Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-20-1998 - 10cis ORANGECOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 20, 1998 Agenda Abstract Item # /0- C SUBJECT: Flexible Development Annual Report DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No ATTACHMENTS: (1) Flexible Development, 2nd Annual Report (Report provided as separate enclosure) (2) Excerpt from Planning Board Minutes, Meeting of July 15, 1998 INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Belk/X2594 Emily Cameron/X2580 PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive the second annual report on Flexible Development, covering the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. BACKGROUND: Section IV- B -10 -H of the Subdivision Regulations requires that an annual report be presented to the Board of Commissioners which describes the major subdivision Concept Plans reviewed during the year. The purpose of the report is to evaluate the effectiveness of the standards in accomplishing the goal of Flexible Development, "to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character." The Commissioners are to review the report, determine whether changes to the regulations are needed, and direct Staff to propose amendments, if necessary. Eight (8) Concept Plans were reviewed during FY97 -98 under Flexible Development procedures and standards. Six of the eight applicants (75 %) will implement the Flexible Development option. Five applicants submitted a single concept plan under the Conservation Option. One applicant (Village of the Oaks) submitted two plans, but intends to use the Flexible Development Cluster Option. One Subdivision applicant (Lawrence Road Subdivision) submitted two concepts plans because their proposal for a Planned Development did not meet the 33% open space requirement. The application for the Planned Development is pending, awaiting a rezoning decision. The Wildwood West Concept Plan, submitted under the Cluster Option, was denied by the Planning Board. 2 BACKGROUND: In the seven Flexible Development concept plans submitted, the total open space (continued) provided was 128.2 acres for 209 lots. The average amount protected per subdivision was 18.3 acres (43.8 %). In 1997, the percentage of open space protected per subdivision was 37.05 %. Of the 128.2 acres preserved as open space under Flexible Development, 99.8 acres (78 %) are required by the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations to remain undisturbed regardless of the We of subdivision proposed This includes areas within floodplains, stream buffers, building setbacks, and Tree Protection Areas. The net gain of voluntary open space attributable to Flexible Development during this reporting_ period is 28.4 acres, or 22 % more than the protected area required by other zoning and subdivision requirements. Because of the limited number of Concept Plans reviewed, the opportunities for accomplishing the purpose of Flexible Development were also limited. Most of the reserved open space will protect streams, adjacent moderate to steep slopes, rock outcrops, forested areas, and the associated wildlife habitat. The trend in Flexible Development is toward the Conservation Option. Since the implementation of Flexible Development in July 1996, only the Conservation and Cluster options (or a hybrid of the two) have been used in Concept Plans. Consequently, the report does not evaluate the specific standards for the Estate and Village development options allowed under Flexible Development. Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs) fostered increased public interest and participation in the subdivision approval process during this reporting period. NIMs have significantly heightened the awareness of adjacent and neighboring property owners to the proceedings of the Planning Board. The NIMs and Planning Board meetings for the Wildwood West and Lawrence Road Subdivision concept plans drew large turnouts of citizens. The Planning Board received the 2nd Annual Flexible Development Report on July 15, 1998. (An excerpt from the meeting minutes is provided as attachment #2.) The Planning Board expressed concerns about the Conservation Option, particularly with regard to minimum setbacks being included within the required 33 % open space. RECOMMENDATION: For information and review purposes only. l Excerpt from Planning Board minutes, meeting of 7 -15 -98 AGENDA ITEM #10: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS a. Second Annual Flexible Development Report Presentation by Don Belk. This item is to receive the second annual report on Flexible Development, covering the period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998. Section IV- B -10 -H of the Subdivision Regulations requires that an annual report be presented to the Board of Commissioners which describes the major subdivision Concept Plans reviewed during the year. The purpose of the report is to evaluate the effectiveness of the standards in accomplishing the goal of Flexible Development, "to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character." The Commissioners are to review the report, determine whether changes to the regulations are needed, and direct Staff to propose amendments, if necessary. Eight (8) Concept Plans were reviewed during FY 97 -98 under Flexible Development procedures and standards. Six of the eight applicants (75 %) will implement the Flexible Development option. Five applicants submitted a single concept plan under the Conservation Option. One applicant (Village of the Oaks) submitted two plans, but intends to use the Flexible Development Cluster Option. One Subdivision applicant (Lawrence Road Subdivision) submitted two concept plans because their proposal for a Planned Development did not meet the 33% open space requirement. The application for the Planned Development is pending, awaiting a rezoning decision. The Wildwood West Concept Plan, submitted under the Cluster Option, was denied by the Planning Board. In the seven Flexible Development concept plans submitted, the total open space provided was 128.2 acres for 209 lots. The average amount protected per subdivision was 18.3 acres (43.8 %). In 1997, the percentage of open space protected per subdivision was 37.05 %. Of the 128.2 acres preserved as open space under Flexible Development, 99.8 acres (78 %) are required by the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations to remain undisturbed regardless of the type of subdivision proposed. This includes areas within floodplains, stream buffers, building setbacks, and Tree Protection Areas. The net gain of voluntary open space attributable to Flexible Development during this reporting period is 28.4 acres, or 22% more than the protected area required by other zoning and subdivision requirements. Because of the limited number of Concept Plans reviewed, the opportunities for accomplishing the purpose of Flexible Development were also limited. Most of the reserved open space will protect streams, adjacent moderate to steep slopes, rock outcrops, forested areas, and the associated wildlife habitat. 4 The trend in Flexible Development is toward the Conservation Option. Since the implementation of Flexible Development in July 1996, only the Conservation and Cluster options (or a hybrid of the two) have been used in Concept Plans. Consequently, the report does not evaluate the specific standards for the Estate and Village development options allowed under Flexible Development. Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs) fostered increased public interest and participation in the subdivision approval process during this reporting period. NIMs have significantly heightened the awareness of adjacent and neighboring property owners to the proceedings of the Planning Board. The NIMs and Planning Board meetings for the Wildwood West and Lawrence Road Subdivision concept plans drew large turnouts of citizens. (A copy of the complete report is on file in the Planning Department.) Barrows stated that she felt the plans being presented with minimum lot sizes and the conservation option is not achieving the goal that was expected. She felt changes should be made to the conservation option that would achieve the goal of preservation of open space. Belk responded that he felt the first step would be to review /determine the quality open space. Brooks stated that she felt the Flexible Development Plan's conservation option cuts a great break for developers. She felt the County is not requiring enough of the developer in trade. She felt that revisions should be made to be more sure that the intent of conservation/preservation of open space is met. Strayhom felt there should be a way by which everyone would contribute to the preservation of open space. He expressed concern for the landowners who felt that they were providing open space for the entire county. b. November Meeting Date Presentation by Emily Cameron. This item is to reschedule the November Planning Board meeting date due to a conflict with the Board of County Commissioners fast regular meeting in November. Because of the election in November, the first regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners is scheduled for Wednesday, November fourth, the same night as the Planning Board would normally meet. The Planning Board meeting could be rescheduled to Thursday, November 5th (7:30 p.m.). The Planning Board agreed to reschedule the November meeting to Thursday, November 5. c. Miscellaneous Development Requirements Adjournment time was reached and the Planning Board agreed to delay this item to the August 5 meeting. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL REPORT #2 July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998 Submitted by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Background. On May 1, 1996, the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance were amended to establish a program of Flexible Development that began on July 1, 1996. The purpose of Flexible Development is to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might be lost through conventional subdivision methods. The regulations as adopted include a requirement for an annual report to be made to the Board of County Commissioners which describes the major subdivision Concept Plans reviewed during the year. The report is to include an evaluation of Flexible Development standards, including their effectiveness in achieving the stated purpose. The Board of County Commissioners shall review the report to determine if adjustments and/or changes are required. The Board may then direct the County Manager and staff to prepare a report that outlines recommended changes for its consideration. Summary of Year 1: July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997. The first annual report on Flexible Development was presented to the Board of Commissioners on September 16, 1997. During the first year under the revised subdivision regulations (July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997), a total of seven (7) Concept Plans was reviewed under Flexible Development, with an average subdivision size of 32.78 acres. Three of the seven applicants (42 %) opted for the Flexible Development plan. In the three Flexible Development Concept Plans, the total open space provided was 22.18 acres; the average amount protected per subdivision was 7.39 acres (37.05 %). Of the 22.18 acres reserved as open space in these subdivisions, 12.56 acres were located in floodplain, stream buffer, building setbacks, and Tree Protection Areas. The Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations require these areas to remain undisturbed regardless of the type of subdivision proposed. These requirements were in effect before the adoption of Flexible Development Standards. The net gain of voluntary open space attributable to Flexible Development during the first year of implementation was 9.62 acres. Of that total, 1.86 acres were used for septic easements. The remaining 7.81 acres either protected forest on moderate slopes or was landscaped as a buffer. Section One: Subdivision Summaries, July 1,1997 -June 30, 1998 During this reporting period, a total of nine (9) major subdivision Concept Plans were submitted for review, eight (8) of which were outside the Rural Buffer and subject to Flexible Development Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page I procedures. These are summarized in the table below. Reduced copies of the Concept Plans are in Appendix A. Following the table are brief descriptions of the significant features of each plan: ::::::..::::..::::::::::::::::::.::.;•:::::::::::::::::. :.................::::.::::. ...................:.:.::.:::::::.:::::....................::::::::..:...::::::::......................:...:.:::::::: ::::::.T..ntat:.;:.;:.:.::::..i . n..::..:::Perceni > <:::: >:.. ::::::::............::._::::::: i �.:::.....::.......:: ::.. ...�..::::.::::::::... .::::: Savoy Park* 69.49 40.76 58.7% 22 66.1 3.16 3.39 private Woodgreen* 30.7 10.59 34.5% 27 28.2 1.14 2.5 public Carl & Theresa Chambers* 19.0 9.35 49.0% 8 18.21 2.37 0.79 private MTK Development * 38.34 17.58 47.0% 23 35.42 1.74 2.92 public Field View* 81.57 30.12 37.0% 59 71.09 1.2 10.48 public Wildwood West ** 32.83 14.83 45.2% 61 14.39 0.24 3.8 public The Lawrence Road Subdivision Cluster 87.27 28.38 33% 243 43.62 0.18 15.27 public Planned Development' 87.27 25.92 30.5% 249 46.08 1 0.18 15.27 1 public Village of the Oaks, Section V Cluster 20.51 5.0 33.0% 9 14.35 1.59 1.16 1 public Conventional 20.51 0 0 9 18.91 2.1 1.6 public *Single Conceut Plan submitted (Conservation nntion) ** Single Concept Plan submitted (Cluster Option) Public Hearing on Rezoning from Rural Residential to Planned Development R -3 (PD -H -R3) scheduled for August 24, 1998 Savoy Park was the first Concept Plan submitted during this reporting period. The developer did not submit a conventional plan. Savoy Park is located on Borland Road near Chestnut Ridge Church Road. The 69.5 -acre site is wooded, with a mixture of hardwoods and pines except for a 150 -foot Duke Power Company transmission line right -of -way. The site is within the Cane Creek Protected Watershed. An intermittent stream follows the eastern boundary of the property and joins Cane Creek at the southeastern corner of the tract. This area also contains a Wildlife Corridor identified in the Inventory ofNatural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Oranze County that follows Cane Creek and connects natural areas identified at the Cane Creek Reservoir and the Crabtree Creek Monadnock Ridge located across Borland Road. This corridor is considered Primary Conservation Area and will be contained within protected open space in the subdivision. Cane Creek, , looking south Woodgreen, submitted in October 1997, is located in Cheeks Township at the southern intersection of Moorefields Road (SR 113 5) and Dimmocks Mill Road (SR 1134) on the east side of Rocky Run Creek. The property is within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed. This 30.7 acre tract is mostly wooded with a 4 -acre open field in the central portion of the site, which is a ridgetop at the highest part of the site. There is also a 2 -acre open area is located at the southeast corner at the intersection of Dimmocks Mill Road and Moorefields Road. Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 2 The developers of Woodgreen submitted a single Concept Plan under the conservation option of flexible development. The proposal included 10.59 acres or 34.5% open space. The open space will be privately owned as part of the lots and will be preserved through a conservation easement or restrictive covenants. It will protect wooded land on gentle slopes, Rocky Run, and adjacent floodplain and stream buffers. A portion of the protected open space will minimize visual impacts by preserving the open area adjacent to Dimmocks Mill Road. The Carl and Theresa Chambers subdivision is located in Cedar Grove Township north of Carr Store Road (SR 1126) between NC Highway 86 and Compton Road (SR 1353) and adjacent to the East Fork of the Eno River. The site lies within the Upper Eno Critical Area and Protected Watershed. The 19 -acre site is predominately wooded with mature hardwoods, pines and small hardwoods, with a small area in early succession. Large specimens of red oak, and a twin poplar, both exceeding 30 inches in diameter, were denoted on the Concept Plan and included in the protected open space. The plan was modified after the site visit to protect the significant trees. The Concept Plan follows the conservation option of flexible development, with 9.35 acres or 49% open space. The open space protects wooded land on gentle slopes, streams, floodplain, the adjacent stream buffers, as well as buffers along the subdivision boundaries. Twin poplar MTK Development is located in Eno Township on both sides of Yates Road (SR 1563) east of Palmers Grove Church Road (SR 1562). The 38.34 acre tract lies within the Lower Eno Protected Watershed. The site centers around a stream valley created by an unnamed intermittent stream that flows north approximately one mile to the Eno River. Primary conservation areas include the stream and scattered slopes estimated to be over 25 percent. The remainder of the site is considered Secondary Conservation Area, composed of woodland and/or slopes greater than 15 percent. The subdivision retains nearly 50% of its total area in open space. The plan for MTK Development follows the conservation option of flexible development. The 18 acres of protected open space includes wooded land on moderate to steep slopes, the creek and adjacent stream buffer, as well as buffers along the roads and the subdivision boundaries. Field View subdivision is located in Cheeks Township on the north side of West Lebanon Road (SR 1306) on both sides of Frazier Road (SR 1342). It is also situated on the ridge line separating the Neuse and Cape Fear River Basins. The 81.57 -acre tract falls within both the Back Creek Protected Watershed and Upper Eno Protected Watershed. The site is characterized by mostly open fields that are gently rolling away from the ridgeline running northeast - southwest. The northern 20 percent of the former farm is wooded. The Concept Plan follows the conservation option of flexible development. The protected open space will be privately owned Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 3 as part of the lots and will preserve two ponds, drainage ways, a stream buffer, as well as landscaped buffers along subdivision roads, boundaries and between lots. Wildwood West is located in Hillsborough Township south of Interstate 85, on the south side of the Southern Railroad, adjacent to the Hillsborough corporate limits. The Concept Plan for the proposed 32.83 -acre subdivision follows the cluster option of flexible development, with (61) new residential lots that average approximately one - quarter acre in size. The proposal includes 14.83 acres (45.2 %) of protected open space, to protect a stream, the adjacent steep slopes and mature hardwood forest, as well as a buffer between the railroad and the subdivision. Wildwood West represents the fourth section of the Wildwood Development approved in the mid- 1980's. The Wildwood West Concept Plan was denied by the Planning Board due to issues involving traffic impacts and site drainage. The Lawrence Road Subdivision is located in Eno Township on the east side of Lawrence Road (SR 1709) between Interstate 85 and US Highway 70A. The western