HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-032b Planning - Contract Professional Services Related to Orange County Unified Development Ordinance —Please return this copy to —
NORTH CAROLINA Clerk to the Board's office for PAF
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. Standard of Care.
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
2
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
written permission of the County. No permission for subcontracting shall create,
between the County and the subcontractor, any contract or any other relationship.
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 Services.
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 RFP 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)
3
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/April 2010
4. Document/catalogue public comments April 17, 2010
5. Assist with first draft UDO April 21, 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 cures 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
4
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
Dates then Provider may invoice for the first 10% of the whole upon County's
acknowledgement of the satisfactory completion of Task one. Upon the County's
acknowledgement that the second Task has been satisfactorily completed Provider may
invoice 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 are evidenced by a written
amendment to this Agreement.
6. Responsibilities of the County
a. Cooperation and Coordination. The County has designated the (Planning 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
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.
b. Insurance Rating. The minimum insurance rating for any company insuring the Provider
shall be Best's A-
C. Limits of Coverage. Minimum limits of insurance coverage shall be as follows:
5
INSURANCE DESCRIPTION MINIMUM REQUIRED COVERAGE
• Worker's Compensation Limits for Coverage A- Statutory State of N.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 Combined 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 any cancellation, non-renewal or reduction
of coverage.
8. Indemnity
a. Indemnity. The Provider agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless 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 may be 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.
6
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 Agreement be terminated, the Provider shall deliver to the County
within seven (7) days, at no additional cost, all deliverables including any
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 any other required compliance with this Agreement.
11. Additional Provisions
a. Limitation and Assignment. The County and the Provider each bind themselves, their
successors, assigns and legal representatives to the terms 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. Governing. This Agreement and the duties, responsibilities, obligations and rights
of respective parties hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of North
Carolina.
c. Dispute Resolution. 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 County,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 this Agreement is held as a matter of law to be
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be valid and binding upon the
Parties.
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
7
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-Appropriation. Provider acknowledges that County is a governmental 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 and/or 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:
Orange County Provider's Name &Address
Attention: Craig Benedict, Planning Director Clarion Associates
P.O. Box 8181 101 Market Street Suite D
Hillsborough,NC 27278 Chapel Hill,NC 27516
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, by and through their authorized agents, have
hereunder set their hands and seal, all as of the day and year first above written.
ORANGE C UNTY: PROVI
By: By:
Valerie Foushe , Chair raig Ri hardson
Orange County Board of Commissioners ice President, Principal
Federal Tax ID#: Z y — 129 n 5 3 O
Attest: (kQ�
Do aker,UWAdo the Board
Q
[S °
l7 i, 52
° 4
8
This instru t has been approved as to technical content.
Craig Bene ,'Department Director
This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act.
Clarence G. Grier, Finance Director
This instrument has been approved as to form and legal sufficiency.
J L. Roberts, County Attorney
Revised February 2010
9
Attachment 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 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.
Meeting Targets: March 10, 2010 — One meeting with consultant and staff
to review process for project, begin review/discussion of
existing reformatting and graphic 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 from 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.
10
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 restructuring 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 framework. 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.
April 2010 — 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)
community outreach meetings to review proposed
Ordinance amendments with and present formatting
11
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 LIDO. (The length of the
Implementation Bridge is expected to be 15-17 pages.)AIl 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 Board 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 to
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.
12
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.
Lo v.�C&C i A-VVC(,kAMC-AA Z
�K
G r4
�}w
ltz� S
G.:
:7
spa-
�rA"R
ORANGE C
..........
ini
k
NORTH CAROLINA ;
_
t.
... � .....�, . _r .
9X Y� fi
ASSISTANCE IN PREP &
ARC .
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINA
..........
k
yy , .
November 24,�2DD9
7jW
Submitted lyf :
r !
r �
CLARION ASSOCIATES
101 Market Street, Suite,,D
Chapel Hill, NC 27516 `
. 919.967 9.188
www.clarionassociates com
In Association With
2030 Comprehensive Plan ' > ,
Tetra Tech'
C..
r
AMPTM
.7,9{�rg
Omni� w
101Market Street Zoning
Suite D Growth Management
Chapel Hill,X C 27516 Comprehensive Planning
919.967.9188 Real Estate Consulting
Fax 919.967.9077
C L A R I O N
November 24, 2009
(VIA HAND DELIVERY)
Mr. Michael D. Harvey, AICP, CZP
Orange County Planning Department
306F 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.
• We have substantial experience in drafting effective development codes adopted by
communities in North Carolina, the southeast, and across the nation.
• We specialize in implementation of comprehensive plans, growth strategies, area plans,
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.
• We have in-depth knowledge of"best practices" on zoning issues generally, and in substantive
areas which are relevant to Orange County, such as modernizing zone districts, form
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 UDC) for Hillsborough
(work currently underway), and an excerpt from a UDO we are preparing for Fayetteville. One of the
key components of work on this Orange County UDC) is to be consultant assistance in preparation of
an Annotated Outline and assistance in layout and graphics for use in the final document. Those are
specialties of ours.
We are excited about the prospect of working with the Orange County and again thank you for the
opportunity to submit this scope of services. We look forward to discussing our ideas with you.
Very truly yours,
/� �---
S
� W
Roger S. Waldon
Principal, Clarion Associates
Assistance Orange County, North Carolina
We are pleased to prepare oproposal for Orange County
to assist in the preparation of o new Unified Development
Ordinance. In this proposal we describe services that we
are pn*pone6 to offer immediately, and also identify
options for the County's consideration oo work proceeds i.
subsequent phases ofUC>[) production.
We understand Orange County's regulatory context very
vvali. We assisted the county in preparation and adoption
of the current Comprehensive Plan. We have worked on
intergovernmental o0neennenb involving Orange County,
Hillsborough, [orr6onn, and Chapel Hill. The project
manager for Clarion's work on this initiative will be Roger
VYo/clon, who served osChapel Hill's Planning Director for
two decades prior to imining Clarion Associates in 2005.
YVe are currently working with the Town nf Hillsborough on
preparation ofits UDC}. We have been advising Chapel
Hill regarding growth management strategies.
And we understand what it takes to craft UDO that meets community goals. [|ohon has extensive
experience in drafting of development codes for communities in North Carolina, the southeast, and
across the notion:
• We have written zoning regulations for cities and counties in North Carolina, the
southeast, and the notion that are vvell-i||ontrohed, written in plain English, and made
available through web-base d technology (including codes in Cary, NC; Mooresville,
NC; Folly Beach, SC; Rock Hill, 5[; Franklin, TN; Greenville, 3C; Alachua, FL;
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY; Fort Collins, CO. Colorado Springs, CO; Anchorage,
AK; and Henderson, N\8.
• We have re-tooled development codas for growing communities, to encourage
development and redevelopment that is consistent with the community's planning and
development objectives (including codes in Folly Beach, SC; Rock Hill, SC; Cary, N[;
Mooresville, NC; Alachua, FL; and Franklin, TN).
• We have in-depth knowledge of "best prochces" on land development issues generally,
and in designing workable solutions for communities in substantive "best practices"
areas vve believe are important to the project, such as:
" |n8U development (Clayton, MO; Overland Pork, KS; Kock Hill, SC; Greenville, SC; Oak
Podc |U
a Form-based design (Jefferson County/Louisville, k3/ Carson City, NV; Mooresville, NC)
° Mixed-use development (Colorado Springs, CO; Montgomery County, MD; Henderson,
NV; Franklin, TN; Cary, N[; Rock Hill, SC), and
v Landscaping and parking (Rock Hill, SC; Cary, NC; Franklin, TN\.
Comprehensive reviews and oo6oteo of development regulations are nno'or undertakings that must be
carefully considered and systematically pursued. They are more technical in noh/ro than
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 2
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 proposed 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, GRAPHICS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
After reviewing all relevant ordinances,
plans, and other related documents,
Clarion will meet with planning staff and
aW 25%�... , se+mde ss, *1
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 3V
standards to be contained within the new
UDO.
TASK 2: ASSIST WITH RE-PACKAGING REGLATIONS
Orange County staff has been and will continue working to refresh Orange County's
development regulations. This UDO project is not intended to be a full 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.
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 3
We suggest focusing on the following key ideas:
• 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);
• Consolidating procedural provisions and revising them so they are more efficient,
remove confusing language, and provide more certainty; and
• 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 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH,
Hillsborough, crafting a new UDO that combines zoning and NORTH CAROLINA
subdivision ordinances into one user-friendly document. We have
just completed a draft Annotated Outline for Hillsborough UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
(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 °'AA..A.WCkO`
language, terminology, and approaches to "edge" areas with our N--*.112.2M
work in Hillsborough.
TASK 3: DOCUMENTING / CATALOGUING PUBLIC COMMENTS
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:
• Using our keypad-polling technology in public meetings to gauge public opinion; and
• 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.
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 4
TASK 4: ASSIST IN PREPARATION OF AN ANNOTATED OUTLINE
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 proceeds, offering our examples and sharing experiences
from similar work in other communities. A typical Annotated Outline will include a summary of
all public comments received during the process, a summary of the key issues to be addressed
in the UDO writing, identifying the issues where new or revised ordinance language will be
prepared to implement key policies and plans, and providing a protocol and schedule for review
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.
Included in this Orange County Annotated Outline should be examples of the types of
illustrations, graphics, and formats that will be used in the resulting UDO. During our project
initiation meetings with staff we will discuss the extent to which the County might move to
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
Tetra Tech who can assist the County, if the County so decides, in drafting and illustrating key
environmental regulations. Following is an example of such illustrations:
Minimum freeboard
0.2 feet from maximum
ponding depth
Ground cover
Maximum ponded or mulch layer
Grass filter water depth(specific
Sheet flow. staib to plant soil texture) 5'min.
My
♦ ►
Limit of ?��; � A f
pavement Ei !
!--1t' Planting soil 1=i 4'min, 2'max.
Near vertical - I1
sidewalls !; = 3.1'moot.
i i,, ► U.
Bioretention area
A
In situ Material
SaturatedPermeobility Section A-A(not to scale)
Greater than 0.5[PH
We have included here, as an appendix, excerpts from a UDO that we are drafting for
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 5
SCHEDULE/TIMEFRAME
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
with county staff, advisory boards, and elected leadership, will allow us to be efficient in the use
of our resources and allow us to be of immediate help to staff upon execution of a contract.
ROLE8 AND RESPONSIBILITIE8
If the Clarion team is selected for the effort, Clarion Associates would be the prime contractor. The
project would be managed out of the Chapel Hill, North Carolina office. We also offer the option of
involving Tetra Tech in the county's work, to assist on approaches and illustrations related to
environmental issues.
FIRM DESCRIPTIONS
Clarion Associates, «C
Clarion Associates is a national land-use and zoning consulting firm founded in
1992, with offices in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Denver and Fort 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: Land
• Innovative zoning and development code revisions; Development Ordinance
• Design of "user-friendly' development codes;
• Design of development codes to make them procedurally efficient;
• Design of development standards to address community character;
• Design of mixed use development regulations;
• Development of form-based regulations;
• Design of aesthetic regulations; ROCKHIM
• Incorporation of neo-traditional principles into codes and plans;
• Design of innovative approaches to parking and buffering;
• Protection of sensitive lands, open space, and historic resources;
• Design of regulations to protect existing neighborhoods;
• Performance standards / innovative growth management systems;
• Historic preservation issues; and
• Legal issues and growth management.
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 6
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 - r -
North Carolina laws and
regulations that are in place "D.Mg. rm(am ong Top 500 Design Firms) -
related to erosion control, No.1 in water
stormwater management, and
flood damage prevention. No.5 in sanitary storm sewers
No.8 Marine and Port Facilities T
IMP R
No.12 General Building GN F1
KEY PERSONNEL
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 Hill 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 Hill, 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.
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 7
Craig Richardson is a planner, lawyer, and Vice President of Clarion, as g
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.
I"
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
• planning degree and a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is
• member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and the North Carolina State Bar.
EAA" PLE5 OF RELEVANT EXPERUENCE.
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.
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 8
Cary, North Carolina I Land Development Ordinance
The rapidly growing Town of Cary, North Carolina, retained a team led by
Clarion Associates which included WRT and the VIC Group to prepare
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 Land M i
procedures; and implementation of planning and growth management goals Development
adopted in Orange County's 1996 Growth Management Plan, including many Ordinance
neo-traditional design principles. An interactive, web-based Visual Interactive j
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
Mooresville, North Carolina I Land Development Ordinance
V�
Mooresville, a mid-sized town of 50,000 people located just north of §
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 a fast-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 version of the ordinance that will be hosted on the Town's webpage. In
addition to the graphical and user-friendly enhancements, the new Land Development
Ordinance will streamline the Town's development review procedures and raise the bar for
development quality.
Client: Town of Mooresville, North Carolina
Reference: Tim Brown, Planning Director
Telephone: 704.799.8019
Jacksonville, North Carolina I Land Development Ordinance
Jacksonville is a mid-sized city of about 70,000 people located adjacent to one CM OF maMONMLF,
of the fastest developing areas of the North Carolina coastline. The city is also NOUHC MUNA
home to Camp Lejeune, the nation's largest Marine Corps facility. To better
address new development expected from the growth of Camp Lejeune, The city
recently retained Clarion Associates to prepare a unified development ordinance
(UDO). The new UDO will focus on making city development regulations and
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 I Orange County, North Carolina 9
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
Fayetteville, North Carolina I Land Development Ordinance
Clarion Associates has been retained to re are a new unified development
`~
P P P
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 . '.A '
and development. Besides modernizing zoning districts and uses, streamlining Unifiedu':
development review, and making regulations user-friendly, the UDO will focus on Deyelopme
improving open space and landscaping standards to "green" the community, using Ordiance
cutting edge tools to promote sustainable development practices, adding design ;
'� Aleeld/Ou19r fc
standards to improve development quality, and revising downtown zoning and
development standards to encourage mixed uses, public space, attractive urban °°-
design, and pedestrian accessibility.
Client: City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
Reference: Karen Hilton, Assistant Planning Director
Telephone: 910.433.1437
Emerald Isle, North Carolina I Design Concepts for Village Center
Emerald Isle is a coastal community in North Carolina with a long-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.
Client: Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina
Reference: Kevin Reed, Planning Director
Phone: 252.354.3338
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 10
Rock Hill, South Carolina JZoning Ordinance f
Clarion Associates, in association with the Walker Collaborative, has drafted a I j
new Zoning Ordinance for The city of Rock Hill, South Carolina, which was RoCKAI1d'
fOV%N CJ1taU M+ f
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 1 w
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
appearance protects existing character while encouraging a high quality 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 Hill, South Carolina
Reference: Frances M. Thomas, Planning and Development Director
Telephone: 803.329.7080
Folly Beach, South Carolina I Zoning and Land Development Ordinance
CRY OF
The city of Folly Beach, a barrier island beach community south of Charleston, FOLLY MCO,SC
South Carolina, has been facing extreme growth pressures, including "tear- ""'�°�'�.�.�
downs' of the existing beach cottages in favor of new large-scale vacation homes
;qL^
being used as vacation rentals. Based on land costs, FEMA regulations, and the
area's popularity as a vacation destination, many of these new structures (and the
traffic associated with them) have been affecting the areas "small-town"' =y -
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
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 1 1
Portsmouth, Virginia I Zoning Ordinance
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
Franklin, Tennessee Zoning Ordinance -- -
r
Clarion Associates was retained by the City of Franklin to draft a revised ( '
development code for this fast-growing, progressive community in the Nashville 4 �s
region. The code is focused on implementation of a cutting edge comprehensive
9 P 9 9 P �_..y.
plan that included the development of character areas, innovative open spacet �l [171(�' '
and natural resource preservation techniques, and a much stronger focus on Wbk,` ��`
,, tF ,VM.,
urban design. The development code includes substantive re-structuring of The ..�. '-
`nf"RS
city's current ordinance, including integration of The city's stand-alone design ,,, J
guidelines, and an overall upgrade to the development standards related to .s �
landscaping, parking, and open space. _.___._-
Client: City of Franklin, Tennessee
Reference: Jaime Groce, Planning Director
Telephone: 615.791.3212
Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky I Land Development Code
I � �
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
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 12
applicable to all new development, including standards addressing steep slopes, unstable soils,
woodland/tree 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, Florida I Land Development Regulations
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 number
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
Palm Beach County, Florida I Land Development Code
Mr. Richardson managed a multi-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 regulations added
included: (1) adequate public facilities regulations (concurrency regulations); (2) landscaping
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).
Client: Palm Beach County, Florida
Reference: Donna Kristaponis (former Director, Planning, Zoning, and Building
Dept.), County Manager Lyon County, NV
Telephone: 775.463.6531
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 13
Client: Town of Mooresville, North Carolina
Reference: Tim Brown, Planning Director
Telephone: 704.799.8019
Unified Development Ordinance - 2008
Client: Town of Hillsborough, North 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
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 to 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.
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 14
t _t :-
We attach the following information to supplement our descriptions in this proposal of our experience
and the kinds of assistance that we provide to local governments. Following are:
Appendix 1 : Clarion Southeast Experience
Appendix 2: Staff Resumes
Appendix 3: Hillsborough Annotated Outline
Appendix 4: Excerpt from Draft Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. We look forward to discussing these ideas with
you, and to being part of this important UDO process.
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina
Clarion Southeast Experience
..•-�.§'E'v;. F` ,��'.a:.�-ma+^x,"tG^.i"¢ r.,"r'= ,a^.i, m��+v`",' � _ r'y-:. r
4 f na
i
" f Yf err y •j '
Wit
�.i• a� �.W�Q :..: "� OZ,
��' I
i
w e ~''
,V
�Iit lift
nf
N! 3
x.. t
S�i - � Tt� i(� 1 R �•ice
Clarion Associates aguo
in Chapel Hill Clarion Associates is a national land-use consulting firm with offices in Chapel
Hill, North Carolina; Denver and Fort Collins, Colorado; and affiliate offices
in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. Our unusual combination of tol-
ents in land use and urban planning, growth management strategies, devel-
opment codes, 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 its expertise in land 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 drafted
development codes, other regulations and design standards throughout the
United States. Since its founding in 1992,the firm has developed expertise in
a broad range of planning areas, including:
• Community, regional, and 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 strategies;
• Citizen 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 particular emphasis on historic preservation, development financ-
ing, design standards, natural resource protection, and both downtown and
suburban zoning systems.
Planning
With our multi-disciplinary team and broad experience, comprehensive plan-
ning is one of our specialties. Clarion offers a wide variety of planning services,
including community/comprehensive planning, regional planning and growth
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 proposals, incentives needed to encourage devel-
opment, 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.
• s
Southeastern 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.
Clarion's Southeast Experience
.
* Zoning and Design Standards •
•
* Comprehensive or Small Area Pla
A Growth Management Strategy
s Workforce Housing Study
• Impact Fee O
The Chapel Hill Team
The Chapel Hill office provides a unique blend of planning and implementation experience. Collectively
Clarion's two principals and three associates in Chapel Hill have over 60 years of experience working
with communities on land use planning and zoning solutions. .Bringing together both public planning
and legal leadership experience, the Chapel Hill office assists its clients;,in developing comprehensive
plans; growth strategies, development codes, impact fee programs, affordable housing strategies and
many ot�e-:!1.6 ementation strategies that address a wide array of issues: including rural preservation,
neigh.6orhood conservation, improvement of design quality, resource protection, balancing residential
and commercial development; affordable workforce housing, and provision of public services.
Craig Richardson is a planner, lawyer, and Vice President of Clarion. He is Di-
` rector of the fines North Carolina office. Mr. Richardson has consulted with
over 100 local government clients in a number of states throughout the coun-
try on the preparation of development codes;`'growth management strategies,
",7 r adequate public facility regulations, impact 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 projects include: Rock Hill, SC; Portsmouth, VA;
Mooresville NC St Lucie Count
FL Falls Church VA Folly Beach SC and
y, Y ,
Teton County, WY Recent growth management efforts include leading the
firm's preparation of the;South. Be'aufort`Counfy Regional Plan (selected the
Outstanding Multi-Jurisdictional .Plan by SCAPA); designing the plan confor-
mance and projects of regional significance process for the Southern Nevada
> Regional Plan (which won the DeBoer Award for Planning Excellence); and
leading the public facilities and cost of growth`components of the Wake County
Growth Management Strategy. In addition, Mr. 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-
sign and implementation of workforce housing strategies in Jackson/Teton
County, WY;Aspen/Pitkin County, CO; Islamorada, FL (the Florida Keys) and
Lee County, FL. He is a frequent speaker at planning conferences and has
written on a number of plan implementation issues. He serves on the faculty for
"APR's national Zoning'Clinic.
Rog. r,Waldon, FAICP, is a Principal in Clarion's North Carolina office. He
served as Planning Director for the Town of Chapel Hill for 21 years, directing
the Town's comprehensive planning and development review functions. His
planning and design background, combined with experience as a former
elected official, contributed to the success of numerous planning initiatives,
including: implementation of comprehensive plans, special area studies,
neighborhood plans, and design guidelines:.,'He has prepared growth man-
`•-agement strategies--for HillsboYOUgtr, NC;hock Hill and Beaufort County, SC,
and Hanover County,VA."He has``developed neighborhood plans in Chapel
Hill and Wake Forest, NC,and comprehensive plan updates in Fredericksburg,
k _ ,VA, Brentwood,TN, Union County, NC and Tupelo,MS. Mr. Waldon is a mem-
ber of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners,and
r=� :author of Planners and Politics, a;hoolC recently published by the American
Fxh
Planning Association.
4 i:ua
Chad Meadows, AICP, is a Senior Associate and planner in Clarion's North
Carolina office. He has more than ten years of practical experience, primarily
in the areas of planning, zoning, and growth management. Prior to joining ��
Clarion, Mr. Meadows oversaw the Land Development Ordinance Update in
Cary,North Carolina,and worked on growth management issues in the Florida $ �
Keys. He has worked on development codes and design standards for the firm
in several communities along the eastern seaboard, including Rock Hill, SC,
Portsmouth, VA; Franklin, TN; Falls Church, VA; Alachua, FL; and Miami
r:
Beach, FL. He serves as one of the primary authors for the zoning ordinance ,.
updates being completed by Clarion in Mooresville, NC;and Folly Beach, SC.
