have in-depth knowledge of "best practices' on land development issues generally,
and in designing workable solutions for communities in substantive "best practices'
areas we believe are important to the project, such as:
• Infill development (Clayton, MO; Overland Park, KS; Rock Hill, SC; Greenville, SC; Oak
Park, IL)
• Form-based design (Jefferson County/Louisville, KY; Carson City, NV; Mooresville, NC
• Mixed-use development (Colorado Springs, CO; Montgomery County, MD; Henderson,
NV; Franklin, TN; Cnry, NC; Rock Hill, SCj, and
• Landscaping and parking (Rock Hill, SC; Cary, NC; Franklin, TN).
Comprehensive reviews and updates of development regulations are major undertakings that must be
carefully considered and systematically pursued. They are more technical in nature than
UDO Assistance Orange County, North Carolina
zs
UDO Assistance ~ Orange County, North Carolina
comprehensive plans. Language and standards must be clear and precise. While citizen participation
is important, it tends to be more focused than with most comprehensive plan projects, with more
emphasis on technical review rather than on numerous neighborhood meetings.
Our experience suggests that it is well worth the time for a community to produce and discuss a
written assessment of existing development regulations before drafting revisions to those regulations,
especially given the need to consider and implement policy recommendations from the community's
recent adopted plans. We therefore applaud Orange County's decision to initiate its consideration of
UDO revisions with this essential first step -preparation of an Annotated Outline =one that we
routinely incorporate into every code revision project we undertake.
Based on our experience in drafting development codes, we have developed a preliminary scope of
services that we believe will enhance the County's ongoing work to update these regulations. We also
offer here, in addition. to a 1Sroposed scope of work, a series of options for subsequent work that
would enhance the usability of the new regulations. We are flexible and, if selected to do the work,
would be pleased to work with Orange County in making any adjustments to the scope Orange
County believes appropriate.
The preliminary scope includes four basic tasks, which are set forth below.
TASK 1 • INITIATION, GRAPt11CS AND ILLUSTILATIONS
After reviewing all relevant ordinances,
plans, and other related documents;
Clarion will meet with planning staff and
other county staff as appropriate, to
discuss overall project goals, and discuss
roles. As part of these initial meetings,
Clarion will offer examples of graphics,
illustrations, and formatting used in other
ordinance projects to determine Orange
County's preferences. The graphic
representations/illustrations will serve as
practical examples of the development
standards to be contained within the new
UDO.
TASK 2: ASSIST WITIi ILE-PACKAGING ItEfiLAT10NS
Orange County staff has been and wilt continue working to refresh Orange County's
development. regulations. This UDO project. s_ not in_tended__t_o be a_fu1~._re-write of all
regulations, but rather a re-packaging of regulations in a more organized, contemporary, user-
friendly format. As part of this re-packaging, there will be adjustments made to particular
regulations that are out-of-date or inadequate to meet current goals and community standards.
29
UDO Assistance
North Carolina
We suggest focusing on the following key ideas:
o Making the ordinance more user-friendly, through:
Greater use of illustrations and graphics;
Structural re-organization;
Updating and clarifying definitions;
Providing a referencing system;
Removal of out-dated or conflicting provisions; and
Improving development review processes (as appropriate);
o removelc onfusing Ianguage,randlprovide morescerta niy; and they are more efficient,
o Incorporating selected new provisions that serve to implement objectives that are
included in the new Comprehensive Plan.
We are currently undertaking a similar initiative with the Town of
Hillsborough, crafting a new UDO that combines zoning and
subdivision ordinances into one user-friendly document. We have
just completed a draft Annotated Outline for Hillsborough
(presented to the Town Board of Commissioners on November
23), We attach the Hillsborough outline here as an appendix.
We believe that one benefit of selecting our team for assistance
with Orange County's UDO is an opportunity for coordinating
language, terminology, and approaches to "edge' areas with our
work in Hillsborough.
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH,
NORTH CAROLINA
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
OrRMmSkd Odim
,~.~
We understand that Orange County staff will be leading this UDO effort, including planning
and facilitating public input meetings. We can assist in this effort in several ways:
o Using our keypad-polling technology in public meetings to gauge public opinion; and
o Helping to document and catalogue public comments for use in reports that can be
posted and made available for review.
We have had great success in using keypad-polling as
a technique to promote public engagement and
obtain valuable information. Feedback from
participants is universally positive, and we would be
pleased to make this technology available for use as
part of this UDO project. We will plan on attending
public meetings along with county staff as agreed
upon during project initiation.
30
UDO Assistance
North Carolina
Clarion routinely helps communities prepare Annotated Outlines as an initial step in preparing a
UDO. We'have found this to be an extremely useful approach to gain consensus on general
approaches prior to actually drafting ordinance language. We will be pleased to consult with
staff as work on an Annotated Outline proceedlCai Ann a1 d ~utiineewill n elude a summary of
from similar work in other communities. A typ'
all public comments received during the process, a summary of the key issues to be addressed
in the UDO writing, identifying the issues where neovidinrevaise ato otlnand schedule forvreview
prepared to implement key policies and plans, and p 9 P
of subsequent UDO amendments. We attach here, as an appendix, our work on Hillsborough's
Annotated Outline as one example of how such a document might be structured.
Inclu ations tlraphOs a d fo~ma that will be uOsed in theoresulting UDO IeDuring ouryprojeoct
illustr , 9
initiation meetings with staff we will discuss the extent to which the County might move o
develop such graphics. We have as an optional resource for this project our Clarion designers
who have developed specific illustrations for other ordinances, along with the professionals at
envraonmental regulations. thFo I wing is an examp e of uch~llustrafonsting and illustrating key
Minimum freeboard
0.2 feet from maximum
pontling depth
Maximum ponded
Grass filter water depth (specific
Sheet flow ~ staib to pI®soil texture)
t(mit of fl
vement
~ l~l~; Planting soil
Near vertical Wlr
sldewalls ~ iii:
Oioretention area
In situ Materiel
SaturatedPerm~blliN
Greater than 0.5 IPH
Ground cover
a mulch layer
~ ~ 5' min.
4' min. 2' max.
~. 3.1' max.
i
Section A~A (not to scale)
__
We have included here, as an appendix, excerpts from a UDO that we are drafting or
'- Fayetteville, NC. These excerpts describe zoning districts in that community's UDO, and show
what can develop growing out of an Annotated Outline.
UDO Assistance Orange County, North Carolina
31
5
c.•MFn~i~ iFITIMFFRAMe
O~+^
We understand the timeframes that have been put in place by the County, and which are
displayed in the Request for Proposals. We are ready to begin work immediately, and continue
our engagement with the County through the first half of 2010. The schedule set forth in the
RFP is aggressive, but can be accomplished with close collaboration. We are on-board for
helping staff produce a draft UDO in June, 2010.
We believe that our close proximity, to county offices, and our previous working relationships
oftouroresourcefs~a d'ailowb~s to be ofimmediat help to staff upoon eexecution of'a contrat {e use
FIRM DESCRIPTIONS
Clarion Associates, lLC
Clarion Associates is a national land-use and zoning consulting firm founded in
1992, with offices in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Denver and Forf Collins,
Colorado, and affiliate offices in Chicago, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia. No firm
in the country matches the combination of land use and zoning, urban design,
real estate economics, community development and planning experience of its
principals. Clarion is particularly known for its expertise in:
o Innovative zoning and development code revisions;
o Design of "user-friendly" development codes;
o Design of development codes to.make them procedurally efficient;
o Design of development standards to address community character;
o Design of mixed use development regulations;
o Development of form-based regulations;
o Design of aesthetic regulations;
o Incorporation of neo-traditional principles into codes and plans;
o Design of innovative approaches to parking and buffering;
o Protection of sensitive lands, open space, and historic resources;
o Design of regulations to protect existing neighborhoods;
o Performance standards /innovative growth management systems;
o Historic preservation issues; and
o Legal issues and growth management.
~ $~~,
~,:
Land -
Development
Ordinance
.~°
project (would the managed outfof the ChapelCHdl, North Carol na off e.e We also offer thecoption of
involving Tetra Tech in the county's work, to assist on approaches and illustrations related to
environmental issues.
32
6
UDO Assistance Orange County, North Carolina
Tetra Tech
Tetra Tech is a leading provider of consulting, engineering, and technical services worldwide.
The company supports government and commercial clients by providing innovative solutions
focused on water, the environment, and energy. Tetra Tech is a diverse company, including
individuals with expertise in science, research, engineering, construction, and information
technology.
With more than 10,000 employees worldwide, Tetra Tech's capabilities span the entire project
life cycle. Tetra Tech's strength is in collectively providing integrated services-delivering the
best solutions to meet our clients' needs. In a complex world with competing demands for
limited resources, Tetra Tech offers clear solutions made possible with sound science,
understanding, innovation, and industry-leading approaches.
Tetra Tech's design expertise is well known and internationally acclaimed. In the latest
rankings by the Engineering News-Record (ENR), Tetra Tech was ranked #1 in Water, #1 in
Environmental Management, #1 'in Water Treatment/Desalination, #2 in Dams/Reservoirs,
and #5 in Sanitary/Storm Sewers. Tetra Tech is proud to have been ranked in the top 10
Green Design Firms by ENR in its first such ranking last year.
Tetra Tech is very familiar with
North Carolina laws and
regulations that are in place
related to erosion control,
stormwater management, and
flood damage prevention.
KEY PeRSONNEL
No. 8 Design Firm (among Top 600 Design Firms)
Biographical sketches of the professionals who would be involved in the project if the Clarion
team is selected are outlined below. Resumes appear in an appendix.
Clarion Associates, LLC
Roger Waldon, FAICP, is a Principal in Clarion's Chapel HiII office, and will
serve as Project Manager. Roger has assisted communities throughout
North Carolina and the Southeast with plans, ordinances, and growth
management programs. He is currently working on plans for Greensboro,
Chapel HiII, Wilson, Clemmons, and Hillsborough in North Carolina, along
with plans for Union and Iredell Counties. He served as Planning Director
for the Town of Chapel Hill from 1984-2005, responsible for drafting and
implementing ordinances and intergovernmental agreements.
33
UDO Assistance
North Carolina
7
Craig Richardson is a planner, lawyer, and Vice President of Clarion, as
well as director of the firm's North Carolina office. Mr. Richardson has
consulted with over 100 local government clients in a number of states
throughout the country on issues such as the preparation of development
codes, adequate public facility regulations, impact fees, affordable
housing plans and regulations, mixed-use development regulations,
scenic corridor regulations, landscaping, and aesthetic regulations. Mr.
Richardson has a strong record of success in either managing or serving as a principal in a
number of code revision efforts, including projects in Fayetteville, NC; Jacksonville, NC; Rock
Hill, SC; Falls Church, VA; Williamson County, TN; Portsmouth, VA; Mooresville, NC; Palm
Beach City, FL; Henrico City, VA; Alachua, FL; Folly Beach, SC; Greenville, SC; Beaufort
County, SC; Teton County, WY; Kalamazoo, MI; St Lucie County, FL; Larimer County, CO; the
Town of Aspen, CO; the Town of Jackson, WY; Houston, TX; and Jacksonville Beach, FL. Mr.
Richardson is a frequent speaker at planning and legal conferences on plan implementation
issues. He has written on a variety of plan implementation issues including adequate public
facility regulations, impact fees, and general plan implementation. He serves on the faculty for
APA's national Zoning Clinic.
Stephen Sizemore, AICP, is a Senior Consultant in Clarion's Chapel Hill office.
He is a planner and lawyer with over 25 years of experience in preparing and
implementing development codes, comprehensive plans, design standards and
guidelines, and growth management policies for local governments. He also
has substantial experience in addressing coastal area management issues. Prior
to joining Clarion, Mr. Sizemore served in a number of planning related jobs in
the public sector. He was Planning Director for Onslow County, North Carolina,
where he oversaw development of a comprehensive plan and implementation of
county/military compatible land use strategies; served as the Editor of Planning & Environmental
Law for the American Planning Association; prepared growth management policies and
development regulations for Wake County, North Carolina; developed guidelines for local
government preparation and implementation of comprehensive plans for the State of Maine;
and assisted in the preparation and administration of unified development regulations for
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He has written on a variety of planning issues. Mr. Sizemore holds
a planning degree and a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is
a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and the North Carolina State Bar.
The Clarion team has experience working in North Carolina and across the nation in drafting
development codes. Selected recent and relevant examples are identified below, with a short
description of the project and client reference.
34
UDO Assistance Orange County, North Carolina
~, ~®rBit far®iina j Land ®evel®ptnent ®rdincance
The rapidly growing Town of Cary, North Carolina, retained a team red a e
Clarion Associates which included WRT and the VIC Group to p p
comprehensive revisions to Cary's Unified Development Ordinance. The project
included a heavy emphasis on public participation; significant streamlining of the
current code, including revision and clarification of several development review
procedures; and implementation of planning and growth management goals
adopted in Orange County's 1996 Growth Management Plan, including many
neo-traditional design principles. An interactive, web-based Visual Interactive
Code'" (VIC) was Produced, including training of the staff for preparing updates
in-house.
Client: Town of Cary, North Carolina
Reference: Jeff Ulma, Planning Director
Telephone: 919.469.4082
8
~~l
`- - - "
Land
Development
Ordinance
•~,am
~®®resviife, es®ri6t bar®iina j Land ®~v~9®prtent ®rdinance ust north of
Mooresville, a mid-sized town of 50,000 people located j
Mecklenburg County in the Charlotte metro area, has selected Clarion Associates
to assist the staff in the preparation of a unified Land Development Ordinance.
Mooresville is afast-growing community on the shores of Lake Norman with its
own school district and a highly diversified economy, including several NASCAR
racing teams and the headquarters of Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse.
The Land Development Ordinance is intended to modernize and streamline the
Town's existing development standards while integrating elements of form-based
use regulation and a generous use of user-friendly techniques such as graphics,
illustrations, summary tables, and process diagrams. The project will result in a web-based fully
interactive digital vearsih c If and ouser-friendlyatenha ncements,l the t new Oland Development
addition to the g p
Ordinance will streamline the Town's development review procedures and raise the bar or
development quality.
Client: Town of Mooresville, North Carolina
Reference: Tim Brown, Planning Director
Telephone: 704.799.8019
.6acics®neiiie, 65®rth scar®iina) Land ®eaei®p,etent ®rdineance
NOR1H(AImt1.45
Jacksonville is a mid-sized city of about 70,000 people located adjacent to one ~~r,~r~.
of the fastest developing areas of the North Carolina coastline. The city is also
home to Camp Lejeune, the nation`s largest Marine Corps facility. To better ~ ~ r
i.
address new development expected from the growth of Camp Lejeune, The city i ' r ~.
recently retained Clarion Associates to prepare a unified development ordinance
(UDO}. The new UDO will focus on making city development regulations and- ~a
review processes more user-friendly through consolidation, reorganization,
improved formatting, improved referencing, and expanded use of illustrations
and graphics. It will also streamline development review, modernize zoning
districts and uses, improve development quality, encourage infill and redevelopment in The city's
downtown and along its major transportation corridors, and otherwise implement The city's new
UDO Assistance Orange County, North Carolina
growth management, land use, and downtown design policies. The VIC Group will produce a
digital version of the UDO for The city's website, which will allow users to quickly view code
contents, illustrated commentary, and color graphics on-line, as well as take advantage of
dynamic text links, index and word search functions, and bookmarking capabilities.
Client: ' City of Jacksonville, North Carolina
Reference: Reggie Goodson, Planning and Development Services Director
Telephone: 910.938.6529
~caye94eville, Paorth ~wro9in~ (Land ®eerelogarnent ®rdfinance
Clarion Associates has been retained to prepare anew unified development
ordinance (UDO) for Fayetteville, a city of 174,000 that is home to Fort Bragg, one
of the world's largest military complexes and a major influence on the city's growth
and development. Besides modernizing zoning districts and uses, streamlining
development review, and making regulations user-friendly, the UDO will focus on
improving open space and landscaping standards to "green' the community, using
cutting edge tools to promote sustainable development practices, adding design
standards to improve development quality, and revu619 d acet attractive u rban
development standards to encourage mixed uses, p p
design, and pedestrian accessibility.
Client: City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
Reference: Karen Hilton, Assistant Planning Director
Telephone: 910.433.1437
niCied
Ordinance
emerald 9~1e, Pdor9h ~arolance (®esrgn C®ncegsys for alellesge tenter
Emerald Isle is a coastal community in North Carolina with along-standing local
population, and a destination for fishing and beach-related visitors. Clarion
Associates was retained by the Town of Emerald Isle to conduct a workshop and
prepare Design. Concepts for redevelopment of a strategic beachfront area, at the
base of a fishing pier. The Town's Land Use Plan, approved under the terms of
the N.C. Coastal Areas Management Act, call for this area-to become a Village
Center. Town leaders, full-time residents, property owners, and seasonal visitors
were brought together to explore ideas for redevelopment of the area, resulting in
a set of Design Concepts that form the foundation for new regulations and
development proposals. Another component of the project involves an update of
the Town's development ordinances, to combine various regulations into a single document that
is user-friendly and targeted to residents, property owners, and the development community.
35
Client: Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina
Reference: Kevin Reed, Planning Director
Phone: 252.354.3338
36
UDO Assistance ~ Orange County, North Carolina
10
~®c8c 6iili, S®u46r far®iina ~Z®ning ®rel0nance
Clarion Associates, in association with the Walker Collaborative, has drafted a
new Zoning Ordinance for The city of Rock Hill, South Carolina, which was
adopted in December of 2005. Rock Hill is one of the five "Ring City" nodes in
the Charlotte metropolitan region, and is an old Piedmont textile mill town which
has experienced substantial growth in recent years due to its strategic location in
the Charlotte metro area. The focus of the effort was to implement the city's
recently adopted General Plan, which promotes a more livable future by
encouraging appropriate infill and re-development of the "old town' area of the
community; protecting and enhancing older neighborhoods; while encouraging
more compact, dense, and sustainable growth in greenfield areas. Major issues that were
addressed included: making the code more usable and "user friendly;" making the development
review process more efficient and effective; modernizing the zone district and planned
development regulations, encouraging new infill development that is compatible with its context,
and establishing minimum development and design standards to ensure community form and
^ppearance protects existing character while encouraging a high qualify of mixed use and
connected neighborhoods. Following drafting of the code, Clarion partnered with the VIC
Group to produce a digital version of the code which is served on the web by The city's
computer network. Code users can quickly view code contents, illustrated commentary, and
color graphics on-line, as well as take advantage of dynamic text links, index and word search
functions, as well as bookmarking capabilities.
Client: City of Rock HiII, South Carolina
Reference: Frances M. Thomas, Planning and Development Director
Telephone: 803.329.7080
Cf1Y OF
~®liy beach, S®u4h far®lina ~ ~®ning and Land ®ewei®pmen4 ®rd,nanse rnuvnFacx~sc
The city of Folly Beach, a barrier island beach community south of Charleston, ~~ ~~a~o~.ao,m~„
oro~~~
South Carolina, has been facing extreme growth pressures, including "tear- ,_ L -`._- -
downs' of the existing beach cottages in favor of new large-scale vacation homes
FEMA regulations, and the ~~
being used as vacation rentals. Based on land costs,
area's popularity as a vacation destination, many of these new structures (and the ~ "°
traffic associated wish them) have been affecting the area's "small-town' n
character. After adoption of a six-month moratorium, The city hired Clarion
Associates to re-write the community's development regulations, including new
vacation rental standards, single-family development standards, and a variety of
other provisions to help protect community character. The project will result in a complete
revision to The city's development regulations into a modern unified development ordinance that
addresses community character and environmental protection while allowing for economic
development and tourism.
Client: City of Folly Beach, South Carolina
Reference: Aaron Pope, Zoning Administrator
Telephone: 843.588.2447
37
UDO Assistance) Orange County, North Carolina
P®rtsrn®utis, Virginity ~ Z®ning Cardinwnee
Clarion Associates, in association with WRT, is drafting a new Zoning
Ordinance for this mature community in the Hampton Roads area. The
effort includes the preparation and administration of a Visual Preference
Survey (VPS) to gauge local opinion on design and appearance related
issues such as building orientation, commercial corridor development,
and commercial design standards. Clarion and WRT will use the results
of the VPS to inform the work program on the range of design standards
needed by the community. In addition to commercial design, some other major issues to be
addressed by the project include establishment of new mixed use districts, a neighborhood
conservation overlay district framework, improving basic landscaping, tree protection, parking,
fencing, and exterior lighting development standards. New standards to address development
and redevelopment on the city`s nonconforming lots will also be included. After adoption of the
new Ordinance, it will be placed into an interactive digital format by the VIC Group for serving
on The city's web page.
Client: City of Portsmouth, Virginia
Contact: Fred Brusso, Current Planning Manager
Phone: 757.393.8836 x42120
lFraniciie~, Tennessee ~ g®ning ®rciintynce
Clarion Associates was retained by the City of Franklin to draft a revised
development code for this fast-growing, progressive community in the Nashville
region. The code is focused on implementation of a cutting edge comprehensive
plan that included the development of character areas, innovative open space
and natural resource preservation techniques, and a much stronger focus on
urban design. The development code includes substantive re-structuring of The
city's current ordinance, including integration of The city's stand-alone design
guidelines, and an overall upgrade to the development standards related to
landscaping, parking, and open space.
Client: City of Franklin, Tennessee
Reference: Jaime Grace, Planning Director
Telephone: 615.791.3212
L®uisville, Je$@ers®n County, iCentuctsy ~ Lwnd ®evel®pment C®de
Clarion Associates was retained to lead a team including WRT and Tim Bishop,
Esq. to complete a revision of the joint land development codes for The city of
Louisville and Jefferson County (including all incorporated and unincorporated
parts of the county). Development challenges facing The city include
revitalization of downtown Louisville and the Ohio River waterfront; preservation
of its older housing stock and traditional neighborhoods and villages; the preservation of
important natural, cultural, and scenic areas including critical watershed lands, karst terrain,
and mature woodlands; and ensuring better compatibility between new development and
adjacent neighborhoods. Important new development code provisions will include (1) detailed
community and site design and development standards keyed to eleven character-based "form
districts' that overlay The city's standard zone district system (including a "village form district"
and a "town center" form district; and (2) detailed environmental protection standards generally
12
UDO Assistance Orange County, North Carolina
applicable fo all new development, including standards addressing steep slopes, unstable soils,
woodlandltree preservation, and water quality.
Client: City of Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky
Reference: Clark Bledsoe, Planning Director, Jefferson County Planning &
Development Services
Telephone: 502.574.6230
Alachua, FI®ric@a (band ®ev~l®prnen4 Regu9ata®ess
Clarion updated the Land Development Regulations for Alachua, Florida, which
was adopted by the city Commission in February of 2006. Alachua is an old north
central Florida city close to Gainesville that has experienced substantial residential
and business-related growth throughout the 1990s. The code rewrite focused on
structural; procedural, and substantive improvements to The city's existing
regulations to implement the recently revised comprehensive plan. Structurally,
the update consolidated scattered land development provisions into a single,
clearly organized development code. Procedurally, The city's complex assortment
of procedures and responsibilities for development review were simplified into an
integrated, easy-to-understand review process. Substantively, the new code presents a
of innovative measures to encourage infill development in the older parts of the community,
along with new development standards that will raise the bar for development quality.
Client: City of Alachua, Florida
Reference: Laura Dedenbach, Planning Director
Telephone: 386.418.4078
~a6m beach C®unf~v, ~I®rida
Client: Palm-Beach County, Florida
Reference: Donna Kristaponis (former Director, Planning, Zoning, and Building
Dept.), County Manager Lyon County, NV
Telephone: 775.463.6531
band ®evel®prnent ~®de
Mr. Richardson managed amulti-disciplinary team of lawyers, planners,
and ecologists in the design and preparation of a unified Land
Development Code for this large urbanized southeast Florida County of
over 1,000,000 residents. The effort focused on the implementation of
specific community objectives established in the county's Comprehensive
Plan, and the consolidation and streamlining of the county's development
review procedures. The effort culminated in the preparation of a unified
land Development Code which consolidated over fifty (50) of the county's existing land use and
environmental regulations into the Code document, streamlined and consolidated development
review procedures, and added new substantive regulations. The substantive regulaiQndscaa dind
included: (1j adequate public facilities regulations (concurrency regulations); (2) P 9
and xeriscape regulations; (3) signage regulations; (4) excavation regulations; (5) mixed use
districts and planned development district regulations, and (6) coastal management regulations
{sea turtle protection regulations, wetland regulations, coastal regulations, and well field
protection regulations).
38
number
39
UDO Assistance Orange County, North Carolina
Client: Town of Mooresville, Norfh Carolina
Reference: Tim Brown, Planning Director
Telephone: 704.799.8019
Unified Development Ordinance - 2008
Client: Town of Hillsborough, Norfh Carolina
Reference: Margaret Hauth, Planning Director
Telephone: 919.732.1270
Unified Development Ordinance -ongoing
Client: Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Reference: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Telephone: 919.968.2728
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance -ongoing
Tetra Tech Client Reference
Client: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Reference: Rusty Rozzelle, County Water Quality Program Manager
Telephone: 704.336.5449
13
There is a range of services that could be provided to Orange County in providing assistance in the
development of the new Unified Development Ordinance. We understand that county staff will be
taking the lead in this initiative. We have reviewed the Request for Proposals and its proposed Scope
of Services, and are prepared fo offer those services, as described in the RFP and in this proposal,
within a project budget of $30,000.
Not included within that project budget are (1) The involvement of Tetra Tech for any work other than
occasional consultation about environmental regulations and sources for illustrations; and (2)
Custom-drawn illustrations for the new UDO. Those services are available as options, and we would
be pleased to discuss possibilities. We have generalized graphics, and often photographs will work
well to illustrate a point. We are flexible. If selected to assist on this project, we would be pleased to
work with Orange County in making reasonable adjustments to the scope and budget as the county
sees fit to ensure that the county maximizes efficiencies in the project.
40
i Inn Assistance Orange County, North Carolina
Appendix l : Clarion Southeast Experience
Appendix 2: Stoff Resumes
Appendix 3: Hillsborough Annotated Outline
Appendix 4: Excerpt from Draft Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance
14
Thank you for your art of thatimporiahnt UDO process. look forward to discussing these ideas with
you, and to being p
and the kinds of lassistance that we providetoelocal governments nFollowing areosal of out eaNo~ ~~^-~
41
UDO Assistance Orange County, Norih Carolina
Clarion Southeast Experience
42
l;S11'r.
s:".~
43
44
45
Clarion Associates
' n ~~~ ~~~ H'~ ~ Clarion Associates'is a national land-use consulting firm with offices in Chapel
HiII, North Carolind; Denver and Fort Collins, Colorodo; and affiliote offices
- in Chicago, Philodelphia, an anninrnnaro~O~anagement st ort gies, devel-
eats iri land use and urban p g~ 9
opment codes, design, land use law, and real estate, economics allows us to
develop creative solutions to difficult lurid use and design questions. Clarion
is porticularly known for its expertise inland use and plan implementation. The
firm has represented both public and private sector clients on a variety of land-
use planning and zoning matters. Its principals have written plans and drofted
development codes, other regulations Arid design standards throughout the
' United States. Since its founding in 1992, the firm has developed expertise in
abroad range of planning areas, including:
• Community, regional, arid neighborhood planning;
• Development codes
• Impact fees
• Growth Management strategies for cities and regions;
• Design standards and development regulations;
• Historic Preservation;
• Development Financing;
• Downtown plans and strotegies;
• Cifizen participation strategies; and
• Implementation strategies.
Clarion is particularly known for our expertise in:
Zoning
Clarion Associates has represented public sector clients on a variety of design
guidelines, standards, ordinances, and regulations throughout the United
States, with particulor emphasis on historic preservotion, development financ-
ing, design standards, natural resource protection, and both downtown and
suburban zoning systems.
plonning rehensive Ian-
With our multi-discipliriary team and broad experience, comp P
Wing is one of our specialties. Clarion offers a wide variety of planning sarvoye~s~
including community/comprehensive planning, regional planning and g
management, environmental protection. and open space planning, urban re-
newal and development, and international development.