half of the property is cultivated as a hay field, while the eastern half is wooded with a mixture of mature pines and hardwoods including some scattered Shagbark hickory. The understory is typical for this type of forest except for several scattered, mature mountain laurel specimens. There are three intermittent streams on the tract, which is not located within a protected watershed. Two of the streams join and flow north approximately 2.5 miles into the Eno River. The third stream flows south into Stoney Creek. View of south side of intermittent stream corridor from hayfield. Two Concept Plans were submitted for the Lawrence Road Subdivision prior to application for rezoning to a Planned Development R -3 district. One plan illustrates a Planned Development, and the second follows the cluster option of flexible development. The Cluster Concept Plan proposes a residential development (243 lots on 87 acres). The protected open space will focus on preserving wooded buffers on the western, southern, and eastern boundaries and pedestrian- oriented, improved open spaces among the clustered lots. Village of the Oaks, Section V was the final major subdivision application submitted under Flexible Development during the reporting period. The 20 -acre site proposed for development is currently cultivated as cropland. There are no primary conservation areas on the property. Secondary Conservation Areas include farmland and scenic views associated with the open farmland along Mebane Oaks Road, which was identified as a scenic road corridor by the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee of the Planning Board in 1995. The applicant presented two Concept Plans, as required when submitting a conventional subdivision design. The conventional plan features 5 lots on a single cul -de -sac. The alternate Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 4 plan follows the cluster option of flexible development. The five acres of protected open space would preserve farmland, most of the slopes over 7.5 %, part of a stream buffer, and buffers between the lots and adjacent roads. Section Two: Evaluation of Application and Approval Process The application and approval procedures for major subdivisions outside the Rural Buffer are described in Section III -D -1 of the Subdivision Regulations. The steps in Concept Plan review are: Application, Site Visit, Neighborhood Information Meeting, and Planning Board review. Site Visits are required during the application stage. These are conducted prior to the Neighborhood Information Meeting and sometimes prior to submittal. A total of eleven (11) site visits were conducted by Planning Staff. Eight (8) of these visits were made in conjunction with Concept Plan submittals. A purpose of the Site Visit is for staff to advise the applicant on the location of conservation areas, and to offer guidance on flexible development options. However, none of these visits were conducted to examine potential development scenarios prior to Concept Plan submittal. Usually, a development concept was predetermined. Planning Staff met with the applicant or the applicant's agent solely to advise on access questions, site planning details, and ordinance requirements. Most applicants had a good understanding of primary and secondary conservation areas. Site visits enabled the Planning Staff to become familiar with the subject property prior to the Neighborhood Information Meeting. This helped them address citizen and Planning Board concerns regarding potential impact on conservation areas. Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIM's) are scheduled prior to presentation of the Concept Plan to the Planning Board. All property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel are sent notices of the Neighborhood Information Meeting at least ten days prior to the meeting. A total of 351 NIM notices was mailed - an average of 44 per subdivision application. This represents a significant increase over the average of 19 NIM notices per application in the first year of Flexible Development. Much of this increase can be attributed to the nature of the subdivision applications submitted during this reporting period. Two proposed major subdivisions, Wildwood West and the Lawrence Road Subdivision, were located within Transition Areas and adjacent to existing single - family subdivisions of 3 -5 units per acre (Wildwood and Colonial Park Mobile Home Park). Neighborhood Information Meetings varied in attendance and usefulness. The average number of neighbors attending was 11, with the most being 25 (Wildwood West) and the fewest being none (Village of the Oaks). These totals were considerably higher than in the first year of Flexible Development, when average attendance was 3, and the highest attendance at a single NIM was 10 persons. Some neighbors called or visited the Planning Department with questions Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 5 instead of attending the Neighborhood Information Meeting. In the case of Wildwood West, the Planning Department fielded dozens of telephone calls and received over 100 letters of opposition. The concerns expressed by neighbors who attended the NIM's or contacted the Planning Department were most often related to the impacts of development on existing homes or neighborhoods. Clearcutting, increased traffic, and water quality were among the concerns raised by neighbors. Other typical questions included the type, size, and price of proposed residences, boundary issues, creation of a homeowners association, and use of conservation areas. Concern about property values was also a common theme. The actual design of the subdivision or choice of flexible development option was rarely a point of discussion at NIMs. Two major subdivisions proposed during this reporting period, Wildwood West and the Lawrence Road Subdivision, generated active, vocal opposition from neighboring property owners. A major concern among residents of the existing Wildwood subdivision was that the proposed development would exacerbate ongoing drainage problems. Traffic distribution was also a major issue of concern, since all traffic from the proposed Wildwood West subdivision would be routing through existing subdivision streets. Residents adjacent to the proposed Lawrence Road subdivision also cited traffic concerns in their opposition to that development. Many neighbors believed the overall density of the proposed development was too high. Others expressed concern that the 1,200 -1,300 f 2 homes slated for the area were too small, and would negatively affect their property values. One neighbor said the Concept Plan illustrated a `ghetto' while others bemoaned the demise of the `small -town lifestyle' that originally attracted them to the area. The fact that the proposed subdivision would be located within a Transition Area, where higher densities of development are suitable, did not assuage some neighbors' vehement opposition. Concept Plan review by the Planning Board gained a new dimension from the involvement of more neighbors. Many attended the Planning Board meeting to voice concerns. NIM notices functioned as advance notices for Planning Board meetings, if residents were unable to attend the Neighborhood Information Meeting. Section Three: Evaluation of Flexible Development Standards The Planning Staff considered a number of factors in evaluating the Flexible Development standards during the period July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998: • A total of eight (8) Concept Plans were reviewed under Flexible Development. • The average subdivision size was 47.46 acres. This represents a 44.8% increase over the 1997 average of 32.78 acres. Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 6 Seven of the eight applicants (87.5 %) will implement the Flexible Development option'. Five applicants submitted a single concept plan under the Conservation Option. One applicant submitted two plans, but intends to use the Cluster Option (Village of the Oaks). Implementation of flexible development options increased substantially during this reporting period. In 1997, only three of seven (42 %) chose a Flexible Development option. • Regarding the remaining subdivision application for the Lawrence Road Subdivision, the applicant submitted two concepts plans because their proposal for a Planned Development did not meet the 33% open space requirement. The application for the Planned Development has been submitted for the August 24, 1998 public hearing. • In the seven Flexible Developments, the total open space provided was 128.2 acres for 209 lots. The average amount protected per subdivision was 18.3 acres (43.8 %). In 1997, the percentage of open space protected per subdivision was 37.05 %. Of the 128.2 acres preserved as open space in the seven subdivisions under Flexible Development, 99.8 acres (78 %) are required by the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations to remain undisturbed regardless of the type of subdivision proposed This includes areas within floodplains, stream buffers, building setbacks, and Tree Protection Areas. • The net gain of voluntary open space attributable to Flexible Development during this reporting _period is 28.4 acres, or 22% more than the protected area required by other zoning and subdivision requirements. Given the level of participation in Flexible Development described above and the fact that one of the four development options (conservation) was predominate, the Staff evaluation of Flexible Development standards is by necessity somewhat limited. However, some general observations can be made about the program based on the stated purpose of the Flexible Development regulations, "to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character." Of the eight concept plan applications, two affected active farmland. The Lawrence Road Subdivision will result in a loss of approximately 40 acres of farmland. Farming may continue on the five acres of open space in Village of the Oaks, although lots and roads will result in the loss of approximately 15 acres for farmland. Managed forestry lands were not located on any of the subject properties. Cultural features such as historic buildings or archeological sites were not encountered in the concept plans reviewed; however, protection of a potential scenic road corridor was considered in the Village of the Oaks Concept Plan. I The Wildwood West Concept Plan, submitted under the Cluster Option, was denied by the Planning Board on March 5, 1998. However, it is included for evaluation purposes. Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 7 Natural features preserved were streams, adjacent moderate to steep slopes, rock outcrops, forested areas, and the associated wildlife habitat. Specimen tree protection was a consideration in a minor design revision to the Carl & Theresa Chambers Subdivision Concept Plan. In the portion of the County located in protected watersheds, most of the Primary Conservation Areas (wetlands, floodplains, slopes over 25 percent, and some natural areas, wildlife corridors and archaeological sites) must be preserved as part of required stream buffers on existing lots as well as in proposed subdivisions, whether conventional or flexible development. Other Primary Conservation Areas located outside stream buffers, such as natural areas and historic or archeological sites, are fewer in number and more widespread, making them less likely to be involved in a major subdivision. "Rural community character" is still without a clear definition, making it difficult to measure its preservation. Of the Flexible Development concept plans submitted, only two (Savoy Park and Village of the Oaks) could be categorized as rural. Savoy Park, with an average lot size of 3.2 acres, is planned for an area that is still at a relatively low density of residential development. Village of the Oaks is located within an area that remains predominately agricultural, but is rapidly developing. Earlier phases of the Village of the Oaks development, and a 25 -lot subdivision on Mebane Oaks Road to the north, are changing this area into one of a more suburban character. The remaining subdivisions proposed are primarily suburban in nature, either because of the location and/or the density proposed. Woodgreen is in an area that is somewhat rural, although the average lot size is 1.14 acres and a paved public road is proposed. Field View, with 59 lots at an average size of 1.2 acres, will be located in a rapidly suburbanizing area near Mebane. The Lawrence Road subdivision and Wildwood West were proposed within Urban Transition Areas and would utilize public water and sewer service. Five of the eight applicants who submitted single Flexible Development Concept Plans chose the Conservation Option to protect open space. The trend during this reporting period is that the Conservation Option has become the de facto concept plan outside the Transition Areas. The conservation option provides for protected open space as part of individual lots. In terms of design, the conservation option largely resembles the conventional lot- and -street subdivision layout, which is the most common approach to residential development. Once street layout and building envelopes are determined, the 33% open space requirement can be readily met by incorporating building setbacks and stream buffers, or steep slopes on the individual lots. The conservation option allows subdividers to readily meet the flexible development open space requirement while providing a traditional and accepted layout for new residential developments. It also eliminates the need to submit two (2) concept plans. Furthermore, the conservation option provides the advantages of locating septic systems within the protected open space and reducing minimum lot widths and lot frontages. Sometimes, this can result in shorter lengths for new roads. The trend toward the conservation option illustrates the flexibility of the standards that allows subdividers to meet open space requirements while maximizing lot yield. The reduced lot widths Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 8 and frontages have enabled some designers to obtain more lots within the conservation option than would have been achieved through a conventional subdivision. Where public water and sewer services are unavailable, flexibility in subdivision design is constrained by soil suitability for sewage disposal. Furthermore, the Cluster Option is not practicable in areas of the County with 40,000 ft2 minimum lot sizes.. Environmental health regulations stipulate that individual septic systems contain a minimum of 40,000 ft2 within Protected Watersheds. Given Orange County's unique watershed geography, this effectively prohibits the use of off -site septic easements to allow clustering of smaller lots. Once lot yield is determined, then market forces and economic feasibility control the type of road constructed and whether amenities can be afforded. Including amenities such as open space also comes with the price of additional design, engineering, surveying, and legal fees. The local real state market determines whether the cost of providing open space can be recovered in the selling price of the lots. The Conservation Option resolves this issue because it allows developers to provide open space (to comply with regulations and provide a marketable amenity) at no additional costs above creating individual lots. In June the Planning Staff distributed questionnaires to the 14 participants in the Flexible Development process to solicit comments on the procedures and standards. Only one response was received. It is provided in Appendix B. CONCLUSION Major subdivision activity during FY 97 -98 was not extensive enough to thoroughly analyze the effectiveness of the Flexible Development regulations. The stated purpose of the program of open space preservation was not achieved to an obvious level of success. On a positive note, six of the eight (75 %) major subdivision proposals outside the Rural Buffer intend to utilize a Flexible Development (5 conservation; 1 cluster). Of the two remaining subdivisions, Lawrence Road Subdivision is awaiting a decision on rezoning, and the Wildwood West concept plan (cluster option) was denied by the Planning Board. The provision of the Neighborhood Information Meeting has significantly increased the awareness of adjacent and neighboring property owners to the proceedings of the Planning Board. However, subdivision design and open space preservation are rarely the major issues of discussion. Trends during this reporting period suggest that the Conservation Option has become the de facto concept plan submittal. Because the conservation option enables subdividers to incorporate the open space within individual lots, it eliminates the need to consider open space as a `critical mass' or larger interconnected corridor to be set aside and preserved. This raises a concern about the quality of the open space being protected by the Conservation Option. Furthermore, it brings into question the ability of current Flexible Development standards to achieve the long -term goal of a contiguous, countywide network of open space. Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 9 Since the adoption of Flexible Development in 1996, a total of 15 concept plans has been reviewed under these standards. This activity has not been extensive enough to warrant a Staff recommendation regarding the efficacy of Flexible Development. As discussed above, the Conservation Option has been the most frequently used, followed by the Cluster Option. The Estate Option has not been tested, and a concept plan under the Village Option is yet to be submitted. The Planning Staff anticipates the continued prevalence of concept plans using the Conservation Option. Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX A SUBDIVISIONS Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Appendix A CMIEKS R alls/ur • i 1 ./� INK. _ WI f *4 •f O•l••L fllf ISMAC • MK K SAC �I� �f�'_•�l T « O K 1q � f lO +C Tff+C • O "C 1 »A O I�If K. O YY, a +C fa Ar- a ,,,, 1 'a■ Q •+m N at 11 O i fl K , ?42 AC �• nM anew ._- - • ®yam a K. A w IAti p O. 5AC O I fea \ Mi � 1 � IN SLIT && f 1 IiMK. f TOMS 1 she or ` r N O \\` fIK I.O \il �/ O aA& ' N ' [u�►e \ t1[ V) ' ( \\ �I OfK -------- V [ 1 / f)+C SAL of K I• / \ M 1G O .•w� i�C ' i • f K. 1.14 Ir • w a•Na sm 0 �© a." •r- _ ow +[. CLL. r �Oa aM K n ` • r IIC.CK. 1M ; OMf L ri+G ON A9* � •C �. fM O.1f•f - Ia K s �O • CG 2`411 it AC M At qV K •a M f A, - fA K . • • f0 i Le Ac � r...K; .A .. .am w .0 ` O •Mt • w Savoy Park Applicant: Christopher Road Realty, Inc. Adr- Zoning: Agricultural Residential Cane Creek Protected Watershed ff K Scale: one inch = 1000_feet ® fat KO M 04 CI M i rvio- • �Mw rwo� ..w. riMw A. • cf.w.f ary ► Ave— a" wr • w.