Mr. Meadows is an immediate past Chair of the Raleigh, North Carolina Ap-
pearance Commission, and is deeply involved with the implementation of they
city's urban design guidelines ' `
AICP,js a SeniorAssonate in Clarion's Cha el Hill 0'ffice
Stephen Sizemore, P a
He is a planner and lawyerwith over 25 years of expenence.in preparing
h
and implementing developme.n ;codes;coin r`ehensive plans, design s.,an
Q's
['
dords and= uidelmes,and grovyth management policies for local govern
ments He also.has substantial experience in addressing coastal area
management assues mart loiaing Claarion;Mr Size more'served in
ber of planning related lobs in the public sector.H.e,vi+as Planning Dtredor w
for Onslow County, North Carolina,where he,oversaw development of a :; k '`
comprehensive plan and implementation of county/military compatible land
use strategies, served as.the Editor of Planning& Environ
me,
ntal taw for the
American,Planning Association; prepared growth management pojicies and
development regulations for Wake Coilnty, North Carolina,.'•developed
r
guidelines for local govemme t re` gration and im lemeritation of comp re
P P P P .:
hensive plans forthe State ofaip e„and ossis#ed an,the preparation and ad
ministration of unifiedtrlevelopment regulations f or,Chapel'Hill, North
Carolina. He has written on a yanety of planning issues Mr Sizemore holds
a planning degree and a law dl,-” gree from the,U niversif y of North Carolina at
is
Chapel Hill. He is a member of.the American Institute of Certified Planners
and the North Carolina State Bar tig
Leigh Anne King, AICP, is a land use planner with`"experience working with
local governments on planrnng initiatives :Her experience includes zoning
code update projects in Portsmouth, YA and Alachua FL; affordable housin
9
mitigation projects in Lee Count , Palm Beach County, Islamorada, pnd
Marathon FL; growth management strategies m Hillsborough, NC and Beck
Hill, SC; comprehensive plan updates in Urnon County, NC, Tupelo, MS
Fredericksburg,VA; and neighborhood plans`in Cliap�l Hill and Wake Forest, r`
NC. Ms. King has been with Clarion for more than`two years Prior to fo�ri Ong
Clarion Associates, she earned a Master in Regional Planning degree from the ?
University of Nort h Carolina, Chapel Hill, was a research'assistdnt witl% the 3e ,
Center for Urban and Regional Studies, and worked several years for a;ria yr
tional conservation nonprofit in Arlington,Virginia. LAO n
Technology
Web Based Digital Codes
As use of the In{ernet becomes more'and more prevalent, local govern-
ments need to keep price wrth;the way,
#heir constituents access and use ��_
-� .�—
reformation Clarion Assocates is�responcirig fio this need by leading the
way'w h respect#o web-based inferacfiive developmen#4codes Throug
our strategic partnership with the sisual Interactive Comrr2urn ations r _ '
Group, Clarion Associates �seling otrr clients serven#erattive�re
sloes of their develo merit re ulations orb fihe �/�lorl wide web These 'Li
p 9 s tic & isms i x
digital codes are exact copies of thetradit�ona� paperYersaonutwitflan�' ;
interac.iyq:,wist er
users can pform worC earches, se' yper�mks�
full mofiion video, see flash anima#ion,'bookrrcirk inornafiioa,-an tkye` —
advanfiage of automatic cross reerencs {The, igita) cone #s creafied frt�r ;��R�; ,ti a h t
with;off the 'shelf softwope'so'is eas#"toruse d ca be maintained
V 11 n a 4 r y
^I °, :••S?��r'� C '^° # 4..g `� him,
k `S. i i i• St , `rs'"�?2•E`z F "a
x
house V11e are prohdo be one of the fevy5f�rrr�s'ln the nation>who can
xwg5 a n 5 r f tr}z z .l? rs aF43h::r h
offer this cutting edge service to dui clients z ,fit ' ,*
'{cy
Geographic Information•Systems - � �, - - ; ���:
Clarion Assocates offers excellent comp"uter capabilities m spatial data -
J
analysis, mapping, and land use alternatives comparisons. We ma'ntam .
leadin ed a skills in `ra hi des' nand are proud of the hi h uah — }
9 g 9 P 9. p. _g q ty
products we provide our cl'ents All of our planning efforts are con
ducted using GIS technology (ESRI platforrm)
Ph
Graphics &Visual Presentation'
Clarion Associates is an industry leader in the inclusion of graphics and
the qualitative display,'.of information in documents and plans. We un
derstand that a'picture is worth 1,000 words, particularly when dealing --
� .r ••r -
�..r..ry:..r
with complex regulatory concepts and processes. We,
have developed - •--� -
a series of page`layout'andformaiting techniques thafi make our client's 0
documents eas -to use We..are well versed in the latest ra hic
image manipulation"applications,-and. provide--our...visuals in-common
word processing platforms for ease o f maintenance and update `��>
Zoning and DevelopmentRegulations
Rock Hill, South Carolina Zoning Ordinance
Clarion Associates, In association with the 1N61ker Collaborative,pre
pared a new Zoning Ordinance for the City of Rock;Hill,South Car-
olina. Rock Hill is one of the five "Ring Goy".•;nodes;'in the Charlotte
metropolitan region,and a city th6f,has experienced substantial growth
in recent years due to,,,its location around Charlotte •"The focus of the 1�l,CKNT�.�.
effort was to implement the clty's,GeneraI Plan,which promotes a'more
SOUTH CAROLINA
livable future by encouraging appropriate Infillydevelopment 9,the"old
town" area while prote&imb older neighborhoods and encouraging. .
more compact, and sustainable growth in greenfleld areas.The code
effort was built on cltlzern,Input about the modifications that need to be
made to the city's existing land:use regulations to implement the:plan.
Major issues addressed included making the code more usable and
"User friendly;! making the review process•more efficient.and effective,
modernizing the:zone distnct.and planned development regulations;
encouraging new infill development that is compatible with its context;' SEPTEMBER 2005
and establishing minimum development.and design standards to en
sure community form and appearance protects existing character. The
city adopted the code in 2005. Following drafting of the code, Clar-
ion partnered with the VIC Group to produce a digital version of the
code which is served on,the web by the Gty's.computer network.
Cary, North`Carolin Land Development Ordinance
Clanon prepared a U ifled Development Ordinance for the rapidly
growing Town of Cary,located just outside North Carolina's. large Re-
search Tnangle Park TFe project included a heavy emphasis on pub-
lic participation, slgrnflcant streamlining of the current code; Including
.,.
revision and danficafIOn of several development review procedures;
and also'implementatlor of plahrnng and growth management goals
adopted in the city's 1996 Growth Management Plar, Including many .' .
neotraditional design principles.; A computerized,Interactive version`of -
the final code was produced for the Town's webslte _
Land
Development
Ordinance
.�.:
ji
Franklin'.."
ranklin Tennessee Zoning Ordinance
~ �,Lj u Clarion Associates recently prepared a revised development code for
this fast-growing community in the Nashville region. The code is fo-
cused on implementation of a comprehensive plan that includes the
�z n
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.
u
� 7ItE6
Alachua, Florida I Land Development Regulations
Clarion updated the Land Development Regulations for Alachua,
citjolAlcchra,Mori& Florida,Alachua is an old north central Florida city close to Gainesville
that has experienced substantial residential and business-related
IM IIIIIN growth throughout the 1990s. The code rewrite focuses on structural,
procedural,and substantive improvements to the city's existing'regula-
tions to implements the recently revised comprehensive plan.' Struc-
�° turally,the update consolidated scattered land development provisions
into a single, clearly,organized development code. Procedurally, the
_DwimmMuruNE city's complex assortment of procedures and responsibilities for Bevel-
°~== = opment review were simplified into an integrated, easy-to-understand
.. review process .Substantively,the new code presents a number of in-
novatve 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.
Henrico County, Virginia Design Manual
As part of its work on the County's Vision 2026..Comprehensive Plan,
Clarion Associates prepared a stand-alone Design Guidelines Manual
for all new development iri;the County. The guidelines address four dif-
ferent types of land uses (residential,commercial;office/industrial,and
mixed-use), as well as new`residential development within rural areas,
and are suggested as a means to ensure that.new development is con-
sistent with the goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. Spe-
cial emphasis is placed on the :retention of community character,
suggestions:on how,to raise the bar for development quality, and the
" use-of mixed-use master planned development as a method of ac-
corriplishing infill and redevelopment that is consistent with its context.
The manual is highly illustrated and includes captions that explain the
concepts and techniques being presented. .
New River Parkway, West Virginia 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 to pre-. � $
pare a land management system for the future New River Parkway cor
ridor. The New River is a designated National Park Service river and _
on the continent. The State of West Virginia is
the oldest rivers __..
f e
one o
currently developing a parkway to be constructed along an existing
roadway adjacent to a southern section of the river. To ensure thatthe ___--
pristine qualities of the park 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
Fredericksburg, Virginia Comprehensive Plan
Update
Clarion Associates worked with Fredericksburg,Virginia to prepare an
Updated Comprehensive Plan. The goals of the plan are to maximize
economic development opportunities while maintaining the unique
FREDERICKSBURG
character of the historic city and its valued neighborhoods, as well as
COMPREHENSIVE
protecting the Rappahannock River—the city's water supply. Regional
PLAN
access to the Washington, D.C. metro area has brought unique op-
portunities to the Fredericksburg area. Challenges to the community
include threats to existing neighborhoods, coordinated efforts to pro-
tect the watershed, improving quality of new development, and cap-
turing a share 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.
Williamson County, TN Comprehensive Plan
In 2004,Clarion in association with Randal Arendt began preparation TET04ESSEE'
of a Comprehensive Plan update for Williamson County,Tennessee, in
the Nashville Region. Over the past two decades the region has ex-
perienced rapid growth. Primary concerns for the county are rural
preservation and protection of the areas rich historical resources. The
updated plan was readily adopted by the County.
0 En
Eclat M gas
Henrico County, Mirginia
2026 Comprehensive Plan Update
In 2004,the Clarion Team led by McBride Dale Clarion was retained to coin- &NRICO COUNTY
plete an update to Henrico County's Comprehensive Plan. The effort will in-
valve detailed analysis of future land use scenarios that will assess the best
planning options for the county based on fiscal,transportation, and innova-
tive land use issues. The team assembled for this effort includes specialists
from Clarion Associates, Tischler Associates, and Kimley-Horn and Associ-
ates.:The Comprehensive Plan will include interrelated recommendations for °""FT°~DMAU$
community facilities, park and recreation, land use, and transportation. Ad-
ditionally,Clarion.has created a development design handbook and will re- McB
...4*01
vise the zoning code for proper implementation of the plan's
recommendations'
Growth Management Strategies
Hillsborough, NC Strategic Growth Plan
Clarion Associates led a team of consultants in helping this historic and grow-
ing community manage growth patterns;with emphasis on economic devel-
opment and environmental preservation Intergovernmental coordination STRATEGIC GROWTH PLAN
was key.to success in managing growth at the edges of the community, and
town-county cooperation was a paramount consideration. A growth pattern
was.developed that took best advantage of`utility infrastructure, minimizing
traffic impacts and,emphasizing mixed use development. Interlocal consid-. m
erations included establishing pnonties for annexation, coordinating land use
plans at the interface of junsdictional boundaries, and establishing ongoing
mechanisms for joint action The.growth'management planning process pro
vided a mechanism to coordinate nunieous Town initiatives already under
way je g ,.corridor,studies, downtown.fevrtali ction initiatives, and design • . • 1 C
guidelines),':: --
1
Rock Hill, South Carolina ;Growth Management Plan
The City of Rock HiII, South Carolina, hire'd-.CI
anon ao prepare q'Growth`
Management Plan for the_C�ty and its Urban Sernces`Area Rock Hill had; ' K
previously retained Clarion fia update its Zornng Ordinance to address growth`
management and.design;issues within the City: The additional task was to __...__._.__....._._.__ _...
address development pressures in the 35 000 ;acre unincor orated ortion
P
q -y 9 GROWM MANAGEMENT
of Rock Hill's Urban Services a Rural lan`d`was `uickl bein consurnecT �eLL
by low-'density residential deYelopment. :The Growth Management Plan fo-
cuses on these unincorporated areas and identifies strategies for five key as-
pests of new development locdtion, amount, rate, cost, and quality.
Identified strategies include re-examination of policies for extension of pub-
lic facilities,and designating priority development.
' • - IS iiiVJ s - - -
Wake County, North Carolina Comprehensive
I Growth Management Strategy
WAKE OUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEr ENT STRATEGY
Clarion Associates led a multi-disciplinary team to create a compre-
hensive Growth Management Strategy for Wake County, North Car-
olma,which has experienced significant and unprecedented economic
r development and population growth since 1990. While this growth
has brought significant benefits, Wake County is bracing for at least
r ,
500,000 new residents anticipated to flow into the region over the next
20 years. In an innovative, intergovernmental approach, Clarion As-
sociates worked closely with a 42.member task force,consisting of rep-
fro resenfatives frorri the County,'the school;.district and twelve
municipalities The'planning process,which was not legislatively man-
dated; focused on growth conceins m seven areas community char
acter,'cost of growth,water/sewer,schools,transport ation,open space,
and land development standards.
Beaufort County, South Caro.!1 thern Re'-
gionctl Plan
Clarion.Associates,`in association with Tischler Associates,developed
a regional plan'for Southern Be,aufoil County,,the fastest growing
county in South Carolina., In an innovative approachj.J., on Asso-
ciatesworked with staff and representatives fromahe County,the Town
of Bluffton,the Town of Hilton Head Island,and key stakeholders from
the area This"collaborative effort created along lasting regional co-
�� operation effort between the local murncipalrties and counfiy. govern
-
Southern Beaufort merit; as well as focus specifically on:the evaluation, of:four key
i County Regional titan }i 4 regionaN issues,land use,:natural:resources,transportation, public fa-
I alines, and _`.t.,- of growth All local governments adopted the plan
m 2006 and are well into developin theYmechanisms and growth
g ,
' manc gemer7t tools.to implement the Regional Plan
5 't,
. . Miami Beach,'Florida Development Impact
Mitigation System
�^°►'°°' Clarion Associates has been r6iained by the City of Miami.Beach to
develop an:impact mitigation strategy fo.r major development projects
over 50,000 square feet in size: Phdse (of the project will explore the
Impacts of large.development projects on roadway capacity,on street
parking, public trdnsportption, park and recreation qq ties{ 'schools,
and workforce housing and suggest a range of policy and regulatory re
spouses for"City Council consideration Phase .l of the project will re
suit in a set of revised Land Development Regulations, Comprehensive'
Plan amendments,;and other regulatory actions design to address the
impads of large projects
' ® - EWNS - -
10,w a 61 C7st
Cary, North Carolina I Growth Management Plan cM"rh-Ha,affetne"rPlan
Clarion Associates led a team of consultants in helping this extremely
fast-growing town in North Carolina's Research Triangle plan for and
manage its future growth. The firm drafted a new growth management *'
plan for the Town that articulates goals,objectives,strategies,and pro-
; _• `.,�'... ��.
posals related to (1)the timing and rate of growth; (2)the amount and
density of growth; (3) the location of growth; (4) the costs of growth;
and (5) the quality of growth. The growth management planning
process provided a mechanism to coordinate numerous Town initia-
tives already underway ( revision of the Unified Development Ordi-
nonce, and drafting of adequate public facilities ordinances). �a7t
Affordable Housing Strategies
Islamorada, Village of Islands, Florida
Workforce Housing Methodology`;
Faced with rapidly increasing housing prices,the Vi ;6 of Islamorada
sought solutions to create affordable housing for their workforce pop
ulation. .Clarion Associates, in association with Dr."James Nicholas,
has developed a legally supportable methodology,to assess the ifll WORKFORCE HOUSING
pacts of residential and non-residential development on affordable SUPPORT STUDY
housing. The team developed implementation legislation for a work
force housing mitigation program that incorporatesthe methodology
for the Villdge of Islamorada,the first of its kind in the state of Florida
Clarion and its partner worked to diagnose the local:workforce hous
ing problem based on an evaluation of the community wide,`ecoriomic
impacts created by new residential and non-residential development.
Lee County,Florida
Workforce Housing Methodology
Clarion Associates, m associaton with_Dr James Nicholas and William
H[ggms,is developing c''legallysuppotable;methodoiogy to assess the i
impacts'of commercial and residentialdevelopment on affordable
housing,`and to develop implementation legislation for on affordable
housing mitigation program for Lee County, Florida. Like many cam
rriunities in Florida; Lee County has experienced a substantial nse in ij, POLICY MEMORANDUM:
a AFFORDABLE HOUSING METHODOLOGY
local residential real estate prices. Because.:of this trend, it is becom ,
ing evermore difficult for the county's workforce population to find local
affordable housin 9 -Cluriorr dnd-its-partners'6re Wro king With-
County to diagnose the local affordable housing problem;assess what -
._
other communities are doing to address'simllar'affor,p a
shortages, develop a legally defensible methodology for assessing the
impacts that both nonresidential and residential development have on
local affordable housing, and develop the implementing legislation for
the program.
Project txpeeie'
Marathon,'Florida
a ork#orce Mousin
( g Methodology
j Clarion Associates,in associationwith Dr...James Nicholas,developed
�Y a legally supportable methodology to assess the impacts of residential
"'°'°"`° eefida eye 0 p affordable housing: Clarion.and its partner diagnosed
the local affordable: ousing problem based on'an evaluation' of the
WORKFORCE HOUSING community wide economic impacts created by new,residential devel
SUPPORT STUDY M
°^^• ;,,opment Following the evaluation, ,Clarion,developed a formal.
„•
rnet iodology'for assessing the extent of impacts that new residential
;development ha'-s on".local demand for affordable housing
� 1 i
} 4\ <
m:pa c Fees `
Beaufort;C-
our South Carolina Multi Jurisdictional
Im p act Fees for Libra Parks and Roads
f Clarion Associates,':worked'with Beaufort County, the Town of Hilton
:Head Isl and,.;and the Town of Bluffton, South Carolina to update all
�: "-'" three ocal ovemments' impact fee programs.. Clarion advised the
9
mu�t ctional effort through the:update of development#ee pro-
U, 9ra�5#hat includedfee�#or roads;parks, and libraries::The update m= ,£
r h dulled a significant redesign of the:fee program for this bounty and the '
? a o municipalities, as well as a significant modificationto the impact
M
#ee legislation to address a number of administrative and credit issues. '
Jl��oef�W i pit .s. h �.c
I
k
Mtltl.anatee County, Florida Roads, Parks,
Lays Ento'rcement and Public Buildings
xK� T F? jClanin,„iT association with TischleP Associates,u; ated this fast grow= r
wz,h �sfJng` li�onda�county's impact fees for roads, parks, law enforcement, , �7 •
andublic.buddrngs As part of this effort, Clarion restructured the t ;
our fir's ex�strig impact fee legislation to conform the regulations to
j K,xS y y
� cure best practices The legislation addresses the calculation o#.
�s -'�x 'x-itS '4r: T`\r•,x.,�tr sfr�,,� ; r.a� x r
i
Sgkf,ees,lhe,pbssib�lity of4al#emafive fee studies by landowners,,and the
in 'k'k �frl"P� R 4ti Pte.
g r concitions under . ich re up and credits would be granted As part
4 �r
of the effort, firm members also.evaluated various fee opfiigns and
me#hodoaogcal approaches Clarion also worked with the county in
the,preparation of'interlocal agreements to assist in"the countywide
implementation of.the impact fee program.
Desoto County, Florida Impact Fees for Libraries,
. Schools, Parks, Roads, General Government, Fire/Res-
-=_ '
VA
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
PlanCheyenne– Cheyenne,Wyoming I Comprehensive Plan Up-
date,Transportation Plan, and Parks and Recreation Master Plan
r
Clarion Associates worked with the Cheyenne Metropolitan Plan-
°`"R' r # Wing Organization to lead a. project to update the area's commu-
ftt Plan nity plan,transportation plan, and develop a parks and recreation
caw dye =°` plan for the City of Cheyenne and portions of Laramie County sur-
• �w{JCrcnwtiin?whrflM`r:,, - .
� rounding the city. Cheyenne is located at the northern end of the
Rocky Mountain Front:Range of the Denver Metropolitan area.
PlanCheyenne provides directions on a host.of growth issues such
4 S
as rural development patterns and agncultural conservation, not-
{ urol areas and open space conservation, mined use development
and ad.:— centers, neighborhoods as b J&'g block`s,"raising the
.
bar on°desi n `quality, and preserving the community's,historic
" 9 .9
� i downtown core.:,
2006 South Carolina Chapter of
APA"Multi-Jurisdiction Award
Beaufort County,-South Carolina Southern Regional Plan
! Clanon Associates, in association with.Tischler Associates;devel
oiled a regional plan for Southern Beaufort County, the'fastest
. growing.countyin South Carolina In an.innovative approach.,
Clarion Associa#es worked with staff and representatives from the
County,the Town of-Bluffton,the Town of Hilton Head Island, and
key stakeholders from,the area. This collaborative effort created a'.
long-la no regional cooperation effort between the local.mum
ipalrties and county government, as well os-focus`speuficolly on
evaluation of four key regional 'issues .land use, na#ural re;
sources, transportation; public faulites, and costs 011 growth All'
fiSouthern Beaufort local governments adopted the plan to 2006 and are well into de
County Regional Plan I veloping.the mechonisms and growth management tools to im s
plement the Regional Plan
d.
I
' • s
2006 Vision 20/20 Award; from
the Sierra Business Council !45,"a,,,cast „
Carson City, Nevada Master Plan Update'.