Development Economics
Clarion specializes in advising public sector clients on the economics and fis-
_ _, cal impacts of development proposaosectcfealsibil'tye We thave anayzedo the
-" opment, and other aspects of p I
economics of numerous types of real estate development in both urban and
rural contexts and the impacts of proposed plans and cost recovery systems on
different.forms of development. ,
~~°
4 - f~?c
' f°~ ~ ~ , s
46
S®~fheastern Experience
Clarion Associates has extensive experience working with communities in the southeastern
United States. From Northern Virginia to the Florida Keys, and from the South Carolina coast to
Mississippi, Clarion has assisted over 100 local government clients in the southeast with
their land use planning and implementation needs.
Fee
•.
~.
=•
*;, ~ ~,
'~S .. y`
47
The Chapel Hell Team
The Chapel Hill office provides a unique blend of plahmng and implemen}ation experience. Collectively
Clarion's two principals and three associates in Chapel Hill have Byer 60 years of experience working
with communities on land use planning and zoning solutions, Bnngmgaogether both public planning
:and legal leadership experience, the Chapel Hill office assists its chenfs in developing comprehensive
s plans, growth strategies, development. codes, impad fee programs, affordable housing strategies and
many othef implementation strategies that address a wide array of assuas including rural preservation,
neighborhood conseryatton,, improvement of design quahfyj resource protection, balancing residential
and commercial de'veloprnentr;affordableworkforce houstng,dnd prowsjbn of public services.
t ~ '.!_.
~,
~'%
12 '~ ~, 'Craig Richardson is a planner, lawyer, and Vice President of Clarion. He is Di-
' .` ~. ,i ~ 3' .'rector of the firm's North Carolina office. Mr. Richardson has consulted with
1 ~ `-' over 100 local government clients m a number of states throughout the coun-
~; try on the preparation of develop"meat codes;'growth management strategies,
.~u ~~ ~ adequgte public facility regulations, impac{fees, and workforce housing plans
;"~~ 'and regulations. He has a strong record..of success in leading code revi-
~" ` Sion projects, growth management strategies, and other plan implementation
` <`efforts,. Recent code prolects;anclude:_Rock HiII, SC; Portsmouth, VA;
~t MooresVille,NC, St.; Luae County, FL, Falls Church, VA; Folly Beach, SC; and
- Teton County,.WY.' Recent growth management efforts include leading the
`firm s preparations of the South..Beaufoh County Regional Plan (selected the
- Outstanding Multi-Jurisdictional Plari 6y,SCAPAj; designing the plan confor-
'~ mance acid projects of regiorialsign~ficance process for the Southern Nevada
Region&( Plan (which won the DeBoer Award for Planning Excellence); and
" ;, + `' leading the public facilities and cost of growth'„components of the Wake County
Growth tlAanagement Strategy. In addition, Mc Richardson has consulted with
- ~ ~' numerous-local governments in 12 states in the design, implementation, and
'; defense of over 100 impact fee programs, and recently lead efforts in the de-
~ j, ''sign gad. implementation of workforce housing strategies in Jackson/Teton
'_ ~ ,County, WY; Aspect/Pitkin County, CO; Islamorada, FL (the Florida Keys) and
, ,
`} ~, s`' i`,~. Lee County, Fl: He is a frequent speaker at planning conferences and has
'',' ~ t ~ -written on a number of plan implementation issues. He serves on the faculty for
r f a- -
` t ~ A('A`s national Zoning' Clinic.
, ' _i ~ ~`
,=
~ j '* { "' }~ Roger Wtildonr FAICP, is a Principal in Clarion's North Carolina office. He
~''- ~ `' ' f' ~ ~':? served asPlamm~g. Direcfo~ ter the Town of Chapel Hill for 21 years, directing
', ."the Town s comprehensive planning q~d development review functions. His
,r
planmpg"and `design background, combined with experience as a former
elecfed;official, cdntnbuted to'the success"ef numerous planning initiatives,
+ rea studies
- • .:tin lementahon, of"com re "ensVe plans, special a ,
ni=ighliorhood plans, and design gmdelrties; He has prepared growth man-
-- agemertit-stYOFegies for Hil~sboi'obgh, t~tC, kock Hill and Beaufort County, SC,
and Hanover County, VA He fins developed neighborhood plans in Chapel
Hill acid Wake Forest, NC, and comprehensive plan updates in Fredericksburg,
i VA, BrenMrood, TN, Union County, NC and Tupelo, MS. Mr. Waldon is a mem-
~3 "~ ~~ ber of the.College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners, and
r , t '~~~ k`+,.` `~~~, k =; d`uthor of; Planners and Pohfics;, a book ~eee~ntly published by the American
t
--
'- "` ~-° ~ - - ~' ` Planning Association.
.. r 4Y ?{..~~ '~
f..' !?3j
48
ior Associate and planner in Clarion nmart~
S ~~s`~.
~~
~~,~~
en
Chod Meadows, AICP, is a
e than ten years of practical experience, p Y ,_. ,
"
Carolina office. He hos mor
and growth management. Prior to joining
i
ng,
in the areas of planning, zon
w the Land Development Ordinance Update m ~ ;;
Clarion, Mr. Meadows oversa
North Carolina, and worked on growth management issues in the Florida
tandards forthefirm
Ca
i
d ~ -
ry,
gn s
es
Keys. He has worked on development codes and
the eastern seaboard, including Rock Hill, SC,
l ~
L<'
~, ~ .
ong
in several communities a
VA; Alachua, FL; and Miamr
Church
ll
F _
,
s
o
Portsmouth, VA; Franklin, TN;
os one of the primary authors for the zoning ordinance a~~ 2 ;
~'
Beach, FL. He serves
n in Mooresville, NC; and FoIl
i
Cl ~
ar
o
updates being completed by
Carol na A
f the Rolergh, North P
i
h ~
r o
a
Mc Meadows is an immediate past C
ed with the rmplementahon of the
l
i
l m 4
v
nvo
y
pearance Commission, and rs deep
~"
city's urban de'srgn gmdelmes4 , i, ,, ,. ,- __.^^ ^ et,,,nPt Hrll~offrce ;i ,
,~;~ ..,_, , 1`, ., ~_.._:_'~
He is
and it
dords
ber
for
use
ministration ot.u
Carolina. He td
a planning degt
Chapel Hill. He
and the North
Leigh Anne King, AICY, is~q tgnq`use plunnc, ,, ~,- ;;,
local governments on planning {riitratrYes ,F~er expenence ii
code update projects in Portsmouth, VA and'Alachua FL aff i
mitigation projects in Lee Counfy Patin Bach County,
Marathon FL; growth management strote9lessirt~Hij{sborough
Hill, SC; comprehensive plan updates m UgAon County,NC,.
Fredericksburg,VA; and neighborhood planslnChape~,--Hill a
NC. Ms. King has been with Clarion for more ttran iyvgyggrs
Clarion Associates, she earned a Master in Regionaf'f'Id~rirg
University of North Carolina, Chapel HiII, was a researclrt%n
Center for Urban and Regional Studies, and worked several
tional conservation nonprofit in Arlington, Virginia.
49
Techn~l®9Y
local
' c
a.
le
~` d
ucieu ~au~y.~. ....-. , .,.. ;, ..,.. ..
Graphics & Visual,.Presentation ':; ....
. '~ ~ ...',~.., ~.,~~eicenn of araohics d
an
3«
n ~~
s«mi» z: ewes o Vmue~_~ u~a ua«
~. _ ._~ r
~~.T~~M,
r
~° ~ .Jr
~~ ~~ r r~
,e~' `~ <
C1--
a ..:g
50
Zoning and Deve
Rock Hill, South
Clarion Assoddl
pared a new-Zq
olina. Rock.Hi~'
in
and establishing minimum i
sure coriimunity form and aE
city adopted the code in 20
ion parfnered with the VIC
-: code which, is served on;the
lic
and also'mpl
adopted iri'ihE
neotraditiondl
the finnl code
in
of Rock Hill, South Car `.
' Itodes m the Charlotte (~~"!*~~J'~`
€nced substantial growth '-
lar~otte T.he focus"of the ;! ~~Hii T, ~ ,
i, which promotes a more `
~ '%~i SOUTH CAROLINA ~, ,
:.
51
~ Zoning Ordinance
;;;
sSbciate5 recently prepared a'revised development code for
rowing community ir) the Nashville region. The code is fo-
implementation of: .comprehensive plan that includes the
tent of chorader q~eas, innovative open space and natural
preservation techniques; qnd a much strongerfocus on urban
he development code includes substantive re-structuring of
;current ordinance, mduding' integraQide to the delvelopment
.sign,gmdelmes; and an overall upg
, , i_.a..,..n~,,,,: narking, and open space.
~ ~ 'Land, Development Regulations
. ~ ___..a Ro,,,Jntinns for Alachua,
4
~ ;;~ ~~ .;
r
pr,cvnNUMUrt
~~~
t1an5 #S
turatly,
into d
city's c
opmei
`ce~feJ,
novotl
i . of the,
'~ the, b.
the
raise
County, Virginia ~ Destgn.tvtanvus <~
ari,of its work on the County's Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan,
orv`F~ssoaaies prepared g s{and-alone Design GCiidelines Manual
II riew development m the,Goui N, Theerc al loff'ce~ ndustriai rand
}
i,
~,
ferent types of land uses (residentia ,.comm
mixed-use), as well as new residential development within rural areas,
and,are suggested as a meansto ensure.that riewrehensfve Plan's Spe-
-• sistent with the goals and objectives m the ,Comp
nai emphasis is_:,piaced on the Jeten#ion of community character,
~,.~+~:.nc'nn how to raise the bar for' development quality, and the
planned development as a method of ac-
;velopment that is consistent with its context.
hated and includes captions that explain the
being presented. .
52
New River Parkway, West Virginia I Parkway.
Corridor Land Management System .;;
In collaboration with WRT Planning and Design, Clarion Associates: is ,;`'~
working with the New River Parkway Authority of West Virginia io pre-;
pare a land management system for the future New River Parkway car- '
ridor. The New River is a designated National Park Service river and
one of the oldest rivers on the co to' betconstructed along aorex t'ting -.
currently developing a parkway
roadway adjacent to o southern section of the river. To ensure that the;
pristine qualities of the pork are ensured for future generations, a land
management system is being developed that will provide a legal frame=
work to guide future development in the corridor.
Comprehensive Plans
Predericksburg,virginia (Comprehensive Plan
Update
Clarion Associarehensive Plan The goal sof9he,pgan are to maaximae _
Updated Comp ortunities while maintaining fhe unique
economic development app ,
character of the historic city and its valued neighborhoods, aR giolnal
protecting the Rappahannock River- the city's rooter supply.
access to the Washington, D.C. a eta Challenges to9he community
porfunities to the Fredericksburg
include threats to existing neighborhoods, coordinated efforts to pro-
tect the watershed, improving quality of new development, and cap-
turing ashore of the region's expected growth. Working with a diverse
collection of stakeholders, Clarion has helped draft a Comprehensive
Plan that will guide future development and conservation efforts in the ,
community. f y~.
Williamson County, 7'N I Comprehensive Plan ` wnutu~s
4.,,
In 2004, Clarion in associatidate for Willamson Counfy, Tenne~see, in -
of a Comprehensive Plan up
the Nashville Regiono~Ov Primary concerns for thehcou9ry a earural
perienced rapid g
preservation and protection of the areas.rich historical resources The
updated plan was readily adopted by the County. _ _
~ s
,_'
53
Henrico County, Virginia ~
2026 Comprehensive Plan Update
In 2004, the Clarion Team led by McBride Dale Clarion was retained to coin-
plete an updote fo Henrico Couniy's Comprehensive Plan. The effort will in-
volve detailed analysis of future land use scenarios that will assess the best
planning options for the county based on fiscal, transportation, and irinova-
tive land use issues. The team assembled for this effort includes specialists
from Clorion Associates, Tischler Associates, and Kimley-Horn and Associ-
gtes:The Comprehensive Plan will include interrelated recommendations for
community facilities, park and recreation, land use, and transportation. Ad-
dihonal(pClanonhas creoted a development design handbook and wilan's
vise tile; zoning ;.;code for proper implementation of the p
nth Mana
Strategies
NJ~$NeUASE
®m
a
i
Southern Beaufort I
County Regional Plan
~,.z~.
County, North Carolina ~ Comprehensive
i:Nlariagement Strategy
~grgii'Associates led a multidisciplinary team to create a compre-
:isive Growth Management Strategy for Wake County, North Car-
ing; "wFich has experienced significant and unprecedented economic
:veloprnent and population growth since 1990. While this growth
s broiighi'significant benefits; Wake County is bracing for at least
10;000 hew residents anticipated to flow into the region overthe next
Twears. In an mnotia#iv~, intergovernmental approach, Clarion As-
~~ y.,
f;four key
'public fa-
d _the-plan
nd growth
ICfi
54
55
Cary, North Carolina ~ Growth Management Plan
Clarion Associates led a team of consultants in helping thilanXfor anld
fast-growing town in North Carolina's Research Triangle p
monage its future growth. The firm drafted a new growth management
plan forthe Town that articulates goals, objectives, s~ 1he'amount and
posals related to {t) the timing and rate of growth%the costs of growth;
density of growth; (3j the location of growth; (4)
and (5) the quality of growth. The growth management planning
process provided a mechaevisionoof the Unified Development'Ordi-
t~~es already, underway
....,,moo .~~d'drofting of adequate public facilities ordinancesj.
Islamorada, Village of Islands, I
Workforce Housing Methodology
Faced with rapidly increasing housing pno
sought solutions to create affordable~loui
ulatiod~ .G{grion Associates, in associdti
has developed a legally supportable me
pacts :of residential and non-resideptia~'
housing Th.e team developed implemec,
force housing mitigation program t6af fr
for theVilla je of Islomorada, the first of!
Clarion aril:its parfner.worked io diagn
ing problem based on an evaluation of tl
impacts created by new residentiol and '
Lee County; Floridq ~ , ,
56
F
~~:
Marathon! Florida ~ s, ,
x
,
~~orkforce Housttfig Methodology ~:d
elo ed'
e„
A3SOC!ates, m assonatwn wdh Dr James Nicho as, , P
~.~< ;~
resident~al
rton
of
Ch
t
,
.
i
s
su3poeFab(e methodology fo assess the impac
all
d l
`~ '
y
eg
k,
~evelopmenton affordable hous
pevaluato not the '
oa'
f
i
an
based
oblem
offordablehousing pr , , '
, the local
idential Bevel-~
i
r
L
res
nev
c'o`rTtmumty wide ecor4ormc impacts ;created by
ed a formal,
elo
d
'
o
p
ev
n
,
~g' ppment Following the evaluatign, Clan
nt of impacts that Pew residential
t
{
e
~e ex
k,, riethodology'for assessing t
r affordable housing. _;
d f
o
r ` ~ 3evelo rnept has on loca_I deman
p r
, ., , .
t
F ( ;
®linp ~ Mulfi Jurfsatcnonai r .;
s,~ oq~
Fo. 11Nv"F
;e oeuvre
sw~xev~m
sema~
uw,:=a M
u~im
m.x+.ee.
s,.-~
,~
inv.=v.e.
Y~.~~4._ •iY YY~.
u" 1 ~.
+iv.
,and Roads
Beaufort County the Town of Hilton
li~fftori, South Corolirja,to updatepll
57
Desoto County, Florida ~ Impact Fees for Libraries,
Schools, Parks, Roads, General Government, Fire/Res-
cue, and Law Enforcement
~'' In collaboration with Tischlerd8pfe multiple mpact fee p og ams,vinh
Desoto County, Florida to up enera) govern-
eluding fees for schools, parks, library, fire/rescue, g
rrient, roads; and law; enforcement Clarion advised the countordi~
'legal rssues. related to fhe update dn~draffed the implementing
i
o' " ,:nancesforthe{ee programs and on ihtergo~!ernmerltalr g(ea?p enKey
assist m ocimmistration of roe~am °inc~~de?d the oddit'to of an ap-
changes td~the tmpad fee p 9 ,;, ~y oc dnal sis'q tion, and
..". „o„I~.orocess, upddtfng the indepe~den~ im_p : t .~+a~l:n'r as and the
58
®'®
Awards
In collaboration with clients from across the country, Clarion has received recognition for numerous
planning efforts.
2007 APA Daniel Burnham Award
for Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Up-
PlanCheyenne -Cheyenne, Wyoming I
date, T[d'nsportetion Plan, and Parks and Recreation Master Plan ,
Clarion Associates worked wrfh the Cheyenne Metropolitan Plan
~,. ~~~~~~ nmg Orgamtotion to legd.a'protect tq update the area's commu
, ~'Mp~ter p~pn z " niry plan transportation plan, and develop a porky and recreghon
a a w }~j ~~~; ~~, ~ plan for the City of Cheyenne and portions of Lgramie County sur
'„~ ~ r~u~~'^^~^."'°° fl~~`. rounding the city Cheyenne is locafied at the northern end pf the
s s r ~ kw,n^s ,.
~'s= ""' _ ,~ Rocky,Mountain Froiit Range of,the pehJer MetropoLtori area
~ ~, ' t PlonCheyenne provides direchohs an o host of growth issues such ~'
l } ~ as rural development patterns apd bgn4ultural conservotiori; nat
' k' ural areas and:open space eohservatign, mixed Use development
S ~
" ~; ,: anil activity centers, neighhorhoodsas buthen obmmumtya thnsonc
har'' on design' quality,pnd preserving . ., _ _
} i._
~~ downtown core-
. ~ =z "
-- ~ ...
Southern Beaufort
County Reyfanaf Plan
59
y
'out and, as o_~ew~~~ ~^ •~-°
vias retained to prepare. an updated Master P on or _ e. ~
tial for dispo"sal of some of these pubic ~ofect on of these lands as"'
issue under consideration, as was the p
space. Other key issues included a desue fo strengthen ~honst pre?
city's historio`downtown core, diversification of housing op
'lion of rural neighborhoods, enhpncemandt the rantic pat oo tof
`developed commercial corridors,
deyelopmertt patterns along the Carson City freeway, currently unde
,,,
!'sttuction
Is
Comberland Region Tomorrow 2003
Excellence Award
Franklin, Tennessee, Land Use Plan
Franklin, Tennessee; located just south of Nashville, is n city that
`enced rapid growth during the 1980s and 1990s doubling its pof
every decade. McBride Dale Clarion assisted the Fronklm cominun
:creation of an.irinovdtive land use plan that addresses quaitq of c
;merit in conlurictiori withThfe necessity to mlanta n,a d~enhance
;:urban growth boundaN
~:: community identity and pride v{os the force that drove the direction
::product of the plan: With many historical resources and; an active
:`'Frgnklin has the oppodumty to expand on its already thriving con
. , nnn74 oPA Daniel Burnham Award
bacomtng uroun~«..
while the south part ti
~_~va' The'alon o
60
Southem Neuada
Regional Policy Plan
2001 DeBoer Excellence in Planning Award
Las Vegas, Nevada ~ Southem Nevada Regional Plan
Clarion was retained to lead a tea fo°theodos V gasgValleyPthe
and growth management strategy
fastest growing region in the notion. Mandated by the state legis-
lature, the regional plan addressehsltcaervicesta~d i frastructurer
quality, infill development, and p
Working closely with the Regional Planning Coalition, comprised of
elected officials of the five jurisdictions in the Las Vegas Valley, Clar-
ion prepared a plan that focuses on implementation, to conform to
state lav± requirements for local plan consistency with the regional
plan. The team also defined a process to review developments of
reaional significance; also a feature of the state legislation.
61
Clari®n Publications
Working in collaboration with the American Planning Association and other professional organizations,
Clarion Associates has authored many publications on a variety of topics.
r
62
0
N
n
~~''iJL
C 1t1A1~1 S GATES
http://www.clarionassociates.com/
Craig Richardson, Vice President, principal• crichordson@clarionassociates.com
RogerWaldon, (AICP, principal • nvaldon@clarionassociates.com
Chad Meadows, AICP, senior associate • cmeadows@clarionassociates.com
Stele gh A ne King, AICP, associate Slaki g@c ariionassociatea cam m
63
UDO Assistance) Orange Counfy, North Carolina .
Resumes
Clarion Associates
• Roger Waldon
• Craig Richardson
• Stephen Sizemore
• Leigh Anne King
Tetra Tech
o Kimberly Brewer
• Jonathan Smith
• Regina Sheibner
64
65
LA6t!®N ASSOCIATES
Clarion Associates is a national land-use consulting firm with offices in Denver and Port Collins,
Colorado; Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and affiliate offices in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati.
Our unusual combination of talents in land use and urban planning, design; land use law, and real
estate economics allows us to develop creative solutions to difficult land use and design questions.
Clarion is particularly known for ifs expertise in land use and plan implementation. Clarion Associates
has represented both private and public sector clients on a variety of land-use planning and zoning
matters. Its principals have written plans and drafted ordinances, regulations and design standards
throughout the United States.
Since ifs founding in 1992, the firm has developed expertise in a broad range of planning areas,
including:
• Community, regional; and neighborhood planning;
• Downtown and suburban zoning systems;
• Design standards and development regulations;
• Historic Preservation;
• Development Financing;
• Downtown plans and strategies;
• Growth Management strategies for cities and regions;
• Citizen participation strategies; and
• Implementation strategies.
Clarion is particularly known for our expertise in:
PLANNING AND ZONING
Clarion Associates has represented both private and public sector clients on a variety of land-use plans,
design guidelines and standards, and ordinances and regulations throughout the United Slates, with
particular emphasis on historic preservation, development financing, design standards, natural resource
protection, and both downtown and suburban zoning systems.
MARKET ANALYSIS
The members of Clarion Associates have diverse backgrounds in finance, economics, marketing,
planning, urban design, environmental studies, political science and land use law. With integration of
this combination of skills, we develop creative solutions to difficult real estate questions. Clarion
Associates has extensive experience in analyzing the market for every type of property-including
residential, office, industrial, major mixed-use developments, convention centers, large transportation
facilities, tourism complexes-in a variety of locations such as suburban sites, downtowns, lakefronts, and
rural areas.
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
Clarion specializes in advising public sector clients on the economics and fiscal impads of development
proposals, incentives needed to encourage development, and other aspects of project feasibility. We
have analyzed the economics of numerous types of real estate development in both urban and rural
contexts and the impacts of proposed plans and cost recovery systems on different forms of development.
E 6 A R 1 ® N
66
Qualifications of
Roger Waldon, FAICP
Clarion Associates
Roger Waldon is a Principal with Clarion Associates, based in the North Carolina office. Mr. Waldon
served as Planning Director for the Town of Chapel HiII for 21 years, directing the Town's comprehensive
planning and growth management functions. His work has emphasized neighborhood conesea ation and
growth management> including preparation of land use plans and special area plans, p p
administration of design guidelines, transportation planning, annexation, capital improvements, housing
and community development initiatives, and evaluation of development applications. Prior to his work
for Chapel Hill, Mr. Waldon worked on regional initiatives as Director of Planning Programs for the
Triangle J, Council of Governments, a regional planning organization based in the Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. He has also served as an elected official on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of
Education. Mr. Waldon is a frequent speaker at national planning conferences, and has lectured on
planning topics at Universities in Massachusetts and North Carolina. He has been recognized as a
Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners.
Representative Major Projects
• Growth Management and Neighborhood Plans for Chapel Hill, including land use, community
facilities, housing, transportation, environmental protection; neighborhood preservation,
downtovrn revitalization, and grovrth management elements.
• Comprehensive Plans in Fredericksburg, VA; Orange County, NC; Brentwood, TN; Tupelo, MS.
• Facilities Plan for schoo) construction; ordinance provisions to link growth to school capacity in
Orange County, NC
• Urban Design projects for downtovrn areas in Winston-Salem, NC; Thomasville, NC; Lancaster,
Texas; Chapel Hill, NC; Montgomery, OH
• Comprehensive Plans in Fredericksburg, VA; Union County, NC; Hanover County, YA; Orange
County, NC; Iredell County, NC
• Six Neighborhood Conservation Districts
• Neighborhood Small Area Plan for Wake Forest, NC
Professional History
• Planning Director, Town of Chapel Hill, 1984-2005
• Director of Planning Programs, Triangle J Council of Governments, 1972-1984
Education
• Master of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill
• Bachelor of Science, Urban Studies and Planning, MIT
Professional Associations
• Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners
• Member, American Planning Association
Civic Involvement
• Board of Directors, Chapel Hill-Carrboro YMCA, North Carolina
• Advisory Board, Orange County Habitat for Humanity
e ~ ~, R t ~ ~
67
Qualifications of
Craig Richardson
Clarion Associates
Craig Richardson is a Vice President with Clarion Associates in the Chapel Hill office. Mr. Richardson
has consulted with over 70 local government clients in nine states on fhe preparation of general land
development codes, zoning ordinances, adequate public facility regulations, impact fees, comprehensive
plan implementation and other forms of land use regulation. In addition, he has had significant
experience representing public sector clients in court in their defense of comprehensive plans and land
use, and public facility finance regulations.
Representative Major Projects
• Unified Development Ordinances for Rock Hill, SC (in progress); Greenville, SC (in progress);
Apex, NC; Herndon, VA; Zoning Codes for Kalamazoo, MI; Alachua, FL; Teton County, WY;
Aspen, CO (APA Award of Merit); Larimer County, CO
• Land Development Codes in Florida: Palm Beach County; St. Lucie County; Martin County;
Collier County; City of Jacksonville Beach; and the City of Clearwater
• Adequate public facility regulations for Palm Beach County, FL; Martin County, FL; Collier
County, FL; City of Jacksonville Beach, FL; Larimer County, CO
• Impact fee programs in Manatee County, FL; Summersville, SC; Steamboat Springs, CO;
Palm Beach County, FL; Citrus County, FL; Indian River County, FL; Dade County, FL;
Larimer, CO; Washoe County, NV
Professional History
• Shareholder, (card, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, Sarasota, FL
• Attorney and Partner, Siemon, Larsen and Purdy, Chicago, Illinois and Sarasota, FL
• Attorney/Associate, Ross, Hardies, O'Keefe, Babcock and Parsons, Chicago, Illinois and
Boca Raton, FL
Education
• Master of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Juris Doctor, Stetson College of Law
• Bachelor of Arfs (Honors), Stetson University
Publieations
• Keeping Up with Growth Urban Land. VoI. 58, No. 9: 94. September 7999 (with D.
Salvesen)
• Avoiding Coastal Hazard Areas: Best State Mitigation Practices, Environmental Geosciences.
1999 (with D. Godschalk, R. Norton and D. Salvesen)
Professional Associations
• Member, American Planning Association
• Member, Amicus Committee, APA
• Member, Florida and American Bar Associations
6 L A R 1~ Et
68
Qualifications of
Steve Sizemore, AICP
Clarion Associates
Stephen Sizemore is a planner, lawyer, and Senior Consultant in the North Carolina office of Clarion
Associates. He has more than 28 years of planning experience, primarily with growth management
and development regulation for local governments. Before joining Clarion, Mr. Sizemore was'
planning director for a coastal North Carolina county with a large military installation, overseeing the
county's development of a comprehensive plan and implementation of its first county-wide zoning
regulations and served on Norfh Carolina's Coastal Resources Advisory Council. Prior planning
experience includes 12 years as a land use planner/attorney for an urban Norfh Carolina county -
where he prepared growth management/land use policies and regulations, including transitional
rural-urban development regulations -and 7 years as a planner for a North Carolina university town -
where he helped prepare a unified development ordinance. Mr. Sizemore has also worked as
research attorney for the American Planning Association, where he edited Planning & Environmental
Law, organized the annual Bettman Symposium on land use law, and was an associate editor and
contributing author for APA's Planning and Urban Design Standards. He also developed rules and
guidelines for preparation of comprehensive plans and development regulations by local governments
in Maine.
