HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-23-1998 - C4 (a)?+J .3
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 23. 1998
Action Agenda
Item #~4 f~a 1~
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS:
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN CANE CREEK WATERSHED
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: a Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No
ATTACHMENTS}:
• Staff Recommendation
• Proposed amendments
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stanch, Eat 2594
AdLsir Kactcar, Eat 2589
TELEPHONE NUMBERSc
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane -227-203I
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed text amendments to the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations to implement new development standazds for Cane
Creek watershed. These amendments are being heard in conjunction with
proposed companion amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: Changes aze proposed to the Flexible Development section of the Subdivision
Regulations to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek
watershed. These changes result from athree-year study of Cane Creek Watershed
conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), and subsequent
recommendations from the OWASA Board of Directors.
One of the development options in the proposed new measures would change the
amount of open space in new major subdivision developments from 33% to 50%
of the tract, if this development option is chosen. Specifically, these amendments
to Section IV.B.10 of the Subdivision Regulations would amend the open space
standazds of Flexible Development to recognize these special standards in Cane
Creek watershed, and also clarify other subsections which specified the previous
open space percentage. These amendments are proposed in conjunction with
~,
._ ~ ~,
proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance to reflect new watershed protection
recommendations .
Staff presented an evaluation of the Cane Creek Watershed Study and OWASA
recommendations to the Boazd on October 20, identifying the above standazds and
two other management options for further evaluation. A community meeting was
held on October 29 at Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department in Cane Creek
watershed, and was attended by 25 persons (the meeting summary is attached to
the previous agenda item on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance).
Subsequently, on November 4, staff proposed taking only the OWASA-
recommended management option to public heazing. A memo regazding this
recommendation is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Section VII-D-4 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that all proposed
amendments be referred to the Planning Board following the public hearing for
consideration and recommendation. The Planning Boazd shall submit its
recommendation to the Boazd of Commissioners by February 2, 1999. Failure to
do so may be considered a favorable recommendation by the Planning Boazd.
Planning Staf~'Recommendation
The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to
Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations, Flexible Development.
Administration Recommendation
The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the
Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no later than February 2,
1999.
,~{~.
~_~~
Memorandum
To: John Link, County Manager
From: Planning Staff
Date: November 16, 1998
Subject: Cane Creek Watershed Recommendation
On October 20, the Planning staff presented a staff report on the Cane
Creek Watershed Study and subsequent recommendations for
protecting water quality by the OWASA Board of Directors. Staff would
like to take this opportunity to provide a recommended development
management option for Cane Creek watershed.
The October 20 staff report identified three management options that
were recommended for further evaluation:
1. Mandatory Flexible Development (with Large-Lot Zoning in the
critical areal);
2. Creative Open Space Design, and
3. Large-Lot Zoning/Creative Open Space (the OWASA-
recommended approach).
As mentioned in the staff report, staff indicated that the options would
be discussed at a community meeting in the watershed. These three
options were presented to 25 citizens at a community meeting at
Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department on October 29, 1998. In
addition, staff was to complete its research on these options and make
a single recommendation by the time of the public hearing on
November 23.
As you may recall, the primary downside to the Mandatory Flexible
Development and Creative Open Space options (#1 and #2) was
whether these options could protect water quality given their use of
cluster development (and the apparent requirements for using
structural impoundments to do so).
Staff completed its research into this issue in late-October. We have
been unable to find any examples of communities that have used
cluster development solely for water quality protection, with or without
relying on structural controls (detention basins) or very large-lot base
~(lt~
zoning. As such, we have found no evidence to counter the findings of
the Cane Creek Watershed Study -that options #1 and #2 above will
not protect water quality to the same level of certainty as the OWASA-
recommended approach (#3) of large-lot zoning /creative open space
design.
In conducting the research, staff contacted planning jurisdictions that
had been identified in the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
publication "Effective Watershed Management for Surface Water
Supplies" as currently employing or considering employment of cluster
development for water quality purposes. Based on the AWWA report
the following planning departments and agencies were contacted:
Fairfax County (VA) Planning, Prince William County (VA) Planning,
Loudoun County (VA) Planning and the Northern Virginia District
Planning Commission. All of these planning entities hold responsibility
for protecting the water quality of the Occcoquan River basin.
Discussions with the identified planning departments & agencies
revealed that: 1) Fairfax and Prince William Counties permit rural
cluster d'~velopment, but do so for reasons other than water quality
protection, and 2) both counties have a lower underlying density than
is currently, or anticipated to be, in place in the Cane Creek
watershed. As a result of this lower density, the need for alternative or
off-site wastewater systems necessitated under cluster development
options is eliminated. In addition, staff conducted an Internet-based
literature search to locate other municipalities or counties which
employed cluster development. None were found.
Given this, staff recommended on November 4 that, to simplify
matters for the public hearing, only option #3 (OWASA-recommended)
be taken to the November 23 public hearing.
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations
have been drafted to implement this management option. The
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will alter the definition of
Flexible Development to allow for 50% open space in Cane Creek
watershed, and to provide for alive-acre minimum lot size, with up to
five lots as small as two acres in size. The amendments to the
Subdivision Regulations would amend the open space standards to
provide for 50% open space in Cane Creek, and to clarify other
sections that specified 33% only. The draft amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance recommends one modification to the OWASA package -that
the effective date for lots of record (the "up to five lots as small as two
acres" test) be set at January 1, 1999, rather than the proposed date
~1 ;'
of June 26, 1997. This would be in keeping with the last round of
watershed overlay zoning district changes in 1993-94, which set an
effective date of January 1, 1994.