Surrounded on three.`;sides by public lands, Carson City is nearing build= — s
_-
out and, as a result, is facing many tough challenges;' Clarion Associates
was retained to prepare an updated Master Plan for the City. The poten-
tial for disposal of some of these public lands for development was a' key
issue under consideration, as was the protection of these lands as open = =�
space. Other key issues included a desire to strengthen and diversify the
--
city's historic downtown core,diversification of housing options,preserva- _=
tion of rural neighborhoods, enhance_merit.and redevelopment of under-
developed commercial corridors, a'rd the anticipation of future
development patterns along the Carson City Freeway,currently under con-
struction
Cumberland Region Tomorrow 2003
Excellence Award
Franklin,Tennessee Land Use Plan
Franklin, Tennessee, located just south of Nashville, is a city that exper FRANKLIN TE#QN�ssEE1ANDLISEP
enced rapid growth during the 1980s and 19906, doubling its population
every decade. McBride Dale Clarion assisted the Franklin'communityin the
creation of an innovative land use plan that addresses quality of develop
ment in conjunction with infrastructure availability in both the city and its
urban growth boundary. The necessity to maintain and enhance a strong
community identity and pride was the force that drove the,direction and end
product of the plan. With many historical resources and an active citizenry,
Franklin has the opportunity to expo:d on i,ts,already thriving commurnty:
2002 APA Daniel Burnham Award
f or Excellence in `Planning
Will County, Illinois .Land Resources Management Plan _
Clarion prepared a.comprehensive land use plan for this fast growing outer
' 'ring county adjacent to Chicago The north part of Will County is rapidly I I
becoming u'rb'anized with significant'comn commercial and re'sidential,gro Wh ^ '
i LAw RuS a Mmu mw Puw
while the south part of the cQUnty remains mostly agricultural and uncle`-
veloped. The plan addresses critical issues such,_as open space, trans=
portation, and intergovernmental relationships between the county and its _
_
many municipalities. .The plan also has a strong implementation-focus..
I �°' "
s •
2001 DeBoer Excellence in Planning Award
Southern Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada I Southern Nevada Regional Plan
Regional Policy Plan
Clarion was retained to lead a team to produce a regional plan
'x and growth management strategy for the Las Vegas Valley, the
fastest growing region in the nation. Mandated by the state legis-
lature, the regional plan addresses transportation, land use, air
--°- quality, infill development, and public services and infrastructure.
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 law requirements for local plan consistency with the regional
plan. The team also defined a process to review developments of
regional significance, also a feature of the state legislation.
. - T,
X i r
a
Jul e U112111111
Clarion Publications
Working in collaboration with the American Planning Association and other professional organizations,
Clarion Associates has authored many publications on a variety of topics.
-s,
M.
� I
G
4
MANAGEMENT r �:
Planners and Politics
1 Ixr,4RN 4er'�NKf Ra+4n�'N'7 �� � � Lp�a/� i'
k1
4e,-44 lJ',etlER#?�e:'x�
�y �'i�etlt�►NS�tl9�n�[Wneal `
Ei
tie
"�IgY0aLR0�iN/erIwom p
TOOIBOX j:
" f+a ti Z"
y/d � f s�—ran r
MIDDLES'
o
00 r
a t
taw
CD
N 3,ti.
CLARION ASSOCIATES
. http://www.clarionassociates.com/
Craig Richardson, Vice President, principal- crichardson@clarionassociates.com
Roger Waldon, FAICP, principal - rwa/dongc/arionassociates.com
Chad Meadows, AICP, senior associate • cmeadows@clarionassociates.com
Stephen Sizemore, senior associate • ssizemore @clarionassociates.com
Leigh Anne King, AICP, associate • laking @clarionassociates.com
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina
1
NL
Resumes
Clarion Associates
• Roger Waldon
• Craig Richardson
• Stephen Sizemore
• Leigh Anne King
Tetra Tech
• Kimberly Brewer
• Jonathan Smith
• Regina Sheibner
CLARION ASSOCIATES
Clarion Associates is a national land-use consulting firm with offices in Denver and Fort 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 its 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 its 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 States, 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 impacts 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.
C L A R 1 0 N
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 Hill for 21 years, directing the Town's comprehensive
planning and growth management functions. His work has emphasized neighborhood conservation and
growth management, including preparation of land use plans and special area plans, preparation and
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,
downtown revitalization, and growth management elements.
• Comprehensive Plans in Fredericksburg, VA; Orange County, NC; Brentwood,TN;Tupelo, MS.
• Facilities Plan for school construction; ordinance provisions to link growth to school capacity in
Orange County, NC
• Urban Design projects for downtown areas in Winston-Salem, NC; Thomasville, NC; Lancaster,
Texas; Chapel Hill, NC; Montgomery, OH
• Comprehensive Plans in Fredericksburg, VA; Union County, NC; Hanover County, VA; 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 at 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
C L A R 1 0 N
P
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 the 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, Icard, 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 Arts (Honors), Stetson University
Publications
• Keeping Up with Growth Urban Land. Vol. 58, No. 9: 94. September 1999 (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
C L A R 1 0 N
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 North Carolina's Coastal Resources Advisory Council. Prior planning
experience includes 12 years as a land use planner/attorney for an urban North 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 Hill
■ 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 L A R 1 O N
Qualifications of
Leigh Anne King,AICP
Clarion Associates
Leigh Anne King is an Associate with Clarion Associates. She is a planner who has experience
working with local governments on planning initiatives including: neighborhood and city-wide land
use planning and visioning, growth management strategies, affordable housing programs, regulatory
programs and ordinances, school siting, and open space planning. Prior to joining Clarion
Associates, she earned a Master in Regional Planning degree from the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, and worked for a national conservation nonprofit in Arlington,Virginia.
Project Experience
• Tupelo, Mississippi Comprehensive Plan Update
• Fredericksburg and Hanover County, Virginia, Comprehensive Plan Updates
• Henrico County, Virginia, Design Guidelines Manual
• New River Gorge, West Virginia, Land Management System
• Emerald Isle, North Carolina, Village East and West Design Concepts Report
• Rock Hill, South Carolina, Growth Management Plan
• Hillsborough, North Carolina, Growth Management Strategy and Land Use Plan
• Wake Forest, North Carolina, Northeast Neighborhood Plan
• Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Neighborhood Conservation Districts (5)
• Beaufort County, South Carolina, Roads, Libraries and Parks Impact Fee Programs
• Marathon and Islamorada, Florida, Workforce Housing Methodologies and Mitigation Strategies
• Lee and Palm Beach Counties, Florida, Affordable Housing Methodology and Mitigation Strategies
• Vienna, Maryland, Community Vision Plan
Professional History
■ Associate, Clarion Associates, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2005— present
■ Research Assistant, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, 2004-2005
■ Research Intern,The Conservation Fund, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2004
■ Land Use Projects Coordinator,The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia, 2000-2003
Education
• Master of Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• Bachelor of Arts, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Publications
■ Green Infrastructure Plan Evaluation Frameworks, Journal of Conservation Planning, March 2005
(published under maiden name—Leigh Anne McDonald)
Professional Associations
■ Member, American Planning Association (APA)
■ Member, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)
■ Member, North Carolina Chapter of the APA
C L A R 1 0 N
Kimberly A. Brewer, A.i.C.P.
Senior Planner
EDUCATION
M.R.P.,City and Regional Planning,University of North Carolina, 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 coupled technical
and policy analysis with stakeholder facilitation to develop innovative,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 co-designed the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency's
Watershed Academy.Prior to consulting,Ms. Brewer worked 11 years in local,state,and regional agencies,gaining
extensive experience in program development and management in the areas 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 has 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,training,
LID pilot projects and case studies,and public education/outreach. These projects have incorporated onsite
performance standards,low-impact development design,conservation offsets,phosphorus banking,and other
innovative techniques.
Selected Watershed and Stormwater Management Experience
Third Fork Creek Watershed Plan—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 benchmarks that will 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 Stormwater Ordinance—City of Lansing,MI.Currently assisting the City of Lansing in developing a
Stormwater ordinance that meets Phase II stormwter requirements as well and regional stormwater management
policies which encourage the use of Low Impact Development.Assisting in the review of local ordinances to
recommend revisions needed to implement the new stormwater ordinance and finther enhance use of Low Impact
Development and green infrastructure techniques.
Athens-Clarke County Watershed Improvement 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 linked to the linked to the ACC comprehensive plan and sustainability
policies.
Beaver Lake Watershed Management Plan—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
Kimberly A. Brewer, A.L C.P.
Senior Planner
alternatives,developed and wrote management plan and implementation strategy,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 to energy,agricultural
BMPs,and decentralized wastewater systems in targeted areas of the watershed.
Fairfax County Approach for Countywide Watershed Assessment—Assisted Fairfax County,VA Stormwater Services
Department in developing new watershed planning protocols that could provide consistency and standardization in plans
developed by the County and its contractors. Specifically, assisted the County in developing measurable goals,
objectives,and indicators for stormwater 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 Infrastructure Ordinance Review.Sanitation District#1,KY.Currently 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 infrastructure and LID techniques.
Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan—City of Vista, CA. Lead watershed planner for the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon watershed in Southern 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 infrastructure techniques into the and to semi-arid
environment,as well as the cost and benefits of implementing such techniques. High priority areas for LID and green
infrastructure 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 Maumelle Watershed Plan—Central Arkansas Water,AR. Managed planning and cost-evaluation components
of project to develop a watershed management plan;co-facilitated Policy Advisory Council and Technical Advisory
Council in developing,evaluating,and selecting the preferred management options which included requirements for
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 unanimously adopted by the Central Arkansas Commission in February 2007.
Framework for Enhanced Management of Decentralized Wastewater Systems.Berkley County, WV. Worked with
local stakeholder group to develop recommendations for enhanced management of decentralized 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 Local Watershed Planning—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 Town Center Stormwater Management Plan—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 Management(NC)—Mecklenburg County and Town of Huntersville,NC. Worked
with staff and advisory boards to develop management goals,targets,and strategies for managing new development
centered on low-impact development design.Assisted in developing stormwater management ordinance and water
quality design manual,adopted January 2003.Included four low-impact design case studies with stormwater
management and cost analysis.
Kimberly A. Brewer, A.I C.P.
Senior Planner
Charlotte Mecklenburg Post-Construction Ordinance Development—Mecklenburg County Phase II jurisdictions
and the City of Charlotte,North Carolina.Presented Tetra Tech's watershed assessment evaluating future impacts of
development without further management,assisted in developing cost tool and site evaluation tool(SET)that could
evaluate land use and BMP management techniques;facilitated stakeholder development of alternative management
measures,including low impact development(LID)and green infrastructure design,presented watershed and site
scale modeling results as well as cost comparisons for the management options,facilitated selection of a preferred
option,and assisted in developing post-construction ordinance provisions.Unanimously adopted by 22-member
stakeholder committee.
City of High Point Deep River I Watershed Assessment Plan—City of High Point,NC. Managed project for a
watershed assessment and management plan for the City of High Point,NC.The Plan,which was approved by the
State and is currently implemented,involves an innovative Phosphorus Banking program as well as low impact
development(LID)education,local LID case studies,and ordinance review to identify revisions needed to
encourage LID and green infrastructure.Won 2000 NCAPA Award for Plan Implementation for Multiple
Jurisdictions.
City of Chicago Stormwater Ordinance and Design Manual—City of Chicago,ILL. Assisted the City of Chicago in
developing a draft stormwater management ordinance and design manual requiring"green design"for new
development and redevelopment.Assisted in drafting ordinance,working with multiple City Departments in
negotiating stormwater management objectives and associated design performance standards.Coordinated draft
ordinance with draft design manual development,which incorporates low-impact design techniques.
Rockdale County Watershed Assessment and Management Plan— Rockdale County GA.Worked with staff,
elected officials,and diverse 23-member stakeholder group to develop and adopt a comprehensive watershed
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 plan
development;outreach;low-impact design education for local staff and development community and a low-impact
design pilot program.Developed and wrote Rockdale County Stormwater Management Administrative Review
Process.
Upper-Neuse Local-State Watershed Management Framework Upper Neuse River Basin Association NC. Project
Manager and co-facilitator in designing a local-state watershed management framework for the Upper Neuse River
Basin.This framework links an Upper Neuse Management Cycle with the State of North Carolina's Neuse
Basinwide management cycle.This framework includes agreed-upon management goals,management activities and
timelines,partner responsibilities,a multi-agency governance structure,and indicators for tracking success.
Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan. Upper Neuse Basin Association NC. Lead planner and facilitator in.
developing watershed management plans to address water supply protection and habitat impacts in eight drinking
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 officials and staff,developers and designers.
Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed Study. Orange Water and Sewer Authority NC. Worked with a diverse
community advisory committee. Assisted in developing and tailoring measurable indicators to guide the local
watershed study;designing the economic impact analysis;and developing,evaluating,and screening watershed
management options.Assisted in presenting and writing the study findings.
EPA Watershed Academy. USEPA. Member of team that assisted EPA in designing its Watershed Academy.
Designed and developed core training courses for local,state,and federal officials on how to implement the
watershed management approach. Draft course materials include 101 -Principles of Watershed Management, 104-
Executive Managers'Watershed Management Short Course,and 105-Watershed Management Tools.
Jonathan T. Smith, P.E., CPSWQ, CPESC, LEED-AP
Engineering Manager, Stormwater Services
Education
B.S.,Biological&Agricultural Engineering,North Carolina State University, 1995
Graduate Course Work: 21 units focused on hydrology and stormwater management,NCSU, 1998 -2006
Professional Registration
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 90048
Key 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
Professional 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. Mr. Smith is a professional engineer,a Certified Professional in Stormwater
Quality,a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sedimentation Control,and is a LEED-Accredited
Professional. He is an expert in stormwater management and as a consultant focuses on planning,
implementing and managing stormwater-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 International 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
throughout.
Before becoming a consultant,Mr. Smith was an Extension Engineer at North Carolina State University,
where he supervised the daily activities for numerous 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 green 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,permitting,competitive bid processes,construction,instrumentation,data collection and data
analysis.
Smith, Jonathan T. —Resume
Selected Project Experience
Pulaski County Stormwater Design Manual and Site Evaluation Tool Development,Pulaski Co.,
AR. Managing project for Pulaski County Arkansas to develop stormwater drainage design manual and
Site Evaluation Tool(SET). Coordinating the planning for and facilitation of a workgroup meeting
comprised of local public agency and stakeholder engineering staff to identify and develop manual
components and SET user interface functions. Providing oversight for technical staff in development of
design manual incorporating functionality specific to Pulaski County development conditions.
Supervised development of the SET incorporating lower limit effluent limitations on BMP performance
for local conditions including low density development and steep slope topography.
Third Fork Creek Watershed Planning and Design,Durham,NC—Task manager for a$1M+
planning and design project in Durham,NC. Relevant tasks included stormwater retrofit planning and
design, LID and Better Site Design,and BMP maintenance program review for Third Fork Creek.
NCEEP Alternative Wetland Mitigation Stormwater BMP Pilot Project.For the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhance Program,supervised application of a proposed method for determining mitigation
credits associated with two constructed stormwater wetland BMPs in the Catawba River basin.The
project represents a potential pilot for urban watersheds where available land for traditional wetland
mitigation does not meet overall mitigation needs.
San Diego LID Manual,San Diego CA. Supporting preparation of a Low Impact Development manual
for the City of San Diego's stormwater program. To date,has provided review of performance criteria
for stormwater best management practices required by San Diego County.Review included research of
criteria for volume and flow based control practices and associated publications detailing development of
these performance criteria. Results were utilized to recommend criteria which were most appropriate to
the city's objectives and incorporation into the manual.
McDowell Creek Watershed Restoration,Mecklenburg Co,NC. Project Manager for restoration of
1,631 feet of second order stream and creation of four stormwater BMPs in an urbanized watershed.
Provided project scoping,technical oversight of design,permitting and preparation of construction
documents. Stormwater BMPs included offline wetland/infiltration systems incorporating shallow
diversion of upstream runoff from the restored stream reach as well as a combination bioretention
area/level 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 consistent with the Center for Watershed Protection's"New
Emergent Wetland"design guidance. The existing pond exhibited poor conditions including undersized
outlet, failing banks,excessive waterfowl use and lack of vegetation. The modified design incorporated a
forebay to pre-treat flows entering the facility, an extended detention settling zone,a bypass structure for
larger flows, and a low flow wetland to provide polishing treatment of baseflow and smaller runoff
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 preparation of construction
documents for specific improvements including diversion of rooftop runoff directly to stream,
construction of rooftop over vehicle washpad,and conversion of filter 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
Smith, Jonathan T. —Resume
commercial subdivision to an enhanced wetpond facility to achieve nitrogen reduction goals.The
conversion was conducted in order to obtain a 401 water quality certification from the NC-DWQ
wetlands unit for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands within the development. Specific improvements
included the enlargement and deepening of the pond and enhancement through the incorporation of a
vegetated littoral shelf.
Trash Guard Hydraulic Analysis,Trash Guard,Inc.,Raleigh,NC. Managed the development of a
hydraulic analysis of the trash guard system,a patented screening insert developed to capture and retain
large stormwater solids. The client requested hydraulic analysis spreadsheet preparation to determine
steady flow hydraulic characteristics.
Players Club Bridge Replacement,Reserve Development Co.LLC,Southport,NC. Prepared a
FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR)application for the modification of a roadway
crossing of Beaverdam Swamp in Town of St.James in Brunswick Co,NC. Modification included
resplacement of an existing culverted road crossing with a 70 ft span prefabricated bridge. Application
preparation included incorporation of existing topographical survey in the effective FEMA hydraulic
model and iterative analysis of the proposed bridge geometry to reduce impact on nearby properties and
structures.
St.James Hydraulics Study and Analysis,Reserve Development Co.LLC,Southport,NC. Managed
a hydraulics study to assess the causes of flooding in a large residential development related to two
flooding events in Brunswick County. Work included simulation of the storms of interest using a HEC-
HMS model and incorporation of as-built survey data as required supporting a HEC-RAS hydraulics
model of the existing creeks,ponds,and roadways. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on these two
models to determine potential improvements to the drainage system for mitigation of future flooding. A
written report was developed from the results of the project to and provided to the client with
recommendations of upgrades or replacements of road crossings and diversions.
St.James Drainage Improvements,Reserve Development Co.LLC,St.James,NC. St. James
Plantation is located on the Atlantic Inter-coastal Waterway in North Carolina. Being so close to the
coast,St.James Plantation needed to develop an emergency action plan for the management of drainage
structures in the event of approaching large tropical events. Developed an emergency action plan as well
as an operation and maintenance plan for maintaining structures so that capacity is not reduced. Also
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,Chapel
Hill,NC. Provided initial feasibility analysis for the design and of a 50,000 cubic feet stormwater
harvest system on the existing campus of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The system
captures stormwater from a proposed Genome Sciences building with a rooftop of approximately I acre
and stores it in an underground cistern. The cistern system is connected to a nearby reclaimed water line
to provide reliable water supply to irrigate adjacent landscape areas,a nearby stadium athletic field and
provide indoor toilet flushing water for the Genome Sciences building.
St.James Main Entrance Storm Drainage, Town of St.James,NC. Provided professional services
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 field exploration
with the NCDOT,watershed delineation,and Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. Data was then
evaluated and prioritized,and alternatives were recommended for improvement and repair.Upon
selection of preferred alternative,design documents were prepared for use in bidding and construction by
the client.
Charlotte Monitoring Standard Details,City of Charlotte,Charlotte,NC. Managed project for City
of Charlotte to provide engineering services in the further development of Charlotte Stormwater Services'
pilot stormwater BMP monitoring program. Provided consulting and construction documents preparation
3
Smith, Jonathan T. —Resume
services to correct difficulties in stormwater monitoring at retrofit sites because of improper flow
measurement devices,clogging of sampling intakes and difficult access to sampling locations.
Jacksonville Water Supply and Treatment Facilities,City of Jacksonville,Jacksonville,NC.
Design engineer for design and permitting of a stormwater wetland for an 8 mgd nanofiltration treatment
facility for the City of Jacksonville. Prepared complete construction plans and application documents for
submission to NCDWQ for approval of Coastal Area Stormwater Permit.
Shade Valley Outlet,City of Charlotte,Charlotte,NC. Managed project for City of Charlotte to
design structural modifications to the outlet of an existing water quality pond to improve pollutant
removal performance. Specific modifications included the implementation of an adjustable outlet to
allow modification of permanent pool level and design drawdown period. Modifications were
implemented to allow management of water level depths in planted areas and improve vegetative growth
Edwards Branch Feasibility Study and Design,City of Charlotte,Charlotte,NC. Managed Project
for City of Charlotte to conduct feasibility study and provide design services for retrofit modifications to
the Edwards Branch Stormwater Wetland. The offline wetland provided water quality treatment and
detention for a 50+acre watershed comprised primarily of single family residential and commercial uses.
Wetland vegetative coverage within the wetland was limited by poor soil conditions,improper water
levels and waterfowl activity. Assessed the condition of the wetland including the soil characteristics and
overall management and provided a report on the feasibility and cost of improving the wetland
performance through soil amendment/addition,outlet structure modifications,and waterfowl deterrents.
The purpose of the design was to improve the general performance of the BMP in relation to water quality
treatment. Design services included preparation of construction documents for the modification of the
outlet structure,excavation and replacement of existing unsuitable marsh soil where necessary,
development of a planting plan,and prescriptive waterfowl deterrent measures.
St.James Hydraulic Study,Brunswick Co,NC. For the St. James Development Company, conducted
a watershed hydraulic study of an existing residential/golf course community to identify improvements to
relieve flooding concerns observed in recent tropical storm systems. Study included consideration of
improvements to golf course ponds such as active management of pond control structures eventually
manifesting in the development of an emergency action plan.
Development of a Municipal Pilot Stormwater Retrofit BMP Monitoring Program, Charlotte,NC.
Extension Engineer in charge of coordinating city and county stormwater professionals to develop a pilot
BMP monitoring program. Developed Stormwater BMP monitoring guidance manual. Identified BMP's
for monitoring efforts and provided guidance on appropriate site specific and programmatic monitoring
equipment and techniques. Advised municipal stormwater staff on appropriate statistical analysis and
interpretation of program results for inclusion of program results in local,regional and national
monitoring performance databases.