Professional History
• Planning and Development Director, Onslow County, 2005-2008
• Research Staff Attorney and Editor, Planning & Environmental Law, American Planning Association,
2002-2005
• Land Use Planner/Attorney, Wake County, 1990-2002
• Senior Planner, Maine Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1988-2000
• Planner, Development Coordinator, Town of Chapel Hill, 1978-1986
• VISTA Volunteer planner, Town of Clayton, NC, 1977-1978
Education
• Juris Doctor, University of North Carolina at Chapel HiII
• Masters in Regional Planning, University of North, Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Bachelor of Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professional Associations
• American Institute of Certified Planners
• North Carolina State Bar
• Member, American Planning Association
C 6 A R 1 ~ N
fig
Qualifications of
Leigh Anne King, AICP
Clarion Associates
Leigh'Anne King is an Associate with Clarion Associates. She is a planner who has experience
Tannin initiatives including: neighborhood and city-widUlalfod
working with local governments on p g oinin Clarion
use planning and visioning, growth management strategies, affordable house goprfo9ri ms, rgeg
programs and ordinances, school siting, and open space planning.
Chap ItHill Sand worked for atnationalc'onservat onnnonp orfit inrArlington,nVirglniaof Norfh Carolina,
ProjecT Experience rehensive Plan Update
• Tupelo, Mississippi Comp rehensive Plan Updates
• Fredericksburg and Hanover County, Virginia, Comp
• Henrico County, Virginia, Design Guidelines ease tIS stem
New River Gorge, Wesi Virginia, Land Manag Y
• Emerald Isle, Norfh Carolina, Village East and West Design Concepts Report
• Rock Hill, South Carolina, Growth ManagemeeRPlnt Strategy and Land Use Plan
• Hillsborough, North Carolina, Growth Manag
Wake Forest, North Carolina, Northeast Neighborhood Plan
• Chapel Hill, Norfh Carolina, Neighborhood Conservation Districts (5)
• Beaufort County, South Carolina, Roads, Libraries and Parks Impact Fee Programs
• Marathon and Islamorada, Florida, WoA ordableuNous^ngtMethodology and tMifigationt Stragegies
• Lee and Palm Bench Counties, Florida,
Vienna, Maryland, Community Vision Plan
Professional Wistory resent
Associate, Clarion Associates, Chapel Hill, Norfh Carolina, 2005 - p
- Research Assistant, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, 2004-2005
• Research Intern, The Conservation Fund, Chapel Hill, Norfh Carolina, 2004
• Land Use Projects Coordinator, The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia, 2000-2003
Education
• Master of Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hi
Bachelor of Arfs, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
publications
• publishedr~nder maidenaname!uLelghMne M Donald} urnal of Conservation Planning, March 200
Professional Associations
' Member, American Planning Association (APA}
• Member, American institute of Certified Planners (AICP)
• Member, North Carolina Chapter of the APA
C 6 A R I o N
~o
Kimberly A. Brewer, A.LC.P.
Senior Planner
EDUCATION
M.R.P., City and Regional Planning, University of North Cazolina, 1985
B.A., Economics, Wake Forest University, 1981
Registrations and Certifications
American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) 1991
QUALIFICATIONS
Throughout her 25 years of water resources planning and management experience, Ms. Brewer has wupled technical
and policy analysis with stakeholder facilitation to developvmovative, cost-effective watershed protection and green
design strategies. As a planning consultant, she has assisted in conducting numerous local watershed protection
studies, pioneered approaches for low-impact design, and eo-designed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Watershed Academy. Prior to consulting, Ms. Brewer worked 11 yeazs in local, state, and regional agencies, gaining
extensive experie~rce in program development and management in the azeas of water resource protection. Ms.
Brewer's experience working with government agencies and diverse stakeholder groups, along with her practical
experience studying and implementing cost-effective innovations, allows her to understand different perspectives
and to design strategies that meet multiple objectives. Ms. Brewer Iras been the facilitator, principal planner and cost
analyst on watershed management projects, providing comprehensive watershed management planning services,
including watershed management plans and implementation strategies, Stormwater program development, ordinance
review and development to encourage LID and green infrastructure ,site design evaluation tools for BMPs, fraining,
LID pilot projects and case studies, and public education/outreach. These projects have incorporated onsite
performance standards, lots-impact development design, conservation offsets, phosphorus banking, and other
innovative techniques.
Selected Watershed and Stormwater Management Experience
Third Fork Creek Watershed Plaro - City of Durham, NC. Assisting in project to prepare a watershed management
plan and implementation plan for restoring watershed function .Currently working with City Coordinating Team to
establish core watershed restoration goals ,objectives, indicators, and benchmazks that wilt provide a consistent
framework for conducting watershed assessments and management plans city-wide. Also establishing goals and
objectives unique to Third Fork Creek. Assisting in critical lands protection analysis, riparian area management
planning, and review of existing code, ordinances, criteria, policies, and procedures to support the City's restoration
efforts.
Lansing Storarrva[er Ordinance-City ofLansing, MI. Currently assisting the City of Lansing in developing a
stormwater ordinance that tneets Phase II stormwter requirements as well and regional stormwater management
policies which encourage the use of Low Impact Development. Assisthrg in the review of local ordinances to
recommend revisions needed to implement-the new Stormwater ordinance and further etdrance use of Low Impact
Development and green infrastmeture techniques.
Athens-Clarke County Watershed Lrrprovement Program -Athens-Clarke County (ACC), GA. Currently lead
planner and facilitator in developing a Watershed Improvement Program, including protocols to be used by ACC
staff in developing watershed management plans county-wide. The project includes using three pilot watersheds to
develop program goals, objectives, indicators, and benchmarks; to develop and apply protocols to be used in
monitoring and watershed characterization; and to develop and apply protocols for management strategy
development and evaluation. The program is (inked to the linked to the ACC comprehensive plan and sustainability
policies. - ----
beaver Lake Watershed Managwnent Plmr -Northwest Arkansas Council, AR Co-facilitator and lead planner for
the Beaver Lake watershed management planning process for Northwest Arkansas Council focused on restoration of
streams designated as impaired waters and protection of regional drinking water supply. Conducted regulatory and
planning analysis, co-facilitated Policy Advisory Group, developed goals and objectives, evaluated management
71
Kimberly A. Brewer, A.1. C.P.
Senior P/annex
alternatives, developed and wrote management plan and implementation sfrategy, and supported outreach (focus
groups, newsletters, and community meetings). The analysis included the cost and benefits of implementing LID in
new development and other sustainable practices such as conservation offisets, biomass fo energy, agricultural
BMPs, and decentralized wastewater systems in targeted areas of the watershed.
Frsirfax CornrtyApproach for Countywide Watershed Assessurent-Assisted Fairfax County, VA Stonnwater Services
Department ¢r developing new watershed planning protocols that could provide consistency and standardization inplans
developed by the County and its contractors. Specifically, assisted the County in developing measurable goals,
objectives, and indicators for sformwatet management; a standardized watershed characterization and problem ranking
scheme, and a countywide project prioritization methodology for selecting restoration, BMP retrofit, and preservation
projects which demonstrate achievement of program goals.
Green Iafrastrrretnre Ordinance Review. Sanitation District #1, KY. Curzently reviewing draft City and County
ordinances in Northern Kentucky's Sanitation District # 1 jurisdiction. This includes review of zoning and
subdivision ordinances to identify barriers to and opportunities for green infrastmcture and LID techniques.
Agaa Hedia:rla Watershed Management Plmr -City of Vista, CA. Lead watershed plawer for the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon watershed in Sohthem California. Project involved comprehensive watershed management plan
development and stakeholder facilitation. The project involved local planning and stormwater ordinance review and
recommendations for incorporating appropriate LID and green mfrastmeture techniques into the acid to semi-arid
environment, as well as the cost and benefits of implementing such teclmiques. High priority areas for LID and green
infrastmcture BMP retrofits were also identified. Areas and sites within the watershed were prioritized to meet the
stakeholder management objectives. Led in development of implementation strategy.
Lake Marnuelle If atershed Plaa -Central Arkansas IJ'nler,AR. Managed plarming and cost-evaluation components
of project to develop a watershed management plan; co-facilitated Policy Advisory Council and Technical Advisory
Comrcil in developing, evaluating, and selecting the preferred management options which mctuded requirements fot
low-impact development design, conservation offsets, and sustainable management of decentralized wastewater
systems; led cost analysis; co-led public education and outreach efforts; led in writing the Management Plan and
implementation strategy which was wranimousty adopted by the Central Arkansas Commission in February 2007.
Framework for Enharrcerl Mnagement of Decentralized Wastewater Systems. Berkley County, Wl'. Worked with
local stakeholder group to develop recommendations for enhanced management of decenhalized wastewater
systems. This included management and oversight options for newly permitted systems, a tiered management
approach for managing existing systems; implementing a management partnership among different agencies; local
ordinances needed, and potential costs and funding sources for the program.
NCEEP Laenl iValersLed Plannirg-North Carolina Ecological Enhancement Program. Lead planner and
facilitator in developing the Swift Creek Local Watershed Management Plan and the Morgan Creek Local
Watershed Management Plan. Assisted in developing targeting and prioritization criteria for restoration site, LID
BMP retrofits, and open space preservation. Conducted local ordinance reviews and recommended revisions for
encouraging better site design and Low-Impact Development design.
Cary Torvn Center Stmnnvater Management Plnn -Town of Cary, NC. Managed the policy and planning
components of a project to develop an innovative plan for managing stormwater runoff from an area being
redeveloped to intensive commercial and high density residential use. Multiple approaches to management,
including low-impact design and density averaging, were evaluated for potential incorporation in the plan.
Recommendations for needed revisions to local and state regulations and ordinances, and a process For
implementation were also developed.
McDowell Creek Watershed Marmgeurent (NC) -Mecklenburg Courrfy and Town ofHuntersvi!!e, NC. Worked
with staff and advisory boards to develop management goals, targets, and strategies for managing new development
centered on low-impact development design. Assistedvt developing stonnwater management ordinance and water
quality design manual, adopted January 2003. included four low-impact design case studies with storznwater
management and cost analysis.
72
Kimberly A. Brewer, A./.C.P.
Senior P/saner
Charlotte-Meckleubnrg Post-Co+tstruction Ordiuance Development - Mecklenbterg Cormty Phase II jurisdictions
development withoutotfurthermanagement, assisted in developimg cost tools d site evaluation to 1(SET) thatpcould f
meyswes arnc d glo Mnnpact development (LID)and green infrastruoture designPpresented waterhed and site eat
scale modeling results as well as cososb onsfruction ord'man a prow snons Unanimously adopted by 22-member
option, and assisted in developing p
stakeholder committee.
City ofHigh Poiut Deep River I {{'ntershed Assessueeut Plart -City of High Point, NC. Managed project for a
State and is eurrentlytimplemented, involves an innovative Phtosphorus Banking prlogram ass well asllow impact he
enwwage LIDLand green nfrastructwe W on 2000 NCAPA Award for P1antImple nentation for Mul pleo
Jurisdictions.
City ojChicngo Stornnvater Ordletnuce and Design Manaal -City ojChicago, ILL. een desithe foryne v hicago in
developing a draft stormwater management ordinance and design manual requiring "gr gn»
development and redevelopment. Assisted in drafting ordinance, working with multiple City Departments in
ordinance with drafttdesign ma ual developmentnd hich incorporates I w-impact design tecl iquesmated drag
~ec~ed officials and diver+se 23Smember stakel o der group to develop and adoptoatcomprehensive wstershed
management plan for the County. Led in development of management plan objectives; of indicators and targets
related to management objectives; evaluation of alternative management approaches; management p an
and slow-impact
development; outreach; low-impact design education for local staff and development community
design pilot program. Developed and wrote Rockdale County Stormwater Management Administrative Review
Process.
Upper-Neuse Local-State Watershed Mnuageutent Framework. Upper Neese River Basin Association NC. Protect
Basin This framework links an U per NeueaManagement Cycle with the Statre oof North CarolinapsNeuse se River
Basinwide management cycle. This framework incloudesntagreed Peture,a d ndicatas for tracking success. toes and
timelines, parMer responsibilities, amulti-agency g
Upper Netrse Watershed Mana%entent Plmt. Upper Neuse Bnsht Iotection and habits d'trnPa tsrin eaglrt tlidrjak ngm
developing watershed management plans to address water supply p
water supply. watersheds. Plans were tailored for local governments to meet adopted goals and measurable targets,
and include on-site performance standards for stormwater management: Included planning and participating in a 2-
day low-impact design workshop For local elected offtcials and staff, developers and designers.
Corte Creek Reservoir Watershed Study. Orange 6Yater and Sewer Authority NC. Worked with a diverse
community advisory committee. Assisted in developing and tailoring measurable indicand screening wateo hed
watershed study; designing the economic impact analysis; and developing, evaluating,
management options. Assisted in presenting and writing the study findings.
D~stgned and developedtco eSraiPning ccourses fortlocaltlstatesand ffederal officialgns on how to implement the y
watershed management approach. Draft course materials include 101 -Principles of W atershed Management, 104 -
Executive Managers' Watershed Management Short Course, and 105 -Watershed Management Tools.
73
Jonathan T. Smith, P.E., CPSWQ, CPESC, LEED-AP
Engineering Manager, Stormwater Services
Educatio_n_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ----
B.S.,Biological & Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, 1995
Graduate Course Work: 21 units focused on hydrology and Stormwater management, NCSU, 1998 - 2006
P_ro_fessio_nal_Registratio_n _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Professional Engineer (NC license# 026523; VA license# 44925; SC license# 26822)
Certified Professional in Erosion and Sedimentation Control (CPESC), registrant #4111
Certified Professional in Storm Water Quality (CPSWQ), registrant #0048
_Ke_y Areas of Experience _.___.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Studies
Site Scale Water Quality Modeling
Stormwater Master Planning
Stormwater Program Development and Implementation
Stormwater and Watershed Restoration BMP Design
Environmental Permit Compliance
ornfacsinnal Affiliations _ _
CPSWQ Inc. Chair (2008 -present); CPSWQ Approved Instructor
NC-APWA Water Resources Committee Director (2008 -present)
CPESC Regional Representative (2005 - 2009)
EnviroCert International Inc., Technical Vice-Chair (2008 -present)
Qualifications Summary _______ ____ _
Jonathan Smith has 14 years of experience in water resources engineering, specializing in Stormwater
management. He is the Engineering Manager for Stormwater Services in the Research Triangle Park, NC
office of Tetra Tech. Mc Smith is a professional engineer, a Certified Professional in Stormwater
Quality, a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sedimentation Control, and is aLEED-Accredited
Professional. He is an expert in storrrnvater management and as a consultant focuses on planning,
implementing and managing storm~vater-related projects for municipal, industrial and development
clients. Mr. Smith is an approved instructor for CPSWQ, and is currently the CPSWQ Inc. Chair and
EnviroCert Intenrational Inc. Technical Vice-Chair. As a project manager, Mr. Smith has extensive
experience in supplying clients with project deliverables through technical reports, construction
documents and construction management, supervising technical, production and administrative staff
tlrroughout.
Before becoming a consultant, Mr. Smith was an Extension Engineer at North Carolina State University,
where he supervised the daily activities for nurnerous projects within a stormwater focused research
Group. He led development of several research studies including the effects of BMPs on thermal impacts
to Stormwater runoff, retrofitting abandoned septic tanks into Stormwater infiltration facilities, the effects
of media selection on gree~r roof pollutant removal performance, and development of a municipal BMP
monitoring pilot program. He completed design and construction of more than fifteen Stormwater BMPs
including Stormwater wetlands, bioretention areas, green roofs, pervious pavement practices, innovative
wet ponds and level spreaders. He also supervised Extension Associates, graduate students and
undergraduate students in the development of research projects, providing instruction on budgeting, site
design, pernutting, competitive bid processes, construction, instrumentation, data collection and data
analysis.
74
Smith, Tonafhan T. -Resume
Selected_Project_Experience ____-_~.___~.------------------------
Pulaski County Stormwater Design Manual and Site Evaluation Tool Development, Pulaski Co.,
Slue Evaluation Tool (SET). uCoordinating the plannmg for and facilitation of a workgroup meet ng and
comprised of local public agency and stakeholder engineering staff to identify and develop manual
components and SET user interface functions. Providing oversight fodeve o mentaconditonslopment of
design manual incorporating functionality specific to Pulaski County P
Supervised development of the SET incorporating lower limit effluent limitations on BMP pexfonnance
for local conditions including low density development and steep slope topography.
Third Fork Creelc Watershed Planning and Design, Durham, NC -Task manager fora $IM+
design, LID and BetteroSite Design, and BMP maintenance program revle v for Third Fork Creek. and
NCEEP Alternative Wetland Mitigation Stormwater BMP Pilot Project. For the North Caro ma
mill ation
Ecosystem Enhance Program, supervised application of a proposed method for detennining g
pro et represent a potential p'to for urban w tersheds wheBre availableel nd fortrad tional wet and
mitigation does not meet overall mitigation needs. re aration of a Low Impact Development manual
San Diego LID Manual, San Diego CA. Supporting p p
for the City of San Diego's Stormwater program. To date, has provided review of performance criteria
for stonmvater best management practices required by San Diego County. Review included reseazeh of
threserperfomrance riteria`vResuls werre utl ed to recommend cxit rbarwhich tivere rmost appropriate to f
the city's objectives and incorporation into the manual.
1163Diofeellof second ordexstre me and creatiohn oftf enbuor~W ater BMPs in an urabamzed wale shed.n of
Provided project scoping, technical oversight of design, permitting and preparation of construction
documents. Stormwater BMPs included offline wetland(infiltrationSystems incorporating shallow
diversion of upstream runoff from the restored stream reach as well as a combination bioretention
area/tevei spreader system treating a municipal animal shelter "hot spot".
McAlpine Creek Stream Restoration and Stormwater Improvements, Mecklenburg Co, NC.
Design engineer responsible for preparation of design documents related to the retrofit of an existing
urban pond to a Stormwater treatment facility consistond exhibited poor conditions ncluding tundersized
Emergent W etland" design guidance. The existing p orated a
outlet, failing banks, excessive waterfowl use and lack of vegetation. The modified design incorp
larger Boi Pr and a low flow we and to provide polish'mgardeattment of baseflow and smaller runoffre for
events.
Central Yard Municipal Facility Stormwater Retrofit Design, Charlotte, NC. Project Manager for
the identification of methods to reduce impacts of a municipal vehicle maintenance and washing facility
on adjacent surface waters through source reduction and modifications to an existing non-functioning
filter system. Conducted a feasibility analysis of various source reduction techniques and BMP
modifications incorporating site operational restrictions, municipal NPDES phase II compliance
requirements, and existing infrastructure conditions. Provided design and prepazation of construction
documents for specific improvements including diversion of rooftop runoff directly to stream,
construction of rooftop over vehicle washpad, and conversion of fitter system to a staged detention,
vertical filter, finishing wetland system
Partners Equity Stormwater Improvement, Partners Equity Group, Smithfield, NC. Managed the
development of design and permitting for the conversion of an existing wetpond serving a 51 acre
2
75
Smith, Jonathan T. -Resume
con~versionlwas conducted in order to oobtain a 401awater quality ertiftrca~ onrf omtthe NC iDWQ
wetlands unit for impacts to jurisdiet~ S of the pond and enhan ementrthrough the incorporation of a
included the enlargement and deep
vegetated littoral shelf.
Trash Guard Hydraulic Analysis, Traslr Guard, Inc., Raleigh, NC. Managed the development o a
largeastormwat r sol'tdse The c eRt equ ted hydraulc analysispreadsheet prepa at onto detemunem
steady flow hydraulic characteristics.
Players Club Bridge Replacement, Reserve Develop a e 1 canon fo~the modification of arroadr~ y
FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) PP hcation
resplacement of an existng culvert d road crossing wi B ~sft Pan Prefabricat dfbridge. ~Appded
preparation included incorporation of existing topographical survey in the effective FEMA hydrau c
to reduce impact on nearby properties and
model and iterative analysis of the proposed bridge geometry
structures.
St. James Hydra oca sesdtlren arises of flooding inea largaTP identiai developmoentt elated to hvoanaged
a hydraulics study Work included simulation of the storms of interest uydraulics C
flooding events in Brunswick County otting a HEC-RAS by
HMS model and incorporation of as-built survey data as required supp
model of the existing creeks, ponds, and roadways. Sensitivity anatysis was conducted on these hvo
writdten report was devetopedifromrthe resultstof the project to and p ov'dedgotthe lientuwithooding. A
recommendations of upgrades or replacements of road crossings and diversions.
St. James Drainage Improvements, Reserve Developmen' Nodh Ca oima. Be' g so loseato the
Plantation is located on the Atlantic Inter-coastal Waterway
coast, St. James Plantation needed to develop an emergency action plan for the management of drainage
as an perationeand mainte ante plan fo gma'mpaining structures soo hat capacity isnnot reducedla Also ell
provided design services to improve drainage structures identified as operating at less than desired
condition.
UNC Bell Tower Stormwater Management Services, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, Chape
h rvest system on the existing oampus of Un'rve~sity of North Car 1 na atgChapellH 11etThensystem
captures stormwater from a proposed Genome Sciences building with a rooftop of approximately 1 acre
and stores it in an underground cf ti I°, afe adjacent lands ape a~easca nearby adium athleticfi ld ando
to provide reliable water supply g
provide indoor toilet flushing water for the Genome Sciences building. rofessional services
St. James Main Entrance Storm Drainage, Town of St. James, NC. Provided p
in the development of a repair plan for the main site entrance to the Town of St. James. The repair
consisted of a Phase I for study, Phase II for design & construction drawing Preparation and Phase III for
construction administration. The noted problem areas were further investigated through fietd exploratron
draulic Analysis. Data was then
with the NCDOT, watershed delineation, and Hydrologic and Hy rovement and repair. Upon
evaluated and prioritized, and alternati n documents were prepared or use in bidding and construction by
selection of preferred alternative, desig
the client.
Charlotte Monitoring Standard Details, City of Charlotte, Charlotte, NC. Managed project for Crty
of Charlotte to provide engineering servi~ 'Provided consulting and construction documents preparat on
pilot stormwater BMP monitoring progr
3
76
Smith, Tonathan T. -Resume er flow
services to correct difficuitiei mof sampling intakesrand difficult) acces b o sampling locations.
measurement devices, clogg g Ci of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, NC.
Jacksonville Water Supply and Treatment Facilities, ty.
en ineer for design and permitting of a Stormwater wetland for an 8 mgd nanofiltrafion treatmen
Design g aced com lete construction plans and application documents for
facility for the City of 7afokr anvcova tof Coastal Area Stormwater Permit.
submission to NCDW Q pp ro ect for City of Charlotte to
Ci of Charlotte, Charlotte, NC. ManC 9 aP~ pond to improve pollutant
Shade Valley Outlet, tY
design structural modifications to the outlet of an existing
removal performance. Specific modifications included the implementation of an adjustable outlet to
allow modification of permanent pool level and design drawdown period. Modifications were
]anted areas and improve vegetative growth
implemented to ailo~v management of water level depthof Charlotte, Charlotte, NC. Managed Project
Edwards BranchEeasibility Study and Design, City
for City of Charlotte to conduct feasibility study and provide design services for retrofit modifications to
the Edwards Branch Stormwater W etland. The offline wetland provided water quality treatment an
rimaril of single family residential and cornmereiat uses.
detention fora 50+ acre watershed comprised p Y oor soil conditions, improper water
the soil characteristics and
Wetland vegetative coverage within the wetland was limited Y P the wetland
levels and waterfowl activirovided a report on the fees bit ty andlcos of i prroving
overall management and p
performance through soil amendmenUaddition, outlet stmcture modifications, and waterfowl eterren s.
rove the general performance of the BMP in relation to water quality
The purpose of the design was to imp
treatment. Design services included preparation of const~su able marsh soil where necescsarrY, of e
outlet structure, excavation ~ n, and prescriptive Ovate fowl deterrent measures. conducted
development of a planting p
St. James Hydraulic Study, Brunswick Co, NC. Eor the St. lames Develop o ident ~ improvements to
of an existing xesidentiaUgolf course communi included consideration of
a watershed hydraulic study
relieve flooding concerns observed in recent tropical storm systems. Stu y
improvements to golf course ponds such as active management of pond control structures eventually
manifesting in the development of an emergency action plan. ram, Ctarlotte, NC.
Development of a Municipal Pilot Stormwater Retrofit BMP MomU Gang manual. Identified BMP's
e of coordinating city and county stormwater professionals to develop a pilot
Extension Engineer in charg ro rammatic monitoring
BMP monitoring program. Developed Stormwater BrMP'ate site see cfic and p g
idance on app p riate statistical analysis and
for monitoring efforts and provided gu
equipment and techniques. Advised municipal stormwam results in local e egionat and national
interpretation of program results for inclusion of progr
monitoring performance databases.
Dye Branch Stormwater Wetland, Mooresville, NC. Provided design services for the site se ectron,
re aration, permitting and constmction administration for an offline
design, construction documents p p orated multi-cell, tiered
tiered Stormwater wetland an urbanized watershed. Wetland design rncorp uali
of the effectiveness of BMP size and
configuration allowing the inclusion of the site in a study
performance limitations of multi~oencrtolxmg of Greetn Roof Installations1in Eastern North Carolina.
Runoff Quantity and Quality stems for three greenroof
Extension Engineer in charge of design and installation of monitoring sy
installations in eastern North Carolina. Purpose of-the project tivas to determine the impacts-of-greenroofs .
on the quantity and quality of rooftop runoff in Eastern North Carolina.
Joyner Park Bioretention, Louisburg, NC. Extension Engineer in charge of design, construction
management and monitoring of two bioretention areas p dmlomg on atm utant removafreffectiven s of
pazk. Research investigated effects of soil media and by gY p
bioretention areas in piedmont settings.
4
77
SnaitTs, Jonathan T. -Resume
Dye Branch Stormwater Wetlands, Mooresville, NC. Extension Engineer in charge of design,
permitting, construction, and monitoring of an offline Stormwater wetland system. Project included three
Stormwater wetland cells installed in series to treat runoff from a fully developed 30 acre watershed. A
concrete pre-cast diversion shucture vas constructed to bypass larger flows to the existing stream system.
Design included morutoring stmchues and implementation of monitoring equipment to determine
pollutant load and removal characteristics.
Conversion of Abandoned Septic Tanks to Rooftop Runoff Cisterns, Holden Beach, NC. Extension
Engineer in charge of concept, design and implementation oversight of the conversion of abandoned
septic tank systems to stomrwater storage and treatment facilities. Project included demonstration and
monitoring to determine the feasibility of concept on a NC barrier island. Rooftop runoff was routed into
rivo abandoned septic tank systems for shoriterm storage and infiltration. A third system was constructed
to allow reuse of captured Stormwater for residential irrigation. Monitoring equipment was installed to
allow determination of long term runoff capture and irrigation use.
Development of Municipal Pilot Stormwater Retrofit BMP Monitoring Project, Charlotte, NC.
Extension Engineer in charge of coordinating with City and County Stormwater professionals to develop a
pilot BMP monitoring program. Developed stormwater monitoring guidance document. Identified
retrofit BMPs for monitoring efforts and provided guidance on proper monitoring techniques and
approaches.
Investigation on Effects of Stormwater BMPs on Stormwater Runoff Temperature, Western, NC.
Extension Engineer in charge of developing a research project determining the effects of BMPs on
Stormwater runoff temperature. Project purpose was to determine the impact of Stormwater wetlands,
bioretention and wetponds on reducing elevated runoff temperatures from hnpervious surfaces in
designated trout waters. Identified candidate BMPs for inclusion in study and prescribed monitoring
equipment for installation..
Edenton Airport Wetland and Stream Restoration, State of North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, Edenton, NC. Extension Engineer Managing Restoration creation of over 900' of headwater
wetland stream system in a 30 acre watershed. Wetland/stream system was installed to treat runoff from
industrial park. Project involved design, construction and monitoring of created wetland/stream system as
well as monitoring of downstream restored riparian wetland.
Care Creels Agricultural BMP Project, State of North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Cove
City, NC. Extension Engineer responsible for monitoring of over 100 Controlled Drainage systems
installed in a 2000 acre Agricultural watershed near New Bern. Monitoring consisted of In-stream water
level recorders, automatic recording raingages and water quality sampling stations. Project objectives
were to determine impact of controlled drainage practices on water quality in a large agricultural
watershed.