�.r M d. i 371 AS • IYY�/ �� I M A— 1. M �/ Y M�AYr if wnM •Wr2.0w~ M M/..0 fI A%Atr * S oft 11i wi NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Savoy Park Subdivision Concept Plan August 19, 1997 In Attendance: Applicants: Kevin Huggins, Terry Westendorf; Citizens: Margaret Schmidt, Bob Schmidt, Tom Gorham, Brad LaRoche, Arthur Plambeck, Kern Michal, Margaret Plambeck, Allan Whitlock; Staff: Emily Cameron, Don Belk. Ms. Cameron opened the meeting with a background on the Flexible Development concept plan process and the development review procedures. She explained the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting. The Planning Board will consider the Savoy Park concept plan at their September 3 meeting. She noted that a summary of the Neighborhood Information Meeting will be included with the staff report to the Planning Board. The developer chose to submit a single concept plan utilizing a Flexible Development option. Ms. Schmidt asked how long before actual development could begin? Ms. Cameron explained a best -case scenario. After concept plan approval in September, the Preliminary Plat could conceivably be recommended by the Planning Board in February 1998, with approval by the Board of Commissioners in March. Upon approval of the Preliminary Plat, the developer would have 12 months for Final Plat approval, and could begin the sale of lots and construction of homes. The developer may choose to build in phases but this is normally indicated in Concept Plan. Mr. Huggins presented Flexible Development Concept Plan. The average lot size is 3 acres. The subdivision will have a private road maintained by a homeowners association. Utilities will be underground. The subdivision will have restrictive covenants. Single -Level homes will be in the 1500 -1600 square feet range, multi -level will be 2000 square feet. Lots will sell in the mid $30,OOOs to low -to -mid $40,OOOs; with house, the price will range from $175,000 to $250,000 per house /lot. The sense of privacy and the abundant woods are key selling point for Savoy Park. Mr. Schmidt stated that the lots across Borland are restricted to 5- acres. He asked if this restriction would apply to Savoy Park. Ms. Cameron replied that different subdivisions may have different sets of private restrictions, if any. The County does not enforce deed restrictions or covenants unless they are required for subdivision approval. Mr. Gorham mentioned his long -term interest to possibly subdivide a 7 -acre tract north of Savoy Park. Mr. Schmidt asked about the percolation of these lots. Ms. Cameron stated that this will be dealt with at the Preliminary Plat stage, when the Health Department must approve each lot. Mr. Huggins indicated that the name of subdivision may be changed before it is developed. "Savoy Park" is being used for the application process. Ms. Schmidt asked about the impact of 22 septic fields on Cane Creek. Ms. Cameron stated that the streams have adequate buffers, where no septic fields are allowed. Final determination on soil qualities will be determined by the Environmental Health Department. A citizen asked if the development would require turn -off lanes off Borland. Ms. Cameron stated that the County will consult with NCDOT. Most likely, only a driveway permit will be required. Several citizens stated their concerns over the increased traffic. School bus stops, early morning traffic were cited. Mr. Huggins reiterated that he will consult with NCDOT, and do everything possible for minimal impact. He stated that twenty -two new houses, obviously, will increase local traffic. On the positive side, according to Mr. Huggins, Savoy Park will blend well with existing development in the area. Additionally, because the subdivision will have a single entrance and will remain heavily wooded, it should have virtually no visual impact on the existing neighborhood. A citizen asked what is to prevent clear- cutting of the land. Mr. Huggins stated that the County requires tree protection. In addition, restrictive covenants will be enforced by the homeowners association. Mr. Gorham stated that the buffers and open spaces shown on the concept remind one of North Woods in Chapel Hill. Mr. Huggins said that his previous developments, Tupelo Ridge and Crescent Ridge, are similar to what is envisioned for Savoy Park. Mr. Gorham said it appears to be a non - intrusive type of development. Mr. Huggins stated this is good from a business standpoint. Ms. Schmidt asked who will likely purchase homes here? Mr. Huggins stated the market will probably be persons working at RTP, along with two- career families, perhaps couples who divide their time between the Greensboro -Triad area and the RTP /Triangle area. Mr. LaRoche asked for a copy of the restrictive covenants for Savoy Park. Ms. Cameron stated that a draft of these will be in hand for the Preliminary Plan stage. Mr. Huggins offered to mail neighbors a copy when his attorney has completed the first draft. At this point, other neighbors came into the meeting, and the gathering evolved into an "open - house" setting. Several neighbors chatted with the developer, while others asked individual questions of the Planning Staff. The Neighborhood Information Meeting continued until 1:30 p.m. Savoy Park is the eighth major subdivision concept plan submitted since the advent of Flexible Development. Mr. Belk stated that Neighborhood Information Meeting is intended to provide an opportunity for property owners to ask questions about new developments and the development process. He felt that this was a very successful meeting that functioned as a Neighborhood Information Meeting was intended in the Flexible Development ordinance. Ms. Cameron and Mr. Belk thanked everyone for attending. 9 _ Woodgreen'Applicant: Fj.�Alr�41T Tri -Star, Inc. 2e Zoning: Agricultural Residential 2i� ' Z �c 7; Upper Eno Protected Watershed "3 ° -f.'; 1 z Not to Scale 20 - - 3 27AC 2E 3 374C. LI neo � 1. I •Af1RE _ _Lts-rmcr — I = ORANG..i p I pC (` SEE 15�8C1ix(,tJG11 PMSP -1 4,-. za �-- 32 754C. SEE O MAP 42 -A.2 E C PN 103.42 AC. - . o MILLSeOROLcm O TWSP. SEE MAP 541 68 -- --. +8 SEVEN MILE 7e 000 FALLS _ NEW GRAD N SCMOOI NOAO 4_42 i. SEE MAP31A O II ,-- -• O JC 1 O N Z ... -- --- ---- - - - --- Sat 1 SEVEN MILEFALL 2 � 5 522x xz4s SEC2 xE I 42C � 27 2 86 4C / O 41LLS"OUGN TIYSR _ 3 A u 2 A g CMA 0.�_ _� E 5E 3.94 AC. II riw I I L i rt . 3 a sE 5 SC 50 II 9. 924C. — d 4F I T. 94 <C. I r 4+a a8 .�C tll . I II a16AC - 0x010. - --I SA � eF 78 • 7A • 7C (I& S oG. 15.773 AC. •alu '4 X4077 I• E` p I uU '90 6 164 54C I O - 9AC. - -_ 1 w eUr •. Ai. 24 Z4 J •.2f ip �K 3 C — --„ 1 — I 4914 33x. rz � O .,,� AC A so Sa4c. 6E - fa4a ♦ iAC. 4 ` .14x1 2.Ie+5AC8 CL ° "^" •�\ SEE - MAP 8C - _ -- 52 C I g 4414 I I I 84 /AG 1 ' 3 89 AC I S • I SAC 80 , r{ 1 pp 40 - -4y - -• II ^k I540 f I 5A \ TL x47t d a y i 3 99AC r 2K s1 • . • , �! AC 4E 41H 02 I Ae 58 I 22 >7 21q 1 FO•• _ x197 >� 3.90:4 I 30- s .0 Ac 37.7 AC 1 4F t n.e P' `•sue*^ -° 1 5i 7" .. .fY -•�'" n» Y•{�i �M 30Y 2.29 JsI I4T3 s2Ac _ E aC �,•,f• E --- -- - --- --- 123AC 2S 2 ZAAC K21 A4 2249 . - zj c4 3.3AC y. f f 2.s4e• ' A 13t �,+ a�.1ne2LE 9 I O102 SM AC. It jA/0 AS A t i t s AC: vw mMrer A49e9 'L HL si I" 9344 �sACJ UUUQ UUtl a 2' �g �3 C V) Y�4 N� nNVN 5zo °d'. %�9J' t•. —w a a� .- l�W m yy 2 qq yJi q 1 n n it OJ7� �� iY?U < O t±mQ Y000 'f J Cr W ZYsss _ m J$� •••,°,qv w O o p_ Z O W C v W O N N �v�,`` C� IL 0 W w - aw V k' Iwo ��< o g 7 n o ...�' � a's1 w uuZ •i N .y, a. O. VIKS , N oww U WSW O N Vf Z Hs a g p+p ,y�T G� a U cc vafwm o Ln m< U K }r��v� Y 6 l�hfl�k; u° t c~im_<+ A — �ew< m6ZZwci � 3 W 71`u� �_ � W w < ZZ Wowlo w <F•F- }•pO <� } - aW O 000 WC —W QOM® i` �Z�W oct+)or a =Wr w1�wmu U v 'at waelsar I?` /b3S M /�j ,09 l l S Ovo0 j 71n SNOOWWIC N rS I ��$ �`b -gym \ LLi un j ✓ r �` O O N\ N cr \ O n n \\ I o x 3 a cs I .n�.„i I =_��� -�+. of Q ,,,,�. ��•b ok: r-!� ° 'J,N� `.. / 2 Js�'o d g "9 a _j - / 0c cc) _ N I CN .� / _ m In &2 N oo.n (lf0 p GOON J�p'fj::• O I QOM J 00 oo N T (\ , a• r � J ' v P_O 'JNO 1 O C J 1 _ Q .� ° 1C y ° -1 �1 .mod' -.tom!• UNE Jvrn � a° J�°Ni io o � �� •� vim' � d•� ': � I 0 0 0 I y U m y U QOONi I \ CN ioa ��ns r3ais1 1�• . _ �,_l � z �_ � v J ^o _'O o s _ v O v -fn r�.if �. `•� N..: -\ �'_` - \ \ \ \ \ \� ice. � \ \\ �_ � J .....�M $jlj .. n4 -_ x_WV tiJx NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Woodgreen Subdivision Concept Plan November 11, 1997 In Attendance: Applicants: Mike Barr, Surveyor; Dennis Evans, Tri -Star, Inc.; Citizens: 17 citizens attended (see attached sign -in sheet) Staff: Emily Cameron, Don Belk. Ms. Cameron opened the meeting with a background on the Flexible Development concept plan process and the development review procedures. She explained the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting. The Planning Board will consider the Woodgreen concept plan at their December 3 meeting. She noted that a summary of the Neighborhood Information Meeting will be included with the staff report to the Planning Board. The developer chose to submit a single concept plan utilizing a Flexible Development option. Several questions were asked by citizens. What is the zoning in the Lower Eno watershed? In the Critical Area: 1 unit per 2 acres; in the Protected Area, 1 unit per acre. Will there be additional meetings on this concept plan? Only this Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held. However, the Planning Board meeting on December 3 is open to the public, and a discussion of the concept plan will be on the agenda. Does each lot have its own water system? Each lot will have individual well and septic system. What is the next step after concept plan approval? The applicants will have one year after approval of the concept plan to develop a preliminary plan. The Preliminary Plan involves a more detailed review, including soils evaluation by the Environmental Health Department. It's possible that soil limitations will result in a preliminary plan for less than the 27 lots shown on the concept plan. How is open space protected? Through restrictive deed covenants or conservation easements. There were also some general questions directed to Ms. Cameron regarding watershed regulations. Michael Barr, Land Surveyor, presented the flexible development concept plan. He stated that the developer is opting for the flexible development plan in order to provide the most efficient use of the property. A homeowners' association will be established to manage