Dye Branch Stormwater Wetland,Mooresville,NC. Provided design services for the site selection,
design,construction documents preparation,permitting and construction administration for an offline
tiered stormwater wetland an urbanized watershed. Wetland design incorporated multi-cell,tiered
configuration allowing the inclusion of the site in a study of the effectiveness of BMP size and
performance limitations of multiple cell systems for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Runoff Quantity and Quality Monitoring of Green Roof Installations in Eastern North Carolina.
Extension Engineer in charge of design and installation of monitoring systems for three greenroof
installations in eastern North Carolina. Purpose of the project was 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 providing treatment of runoff from a municipal
park. Research investigated effects of soil media and hydrology on pollutant removal effectiveness of
bioretention areas in piedmont settings.
4
Smith,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 structure was constructed to bypass larger flows to the existing stream system.
Design included monitoring structures 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 stormwater 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
two abandoned septic tank systems for short term 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 impervious 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.
Core Creek 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.
Dune Infiltration 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
5
Smith, Jonathan T. —Resume
installation of monitoring equipment to determine system performance and track volume reduction of
runoff directly reaching surface waters.
Selected_ Publications and Presentations
W. F.Hunt,J.T. Smith,S.J.Jadlocki,J.M.Hathaway,P.R.Eubanks. 2008.Pollutant Removal and Peak
Flow Mitigation by a Bioretention Cell in Urban Charlotte,NC. Journal of Environmental Engineering,
134(5):403-408.
J.T. Smith, 2007.Edwards Branch Wetland.Retrofitting a retrofit. Presented at the NC-APWA Water
Resources annual Conference,Wrightsville Beach,NC September 2007
J.D. Wright, W.F. Hunt,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.
J.M. Hathaway,W.F. Hunt,J.T. Smith,and A. Johnson.2007.Shade Valley Pond:Final Monitoring
Report.Prepared for City of Charlotte Stormwater Services.Charlotte,NC.
J. M.Hathaway,W.F. Hunt,J. T. Smith, and A.Johnson..2007.Peirson Pond:Final Monitoring
Report.Prepared for City of Charlotte Stormwater Services. Charlotte,NC.
J.M.Hathaway,W.F. Hunt,and J.T. Smith. 2007.Hal Marshall Bioretention:Final Monitoring
Report.Prepared for City of Charlotte Stormwater Services. Charlotte,NC.
Hunt,W.F.,A.R. Jarrett,J.T.Smith,L.J. Sharkey.2006.Evaluating Bioretention Hydrology and Nutrient
Removal at Three Field Sites in North Carolina.Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 132 (6):
600-608.
J.T. Smith,W. F. Hunt, S.Jadlocki. 2005. Stormwater BMP Monitoring for Performance: The Charlotte
Experience. Presented at ASCE-EWRI,World Water and Environmental Resources Congress.
Anchorage,AK,July 2005.
J.T. Smith,W.F.Hunt,P.R.Eubanks,S.JadlockL 2005. Conversion of an Urban Pond to a Water
Quality Treatment Pond. Presented at Southwest Florida Water Management District 8th Biennial
Conference on Stormwater Research and Watershed Management ,Tampa,FL.
W.F.Hunt,J.T. Smith,A.M. Hathaway.2005.Hydrologic and Water Quality Performance from Green
Roofs in North Carolina. Proceedings of Third Annual International Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities Conference,Washington DC.
E.Z. Bean,W.F.Hunt,D.A.Bidelspach.J.T. Smith.2004.Study on the Surface Infiltration Rate of
Permeable Pavements. Prepared for Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute(ICPI).Washington,DC.
R.O.Evans,J.T.Smith 2004. Evaluation and Demonstration of Stream and Riparian Wetlands
Restoration/Construction in the Chowan River Basin.Prepared for NC DENR-DWQ as part of a 319
grant
J.T. Smith and W.F.Hunt.2003. Update on Bioretention and Greenroof Performance in North
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 of Bioretention Areas in North Carolina.
Proceedings of 2003 ASCE Water Resources Conference.Philadelphia,PA.
W.F.Hunt,D.A. Bidelspach,J.T. Smith,E.Z.Bean.2003. Permeable Pavement Research in North
Carolina. Proceedings of 2003 ASAE Annual International Meeting,Las Vegas,NV.
6
Smith, Jonathan T.—Resume
W.F.Hunt, A.R. Jarrett,and J.T. Smith.2003.Field Study of Bioretention Areas in North Carolina.
Proceedings of 2003 ASAE Annual International Meeting,Las Vegas,NV.
J.T. Smith and W. F.Hunt. 2002.Designing Bioretention Areas to Increase Denitrification. Presented at
StormCon 2002. Marco Island,FL.
J.T. Smith and R. O.Evans.2000.Field Evaluation oflrrigation Systems Applying Lagoon Effluent.
Proceedings of Watershed Management 2000 Symposium. Science and Engineering for the New
Millennium.
R. O.Evans,R.E. Sneed,R. E.Sheffield,J.T. Smith. 1999. Wettable Acreage Determination for Hard
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 from
Agricultural Lands Irrigated with Swine Lagoon Effluent.In: Drainage in the 21 n Century: Food
Production and the Environment.Proceedings of the 7`"International Drainage Symposium.
R. O.Evans,J.C.Barker,J. T. Smith,R.E. Sheffield. 1997.Field Calibration Procedures for Center
Pivot and Linear Move/Irrigation System.N.C. Cooperative Extension Service.AG-553-3. N. C.
Cooperative Extension Service.
R. O. Evans,J.C. Barker,J. T. Smith,R.E. Sheffield. 1997. Field Calibration Procedures for Hard Hose
and Cable Two Traveler/Irrigation System. N.C.Cooperative Extension Service.AG-553-2. N.C.
Cooperative Extension Service.
R. O.Evans,J.C. Barker,J. T. Smith,R.E. Sheffield. 1997. Field Calibration Procedures for Stationary
Sprinkler/Irrigation System. N.C.Cooperative Extension Service.AG-553-1. N.C. Cooperative
Extension Service.
I
7
j
Regina Scheibner
Publication Manager
Education and Registrations
B.F.A.,Illustration,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 and
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 typography to tailor publications to various 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 software,digital file formats,and the
preparation 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,Flash,and Powerpoint.She has had formal
training in a wide variety of commercial and fine 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 Guide.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 and 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.
• How Resilient Is Your Coastal Community?A Guide for Evaluating Coastal Community Resilience to Tsunamis
and Other Coastal Hazards.USAID,NOAA and other partners.Designed,formatted and prepared for offset press
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 a mixed-use setting,and a cross-section of a rain garden.The water color illustrations
were used for several purposes:in 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.
• Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan:A Guide for Construction 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 Guide to Water Quality in the Yazoo River Basin,Citizen's Guide to Water Quality in the Pearl River
Basin.Citizen's Guide to Water Quality 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.
• What's Going Down with the Rain?HI Dept.of Health,Clean Water Branch and USEPA.Designed and prepared
for offset printing a full color trifold outreach brochure to raise public awareness and involvement in the
prevention of polluted runoff.
• Don't Trash 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.
• Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008 Report to Congress.USEPA.(in progress,scheduled for completion Jan
200)Designed,formatted and prepared 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 prepared for offset
press a full color book-length report that includes photos,custom graphics and maps.
• Virgin River Watershed Management Plan.Washington Co.Water Conservancy District,Utah.Designed and
formatted a full color book-length document incorporating photos,customized graphics and maps.
• Local Tools for Lasting Change,A Handbook for Decision-Makers.Annis Water Resources Institute and
Michigan State University.Designed and prepared for 2-color printing an 82-page spiral bound handbook
designed for local units of government within the Muskegon River watershed.
UDC)Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina
Hillsborough, NC Annotated Outline
TOWN QF HILLSBQRQUGH,
NORTH CAROLINA.
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Draft Annotated Outline
November 12,, 2009
TABLE: OF CONTENT:
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
WorkProgram and Schedule........................................................................................................1
WorkProgram ...............................................................................................................................1
Schedule........................................................................................................................................1
ReportOrganization .....................................................................................................................2
Introduction...................................................................................................................................2
IssuesSummary.............................................................................................................................2
AnnotatedOutline.........................................................................................................................2
Appendices....................................................................................................................................2
ISSUESSUMMARY..................................................................................................3
Make the LIDO Customer-Friendly...............................................................................................3
Consolidate Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Reulations............................................................3
.Enhance Structure and Organization..............................................................................................4
Improve Format and Illustrations....................................................................................................4
Consolidate, Refine, and Update Definitions..................................................................................5
ClarifyReview Standards......................................................................................................... .5
Establish a Clear Procedure for Interpretations...............................................................................6
Use an Administrative Manual .......................................................................................................6
StreamlineDevelopment Review..................................................................................................7
Establish New Common Procedures...............................................................................................7
Clarify Review Responsibilities.......................................................................................................8
Formalize the Technical Review Committee...................................................................................9
Refine Certain Development Review Procedures...........................................................................9
Modernize the Approach to Use Regulations...............................................................................10
Add New Standards for Accessory and Temporary Uses...............................................................10
ImproveDevelopment Quality...................................................................................................10
Achieve High Quality Development and Redevelopment .........................................................11
Establish Contextual Standards.....................................................................................................11
Modify District and Development Standards to Provide Flexibility................................................11
Modify Review Procedures to Encourage Redevelopment............................................................11
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page i
November,2009
ANNOTATEDOUTLINE ..........................................................................................1
GeneralProvisions........................................................................................................................1
Titleand authority.........................................................................................................................1
GeneralPurpose and Intent...........................................................................................................1
Applicability and jurisdiction..........................................................................................................1'
Conformancewith Adopted Plans..................................................................................................2
Relationship with Other Laws, Covenants, or Deed Restrictions.....................................................2
Official Zoning Ma --------------------------2
TransitionalProvisions....................................................................................................................2
VestedRights.................................................................................................................................2
Severability....................................................................................................................................2
Administration ..............................................................................................................................3
Administrative and Decision-Making Bodies...................................................................................4
CommonReview Procedures.........................................................................................................5
Standards and Requirements for Development Applications ..........................................................8
ZoningDistricts ..........................................................................................................................11
UseStandards .............................................................................................................................11
UseTable....................................................................................................................................11
Use Classifications, Categories, and Types....................................................................................12
Use-Specific Standards.................................................................................................................12
Accessory Uses and Structures .....................................................................................................12
TemporaryUses and Structures..................................................................................:.................12
DevelopmentStandards .............................................................................................................13
Off-Street Parking and Loading....................................................................................................13
LandscapingStandards..................................................................................,...............................13
OpenSpace Set-Asides................................................................................................................14
Fencesand Walls.........................................................................................................................14
ExteriorLighting...........................................................................................................................14
TrafficImpact Analysis .................................................................................................................14
Signage 14
Subdivisions................................................................................................................................15
Subdivisions.....................:......................................................................................:....................15
PerformanceGuarantees..............................................................................................................15
Nonconformities ......................................................................... ...............................................16
GeneralApplicability...................................................................................................................16
NonconformingUses...................................................................................................................16
NonconformingStructures...........................................................................................................17
NonconformingLots of Record ....................................................................................................17
NonconformingSigns...................................................................................................................17
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page ii
November,2009
Enforcement................................................................................................................................18
Purpose.......................................................................................................................................18
ComplianceRequired..................................................................................................................18
Violations.....................................................................................................................................18
ResponsiblePersons..........................:..........................................................................................18
Enforcement Generally................................................................................................................18
Remediesand Penalties...............................................................................................................18
Definitions...................................................................................................................................19
General Rules for Interpretation...................................................................................................19
Rulesof measurement..................................................................................................................19
Definitions...................................................................................................................................19
i
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page iii
November,2009
INTRODUCTION
WORK PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE
WORK PROGRAM
The Town of Hillsborough retained Clarion
Associates, a zoning, planning, and growth Estimated Project Schedule
management consulting firm with offices in North
Carolina, Florida, and Colorado to undertake • Annotated Outline November,2009
preparation of a new Unified Development
Ordinance for the town. • Draft UDO April,2010
The work program for the Unified Development
Ordinance project involves three main tasks. They • Public Review/Hearing May/June,2010
are:
• Task 1: Project Initiation(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 in Task 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
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 1
November,2009
0 Introduction
REPORT ORGANIZATION
As is discussed earlier, this document is the Clarion team's initial evaluation of Annotated Outline Report
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 Structure
also sets forth a proposed outline of the new UDO to achieve the goals/themes
identified in the Issues Summary. • Introduction
This Annotated outline is organized into four main parts: Introduction, Issues , Issues Summary
Summary,Annotated Outline,and the Appendices.
• Annotated 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,
• Streamline development review,
• Modernize the zoning districts and uses,
• Improve development quality,and
• Encourage redevelopment in targeted areas that is consistent with 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 structure of the new code document if the themes and goals discussed
in the Issues Summary are addressed in the new code document. More specifically, the annotated outline sets out the
proposed structure of the new code and provides commentary explaining the purpose and scope of each article and section
APPENDICES
Included in the Appendices are summaries of public input received to date, resulting from stakeholder meetings and from a
major community forum.
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Page 2 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
ISSUES SUMMARY
This Unified Development Ordinance project is designed to accomplish two objectives: (1) Combine the town's zoning and
subdivision ordinances into one Unified Development Ordinance; and (2)while blending these two ordinances, make adjustments to
provisions that are not aligned with current town goals and objectives. Five major Key Themes for Improvement
themes or goals for the ordinance re-write emerged from the Clarion team's y m P
interviews with stakeholders, town staff and the public during the project initiation
meetings and independent review of the town's planning and regulatory 1. Make the code more customer-friendly
documents. These goals are consistent with the 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
are:
Make the code more customer-friendly,
3. Modernize the regulations, procedures,
• and definitions
• Streamline the development review process,
• Modernize the regulations, procedures, and definitions, 4. Improve development quality
• Improve development quality,and
• Achieve development and redevelopment that is consistent with the
community's planning and development goals. 5. Achieve development and redevelopment
that promote community goals
These five goals or themes inform and guide the annotated outline of the new
Unified Development Ordinance. In some cases, a discussion of alternative means
of addressing these goals is provided, along with recommendations for the best
solution based on our understanding of Hillsborough and best practices 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 Key Customer-Friendly
staff is that the current zoning ordinance is difficult to use and not very customer- Recommendations
friendly. This is so for a variety of reasons. Generally, both stakeholders and staff
agreed the structure and format of the current regulations frustrates users and town
officials alike — even longtime users. A number of changes that can improve the Consolidate zoning ordinance and .
usability and customer-friendliness of Hillsborough's new code are set down subdivision regulations
below.The primary goal of these techniques is to create a user-friendly document
that presents the document in a more customer-friendly way. • Improve format and illustrations
CONSOLIDATE ZONING ORDINANCE AND Consolidate, refine,and update
SUBDIVISION REULATIONS definitions .
The town's existing zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are Clarify review standards
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 • Establish a clear procedure for
adopting this approach find a unified document that organizes all relevant interpretations
procedures and development regulations in an organized and logical
format makes the regulations more customer-friendly.We recommend as . Use an Administrative Manual
part of the update effort the town consolidate the current zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations into one Unified Development
Ordinance document
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 3
November,2009
Issues Summary
ENHANCE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
There is significant room for improving the organization and proposed UDO Structure
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 ' Article 1 General Provisions
sections that do not fit and appear out of sequence.
• Article 2 Administration
In addition to structural issues with respect to the procedures and
definitions, there are also some organizational problems with the • Article 3 Zoning Districts
development standards themselves. These kinds of problems make
compliance with and interpretation of the ordinance difficult 0 Article 4 Use Regulations
Multiple sets of definitions are another problem. Modern ordinances
establish one single set of definitions to help make the document as
• Article 5 Development Standards
user-friendly as possible.
To remedy these concerns, and make the new code more customer- • Article 6 Subdivision Standards
friendly, we recommend the UDO be re-organized to create a
comprehensible and logical hierarchy of regulations, based on . Article 7 Nonconformities
procedural and substantive relationships. All procedures should be
consolidated into one article; furthermore, not only should the • Article 8 Enforcement
procedures be consolidated, but provisions common to all
procedures should be included in a common procedures section in
the article. Zoning district use regulations should be modernized • Article 9 Definitions
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.
In addition to these changes, the new UDO will include either new standards (prepared by others), or cross references to
other development-related regulations such as stormwater management, floodplain, and erosion control that are located in
the Town's Code of Ordinances.
IMPROVE FORMAT AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Over the years, experience has taught that the way a
development code "looks," or is formatted, affects its 'customer-
Dynamic Header friendliness." There are a number of formatting and related
suggestions that can be applied to the town's new UDO that will
ProminentT'itios ' ;,`' "` also improve its "customer-friendliness." Recommendations are
detailed below.
Nested Text ~
Establish a Hierarchy of Sections and Articles
Illustrations
with captions ` ; To better organize the procedural and substantive issues
n= ,� addressed in the new UDO, we recommend using a hierarchy of
Balance Between Text •`. ° articles and sections, as well as a hierarchy of section headings
and white space and font types and sizes to illustrate the relationship of the
procedural and substantive provisions. As discussed above and
Pogo Numbers ;m- „,- �y • outlined in detail below, we recommend that the UDO be
divided into 9 articles. In addition, we recommend separate
Document Title, _ section and subsection headings be used to provide "guideposts"
Adoption Date °° "° 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
existing ordinance, and the table of contents, while moderately
detailed and clear, could also be enhanced and streamlined.
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Page 4 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Issues Summary
Zoning Ordnance Text
A table of contents, index, cross-references, and headers and footers are referencing systems that can &Map Amendment
greatly enhance usability of long documents such as the UDO. The table of contents is often the Review ProCen
preliminary guiding tool that anchors the reader. Cross-references assist the user in identifying the relevant Pr�nlreyCone itMeedng
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. ""°�'c°d° "°
A more effective referencing approach is to include a detailed master table of contents at the beginning of AvPieadon
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.
R°Nalon of Plans and
Illustrate and Summarize Key Concepts PAS46mitw(ffrcquk" .
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 concise) (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 measurements (e.g., how to measure height). Graphics can also be used to BOMA First Reading of
illustrate preferred design concepts, such as parking space dimensions, parking lot landscaping, and other ' • '
landscaping and screening requirements.
BOMA Public Hearing and _11�
Flow charts also add clarity to specific procedural requirements and timelines, as well as explain the Second Reading of Appr.1ed
Ordinance
interrelationships between procedures. There are no flow charts in the existing ordinance. Flow charts
are becoming commonplace in modern development regulations because of their ease of use and their
power to convey complex relationships. BOMA Third and Final Reading �5
ofApproycd Ordinance
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 Y swee wan R°vi°w or Bulld'nY ,
Fermis
CONSOLIDATE, REFINE, AND UPDATE DEFINITIONS Sample process flow
Definitions are scattered in several sections in the existing ordinances. We recommend chart from another
consolidating all definitions into one article so it is easy for a user to find the meaning of terms in jurisdiction
one place and to reduce the chance of redundancies or conflicting definitions. We suggest re-
locating the 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
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 5
November,2009
Issues Summary
project If unclear or uncertain, unnecessary debate may occur over the standards applied to an individual project, and the
result may be a development that is inconsistent with the community's goals. Ideally, this dialogue should take place in the
context of adopting generally applicable standards; once clear,objective standards are included in the ordinance,they can be
applied in a consistent manner to each project that comes up for review.
During the update process, all review standards for all types of development permits will be reviewed, and where
appropriate,clarified and brought into conformance with the planning and development goals of the town.
ESTABLISH A CLEAR PROCEDURE FOR INTERPRETATIONS
Based on our interviews with stakeholders and discussion with staff,it is clear there would be benefit in clarifying procedures.
Based on our experience in other communities, we recommend that a formal process be established in the new UDO for
interpretations. It identifies one town staff official (e.g., the Planning Director or a designee), who is responsible for making
ALL interpretations,after consultation with staff and the town attorney. The procedure requires the interpretation be made in
writing, and then compiled in a"book of interpretations"as a permanent record of the interpretation. It is also suggested the
town modify its administrative practices to ensure there is a consistency of interpretations, made through one town official.
USE AN ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL.
The existing zoning ordinance includes several sections listing application submittal
requirements. We recommend the submittal requirements be removed from the i
regulations, and set forth in an administrative manual that may be updated
relatively easily, and without formally amending the UDO. Other materials that `�`; '�t� ��lahoingandZ66M'r
should be removed from the regulations to a separate administrative manual �� gdm�rnstratwe`,
include application fees and schedules for the processing of applications. This
removes bulk from the code,and allows for easy update.
A separate administrative manual,or"user's guide,"while not a part of this project t4
can also be a useful tool for explaining to the public how the review of
development applications is conducted in Hillsborough and can suggest ways for r � y,�, •: „,e�r� „
the public as well as neighborhoods to monitor development activity. An
Administrative Manual would improve the usability of the UDO.
In many cases, town staff will prepare an administrative manual shortly after the r �zfirf
adoption of a new code document These manuals include revised application kz
r '
forms and checklists, sections explaining how to use the new regulations, and inyµ� _4 fi
some cases,comparisons between the old and new development regulations. An Administrative Manual
prepared for another
jurisdiction
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Page 6 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Issues Summary
Key Streamlining
STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Recommendations:
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 e Establish New Common
for Flexibility in appropriate circumstances. Pro cedures
We recommend the new UDO be supplemented with new provisions to simplify and Clarify Review Responsibilities
standardize the review process through new common procedures that are the same for
every application for development permit We also suggest the town modify several of the
current review procedures and add more mechanisms for flexibility through new * Refine Certain Development
processes like administrative adjustments and development agreements. In addition, Review Procedures
review responsibilities need to be clarified, and we recommend the Technical Review
Committee be formalized and given more decision-making authority. Finally, we suggest . Remove Various Amortization
the code be stripped of outdated provisions like amortization provisions that have long Provisions
since expired. The following sections will provide more detail on these suggestions.