CEFS Riparian Buffer and Controlled Drainage Study, Goldsboro, NC. Extension Engineer in
charge of implementation and instrumentation of over 7000 ft of riparian buffers in a Neuse River
tributary. Research objectives were to determine the effect of riparian buffers and controlled drainage on
groundwater and surface water quality. Buffers were installed adjacent to agricultural uses and consisted
of varying buffer widths and vegetation type. Buffers were intensively monitored with over 600 shallow
groundwater quality wells, 100 groundwater table monitoring wells, and 500 soil reduction-oxidation
probes.
Dnne Intlltrarion System, Kure Beach, NC. Extension Engineer assisting in the conceptual
development and construction design of a system to infiltrate small storm flows from an coastal urban
watershed from discharging directly into the Atlantic ocean. Design utilized a flow diversion weir and a
system of infiltration cells installed within the dune system. Provided guidance on the design and
~$
Smith, Jonathan T. -Resume
installation of monitoring equipment to determine system performance and track volume reduction of
runoff directly reaching surface waters.
Selected P_ublicatio_n_s and Presentations _________.____._~-------
W. F. Hunt, J.T. Smith, S.J. 7adlocki, J.M. Hathaway, P.R. Eubanks. 2008. Pollutant Removal and Peak
Flow Mitigation by a Bioretention Cell in Urban Chariotte, NC. Journa[ of Environmental Engineering,
134 (5): 403-408.
J.T. Smith, 2007. Edwards Branch Wetland. Retrofitting a retrofit, Presented at the NC-APWA Water
Resources armual Conference, Wrightsville Beach, NC September 2007
J.D. Wright, W.R Hnnt, J.T. Smith. 2007. Innovative Stormwater Retrofits for Barrier Island
Applications: Septic Tank Conversion in Holden Beach, NC. Presented at the 2007 ASABE
International Meeting. June 18-20, 2007. Minneapolis, MN.
7. M. Hathaway, W. F. Hunt, J. T. Smith, and A. Johnson. 2007. Shade Palley Pond: Pinal Monitoring
Report. Prepared for City of Charlotte Stormwater Services. Charlotte, NC.
J. M. Hathaway, \V. F. Hunt, 7. T. Smith, and A. Johnson.. 2007. Peirsorr Pond: Final Monitoring
Report. Prepared for City of Charlotte Stornmwater Services. Charlotte, NC.
J. M. Hathaway, W. F. Hunt, and J. T. Smith. 2007. flat Marshall Bioretention: Final Monitoring
Report. Prepared for City of Charlotte Stormwater Services. Charlotte, NC.
Hunt, W.F., A.R. Jarrett, J.T. Smith, L.7. Sharkey. 2006. Evaluating Bioretention Hydrology and Nutrient
Removal at Three Field. Sites in North Carolina. Journal oflrrigation and Drainage Engineering, 132 (6):
600-608.
Expesrence. Presentefl at ASCE EWRI World Water and n~onmentaifResourrcoes Congresse Charlotte
Anchorage, AK, July 2005.
Quah'ty Theatment PondPPresent d at South west FloOrOda WatereManagemen~Distri t 8~ Bienniater
Conference on Stormwater Research and Watershed Management, Tampa, FL.
Roofs in North Carolina P oceedings of Third Anm allIntrema~o aitGx~ening Rooftops for Sustainablen
Communities Conference, Washington DC.
E.Z. Bean, W.F. Hnnt, D.A. Bidelspach. J.T. SmitC 2rr00ete Pavement Institute (ICPI) aWashmgton, DC.
Permeable Pavements. Prepared for Interlocking
ResOtoratio : /C nssruetion iOnOthe Chowan Rive~Basin. Prepared for NC DErNR-DWQ aslpart of a 319
grant
J. T. Smith and W. F. Hunt. 2003. Update on Bioretention and GreenroofPerformanee in Nort:
Carolina. Presented at StormCon2003 ,San Antonio, TX.
J. T. Smith and W. F. Hunt.2003. Permeable Pavement Use and Research in Eastern NC. Presented at
2003 StormCon, San Antonio, TX.
W.F. Hunt, A. R. Jarrett, and J. T. Smith. 2003. Field Study ofBioreteration Areas in North Carolina.
Proceedings of 2003 ASCE Water Resources Conference. Phlladelphia, PA.
Carolina.t D. e Bdings of 2003 ASAE AnnualBlnt mationa~MeetmgleLasvVegas,RlN.arch in North
6
79
5mitM, Jortatltan T. -Resume
W.F. Hunt, A. R. Jarrett, and J. T. Smith. 2003. Field Study ofBioretention Areas in North Carolina.
Proceedings of 2003 ASAE Annual International Meeting, Las Vegas, NV.
7. T. Smith and W. F. Hunt. 20D2. Designing Bioretention Areas to Increase Denitrifcation. Presented at
StormCon 2002. Marco Island, FL. ! m La oon Effluent.
7. T. Smith and R O. Evans. 2000. Field Evaluationosium~ Sctience and gpmeer'mg fo~ the New
Proceedings of Watershed Management 2000 Symp
Millennium.
R. O. Evans, R.E. Sneed, R. E. Sheffield, 7. T. Smith. 1999. Wettable Acreage Determinationv for Har
Hose Traveler. N.C. Cooperative Extension Service. AG-553-7. N. C. Cooperative Extension Service.
R. O. Evans, R.E. Sneed, R• E. Sheffield, J. T. Smith. 1999. Wettable Acreage Determination for
Stationary Sprinkler/Irrigation System. N.C. Cooperative Extension Service. AG-553-6. N. C.
Cooperative Extension Service.
J.T. Smith and R.O. Evans. 1998. Evaluation of BMPs to Improve Drainage Water Quality Food
Agricultural Lands Irrigated with Swine Lagoon Effluent. In: Drainage in the 21~` Century:
Production and the Environment. Proceedings of the T" International Drainage Symposium.
PivOot and Linear Move/IrJigatiomSystem. N CeCooperatveExtens'tonbService. AG-553 3foNCC~tter
Cooperative Extension Service.
R. O. Evans, 7.C. Barker, J. T. Smith, R. E. Sheffield. 1997. Field Calibration Procedures for Hard Hose
and Cable Two Tr~aveter/Irrigation System. N.C. Cooperative Extension Service. AG-553-2. N. C.
Cooperative Extension Service.
PO. Ev /ns,t~Q `o aSystem N. Cooperative Extension ServiceaAG1553 tl nN.rC. Cooperativetat~oreaty
Extension Service.
7
80
Regina Scheibner
Publication Manager
Education and Registrations
B.F.A., IDustration, Academy of Art College, San Francisco, CA, 1989
General Experience
Regina Scheibner is a graphic designer and illustrator specializing in print publication and document design with more than
19 years of professional experience. She has extensive experience designing unique, creative outreach materials grid
documents, including guidance manuals, handbooks, brochures, newsletters, fact sheets, book covers, posters, workshop
and training materials, logos, Web sites and splash screens, for a variety of clients under tight deadlines and within budget.
She applies her knowledge of design, illustration, and iypography to tailor publications to vazious audiences (such as
scientists, policy makers, the general public, elementary and middle school children), using graphic design to enhance
communication. She has a thorough understanding of professional graphics soRware, digital file formats, and the
prepazation of electronic files for professional print production and for Internet publication. Ms. Scheibner is proficient in
.the use of InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Adobe Acrobat, Dreamweaver, Plash, and Powerpoint. She has had formal
training in a wide variety of commercial and fne art disciplines in both traditional and digital media, including graphic
reproduction technology, typography, design, illustrative techniques, drawing and painting.
Relevant Project Experience Highlights °-'
Alaska Storm Water ('node. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Designed and formatted a
Guidance Manual. Created 35 custom pencil drawings illustrating stormwater BMPs described in the text,
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore mrd Protect Our Waters. USEPA Office of Water.
Designed and prepared for offset press a 2-color document of more than 380 pages illustrated with numerous
custom graphics. Supervised a staff of desktop publishers for the book's layout and production.
HowResitientlsYourCoastaiCommunity?AGuideforEvalnatirtgCoastafoc~am~andereraredforosffsetpress
and Other Coastal Xazards. USAID, NOAH and other partners. Designed, P P
a full color reference manual of more than 140-pages that included numerous graphics and photos.
Stony Coral Rapid Bioassessment Protocol. USEPA/ORD. Designed, formatted and prepared for offset printing a
60-page full color document, that included custom graphics and numerous full color photos.
Low Impact Development Practices. USEPA and Earth Force. Created watercolor graphics illustrating water
cycles, LID practices in amixed-use setting, and across-section of a rain garden. The water color illustrations
were used for several purposes: ht signs permanently installed along EPA's demonstration rain gardens in
Washington, D.C; in a display banner that hung in the US Botanic Garden's 2008 Sustainability Exhibit; in an
educational tabletop display; in a PSA(ad campaign for RainScaping.org.
DevelopingYaeer StonnwaterPollution Prevention Plan: A Guidefor Conservction Sites. USEPA. Developed the
template, formatted and prepared for press a full color 46-page document that included numerous customs
illustrations and graphics, photos, and tables. Supervised staff in the incorporation of revisions and edits.
Citizen's Cneide to Water Quality in the Yazoo River Basin, Citizen's Guide to WaterQuality in the Pearl River
Basin. Citizen's Guide to WaterQuality in the Pascagoula River Basin, Citizen's Guide to Water Quality in the
Coastal Streams Basin, and Citizen's Guide to Water Quality in the Tombigbee and Tennessee River Basins. MS
Department of Environmental Quality. Designed and formatted, created custom graphics and maps, and prepared
for offset printing five 32-page full color guides to major watersheds in Mississippi.
If?rat's Going Down with the Rain? HI Dept, of Health, Clean Water Branch and USEPA. Designed and prepared
for offset printing a full color trifoid outreach brochure to mice public awareness and involvement in the
prevention of polluted mnoff.
Don't Trask Our Waves. HI Dept. of Health, Clean Water Branch and USEPA. Designed and prepared for offset
printing a bus ad poster. Included custom illustrations and photo montage.
81
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008-Report to Congress. USEPA. (in progress, scheduled for completion Jan
200) Desigried, formatted and prepazed for offset press a full color book-length report that includes photos,
custom graphics and maps.
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004-Report to Congress. USEPA. Designed, formatted and prepazed for offset
press a full color book-length report that includes photos, custom graphics and maps.
Virgin River Watershed Management Plan. Washington Co.hotosrcustomized grapihias andtmaps~t~~ and
formatted a full color book-length document inwrporating p
Local Tools for Lasting Change, AHandbookfazed fort 2-coloraprinting am 82--page spiral bound handbook
Michigan State University. Designed and prep
designed for local units of government within the Muskegon River watershed.
82
83
UDO Assistance Orange County, Norfh Carolina
Hillsborough, NC Annotated Outline
84
85
Tp;~/ F HtLLSOU~GH,,
NO~RT1-i: Cp+RC~L,IN.A.
U.."f~1t~FtED DEVELOPMENT` ~tZ.DtN/~~l'C:E
Draft Annotated Outline
November 12, 2009
86
87
T~BL~ O~ C;O:I~ITE~IT
...............................................................1
INTRODUCTION .....................................
.............................................................
Work Program and Schedule ...........................................
Work Program ..............................
Schedule ................................................................................................
........................................ 2
Report Organization .............................................................................
..................2
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................2
Issues ummary ...............................
........................................................................... 2
Annotated Outline .............................................. .......................................................................
/jppendices .............................................................
.......................................................... 3
ISSUES SUMMARY ........................................
Make the UDOGustomer-Friendly .................................
............................................................. 3
Consolidate Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Reulations .........::::::::::::::::
Enhance Structure and Organization ..............................
Improve Format and Illustrations ....................................
Consolidate, Refine, and Update Definitions ...............................................
Clarify Review Standards ............................................................................
Establish a Clear Procedure for Interpretations ...........................................
Use an Administrative Manual ...................................................................
...................................3
...................................4
..........................4
.......................... S
...........................6
......................6
...................
• t R view ................
...... 7
Streamline Developmen a •••••••••
.
........................7
Establish New Common Procedures ......................................................................
......................... .........................8
Clarify Review Responsibilities .....................................................
.............................. .........................9
Formalize the Technical Review Committee ............................
•••.•.•••••• •••••••••~•••~••••••••"'9
Refine Certain Development Review Procedures .....................................•
............... .......................10
Modernize the Approach to Use Regulations .........................................
........ .......................10
Add New Standards for Accessory and Temporary Uses ................................
........... .....................10
Improve Development Quality ...................................................................
.....11
Achieve High Quality Development and Redevelopment ..:................................ .................
........................
...........................................
blish Contextual Standards ..................................
t
E 11
...................
q,.......................
a
s
trict and Development Standards to Provide Flexibili
Di
f ......
11
.........
s
y
Modi
Modify Review Procedures to Encourage Redevelopment ................................... ................
Page i
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I OraRMnotated~0udine
November, 2009
88
ANNOTATED OUTLINE ..........................................................................................1
General Provisions ....................................................................................................:...................1
Title and authority ....................................................................
General Purpose and Intent ......................................................
Applicability and lurisdiction .....................................................
Conformance with Adopted Plans .............................................
Relationship with Other Laws, Covenants, or Deed Restrictions
Official Zoning Map ..................................................................
Transitional Provisions ..............................................................
Vested Rights ...........................................................................
S everabi l ity ..............................................................................
.................................... ......... ....1
.................................... ......... ....1
.................................... ......... ....1'
.................................... ......... ....2
2
..................................... ......... ....
.................................... .......... ....2
2
.................................... ......... .....
.................................... ......... .....2
.................................... ......... .....2
Administration ..............................................................................................................................3
Administrative and Decision-Making Bodies ...................................................................................4
Common Review Procedures .........................................................................................................5
Standards and Requirements for Development Applications ..........................................................8
Zoning Districts ..........................................................................................................................11
Use Standards .............................................................................................................................11
Use Table ..............................:................................:....................................................................11
Use Classifications, Categories, and Types ....................................................................................12
Use-Specific Standards .................................................................................................................12
Accessory Uses and Structures .....................................................................................................12
Temporary Uses and Structures ....................................................................................................12
Development Standards .............................................................................................................13
Off-Street Parking and Loading ..............................:................. ..........:.........................................13
13
Landscaping Standards ............................................................. ....................................................
14
Open Space Set Asides ............................................................ ....................................................
14
Eences and Walls ....:................................................................ ....................................................
14
g g ..................................................................
Exterior Li htin .... .....................................................
14
Traffic Impact Analysis ............................................................ .....................................................
Signagel4
Subdivisions ................................................................................................................................15
Subdivisions .....................:...........................................................................................................1 S
Performance Guarantees ..............................................................................................................15
Nonconformities .........................................................................................................................16 __
General Applicability ....................................
Nonconforming Uses ....................................
Nonconforming Structures ............................
Nonconforming Lots of Record .....................
Nonconforming Signs ....................................
...........: .................................................16
.............................................................16
.............................................................17
.............................................................17
..........................:..................................17
Hillsborough, North Carolina page ii
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Mnotated Outline
November, 2009
89
Enforcement ......................................................................... .......................................................18
........................................18
Purpose .......................................................................... .....................
........................18
Compliance Required ..................................................... .....................................
.................................18
Violations ........................................................................ ............................
.........................18
Responsible Persons ........................................................ ....................................
..............18
...........
Enforcement Genera y ...................................................
......
.....
....
.....................
.................18
Remedies and Penalties .................................................. .......................
.....................
Definitions ........................................................................... ........................................................19
.....................19
General Rules for Interpretation ..................................... ................................
......... ....................,.19
...
Rules of measurement .................................................... .....................................
...............19
Def inltions .....................................................................
Hillsborough, North Carolina Page iii
Unified Development Ordinance 1 Draft Mnotated Outline
November, 2009
90
91
tN.TRQDU.CTLON
WORK PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE
WORK PROGRAM
The Town of Hillsborough) retained Clarion
Associates,. a zoning. planning, and growth
- management consulting firm with offices in North
. Carolina, Florida, and Colorado to undertake
preparation of a'. new _. Unified Development
Ordinance for thetowd.
Estimated Project Schedule .
Annotated Outline
• Draft UDO
The work program for the Unified Development Public Review/Hearing
Ordinance project involves three main tasks. They
are: - ~ _
Task 1: Projedlnitiation(completed);
Task 2: Annotated Outline (current task);
Task 3: Draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Task 1, Project Initiation and Scoping, is completed. It involved review and evaluation of the town's planning documents,
current zoning and subdivision regulations, and other relevant town documents; discussions with town staff, and interviews
with citizens, developers, and other stakeholders about goals for the project and what is and is not working with the existing
regulations:
This Annotated Outline is the product of Task 2. It reviews the community's goals and major themes that need to be
addressed in the code revision project, and options for achieving those goals. It serves as a basis to frame community
discussion about what structural/procedural and substantive changes need to be made during the UDO update project It is
intended to crystallize the most important themes or issues that need to be addressed. The Annotated Outline includes a
detailed outline of the new UDO if the goals or major themes identified in the Issues Summary are implemented in the new
code. It includes an article-by-article outline of the new Unified Development Ordinance and a textual explanation of the
purpose and nature of each article and section. After review and input on the Annotated Outline, the Clarion team will begin
drafting the Unified Development Ordinance inTask 3.
In Task 3 the new code document will be drafted and introduced to the public. The template for the new Unified
Development Ordinance will be consistent with the Annotated Outline and any other directions provided to the Clarion team
by the town. Task 3 involves the actual drafting of the new Unified Development Ordinance. The new ordinance is a
substantial re-organization of a majority of the town`s current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, along with the
addition of some new provisions. The template for the new ordinance will be consistent with the Annotated Outline portion
of this report and any other directions provided to the Clarion team by the town.
SCHEDULE
The Unified Development Ordinance project began in late summer of 2009, and is expected to be complete by mid-2010.
Task 1, Project Initiation, has been completed. This document, the Annotated Outline, is the work product produced in Task
2. It will be considered by the Planning Board, and Town Board of Commissioners in November 2009. The input received
during these meetings is used in the development of the new ordinance over the following six months. Following completion
of the draft of the Unified Development Ordinance, public hearings on the new ordinance will be conducted.
Hillsborough, North Carolina page 1
Unified Development Ordinance 1 Draft Annotated Outline
November, 2009
92
D Infoduction
REPORT ORGANIZATION
As is discussed earlier, this document is the Clarion team's initial evaluation of Annotated Outline Re OYt ~5
~..
Unified Development Ordinance update issues. It is primarily intended to crystallize
the most important goals or themes that need to be addressed in the new UDO. It $tCUCYUYe
also sets forth a proposed outline of the new UDO to achieve the goalslthemes • IntoducUon.'
identified in the Issues Summary.
This Annotated outline is organized into four main parts: Introduction, Issues • Issues Summary _
Summary, Annotated Outline, and the Appendices. : 1., ~' _ '_~
• ~Arinotated Outline
INTRODUCTION
This section contains two subsections: • .Appendices ;.
• Work Program and Schedule, outlines the work program and
schedule for the code update project, and
Organization of this Report, explains how this report is organized.
ISSUES SUMMARY
This portion of the report includes discussion of the primary goals for the code update based on the reconnaissance of the
town, review of applicable planning and regulatory documents, Clarion team members' interviews with stakeholders and
town staff about zoning and subdivision issues, and our independent review of the current zoning ordinance and subdivision
regulations. This Issues Summary identifies five major themes or goals for the project They are:
Make the code more customer-friendly,
SVeamline development review,
Modernize the zoning districts and uses,
Improve developmentquafity, and
• Encourage redevelopment in targeted areas that is consistentwith the town's planning and development goals.
ANNOTATED OUTLINE
The annotated outline section follows the issues summary. It provides town officials, Planning Board members, staff, and
citizens with a general understanding of the proposed struc[ure of the new code document if the themes and goals discussed
proposed structure of t e ne acode an d provides commentary expiator gothe pu poselland scope of each article and secdonhe
APPENDICES
Included in the Appendices are summaries of public input received to date, resulting from stakeholder meetings and from a
major community forum.
Page 2
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance 1 Draft Annotated Outline
November, 2009
93
Thrs Unified.Development Ordinance project rs designed to accomplish two ob)ecuves: (1) Combine the town's zoning and
' to one Unified Development Ordinance; and (2) while blending these two ordinances make adjustments to
subdvision ordinances m Key -(henle5 fOY 11TIpYOVEf11Cnt
provisions th oalsefo~tthegordi aoce re--write eme~ged fmm)thevClar'wneteam~s
themes or g ublic duringthe project initiation 1 Make the code more customer-friendly
interviews with stakeholders, town staff and the p
meetlngs and independent review of the., town's planning and regulatory
documents. These goals are consistenfwiththe stated goals of the project as
identified by the town and with many best practices in land use regulation. They 2. Streamline the development review process
" th' re ulatioris, procedures,
are:
Make the code more customer-friendly;
Streamline the development m edures~ ansd definitions,
Modernize the regulations, p
3. Modernize e $
and definitions
4. .Improve development quality ,
5.: Achieve developmentand redevelopment
improve development quality, and
e Achieve. development and redevelopment that is consistent with the ,, that promote community goals
community's planning and development goals.
These five goals or themes inform and guide the annotated outline of the new
Unified Development Ordinance. fn some cases, a discussion of alternative means
~oluton based ons ou~ulnderPtandn g of IHillsbomugh and betapractices in North
Carolina and nationwide. The following pages provide more detail on each of the
five key goals:
MAKE THE UDO CUSTOMER-FRIENDLY
One of the most frequently cited concerns raised by both stakeholders and town
frfendly~This s so forta ~ar ety frreasonss dGenerally, bothnstakeholders and staff
agreed the structure and format of the current regulations frustrates users and town
usabilityaland cu tomlernf~endl ness of Hillsborough'sannew odeaaremPetvdown
below. The primary goal of these techniques is [o create auser-friendly document
that presents the document in a more customer-friendly way
CONSOLIDATE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
SUBDIVISION REULATIONS
The town's existing zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are
separate documents. The modern thinking and preferred trend among
local governments is to consolidate zoning and land development
regulations into one consolidated development code. Most communities
adopting this approach find a unified document that organizes all relevant
procedures and development regulations in an organized and logical
format makes the regulations more customer-friendly. We recommend as
part of the update effort the town consolidate the current zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations into one Unified Development
Ordinance document
Pagc 3
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Drag Annotated Outline
November, 2009
94
Issues Summary
ENHANCE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZ4TION
There is significant room for improving the organization and
structure of the existing regulations. The development review
procedures are not consolidated. Another structural problem is the
sequence of information in the current ordinance. There are a few
sections that do not fit and appear out of sequence.
In additon to structural issues with respect to the procedures and
definitions, there are also some organizational problems with the
development standards themselves. These kinds of problems make
compliance with and interpretation of the ordinance difficult
Mulfiple sets of definitions are another problem. Modern ordinances
establish one single set of definitions to help make the document as
user-friendly as possible.
Proposed,UDO Structure "
o'- Article 1" ~, Gene'ral Promsions.
:'~ Article 2 - Administration
Article 3 Zoning Districts
Article 4 ~ Use Regulations
Article:5 Development5tandards .
S bd'vision Staridards
Article,6 u, 4
To remedy these concerns, and make the new code more customer- -
friendly, we recommend the UDO be re-organized to create a ~ Article 7 NonconformiNes
comprehensible and logical hierarchy of regulations, based on .
procedural and substantive relationships. All procedures should be '_!. Article~8 Enforcement
consolidated into one arfide; furthermore, not only should the
procedures be consolidated, but provisions common to all
procedures should tie included in a common procedures section in , ~ ArticleA Definitions
the article. Zoning district use regulations should be modernized ~ - "-
and consolidated into a single article. Development standards
should be consolidated and their applicability to different types of development clarified.~We also suggest relocating and
consolidating the definitions into one article located at the back of the UDO, since it typically serves as a supplementary
reference tool rather than as a primary source of regulatory information.
otherddevelopment related regulatons sucDhOas stormwateremanagement, fdloodplain, and ebos ant conVOl that aref located in
the Town's Code of Ordinances.
IMPROVE FORMAT AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Dynamic Heeder
Prominent Tillaz
w
Nested Teal ^
Illusuotions
---.._
with Captions
Balance aehveen Tezl
amt Yfiire Space ~
pogo Numbers ~`
Documenr Title,
Adoption Dole \
Over the years, experience has taught that the way a
development code "looks;' or is formatted, affects its "customer-
friendliness." There are a number of formatting and related
suggestions that can be applied to the town's new UDO that will
also improve its "customer-friendliness." Recommendations are
detailed below.
Establish a Hierarchy of Sections and Articles
To better organize the procedural and substantive issues
addressed in the new UDO, we recommend using a hierarchy of
articles and sections, as well as a hierarchy of section headings
and font types and sizes to illustrate the relationship of the
procedural and substantive provisions. As discussed above and
outlined in detail below, we recommend that the UDO be
divided into 9 articles. In addition, we recommend separate
section and subsection headings be used to provide "guideposts"
that distinguish provisions by topic and purpose. _.
Improve Referencing System
The existing ordinance also has room for improvement in its
referencing system. Cross references are not widely used in the
existng ordinance, and the table of contents, while moderately
detailed and clear, could also be enhanced and streamlined.
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft hovem6ero, 2009
Page 4
95
Issues Summary
A table of contents, index, cross-references, and headers and footers are referencing systems that'can
greatly enhance usability of long documents such as the UDO. The table of contents is often the
preliminary guiding tool that anchors the reader. Cross-references assist the user in identifying the relevant
regulations that apply to the particular use, development permit, or development proposal: Headers and
footers highlight the section number and topic on each page (e.g., "Sec. 1.1, Title"), allowing a reader to
quickly thumb through the UDO and find a section.
A more effective referencing approach is to include a detailed master table of contents at the beginning of
the UDO and a table of contents at the beginning of each article. We also recommend adding an index of
topics at the end of the document, with headings and cross-references that serve as guideposts to direct the
user to the particular topic of interest to the user.
Illustrate and Summarize Key Concepts
Another way to make a code "customer-friendly' is through illustrations, graphics, Flowcharts, and tables.
The old adage "a picture is worth 1,000 words" is certainly true when talking about communicating zoning
concepts. Illustrations, graphics, flowcharts, and tables are also very helpful in development codes because
they convey information concisely (and in many instances more clearly), eliminating the need for lengthy,
repetitive text
There is an opportunity to include graphics and illustrations to convey key concepts in the new UDO, such
as required dimensional measurementr (e.g., how to measure height)•arkin pot~landscal in band othe~
illustrate preferred design concepts, such as parking space dimensions, p g P
landscaping and screening requirements.
Flow charts also add clarity to specific procedural requirements and timelines, as well as explain the
interrelationships between procedures. There are no Flow charts in the existing ordinance. How charts
are becoming commonplace in modern development regulations because of their ease of use and their
power to convey complex relationships.
Based on our experience in other jurisdictions, we have found summary tables can be very helpful in
presenting information succinctly and eliminating repetition and inconsistent terminology
Sample process flow
CONSOLIDATE, REFINE, AND UPDATE DEFINITIONS chart from another
Definitions are scattered in several sections in the existing ordinances. We recommend ~nCISdICtIOn
consolidating all definitions into one article so it is easy for a user to find the meaning of terms in
one place and to reduce the chance of redundancies or conFlicting definitions. We suggest re-
locatingthe definitions to the last article of the UDO, since it typically serves as a supplementary reference tool rather than a
primary source of regulatory information.
We also recommend the new code include new definitions of key terms, as well as the updating and modernizing of existing
definitions, as appropriate. For example, terms such as buffer, xeriscape, manufactured home, and mobile home need
definition. All use types identified in the code should be defined - a number of common uses in the existing ordinance are
not described (e.g., multi-family residential, recreational facility, commercial use, and others).
Finally, all definitions will be reviewed and will be written in plain English.
CLARIFY REVIEW STANDARDS
Many of the development review standards in the existing regulations are in need of revision and clarification.
There are also several unintended consequences in the current provisions that are resulting in development that is not
consistent with the town's goals.