protection of the open space. A question was raised about the need for the road stub -out shown on the property. Ms. Cameron reiterated the County's policy of providing street stub -outs in major subdivisions, citing the possibility of the development of the adjacent tract. A citizen raised a concern about this, asking if provision of the street stub -out actually provided an inducement for the adjacent tract owner to develop. Concerns were also expressed about the environmental impacts of the Woodgreen subdivision, particularly groundwater impacts and stormwater runoff. Runoff from Woodgreen would drain toward the north and eventually into Rocky Run. Several citizens asked questions about the location of septic fields, areas with suitable soils, and the buffer widths along the floodplain areas. Question were raised about tree clearings, and tree plantings on houselots that encompass open fields. Ms. Cameron stated that the subdivision ordinance has landscaping requirements that would pertain to those situations. Other concerns were stated about increased traffic, road safety and maintenance, as well as the impacts on schools and services. Ms. Cameron stated that the Planning Staff conducts fiscal impact analyses on subdivisions greater than 10 lots in size. Also, the school districts review all preliminary plats, and the NC Department of Transportation reviews plats to consider road impacts. A citizen asked: what is the best way to ensure the peoples' concerns are being heard? Mr. Belk encouraged the audience to attend the Planning Board meeting and express their concerns. Ms. Cameron explained that the Planning Board is composed of citizens appointed by the Board of Commissioners, and their charge is to make recommendations on major subdivisions. Mr. Belk encouraged citizens to contact the Board of County Commissioners as well. Woodgreen is the ninth major subdivision concept plan submitted since the advent of Flexible Development. Mr. Belk stated that Neighborhood Information Meeting is intended to provide an opportunity for property owners to ask questions about new developments and the development process. He felt that this was a very successful meeting that functioned as a Neighborhood Information Meeting was intended in the Flexible Development ordinance. Ms. Cameron and Mr. Belk thanked everyone for attending. I ; 5447 10 03. f 1 1�; I 2.1 8AIC. 4920 IAC. • 38 I I 4 1 4C 1 _I5.AC. 2 �/?4++ 1 6312 G .45 4C. 4- ,1233 I` VI `1 40 AC I `1 1� 64 243.21AC 1`4- ' - - - -- - - -s'I C7 1 �_L 5329 1i �04 9.28AC \\ I 739E 1 7 o14+ICE Counr� ` 11J.' CEDAR 2N ` �I I X60 EPSEN R �u A .654s 1 � O,SS AC. 111/ 9 8 1239 1` 10 AC. `' I �� 3 618 24S se5' ;� 1 24S 24, 1.12 `t 1.17 AC. _ . \ z 51 1- . I 11 o9a 29 2J 9 1 12 12A 2.21 A . 1'✓ - t o 13 1 1 / 684r 1.17AC. ' -+ .l4A _...,. I �N.4 �' '(U \ I 1' 859 2 A 2 9 �� L D r r l 2s 14 952 v(, •. ems 11 - oiss u76a( .586 12 22AC3 I .I 0 3.011 AC. 21 ' Il 1 10. 0IAC. sa 1 20 22 20 IB 46 � Iftft. 25 i8 112.25 25 g.50AC- - Eli (i�O' a 28A 288 26 2 AC 268 2 68AG 1 43 31CCAL r 58 ,z �ni `. i0:7 1`� C X94. IE " 842 to I 5C Y J' � � 28 4 � 8245 333 _ / • -1� /JOE - AC 36I 4.22 Ac. O1$�R, j - - - /l`�C 9106 IAC 7BS3 . 6.9305 AC - -' 5K SJ 5 SG -jr 55 -5 ° O AC• V 11 eFtovE 1�- - SN M 8923 9964 1 2 a 36 1 AG a Q 1749 C 0 27R ae0a 5847 1 AC IAC IAC I C I C I GC 1 AC zC 9 d 5 5 4502 IE � 6+ o' 451> 3 6.a lZ� 1 13140 _ � 13K 33 \ ,109AC I I > 2 " =- Carl and Teresa Chambers 09' 3C 37 Zoning: Agricultural Residential q 31.1 .67?e 4 1652 1.90AC v a� I 0667 Upper Eno Protected Watershed '^ 3F 6Y1 I I a 37A 1,88AG E1 099A( I 78 05811.86AC and Critical Area I °4' 3i0 I 1 „oa�u 64 1 I2.21AC. 410 I Not to Scale 3 C =2 -3C 1136A 3 70 AC. ? -4 AC. r I220 - - 60 1pC9 31B 1 3 092 5 80 2 '33 AC 6R2 31A I I e m 00 IAC. I I 35A .878 / 1 - IAO 31 I 1 359 97.12 29 3 ' 32:: ' 2 s E I I I : C i 3581 2570 4484 7 . I I 142 aC• 0 9 4C�8.� �_-� I✓ 1660 5 3 134. 1.79 AC 1.79AC 1.86AC 1 1 ^ j ` \ / 9lYrME COUPr PA 9 ri 141 QC 6239 r I I 34A 0382 49 '2A 9241 3211 31 10140 AC _ " 61375 I 018 34 3199 .59 AC. ' 2 24� 10ii cC. i l I39AC , z 7AC. Ux at .92 ae �� 1 AC 1. oR 1 b X002 .� pill i�• o �� p $YY =$YYIY r gyp• *]y6Y8•t y lipppYLg s Y iF =I i i ?$ _�i it It'll ; W 2 a �h H W�y 2 Uaiph U� O W lS O 4g W _ `820, O W OG Wqd 2 O tn 11 3a K; � Isis ra 11 �e - IIIII ��•�����! IMP; lob ��` z. 'i I t P 1• i f' h 3. t• W n_ om ^~ u� r t�� . s �YG1 a i rn a ��•�����! IMP; lob ��` z. 'i I t P 1• i f' h 3. t• om I ��•�����! IMP; lob ��` z. 'i I t P 1• i f' h 3. t• om ��•�����! IMP; lob ��` z. 'i I t P 1• i f' h 3. t• NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Carl and Theresa Chambers Subdivision Concept Plan November 11, 1997 In Attendance: Applicant: J.D. Cecil (representative); Citizens: J. W. and J. A. Spittler; Staff: Emily Cameron, Don Belk. Ms. Cameron opened the meeting with a background on the Flexible Development Concept Plan process and the development review procedures. She explained the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting. The Planning Board will consider the Carl and Theresa Chambers concept plan at their December 3 meeting. She noted that a summary of the Neighborhood Information Meeting will be included with the staff report to the Planning Board. The developer chose to submit a single Concept Plan utilizing a Flexible Development option. Mr. Cecil, of Callemyn- Parker Land Surveying and Engineering, and representative of the applicant, addressed the concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Spittler, whose property is adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Buffers. The buffers to the adjoining properties will remain in place. Flooding. An engineer will design drainage and size pipes to ensure that drainage will not impact the Spittlers's lot. Type of housing. It is believed that the housing type will be double -wide mobile homes or modular homes. Connections of driveways to the planned road. These will not affect the Spittlers's current driveway. Development near creek. This area is within the floodplain and cannot be subdivided or developed. The Carl and Theresa Chambers subdivision is the tenth major subdivision Concept Plan submitted since the advent of Flexible Development. Ms. Cameron and Mr. Belk thanked Mr. Cecil and Mr. and Mrs. Spittler for attending. OMITTED- 18, 38, 60,17,54A.,72,79.58C,4A,25C;16, 2-18, MTK DEVELOPMENT 51, 27A,82, 488 Zoning: Agricultural Residential (AR) Ji Lower Eno Protected Watershed 23G z 3 Applicant: Mike Woods for Woods Brothers 2265 PP 14 AC 14.56 AC Not to Scale 266 // 4 / 21 - / 2.08 P/023E � 03 156 AC 'i6498 2 3 a9• �� 23A � 4365 /,� 8.8268 2311 1254 AC. / •3340 10.2 14 AC . 11.53 AC. I AC. 12.16 AC. SR9 /NG .ILCkY 88 68 LAKE -FR4NK _IN _ 35 7J 27K 1 27l - \�•% � � ` 7J3 + 391 AC. 2,58�81r 3757 80 O 9718 AC. 5 AC 1 97 T2 a 27M I _ 0767 3 02 AC. 26A 8571 t • 5 r z5J n 1.344. SEE MAP ' 7403 4A 24 ' ?513 ) 1.2 7N 206 I. AC i� 7317 .9 9492_ 3379 25N 2.93AC. ` y it . 3 gRIT } �0 69 AC A 2,84 AC r1 i � 27 1 ,�' >£ rw -� a5° -°°'- 253 �� -� ..6 .95 AO. 2 EX 5156 T . / i - i4.3eAC 10. 0425 AC.- .r "9032 _ 1 87 •!� i 25 2896 6819 25E J 1.12 ACG\ 7� s 985 ) .. ; AG 5 AC. t • 9668 ' 3754 1 I '8785 \ 25 • 9830 1.27AC. 29,1 r 'I 5.0137 AC / 5 AC gY Q 5.0150AC / .. d• l0 ��. �\ 6393 Zm oeI _ 8372 S. 1.9AG 3381 �I 32 5.17 AC. 1. 8®p4 31 m 1 JA6 AC. I AC. a i +o 6.6320 I I I .---.- " 5038 5.01 AC. I SS .. ,- av s • _ /A C ZCS -Its 85 86 t _ O 8818 ! r 296 5 AC. 1 19.2 AC.' \ 4797'2.05AC 7716 J 33 �_ E0 8529 i 11.5 AC. _�_ 5AC. z r FALUI■ Mwc 61 Q \\� .9473 r� 39 AC. \ pALME{tt 36 2398 GROVE RD 5AC. l .588 O 5909 L 2-RQ_ A"AP -20C - - - -1 a.72 AC al .8889 (e' (OAK RIDGE) 6.16 AC. 8906 16.20 AC. E 3OT v Lo la +1 s 5609 so 2610�/ / 9y103 �Pr0/ r rr 0 41C 83433 40 s /ti 6.12 AC 148 .1C. 26.15 AC. rs 0303 i 1 •7327 0346•x'/ . AC. 0259 '3351 \ 59 ` 2•�I'C/ ff 10.02 A C . 7144 \ 1 !•• _ - �I` `.j•! 1.86ACCA ,� PpAMRIIM ■ --_ - 8 I P1WU uwv[ 44E \ 1939 1.12 AC.' 38A rJ wl TH. CMUKM 5748 53 19714 �• 3 4763 54 (S ` ,` 42 :nc,O67 �wtly _ \ 1 a 2 AC. ``` 53 I AC. 7.06 AC. 1.22 AC. 42A t `O _ ` � -' � I .6592 I I 2326 49 1.07 A 44 G AC 17.32 AC. 52 , S I, 9 _ 33T 86 1 A 24.89 AC. _ Ar- yo v �� cZ W O O m? O W W W O 2 � VWj V1 W O O U`,� O< N ? � V�ah,+U� OoW� 6 W 4lWO2WKW yC 2 O O O y 0 H UU dpN�O� 7 'yL ' J Z g a �a0 d = 0 6 2 m W U W C 2 W i � o W � � a I � I I I Ilk Jill, .1 I° it 10 foil; 1, �'a i ' a:gs is lk s�{f 4 ��14 §iiQQ�6( fill, EEF 3e / 4J 3t / F + + + + + c �o ., +�� + \ a 9� I � I I I Ilk Jill, .1 I° it 10 foil; 1, �'a i ' a:gs is lk s�{f 4 ��14 §iiQQ�6( fill, EEF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING MTK Development. Yates Road Subdivision Concept Plan December 16,1997 In Attendance: Applicant: J.D. Cecil (representative); Citizens: Nell Andrews, Nancy Antley, Brian Bottger, Deborah Brown, James Brown, Elizabeth Peel; Staff: Emily Cameron, Don Belk. Ms. Cameron opened the meeting with a background on the Flexible Development Concept Plan process and the development review procedures. She explained the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting. The Planning Board will consider the MTK Development: Yates Road Concept Plan at their January 7 meeting. She noted that a summary of the Neighborhood Information Meeting will be included with the staff report to the Planning Board. The developer chose to submit a single Concept Plan utilizing a Flexible Development option. Mr. Cecil, of Callemyn- Parker Land Surveying and Engineering, and representative of the applicant, described the proposed subdivision and responded to several questions from the citizens in attendance. Have the soils been tested for septic system suitability? Soils have been tested by an independent soil scientist. Most soils in the lot areas are suitable. Some