ESTABLISH NEW COMMON PROCEDURES
Criteria for
As discussed earlier, the procedures for the review of development applications are
scattered throughout the current zoning ordinance. We suggest the new administration Determination of
article (Article 2,Administration) include a set of common procedures that address review Completeness
requirements relevant to all applications for development permits. This section also
establishes the rules that take the development applicant from the beginning of the • Application form
development review process, to the end. The types of procedural requirements included comp lete
in this common procedures section address:
• Who has authority to submit applications,
• Pre-application conferences, • Fee included
• Application fees and schedule,
• Rules governing preparation of the staff report, • Minimum number of
• Public notification and public hearing requirements, copies provided
• Deferral and withdrawal of applications,
• Basic procedures to follow during public hearings, • Submitted within
• Review and approval(including the imposition of conditions on approval), review schedule
• Notification of the applicant regarding the decision,and timeframe
• Lapse of approval
Establish a Pre-Application Conference Procedure • Ownership
According to some stakeholders, one key reason why the development review process in information complete
Hillsborough is not efficient is because applicants do not understand procedural or substantive . All required
review requirements, or are unaware of other related issues about application submission. Our preliminary steps
experience is that requiring a pre-application meeting between a potential applicant and staff, completed
especially for a more complex development proposal, is an effective way to expedite the
development review process. Encouraging potential applicants to meet informally with staff to
present conceptual plans for development and get staff input prior to submittal of an application • All necessary
helps address issues and procedural requirements before significant time and expense are invested supporting
in preparing or processing applications. information provided
(including maps,site
We recommend the common procedures section of the new UDO establish a standard drawings, and
requirement for a pre-application conference between the applicant and staff. anal ses)
Include a Completeness Determination Procedure Attestation of
It is recommended the new UDO include a subsection authorizing the Planning Director (or a correctness by
designee) to review submitted applications to determine whether they are "complete." Only applicant
"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
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 7
November,2009
Issues Summary
of an application by the town does not begin until after a formal determination that the application is complete. Applications are
"complete" when they contain all the relevant and appropriate application submittal requirements and the required fee. Since the
determination of what constitutes a"complete'application is made by the town's professional staff, appeals of completeness decisions
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 application must be
submitted or be considered withdrawn. We also suggest a provision for requiring re-submittal fees after a certain number of
incomplete applications are submitted,to deter multiple deficient submittals.
Include Public Hearing Procedures
Another technique many communities are using to clarify and make the development review process more procedurally efficient is to
include a basic 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 be included
either in the UDO or in an accompanying administrative manual.
CLARIFY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES
i
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 the 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) adding
several new procedures; (2) consolidating several review procedures; and (3) 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
different levels of site plan review(based on the type, size, or location of a proposed use), and that review authority be modified to
help streamline the review process.
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Page 8 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Issues Summary
FORMALIZE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Several people interviewed at the expressed support for a formalized Technical Review Committee (TRC). The TRC should
be a group of key town staff members from various departments such as planning, inspections, engineering, and fire who
review and comment on site plans submitted to the town. Depending upon the size of the proposed use or type of site plan
application,TRC members currently provide review comments directly to applicants or to the Planning Department In cases
where comments are provided directly to an applicant, there is the possibility for inconsistency between comments from
different departments. Under the current process, the applicant is often required to mediate between two or more different
departments on conflicting review comments—which can add additional time and frustration to the review process.
We suggest the role and responsibilities of the TRC be formalized and codified in the new UDO to address these kinds of
problems. Under the provisions in the new UDO, the TRC would be recognized as a formal review and decision-making
body responsible for commenting on various applications (e.g., vested rights, planned developments, beneficial use
determinations, etc.), as well as decision-making responsibilities for Type II Site Plans_ In addition, it is recommended the
TRC develop a regular meeting schedule and conduct all pre-application conferences(following submittal of a pre-application
request and required materials).
REFINE CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
Add a Two-Tier Administrative Adjustment Procedure
One of the recurring themes during the stakeholder interviews was the need for flexibility in application of some of the zoning
ordinance provisions as a means of encouraging development or redevelopment The need for this kind of flexibility is underscored by
the town's customer-friendly culture and its desire to find ways of accommodating development requests. The intersection of the
desire to facilitate development requests with the current code's lack of clarity and flexibility have led to confusion on the part of
development applicants and town staff. One of the ways to address these problems(in addition to adding clarity to the development
standards and review procedures)is to include mechanisms in the town's development review toolbox that provide for more flexibility
in the development review process.
One tool many communities use to streamline development review and allow greater flexibility is an administrative adjustment This is
a method of allowing a minor departure from a dimensional standard (like a setback) or development standards (like the amount of
required parking) in cases where such departure better serves the intent of the zoning ordinance or long range planning document
These kinds of departures from standards are reviewed and approved administratively based upon an established set of clear
measurable criteria. They are accomplished outside of the variance process, and as such, do not rely on demonstration of a
"hardship". The administrative adjustment process provides a "safety valve" to address unintended consequences resulting from
application of the development standards or situations where an alternative approach that differs from the minimum development
standards provides a higher development quality overall,or results in a condition that is closer in alignment with the goals of the CAMA
Land Use Plan.
We recommend the new UDO be supplemented with a formalized two-tier administrative adjustment process. Minor requests to
deviate or depart from a dimensional or numeric standard in the-UDO by ten percent or less would be considered as a "Type I
Administrative Adjustment" and would be reviewed and approved administratively by the Planning Director. "Type II Administrative
Adjustments"are requests to deviate from numerical standards by more than 10 percent but less than 25 percent, and are reviewed by
the Planning Board;even in cases when the use is subject to Type I or Type 11 Site Plan review.
Add a Beneficial Use Determination
Over the previous 15 years, many local governments have included a procedure in their land use regulations that allows any landowner
who believes the application of the regulations results in a"taking"of their property to seek administrative relief from the local elected
body. This procedure is called a beneficial use determination. The procedure is based on United States Supreme Court decisions that
state local governments may establish procedures by which they can assess "takings" claims before they go to court and offer relief if
the regulations are found to amount to a taking—that is,the regulations deny all economically beneficial use of property.
The current zoning regulations do not include a beneficial use determination procedure. We recommend the town consider
adding this new procedure or a similar procedure in the new UDO because it amounts to a safety net against federal takings
claims and provides a less onerous means for property owners to secure relief than filing a lawsuit.
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 9
November,2009
it
it
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 a cross-reference to any additional use-specific
standards.
We also suggest the UDO codify the allowed uses under a three-tiered use classification system that adds textual descriptions
to clarify use groups at three different levels:
• Use Classifications(broad general classifications 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 structure 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 home occupations, stand-alone automated teller machines,
portable storage containers,stand-alone ice vending uses,and special events like garage sales or block parties.
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 has 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
Page 10 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Issues Summary
ACHIEVE HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT,
The community has expressed a desire for more infill and redevelopment in these areas through numerous policies and goals that
encourage development and redevelopment in areas already served by infrastructure, maintenance of a vibrant mixed-use downtown,
new planned development alternatives for establishment of higher intensity development in selected areas, and conversion of auto-
dominated commercial corridors to walkable mixed-use areas.
Redevelopment and revitalization of older areas is a common problem in communities,and effective solutions require a wide variety of
responses—many of which are outside the scope of zoning ordinance provisions. However, there are actions that can be taken in the
new UDO to help remove obstacles and create some incentives for redevelopment in the downtown and along the major corridors.
The basic philosophical approach is to make the desired forms of development or redevelopment easier to accomplish. The basic
questions for the consideration by the town are: 1) where, exactly, are redevelopment and infill desired, and 2) how can changes to
the zoning provisions best contribute to a comprehensive strategy for redevelopment in these areas?
There are a variety of approaches, including targeted changes in the various procedural and development standard sections to
recognize redevelopment situations, use of special procedures like planned developments or development agreements to facilitate
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
Contextual standards are used by many communities in mature areas where the established development context differs from
the minimum dimensional or development standards. Contextual standards are typically flexible and rely on consistency 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 to 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 used for some development standards in targeted redevelopment areas. For example, the long
axis of a building's orientation, the presence or absence of a front porch,the amount of glazing on a storefront, or location of
off-street parking can all be effectively regulated through contextual standards that rely on existing conditions along particular
block faces. This approach allows maximum flexibility for new development, as long as it is compatible with the existing
context It does, however, require the applicant or the town to document existing conditions.
MODIFY DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY
Another option for consideration is modifications to some of the key district and development standards as a means of
providing greater flexibility in redevelopment areas. For example, the range of allowed uses in some of the zoning districts
can be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the desired mix of uses for the downtown and major commercial
corridors. The individual permitting procedures for particular uses can also be reexamined to ensure the establishment of
preferred uses (e.g., mixed-use, higher density residential, "entertainment" uses, convenience retail, etc.) is as procedurally
simple as possible. It is also possible to make the establishment of discouraged uses slightly more difficult procedurally by
requiring more detailed review.
Additional flexibility can also be built into the development standards by waiving or reducing the minimum requirements for
a variety of standards like parking, landscaping, and signage. For example,a different set of perimeter buffer standards can be
utilized in redevelopment areas that reduce minimum buffer widths through use of fencing, or reduced minimum stocking
requirements. Off-street parking requirements can be reduced, waived outright, or modified to recognize adjacent on-street
parking resources. Signage provisions can be adjusted to provide increased face area for desired sign types (e.g. wall signs,
projecting signs, arcade signs, etc.). It is also possible to reduce some of the land-consumptive standards like open space set-
aside or tree canopy retention. In terms of open space, credit can be given for roof gardens, public plazas, or provision of
pedestrian amenities.Specific criteria for these reductions would need to be developed and included within the new UDO.
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 incentives for redevelopment.
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Oudine Page 11
November,2009
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 adjustments, 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 associated 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.
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Page 12 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline'
November,2009
ANNOTATED OUTLINE
General Commentary: Section 3 of this report provides an overview of what the Proposed UDO Structure:
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 , Article 1 General Provisions
provide more detailed direction about the nature and scope of the new code
document and specific provisions. When this process is completed, the Clarion team
• Article 2 Administration
will undertake the actual drafting of the new UDO: '
The sidebar outlines the proposed new UDO structure, which is composed of nine • Article 3 Zoning Districts
new articles. The following pages present a general outline for the new UDO., We
view this annotated outline, and the previous issues portion of this report as vehicles • Article 4 Use Regulations
for helping to define expectations about what is to be accomplished in the new UDO
before we begin the detailed drafting work. In addition to providing a road map for • Article 5 Development Standards
drafting the new ordinance, this outline provides an organizing framework for
continued conversations with the town about key zoning and development regulation
issues. This material is presented as a starting point for subsequent discussions. • Article 6 Subdivision Standards
GENERAL PROVISIONS • Article 7 Nonconformities
.
General Commentary: This article contains important general provisions that are • Article 8 Enforcement
relevant to the new UDO as a whole. While most of these provisions are traditional,
all will be specifically tailored to Hillsborough. The article plays an important part in • Article 9 Definitions
making the UDO user-friendly by including certain overarching principles and
establishing a clear basis for the authority by which the UDO is adopted, its administration,and its substantive regulations.
TITLE AND AUTHORITY
"Tide"is a standard section. It sets forth the official name by which the Unified Development Ordinance may be cited (e.g.,
"The Unified Development Ordinance of the Town of Hillsborough") as well as any acceptable shortened references (e.g.,
"the Ordinance," or "this Ordinance" or "UDO"). "Authority" contains references to the statutory basis for zoning and
subdivision in Hillsborough (G.S. §160A Chapter 19 Parts I and II). It will state that the UDO consolidates the town's zoning
and subdivision regulatory authority under the North Carolina General Statutes.
GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT
Article 1: General Provisions: 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
1.1 Title UDO. This section is absent from the existing ordinance.
1.2 Authority
1.3 General Purpose and Intent APPLICABILITY AND JURISDICTION
1.4 Applicability and jurisdiction This section makes clear who is subject to the regulations of the UDO. In
1.5 Conformance with Adopted Plans particular, it clarifies that the town, town-controlled entities, colleges and
1.6 Relationship with Other Laws universities, special districts within the town, and all private development are all
1.7 Official Zoning Map subject to the UDO. It will also clarify that lands located within the corporate
1.8 Transitional Provisions limits as well as the extra-territorial jurisdiction are subject to the requirements of
1.9 Vested Rights the UDO. In addition, the section clarifies that state and county buildings will
-1.10 Severability need to comply with the UDO (in accordance with G.S. §160A-392), and that
development not subject to G.S. §160A-393 (e.g. activities of the federal
government)is strongly encouraged to comply with the standards.
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page C-1
November,2009
Annotated Outline
CONFORMANCE WITH ADOPTED PLANS
This section sets out the requirements for development to be in compliance with the town's long range planning documents.
The section will provide a listing of the relevant plans and explain how compliance with the plan requirements will be
evaluated. It will also state other plans might be adopted in the future that are relevant to the UDO.
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER LAWS, COVENANTS, OR DEED RESTRICTIONS
This is a new section that provides that, in case of conflict between the UDO and other legislative enactments of the state or
town,the strider provision shall apply. The section clarifies that the town will not be responsible for monitoring or enforcing
private easements, covenants, 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
dispute). The section also provides that appeals from the Planning Director's interpretations of district boundaries may be
made to the Board of Adjustment(BOA). In addition, language related to the application of development standards will 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 longer
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 the
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 be withdrawn and resubmitted.
• Conditional use permits, variances, conditional use rezonings, planned developments, plats for subdivision,
statutorily-vested development, vested rights determinations (as part of a site-specific development plan), and
building permits 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 the
new UDO.
VESTED RIGHTS
This section will confirm the definition of Vested Rights,and include a reference to NC General Statute 160A-385.1.
SEVERABILITY
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
Page 2 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Annotated Outline
ADMINISTRATION
General Commentary: For an ordinance to be effective, it is Article 2' Administration'.
important that its development review process is efficient and
that the community's substantive planning and development 2.1 Review and Decision-Making Bodies
goals are embedded in the development review standards. An A. Town Board of Commissioners.
efficient process is achieved when the general framework for B. Planning Board .
review is not redundant, the procedures used and the review C. Board of Adjustment
standards included result in a reasonable degree of certainty, D. Town Staff
and the review process for each type of permit is streamlined to 2.2 Common Review Procedures
the greatest extent possible without sacrificing assurance that A. Authority to File Applications
the relevant substantive planning/development goals are used in B. Application Contents
making development decisions.
C. Fees
Certainty is provided primarily through the establishment of D. Submission Schedule
clear review procedures, definite and understandable E. Pre-Application Conference
development review standards, and a balance of discretionary F. Application Submission
and more administrative review procedures. G. Determination of Completeness
H. Preparation of Staff Report
Streamlining is achieved in a combination of ways: I. Scheduling Public Hearing
1. Consolidating the permit process so the J. Public Notification
applicant has fewer permits to obtain; K. Public Hearing Procedures
2. Reducing the number of review steps where L. Conditions of Approval
possible; and
3. Allowing for increased administrative-level M. Appeals of Decisions .. .
review instead of discretionary review when N. Notification to Applicant
community planning/development goals are 0. Deferral of Application
not sacrificed. P. Withdrawal of Application_
Q. Examination of Documents
Assuring that the community's planning/development goals are R. Simultaneous Processing of Applications
embedded in the development review standards requires a S. Lapse of Approval
close evaluation of existing standards to ensure they are clear,
2.3 Specific Standards for Development Approvals
sufficiently specific, and consistent with the substantive A. Land Use Plan Amendment
planning/development goals embraced by the community. B. Rezoningor Text Amendment
These factors, all of which are relevant to the procedural C. Conditional Rezoning
efficiency and substantive effectiveness of review procedures, D. Planned Development
are each considered in the design of this Administration article. E. Site Plans
F. Subdivision Plats
It is suggested this new Chapter 2, Administration, include G. Special Use Permit
sections on the following: H.. Zoning Permit
• Administrative and Decision-making Bodies that 1. Variance
consolidates the development review responsibilities J Administrative Adjustment
of the review boards and key town staff members.
• Common Review Procedures that establish a K. Interpretation
common set of review procedures for the review of L. Appeal
applications for development approval. M. Vested Rights Determination
• Specific Standards for.Development Approvals that N. Beneficial Use Determination
include the specific review standards, any unique
procedural review requirements for each individual
application, and rules that apply to an application
once it is approved (e.g., the life of the development
approval, expiration, minor deviations, and
amendments).
The structure for review of individual applications for
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 3
November,2009
Annotated Outline
development approval will be modified to make the review process more efficient and predictable through the inclusion of the
individual standards for review,description of how appeals are handled, and the process for making modifications once an application
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 existing procedures be modified as well as additional permit types be added to the town's line up of development
application procedures. These changes will likely include:
• A new procedure for land use plan amendments,
• A revised conditional rezoning process,
• A new planned development procedure,
• Revisions to the site plan process to establish three different forms of review,
• A temporary use permit,
• A new zoning permit,
• A new administrative adjustment procedure,
• A new interpretation process,and
• A new 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 Administration Chapter is a new section that identifies the administrative
and decision-making entities and persons responsible for the review and administration of development under the UDO. It is
our experience that provisions such as these help to establish clear lines of authority in the town's decision-making
procedures. This section will identify the specific responsibilities relative to the UDO of each review board or staff person.
The following table provides an overview of the review structure proposed in the new UDO.
ILL&,
•
MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS
Land Use Plan Amendment <D> R C
Rezoning or Text Amendment <D> R C
Conditional Rezoning <D> R C
Planned Development <D> R C
SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS
Type II Site Plan <D> R C
Type I Site Plan <A> D C
Exempt Subdivision <A> D
Preliminary Plat <A> R D
Final Plat <A> D R.
PERMITS
Special Use Permit <D> It C
Zoning Permit <A> D
Building Permit <A> D
VARIANCES,ADJUSTMENTS,AND OTHER PROCEDURES
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Page 4 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Annotated Outline
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR TEctiNICAL
Bo\RD BOARD ADJUST,",,AENI
Variance <D>
Interpretation <A> D
Appeal <D>
Vested Right <D> R C
Development Agreement <D> R
Beneficial Use Determination <D> <R> C
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 administration 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 the 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 respect 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 that 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 a pre-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 the 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 time as necessary, and
provides for their inclusion in the Administrative Manual upon adoption. The fees, along with bonding requirements and other
application 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
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 5
November,2009
Annotated Outline
provision as appropriate to establish a submission schedule for all applications. A practical benefit to this approach is that the
application submission schedule can be changed administratively, so that it is not necessary to amend the UDO every time
modifications are needed.
Pre-Application Conference
The Issues Summary above describes the desirability of requiring pre-application conferences. We recommend the common
procedures section of the new UDO establish a standard requirement for a pre-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 formal
application is submitted and accepted). The following types of major development applications should require a pre-application
conference with staff before the application is submitted: zoning map amendments, planned developments (, special use permits,
conditional use permits, Type II site plans, preliminary plats, and variances. Pre-application conferences would be voluntary for all
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 review
process—starts with the applicant's submission of the necessary application and the required fee. This is followed by staffs review of
the application to determine if it meets minimal completeness requirements, and then staffs review of the general merits of the
application and preparation of a written staff report We propose that all applications undergo a completeness review by planning
staff. This process prevents staff's and applicants'time being wasted by substantive review of applications that are not complete.
Determination of Completeness
These sections establish that the review of a development application is subjected to two increments of review. The first increment
consists of receipt and review of the application to determine if it has the minimal amount of materials (application contents) so that
staff can conduct an adequate review of the application; it is called a completeness determination. The provision requires that the
determination be made within a reasonable period of time after receipt of the application, such as five business days. The regulations
should also specify how long an applicant has to correct a deficient application.
If the application is found to be incomplete, the applicant is notified in writing with the specific deficiencies identified. The applicant
may then correct the deficiencies, and resubmit the application within a defined time frame for completeness determination. (The fee
schedule established by the Town Board of Commissioners may provide that re-submittals after the first re-submittal be accompanied
by an additional fee to discourage recurring incomplete submittals.) We recommend the town avoid 'codifying any development
application review time frames, but include this kind of information in an Administrative Manual so that time frames 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
Upon a determination of completeness,the second stage of review begins--the staffs evaluation of the application and preparation of
a written staff report The time frame for review of the application and preparation of a staff report varies between different types of
development applications depending on their complexity. For example, the staff review time fora planned development may be
longer than a variance because the issues evaluated in the application are broader and more complex.
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 what
order the applicant and public can speak,and the process for responding to comments), how and under what circumstances testimony
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
Page 6 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Annotated Outline
Public Notification
It is recommended that the proposed public notification requirements for all applications subject to public notification requirements be
consolidated in this section.
Generally, public notification is required through publication in a newspaper of general circulation, 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
applications. To the extent we can comply with state law while at the same time consolidating the notice requirements for the
different types of applications for development approval,we will do so in this.subsection. We also suggest the town consider including
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 consolidating and simplifying notice requirements 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 TABLE 2-2DO(l):PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR PERMIT APPROVALS
jurisdiction is reproduced here.
Public Hearing Procedures
Text Amendment At list 3D day,poor
T
or
his section will include legally-mandated public hearing public nearing
procedures. Additional information regardin g expectations for
O Amandmem to Olfieial Zeno District Map 6 At 111 15 days prior W Al least 30 days prig to At Mast 15 days"ior to
public hearings will be included in the administrative manual. Planned DeveloDmaa District °°b"`"'aring pWdR Hearing pubic tearing
Special Ex..plion Perme 6 Al least 15 days prior b At least 15 days Prior b Ai)..It 15 days prior to
Conditions of Approval V.4—Perms pubrc nearing public hearing Public nearing
Appeal to Board or Z-Ing Appals Al lean 15 days prior to Al keel 15 days prior to a least 15 days prior to
This section will describe generally the es of conditions that Public hearing public loafing "be nearing
g Y types codirral.a Aopmaal«+..s a
may be attached to certain forms of approvals ranted under Appeal dHardship d Nkart/5 dear prior k akirtlic Gas Pnorb
PP g Appeal a DevekPm.a ssrsicea Director's puae hearing pubic tearing
this chapter. The section will only apply in those instances keN"e18ion;r Decision wCaMlicarara
where the procedure expressly allows applications to be public "
"approved with conditions." This section will be written to LaMDevalcpmeMAgreemeas A1isf3Ddearing ° P 30dayer"°`r k'•130dH days
reflect the General Statutes, federal law, and case law regarding public hearing "p��n;beta: "i°"`"°""°
conditional approvals. It will specify that conditions imposed on ` rl
proposed developments must be limited to those that are Example Summary Table of Notice Provisions
related in both type and amount to the impacts that the
proposed development will have on the public and surrounding development, and that conditions may not be less restrictive than
provisions in the UDO.