Standards that are unclear invite different interpretation or application and create uncertainty for development applicants as
well as staff and the public. Development standards should clearly establish the community's goals for the development of a
Hillsborough, North Carolina Page 5
Unified Development Ordinance 1 Draft Annotated Outline
Novembeq 2009
Zoning Ordinance Text
& Map Amendment
Review Process
96
Issues Summary
project. If unclear or uncertain, unnecessary debate may occur over the standards applied to an individual project, and t e
result may be a development tha'i~ble°~nda ds once dear robjective standards alre inciluded B the o~d nance, they can be
context of adopting generally app'
applied in a consistent manner to each projectthat comes up foreSe of development permits will be reviewed, and where
During the update process, all review standards for all typ
appropriate, clarified and brought into conformance with the planning and development goals of the town.
ESTABLISH A CLEAR PROCEDURE FOR INTERPRETATIONS fy gp
Based on our interviews with stakeholders and discussion with staff, it is clear there would be benefit in clan m rocedures.
B t rpretat onselP denGfiesnone town staff official (e.g. cthe Pla ning DireRoraona designee)5 whlo saesponsible forJDO ing
ALL interpretations, after consultation with staff and the town attorney. The procedure requires the interpretation be made in
t rwn modfy its adm nPstraU've pracot'+oces to etnsure there is a cons'+rten~y ofrinterpretations,tmade through oneltowo official ~e
USE AN ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL. liwtion submittal
The existing zoning ordinance includes several sections listing app'
requirements. We recommend the submittal requirements be removed from the
regulations, and set forth in an administrative manual that may be updated
relatively easily, and without formally amending the UDO. Other materials that
should be removed from the regulations to a separate administrative manual
removes bulk from the code,land aldlows foorreasy updatesing of applications. This
A separate administrative manual, or "user's guide;' while not a part of this project,
can also be a I cations is conducted in Hillsboroughu and won suggest ways for
development app'
Adm nistrabve Manlual would impro~e the usabil ty of the UDp ent acfivity. n
In many cases, town staff will prepare an administrative manual shortly after the
adoption of a new code document These manuals include revised application
some casesccompanson between Itheiold and new development regu ationsand in
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance f Drag Noce ~betD2009
Page 6
An Administrative Manunr
prepared for another
jurisdiction
97
Issues Summary
STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Based on our experience, review processes need to be customer-friendly by being
efficient and certain. In addition, the new UDO needs to provide permit tools that allow
for flexibility in appropriate circumstances.
We recommend the new UDO be supplemented with new provisions to simplify and
every application fords velopment pegmiLeWe also uggest the town mod'fy several of the
proce ses like admi~rristratlve adjustments and development agreements. thin addition,
review responsibilities need to be clarified, and we recommend the Technical Review
the code be sv pped o foutdate'd provisions like amortization pio~sionsalthat have Fong
since expired. The following sections will provide more detail on these suggestions.
Key Streamhmng
Recommendations;.`
. - Establish New Common
Procedures
Clarify Review Resporisibilitie§
Refine Certain Development
Review Procedures
Remove Various Amortization
provisions
ESTABLISH NEW COMMON PROCEDURES
scatteredsthroughlout the curlentzoning ordinances We aggesi the newpadm'm~tration
aegdrements relevant to aloapplicatonssfor development pedrmits.th7hsasectionvalso
establishes the rules that take the developmenteSpoPl~ rocedural requ'vementsn luded
development review process, to the end. The typ P
in this common procedures section address:
Who has authority to submit applications,
Pre-application conferences,
application fees and schedule, ,
Rules governing preparation of the staff report,
Public no[iflcatlon and public hearing requirements,
Deferral and withdrawal of applications,
Basic procedures to follow during public hearings,
Review and approval (including the imposition of conditions on approval),
Notification of the applicant regarding the decision, and
Lapse of approval.
Establish aPre-Application Conference Procedure
Hillsborough is not effic ent isebecause applicants do not unde stanldpprocedumll or substantive
review requirements, or are unaware of other related issues about application submission. Our
especially for aamomurcomplexr development proposale~ an effenttve away floc expeddest~ffe
development review process. Encouraging potential applicants to meet informally with i~cation
present conceptual plans for development and get staff input prior to submittal of an app'
helps address issues and procidations.quirements before significant time and expense are invested
in preparing or processing app'
We recommend the COI caUOn wnferencesbetween the applicant ~ D~f establish a standard
requirementfor a pre-app'
Include a Completeness Determination Procedure
designee) to redvewtisubmittedDapplcations toudet rmine wherthergthey are complete.or Only
"complete" applications should be formally accepted for review and action by the town. The
provision would be applicable to all development applications and would state that the processing
Criteria for
Determination of '
Completeness
application form
complete
Fee included
Minimum number of .
copies provided
Submitted within
review schedule
timeframe
Ownership
information complete.
. -All required
preliminary steps
completed .
;All necessary
supporting
information provided .
(including maps, site
drawirigs, and ,
analy_sesl_ ._.. _... _.____
Attestation of
correctriess by
applicant
page 7
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Vnified Development Ordinance 1 Draft Annotated Outline
November, 2009
98
Issues Summary Ircadons are
of an application by the town does not begin unfit after a formal determination that the application is complete. App'
`complete" when they contain all the relevant and appropriate application submittal requirements and the required fee. Since e
Ircation is made by the town's professional staff, appeals of completeness decisions
determination of what constitutes a `complete" app'
would be taken to the board of adjustment
Typically, town staff should need no more than five working days to review and make such a "completeness" determination. The
provision also establishes rules for a deficient application, including a specified period within which a revised appliwfion must be
inbomplete applicadonsdaresubmitted to determulGple def cientsubmittalsor requiring re-submittal fees after a certain number of
Include Public Hearing Procedures
Another technique many communities are using to clarify and make the development review process more prdcedurally efficient is to
include abasic set of rules in the code for the way development applications subject to a public hearing are governed. These provisions
normally spell out the rules governing the conduct of the public hearing, including what persons have the right to speak, the order of
the proceedings at the public hearing (how the application is to be presented, in what order the applicant and public can speak, and
the process for responding to comments), how and under what circumstances testimony and evidence can be excluded, what findings
must be made to support the decision, and how requests for a continuance are handled. These kinds of specifics can fie included
either in the UDO or in an accompanying administrative manual.
CLARIFY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES
Clarify Decision-Making Bodies
Currently, review responsibilities for various permit and approval types are scattered in provisions throughout the current zoning
ordinance. We recommend the new UDO provide a unified section in the Administration article clearly setting forth die powers,
duties, authority, and role of each advisory and decision-making board or person responsible for undertaking development review in
the town. It is our experience that provisions such as these help establish clear lines of authority for the review of development in the
code.
We also suggest the town consider streamlining and clarifying several of the existing development review procedures by: (1) a mg
several new procedures; (2) consolidating several review procedures; and t3) codifying review procedures that are being applied in
practice but are not in the existing regulations.
The following table summarizes how the development review structure is proposed to work in the new UDO. One proposed
departure from the current code is the site plan process. It is recommended the town amend the site plan procedure to recognize two
e size, or location of a proposed use), and that review authority be modified to
different levels of site plan review (based on the typ ,
help streamline the review process.
Hillsborough, Norlh Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance 1 Draft Novemebeo2009
Page 8
99
Issues Summary
FORMALIZE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Several people interviewed at the expressed support for a Formalized Technical Review Committee (TRC). The TRC shout
e of site Ian
be a group of key town staff members from various departments such as pl~icant~onto the Planni gl Department FlIn cases
review and comment on site plans submitted to the town. Depending upon the size of the proposed use or typ P
kcant, there is the possibthty for inconsistency between comments from
application, TRC members currently provide review comments directly to app
where comments are provided directly to an app licant is often required to mediate between two or more different
different departments. Under the current process, the aPP
departments on conflicting review comments-which can add additional time and frustration to the review proce .
We suggest the role and responsibilities of the TRC be formalized and codified in the new UDO to address these kinds o
the TRC would be recognized aslannerd developments,l benefic aI kuse
problems. Under the provisions in the new UDO, lications (e.g., vested rights, p
body responsible for commenting on various app'
determinations, etc.), as well as decision-making responsibilities for Type II Site Plans. In addition, it is recommended e
TRC develop a regular meeting schedule and conduct all pre-application conferences (following submittal of apre-application
request and required materials).
REFINE CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
hcation of some of the zoning
Add aTwo-Tier Administrative Adjustment Procedure
ordinance provisions as a means of encouraging development or redevelopment. The need for this kind of Flexibility is underscored by
One of the recurring themes during the stakeholder interviews f accommodatngfdevelopmentPequestr. The intersection of the
the town's customer-friendly culture and its desire to find way
desire to facilitate development requests with the current code's lack of clarity and (lexibility have led to confusion on the part o
dev darns ands eviewnprocedu~es) s to inOude mechan sm ~in the townes deve olpmen't redo e'w toolbox that p ov de for more Flexibil ty
stan
in the development review process.
One tool many communities use to streamline develottmserves the ntentlof the zon'mg ordinalnce oTong range planni g document
a method of allowing a minor departure from a dimensi°d"aand adar ove'deadministraOovelyebasedmupon and ersltabli hed set f clear
required parking) in cases where such departure be
These kinds of departures from standards are reviewe PP
measurable criteria. They are accomplished outside of the variance process, and as such, do not rely on demonstration o . a
"hardship". The administrative adjustment process provides a "safety valve" to address unintended consequences resulting from
aPpldardsn ov des a higher developmentquahty overall, ohresults io aecondition th t s closer n alignmenttw th the goals of the CmAMA
scan p
Land Use Plan.
We recommend the new UDO be supplemented with a formalized two-tier administrative adjustment processY a II Adm nistrative
deviate or depart from a dimensional or numeric standaadrds b~moreDtOhany10 percentbut lesssthan 215 percentsand adre rreviewed by
Administrative Adjustment" and would be reviewed and approved adminisvatively by the Planning Director. T p
Adjustments" are requests to deviate from numerical sta Y
the Planning Board; even in cases when the use is subject to Type I or Type II Site Plan review.
Add a Beneficial Use Determination
revious 15 years, many local governments have included a procedure in their land use regulations that allows any an owner
Over the p to seek administrative relief from the local elected
who believes the application of the regulations results in a °taking of their property o to court and offer relief if
body. This procedure is called a beneficial use determination. The procedure is based on United States Supreme Court decisions at
state local governments may establish procedures by which they can assess "takings" claims before they g
the regulations are found toamount to ataking- that is, the regulations deny all economiQ Iedb a efVJe (recommend the town consider
The current zoning regulations do not include a beneficial use determination p
c aamgand provid o aeless onerousnmeans for property own s to eOcurecrelief than f ling a laws ~tY net against federal takings
Page 9
Hillsbor h Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I DraftAnnotated Outline
hiovember, 2009
100
Issues Summary
MODERNIZE THE APPROACH TO USE REGULATIONS
The use standards in a zoning ordinance are important because they identify which uses go in which districts. The current
ordinance uses a somewhat dated list-based approach to setting out the allowable uses by district Some of the districts are
pyramided, that is, the uses allowed in a less intense district are also allowed in the next highest-intensity district It is
suggested the new UDO include a new single summary use table that sets out the full range of allowable uses, the districts
where they are allowed, the process under which they are authorized, and across-reference to any additional use-specific
standards.
We also suggest the UDO codify the allowed uses under athree-tiered use classification system that adds textual descriptions
to clarify use groups at three different levels:
• Use Classifications (broad general dassificatlons such as Residential, Commercial, and Institutional),
Use Categories (major sub-groups within Use Classifications such as residential that are based on common
characteristics, such as "Group Living" and "Household living"), and
• Use Types (specific uses within the Use Categories such as "single-family detached dwellings", "multiple-family
dwellings", and "townhome'~.
Many communities are moving to this use classification approach due to its more robust sGUdure and Flexibility. Appendix C
of this report provides more detailed information about the proposed listing of use types compared to the town's current line
up of uses.
In addition, and as part of the conversion to the three-tiered use classification system, it is also suggested that obsolete uses be
removed, and new uses (e.g., large retail establishments, Internet cafes, etc.) be added. The revised standards will also
include a procedure the town can use to classify new uses not already included in the list
ADD NEW STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY USES
The current zoning ordinance addresses accessory and temporary uses within each zoning district's standards. Modern
practice suggests that use-specific standards for individual accessory or temporary uses should be set out by use type instead
of by district We suggest the new UDO establish rules about how accessory and temporary uses may be developed, as well
as new standards for each kind of temporary use in a stand-alone section. The new ordinance should also broaden the range
of accessory and temporary uses to include new uses like major (tome occupations, stand-alone automated teller machines,
portable storage containers, stand-alone ice vending uses, and special events like garage sales or block paNes.
IMPROVE DEVELOPMENT QUALITY
The quality of development in Hillsborough, like many communities throughout North Carolina and the nation, is important to the
town's economic prosperity and to the continued enjoyment of a high quality of life. This attitude underlies many of the town's goals
and policies This issue was also expressed as an important goal in the code update by some of the stakeholders in interviews during the
project kick-off meetings.
One issue is parking requirements, another is landscaping requirements. In addition to the general goal of raising development quality,
it is also desirable that development standards be quantifiable and measurable to the maximum extent practicable. Furthermore, the
new ordinance should also clarify who Itas the responsibility of reviewing the site plan or subdivision applications for compliance with
the standards.
Development quality is largely addressed in the current zoning ordinance through basic requirements For parking landscaping,
buffering and signage. Creation of this UDO is an opportunity to consider adjustments in standards such as:
• Modifying parking standards,
• Modifying landscape standards for parking areas, perimeter buffers, commercial sites, and requiring street tree planting
. Adding tree protection standards,
Adding open space set aside standards,
Adding new exterior lighting standards,
• . Adding fence and wall standards, and
Adding new basic design standards for big box development, multi-family development, and community form.
These will be discussed as the preparation of the UDO moves forward.
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance 1 Drat Mnotated Outline
Pagc 10 November, 2009
101
Issues Summary
ACHIEVE HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
encoura a development andee development m areaslallreadyrserved byninfrastructure,amaintenrancgeh of anvibrantpmixedsuse downtownt
new planned development alternatives for establishment of higher intensity development in selected areas, and conversion o auto-
g
dominated commercial corridors to walkable mixed-use areas.
responsespmmany of whitch are outside the scope of zon ng o dinaln e prow sionsntHowever therevam acdonsrthattwn be takenr'm the
new UDO to help remove obstacles and create some incentives for redevelopment in the downtown and along the major corridors.
questions folrrthe Ponsrdemtlon by Ithe town are:el) whe of exactly, are redevelopmen land refill desed and 2)ohowlcan changes to
the zoning provisions best contribute to a comprehensive strategy for redevelopment in these areasi
recogn ie redevelopmentpstuations, usel oft specialeprocedures like planned devlopmentslorndevelopment agreements to fa~ I tae
keystone projects, and other approaches. Determination of the most appropriate approach for Hillsborough will require additional
discussion. The following sub-sections set out some options for the town's consideration.
ESTABLISH CONTEXTUAL STANDARDS
the m n mum didmens'wnal oldevelopment tandards! Conte tual standards are typicallly flexdible land rely oo cons'~dstency with
adjacent existing development instead of fixed numbers or requirements. For example, contextual standards might include a
maximum front setback provision for a district that requires development td be within 125 percent of the established front
setback for existing buildings along the same block face instead of a rigid fixed dimensional standard. Similar kinds of
provisions may be established for building heights, lot coverage, and other dimensional provisions.
Contextual standards are also uthd Presence or absenrce of a front porch, he amount of glazing on asstorefront oPllo ation of
axis of a building's orientation,
bock faces.rkThis approach allows maxgmuam flexibil'ty for new develop ent, asrlong as it isn ompatible withnthe erx sting
context It does, however, require the applicant or the town to document existing conditions.
MODIFY DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY
prov ding greater flexibil'tyenatredevelopm1e'nt alreastoFor examp eethe range of allowed ulsesnin somenofathe zoning d strics
can be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the desired mix of uses for the downtown and major commercial
preferred uses (e.g, tmtxed use,' higherrden ity res dentialcr''entertainment" uses rconvenienceoretail,retc) is ats plrocedumlly
simple as possible. It is also possible to make the establishment of discouraged uses slightly more difficult procedurally by
requiring more detailed review.
avariety offstandlla ds like parking, landscaping. and sg age. s or example aadifferent set of pedm e'r buffer standards can be
utilized in redevelopment areas that reduce minimum buffer widths through use of fencing, or reduced minimum stocking
parking resourcOff-s5ignage provisions' can be adjusbtedr[o provideaincreasedgace areaofor' desired ign'types)(e.gnwall s'gnst
projecting signs, arcade signs, etc.). It is also possible to reduce some of the land-consumptive standards like open space set-
pedestrian amenities. Spec fit critedta forsthe eP eductions would need to be devoelopedgand ncluded within the new UDO,of
MODIFY REVIEW PROCEDURES TO ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT
In addition to modifications to development standards, it is also possible to adjust some of the development procedures to
produce incentves for redevelopment.
Page 11
Hillshorough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Drag Annotated Outline
November, 2009
102
Issues Summary
One option to consider is allowing any request for administrative adjustments in the downtown or other targeted areas to be
considered as Type I adjustmentr, which can be reviewed and decided by the Planning Director. This could allow
adjustments to any numerical standards of up to 25 percent to be considered and decided administratively, subject to
compliance with specific review criteria.
These kinds of procedural changes provide incentives for redevelopment by minimizing the amount of review time and
removing the uncertainty that can be azsociated with higher level reviews. If these alternatives are considered, it is important
for the development standards to be clear, understandable, and well-defined so that adjacent property owners and other
interested parties understand the range of development forms that can be approved.
Page 12
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance 1 DraftAnnotated Outline'
November, 2009
103
p~~N~TATED OUTLINE
General Commentary: Section 3 of this report provides an overview of what the
.proposed structure and general substance. of ~ the new Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO). As part of the review and discussion of this report, the town can
provide more .detailed direction about the Nature and scope of the new code
docbment grid specific provisions. When thisprocess is completed, the Clarion team
wilt undertake the actual drafting of the new UDO.
The sidebar outlines the proposed new UDO structure, which is composed of nine
new articles. The following pages present a general outline for the new UDO., We
for helping to defi ne exp'ectatio s about what i@sto be aaomplishedrin the new UDO
drafting theen'ew o dina'o e,lrthf isnoutline p o desoant oPganizing framework for
continued conversations with the town about koynt for uubsequentldscrussiongulation
issues. This material is presented as a starting p
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Proposed UDO Structure:
• :`(+rti`ele 1 General Provlslons . ,
• Article 2 Administration
e Article 3 Zoning Districts,
Article 4 Use Regulations
• Articles Development Standards
Article 6 Subdivision Standards.
e~ Article 7 Nonconformities
e Article 8 .Enforcement .
General Commentary: This article contains important general provisions that are .: -. ~ ,
• Article 9 Definitions
relevant to the new UDO as a whole. While most of these provisions are traditiona,
Ia an important part in
all will be specifically tailored to Hillsborough. The article p Ys nnci les and
wbich the UDO is adopted, its administration, and its substantive regulations.
making the UDO user-friendly by including certain overarching p
establishing aclear basis for the authority by
TITLE AND AUTHORITY
"Title" is a standard section. It sets forth.the official name by which [he Unified Development Ordinance may be cite (e•&,
"The Unified Development Ordinance of the Town of Hillsborough"} as well as any acceptable shortened references e.g.,
"Aufhori contains references to the statutory basis for zoning and
"tlie Ordinance," or 'this Ordinance" or "UDO")• h'"
and subdivision regulatory authodty u0nder the North Carolina Gelneral Statutese that the UDO consolidates the town's zomng
T
Article 1: General Provisions:
~ 1 fiitle
1.2
3
1 Authority
General Purpose and Intent
.
1,4 Applicability and Jurisdiction
witkAdoptedi'lans
a
1,5
1.6 nce
Conform
Relationship with Other Laws
~,7 Official Zoning Map
j,g Transitional Provisions
1,g Vested Rights
-1,-10---Severability '- -"`
GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTEN
A general purpose and Intent section can inform decision-makers in future years
about the intent of the Town Board of Commissioners when they adopted the
UDO. This section is absentfrom the existingordinance.
APPLICABILITY AND JURISDICTION
pa'rticularo it dar fieslethat the st nleCtowntcontrolledt' en6tiesthcotlegeOs and
universities, special districts within the town, and all private development are all
subject to the UDO. It will also clarify that lands located within the corporate
limits as well as the extra-territorial jurisdiction are subject to the requirements of
the UDO. to addition, the section clarifies that state and county buildings wi
and that
need to comply with the UDO (in accordance with G.S. §160A-392),
development not subject to G.S. §160A-393 (e.g. activities of the federal
government) is strongly encouraged to comply with the standards.
Page C-1
Hillsborough, North ~-arv~wa
Unified Development Ordinance f Drag Annotated Ou ine
November, 2009
104
Annotated Outline
CONFORMANCE WITH ADOPTED PLANS '
This section sets out the requirements for development to be incompliance with the town's long range planning documents.
evaluated It will also state other plans mightlbe adoplted in the furore that are~elevantto the UbO. lan requirements wilt be
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER LAWS, COVENANTS, OR DEED RESTRICTIONS
totwnsthe sVicter provision s aldl apply The edionodarifies that the townDw'll not be respons bleefor monito ngfohenforcing
private easements, covenantr, and restrictions, though it may inquire into private easements and restrictions in reviewing
development plans for the purpose of ensuring consistency with town requirements.
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
This section incorporates by reference the Town of Hillsborough Official Zoning Map as well as any related maps. The
section also provides for amendment of the Map upon the approval of a rezoning application.
The section will include a standard provision establishing the rules governing how the town assigns the zoning district
classification of newly-annexed lands under the UDO.
The section will also incorporate provisions that relate to boundary interpretation. The section will clarify the Planning
Director's authority to interpret the map and determine where the boundaries of the different zoning districts fall (if in
made to the Board of Adju sme n (BOA).aPn addition, language re aDd to the appl pcation of development standards wi I be
relocated to the appropriate sections in Article 5, Development Standards.
There will be no creation of new zoning districts as part of this UDO-drafting process. Existing zoning districts will be carried
over into the new UDO.
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
This section establishes that:
Violations of the current regulations continue to be violations under the new UDO (unless they are no onger
considered violations) and are subject to the penalties and enforcement provisions set forth in new Chapter 8,
Enforcement
Completed applications that are already in the development approval pipeline at the time of the adoption of e
new UDO may be processed under the provisions of the prior zoning ordinance. In the event that an applicant
seeks to proceed under the standards in the new UDO (instead of the regulations in place at the time the
application was originally submitted), the application would need to blannleddrdevelopmrents, pltr for subdivision,
Conditional use permits, variances, conditional use rezonings, p
statutorily-vested developmen4 vested rights determinations (as part of asite-specific development plan), and
building permitr are governed by the terms and conditions of their approvals, and the rules in existence at the time
of their approval. If, however, they fail to comply with the terms and conditions of their approval, or fail to meet
established time frames, their approval expires, and development of the site subject to the permits must comply
with the requirements of the new UDO.
Applications submitted after the effective date of the new UDO are subject to the procedures and standards of e
new UDO.
VESTED RIGHTS
This section will_confirm the,definitlon of Vested Rights, and include a reference to,NC General Statute 160A-385.1.
SEVERABI LITY
This standard provision declares that if any part of the UDO is ruled invalid, the remainder of the UDO is not affected and
continues to apply.
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft NovemberO, 2009
Page 2
105
Annotated Outline
ADMINISTRATION
General Commentary: For an ordinance to be effective, it is -prtjcle 2: -A(~minlStYatlOn .:
2,~ Review and Decision Making Bolles
important that its development review process is efficient and
A Town_ Board of Commissioners
that the communit~s substantive planning and development g Plapninggoard ~- -
goals are embedded in the development e^eral forme ork for C. goard of Adjustment
efficient process is achieved wroceduree used and the review ' Town Staff
review is not redundant, the P D.
standards included result in a rease ofblermlgis streamlieid to 2,2 Common Review Procedures
and the review process for each typ P
the greatest extent possible without sacnficing assurance that B. APP icattyion Cont n~lications ~ .
the relevant substantive planning/developmentgoais are used in C ~ Fees'~~
making development decisions. D. Submission Schedule
E; Pre-Application Conference
Certainty is provided primaril def nite h and a understandable F gpplication Submission
clear review procedures, G Determination of Completeness
development review standards, and a balance of discretionary H : Preparation of Staff Report
and more administrative review procedures. I . Scheduling Public Hearing
Streamlining is achieved in a combination of ways: ~ Public Notification
~, Consolidating the permit process so the K public Hearing Procedures
applicant has fewer permits to obtain; Conditions of Approval
2, Reducing the number of review steps where L
possible; and
3, .Allowing for increased administrative-level
review insteadannanscdevelopment goals are
community p ~
not sauificed.
Assuring that the communit`Js pfanningJdevelopment goals are
embedded in the development review standards requires a
close evaluation of exiand s ona stentowth r thee substantive
sufficiently specific, _
planning/developmentgoais embraced by the community.
These factors, all of which are relevant to the procedural
efficiency and substantive effecfiveness of review procedures,
are each considered in the design of this Administraton article.
It is suggested this new Chapter 2, Administration, include
sections on the following:
Administrative and Decision•making Bodies that
consolidates the development review responsibilities
of the review boards and key town staff members.
• common seRof reviewr p oaedurestfor the maliew of
applications for development approval. royals that
Specific Standards for Development App
include the specific review standards, any unique
procedural review requirements for each P dhca'on
application, and rules that apply to an a p'
once it is approved (e.g., the life of the development
approval, expiration, minor deviations, and
amendmentr).
The structure for review of individual applications for
M Appeals of Decisions
N, ~ Notification to Applicant
p Deferial of Application
p Withdrawal of Ap'pUcatioq
,
Q; Examination of Documents '; ' :!
Processing of Appli<
S
R; .
S imultaneous
Lapse of Approval ' :':
~
, ,
!
2,3 Specific Standards fo'r.DevelopmentApp
,
hd Use Plan Amendment
;
p_ .
La
g; Rezoning orTextAmendment
C; Conditional Rezoning
D, Planned Development
E, Site Plans '
F, Subdivision Plats
C, .:Special Use Permit
H, "Zoning Permit
j,
j Variance
Administrative Adjustment
,
K, Interpretation
' Appeal
M; Vested Rights Determination
'
jl, .
Beneficial Use Determination
Page 3
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November, 2009
106
Annotated Outline
n drvidua sntatnda ds for ervlie v, description of how appealslare handled, and The process for making modification once aln apph~ation
is approved.
Based on Clarion's understanding of the town's goals and our experience working in other communities across the country, we suggest
that variety of existlng procedures be modified as well as additional permit types be added to [he town's Tine up of development
application procedures. These changes will likely include:
Anew procedure for land use plan amendments,
A revised conditional rezoning process,
Anew planned development procedure,
Revisions to the site plan process to establish three different forms of review,
Atemporary use permit,
Anew zoning permit,
Anew administrative adjustment procedure,
Anew interpretation process, and
Anew beneficial use determination process.
An overview of this proposed review structure is outlined in the table that follows (Proposed Development Review Structure).
ADMINISTRATIVE AND DECISION-MAKING BODIES
General Commentary: The first section in the new Administratlon Chapter is a new section that idenfifies the administrative
oudr expenen eakthatep otvisions such asrthe~e shelpf t establish dear ~ines sofaauthor ~ io theetownsedec s oDO.aking
The following table pro~ideslan overv ew oftherreview strut'urreeprop sed in the neDO DOach review board or staff person.
MAP ANDTEXT AMENDMENTS .:
Land Use Plan Amendment <D> R
~ 'r c
C
Rezoning or Text Amendment R
<D>
,, C
R
<D> , C
Conditional Rezoning R ,
<D>
Planned Development
SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS
C
Type II Site Plan <D> R
~ ~
<A> ~ ~ C
D _
;'
Type I Site Plan , ~ .
-
<A> .