parts of the corner lot (Lot No. 11) have unsuitable soils. Mr. Cecil reiterated that the County Environmental Health Department has final approval over the location of septic systems. Will individual lots be sold or will houses be built first? Have homes already been designed? MTK will build and sell houses on the lots. The houses will be comparable to those currently under construction by MTK in the Bryans Lane subdivision. The average size of the houses will be in the range of 1500 square feet. What about drainage patterns and amount of impervious surface? The proposed development will not impact current drainage patterns. Because this development is in the Lower Eno Watershed, impervious surface will be limited to 36% of the total area. Why is a stubout recommended? This is consistent with County policy to increase access points to neighborhoods to facilitate emergency response and daily traffic flow. This will only be installed if the adjacent property is developed. What about the road crossing of the AT &T easement? The road will be paved. A copy of the concept plan has been sent to AT &T for review and comment. What about lot restrictions? There will be side and rear lot line buffers of 20 and 40 feet, respectively. Clearing of trees is not allowed in these setback areas. Within the building envelope, no trees larger than 12" may be removed. Is the developer trying to buy the adjacent land for development? How will this development affect property values? Tp Mr. Cecil's knowledge, the developer is not planning to buy additional land adjacent to this development. The development should enhance property values. Some of the homes in the proposed development may cost more than $200,000. There was general discussion about NCDOT policies and the agency's response to local concerns. There was a consensus among the citizens present that Yates Road is very narrow, which should be a serious safety consideration of the NCDOT. A citizen asked about the future of city limit expansion. The County Land Use Map was used to indicate that the proposed development is located outside of Transition Areas, where urban growth is planned. Ms. Cameron answered some general questions about the development process. The Planning Board may approve the concept plan. At that point, the developer has 12 months to submit a Preliminary Plat. The Board of Commissioners may ultimately adopt a Resolution of Approval for the Preliminary Plat, which will include the comments and review of all outside agencies involved. The MTK Development: Yates Road subdivision is the eleventh major subdivision Concept Plan submitted since the advent of Flexible Development. Ms. Cameron and Mr. Belk thanked everyone for attending this Neighborhood Information Meeting. 2 COMPANY 436 47AC. R/W o 43.19 AC. ¢ '80 .013T rz Field View Applicant: TSA Development, LLC Zoning: Rural Residential Back Creek PW Upper Eno PW Scale: one inch = 650 feet 9676 (10 23 .. • � . ' PAP? II 5.914 AC. X637 0 ... •� 3A 2.12A 1... 6632 .. . 8.8 AC- b1APt9 4a�AS 15 8690 �_. /y 95A 6316 - 17..6446- FU 40 A P. >! 68 1 9253 t s r°. 1 lo. , 1 _L 3.217A�. io R n 2 24K 4 U- � I• : :Ij i 33048AC• �1. 6 64 'r 2.434] •:1�• i. X831 x631 � 6C AC. FA44(f"i SF 7 -5 �YI�PI� LE ANON R� P 95 AC. r 7E I eq 1 511911 l� � I F . I ': � • '8242 t r 1).1.62 AC 2.30 J I �7H �s AC- 4 7J6, 1 ^ AC- 7 5935 AC3 .. 7F 2 �j 9 •_ 7G a.. 2820 '3.27AA•C • 67 AC. 1623 ,0 .o 2.674C• yV t2.8CaC iJ"- y _ »r<0 , 8 O 16 80 I _ 7C j 11.98AC. Ah4�±�• 62 ez 2.66/AC.8282 16.86AG. Q t 30 h 0��? �q 23.91A 1 6 14 ^ly' 1.93 7031 Y Aa. a.>• r / • T60 6 �- 4 3'hr., /1 1 OPEN MELDS 6 PARTIALLY WOODED THERN SECTION SS THAN 7.7% SLOPES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED SLOPES DN EASEMENT AREAS \ JAMES V. DB.271 P, DONNIE L. BLAI 138262 P.36 CARRIE D. NIC DB.1326 P2 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Field View Subdivision Concept Plan January 27, 1998 In Attendance: Applicant: Clinton Bradley, Developer, Brady Goforth, Surveyor; Citizens: Donnie Blanken, Mary Denton (representing James and Mary Ward and Daniel Crouse), Robert Nichols, Jr., Dorothy Ruffin, Coy Smith, Carlton Ward, Terry Whiffed, Walter Winn; Staff: Emily Cameron, Don Belk. Ms. Cameron opened the meeting with a background on the Flexible Development Concept Plan process and the development review procedures. She explained the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting. The Planning Board will consider the Field View Concept Plan at their February 4 meeting. She noted that a summary of the Neighborhood Information Meeting will be included with the staff report to the Planning Board. Mr. Blanken had a question about the proposed stubout on the western boundary of the parcel. Ms. Cameron explained the policy on stubouts. Ms. Cameron then turned to Brady Goforth to present the Field View Concept Plan. Mr. Goforth described the development and showed where the dedicated open space would be located. On some lots, the septic fields will be placed in the open space. The pond area in the northeast corner of the parcel will be protected, and bordered by two large lots. A citizen asked about the type of water that would be provided to the development. Would it be individual wells or public water? Mr. Goforth said this has not been determined. In response to a question about the placement of mobile homes on the proposed lots, Mr. Goforth stated that all houses would be stick - built. The houses will range from 1150 to 1500 square feet, and will be similar to the Wagon Farm Trail subdivision on High Rock Road, as well as the Oak Pointe development near Mebane. The price range of the houses will be $103- 130,000, except for the two large lots. Houses will be constructed by a number of different builders, then marketed for sale. The subdivision will be constructed in 6 or 8 phases. Regarding the paving of Frazier Road, he said the entrance portion of Frazier from Lebanon (approximately 250') would be paved. Also, the subdivision streets would be paved. The remainder of Frazier will remain as a gravel road. There is a possibility that NCDOT will pave more of Frazier Road after the subdivision is built out. Mrs. Denton asked about the existing treelines on the parcel. Mr. Bradley stated that he intends to keep tree clearing to a minimum, because he saves money by keeping existing trees in place. Ms. Cameron stated that 15 -20 trees per lot are required, so there will be new plantings in addition to the existing trees. The Field View subdivision is the twelfth major subdivision Concept Plan submitted since the advent of Flexible Development. Ms. Cameron and Mr. Belk thanked everyone for attending this Neighborhood Information Meeting. Wildwood West Applicant: Wildwood Corporation of Hillsborough, Inc. Zoning: Low and Medium Intensity Residential (R -2 and R -4) W1 Land Use Element: Ten Year Transition Not to scale \ 3.34 AC. \ NT ' \ CAL. 6 / \ \ 658 37.77 AC 2'G 8159 \ \ 2121 58-13 AC. Hj \ rRucK sra° I , �Gy NA W P rON POiNrE \� IOA 33 �� I 1 CORD 9 \ 2.9 AC. �!65�6 1' 1 5 - I SOU 13.17 AC. •�. 8 4� � � I ,O.v.N. 62 •9AC. �\ 10 \ \ 'k 9 I $ 9052; AC 1.1 Oe 7AG \ � � I � 1 se 44!-35 1.3T AC. 0 C. 19A o98 4 Biel E M4P 1957 o RA: AIs MP�a 3. 20 LRGAO 000 5 6 oA ZaB 20 - -� 19C 1 v ~J J qk 1 R-L �R_ 1 _ —.. 344594 119 AC. I °� v 1 6.56 3x'63 1 1 O AC I ^I -- A04AC. ' SEE MAP SE I I w I 1 1 ! I I E Mo ?45tt 1 I I 64 / (IA'AG /S, (JOPM OaKS,I w (JOPH7 OAKS, AC •� i! I S£G 2/ la-'1 \ '99969 S£C2� IE �• I I I - ��\ I( I V I 11 SEEP 'ww -� 3677 AC. 45I_ , ` / a �aa t 30 a SEC2 PHr92'' / 1.01 C� I I IJI 4B I I f W I 3AI 3�C (✓OfC. 3). A SE SEE I MAP 45B- i t SEE MAP / 9n j 0d 8R'.1V.},v R` J v I I (✓OPPA OAKS. T' I SEC I % SEC. 4) D4�/ WILDW0001 / 1 SEE 4Y E 7.75 AC. 35 /19 I � �.- - - - ---^ \ J .7456 SEC 3I 9568 / i \ // — — I •'\ — — 2'2CIRC 3CE R 0 RUIN W <A05 / � i I I uc MAP 45 C 34.T37AC I (STAGECOACH RUN, SEC. 1) 1 AP 450 EC z 1 3062 / 2T TAGECOACH RUN _L TCH R FOA —� I 7969 23 I4.62X 487 AC. I 6T82 9.78 AC. l� � s I i r it 4ar..It f71 9A7 -I�O�A Oleo! arinaa4 Carra.lW V MrliWayl. Yr. K wrwarp, K xTAr SOOT u era/ .o.om• 4/ — CONCEPT PLAN — CLUSTER SUBDIVISION ilf IMWOOD WtST c�, \ ve co.. nrwnf cwouw wcseaAOfc+f rFE o \ AWY X r[stttaurr J se.ar.l1. r _ rm o 1. xo seer sw srer..wr n 1 M �M u la eJi b1 SLOT AIeQ r�z - IxJ / /t u m 1 u Is E ` � I w i u r .pom- i 1 y 1 / ?S VOW .� \ � L= Ny ■ (— �r I y I �N rOUL AREA JtoJ Ac. 2&W A. R -1 4.Oj A. R-4 J80 A¢ read. I4.Jy Aa. Iay 14.ST Ae open app (4q.Slf LO/S ALLORM 31 bN R -Z 1I bb R -4 oz Iota fefol LOrs PROSOS>:o. of ms nett aonrsb d plede"�tb eely..iw aed rare saa ryp... chin /qre P4r ngdareH Y1`fenMy /er ree0 oltl QMar1y certlbeaOpl. RW prep" it —d by paO11C —1- dM aaM A -Al4.1 M rlti reeJ� fe fN pwMe p.df'a. 1. rr ! 