Notification to Applicant
This subsection will explain the various ways in which an applicant will receive notification of a decision made by a decision-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 application.
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 application for development approval.
Withdrawal of Application
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 7
November,2009
Annotated Outline
This section will establish the rules governing when an application 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 costs 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 during the 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 time. Lapse provisions will be 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 application 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
This procedure will address modifications to the future land use map as well as document text Each amendment request would be
reviewed first by the Planning Board and then decided by the Town Board of Commissioners during a public hearing.
In cases where a rezoning request triggers the need for an amendment to the future land use map or other long-range planning
document, these two procedures could occur simultaneously, provided the amendment to the appropriate long range planning
documents occurs prior to approval of the rezoning.
Rezoning or Text Amendment
This section will 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 section will include new
language mandated by recent changes in the state'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
Page 8 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Annotated Outline
Conditional Rezoning
This procedure will replace the current conditional use rezoning procedure (and the accompanying conditional use permit process).
The process will use the same procedure as an amendment to the zoning map except that there will be additional provisions 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 I Site
Plans. Type II Site Plans will be reviewed by the Planning Board prior to consideration 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
Zoning Permit We suggest any submittal requirements be relocated to an administrative manual and that the site plan provisions be
supplemented with clear approval criteria as well as clear descriptions on how amendments,extensions, and expiration are addressed.
Exempt Subdivision
The exempt subdivision procedure is included within the town's current subdivision regulations, and it will be carried forward with no
substantive revisions. We will include additional language that the "exempt"nature of subdivisions deals with the exemption from the
review procedure for preliminary plats (as authorized by the General Statutes)— not outright exemption from the minimum standards
for the zoning district
Preliminary Plats
This process will be carried forward from the current subdivision with reference to plats rather than plans to distinguish this type of
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 label
from final plans to final plats.
Special Use Permit
We recommend this procedure be carried forward with only minor changes. For example, we suggest the submittal requirements be
relocated to an administrative manual, and the public hearing notice provisions and public hearing procedures be relocated to
common review procedures in Article 2.
Zoning Permit
No review process is currently described for issuance of a zoning permit In general,a zoning permit should be required for all forms of
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 permits, which would be required prior to
issuance of a building permit,and for changes in use where no building permit is required. The zoning permit process will also be used
to review and approve sign permits, temporary uses, and applications that may not require a building permit such as a fence or for
changes in use that do not modify the building or require adjustments to parking or landscaping.
Variance
This section will carry forward provisions in the existing ordinance, and will incorporate the existing procedure that authorizes the
Board of Adjustment(BOA)to review and approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove applications for variances. The portion of
the section dealing with appeals is proposed for relocation to the procedure dealing with appeals,in the new UDO.
The variance process allows variation from the dimensional standards (yard requirements, setbacks, height requirements), as well as
other development standards in the UDO (i.e., landscaping, parking, signage, or subdivision improvement standards) when an
applicant demonstrates that, due to circumstances beyond the control of the landowner, the application of the dimensional or other
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 9
November,2009
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
In addition,the text will be supplemented with a requirement that an applicant for a variance exhaust all other available forms of relief
(e.g., administrative adjustment) before being eligible to apply for a variance. The text will also clarify (based on recently-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
The administrative adjustment is a new procedure recommended for the UDO. It allows the Planning Director to modify, waive, or
adjust any numerical standard in the ordinance by up to 10 percent based on a very specific set of criteria. The procedure is designed
to serve as a "safety valve" to address any unintended consequences of the ordinance provisions or to address difficult development
scenarios on exceptionally difficult to develop site. It is intended for development that: one, advances the goals and purposes 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
adjustment process also be included that allows the Planning Board to consider request to deviate from numerical standards by up to
25 percent outside the hardship requirements of the variance. This is suggested as a way to accommodate redevelopment and
development on less desirable infill sites.
In either scenario,approval of an administrative adjustment may only be done in accordance with clearly specified criteria and only for
the purpose of establishing development that is superior than would otherwise result from a strict application of the 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 procedure
for obtaining standardized interpretations. To address these concerns, we recommend a new formal interpretation procedure that
authorizes the Planning Director to make an official interpretation of the ordinance with assistance from the Town Attorney 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 outside of this process shall not
be binding.
We recommend that the Planning Director maintain a record of written interpretations related to the text of the UDO in a formal
notebook for several reasons. First,they can be referred to when making future interpretations to ensure consistency in the application
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
This subsection will carry forward the portion of the provisions related to appeals of administrative decisions and decisions from other
decision-making bodies that are considered by the Board of Adjustment(BOA). This section will clarify the right of appeal by persons
affected by decisions of staff and reviewing bodies. It will govern the procedure for appeals to the BOA, and clarify the procedure for
appeals from decisions by review bodies, and the associated timeframes and limitations specified by the General Statutes associated
with appeals to the Superior Court of Orange County.
Vested Rights Determination
This section will include provisions as specified under the North Carolina General Statutes. The section will clarify that the Town Board
of Commissioners is the decision-making body responsible for review and consideration of vested rights applications,following review
and recommendation by the Planning Board. The section will set out the requirements for vesting, the effect of a vested site specific
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
landowner who believes the application of the regulations results in a"taking" of their property to seek administrative relief from the
local elected body. This procedure is called a beneficial use determination.
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Page 10 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Annotated Outline
The procedure is based on United States Supreme Court decisions that state that local governments may establish procedures by which
they can assess takings claims before they go to court and offer relief if the regulations are found to amount to a taking-- that is, the
regulations deny all reasonable economic use of a property.
The current zoning ordinance does not have a beneficial use determination procedure. It is recommended this new procedure be
included in the UDO and be heard by the Town Board of Commissioners.
ZONING DISTRICTS Article 3: Z6ning Districts
3.1 General Provisions
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 3.2 Residential Districts
property next door.
We propose no change to the list of designated zoning districts, but do propose to 3.3 Business Districts
adjust the presentation of the districts and standards to be more user-friendly.
3.4 Planned Development Districts
Additional modifications to the structure of the districts may occur after further
discussions with staff,the advisory committee,elected officials, and the public. 3.5 Overlay Districts
USE STANDARDS 3.6` Conditional Zoning Districts
General Commentary: While the zoning district regulations will be Article 4• Use Standards
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 4.1 Use Table
will include a summary use table that will specify the permitted,
prohibited, and special exception uses for the residential, business, and 4.2 Use Classifications,Categories,and Types
planned development zoning districts.
4.3 Use-Specific Standards
The second section in the chapter will establish a classification system
utilized to provide structure and content to the range of permitted 4.4 Accessory Use Standards
uses.
The third section, a set of use-specific standards, will identify any 4.5 Temporary Use Standards
specific regulations or limitations that always apply to certain principal
uses, regardless of the underlying zoning district in which they are
located. This material will replace the specific use standards that are located throughout the existing ordinance. If there are exceptions
to the general standards established in this section,they will be identified. Special attention will be paid to adding new uses, new use
standards,and improving upon what currently exists in the zoning ordinance.
Sections four and five will include the provisions relating to 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 each zoning
district section and includes a range of new uses not found in the current zoning ordinance. It also includes additional
information related to any use-specific standards that may apply, and where those standards may be found. The use table 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.
The actual set of uses identified in a use table will be either"permitted"or"special use"(except where uses are"allowed"in
Planned Development Districts). Allowed uses are uses that are permitted within in a planned development district, but only
when such uses are specifically identified in the Master Plan. Review and approval of the proposed list of uses occurs as part
of review of the Planned Development Master Plan. A blank cell in a use table will signify that the use is prohibited within a
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 11
November,2009
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 addition, 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 be required to consider whether the proposed use has an impact that 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 principal 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, a stand-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 a single-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 may or 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 purposerntent 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.
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Page 12 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
Annotated Outline
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
General Commentary: This chapter contains all of the development standards in the new UDO related to the,physical layout of new
development with the exception of the subdivision standards, which are found in
Article 6,Subdivisions. The proposed contents of Article 5, Development Standards, Article 5:1 Development Standards
are listed in the sidebar and are discussed below. Examples of standards to be
incorporated into this article include: 5.1 Off-Street Parking and Loading
• Off-street parking and loading standards as described in the diagnosis; 5.2 Landscaping Standards
• Revised landscaping standards that emphasize new standards for vehicle
accommodation areas, performance-based buffers,and street trees; 5.3 Tree Protection
• New tree protection standards for retention of existing tree canopy,
specimen trees,and tree protection during construction;
• Open space set-aside standards; 5.4 Open Space Set-Aside
• Fence and walls standards that focus on fence appearance and limiting
fence heights; 5.5 Fences and Walls
• Exterior lighting standards;
• Traffic impact standards; 5.6 Exterior Lighting
• New community form standards;
• Commercial design standards that address the design and orientation of 5.7 Traffic Impact Analysis
retail establishments;
Multi-family design standards focusing on multi-family structure 5.8 Community Form Standards
appearance; and
• Carrying forward the existing signage standards with no substantive 5.9 Commercial Design Standards
revisions.
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING 5.10 Multi-Family Design Standards
This section includes quantitative off-street parking requirements for uses 5.11 Signage
matching the revised use table for consistency and ease of use. The
permissible location of off-street parking areas will be set forth and
differentiated by district and type of development
Incentives will be used to allow developers to provide fewer than the minimum number of required parking spaces in
exchange for providing public or green space, or developing preferred development types, such as vertically-integrated
mixed-use. The provisions include maximum numbers of off-street parking spaces for development, as well as requiring any
additional off-street spaces provided in excess of the minimum requirements (for all uses) be on pervious or semi-pervious
surfaces.
Flexibility will be built into the provisions by allowing applicants to propose alternative strategies, such as off-site parking,,
shared parking, valet parking, or(in appropriate settings) credit for on-street parking spaces. Deferred parking provisions are
included that allow a developer to construct 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), with land area for future
parking held in reserve until monitoring proves that the built parking is either adequate or is inadequate and needs to be
expanded into the reserved area. Finally, provisions are added requiring pedestrian amenities and bicycle parking facilities.
The parking lot landscaping provisions are relocated to the new landscaping section.
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
The current landscaping requirements will be upgraded and the general planting requirements increased. To improve clarity,
graphics will be used, as appropriate, to explain the requirements for landscaping. Provisions allowing greater flexibility in
meeting landscaping standards (such as aggregate caliper inch standards per 100 linear feet) will be added to encourage
creative design. In addition, a minimum percentage of landscaping may be required to be native or drought tolerant
In addition 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
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 13
November,2009
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-based 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
allowed to propose alternative strategies for providing landscaping through an Alternative Landscape Plan. The section
includes standards for through the development of an Alternative Landscape Plan that must be reviewed by the Planning
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 shall 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
Page 14 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Oudine
November,2009
Annotated Outline
SUBDIVISIONS
i
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 Article 6: Subidivisions
have led communities to establish unified development ordinances which
incorporate both the zoning and the subdivision regulations into a single 6.1 Subdivisions
document Recent modifications to the General Statutes provide justification for A. Purpose and Intent
this kind of consolidation. Along these lines, this chapter will include the B. Applicability
standards related to the subdivision of land and the provision of public utilities as C. Monuments
a part of new development The chapter will include provisions from the current D. Blocks
subdivision ordinance. The chapter will also include the standards and
E. Lots
procedures related to performance guarantees.
F. Easements
SUBDIVISIONS G. Access & Egress
6.2 Performance Guarantees
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
related to approval of plats will be replaced by the subdivision review
procedures in Article 2, Administration. All of the submittal/plat requirements are recommended for relocation to 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,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 15
November,2009
Annotated Outline
NONCONFORMITIES
General Commentary: This chapter consolidates all the rules pertaining to Article 7: . Nonconformities
nonconformities from the various different sections in the current zoning
ordinance. The new chapter will include: 7.1. General Applicability
• Differentiation between the standards for nonconforming lots, A. Purpose and Scope
structures,and uses; B. Authority to Continue -
• Nonconforming sign standards; C. Determination of
• The creation of nonconforming landscaping standards for use Nonconformity Status
changes; and D. Mmor Repairs'and
• A new sliding scale of compliance requirements for nonconforming Maintenance
site features like landscaping, parking, signage, etc. triggered by
E. Change of Tenancy redevelopment $ or
Ownership
GENERAL APPLICABILITY 7.2 Nonconforming Uses
A. General
B. Change of Us
e e
Purpose and Scope P C. .'Expansion and Enlargement
This subsection will establish that the chapter addresses legally established D. Discontinuance or
uses, structures, lots, and signs that do not comply with the requirements of Abandonment
the new UDO. E. Accessory Uses
F. Reconstruction After casualty .
Authority to Continue Damage
All lawfully established nonconformities will be allowed to continue in G. Nonconforming Use of Part of
accordance with the standards of this chapter. a Structure
7.3 Nonconforming Structures
Determination of Nonconformity Status A. Relationship with
This new subsection will include a standard provision stating that the Nonconforming Uses
landowner, not the town, has the burden of proving the existence of a lawful B. Continuation
nonconformity. C. Enlargement
D. Relocation
Minor Repairs and Maintenance E. Restoration after Casualty
This subsection will state that routine maintenance of nonconforming Damage
structures is allowed to keep nonconforming uses and structures in the same 7.3 Nonconforming Lots of Record
condition they were at the time the nonconformity was established. This rule A. Status of Structures on.
will also be applied to structures housing nonconforming uses. Nonconforming Lots
B. Development of Unimproved
Change of Tenancy or Ownership Lots in Residential Districts
This section will state that change of tenancy or ownership will not, in and of C. Development of Improved
itself,affect nonconformity status. Lots in Residential Districts
After Casualty
NONCONFORMING USES D. Governmental Acquisition of
Land in a Residential District
This section will include provisions dealing with existing uses that no E. Change of Nonconforming Lot
longer conform with the zoning district provisions where they are
7.4 Nonconforming Signs
located. The standards will deal with conversion of a nonconforming
use to a more restricted nonconforming use, as well as the inability A. Abandonment
to expand an existing nonconforming use. The section will establish B. Routine Repairs and
the standards for when a nonconforming use is considered Maintenance
discontinued or abandoned, and how reconstruction may or may C. Change of Copy
not proceed following substantial damage to the use. D. Other Sign Permits on
Premises
Hillsborough,North Carolina
Page 16 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
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 acquisition 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 Section 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
Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline Page 17
November,2009
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 time, expense, and uncertainty of enforcing the UDO. One aspect for the town to consider is the inclusion of a discussion of the
enforcement process in the administrative manual as a way to help ensure potential code violators better understand the enforcement
process.
PURPOSE Article 8 Enforcement
This section will set forth the purpose of the enforcement section.
8.1 Purpose
COMPLIANCE REQUIRED
This section will state that compliance with all provisions of the UDO is 8.2 Compliance Required
required.
8.3 Violation
VIOLATIONS
This section will explain that failure to comply with any provision of the UDO, 8.4 Responsible Persons
or the terms or conditions of any permit or authorization granted pursuant to
the UDO,shall constitute a violation of the ordinance. The section will include 8.5 Enforcement Generally
both general violations as well as identifying specific violations.
8.6 Remedies and Penalties
RESPONSIBLE PERSONS A. Remedies and Penalties
This section will state that any person who violates the UDO shall be subject to Available to Town
the remedies and penalties set forth in this chapter. "Person"will be defined B. Criminal Penalties
broadly to include both human beings and business entities (firms and C. Civil Penalties
corporations). D. Cumulative Penalties
ENFORCEMENT 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
Page 18 Unified Development Ordinance I Draft Annotated Outline
November,2009
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. Article 9: Definitions
Clear definitions of important words and phrases not only make life easier for those 9.1 General Rules for Interpretation
who must interpret and administer the UDC)and for those who must hear appeals of A. Meanings and Intent
decisions made by staff--they also make it much easier for the public to know what B. Headings, Illustrations,
is required. The importance of good definitions as a key component of fairness to the and Text
public and consistency in decision-making has led to an increased interest in this C. Lists and Examples
seemingly mundane topic.
D. Computation of Time
We will use the definitions found in the existing ordinance as a starting point for the E. References to Other
definitions section, and add and revise definitions as necessary to ensure that the Regulations/Publications
definitions do not contain substantive or procedural requirements. We will verify that F. Delegation of Authority
key definitions conform to federal and North Carolina law and constitutional G. Technical and
requirements. We will also add definitions, where necessary. Standards and/or Nontechnical Terms
procedures that currently exist only in the definitions section of the town's current H. Public Officials and
ordinance will be moved to the appropriate standard/procedures sections of the new Agencies
UDO. I. Mandatory and
GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION Discretionary Terms
j. Conjunctions
This section will address general issues related to interpretation of UDC) K. Tenses and Plurals
language,including:. 9.2 Rules of Measurement
• The meaning of standard terms such as"shall,""will,"and "may," 9.3 Definitions
• 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.
RULES OF MEASUREMENT
This section will establish the rules for measuring bulk and dimensional requirements like 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,North Carolina
Unified Development Ordinance 1 Draft Annotated Oudine Page 19
November,2009
UDO Assistance I Orange County, North Carolina 24
APPENDIX
Excerpt from Draft Fayetteville, NC Unified Development Ordinance
ARTICLE 30-3: ZONING DISTRICTS
• GENERAL PROVISIONS
I. TYPES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
Land within the city is generally classified by this Ordinance to be within one of a number of base zoning districts.
Land may be reclassified to one of a number of a comparable conditional zoning districts in accordance with Section
30-2.C.4, Conditional Rezoning, or to one of several planned development zoning districts in accordance with
Section 30-2.C3,Planned Development Land within any base,conditional,or planned development zoning district
may also be classified into one or more overlay zoning districts,in which case regulations governing development in
the overlay district shall apply in addition to the regulations governing development in the underlying base zoning
district,conditional zoning district,or planned development zoning district
2. COMPLIANCE WITH DISTRICT STANDARDS
No land within the city shall be developed except in accordance with the zoning district regulations of this article and
all other regulations of this Ordinance,including but not limited to,Article 4:Use Standards,Article 5:Development
Standards,and Article 6:Subdivisions.
B. BASE ZONING ESTABLISHED
Table 30-3.B.1, Base Zoning Districts Established, sets out the base zoning districts established by this Ordinance. Base
zoning districts are grouped into Special,Residential,and Business districts.
TABLE ' • ESTABLISHED
DISTRICT ABBREVIATION DISTRICT NAME
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
CD Conservation
AR Agricultural-Residential
MB Military Base'0
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
SF-15 Single-Family Residential 15
SF-10 Single-Family Residential 10
SF-6 Single-Family Residential 6
MR-5 Mixed Residential 5
MH Manufactured Home
BUSINESS DISTRICTS
01 Office&Institutional
NC Neighborhood Commercial
CC Community Commercial
MU Moved-Use
DT Downtown
LI Light Industrial
HI Heavy Industrial
+0 This is district includes Fort Brag. The city has no land use control in the MB District,and the city will send any rezoning applications vviithin five
miles of the base to the designated Ft Bragg representative.
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-1
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section C:Special Base Zoning Districts
Subsection I:General Purposes
(a) Classification of Base Zoning Districts
Land shall be classified or reclassified into a base zoning district only in accordance with the procedures and
requirements set forth in Section 30-2.C.1,Map Amendment(Rezoning).
(b) Relationship to Overlay Zoning Districts
Regulations governing development in an overlay zoning district shall apply in addition to the regulations
governing development in the underlying base zoning district If the standards governing a base zoning district
expressly conflict with those governing an overlay zoning district,the standards governing the overlay zoning
district shall control.
(c) Organization of Base Zoning District Regulations
Sections 30-1<> through 30-3.<> set out the general purposes of each group of base zoning districts and
contain subsections that set out the purpose and bulk and dimensional standards for each individual base
zoning district These subsections have a common structure consisting of a purpose statement, applicable
dimensional standards,a photograph showing a hypothetical preferred building form for the district,a graphic
depiction of hypothetical street layout and lot patterns,and a hypothetical graphic depiction of the district's
bulk and dimensional standards as 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 shall control.
Article 30-4: Use Standards, includes Table 30-4A2, Use Table, a summary use table specifying permitted,
special, and allowable uses for each of the base zoning districts and references any standards specific to
individual uses.
,C. SPECIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
1. GENERAL PURPOSES
The special base zoning districts established in this section are intended to address special areas where typical urban
growth and development does not or should not occur, whether because the areas contain important natural
resources or natural hazards (Conservation District),rural character and productive natural resources(Agricultural-
Residential District),or a military installation(Military Base District).
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance-Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-2
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section C:Special Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 2 Conservation District(CD)
2. CONSERVATION DISTRICT(CD)
=-- -
•
The Conservation District(CD)is established and intends to preserve and protect identifiable
. natural resources from urban encroachment---i.e,to preserve watercourses and protect them
from erosion and sedimentation;retain open spaces and greenways and protect their
environmentally-sensitive character,preserve wildlife and plant life habitats and protect them
• • from the intrusions of urbanization;provide air and noise buffers to ameliorate the effects of
development;and preserve and maintain the aesthetic qualities and appearance of the community.
The district also discourages development that creates risks for loss of life or property from
normal natural processes and events in natural hazard areas(e g,floodplains).
Lot area,min.(acres) 2 n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 200 n/a
Lot coverage,max(%of lot area) 10 [I]
Height,max(ft) 35 35; 15 where abutting a single-family zoning
district or use
Front and corner side setback,min.(ft) 50 Not allowed in front or side yards;5 from
Side setback min.(ft) 15 principal structure
Rear setback min.(ft) 35 5
Minimum open space set-aside(%of parcel) [pending in Module 3]
NOTES:[1]Accessory structures/use areas shall not exceed the lesser of 7,500 square feet in sae or 15 percent of the allowable lot
coverage.