D '
Exempt Subdivision ~~' _
<A>
`~' R D
Preliminary Pla[ D R.
Einal Plat PERMITS - .~ " ~ _
-- - C
D
Special Use Permit :~ A' <A>
Zoning Permit <A> D "
Building Permit ~ '
VARIANCES, ADJUSTMEN(S, AND OTHER PROCEDURES
Hillsborough, North Carolina
tiied Develop
U ment Onlinance I Drag A
0
\
n , 2009
ovember
(
Page 4
107
Annotated Outline
COMMON REVIEW PROCEDURES
General Commentary: In the current zoning ordinance, several of the procedures for development applications are set forth
as individual permit processes. The modern trend in zoning adminisraton is to consolidate these procedures-which is what
this section on "common review procedures" does. It guides the potential applicant through the rules governing who is
authorized to submit applications, application content requirements and fees, through the actual application submittal and
review stage (the pre-application conference, neighborhood meetings, application submission and completeness
determination, staff review, scheduling the public hearing (if one is required) and public notification}, Flow charts or other
diagrams are included as aids to understanding the review process.
Authority to File Applications
This section establishes the rules governing who can submit an application for development approval. Any exceptions to die rule for
any particular types of applications for development approval are identified in this section.
Application Contents
The existing ordinance includes the various submittal and plan detail requirements for some of the permit applications. This kind of
information contributes to a longer and more cumbersome UDO, and may create a more frequent need for amendment. It is
proposed that Section 2.2, Common Review Procedures, authorize the Planning Director to establish application requirements other
than fees. It is also recommended that the new UDO follow the modern trend in zoning administration with respell to application
forms and content requirements through use of a separate Administrative Manual or "User's Guide". That way, the town can establish
an Administrative Manual drat sets out all of the application forms, contents requirements, and required plan elements.
Applicants can refer to the Administrative Manual, along with the input received at apre-application conference (discussed below), to
determine what materials and fees must be included in the application submission. Furthermore, the town will be able to respond
much more easily to changing application requirement needs, since the application content requirements for a specific type of permit
application can be modified by die town staff in the manual without amending the UDO.
Fees
This section clarifies that the Town Board of Commissioners establishes fees, updates them from time to tlme as necessary, and
provides for their inclusion in the Administrative Manual upon adoption. The fees, along with bonding requirements and other
applicatlon content requirements, may then be listed in the Administrative Manual, which can be updated from time to time to reflect
the changes in the fee structure.
Submission Schedule
It is proposed that this section add a new provision that allows the Planning Director to establish a submission schedule that controls
the timing for submission of applications for inclusion in an Administrative Manual. The Planning Director can then utilize the
Hillsborough, North Carolina Page 5
Unified Development Ordinance 1 Draft Annotated Outline
November, 2009
108
Annotated Outline
provision as appropriate to establish a submission
application submission schedule can be changed
modifications are needed.
schedule for all applications. A practical benefit to this approach is that the
administratively, so that it is not necessary to amend the UDO every time
Pre-Application Conference re-a Ircation conferences. We recommend the common
The Issues Summary above describes the desirability of requiring p pp
procedures section of the new UDO establish a standard requirement for apre-application conference between the applicant and staff.
This provision would clarify what types of development applications are subject to the pre-application conference, the purpose of such
meetings, and the effect of such meetings (i.e., discussions are not binding on the town and processing times do not start until a forma
es of ma or development applications should require ec'~al usePlerm ts,
application is submitted and accepted). The following typ 1
conference with staff beforee ~ tepplanso, prel mn ary p ~ Zoning map amendments, planned developments (, sp
Tats, and variances. Pre-application conferences would be voluntary for all
conditional use permits, Typ
other forms of development applications.
Application Submission
The next step in the planning and development process -and what many persons consider the "beginning" of the development revie
lication and the required fee. This is followed by staffs review of
process -starts with the applicanPs submission of the necessary app' tannin
the application to determine if it meetr minimal completeness requirements, and then staffs review of the general merits oft e
stafflcThonpaon ePrpPevents staff's anrd applicants' time beingwas[ed by substanptive revoiew of applicationsth taresnotcomplete. g
Determination of Completeness
cons str of rece'Ipti an'd rev ew of the a`ppl cat on toodeterminepif it has theuminimal amount of mater Isf (appl catlonhcontents) that
dete m nation be made evq'~thin are'asonab e pePod of time after receipt of theeappliswtd'rone sueh as five burin ss'days.r The regulafions
should also specify how long an applicant has to correct a deficient application.
may then lcorrlectrtheodefi ie b estandPesubm tthepappl cationiwithin defined tirrmehframe for ompleteness d term nation.ap he fee
schedule established by the Town Board of Commissioners may provide that re-submittals after the first re-submittal be-accompanied
appricati nri~ev elw time frdames,rbut include this k ndpof informal ons n an Administrative Manual so thatd8me frarmes may be adjusted
to changing conditions without need of a lengthy text amendment process.
Actual substantive review of the application, along with preparation of an accompanying staff report, will not begin until the application
is determined to be complete.
Preparation of Staff Report es of
a w~ tten staff report The~irttpe framesfoirrreview ofsthe appl cafion and prepamt on of a staff report vaePlbetween differentrtyp n o
ongeorPhan a varPa'nce because the iss es evalu led nl the application areebroaderaand more complex.a planned development may be
Scheduling Public Hearing
This subsection establishes a consolidated set of public hearing procedures. Some boards and commissions include public hearing
procedures.within their by-laws. Typically, these provisions spell out the rules governing the conduct of the public hearing, including
what persons have the right to speak, the order of the proceedings at public hearings (how the application is to be presented, in w at -
how and under whatcircumstances testimony
order the applicant and public can speak, and the process for responding to comments),
and evidence is excluded, what findings are made to support the decision, and how requests for a continuance are handled. This
section will include these general provisions and defer to established bylaws if they exist.
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinanre I Draft NovembeO2009
Pagc 6
109
Annotated Outline
Public Notification
It is recommended that the proposed public notification requirements for all applications subjecto public notification requirementr be
consolidated in this section.
Generally,public notification is required through publication in a newspaper of general circulafion, mailing of notice to adjoining
property owners, and on-site posting of notice. Specific requirements for each of these different types of notice will be provided, and
public notification requirements will comply with North Carolina law governing the notice given for various types of permit
applicatons. To the extent we can comply with state law while at the same time consolidating the notice requirementr for the
different types of applications for development approval, we will do so in dtis.subsection. We also suggest the town consider inducting
a new provision that authorizes that notice for development applications be sent to persons or organizations that have registered to be
notified and paid a fee to defray the costs of the mailing of notice.
The notification procedures and time frames are checked against those required by state law and references to the General Statutes will
be included.
We have found it quite helpful in consolidafing and simplifying notice requirementr to use a table that spells out the general public
notification requirements. We propose to use that approach in
this subsection. An example format of the table from another
jurisdiction is reproduced here.
Public Hearing Procedures
This section will include legally-mandated public hearing
procedures. Additional information regarding expectations for
public hearings will be included in the administrative manual.
Conditions of Approval
This section will describe generally the types of conditions that
may be attached to certain forms of approvals granted under
this chapter. The section will only apply in those instances
where the procedure expressly allows applications to be
°approved with conditions." This section will be written to
reflect the General Statutes, federal law, and case law regarding
conditional approvals. It will specify that conditions imposed on
proposed developments must be limited to those that are
related in both type and amount to the impacts that the
proposed development will have on the public and surrounding development,
provisions in the UDO.
and that conditons may not be less restrictive than
Notification to Applicant
This subsection will explain the various ways in which an applicant will receive notification of a decision made by adecision-making
body. The section will be developed in accordance with recent changes in state law related to notification regarding Planning Board
decisions. In some cases, notification regarding a decision can be provided during a public hearing, while others may require that the
Planning Director notify the applicant in writing of the decision on an application for development approval within a specific number
of days after the decision on the applicafion.
Appeals of Town Board of Commissioners Decisions
This section'will clarify that all decisions by the Town Board of Commissioners may only be appealed to Orange County Superior Court
under state law.
Deferral of Application
This section will establish the rules governing when and under what circumstances an applicant may request the deferral of, or the
town may defer, an applicafion for developmentapproval.
Withdrawal of Application
Hillsborough, North Carolina page 7
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November, 2009
Example Summary Table of Notice Provisions
110
Annotated Outline .
This section will establish the rules governing when an applicatlon can be withdrawn by the applicant, and what penalties occur, if any.
The section will also establish basic guidance concerning the timing under which the application fee for a withdrawn application may
be refunded, and the review procedures for resubmitted applications containing substantial changes.
Examination and Copying of Application/Other Documents
This section will establish rules governing the examination and copying of application documents and related materials by members of
the public.
Simultaneous Processing of Applications
This section will provide that whenever two or more forms of review and approval are required under the UDO, applications for those
development approvals may (at the option of the Planning Director}, be processed simultaneously, so long as all applicable state and
local requirements are satisfied. The provision will note that simultaneous processing can lead to additional costr for the applicant for
example, if a special use permit and a site plan are under review, substantive changes may necessitate revision of both sets of plans.
Any simultaneous procedures that are developed duringthe drafting process will be set forth here.
Lapse of Approval '
In general, "lapse of approval' provisions state that approval of a development application lapses if development is not commenced or
a subsequent permit is not obtained within specified periods of tlme. Lapse provisions will tie included for all forms of development
permits and approvals.
Depending upon the specific type of approval, provisions for extension will also be included, where appropriate. These will specify
that an applicant may request an extension (for a period up to a limit stated in the code) by submitting a request prior to the expiration
period, and that the extension will be granted upon a showing of good cause by the applicant Permits that are approved
administratively may be extended administratively, while extensions for permits that are granted by a review board will be required to
be approved by the review board.
STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
General Commentary: This third section in the Administration Chapter includes the specific review standards that are
applied to each individual application for development approval, other unique procedural review requirements for each
individual applicatlon if there are additional or different procedures apart from the common review procedures, and the rules
governing minor modifications and amendments. It broadens the line up of current procedures by adding information on
Interpretations, and new permit procedures, including a Planned Development approval process, a Tree Removal Permit
process, and more. Each permit procedure will include a review process Flowchart
Land Use Plan Amendment
revi w d first by the Planning Boarrd and then de ided by the Town Board of Comm ss onerstduring a public hearing,request would be
In cases where a rezoning request triggers the need for an ame rov ded tthehamendmentdto the ppmpdater long range planning
document these two procedures could occur simultaneously, p
documents occurs prior to approval of the rezoning.
Rezoning or Text Amendment
This section wilt include information on the purpose for the procedure, the authorized review and decision-making bodies, and the
procedure for initiation and review (including specified time periods and who may initiate an application for a text amendment).
Different review standards will be established for text amendments versus map amendments (rezonings). The Becton will include new
language mandated by recent changes in the slate's planning laws that requires town Board of Commissioners to consider the
reasonableness of any request to amend the official zoning map in light of consistency with the Land Use Plan and the public interest
The section will include the procedures for addressing valid protest petitions, how re-hearing of amended applications can be allowed,
and the different procedures utilized for simple cosmetic corrections to the official zoning map.
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance 1 Draft NovembeO2004
page 8
111
Annotated Outline
Conditional Rezoning
The process will aserthe same procedure as an amelndment to the zoning mapae x ept that there will be addit onal p o vsi ne related to
proposed conditions of approval.
Planned Development
Existing planned development requirements will be carried over to this section. essly spelled out
Site Plans
Two differing levels of site plan review are anticipated each based on development size. Staff will review and approve Type 1 tte
Plans. Type II Site Plans will be reviewed by the Planning Board prior to consideratlon and decision by the Town Board of
Commissioners. All applications that have a Site Plan component shall be required to obtain a Zoning Permit prior to issuance of a
Building Permit Changes of use or other similar types of applications that do not require a site plan will also require approval of a
supplemented w hedea~r approvalucbr elr6'ralas we'll ars clear descxipdonds on how amtendm nts, extens',o s, and expiradonaare addr'e sed.e
Exempt Subdivision
The exempt subdivision procedure is included within the town's current subdivision regulations, and it will be tarried forward with no
substantive revisions. We will include additional language that the "exempt' nature of subdivisions deals with the exemption from e
lats as authorized by the Ceneraf Statutes) -not outright exemption from the minimum standards
review procedure for preliminary p
for the zoning dis[rid
Preliminary Plats
This process will be carried forward from the current subdivision with reference [o plats rather than plans to distinguish this type o
application as referring to subdivision of land.
final Plats
This process will be carried forward from the current subdivision regulations with no substantive revisions, but with a change of labe
from final plans to final plats.
Special Use Permit
relowt d toean adm n'ostrative manualeandrtha pub ~hleartng noticegprovi lonsxa dlpubkc hearing procedues be rrelocat dbo
common review procedures in Article 2.
Zoning Permit
No review process is currently described for issuance of a zoning permit In general, a zoning eemite whdh would be requiredf pr or to
development prior to issuance of a building permit We suggest this section of the new UDO clearly establish when a zoning permit
would or would not be required. The Planning Director would review requests for zoning p
issuance of a building permit, and for changes in use where no building permit is required. The zoning permit process will also be used
changes in use that do nog modify thetbui d~ng or require adjushnents to park ng or landsgceping.building permit such as a fence or for
Varianl:e rocedure that authorizes the
This section will carry forward provisions in the existing ordinance, and will incorporate the existing p
the secti n dealing with appeals is'pmposedf or relocat'mn to thee p oced'urendealindg with appeal''in the new UDO ces. The portion of
and re uirements, setbacks, height requirements), as well as
arkin si na a or subdivision improvement standards} when an
The variance process allows variation from the dimensional standar s y q
other development standards in the UDO (i.e., landscaping, p & g g
applicant demonstrates that, due to circumstances beyond the control of the landowner, the application of the dimensional or o er
Page 9
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unlfled Development Ordinance f Draft Annotated Outline
NovembeG 2009
112
Annotated Outline
development standards creates undue hardship. The general intent of the existing variance provisions is that the hardship standard
required to be demonstrated for approval of a variance be stringent
(e gadadministrative adjustmen)Ibeforeebe n'g eligiblerto apply for a vartance.t The text will alsoadarlfy (based on relcently-amended
state legislation} that a variance may not be used to allow a change in the uses permitted within a particular zoning district The section
will also require documents memorializing an approved variance be recorded at the Register of Deeds.
Administrative Adjustment
adjustdany numer catsUndard in the d nonce by up t 10 percent ba ed onDaOvery specific e tof criteriaD.1rThe procedur~is designed
scenarios on exceptionally d'iffi ulrto develop site a1Hs intended forsdevelopment th t ponesadvance~the goalsdandupuaposes of the
general zoning district in which it is located; two, is more or equally effective In achieving the relevant standards from which the
modification is granted; or three, relieves practical difficulties of developing a site. In addition, we recommend a second tier
251 pe cent poutsdeathe hardshiperequfrements tofethe vananBeard h'sconsuggesteduas away to acocommodate (redevelopment and
development on less desirable inffll sites.
therpurpose of establ~hingfdeveopment thatd'rsusupenorrthannlwouldootherwiseorresult from ca strict appliwtionrofathe typical
development standards. The procedure will also include detailed timing provisions as well as limits on multiple use of the procedure to
substantially deviate from the UDO standards. See Page 2-15 in the diagnosis for more details on the administrative adjustment
proposal.
Interpretation
Numerous stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the interpretation of current zoning provisions, and the lack of a clear proce ure
authorizes the Planning Directorpto make an off caalrinterlpretation of the o divan e with assistance f oamrtherTown Atto ey only after
an application for an interpretation has been submitted. Elected and appointed bodies may request interpretations without need of a
formal application. The new procedure will include language indicating that any interpretation made outride of this process shall not
be binding.
otebook foreseveral reasonsanFirstg, tDhey coon be ~ ferced to when mak ng future nterpretatfons to ensure cons~t nrcy n therapplicat can
of the code; and second, they can be used as a road map in identifying provisions that might need future amendments. See page 2-6
of the diagnosis for more details on this procedure.
Appeal
decisionsmaking blod es thatt arerdCOnsidered by the Board of Adjustme t (BOA}alsThis section will clarfysthesdght of appeal by persons
appeals fomedec'osionsf by reviewr bod err, anddthe assocliated tim framescandrlimitations specifed byOthe Genleral Statutes assoc ated
with appeals to the Superior Court of Orange County.
Vested Rights Determination
This section will include provisions as specified under the North Carolina Ceneral Statutes. The seNon will clarify thaT the Town Board
and recommendation by the Planning Board.y The sedbon willrset out the requGements for vesUng,gthe effect of a vested site spec fic
development plan or preliminary plat, and procedures addressing the revocation or expiration of a vested right
Beneficial Use Determination
Over the last decade a growing number of local governments have included a procedure in their land use regulations that allows any
local elected body.llThis procedure is called a beneficiarl userdetersm nationkin~ of their properly to seek administrative relief from the
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft November0, 2009
Page 10
113
Annotated Outline
theyeran assesst kingsd claims before they go to court andeoffer reI eftif the regulat o ~oare found to amounbtto a takinguresdrb~wh~e
regulations deny atl reasonable economic use of a properly.
i cludedintthenUDO and be heardsby the Town Boardcof Commissioners.uon procedure. It is recommended this new procedure be
ZONING DISTRICTS
General Commentary: Zoning district and use regulations are a central feature of any
zoning ordinance. They define what may be built on a landowner's property or on the
property next door.
adjutrthe presenUdongof the districts and standards to be morerruserfdendlyPropose to
Additional modifications to the structure of the districts may occur after further
discussions with staff, the advisory Committee, elected officials, and the public.
USE STANDARDS
General Commentary: While the zoning district regulations will be
located in Article 3, Zoning Districts, the use regulations will be
contained in Article 4, Use Standards. This article will reorganize
Hillsborough's use regulations into five main sections. The first section
will include a summary use table that will specify the permitted,
prohibited, and special exception uses for the residential, business, and
planned development zoning districts.
The second section in the chapter will establish a classification system
utilized to provide structure and content to the range of permitted
uses.
3.4 Planned Development Districts
3.5 Overlay Districts
3.6 Conditional Zoning Districts
The third section, a set of use-specific ~ nPapr~s, will identify any _: (- ,'_:
specific regulations or limitations that alwa s a I to certain principal .. .;, .:.. -.
uses, regardless of the underlying zoning district in which they are
to the generalrstandardslelstabl shed in this' ectionsthey will be identifiede Spe iagattention will'b~ paid to adding new usesXnew use
standards, and improving upon what currently exists in the zoning ordinance.
Sections four and five will include the provisions relating m accessory uses and structures and temporary uses and structures
respectively.
USE TABLE
The heart of Article 4, Use Standards, is the summary use table. It builds on the current lists of uses defined in eac zoning
nformaNontielated to any use-specgfic standards that may apply, and where thosetstandards may be found.cThe use ta1ble in
the new UDO reflects revisions to the lineup of zoning districts (as outlined in Article 3, Zoning Districts} and the system of
uses described above.
PlanneduDevet pmentdD stricts).I Allowed uses a'rlebusestthat arerpettm ttedrwith'min a plannedpdevelopment d strict~bu only
ofhrev ew of the Planned Devebpment MastereP anst A blank cell'in aause table will sign fy that the use of prohibitedrwith n a
Page ~ 1
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Devebpment Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November, 2009
114
Annotated Outline
certain zoning district (including planned development districts). A use table will also include additional information related
to any use-specific standards that may apply, and where those standards may be found.
USE CLASSIFICATIONS, CATEGORIES, AND TYPES
In an effort to provide better organization, precision, clarity, and flexibility to the uses in the zoning districts and the
administration of the use table, the table and use regulation system will be organized around the three-tiered concept of use
classifications, use categories, and use types. Use classifications, the broadest category, organize land uses and activities into
general use categories. All use types identified in the use table will be defined in Article 9, Definitions.
In addifion, to provide flexibility and insure that the legislative intent of the Town Board of Commissioners is realized, this
section will also include provisions allowing a landowner to request an interpretation from the Planning Director that a use
type not specifically identified in a use table is included because it is a use type that is similar in nature, function or duration
to a use type identified in the use category. In considering whether an unspecified use should be included, the Planning
Director will tie required to consider whether the proposed use has an impactthat is similar in nature, function, and duration
to the other use types allowed in the use category.
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
This section will contain all of the special standards and requirements that apply to individual princpal use types listed in a
use table. The standards generally apply to uses regardless of whether they are permitted as a matter of right or are subject to
the special use permit process. Additional standards will be added for new uses as appropriate. Material related to accessory
uses will be relocated to Section 4.4, Accessory Uses and Structures.
ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
Accessory uses or structures are those uses that are subordinate to the principal use of a building or land, located on the same
lot as the principal use, and customarily incidental to such use or structure. For example, astand-alone automated teller
machine is considered as an accessory to a commercial use, and an above- or below-ground swimming pool is typically
considered an accessory structure to asingle-family home.
All of the regulations and standards governing accessory uses and structures will be located in this section, including those
pertaining to home occupations (as described in Section 109, for instance) and accessory dwelling units (such as "granny Flats"
or garage apartments). Standards addressing how decks or other above-grade gathering spaces mayor may not encroach into
required setbacks or yards will be addressed in the Rules of Measurement portion of Chapter 9, Definitions. Regulations for
accessory uses will be added, as will a purpose(ntent statement to clarify the relationship of accessory uses and structures to
other uses and structures. We will also include area and bulk standards to ensure that the physical features of accessory
structures are °accessory in character to principal structures.
TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES
Temporary uses are uses proposed to be located in a zoning district for a limited duration of time that are not identified as
permitted uses. Special events typically last for a shorter duration and are intended to attract large numbers of people atone
time, such as concerts, fairs, circuses, large receptions or parties, and community festivals (they do not include private parties
attracting less than a certain number of persons, nor do they include events normally associated with the permitted use (such
as a wedding reception at a reception hall or a funeral at a funeral home). The types of temporary uses allowed and the
standards for their approval will be established in this section.
The existing ordinance does not include a review procedure or standards for temporary uses or special events. The Zoning
Permit procedure established in the Article 2, Administration, will be used to evaluate these uses, based on the standards and
time limitations for temporary uses and special events established in this section.
Page 12 Unified Devebpment Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November, 2009
115
Annotated Outline
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
General Commentary: This chapter contains all of the development standards in the newA~D ie 5aYeDeVelOPyment Standards
development with the exception of the subdivision standards, which are found in
Article 6, Subdivisions. The proposed contents of Article 5, Development Standards, 5.1 Off Street Parking and Loading
are listed in the sidebar and are discussed below. Examples of standards to be
incorporated into this article include: ' -
5.2 Landscaping Standards
Off-street parking and loading standards as described in the diagnosis;
Revised landscaping standards that emphasize new standards for vehicle 5.3 Tree Protection
accommodation areas, performance-based buffers, and street trees;
e New Vee protedion standards for retention of exisfing tree canopy,
specimen trees, and tree protection during construction;
Open space set-aside standards; earance and limiting
fence and walls standards that focus on fence app
fence heights;
Exterior lightingstandards;
Trafficimpadstandards;
New community form standards;
Commercial design standards that address the design and orientation of
retail establishments;
Multi-family design standards focusing on multi-family strudure
appearance; and
Carrying forward the existing signage standards with no substantive
revisions.
5.4 Open Space Set-Aside
5.5 Fences and Walls
5.fi Exterior Lighting
5,7 TrafficlmpactAnalysis
5,g Community Form Standards
5.9 Commercial Design Standards
5.10 'Multi-Family Design-Standards
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
This sedion includes quantitative off-street parking requirements for uses 5:11 signage ~ -
matching the revised use table for consistency and ease of use. The
d'fferentiated bytdi trid and type of development will be set forth and
Incentives will be used to allow developers [o provide fewer than the minimum number of required parking spaces to
referred development types, such as verucally-integrated
exchange for providing public or green space, or developing p
mixed nal off sVeetospaces'provided n'excess of therm n mum requtrements (for allruses)Ibe onnperviouslor semir-''pervious
add
surfaces.
Flexibility will be built into the provisions by allowing applicantr to propose alternative strategies, such as off-site par ing,
shared parking, valet parking, or (in appropriate settings} credit for on-street parking spaces. Deferrevd~ ~ nldgareavforofuture
included that allow a developer to construd 80 percent of the minimum required amount of parking and then monitor
parking demand during initial operation of the development (for perhaps a year or 16 months),
parking held in reserve until monitoring proves that the built parking is either adequate or is inadequate and needs to e
rovisions are added requiring pedesuian amenities and bicycle parking facilities.
expanded into the reserved area. Finally, p
The parking lot landscaping provisions are relocated to the new landscaping section.
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS rester flexibility in
The current landscaping requirements will be upgraded and the general planting requirements increased. To improve c arty,
graphics will be used, as appropriate, to explain the requirements for fandscapmg. Provisions allowing g
' meeting landscaping standards (such as aggCeg~ a of lanrds p g may bePequir0edl[o be native otrldroughdt tolerant courage
creative design. In addition, a minimum p g
In additon to the general requirements for all landscaping, we suggest adding more specific standards for site landscaping for
nonresidential and multi-family uses. We recommend upgrades to the parking lot landscaping provisions such as the
Page 13
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I DraftAnnotated Outline
November, 2009
116
Annotated Outline
inclusion of shrubs within internal areas, and fully opaque screening standards (to a height of 36 inches around the perimeter
of a vehicular use area). We recommend performance-hazed perimeter buffer standards, but with increased options for a
sliding scale of minimum buffer width. We recommend adding street tree requirements.
The provisions addressing responsibility, replacement, timing and maintenance of required landscaping will be carried
forward, along with new provisions related to performance guarantees and inspections.
Finally, in the interest of maintaining Flexibility in addressing unique or difficult sites or development, applicants will be
iodudes standards forlthrough the devrelopment of angAlte Dative ga ds~ape Plan (that must be rec ewedlby theePla ning
Director as part of the approval process.
OPEN SPACE SET-ASIDES
Open space set-asides will be carried forward from existing provisions, with increased language about the characteristics of
land to be eligible for open space designations.
FENCES AND WALLS
This section will establish minimum standards for perimeter fencing. Certain fencing materials will be prohibited, and
different height limits will apply in residential areas and commercial areas (ten feet), unless it is demonstrated that higher
fences are needed for security purposes.
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
This section includes provisions addressing exterior lighting addressing glare, direction, shielding, spillover, maximum height,
and maximum on-site levels of light with measurable limits for new exterior lighting. Existing standards will be carried over to
the UDO>
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section will carry forward the town's current traffic impact analysis provisions with no substantive changes. In cases
where it is required, the TIA shalt be completed prior to review of an associated rezoning. planned development, special use
permit, subdivision, site plan, building permit, or zoning permit (as appropriate}.
SIGNAGE
This section will set forth standards for signage, which are currently found in the existing zoning ordinance. We propose only
minor alterations to the signage provisions, including: reformatting to be consistent with the rest of the code and moving the
definitions to Chapter 9, Definitions.
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Drat Nnoo m~ 029
Page 14
117
Annotated Outline
SUBDIVISIONS
General Commentary: One of the primary goals for this UDO revision effort is to
increase the user-friendliness of the document Recent trends in land regulation
have led communities to establish unified development ordinances which
incorporate both the zoning and the subdivision regulations into a single
document Recent modifications to the General Statutes provide justification for
this kind of consolidation. Nong these lines, this chapter will include the
standards related to the subdivision of land and the provision of public utilities as
a part of new development The chapter will include provisions from the current
subdivision ordinance. The chapter will also include the standards and
procedures related to performance guarantees.
SUBDIVISIONS
This section will carry forward material from subdivision ordinance with
several minor changes. The definitions will be moved to new Article 9,
Definitions. The procedural material in the subdivision ordinance
b th bdivision review
Article 6: Subldivisions
6.1. Subdivisions
A. Purpose and Intent
B. - Applicability >
C: Monumentr
D, Blocks
E: Lots
F Easementr
G. Access & Egress
6.2 Perfo rmance Guarantees
related to approval of plats will be replaced y e su
procedures in Article 2, Administration. All of the submi[tal/plat requirements are recommended for relocation m an
Administrative Manual.