Recommendation
The Planning staff recommends that the County approve the ordinance
and subdivision regulation text amendments implementing
management option #3 (the OWASA-recommended option). Our
reasons for this recommendation are as follows:
1. Our completed research on the use of cluster for water quality
protection has not yielded any other programs that use cluster
development for water quality protection, with or without using
structural controls (detention ponds and basins) or large-lot base
zoning.
2. In the Cane Creek Watershed Study, the other two options did not
protect water quality to the same degree of certainty as the
OWASA-recommended approach. Staff has not determined any
mitigating factors that alters this finding.
3. Option #2 (Creative Open Space) is not a true alternative, as it
could be done through the OWASA-recommended approach.
4. In addition to the lack of supporting data for options # 1 and #2 for
water quality certainty, there was also no support for these two
options at the October 29 community information meeting2.
1. The October 20 staff report failed to note that Option #1 (Mandatory Flexible Development) also
included large-lot zoning in the critical area.
2. At the community meeting, participants were asked to participate in a straw poll of the three options at
the close of the meeting. Four persons supported Option #3 (OWASA), while the remainder supported
none of the above. No one voted for Options #1 and #2.
~~~b
~~~,
Proposed Subdivision Regulation Provisions
(proposed text underlined)
Section IV-B-10. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section A PURPOSE
Section B APPLICABILITY
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.1 Minimum Required Open Space
Where a developer elects to seek approval of a Flexible Development as specified herein, at least
thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the Flexible Development must be set aside as
protected open space, except in the Cane Creek Watershed. where at least 50% of the total land
area must be set aside as protected open space Such open space shall meet these standards
unless the developer chooses to seek approval of a conventional subdivision as specified herein.
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.1 Estate Lot Option
D.2 Conservation Option
D.3 Cluster Option
D.4 Village Option
Villages represent a modified form of cluster development intended to serve as physical, social, and
economic focal points in rural portions of the county. Consequently, villages are appropriate
locations for civic uses, such as schools and churches, as well as a variety of economic functions,
including stores and workshops, and residential building types designed to accommodate a range of
socio-economic groups...
• The village conservancy is a continuous open space azea surrounding the village proper,
representing the land from which dwellings have been transferred to the village proper. In
lieu of a continuous open space area, a village conservancy may consist of open space and
estate lots, provided all estate lots meet the standards of Section D.l.
0 Open space within the village conservancy shall consist of designated Primary and/or
Secondary Conservation Areas.
0 The amount of land set aside as open space in the village conservancy shall comprise at
least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land azea in the subdivision and shall be no
less than 100 feet in width at any place, except for short connecting links. In Cane
Creek watershed, the village conservancy shall comprise at least 50% of the total
land area in the subdivision and shall be no less than 100 feet in width at any place.
except for short connecting links.
(`
0 Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas within the village conservancy shall be
restricted from further development through dedication to Orange County, another unit
of local government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy
or a homeowners association, including the recording of conservation easements.
The specific standards applicable to the village proper and its component parts aze described on the
following pages...
D.5 Street Standards
D.6 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities
Water supply and sewage disposal facilities to serve Flexible Developments may be provided1
except where prohibited by overlay districts in Section 6.23.8 of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance. through the use of:
• Individual wells and septic tanks provided either on each lot or in off-lot locations protected
through recorded easements; or
• A community water and/or sewage disposal system designed, constructed,- and maintained in
conformity with all applicable state, federal, and local rules, regulations, and policies; or
• Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a municipality,
association, or water or sewer authority. System extensions aze permitted only in accordance
with applicable water and sewer, and land use policies and shall be sized only to serve the
Flexible Development for which the system is extended; or
• A combination of the above alternatives.
Section E DESIGN GUIDELINES
E.1 Determining Density or Lot Yield
E.2 Design Process
Section F EVALUATION CRITERIA
F.1 General Criteria
F.2 Forest Land/Natural Areas Conservation
F.3 Farmland Conservation
F.4 Conservation of Scenic Views
F.5 Historic and Archaeological Features
F.6 Recreation Provision
Section G DENSITY BONUSES
The maximum number of building lots or dwelling units in a Flexible Development shall not exceed
the number that could otherwise be developed by the application of the minimum lot size
requirement and/or density standazd of the zoning district or districts in which the parcel is located.
'1
~i_
However, increases in the number of building lots or dwelling units are permitted through one or
more of the following options:
G.1 To Encourage Additional Open Space
A density increase is permitted where more than :~ ~ +"- .,z ;~; ~ ;. ; ~ *~- + • > >
" ~" .~ ~ the
re1uired uercenta~e of oven space (as defined in C 1 of this section) in the Flexible
Development is set aside as protected open space. The amount of the density increase shall be based
on the following standard:
For each additional acre of protected open space provided in the Flexible Development, one (1)
additional building lot or dwelling unit is permitted...
G.2 To Encourage Affordable Housing
G.3 Location of Open Space Bonus Units
Section H ANNUAL REPORT
212