Figure 30-3.<>:CD Typical Lot Pattern Figure 30-3.<>:CD Typical Building Form
:r
A 1A a••x.s 'I
t 1
a
� r
41 The current CD district is carried forward with new dimensional standards for die city's consideration(the current CD district does not include
any dimensional standards).
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-3 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section C.Special Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 2:Conservation District(CD)
Figure 30-3.<>:CD Typical Building/Lot Configuration
4 ) 2 1
lot area 2
lot coverage 10%max.
r setback.34 min
4 er'side setback 50'tnin � �
setback. 15'miri �:
9 t
Jn
lot width:200'min.
t setback 5o'mm
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-4
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section Q Special Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 3:Agricultural-Residential(AR)District
3. AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL(AR) DISTRICT
MOM
The agricultural-Rural(AR)District is established and intends to accommodate rural uses,
including agricultural uses,uses that complement or support agricultural uses,and very low-
density- . residential uses. It encourages residential development that preserves farmland and other
open space through flexibly-designed conservation subdivisions.
• • •
AU1 •.
Lot area,min. 20,000 n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 100 n/a
Gross residential density,max(dwelling unitslacre) 2 n/a
42
Lot coverage,max.(%of lot area) 25 (2]
35; 15 where abutting a single-family zoning
Height max(ft) 35 district or use
Front and corner side setback,min.(ft) 40 Not allowed in front,side,or corner side
Side setback min.(ft) 15 setbacks
Rear setback min.(ft) 35 5
Agricultural uses:n/a;Residential uses:[pending in Module 3];
Open space set-aside(%of parcel size) Conservation subdivisions•.50;All other uses:[pending in Module 3]
NOTES:[[] The gross residential density standard applies to conservation subdivisions,but lot area,lot width,and lot coverage
standards do not apply.Setback standards apply only from the perimeter of the conservation subdivision.
[2]Accessory structures/use areas associated with an agricultural use may exceed a principal dwelling units size.Accessory uses
associated with all other permitted uses shall not exceed the lesser of 1,500 square feet in size or 15 percent of the allowable lot
coverage.
Figure 30-3.<>:AR Typical Lot Pattern Figure 30-3.<>:AR Typical Building Form
4.• Yy r�kk 'f'6+.vz i� 1
M
AR
0`;:. a• 'q-AND BRIO ff Ra
42 The AR district carries forward the current district with a new maximum gross residential density of two units per acre.The new UDO will allow
density rounding as is done in Cumberland County. In cases where a site's 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 be located on a site. The new AR district will also allow conservation subdivisions.
which allow lot dimensional requirements to be reduced in favor of greater open space provision/protection.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-5 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section C:Special Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 3:Agricultural-Residential(AR)District
Figure 30-3.<>:Hypothetical Conservation Subdivision
Figure 30-3.<>:AR Typical Building/Lot Configuration
ot
larea• 26,000 sf min.rear setback'35 min.
lot coverage 25%max.
eights 35.max
ide
se tba 15
lot width. 100.min -1
t setback 40 mm
comer side setback: min.
:i
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-6
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 4:Military Base(MB)District
4. MILITARY BASE(MB) DISTRICT
The Military Base(MB)District is established and intended to identify those lands within the city
containing military installations under exclusive federal.authority.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
othervvise conveyed to private ownership in the future,the land should then be reclassified to
another zoning district in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance(See Section 30-
2.�>.).
No dimensional standards apply in the MB district,though military facilities are encouraged to provide a building setback from any base
perimeter abutting a single-family residential zoning district equal to at least the minimum setback applicable on the other side of the
perimeter.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS •
Uses within the MB district shall be exempt from the standards in this UDO.
REVIEW OF • AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
The city shall forward all map amendment(rezoning)applications on lands within five miles of the MB district to the appropriate
federal agency for review and comment as part of the application review process.
RESIDENTIAL • ZONING
I. 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 live and recreate. More specifically,they are intended to:
(a) Provide appropriately located lands for residential development that are consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the 2030 Joint Growth Vision Plan, the Cumberland County Land Use Plan,
functional plans,and applicable small area plans.
(b) Ensure adequate light,air,privacy,and recreational and open space areas for each dwelling,and protect
residents from the negative effects of noise, excessive population density, traffic congestion, flooding,
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 units;
(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 city's goals and objectives;and
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-7 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30.3:Zoning Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 2:Zero Lot Line Development
(h) Preserve the unique character and historic resources of the traditional neighborhoods and the
community.
2. ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT43
In addition to traditional development of allowable uses on a lot within a particular base zoning district subject to a
set of district-specific dimensional standards regarding lot area, lot width, and setbacks,this Ordinance also allows
zero lot line development in the residential and some business districts subject to review and approval of a major site
plan (See Section 30-2.<>.), special use permit (See Section 30-2.<>.) approval for zero lot line developments of
three acres or less within developed areas, and conformance with all applicable use standards (Article 30-4),
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 districts except the
CD,AR,and MH districts.
(b) Procedure
(1) 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 Section 30-2.C5,Site Plan.
(2) Special Use Permit Required
A Special Use Permit(See Section 30-2.<>.)shall be required for zero lot line development proposed
on a lot or site that is:
a. Located within the SF-15,SF-10,SF-6,or MR-5 district;and
b. Less than three acres in size;and
G 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
(1) Density
Zero lot line development shall comply with the maximum allowable gross density and maximum
height requirements in the base zoning district where proposed,and the following standards:
(2) Minimum Development Size
Zero lot line development located within the SF-15,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
a. All front,side,corner side,and rear setbacks for the base district shall apply to lots comprising
the outer perimeter of a zero lot line development, but shall not apply to lots internal to the
development
b. Setbacks associated with an overlay district and any applicable setbacks from natural resources
shall apply to all lots within a zero lot line development
43 This is a new section that clarifies the standards for zero lot line development The applicable requirements and exemptions are carried forward
from the city's current regulations,but the 40,000 square foot minimum development size standard for some of the residential districts,and the
special use permit requirement for smaller sites in developed areas are proposed for the ciq%consideration.
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-8
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 development standards in Article 30-5:
Development Standards,including the transitional standards in Section 30-5.<>,and any applicable infill
standards in Section 30-5.<>.
3. INCENTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES44
(a) Purpose
In an effort to encourage sustainable development practices within the MR-5 and DT districts as a means of
addressing global climate change,the protection of natural resources, and ensuring a high quality of life for
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 to 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 incentives included in this section are available in the MR-5 and DT districts.
(d) Procedure
(1) Development seeking density or height bonuses in accordance with this section shall be
reviewed (and approved or denied) by the TRC as part of a major site plan or preliminary plat,
as appropriate, or in the event the development requires a special use permit, reviewed (and
approved or denied)as part of the special use permit application.
(2) The density or height bonus shall be based on the number of sustainability features provided, in
accordance with Table 30-3.D.1, Sustainablity Bonuses, and Section 30-3.D.<>, Menu of
Sustainabiliity Features.
TABLE 1-3.D.1: SUSTAINABILTY BONUSES
MINIMUM NUMBER OF
TYPE OF BONUS SUSTAINABILiTy FEATURES PROVIDED
Increase in gross residential density by up to 10 percent beyond 3
district maximum
Increase in building height by one story beyond district maximum 5
Increase in gross residential density between.10 and 20 percent 7
beyond district ma)dmum
Increase in building height by two stories beyond district 9
maximum[2]
NOTES:
[I]The menu of allowable sustainability features is identified in Section 30-3.D.<>,Menu of Sustainability
44 These are new standards designed to allow denser forms of development in the MR-5 and DT districts through the inclusion of sustainable
development practices. Development in these districts may obtain modest increases in density or height beyond district mmdmums based on the
provision of a variety of different sustainability features. The range of features are provided as a menu from which an applicant may select, as
appropriate.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-9 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 3:Incentives for Sustainable Development Practices
TABLE 1-3.D.1: SUSTAINABILTY BONUSES
TYPE OF
OF BONUS PROVIDED
Features.
[2]Development shall be in the DT district or within 500 linear feet of an intersection of two arterial streets
to exceed the maximum building height by two stories.
(e) Menu of Sustainability Features
One or more of the following sustainability features may be offered by an applicant for proposed development
within the MR-5 or DT district in accordance with Table 30-3.D.I,Sustainability Bonuses.
(1) Generation of a minimum of 25 percent of the electricity needed by the development from
alternative energy sources(solar,wind,etc.);
(2) Minimum LEED certification of silver for at least 50 percent of the nonresidential floor area;
(3) Purchase of carbon offsets in an amount equivalent to 15 percent of the construction costs;
(4) Energy star recognition for at least 75 percent of the residential floor area;
(5) Inclusion of green roofs on at least 30 percent of the roof area within the development;
(6) Provision of solar access to a minimum of 50 percent of the buildings in the development;
(7) Configuration of nonresidential buildings with one axis 1.5 times longer than the other, and the
long axis oriented in an east-west configuration;
(8) Inclusion of a recycled or grey water system for landscaping irrigation;
(9) Use of paving materials in driveways and parking lots that have high solar reflectance (excluding
gravel or similar paving materials)that reduce the urban heat island effect of parking lots;
(10) Provision of a network of multi-purpose trails with at least one connection to the public
greenway or sidewalk system for every acre of land;
(I 1) Provision of 50-foot undisturbed buffers adjacent to all perennial stream banks;or
(12) Provision of a community garden with at least 500 square feet per dwelling that is controlled by
a property-owners association.
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-10
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 4:Single-Family Residential 15(SF-15)District
4. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 15 (SF-15) DISTRICT
•
The Single-Family Residential 15(SF-15)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.It also accommodates two-to four-family dwellings designed to
appear as single-family detached hones,and zero lot line development subject to the
• requirements of this Ordinance. District regulations are intended to discourage any use that
0 • substantially interferes with the development of single-family detached dwellings and that is
detrimental to the quiet residential nature of the district Also allowed are complementary uses
usually found in residential zoning districts such as parks,open space,elementary schools,and
places of worship.
• • • • - —
Lot area per unit,min.(sq ft) 15,000 n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 100 n/a
Gross residential density,max
(dwelling unitsfacre)[1]"' 3;3.2 for zero lot line development n/a n/a
Lot coverage,max
(%of lot area) [2]
25; 15 where abutting a
Height,max(ft) 35 single-family zoning district
or use
Front and comer side setback, 40;65 from street centerline Not allowed in front,side,
min.(ft)[3] or corner side setbacks
Side setback,min.(ft)[3] 15
Rear setback,min.(ft) [3] 35 5
Spacing,between buildings, n/a 20 5
min.(ft)
Zero lot line development must be on a site or tract of 40,000 square feet or more,shall comply with
the maximum gross residential density standards,and shall require a special use permit(See Section 30-
Zero lot line development 2-3.<>)when proposed on a lot or site smaller than three acres in a developed portion of the city.
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 mixed-uses:[to be determined in Module 3]
parcel)
NOTES:[I]Gross residential density may be increased by up to 10 percent for development located within an"incentive area"as
identified on the official zoning map.
[2]Accessory structures/use areas shall not exceed the lesser of 1,500 square feet in size or 15 percent of the allowable lot coverage.
[3]Minimum setbacks for all other principal uses shall be increased by five feet for all building walls 25 feet or more above grade.
4s These standards carry forward the R-15 district dimensional standards but include new gross density requirement and new lot area requirement
for two-to four-family dwellings.
46 The new UDO will allow density rounding as is done in Cumberland County. In cases where a site's 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 be located on a site.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-11 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 4:Single-Family Residential 15(SF-15)District
Figure 30-3.<>:SF-15 Typical Lot Pattern Figure 30-3.<>:SF-15 Typical Building Form
� k w
SF-15
d
t ..
.J
a
'3•FAIVW DWEIlING
SINGLE-FAMILY DErACH ED ZERO LOT LINE)
C
lot area: 15,000 sf In.,.,- Develo
Pi
t size 40,000 sf min.
lot coverage: 2596"
r settraclL
lot width. 16V
ide.setbadcc 15'min.
1 I �
height 35 maz
Setbacks are Increased 5 feet_;
for all buildling walls 25 feet
or more above grade.. comer side setback:40' front setback;40 min.
Figure 30-3.<>:SF-15 Typical Building/Lot Configuration
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-12
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 5:Single-Family Residential 10(SF-10)District
S. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 10(SF-10) DISTRICT
The Single-Family Residential 10(SF-10)District is established to accommodate principally single-family
detached residential development at low densities,and to accommodate flexibly-designed residential
development that provides variable housing types and arrangements that respond to environmental
and site conditions. Uses within the district are subject to the design standards in Article 30-5:
Development Standards. The district accommodates two-to four-family dwellings designed to appear
• as single-family detached homes and zero lot line development subject to the requirements of this
• I Ordinance. District regulations discourage any use that substantially interferes with the development
of single-family dwellings and that is detrimental to the quiet residential nature of the district Also
allowed are complementary uses usually found in residential zoning districts,such as parks,open space,
minor utilities,accessory dwellings of up to B00 square feet in size",elementary schools,and places of
worship.
Lot area per unit,min.(sq ft) 10,000 9,000 7,500 10,000 n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 75 n/a
Gross residential density,max 5;5.3 for zero lot line development n/a n/a
(dwellingunits/acre)[I]49
Lot coverage,max(%of lot area) 30 [2]
2S; 15 where abutting a
Height,max(ft) 35 single-family zoning
district or use
Front and corner side setback,min.(ft)[3] 30;55 from street centerline Not allowed in front,
side,or corner side
Side setback min.(ft)[3] 10 setbacks
Rear setback min.(ft)[3] 35 5
Spacing between buildings,min.(ft) n/a 20 5
Zero lot line development must be on a site or tract of 40,000 square feet or more,shall
comply with the maximum gross residential density standards,and shall require a special
Zero lot line development use permit(See Section 30-2.3.4>)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 district minimums;otherwise no setbacks,lot area,lot
coverage,or building spacing requirements shall apply.
Open Space Set-Aside(%of parcel size) I Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mbced-uses:[to be determined in Module 3]
47 Accessory dwelling units help the city meet its goals of housing option diversity, and help accommodate modem Irving arrangements such as
parents or grandparents living with a family.Accessory dwelling un�do not count towards density requirements,but such structures are limited to a
maximum size of 800 square feet
46 These standards carry forward the current R 10 standards with a few exceptions. The current standards do not include a gross density figure,and
one is proposed here. In addition,the current standards have a scaled approach to lot area where subsequent dwelling units may have reduced lot
size. For the sake of simplicity,this scaled approach is proposed for removal.New use types and lot saes have also been added.
49 The new UDO will allow density rounding as is done in Cumberland County. In cases where a sites 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 be located on a site.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-13 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
r . 1 1 D
• r . • 1 a • r _•. •r.
1 1
not, 1 1
is
Rk
ONEx
����►`���%��:�� I�Imo,*, - - �� - _ _ -
�- � �� •it� ��►���
1 1 1 I 111 . •. rr 1 11 1
li
- 1 1
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 6:Single-Family Residential 6(SF-6)District
6. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 6 (SF-6) DISTRICT
• 0
The Single-Family Residential 6(SF-6)District is established 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-to four-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
9 • that substantially interferes with the development of single-family dwellings and that is detrimental to
the quiet residential nature of the distrcL Also allowed are complementary uses usually found in
residential zoning districts,such as parks,open space,minor utilities,accessory dwellings,schools,and
places of worship.
• • • • - '
Lot area per unit,min.(sq ft) 6,000 5,000 6,000 n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 60 ^/a
Gross residential density,max 9.6; 10.9 for zero lot line development n/a
(dwelling unitslacre)[L]
Lot coverage,max 40 [1]
(%of lot area)
25; 15 where abutting a
Height,max(ft) 35 single-family zoning
district or use
Front and corner side setback Not allowed in front.
( )�] 25;50 from street centerline
min. ft side,or comer side
Side setback min.(ft)[3] 10 setbacks
Rear setback,min.(ft)[3] 30-, 15 when corner side setback is 25 or more 5
Spacing,between buildings min. n/a 20 5
(ft)
Zero lot line development must be on a site or tract of 40,000 square feet or more,shall comply
with the maximum gross residential density standards,and shall require a special use permit(See
Zero lot line development Section 30-23.<>)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 district
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)
50 The SF-6 district carries forward many of the R6 district provisions with a few exceptions.The current provisions do not include any density
requirements,but one is added(9.6 W/acre),and is subject to the density rounding standards discussed in earlier footnotes. 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 constant for detached
dwellings,allowing attached residential and two-to four-family dwellings on 5.000 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 coverage limitations are increased from 35%to 40%to facilitate infill(subject to new design standards). Finally,the district now includes a 10
percent density bonus for new development occurring within designated"incentive areas".
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-15 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
1 ,
WIN
MIN -
.�12W
WNIV
r ms's��' ,�, ?'�,� C-tr`'-"��� -{c�+'' � r^,�?•'.d
'i d dry
r ••, - •• - .•.,- • . 111 `� •• -n.• i
• ri .1
_ 1
Article 30-3:Zoning.Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 7:Mined Residential 5(MR-5)District
7. MIXED RESIDENTIAL 5 (MR-5)DISTRICT
•
The Mixed Residential 5(MR-5)district is established and intended to meet the 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-to four-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 include centrally-
located open space,complementary institutional uses(e g.,religious institutions,post offices,
police sub-stations),day care facilities,and limited small-scale neighborhood-serving
convenience retail uses. _
• • • •
Lot area per unit,min.(sq ft) 5,000 for I , 1 5'000+
[2] then 4,000 4,000 1,000 per 5,000 n/a
unit
Lot width,min.(ft) 50 n/a
Gross residential density,max 18;20 for zero lot line development 8 n/a_T
(dwelling units/aa-e)[3]
Lot coverage,max 55 [4]
(%of lot area)
25; 15 where abutting a
Height,max(ft)[3] Lesser of 4 stories or 55 feet single-family zoning
district or use
Front and corner side setback, 25;50 from street centerline Not allowed in front,
min.(ft)[5] side,or corner side
Side setback,min.(ft)[5] 10 setbacks
Rear setback,min.(ft)[5] 30 5
Spacing between buildings,min. n/a 20 ft 5 ft
Zero lot line development shall comply with the maximum gross residential density standards and shall
require a special use permit(See Section 30-2.3.<>)when proposed on a lot or site smaller than three
Zero lot line development acres in a developed portion of the city. Setbacks for lots abutting the perimeter of the development
shall meet the district minimums;otherwise no setbacks,lot area,lot coverage,or building spacing
requirements shall apply.
s I The MR-5 district consolidates the R5 and RSA districts. The new MR-5 district allows all forms of residential development as well as low-intensity
neighborhood-serving nonresidential uses(including some retaiD.The current district standards do not include maximum densities,but the new MR-5
establishes a series of different maximum densities based on use type.We note the current R5 district allows fairly High residential densities(23.7
DU/Ac for single-family, 17A DU/Ac for single-family in a zero lot line development,and 29 DU/Ac for condominiums in zero lot line developments).
The proposed MR-5 district reduces base densities. Development seekng the densities available under the current R5 district could be achieved
through the planned development process. In addition to the change in density,the MR-5 district uses the dimensional standards from the current
R5 district to minimize the creation of nonconfonmities.The lot coverage limitations are increased 20%in recognition of new open space standards.
A new height limit of 55 feet is proposed(to allow for three and four-story buildings). In terms of zero lot line development,the MR-5 district
removes minimum lot area requirements in favor of gross density and the sustainabiliity incentives will allow extra height and density.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-17 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 7:Mixed Residential 5(MR-5)District
Open Space Set-Aside(%of parcel size) I Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixed-uses:[to be determined in Module 3]
NOTES: [1]Including live/work units and upper-story residential development.
[2]In cases 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.D.<>,Sustainable Development Practices.
[4]Accessory structuresluse 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 25 feet or more above
grade
Figure 30-3.<>:MR-5 Typical Lot Pattern Figure 30-3.<>:MR-5 Typical Building Form
x
=rh
Iat.area S,000 s m
of coverage.5s%max
set6acki 25'mi 1 t width 58'min. of area is-
front ,000 sf+v*6 per unit inin
NONRES.
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL
MULTI FAMILY,
F
bxihliaq 20'ml >*,_ , 11� ! S max.
corner side sett 'mm
fait
/
v �
a }
-VtA
4
: k of area 5,000 per nail k i-�� i
10
Setbacks are increased 5 feet area 5,000 sf for ist;then 4,000 simin =
fOr aq bWlding WdIIS 25 feet SINGLE-FAMILY RES r s�tbadcc 30'min:
_�_ :or more above grade f
Figure 30-3.<>:MR-5 Typical Building/Lot Configuration(reserved)
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance-Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-18
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section D:Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 8:Manufactured Home(MH)District
8. MANUFACTURED HOME(MH) DISTRICT
•
The Manufactured Home(MH)district is established and intended to accommodate the
development of manufactured home parks that enhance the availability of affordable housing without
1. sacrificing such amenities as recreation,open space,and landscaping.
•
• ' ' 10-7,111-
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK SITE STANDARDS
Site area,min.(acres) 3 n/a
Site area,max.(acres) 30 n/a
Number of manufactured home spaces,min. 10 n/a
INDIVIDUAL MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE STANDARDS
Area,min.(sq ft) 41000 n/a
Width,min.(ft) 40 n/a
BUILDING STANDARDS
Setback from any manufactured home space boundary,min.(ft) 10 3
Setback from street,min.(ft) 30 30
Setback from park perimeter,min(ft) 30 10
Spacing between manufactured homes,between manufactured
homes and other principal buildings,and between other principal 30 3
buildings(ft)
Open Space Set-Aside(%of parcel size) [to be determined in Module 3]
Figure 30-3.0:MH Typical Lot
Pattern
Figure 30-3.<>:MH Typical.Building Form
f
x 6 MH V r
r
s2 The MH district standards carry forward the current manufactured home park standards in Chapter 27 of the Code of Ordinances.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-19 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 1:General Purposes
n
t sp
building ng acing 30'min
job
� y <
a.
".t
, .
� y
space width:40'min.°
etex setback;3Q,min
space setback: 10'min.