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES
This section will carry forward the improvement guarantees material from the subdivision ordinance as it relates to the
performance guarantees for public improvements associated with new development. This section will include provisions
related to guarantees of private site features such as trees provided as replacement or mitigation for removal of trees in a tree
protection zone (or when planting of required landscaping is delayed due to weather or construction issues.
Hillsborough, Norlh Carolina Page 15
Unitled Development Ordinance I Drak Annotated Outline
November, 2009
118
Annotated Outline
NONCONFORMITIES Artlcie7.Not
General Commentary: This chapter consolidates all the rules pertaining to i7.1 GerieraiF
nonconformiGes from the various different sections in the current zoning
ordinance. The new chapter will include: q ':: F
Differentiation bet\veen the standards for nonconforming lots fS .. ,.'
structures, and uses; C; ' ` ' I
Nonconforming sign standards;- '
The creation of nonconforming landscaping standards for use D `,
changes; and
Anew sliding style of compliancarkinu'rsmna efoetc triggeoed'by `E.
site features like landscaping, P ~ g g '
redevelopment. 7 2 Noncon
A:
GENERAL APPLICABILITY a:
Purpose and Scope
uses, structu es, lots, andbsigns~that do notetomplydwhethegequemelnts of
the new UDO.
Authority to Continue
All lawfully established nonconformities will be allowed to continue in
accordance with the standards of this chapter.
Determination of Nonconformity Status
~ nrdownegsnotthe town,lhas the bu den ofdprovingotherexistence of a lawful
nonconformity.
Minor Repairs and Maintenance
This subsection will state that routine maintenance of nonconforming
structures is allowed to keep nonconforming uses and structures in the same
condition they were at the dme~the nonconformity was established. This rule
will also be applied to structures housing nonconforming uses.
Change of Tenancy or Ownership
This section will state that change of tenancy or ownership will not, in and of
itself, affect nonconformity status.
NONCONFORMING USES
This section will indude provisions dealing with existing uses that no
longer conform with the zoning district provisions where they are
located. The standards will deal with conversion of a nonconforming
use to a mole tesvicted nonconforming use, as well as the inability
to expand an existing nonconforming use. The sU eonswCOnsider'ed
the standards for when a nonconforming
discontinued or abandoned, and how reconstruction may or may
not proceed following substantial damage to the use.
t
B. .' i
G,
p;' I
E..
7,3 Nonconfa
,`p §
P
B.. [
C. '
,
rmtrig Use of Part of
;ns
Repairs and
lance
of Copy
Sigr'Permits on
5
Hillshorough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft NovemberO, 2009
Page 76
119
Annotated Outline
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES
This section will establish the key standards governing nonconforming structures. The section will address enlargement,
abandonment, relocation, and reconstruction after damage.
NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD
These provisions address established lots of record that were platted prior to the effective date of the UDO, but that do not
meet the dimensional requirements of the district where they are located. It discusses the procedures for use of such lots of
record when located in a residential district as well as redevelopment or reconstruction on such lots following a casualty
(major damage). In addition, the standards specify that governmental acquisitlon of a portion of a lot in a residential district
shall not render the lot nonconforming (even if it no longer meets the dimensional standards). Finally, the section will deal
with changes to nonconforming lots such as boundary line adjustments or assembly of multiple lots.
NONCONFORMING SIGNS
This section will build on the requirements established in Secfion 109 of the existing ordinance, including how to address
applications seeking to reduce.the amount of nonconformity associated with a nonconforming sign.
Hillsborough, North Carolina ~ page 17
Unified Development Ordinance I Drak Mnotated Outline
November, 2009
120
Annotated Outline
ENFORCEMENT
General Commentary: This section will carry forward the provisions in the existing ordinance with some minor reorganization and
reformatting to be consistent with the rest of the UDO. By making it easier to understand the enforcement process, we hope to reduce
the Gme, expense, and uncertainty of enforcing the UDO. One aspect for the town to consider is the inclusion of a discussion of the
enforcement process iit the administrative manual as a way to help ensure potential code violators better understand the enforcement
process.
PURPOSE
This section will set forth the purpose of the enforcement section.
COMPLIANCE REQUIRED
This section will state that compliance with all provisions of the UDO is
required.
VIOLATIONS
This section will explain that failure to comply with any provision of the UDO,
or the terms or conditions of any permit or authorization granted pursuant to
the UDO, shall constitute a violation of the ordinance. The seNon will include
both general violations as well as identifying specific violations.
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS
This section will state that any person who violates the UDO shall be subject to
the remedies and penalties set forth in this chapter. "Person" will be defined
broadly to include both human beings and business entities (firms and
corporations).
8.5 Enforcement Generally.
8.6 Remedies and Penalties
q. Remedies and Penalties
Available to Town
B, Criminal Penalties
C. Civil Penalties
D. Cumulative Penaltes
ENEORCEMENT GENERALLY
This section will identify those persons responsible for enforcement of the provisions of the UDO, as well as the general
enforcement procedure. The Planning Director (or designee) shall be responsible for enforcement of the UDO. This section
will include provisions for notice of violation, and procedures to deal with complaints filed by others regarding a perceived or
potential violation.
REMEDIES AND PENALTIES
This section will include provisions detailing a range of penalties and remedies available to the town under North Carolina
law.
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Drak Annotated Outline
Page t8 November, 2009
121
DEFINITIONS
General Commentary: "Definitions" is proposed as the final chapter of the new UDO. This section will carry forward many of the
provisions and defined terms from the existing zoning and subdivision ordinances. It will enhance the definitions and use of definitions
through:
Including rules of construction and measurement;
Adding encroachment standards; and
Consolidating the numerous definitions spread throughout the ordinance.
Clear definitions of important words and phrazes not only make life easier for those
who must interpret and administer the UDO and for those who must hear appeals of
decisions made by staff --they also make it much easier for the public to know what
is required. The importance of good definitions as a key component of fairness to the
public and consistency in decision-making has led to an increased interest in this
seemingly mundane topic.
We will use the definitions found in the existing ordinance as a starting point for the
definitions section, and add and revise definitions as necessary to ensure that the
definitions do not contain substantive or procedural requirements. We will verify that
key definitions conform to federal and North Carolina law and constitutional
requirements. We will also add definitions, where necessary. Standards and/or
procedures that currently exist only in the definitions section of the town's current
ordinance will be moved to the appropriate standard/procedures sections of the new
UDO.
GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION
The use of plural and singular nouns,
The meaning of conjunctions,
How time is computed, and
Other general issues that arise in interpreting and administering the UDO and its procedures.
Article 9: Definitions
9.1 Gen eral Rules for Interpretation '.
'
A. Meanings-aridlntenb, .
B. Headings, lllustratioris,
arid Tezt
C, Lists and_ Examples
D. Computation of Time
E. References to Other.
RegulationslPublications
F. Delegation of Authority
G. Technical and '
Nontechnical Terms
Fi, Public Officials and
Agencies
I. Mandatory and. r .
D'iscreUOriary Terms
). Conjtirictions
This section will address general issues related to interpretation of UDO K. Tenses and Plura s
language, including:. 9.2 Rules of Measurement
The meaning of standard terms such as "shall; "'will," and "may," 9.3 Definitions
RULES OF MEASUREMENT
This section will establish the rules for measuring bulk and dimensional requirements Tike height, width, setbacks, and others
as well as how encroachments into required yards will be determined and regulated.
DEFINITIONS
This section will include definitions of terms used throughout the UDO.
Hillsborough, Nodh Carolina ~ Page 19
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November, 2009
122
123
UDO Assistance
North Carolina
Excerpt from Draft Fayetteville, NC Unified Development Ordinance
24
124
~, TYPES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
land within the city is generally classified by this Ordinance to be within one of a number of baze zoning districts.
Land may be reclassified to one of a number of a comparable conditional zoning disvitts in accordance with Secdon
30-2.C.4, Conditional Rezoning, or to one of several planned development zoning districts in accordance with
Settion 30.2.C.3, Planned Development. Land within any base, conditional, or planned development zoning district
may also be classified into one or more overlay zoning disvicts, in which caze regulations governing development in
the overlay district shall apply in addition to the regulations governing development in the underlying base zoning
district condidonal zoning distritt, or planned development zoning distrkc
2. COMPLIANCE WITH DISTRICT STANDARDS
No land within the city shall be developed except in accordance with the zoning distritt regulations of this article and
all other regulations of this Ordinance, including bu[ not limited to, Article 4: Use Standards, Article 5: Development
Standards, and Article 6: Subdivisions.
Table 30-3.6.1, Base Zoning Disvicts Established, sets out the base zoning disvicts established by this Ordinance.
zoning districts are grouped into Special; Residential, and Business districts.
CD
MB
SF-10
SF-6
MH
DISTRICTS
10
Mixed
BUSINESS DISTRICTS
OI Office & Institutional
Net~nborhood Commercial
NC Community Commercial
CC
MU - Mixed-Use
DT Downtown
HI
Baze
tv This is district includes Fort Bragg. The city has no land use convol in the MB Disvict, and the dry vrill send any rezoning applications within trve
miles of the baze to the designated Ft Brag, representative.
rnyc~~a.,,,.,, ...,. ... __. ___
Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Dmk (REVISED
Page 3-I
125
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section C: Special Baze Zoning Disvicts
Subsection I: General Purposes
(a) Classification of Base Zoning Districts
Land shall be clazsified or reclazsified into a base zoning disvicc only in accordance vrith the procedures and
requirements set forth in Section 30-2.C.1, Map Amendment (Rezoning).
(b) Relationship to Overlay Zoning Districts PPy
gogern ng developmen tnvthe underly ng base zon~ng di tri dis (the standards govemi g a base zoning di trio
expressly conflict with those governing an overlay zoning distric4 the standards governing the overlay zoning
district shall convol.
(c) Organization of Base Zoning District Reguola~ioneach group of base zoning disvicts and
Sections 30-3.<> through 30.3.<> see out the general p p
contain subsections that sec out the purpose and bulk and ~dimensfonal standards for each individual' able
zoning disvicc These subsections have a common structure consisting of a purpose stacemen4 app
dimensional standards, a photograph showing a hypothetical preferred building form for the disvic4 a graphic
depiction of hypothetical street layout and lot patterns, and a hypothetical graphk depiction of the districts
bulk and dimensional standards az applied to typical lot patterns and building forms. The building form
photographs and lot pattern diagrams are for illustrative purposes only, and may not be consistent with all the
dimensional requirements. In these cases, the dimensional requirements text of this Ordinance shalermitt d,
Article 30-4: Use Standards, includes Table 30-4.A.2, Use Table, a summary use table specifying p
special, and allovvable uses for each of the base zoning disu'icts and references any standards specific to
City of Fayetteviue, rvonn ~.°,~~~^°
Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED
Page 3-2
I, GENERAL PURPOSES
grovrthandbdevelopment does nolor should snot otzur whetherebecauserthe areas ontain hmportan tnamral
resources or natural hazards (Conservation Disvia), rur~ character and productive natural resources (Agricukural-
Residential District), or a military installation (Military Base Disvia).
126
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section C: Special Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 2: Conservation District (CC
2. CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CD)
+~ The current CD disvict is carried forward vrirh new dimensional standards for the cites comideation (the current CD disvict does not include
any dimensional standards).
dune 2009
Page 3-3 Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Drak (REVISED)
Figure 30-3.<>; CD Typical Building Form
Figure 303,<>; CD Typical Lot Pattern
127
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section C: Special Base Zoning Districtr
Subsection 2 Conservation District (CD)
Figure 3D•3.<>: CD Typical BuildinglLot Configuration
~ of area 2 acres mm.. _:
-~. lot coverage: SO% max. -
-J
City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
Page 3~l
128
article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section C: Special Base Zoning Districts -
Subsection 3: Agricultural-Residential (AR} District
3. AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL (AR) DISTRICT
~ ® The Agriculwral-Rural (AR) District is established and intends to accommodate rural uses,
including agriculwrai~uses, uses that complemenc or support agricultural uses, and very low-
- ~ open spa e'throughflexlbly-designed cons'ervatlon suebdlvnsions~at preserves farmland and other
Lot area, min.
Lot width, min. (ft)
Gross residential density, max. (dwelling unitslacre)
Lot coverage, max. (% of lot
Height, max. (ft)
front and comer side setback min. (IC)
Sidesetback min. (k)
Rear setback min. (ft)
t aside (% of parcel size)
nla
n!a
nla
25 '-'
35; 1 S where abutting a single-family zoning
35 district or use
qp Not allowed in fron4 side, or corner side
setbacks
IS
35 "
Agricultural uses: nla; Residential uses: (pending in Module 3j;
Open space se - Conservation subdivisions: 50; All other uses: [pending In Module
NOTES: [I] The gross residential density sapt~~ ar ~applles to conservation subdivisions, but lot area, lotwidth,and lot coverage
standards do not apply. Setback standards onl from the perimeter of the conservation subdivision.
[2] Accessory structures/use areas associated with an agricultural use may exceed a principal dwelling unit s size. Accessory uses
azsociated with all other permitted uses shall not exceed the lessea~ of. 1,500 square feet in size or I S percent of the allowable lot
~~ The AR district carries forward the current district with a new maximum gross residential demiry of two units per acre. The new UDO will allow
meore, the new UDO will allow anaddldonalodwelling unit to be li«aced~on ars'aaee The new AR disvict vdnll alsocai~lowaco piervauonbsubdi~dsions,
which allow lot dimensional requirements to be reduced in favor of greater open space provislorJprotettion.
_. ._ ...__, _ .r_.wr. ~,....un;
Page 3-5
Unified Development Ordirence-
Public Review Drak (REVISED)
Fivnre 30.3.<>: AR Typical Building Form
Fieure 30.3.<>: AR Typical Lot Pattern
129
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section C: Special Baze Zoning Disvicts
Subsection 3: Agricukural-Residential (AR) District
'Fayetteville, Nortn l.aroNia
Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Reriew Draft (REVISED)
Page 3-6
_~-
Fia~~rP 30.3.<>: Hypothetical Conservation Subdivision
130
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 4: Military Base (MB__) ~~stri`~
MILITARY BASE (MB) DISTRICT
The Military Base (MB) District is established and intended to identify those lands within the aty
conpining military installations under exclusive federal aurhoriry.The district accommodates a
wide range of uses and development directly related to the training, housing, and support of
military troops and related functions. If land within the MB district is declared surplus or
otherwise conveyed to private ownership in the future, the land should then be reclassified to
~nnrhar zonine district in accordance with the Provisions of this Ordinance (See Section 30-
No dimensional standards apply in the MB district, though military facilities are encouraged to provide a building setback from any base
perimeter abutdng asingle-family residential zoning district equal to at least the minimum setback applicable on the other side of the
perimeter. ® ® e
Uses vrirhin the MB district shall be exempt from the standards in this UDO.
1. GENERAL PURPOSES
The residential base zoning districts established in this section are intended to provide a comfortable, healthy, safe,
and pleasant environment in which to I'rre and recreate. More specifically, they are intended to:
(a) objectivesP and poi cliesl of the 2030sJoint Growth VI sonePlan, the Cumberland County LandtUse Plan,
functional plans, and applicable small area plans.
(b) Eesidenu from the negati ve,effectsnof no se,cexcesa ve population density, traffic eongesg(on afiood ng,
and other significant adverse environmental impacts;
(c) Protect residential areas from fires, explosions, toxic fumes and substances, and other public safety
hazards;
(d) Provide for residential housing choice, affordability, and diversity with varying housing densities, types,
and designs, including accessory dwelling uniu;
(e) Provide for safe and efficient vehicular access and circulation and promote bicycle-, pedestrian-, and
transit-friendly neighborhoods;
(f) Provide for public services and facilities needed to serve residential areas and accommodate public and
semi-public land uses that complement residential development or require a residential environment
while protecting residential areas from incompatible nonresidential development;
(g) Create neighborhoods and preserve existing community character while accommodating new infill
development and redevelopment consistent with the cites goals and objectives; and
Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
page 3.7
The city shall forward all map amenamenc h ec~~ ~~~ psi err°-----
federal a¢ency for review and comment as part of the appliration review process.
131
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residentlal Base Zoning Disvicts
Subsection 2: Zero Lot Line__-- Do~ei°Pme~~
(h) Preserve the unique character and hisxoric resources of the traditional neighborhoods and the
community.
Z, ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT"'
set ofld'osvict-spee'ific d mensilonal standardls egalyding lot area,tlot width aandcsetbacks, this' Ord nan esalso allows
zero lot Tine development in the residential and some business disvicts subject to review and approval of a major srce
royal for zero lot line developments of
plan (See Secdon 30-2.<>.), special use permit (See Section 30-2.0.) aPP licable use standards (Article 30-4),
three acres or less within developed areas, and conformance with all apP
subdivision requirements (Article 30-6), and design and development standards (Article 30-5).
(a) APPlicability
The zero lot line development option shall be available to development in all base zoning disvicts except e
CD, AR, and MH disticts.
(b) Procedure
(I) Major Site Plan Required
All applications for zero lot line development shall be reviewed as a major site plan in accordance with
the procedures and requirements in Secdon 30-2.C.5, Site Plan.
(2) Special Use Permit Required
ASpecial Use Permit (See Section 30-2.<>.) shall be required (or zero lot line development proposed
on a lot or site that is:
a, Located within the SF-I5, SF-10, SP-6, or MR-5 district; and
b, Less than three acres in size; and
~, Located within a developed area of the city.
For the purposes of this subsection, "developed area' shall mean a lot or site adjacent to an existing
platted subdivision or that borders a nonresidential use on two or more sides.
(c) Standards
(I) Density
Zero lot line development shall comply with the maximum allowable gross density and maximum
height requirements in the base zoning disvict where proposed, and the follovring standards:
(2) Minimum Development Size
Zero lot line development located within the SF-I5, SF-10, and SF-6 districts shall be located on a lot
or site of at least 40,000 square feet in size.
(3) Setbacks Along the Development Perimeter
~ thef outer perimeterrof aezero lot linetdevelopomen4 bucoshall not applyptoylotsi eternal to the
development
b. Setbacks associated with an overlay district and any applicable setbacks from natural resources
shall apply to all louwtthin a zero lot Itne development
a3 This is a new section that dar'rties the standards for zero be line development The applicable regvireme`m and exemptions are carried forward
special use ipermlt requiremeint for smaller sites redeveloped areas ar proposed for the c ry's co~nsideration.~e of the residential disaicts, and the
June 2009
page 3•B
City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
132
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 3: Incentives for Sustainable Development Practices
(4) Compliance with Design Standards
All zero lot line development shall comply with the applicable developmen <stanadtadrdns in Arciable O fsl
Development Standards, including the transitional standards in Secdon 30-5. Y aPP
standards in Section 30-5.<>.
3. INCENTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES44
(a) Purpose _
In an effort co encourage sustainablleed fotecdon of atuml a ourcese and ensuaing a hiigh quality (I fesfor
addressing global climate change, p
future city residents, the following sustainable development incentives are provided.
(b) Incentives
Development providing sustainable features in accordance with the provisions of this section is eligible for a
density bonus of up co 20 percent beyond the maximum allowable gross residential density and increases in
the maximum allowable height up to two stories beyond the maximum allowable height in the base zoning
district
(c) Applicability
The incendves included in this section are available In the MR-5 and DT districts.
(d) Procedure
(I) Development seeking density or height bonuses in accordance with this section shall be
reviewed (and approved or denied) by the TRC as pare of a major site plan or preliminary plat,
as appropriate, or in the even[ the development requires a special use permit, reviewed (and
approved or denied)as pare of the special use permit application.
(Z) accorddance withtTablen30-3.D.IbeSustanblitye6onuses,oandsSecaoln 30-3.D<>rMenu of
Sustainabiliry Features.
Increase in gross residendal density by up io 10 percent beyond 3
district maximum ~ S
Increase in building height by one story beyond district maximum
Increase in gross residential density between 10 and 20 percent ~
beyond district maximum 9
Increase in building height by two stories beyond district
maximum [2]
NOTES:
[I] The menu of allowmble sustainabiliry features is identified in Section 30-3.D.~>, Menu of Sustainabi iry
++ These are new standards desigrred to allow denser forms of devebpmem in the MR-5 and DT disn-icts through the Inclusion of sustainable
provisbn of a variety of d'rfferent sustai b'i ry features.maThe range ofdfeatureseare provided as ahmenu froym which'an applicancsmaye elect. as
appropriate.
' ~ City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
June 2009 Unified Development Ordinance-Module Two Public Review Drak (REVISED)
Pace 3-9
133
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 3: Incentives for Sustainable Development Practices
Features.
(2] Development shall be in the DT district or within 500 linear feet of an intersection of two arceria streets
to exceed the maximum building height by two stories.
(e) ' Menu of Sustainability Features pcancfor ro oseddevelopment
One or more of the following sustainabiliry features may be offered by an app P P
within the MR-5 or DT district in accordance with Table 30-3.D.1, Sustainability Bonuses.
(i) Generation of a minimum of 25 percent of xhe electricity needed by the development from
alternative energy sources (solar, wind, etc.);
(2) Minimum LEED cercification of silver for at least 50 percent of the nonresidential floor area;
(3) Purchase of carbon offsets in an amount equivalent to I S percent of the construction costs;
(4) Energy star recognition for at leas[ 75 percent of the residential floor area;
($) Inclusion of green roofs on at least 30 pertenc of the roof area within the development;
(b) Provision of solar access to a minimum of 50 percent of the buildings in the development;
(7) ConOguration of nonresidential buildings with one axis L5 times longer than the other, and the
long axis oriented in an east-west configuration;
($~ Inclusion of a recycled or grey water system for landscaping irrigation;
(9) gravelforas'im tar paving ma er ais) that redu ekthe turban heat i lan'd effect of park ngciots;xcluding
(10) Provision of a network of multi-purpose trails with ac least one connection co the public
greenway or sidewalk system for every acre of land;
(1 I) Provision of 50-foox undisturbed buffers adjacent to all perennial stream banks; or
(I 2) Provision of a community garden with at leas[ 500 square feet per dwelling that is controlled by
a propercy-owners association.
'Fayetteville, Nortn t,arm~oa
Development Ordinance -Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
Page 3-10
134
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
SeNon D: Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 4: Single-Family Residental IS (SF-I S) District
4. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I S (SF-I S) DISTRICT
The Single-Family Residential I S (SF-I S) District is established to accommodate principally single-
family detached residential development at low densities subject to the design standards in Article
30-5: Development Standards. Italso accommodates two- tofour-family dwellings designed to
appear as single-family detached homes, and zero lot Tine development subject to the
requirements of this Ordinance. Discrict regulations are intended to discourage any use that
substantially interferes with the development ofsingle-family detached dwellings and that is
detrimental to the quiet residen0al nature of the district Also allowed are complementary uses
usually found in residential zoning districts such az parks, open space, elementary schools, and
Lot area per uni4 min. (sq k) 15,000 '"`
nla
Lot width, min. (ft)
100
Gross residential density, max 3; 3.2 for zero lot line development nla nla
(dwelling unitslacre) (I]ss
Lot coverage, max 25 ~]
(% of lot area) 25; I S where abutting a
single-family zoning district
35
Heigh4 max (k) or use
Front and corner side setback q0; 65 from street centerline Not allowed in front side,
or corner side setbacks
min. (k) [3]
Side setback min. (ft) [3] IS
S
Rear setback, min. (k) [3]
35
Spacing, between buildings, ~a 20 S
min. (k)
Zero lot line development must be on a site or tract of 40,000 square feet or more, shall comply with
uire a special use permit (See Section 30-
hall re
d
d
d
a
q
s
s, an
ar
n
the maximum gross residential density st
<>) when proposed on a lot or site smaller than three acres in a developed portion of the city.
3
2
Zero lot line development .
.
Setbacks for lots on the perimeter of the development shall meet the district minimums; otherwise no
setbacks, lot area, lot coverage, or building spacing requirements shall apply.
Open Space Set-Aside (% of Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mbted-uses: [to be determined in Module 3]
parcel)
NOTES: [I] Gross residential density may be increased by up co 10 percent for development locaced vAthin an "incentNe area' as
identified on the official zoning map.
Ovals 25 fee otr ore above gradeerage.
ll build n
f
~
tn
r
us
l
w
g
or a
fne fe t
eased by
c
es shall be
c pal
all other prin
X31 Minimum setbacks
+s These sandards carry forward the R-f S district dimemional standards but include new gross density requirements and new lot area requirements
fortwo- to four-farntiy dwelli~s•
+6 The new UDO wi0 allow density rounding az is done in Cumberland Coumy. In cases where a site s acreage allows a gross density that excee s a
whole number by 0.6 or more, the new UDO vAll allow an additional dwelling unit to be located on a site.
June 2009 ..,.r .,.. - ~ -- -
Page 3 I I Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Drak (REVISED)
135
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Zoning Disvids
Subsection 4:Single-Family Residential IS (SF-I S) Disvict
City of Fayetteviue, rvorca ~a~ ~~~~~a
Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Drak (REVISED)
Page 3-12
136
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 5: Single-FumlY Residential 10 (SF-10) Disvict
SINGLE=FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 10 (SF-10) DISTRICT
The Single-Family Residentia110(SF-10)Disvictisestaousne~~~°~~~•••••~----
detached residential development at low denSities,~ da prang m °dhatfl~pond tot environmental
development that provides variable housing types
and site conditions. Uses within the district are subject to the design standards in Article 30-5:
Development Standards. The disvict accommodates two- tofour-family dwellings designed to appear
as sin¢e•fam11Y detached homes and zero lot line development subject to the requirements of this
Ordinance. Disvict regulations discourage any use that subsrantlally Interferes vrith the development
ofsingle-family dwellings and that is detrimental to the quiet residendal nature of the disvict so
such as arks, open space,
allowed are complementary uses usually found in residential zoning districts,
.. _ _ _.:r..:,... ,~~occnrv dwellings of up to B00 square feet in size'r, elementary schools, and places of
~; IS whereabuttinga
single-family zoning
disvict or use
vot allow---~- ed In fr°"t,
side, or corner side
setbacks
Side setback min. (ft) [3]
Zero lot line development must be on a site or tract ot'w,wv'y°°' "`-' -' "~-
comply vdththe maximum gross residential density sandards, and shall require a special
use permit (See Section 30-2.3 <>) when proposed on a lot or site smaller than three acres
in a developed portiomo h~ d stv a m nimusm~rotherwi eI no setbacks, lot a~ea~ lot
---
n Accessory dwelling units help the city meet its goals of housing option diversity, and help accommoda[e modem Irving arrangemenss suc as
parenss or gcandParenss Imng ~~ a family Accessory dwelling units do rwt coumtowards density requirements, but sixh structures are limited to a_
4s These standards arty forward the current RI O standards with a few exceptions. The current standards do not include a gross density figure, and
maximum size of 600 square feet
one is proposed here. In addition, the current standards have a scaled approach to lot aces where subsequent dwelling units may have reduced lot
size. For the sake of simplicity, this sated approach is proposed for removal. New use types and lot saes have also been added.
4s The new UDO will albw density rounding as b done in Cumberland County. In ases where a sties acreage allows a gross density that exceeds a
whole number by 0.6 or more, the new UDO will allow an additional dwelling unit to 6e bated on a site.
City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
tune 2009 Unified Development Ordinance-Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
Page 3.13
137
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 5: Single-Family Residential 10 (SF-10) District
'- ...~e..riva area' as
NOTES: [I] Gross residential density may be increased by up to 10 percent for eeveiopmen~ ~,,, ate,... • °- -
identified on the official zoning map.