Figure 30-3.<>:MH Typical Building/Lot Configuration
�E BUSINESS BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
I. 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 office,retail,service,industrial,and related uses to meet household and business needs,and
more specifically to:
(a) Provide appropriately located lands for the full range of business uses needed by the city's residents,
businesses, and workers, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the 2030 Joint Growth
Vision Plan,the Cumberland County Land Use Plan,functional plans,and applicable small area plans;
(b) Strengthen the city's economic base, and provide employment opportunities close to home for
residents of the city and surrounding communities;
(e) 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) Support 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 of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-20
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 2:Office and Institutional(01)District
2. OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL(OI)DISTRICT
• •
The Office&Institutional(O1)District is established and intended to accommodate a mix of small-scale,
•
low-intensity professional and business offices and institutions,together with limited service uses,single-
family detached,single-family attached,and multi-family residential uses in close proximity to one
• another,subject to design and compatibility standards.The districts are generally near residential
neighborhoods and often serve as a buffer or transition between neighborhoods and more intense
• A business districts. Uses in the district are subject to the design standards in Article 30-5:Development
Standards. In many cases,OI districts are evolving from land that was once primarily residential in
character,and as such,office and institutional uses should be configured for consistency with
surrounding residential uses in physical design,scale,and character.
• A A
•
Lot area,min.(sq ft) 10,000 for nonresidential;2,000 8,000 per.unit n/a
per unit
Lot width,min.(ft) 50 n/a
Gross residential density,max. 12 8 n/a
(dwelling units/acre)[1]
Lot coverage,max 55 45 [2]
(%of lot area)
25; 15 where abutting
Height,max(ft) 35;45 for mixed-use single-family zoning
district or use
Front and corner setback min.(ft)[3] 25;60 from street centerline Not allowed in front,side,
Side setback min.(ft)[3] I5 3; 15 when abutting single- or corner side yard areas
family zoning or use
Rear setback,min.(ft)[3] 25;20 for corner lots or lots served by alleys
5
Spacing between buildings,min.(ft) 20
Zero lot line development shall comply with the applicable maximum gross residential density
Zero lot line development standards. Setbacks for lots abutting 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 r/.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 located within an"incentive area"as identified
on the official zoning map.
[2]Accessory structures/use 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,multi-family,and mixed-uses shall be increased by five feet for all building walls 25 feet or more
above grade.
S3 The OI district is new and consolidates the provisions from the PI,P2,and P4 districts in the current ordinance. There are a number of changes
between the current and proposed districts. Neither the PI,P2,nor the P4 districts include a lot area,lot width,or density standard(relying,in part,
on adjacent districts for residential standards).The OI district establishes different lot saes and density standards based upon use type. The new OI
district increases the lot coverage figures from the argent threshold of 35%and proposes a new height limit that will allow 3-and 4-story buildings.
The existing setbacks for the P 1,P2,and P4 districts are generally carried forward by the new OI district
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-21 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
. - • •
� - t
x
i vim- rY m,
y
REPP. IN
I oil
P P-1
I I �- /- -11 ■ - I
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section 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-
scale,low-intensity,and"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 feet without
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 with the neighborhood scale and compatible with surrounding
uses and the design standards in Article 30-5:Development Standards. _
• • • 0 • ' D
• • •
rr
Lot area,min.(sq ft) 10,000 8,000 5,000 per unit 15,000 per si n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 45 60 n/a
Gross residential density,
max(dwelling units/acre) 8 10 8 6 1 n/a
[I]
Lot coverage,max(*A of lot 55 45
area) 121
25; 15 where
Height,max(ft) 50 35 abutting a single-
family zoning
district or use
Front and comer side Within 5 feet of average for lots on same block face,but no less than 10 feet Not allowed in
setback,min.(ft)[3] front,side,or
Side setback,min.(ft)[3] 3; 15 when abutting single-family zoning 5 10 corner side yard
or use areas
Rear setback,min.(ft)[3] 20 5
Spacing between buildings, 20 n/a 20 5
min.(ft)
Zero lot line development shall comply with the applicable maximum gross residential density standards.
Zero lot line development Setbacks for lots abutting 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 mixed-uses:[to be determined in Module 3]
parcel size)
NOTES:[1]Gross residential density may be increased by up to 10 percent for development located within an"incentive area'as
identified on the official zoning map.
S+The NC district is a new district that consolidates the existing C I A,and P3P districts.None of the current districts include a minimum lot size
standard,minimum lot width,or maximum lot coverage. We have suggested new standards for lots in the NC district based on the MR-5 and OI
districts. We have suggested an approach that allows 3-story nonresidential and mixed-use developments and 3 story residential uses(additional
design standards will also apply that relate to contextual heights,roof forms,and"step backs"towards shorter saiuctures). The setbacks have been
established to limit the creation of noncontformities.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-23 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 3:Neighborhood Commercial(NC)District
[2]Accessory structures/use 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,multi-family,and mixed-uses shall be increased by five feet for all building walls 25 feet or more
above grade.
Figure 30.3.<>:NC Typical Building Form
Figure 30-3.<>NC Typical Lot Pattern
7
1 ul
lot wklth:45 min.
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL.
NortRES.
lot size 5,000 sf lot sae: 0,000 sf min sae'15,000 sf/unR min
front setback. 25'min �� '. coverage 4596 max.
height:_50 max , - �. sde set-
MDCED—USE
back 10'mir
•
lot width: min
y.
btcoverage 55
RES. side;
rs
r, setback 24
t size.8,000 sf min.\ • \�
SINGLE-FAMILY RE5.
Setbadcs are increased 5 feet
for all building walls 25 feet
-- — or more above grade side setback:-15'min ide setback.:. ' - _
20'min.
5 min
Figure 30-3.<>:NC Typical Building/Lot Configuration
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance-Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-24
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 4:Community Commercial(CC)District
4. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL(CC) DISTRICT
•
The Community Commercial(CC)District is established and intended to accommodate a
diverse range of medium-to high-intensity retail,service,and office uses that provide goods and
services serving the residents and businesses in the community at large---e g.,shopping centers,
convenience stores,retail sales establishments,and heavier commercial uses(subject to approval
• of a Special Use Permit(See Section 30-2.<>.)). The district 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
0 establishments,and may exist as stand-alone buildings as part of a larger horizontal mixed-use
development The district is subject to standards intended to ensure development is compatible
with surrounding uses as well as the design standards in Article 30-5:Development Standards. _
Lot area,min.(sq ft) 10,000 8,000 15,000 n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 45 n/a
Gross residential density,max n/a 16 12 n/a
(dwelling units/acre)[1]
Lot coverage,max(%of lot area) 65 [2]
25; 15 where abutting a
Height,max(ft) 65 single-family zoning district
or use
Front and corner side setback, 25;60 ft from street centerline
min.(ft)[3] Not allowed in front,corner
Side setback,min.(ft)[3] 3; 15 where abutting a single-family zoning district or use side,or side yard areas
Rear setback,min.(ft)[3] 3;20 where abutting an alley or single-family zoning district or use 20
Spacing between buildings,min. 20 n/a 5
(ft)
Zero lot line development shall comply with the applicable maximum gross residential density
Zero lot line development standards. Setbacks for lots abutting 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 mixed-uses:[to be determined in Module 3]
parcel size)
NOTES:[I]Gross residential density may be increased by up to 10 percent for development located within an"incentive area"as
identified on the official zoning map.
[2] Accessory structuresluse areas shall not exceed the lesser of 1,500 square feet in size or 30%of the allowable lot coverage.
[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 C I,C I P,and C3 district regulations. None of the current districts include a minimum lot size standard,minimum
lot width,maximum lot coverage,or height We have suggested an approach that allows heights up to 65 feet,subject to additional design standards
will also apply that relate to contextual heights,roof forms,and"step backs"towards shorter strvcuues. The setbacks have been reduced from the
C I district requirements to limit the creation of nonconformities.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-25 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E:Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 4:Community Commercial(CC)District
Figure 30-3.<>:CC Typical Lot Pattern
Figure 30-3.<>CC Typical Building Form
I
1
height:65'max.` lot sae 10,000 sf min de setbag 15'Din
from sing e m y res
lot width 45 min
•lot size,. mina
f
•
uikbng:.
separation:
20 11111h .
lot coverage 55%max: ;rear setback 20 min.
comer side setback 5'min:` Setbacks are increased 5 feet
t sett�ack 25'm ,for all build'mg walls 25•_feet
or more above grade.
Figure 30-3.<>:CC Typical Building/Lot Configuration(reserved)
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-26
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E:Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 5:Mixed-Use(MU)District
S. MIXED-USE(MU) DISTRICT
The Mixed-Use(MU)District is established and intended to accommodate and foster the coordinated
development of a compatible and balanced mix of mutually supporting living,working,shopping,
educating,entertainment,and recreating uses,all subject to the design standards in Article 30-5:
Development Standards. By providing housing close to nonresidential uses and grouping multiple
destinations,such mixed-used development reduces vehicle usage and creates a high-quality,
pedestrian-oriented 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 may be either vertically-integrated within a single building or
horizontally-integrated within separate buildings on the same site Developments proposed within the
MU District that do not include a mix of uses require a Special Use Permit(See Section 30-2.<>.) _
The MU District is intended to correspond to Cumberland County's Mixed Use District within the
city's Municipal Influence Areas.
D L4 0 _ _ •
Lot area,min.(sq ft) 10,000 15,500 n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 20 45 n/a
Gross residential density,max 18 12 n/a
(dwelling units/acre)[I]
Lot coverage,max(%of lot area) 65 55 [2]
25; 15 where abutting a
Height,max(ft) 50 35 single-family zoning
district or use
Front and corner side setback min.(ft) 10;20 from street centerline
[3] Not allowed in frond side,
or corner side areas
Side setback min.(ft)[3] 5; 10 where abutting a single-family zoning district or use
Rear setback,min.(ft)[3] 5
Spacing between buildings,min.(ft) 10 5
Floor area in district occupied by single- n/a 25 n/a
use development,max.(%of district)
Zero lot line shall comply with the applicable maximum gross residential density standards.
Zero lot line development Setbacks for lots abutting single-family detached development shall meet the district
minimums;otherwise no setbacks,lot area,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:[1]Gross residential density may be increased by up to 10 percent for development located within an"incentive area'as
identified on the official zoning map.
[2] Accessory structures/use areas shall not exceed the lesser of 1,500 square feet in size or 30%of the allowable lot coverage
[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.
56 The MU district is a new district that replaces the city s current mixed-use conditional district. The current mixed-use conditional district includes
no dimensional standards and relies on review and approval of a site plan that depicts the particular bulk and dimensional characteristics of a
devebpmenL The MU district is a new approach that allows mixed-use development by right(without need of a site plan reviewed at the rezoning
stage)provided the development complies with these standards and all applicable design and development standards.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-27 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 5:Mixed-Use(MU)District
Figure 30-3.<>:MU Typical Lot Pattern(reserved) Figure 30-3.<>:MU Typical Building Form
K
SINGLE-FAMILY RES..
MD(ED-USE
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL
t area: 10,000 sf min. o lot a : 15,500 sf min
lot coverage 65%max •1; 6
lot co age:55)o max.
rear setback 5' n hefg .35'
tlt' •'
max.
;a4
;k
,: - . �::• width:.
ide setback.10`min... , _ 8 min.'-
Al
Q4. Yfp.
side setback 5'oil d
fight» 50'ma
Setbacks are increased 5::,feet
for all building walls 25 feet comer skle setback. 10'min
or more above grade
front setback 10'mm
Figure 30.3.<>:MU Typical BuildinglLot Configuration(reserved)
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-28
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 6:Downtown(DT)District
6. DOWNTOWN (DT)DISTRICTS'
•
The Downtown(DT)District is established and intended to encourage the urban form and
architectural character found in the traditional downtown area as well as promote
. redevelopment that will make the downtown area a more diverse and vibrant mixed-use urban
center(subject to the design standards in Article 30-5:Development Standards). The district
encompasses the same area as the Downtown Municipal Service District and the downtown
• • historic districts. The district is intended to accommodate a well-balanced mix of uses
(including more high-density residential development),promote a stronger pedestrian-oriented
environment(with a reduced need for parking),and preserve and protect the downtown's
historical and architectural scale and character. Uses that will add activity in the downtown
after 5:00 pm are encouraged. The district is subject to flexible and incentive-based standards
intended to foster such urban development and redevelopment
• �• .� 19 WWII 111MR14M •.
Lot area,min.(sq ft) None n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) None n/a
Gross residential density,max 40 n/a
(dwelling units/acre)
Lot coverage,max(%of lot area) 100 [I]
Height,(min.)ft 24 n/a
Height,max(ft) 90;may be increased up to 150 for buildings with street- 40; 15 where abutting a single-
level restaurants or retail family zoning district
Front setback,min.(ft) None for first 4 stories; 10 for stories 5-8;20 for stories 9+
Front setback max(ft)ft 5 for the 1'4 stories unless buildings on either side have
( deeper front setbacks,then the average setback of both Not allowed in front,side,or
corner side yard areas
Side setback,min.(ft) None; 10 where abutting a single-family zoning district
Corner side setback min.(ft) Min.required for vehicular visibility
Rear setback,min.(ft) None;20 where abutting an alley or single-family zoning T abutting an alley,otherwise
district or use none
Spacing between buildings,min.(ft) None None
Percentage of primary frontage 100 for interior lots;80 for comer lots[2] n/a
occupied by building wall(min.%)
Percentage of first-floor wall 60 for interior lots,50 for corner lots 50 when abutting a street
occupied by glazing/doors(min.%)
Open Space Set-Aside(%of parcel Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixed-uses:[to be determined in Module 3]
size)[3]
Notes:[1]Accessory structures/use areas shall not exceed the lesser of 1,500 square feet in size or 30%of the allowable lot coverage.
57 Development within the DT district may take advantage of the density and height bonuses associated with Section 30-3.D.3, Incentives for
Sustainable Development Practices.
sa The DT district is a new single district for the downtown,and is comprised of the C2,C2P,and C2S districts. The only standard for all three
districts 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 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-29 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 6:Downtown(DT)District
[2]Entrances to parking garages,surface parking behind buildings,pedestrian pass-throughs,plazas,and gathering spaces are exempt
[3]Open space set-asides in the downtown may be comprised of urban features like plazas,fountains,and pedestrian features.
Figure 30-3.<>:DT Typical Lot Pattern Figure 30-3.<>:DT Typical Building Form
�5
� k
' l
i
height: 150'with street-level retail
rear setback:0'
® 3Y r 20'from alley/res use
lot area: no min.
lot width:no min.
max.front setback:5'
1st 4 stories
min.front setback:0'1st 4 stories;
10'5-8 stories;
20'9+stories
side setback:0% 10'fro es use height:
24' In.
architectural features like towers,turrets,
and other signature features are exempt from
min.setbacks
comer side setback:min.requ d for visibility
Figure 30-3.r+:DT Typical Building/Lot Configuration(reserved)
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-30
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 7:Light Industrial(U)District
7. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL(LI) DISTRICT
•
The Light Industrial(U)District is established and intended to accommodate light manufacturing,
assembly,fabrication,processing,distribution,storage,research and development,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 impacts. The
district is subject to standards intended to minimize potential nuisances or damage to the
environment and adverse impacts on surrounding uses.
Lot area,min.(sq ft) 20,000 n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 75 n/a
Lot coverage,max(*A of lot area) 65 [1]
Height,max(ft) 90;50 when abutting a single-family residential district 30; 15 when abutting a
single-family zoning district
Front and corner setback min. 50;75 from street centerline
(ft) Not allowed in front,side,or
corner side yard areas
Side setback min.(ft) 30
Rear setback min.(ft) 20;none where abutting a railroad right-of-way 5;50 where abutting a
residential zoning district
Spacing between buildings, 20 5
min.(ft)
Open Space Set-Aside(%of Residential uses: :Nonresidential and mixed-uses:[to be determined in Module 3]
parcel size)
NOTES:[I]Accessory structurestuse areas shall not exceed the lesser of 5,000 square feet in size or 30%of the allowable lot
coverage.
59 The U district carries forward the M I district standards, but there are new provisions for lot area, lot width, lot coverage,and height We
recommend that minimum lot area and lot width standards be added•and that they be small enough to accommodate small-scale light industrial uses
(e.g.,flex space buildings).
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-31 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E:Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 7:Light Industrial(U)District
Figure 30-3.<>:LI Typical Lot Pattern Figure 30-3.<>:LI Typical Building Form
UL
1 A.
v�2
� a} �bl'Y���
rr N
x, a
3 -g ,
n
i.! � ', 4�f
. lot size: 20,000 sf:min bt width: 75' 'min.
lot coverage 65%
.max
rear setback..20'm1n.
r
ide setback: 30'
height 99.max.
front setback 50'min.
comer side setbac min
Figure 30-3.<>:LI Typical BuildinglLot Configuration
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-32
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,distribution,storage,research and development,
and other industrial uses that may be large-scale or otherwise have extensive exterior movement
of vehicle,materials,and goods,and greater potential for adverse environmental and visual
impacts.
Lot area,min.(sq ft) 40,000 n/a
Lot width,min.(ft) 100 n/a
Lot coverage,max(%of lot area) 75 [1]
Height,max(ft) 90;50 when abutting a single-family residential district 30; 15 when abutting a
single-family zoning district
Front and comer setback,min. 50;75 from street centerline
(ft) Not allowed in front,side,or
corner side yard areas
Side setback,min.(ft) 15; 100 where abutting a residential zoning district
Rear setback,min.(ft) 20;none where abutting a railroad right-of-way;50 where 5;75 where abutting a
abutting a residential zoning district residential zoning district
Spacing between buildings, 20 5
min.(ft)
Open Space Set-Aside(%of Nonresidential and mixed-uses:[to be determined in Module 3]
parcel size)
NOTES: [1]Accessory structures/use areas shall not exceed the lesser of 5,000 square feet in size or 3056 of the allowable lot
coverage.
bo The HI district can•ies forward the M2 district standards,but there are new provisions for lot area,lot width,lot coverage,and height The current
setback standards for the M2 district are based on the current C3 district,and are considerably more lenient than those for the M I district,including
a 35-foot front setback no side setback except where abutting residential zoning.and no rear setback except where abutting residential zoning or an
alley.Given the more intense activity associated with heavy manufacturing,we recommend that building standards for the HI district equal or exceed
those for the U district This may result in some nonconforming structures.
June 2009 City of Fayetteville,North Carolina
Page 3-33 Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED)
Article 30-3:Zoning Districts
Section E Business Base Zoning Districts
Subsection 8:Heavy Industrial(HI)District
Figure 30-3.<>:HI Typical Lot Pattern
Figure 30-3.<>:HI Typical Building Form
t -
jr
! 11
lot size:40,000 sf min.
lot coverage:75%max.
lot width:100'min.
rear setback:20'min
height:90'max. E'' w
; � tt � rXaF
a ► a
We setback wF ,
15'min. a"� . tk 1+ >>
building sodng:20'm
front setback.50`min.
corner side setback:15'min.
Figure 30-3.<>:HI Typical Building/Lot Configuration
City of Fayetteville,North Carolina June 2009
Unified Development Ordinance—Module Two Public Review Draft(REVISED) Page 3-34
1
Request for Proposals WP)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
,age ' 'o
Current Planning a a 306F Revere Road
(919) 245-2575 u 52 P O Box 8181
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us North Carolina, 27278
0NY Cato
.Am REINS&
in 3-M III MIA
o
Request for Proposals to provide professional services related to the development of a
Unified Development Ordinance for Orange County,North Carolina
I. Overview:
Orange County,North Carolina is releasing this Request for Proposals (hereafter `RFP') seeking
responses from 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. Flood 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 primary 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
2
b. Identifying potential future amendments to the UDO that may be necessary in
order to address public concerns/comments or various objective of the
Comprehensive Plan, and
c. Providing a rough work plan/schedule 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.
10/23/2009
3
This project will involve four(4) distinct phases:
1. 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 visual/graphic 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.
IV. 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 interest and/or intent of filing a response
to Michael D. Harvey by November 6,2009 at n harveygco.oran e.nc.us.
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 RFP".
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 submitted via email, with the aforementioned subject line heading, to
Michael D. Harvey, by November 11, 2009. All questions will be compiled, and a complete list
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 outlined herein,
10/23/2009
4
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 organization including an identification of the lead consultant and project
manager, key personnel that will be working on the project, the role of any
proposed sub-contractor, etc,
b. A statement of qualifications for all 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
firms will be invited to interview with the County on or about the second week of December
2009. Based on the interviews, a final selection will be made on or about December 11,2009.
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,
10/23/2009
5
• 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.
VI. Project Timeline:
The timeline for this project is as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------Process-------------------20DY------------------201V--------------
Task a s o n d j f m a m j a s o n d
Task 1
1- BOCC Adoption of Process X
2. Draft UDO Outline Xti>
3• Outreach- Countywide Mtgs. (2) X
4. Joint Board Mtg. X
5. Consultant RFP Process X X X
6. BOCC Update - Approve UDO X
Outline
Task 2
7. Draft Sections of UDO -New X X
Regulations
8. Courtesy Review _ x X X
9. Staff/Consultant Coordination- - X X X nE
Graphics
10. Outreach- Countywide Mtgs. (2) X
11. Planning Board(PB)Review x X X
12. BOCC - Staff Report X
Task 3
13. Complete First Draft UDO X X $;
14. Outreach- Countywide Mtgs. (2) X
15. Courtesy Review X X X
16. Planning Board Review X X X
17. Consultant Final Deliverables X }
18- Complete Public Hearing Draft UDO X }
19. BOCC - Staff Report X
20. Joint BOCC/PB Public Hearing
10/23/2009
6
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. First 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 within 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.
H. Completion of final document end of June 2010.
I. Consultant shall attend August 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing and shall be prepared
to participate in the presentation of the UDO.
I Consultant shall make revisions, as necessary, to the graphics to address
comments/concerns received during the public hearing, and subsequent advisory
board review, beginning in September through November 2010,
K. Final exit interview with consultant, and closing out of project, occurring 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
7
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
may 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 mhavey._Qco.oran e.nc.us, or you may contact Mr. Harvey at
(919) 245-2575.
10/23/2009