[2] Accessory structures/use areas shall not exceed the lesser of. 1,500 square feet in size or I S% of the allowable of coverage.
f31 Minimum setbacks for all other principal uses shall be increased by five feet for all building vralis 25 feet or more above grade
Figure 30.3.<>: SF-10
City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
3-14
Flnure 30-3.<>: SF-10 Typical Lot Pattern
~:_...., ans.<>: SF-10 Typical Building Form
138
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Zoning Disvicts
Subsection 6:Single-Family Residendal 6 (SF-6) District
6. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 6 (SF-6) DISTRICT
The Single-Family Residential 6 (SF-6) District is esablished and intended to accommodate principally
single-family detached residential development at moderate densities, that is designed to respond to
environmental and site conditions. It also accommodates two- tofour=family dwellings and zero lot
line development subject to the requirements of this Ordinance. All uses in the district are subject to
the design standards in Article 30-5: Development Standards. District regulations discourage any use
that substantially interferes with the development ofsingle-family dwellings and that is detrimental to
the quiet residential nature of the district Also allowed are Complementary uses usually found in
residential zoning disvicts, such as parks, open space, minor utilities, accessory dwellings, schools, and
Lot area per unit, min. {sq ft) 6•~ y'~
nla
Lot width, min. (k)
60
Gross residential density, max 9.6; 10.9 for zero lot line development ~a
(dwelling units/acre) [2]
Lot coverage, max 40 [I]
(% of lot area) 25; I S where abutting a
3S single-family zoning
Height. max (ft) district or use
Front and corner side setback,
25; 50 from sweet centerline Not allowed in front,
side, or corner side
min. (k) (3] setbacks
Side setback min. (k) [3] 10
Rear setback min. (k) [3]
30; I S when corner side setback is 25 or more
S
Soacinz, between buildings min. n/a 20 S
(tt)
Zero lot line development must be on a site or trace of 40,000 square feet or more, sha comp y
with the maximum gross residential density standards, and shall require a special use permit (See
Zero lot line development Section 30.2.3.<>) when proposed on a lot or site smaller than three acres In a developed portion of
the city. Setbacks for lots abutting the perimeter of the development shall meet the disvict
minimums; otherwise no setbacks, lot area, lot coverage, or building spacing requirements shall apply.
Open Space Set-Aside (% of Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixed-uses: [to be determined In Module 3]
so The SF-6 distict cables forward malty of the R6 distict provisions with a few exceptions. The current provisions do trot Include any derssity
requirements, but one is added (9.6 DU/acre), and is subjett to the density rounding standards discussed in earlier footnoces. The current standards_
allow detached dwellings, zero lot line, and condominium developments to use a sliding scale for minimum lot size where lot size may be reduced to
as small as 4,000 square feet per unit as the number of units increase. We have revised this approach by holding lot size comtant for detached
dwellings, allowing attached residential and two- [o four-family dwellings on 5,900 square foot lots. In terms of zero lot line development, each
development is required to have 40,000 square feet In development size, and the lot area requirements are removed in favor of density limitations.
Lot coveage limiations are increased from 35% to 40% to facilitate infdl (subject to new design standards). Flnally, the disvitt crow indudes a 10
percent density bonus for new development «curring within designated "incentive areas'.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
Page 3-I S Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Drak (REVISED)
139
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection b: Single~Famlly Residendal 6 ($F-b) District
[2] Gross]residendal density maybe incr ed bylup t 0 percent for developmentlocatfed within anrinOCendve area'' as dentified on the
official zoning map. -
.m rn:..i..,~ ~.., corhack5 for all other principal uses shall be increased by five feet for all building walls 25 feet or more above gra e.
r...~..a 30.3.<>; SF-6 Typical Building Form
`- SINGLE FAIAILY ~~.
pr:Y
„.:.
:,,:
Figure 303.<>: SF-6 Typical BuildinglLot Configuration
'Fayetteville, North Carolina
Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review fJrak (REVISED)
3-16
pse.~rP 30-3.<>; SF-6 Typical Lot Pattern
140
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Baze Zoning Districts
Subsection 7: Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) District
MIXED RESIDENTIAL 5 (MR-5) DISTRICT
The Mbced Residential 5 (MR-5) district is established and intended to meetthe diverse
housing needs of city residents by accommodating a wide variety of residential housing types
and arrangements at moderate to high densities, Including single-family detached dwellings,
two- tofour-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and other residential development that
may include single-family attached dwellings, and zero lot line development subject to the
requirements of this Ordinance. All development in the district shall comply with the design
standards in Article 30-5: Development Standards. MR-5 districts may also includest offices,
located open space, complementary institutional uses (e.g., religious institutions, po
oolicecub-stations), day care facilities, and limited small-scale neighborhood-serving
Lot area per uni4 min. (sq ft)
(2]
Heigh4 max (ft) [3] Not allowed in fronx,
front and corner side setback 25; 50 from street centerline side, or corner side
.-. -.. setbacks
,ra....e .,__.--- - - -
Zerolot line development s a comp
require a special use permit (See Section 30-2.3.<>) when proposed on a lot or site smaller tee
Zero lot line development ahailsmeet the tilt r~'ra m n mumshothervdse no setbaclks, lotaroeaglot coverage, orobu Id ng spa ,C ng nt
sr The MR-5 disvict consolidates the R5 and RSA disvitts. The new MR-5 disvitt allows all forms of residential development as well as low-intensity
es bli~shesoaseries of dif(erentemabmum(dens ~'es based oius typeurWe note the curdr~a Rd5 disotrictlalbw_s fatrly high residennial densities_(237
DUlAc for single-family. 17.4 DUlAc for s'urgle-family In a zero lot line development, and 29 DUTAc for co~ominiums in zero lot line developments).
The proposedarned developmen process.d Inn addidoDn to lthe change in densityathe MR-5 disvtltt uses the dimensionRSstandards from the current
through the p
R5 disvitt to minimize the creation of nonconformides. The lot coverage limitations are increased 20Y in recognNon of new open space standar s.
A new height limit of 55 feet is proposed (to allow for three ar~fo~e so~ryr~tid'"~ncelmives vnsll allowoextralhei~tvatd densrfty~ MR-5 district
h
removes minimum lot area requiremenss in favor of gross density :n wl..,,r,h Larnlina
_._, _. ,
L009 Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED
3-17
141
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Toning Districts
Subsection 7: Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) Districr.
uses: :
be determined in Module
Jpen apace oe~-.v~~~ r_ _. ~-.
NOTES: [I] Including Iivelwork units and upper-story residential deve opmen
[2] Incases where lot area and gross density conflict, the standard resulting in the lesser number of dwelling units shall control.
[3] Gross residential density and maximum height may be increased through provision of sustainable development features in accordance
with Section 30-3.DA, Sustainable Development PmNces.
[4]Accessory struauresluse areas shall not exceed the lesser of: 1,200 square feet in size or 25% of the allowable lot coverage.
[5] Minimum setbacks for multi-family and nonresidential uses shall be increased by five feet for all building walls 2S feet or more above
8mde F:_.._e an.z.<>: MR•5 Typical Building Form
®'f p'®
® A
~ "' a
Figure 30 3.<> MR 5 Typical BuildinglLot Configuration
3-18
Fayetteville, North l.arounn
Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Drak (REVISED)
_. ___ ,~ : ~~. ma-5 Tvnical Lot Pattern
142
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section D: Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 8: Manufactured Hom____e (MH) Disvict
g. MANUFACTURED HOME (MH) DISTRICT
The Manufactured Home (MH) disvict is esablished and intended to accommooace ~:~
development of manufactured home parks n St en~aancale la a ~P ^gi~h' of affordable housing v+rthou[
sacrificing such amenities as recreation, ope p
Site area, min. (acres)
Site area. max (acres)
Number of manufactured home spaces, min.
INDIVIDUAL MANUFACFL
Area, min. (sq k)
Width, min. (ft) BUILDIP
Setback from any manufactured home space boundary, min. (k)
Setback from stree4 min. (k)
Setback from park perimeter, min (k)
Spacing between manufactured homes, between manufactured
homes and other princpal buildings, and between other principal
buildings (k)
Open Space Set-Aside (% of parcel size)
Figure 30-3.0: MH Typical Lot
Pattern
NDARDS
3 n/a
30 n/a
10 n!a
STANDARDS
nla
40 ~
10
30
30
3
sa The MH disvitt standards arty forvrard the current manufactured home park standards in Chapter 27 of the Code of Ordinances.
3-19
Unified Development Ordinance-Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
nla
3
~r
~:,.,,.o zn.3.<>: MH Typical Building Form
143
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection I: General Purposes
GENERAL PURPOSES
The business base zoning districts are established for the general purpose of ensuring there are lands in the city that
provide a wide range of once, retail, service, industrial, and related uses to meet household and business needs, and
more specifically to:
(a) Provide appropriately located lands (or the full range of business uses needed by the city's residents,
Vision Plan, the Cumbeerland Ciounty La d Use Plan, funccionalsplans, andcapplka le smalOarefa planowth
(b) Strengthen the city's economic base, and provide employment opporcunities close co home for
residents of the city and surrounding communities;
(c) Create suitable environments for various types of business uses, and protect them from the adverse
effects of incompatible uses;
(d) Create suitable environments for various types of mixed use development, where business, office,
. retail, and residential uses are designed and integrated in compatible ways;
(e) Supporc the military and governmental activities taking place in the vicinity;
(f) Preserve the unique character and historic resources of the downtown;
(g) Minimize the impact of business development on residential districts and uses.
City OT raye~~nrmq ..... ... __. _.__
Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED
3-20
144
Rear setback min. (k) [3] 25; 20 for corner lots or lots served by alleys 5
20
Spacing between buildings, min. (fr}
Zero lot line development shall comply with the applicable maximum gross residential density
standards. Setbacks for lots abutting the perimeter of the development shall meet the disvict
Zero lot line development minimums; otherwise no setbacks, lot area, lot coverage, or building spacing requirements
shall apply.
Open Space Set-Aside (% of parcel size) Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixed-uses: [to be determined In Module 3]
Notes: [I] Gross residential density may be increased by up to 10 percent for development bated within an "incentive area' as idendfie.
on the official zoning map.
[2] Accessory svucturesfuse areas shall not exceed the lesser of. 1,200 square feet in size or 25% of the allovrable lot coverage.
t31 Minimum setbacks for nonresidential, muld-family, and mbced-uses shall be increased by fire feet for all building walls 25 feet or more
sa The OI disvitt is new and coruolidates the provisions from the P I, P2, and P4 districts N die current ordinance. There are a number of changes
on dja entedistritts fora eside~ndals ndards)NThe OI dismtt establishes d'Afererrtc ott i es and de eFty btandards based upor ~eatype elThe new OI
disvitt increases the lot coverage figures from the current threshold of 35%a and proposes a new height limit that will allow 3-and 4-story buildings.
The exisdng setbacks for the PI, P2, and P4 d'rsrritts are generally carried forward by the new OI disvitt
... .. .,..._.._r:_.
_. ...r-.--,-_
dune 2009 Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
Page 3-21
145
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Secvon E: Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 2: Office and Insdcutlonal (O~ District
City of Fayettevdie, rvorcn ...a~ ~~~~~w
Unified Development Ordinance-Module Two Public Review Drak (REVISED)
3-22
Figure 30.3.<>; OI Typical Lot Pattern
Figure 30.3.<>: OI Typical Building Form
~~
1
Figure 303 <>; OI Typical BuildinglLot Configuration
146
grticle 30-3: Zoning Districts
Settion E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 3: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District
3. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) DISTRICT
The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District is established and Intended to accommodate small-
sale,low-intensity,anti "convenience' retail and service uses that provide goods and services
serving the residents of the immediately surrounding neighborhood (e.g., personal service uses,
small restaurants, and limited retail). Development In the district should not include uses of a size
that is out of scale with a residential neighborhood, or that attracts traffic from outside the
surrounding neighborhood. Individual retail uses shall not exceed 2, 500 square feetwithout
obtaining a Special Use Permit (See Section 30-2.<>.), Residential uses are encouraged on the
upper floors of nonresidential establishments. The district is subject to standards intended to
ensure development is consistent vdth the neighborhood scale and compatible with surrounding
uses and the design standards in Article 30.5: Development Standards.
5,000 per unit 15,000 Per site n/a
000 8,000
10
Ja
Lot area, min. (sq ft) ,
r
60
Lotwidth, min.(ft) 45
Gross residential density, 8 6 n/a
g 10
max. (dwelling units/acre)
[I l 45 C2]
Lot coverage, max (% of lot 55
area) 25; I S where
abutting asingle-
35 family zoning
50
Heigh4 max (ft) district or use
Not allowed in
Front and corner side Within 5 feet of average for lots on same block face, but no less than 10 feet front, side, or
corner side yard
setback, min. (ft) [3] 3; 15 when abutting single-family zoning 5 10 areas
Side setback, min. (k) [3] or use 5
Rear setback min. (ft) [3] 20
20 S
Spacing between buildings, ~ 20 rJa
residential density standar s.
min. (ft)
Zero lot line development shall comply with the applicable maximum gross
rict minimums; otherwise
i
Zero lot line development ly
or bu Iding spearing requfrements shall app
loge verage
cks d
tb
n~a
,
ot area,
a
e
Open Space SeaAside (% of Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixed-uses: [to be determined in Module 3]
parcel size)
[Ij Gross residential density may be increased by up to 10 percent for development located vrithin an "incentive area as
OTES
:
N
identified on the ofllcial zoning map.
--~ se The NC disvitt iz a new disvttt drat consol'dates the existing CIA, and f 3P disuicts• N°ne of the currem distriar irrdude a minimum be s'ae
standard, minimum lot vridth, or maximum lot coverage. We have suggested new standards for bts in the NC disvitt based on the MR-5 and OI
disvitts. We have suggested an approach that allows 3-story nonresidential and m6ced-use devebpmenrs and 3 story residential uses (addkio
backs" towards shorter swctures). The setbadcs have been
design standards will also apply that relate to contextual heights, roof forms, and "step
established to limit the creation of rwnconformides.
City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
June 2009 Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
Paee 3-23
147
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E: Business Base Zoning Discricts
SubsectSon 3: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Distrlcc
[2] accessory svucturesluse areas shall not exceed the lesser of. 1,200 square feet in size or 25% of the allowable lot coverage.
[3] Minimum setbacks for nonresidential, muld-family, and mixed-uses shall be increased by five feet for all building walls 25 feet or more
above grade.
Fayetteville, rvorcn ~.awu„v
Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
Page 3-24
c:..,,.0 3n.3-o: NC Typical Building Form
Figure 30.3 <> NC Typical Lot Pattern
Figure 30.3 <>: NC Typical BuildinglLot ConTguranon
148
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E: Business Base Zoning Disvicts
Subsection 4: Community Commercial (CC) Disvict
4. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) DISTRICT
Lot area, min. (sq ft)
Lot width, min. (ft)
Gross residential density, max
max, (% of lot
Height, max (k)
Front and corner side setback
min. (ft) [3]
Side setback min. (ft) [3]
Rear setba
min.
The Community Commercial (CC) Disvict is established and intended to accommodate a
diverse range of medium- to high-intensity retail, service, and ~ ce uges that p ho ide g°O ntersa
services serving the residents and businesses in d hew r dommearcial su eg (subject to approval
convenience stores, retail sales establishments,
of a Special Use Permit (See Section 30-2.<>•))• The disvict is typically located along major
arterials, at the intersection of arterials, and along growth corridors identified in city plans.
Higher-density residential uses are encouraged on the upper floors of nonresidential
establishments, and may exist as stand-alone buildings as part of a larger horizontal mixed-use
de tiloPrmr~ mdine u e's as wlell aslthe design standards in Article 30 5: Devellopme trStandardsble
~ 8,000 15,000 nla
10,000 ~a
45
12 nla
n/a 16 __
65 -
25; I S where abutting a
65 single-family zoning district
or use
25; 60 ft from street centerline ~ Not allowed in fron4 corner
side, or side yard areas
3; I S where abutting asingle-family zoning district or use 20
3; 20 where abutting an alley orsingle-family zoning district or use
20
nta
(ft) Zero lot line development shall comply with the applicable maximum gross resraenua, ~_~ ~~w
standards. Setbacks for lots abutting the perimeter of the development shall meet the disvict
Zero lot line development minimums; otherwise no setbacks, lot area, lot coverage, or building spacing requirements shall
apply.
Open Space Set-Aside (% of Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixed-uses: [to be determined in Module 3]
parcel size) to I p ercent for development located within an "incentive area' as
NOTES: [l] Gross residential density may be intreased by up p
identified on the official zoning map. uare feet in size or 30% of the allowable lot coverage.
[2] Accessory structurestuse areas shall not exceed the lesser of. 1,500 sq
[3] Minimum setbacks for nonresidential. multi-family, and mixed-uses shall be increased by five feet for all building walls 25 feet or
more above grade.
ss The CC district combines the CI, C IP, and C3 disvict regulaGOns. None of the cwrent disvlcts include a minimum lot s¢e standard minimum
~~~ lot width, ma~mum lot coverage, or height We have suggested an a bpr~ tovrards shorter~rso'ucwto~65 fThe setbacks ha a been reduced fr«n the
will also apply that relate to contexwal heights, roof forms, and "step
CI district requiremems to limit the creation of nonconformitles. City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
June 2009 Unified Developmen[ Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
Page 3-25
149
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E: Business Baze Zoning Districts
Subsection 4: Community Commercial (CC) Disyict
•
~~
~' ,'
FiAUre 30.3.n CC Typical Building Form
Figure 30.3.<>: CC Typical BuildinglLot Configuration (reserved)
:Setbacks are increased 5 feet
nin . , c for all butldpg tival{s 25 feet
or more above grade. ~ ~.
~.t
June 2009
City of Fayetteville, North Carolina page 3-26
Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Rertew Draft (REVISED)
Figure 30.3.<>; CC Typical Lot Pattern
i~e setbat~: 15 ry;in
0 sf mfn rom slog a-lam res '
'+ ~.! I~idlh 45' mm '
~~
150
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 5: Mixed-Use (MU) Disyict
5. MIXED-USE (MU) DISTRICT
The Moved-Use (MU) District is established and intended to accommodate and foster the cooramacea
development of a compatible and balanced mix of muwaliy supporting I'iving, working, shopping,
educating, entertainment, and recreating uses, all subjectto the design standards in Article 30.5:
Development Standards. By providing housing close to nonresidential uses and grouping multiple
destinations, such moved-used development reduces vehicle usage and creates ahigh-quality,
pedestrianoriented environment The district is subject to flexible standards intended to encourage
an appropriate scale and balance of uses and development to ensure district development is
compatible with surrounding uses. Uses maybe either vertically-integrated within a single building or
'horizontally-integrated within separate buildings on the same site. Developments proposed within the
MU Disvict that do not include a mix of uses require a Special Use Permit (See Section 30-2.<>•)
The MU Dirtrict is Intended to correspond to Cumberland County's Mixed Use Districtwithin the
Lot area, min. (sq tt) 20 45
Lot width, min. (ft) 12 n(a
Gross residential density, max. 18
~]
(dwelling unitslacre) [I] 65 55
Lot coverage, max. (% of lot area) 25; 15 where abutting a
35 single-family zoning
Heigh4 max. (@) 50 district or use
Front and corner side setback min. (ft) 10; 20 from sweet centerline Noott?Icoowed is d ° reasd~
Side setback min. (ft) [3] 5; 10 where abutting asingle-family zoning district or use 5
Rear setback min. (ft) [3J 10 5
Spacing between buildings, min. (ft) ~ n/a
Floor area in district occupied by single-
en4 max. (% of district)
l rJa
ross residential density standar s.
um
i
opm
use deve g
m
Zero lot line shall comply with the applicable max
single-family detached development shall meet the district
buttin
l
l
Zero lot line development g
ots a
y.
Setbacks for
minimums; otherwise no setbacks, lot area, or building spacing requirements shall app
es: [to be determined in Module 3]
d
-us
Open Space Set-Aside (% of parcel size) Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixe
eased by up to 10 percent for development bated within an'~incentive area' as
I
b
ncr
e
NOTES: [I] Gross residential density may
identified on the official zoning map.
es/use areas shall not exceed the lesser of. 1,500 square (eet in size or 30% of the allowable of coverage.
five feet for all building walls 25 feet or more
d b
[2] Accessory structur
[3] Minimum setbacks for nonresidendal, y
multi-family, and m&ed-uses shall be increase
above grade. _,
i s6 The MU disvkt is a new disrrittthat replaces the cites current maed-use conditional district The current muted-use conditional district includes
developmetx. The MU district Is Ia new appro h that a~ws muceduse developmen~by right (widrout need o as itei plan review d at the re~zomn8
stage) provided the development complies wRh these standards and all applicable design and devebpmenc standards.
City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
June 2009 Unified Development Ordinance-Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
Paee 3-27
151
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E: Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 5: Mixed-Use (MU) Disyia
Figure 30-3.<>: MU Typical Lot Pattern (reserved)
Figure 30.3.<>; MU Typical BuildinglLot Configuration (reserved)
June 2009
City of Fayetteville, North Carolina ~ Page 3-28
Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Drak (REVISED)
Figure 30.3.<>: MU Typical Building Form
152
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E: Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 6: Downtown (DT) District
6. DOWNTOWN (D-1~ DISTRICTS'
lot area min. (sq k)
Lot width, min. (k)
Gross residential density, max.
Lot coverage, max. (% ~
Height, (min.) ft
Height, max (ft)
Front setback min. (ft}
Front setback max. (k)
Side setback, min. (k)
Corner side setback, min.
Rear setback min. (k)
Spacing between buildings, min. (k)
Percentage of primary frontage
occupied by building wail (min. %)
Percentage of first-floor wall
Open Space Set-Aside (% of
None
None
40
100
24
90; may be increased up to I50 for buildings vrith streea
level restaurants or retail
None for firs[ 4 stories: 10 for stories 5-8; 20 for stories 9+
5 for the Itt 4 stories unless buildings on either side have
deeper front setbacks, then the average setback of both
None; IOwhereabuttingasingie-familyzoningdistritt
Min. required for vehicular visibility
where abutting an alley orsingle-family zoning
district or use
None
100 for interior lots; 80 for corner lots (2]
60 for Interior lots, 50 for corner Io[s
n(a
n/a
nfa
(I]
n(a
40; I S where abutting asingle-
familyzoning district
Not allowed in (root, side, or
corner side yard areas
3' abutting an alley, otherwise
none
None
n/a
SO when abu[dngastreet
Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixed-uses: (to be determined in Module 3]
sized N3
Notes: [ I ] Aaessory structuresfuse areas shall not exceed the lesser of: 1,500 square feet in size or 30% of the allowable lot coverage.
sr Development within the DT distritt may take advantage of the densiry and height bonuses azsociated vrith Section 30-3.D.3, Incentives for
Susainable Deveopment Fractlces.
sa The DT district is a new single distrkt for the dovmtovm, and is comprised of the C2, C2P, and C25 districts. The only standard for all three
disvkts is a 20-foot setback from private alleys. We recommend a few additional standards that allow some flexibility while addressing key district
goals.
June 2009
Page 3-29 Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Drak (REVISED)
153
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E: Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection b: Downtown (DT) Disvict
surface arldn behind buildings, pedestrian pass-throughs, plazas, and gaxhering spaces are exempt
[2] Entrances to parking gartges, P 8
[3] Open space set-asides in the downtown may be comprised of urban features like pluu, fountains, and pedesvian features.
Figure 30-3.<>: DT Typical Lot Pattern Figure 303.<>: DT Typical Building Form
® ®` ®®®
'_' ~
® ® 0
height: 150' with street-level recall ® ~, ®® ® ~
®'
®
.,
® 'W ®
~-
lot area: no min. ®
a
, z 3 ,
lot width: no min. e ®® ® : _j r r*:
Q - -._u
- -- ®
~
max. front setback: 5' ~
® ` ~ '~ .. ,_,
~
1st 4 stories
®®
®
d•
min. front setback: 0' 1st 4 stoles;
10' S-8 stories; . r
®4 4
20' 9+ stories
side setback: 0'; 10' fro use
architectural features like towers, turrets,
and other signature features are exempt from
min, setbacks
rear setbark: 0'
20' from alley(res use
comer side setback: min, requ~r€d for visibility
Figure 30-3.<>: DT Typical Building/Lot ConOguration (reserved)
'Fayetteville, North carouna
Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
3-30
154
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E: Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 7: Light Industrial (U) DistriR
7. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) DISTRICT
The Ught Industrial (L~ Disvict is established and intended to accommodate light manufacturing,
assembly, fabrication, processing, d(svibudon, storage, research and developmen4 and other
industrial uses that are small-scale or otherwise have minimal exterior movement of vehicles.
materials, and goods, as well as few or minimal adverse environmental and visual impactt. The
district is subiect to standards intended co minimize potential nuisances or damage to the
environment and adverse impacts on surrounding uses.
Int area, min. (sq ft)
Lot width, min. (ft)
Lot coverage, max.
Height, max. (ft)
corner setback min.
Side setback min. (k)
Rear setback min. (ft)
Sparing between buildings,
min. (k)
Open Space Set-Aside (%
[IJ Aaessory
20,000
75
65
90; 50 when abutting asingle-family residential disvict
50; 75 from street centet'line
30
20; none where abutting a railroad right-of--way
20
nfa
rJa
30; 1 S when abutting a
,olo-Fimily zoninn district
Not allowed in firon5 side, or
corner side yard areas
5; 50 where abutting a
residential zoning district
5
Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixed-uses: [to be determined in Module 3j
shall not exceed the lesser of 5,000 square feet in size or 30% of the allowable lot
ss The U disvict carries forward the MI district standards, but there are new provisions for lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and height- We
recommend chat minimum lot area and lot width standards be added, and that they be small enough to accommodate small-sale Tight indusvial uses
(eg., flex space buildings).
.-:..,,.r G~..erra..lue. North Carolina
June 2009
Page 3 31 Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
155
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 7: Light Indusvial (LI) District
. a~ ............. . .--~ - -
Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
3-32
Figure 30.3.<>; LI Typical Building/Lot Configuration
156
Article 30-3: Zoning Districts
Section E: Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 8: Heavy Industrial (HI) District
8. HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) DISTRICT
The Heavy Industrial (HI) District is established and intended to accommodate heavy
manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, processing, disvibudon, storage, research and development.
and other indusvial uses that may belarge-scale or otherv~se have extensive exterior movement
of vehicle, materials, and goods, and greater potentral for adverse environmental and visual
impacts.
Lot area, min. (sq ft) 40,000 n!a
Lot vridth, min. (ft) 100 nla
Lot coverage, max. (% of lot area) 75 [ I ]
30; I S when abutting a
Height, max. (k) 90; 50 when abutting asingle-family residential disvia single-family zoning disvia
Front and corner setback, min. 50; 75 from sweet centerline Not allowed in front, side, or
(ft) corner side yard areas
Side setback min. (k) I5; 100 where abutting a residential zoning district .
20; none where abutting a railroad right-of-way: 50 where 5; 75 where abutting a
Rear setback, min. (k) abutting a residential zoning disvia residential zoning disvia
Spacing between buildings, 20 5
min. (ft)
Open Space Set-Aside (% of Nonresidential and mixed-uses: [to be determined in Module 3]
pa, mac, m<=~ _..
NOTES: (1] Accessory struauresluse areas shall not exceed the lesser of 5,000 square feet in size or 30% of the allowable lot
so The HI district carries forward the M2 distritt standards, but there are new provisions for lot area, btwidth, lot coverage, and height The current
setback standards for the M2 district are based on the current C3 disvkr, and are considerably more lenient than those for the M I disvkt, including
a 35-foot frorrc setback, no side setback except where abutting residential zoning, and tw rear setback except where abutting residential zoning a an
alley. GNen the more Intense activity associated widr heavy manufacuring, we recommend that building standards for the HI district equal or exceed
those for the U distritt This may result in some nonconformirg swcurres.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
Page 3.33 Unified Development Ordinance- Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
157
Article 30,3: Zoning Districts
Section E: Business Base Zoning Distriar
Subsection 8: Heavy Industrial (HQ District
~ ®-®.aj r~• 4
'kfront sef63ck:30 min ~ ~~:
;: $
Fayetteville, Nortn c.arouna
Development Ordinance -Module Two Public Review Draft (REVISED)
3-34
Figure 30.3.<>; HI Typical Lot Pattern
Figure 30.3.<>; HI Typical Building Form
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Timetable 1es
Attachment 4
20.0.9
,loll
a
0
dl
1
Task 2
7• Draft Sections of UDO -New X X
Review
sultant Coordination -
ics
10. Outreach - Coun wide Mt s. (2 x x
11. Plannina Board fPB) Review X X X X
~c. ov~,~.-otaii ncN~n --
03/02/2010