1 it Ao.o 1rvr4L Lor PREUMINARY PLAT Not for Recordation Conveyance, or Sales. OD"101111 ENT re..s y 9 +r:s� NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Wildwood West Subdivision Concept Plan February 24, 1998 In Attendance: Applicant: Lany Freeland, Developer; Steve Yuhasz, Surveyor; Mike Brough, Attorney; Staff. Emily Cameron, Don Belk, Paul Thames, Deputy Sheriff; Citizens: Myron Martin, Vice President, Wildwood Homeowners Association; 25 citizens from the Wildwood neighborhood (sign -up list attached) Mr. Belk opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending. He understood that many citizens were taking their lunch hour or taking leave from their jobs to be in attendance, and appreciated their effort to be present today. Mr. Belk began his remarks with an explanation of the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting. He also gave some background on the Flexible Development Concept Plan process and the development review procedures. He explained the Planning Board will consider the Wildwood West Concept Plan at their March 5 meeting. He noted that a summary of the Neighborhood Information Meeting will be included with the staff report to the Planning Board. He also explained that the Concept Plan was just the first step in an extensive review process, and described the review and approval requirements for the Preliminary Plat stage. There were a number of questions from citizens about the scheduling of the neighborhood information meeting. Many citizens were concerned because they were taking time off work to attend the meeting during the middle of the day. Several citizens stated that their neighbors were unable to attend because of their jobs. Mr. Belk explained the time periods for concept plan acceptance and review, and the fact that neighborhood information meeting is required to be held within 15 days of acceptance of the concept plan. He explained that changing these time periods would require a revision to the subdivision ordinance, which would have to be approved by the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Yuhasz presented the Wildwood West Concept Plan. He described the zoning (R -2) that will allow for 61 residential lots on 32.8 acres. Lots will average 10,000 square feet in area. This Flexible Development Cluster Option plan will include 45% open space, mostly to protect the steep slopes between the proposed and the existing subdivision. Traffic will access the proposed subdivision via John Breckinridge Drive to the south and Oakdale Drive Extension to the north. Many citizens expressed concerns about drainage problems occurring in the existing Wildwood subdivision. Water quality concerns were also expressed. Many citizens described commonplace flooding problems within their neighborhood, and their repeated attempts to get the problems rectified. One citizen, Mr. Greenberg, described how the original Wildwood was built upon springs and filled drainage swales, and this has resulted in numerous problems today. A citizen asked about the connection with Oakdale Drive. Is there a plan to connect Oakdale as a through- street? Mr. Yuhasz said such a through- connection is not proposed, and it was removed from the Town of Hillsborough's Thoroughfare Plan largely because of the protests of the Wildwood Homeowners Association. Mr. Martin asked if the proposed 14.8 acres of open space in the Wildwood West subdivision would be the responsibility of the existing homeowners association. Mr. Belk reiterated that it would not. A new homeowners association, to be formed in conjunction with the Wildwood West preliminary plat, would be responsible for maintaining that open space. There was concern from citizens about the steep slopes between the proposed and existing subdivision. Mr. Yuhasz stated that the open space would remain undisturbed, and the developer was also interested in clearing away felled trees and debris from Hurricane Fran. One citizen described the existence of rare plants on the slopes. Mr. Yuhasz described the requirements for residential collector roads that would apply to the proposed subdivision. When asked how the proposed development would impact the existing drainage and water supply problems, Mr. Yuhasz indicated that careful consideration would be given to the engineering of the new development. The recommendations from a previous drainage study would be incorporated into the engineering of Wildwood West. It is the intent of the developer to minimize the impact of drainage from the new development. Mr. Freeland addressed questions from citizens about the clearing of trees. He emphasized that as few trees as possible will be cleared, since there are stringent landscaping requirements to be met. It is advantageous to leave existing trees in place rather than pay the costs of replacing them. When asked about the type of housing to be built on the lots, Mr. Freeland stated it would be single- family housing on 10,000 square -foot lots - slightly larger than the existing Wildwood subdivision. The houses will be served with water and sewer service from the Town of Hillsborough. More concerns were expressed about traffic generated by the new development. Mr. Belk announced that the Planning Staff would recommend that a traffic impact study to address the concerns of the increased traffic generation. The telephone number for the NCDOT Division Office in Graham, NC was given so citizens could call directly to express their concerns. A citizen asked about the development schedule for Wildwood West. Mr. Yuhasz indicated that if all approvals were met in the minimum allotted time, it would be Fall 1998 at the earliest before actual construction could begin. A question was posed by a citizen: why not build more expensive houses on larger lots? Mr. Freeland stated he wants to build homes to address the affordable housing concerns of Hillsborough and Orange County. A citizen asked: what is a cluster development? Mr. Yuhasz explained that clustering allows for smaller lot sizes in order to protect greater areas of open space. In this case, clustering will enable the steep slopes to be protected. Several citizens expressed concern over the quality of the construction for homes in the proposed Wildwood West subdivision, citing problems that occurred during the construction of the original Wildwood. Mr. Freeland indicated that he planned to contract with two or three different builders. This would allow for more quality control during construction of Wildwood West. Mr. Martin said the subject of Oakdale Drive Extension keeps coming up. Are there alternatives to a connection on Oakdale Drive Extension? Mr. Freeland expects that the impact on George Anderson Drive will be minimal. Mr. Belk reiterated that the Traffic Impact Study will likely discuss alternate scenarios. Other questions were posed by citizens with regard to the new construction. What is the expected price range of the new homes, and how will this affect existing homes in Wildwood? Another concern was raised about the homeowners association for Wildwood West. The Wildwood HOA still has problems collecting dues,.,and wonder how the new subdivision will be able to cover liability for the proposed common area. Mr. Belk stated that the framework for a new HOA will be reviewed by the County Attorney during the Preliminary Plat stage. It is possible, also, that another entity such as a conservation organization could take on the responsibility for the open space, if it is found to be environmentally significant. One citizen stated her opposition to the 1,200 to 1,300 square foot homes that Mr. Freeland said are likely to be built. She was reminded that the first homes in the existing Wildwood subdivision were even smaller - in the 900 to 1,000 square foot range. Mr. Greenberg stated his opposition to Lots #1 -4 and 8 -10 on the concept plan. He said that drainage problems would worsen if these lots were developed. Another citizen asked if any improvements would be made to the existing subdivision as a result of developing Wildwood West. Mr. Freeland said it would depend on the engineering study and planning requirements, but reiterated his desire not to adversely affect the existing homes. One citizen spoke of her 14.5 years of residence in Wildwood. She was one of the original residents, and saw a pond filled and homes built on top of it. She was very concerned about the slipshod construction of the area, and said that so many of the problems have existed for years. Despite the concerns expressed by residents, nothing has been in all this time to make any improvements. Other citizens agreed when she stated that she was not opposed to anyone developing their own land, but that she just wants to see the job done right, and not have a bad effect on the existing neighborhood. Mr. Martin gave a prepared statement. He has served on the Town of Hillsborough Planning Board, and is familiar with the development process. He is very concerned about the proposed Wildwood West subdivision, particularly the traffic. Wildwood's streets are very narrow. He is concerned about the safety of the neighborhood children from the increased traffic. He recently was able to get NCDOT to make some repairs to the streets. The Wildwood HOA was able to persuade the Town of Hillsborough to remove Oakdale Drive Extension from their Thoroughfare Plan, but now he is worried about the impact of the proposed Wildwood West on George Anderson Drive. The drainage problems are well documented. Mr. Martin read from the "Intent" section of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the protection of the "public health, safety, and welfare." He implored the Planning Department to do the best job they can to ensure the proposed development is done right. Mr. Greenberg gave a brief slide presentation, showing the drainage problems that are occurring in Wildwood. Steve Yuhasz recommended meeting on -site with the Tony Whitaker, a civil engineer who will be preparing the engineering specifications for Wildwood West, and with citizens from Wildwood, who can point out specific areas where drainage problems occur. Mr. Martin offered to organize some citizens to meet with Mr. Yuhasz. Mr. Belk closed the Neighborhood Information Meeting, by again thanking everyone who attended. He said that this had been a positive exchange of information. It had been a constructive dialogue, and an example of how the Neighborhood Information Meeting meets the goals of the subdivision ordinance by getting citizens involved early the development process. The Wildwood West Concept Plan is the sixth Flexible Development Concept Plan presented in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1997, and the thirteenth concept plan submitted since the Subdivision Ordinance was revised in 1996. 3 C;;'� �» �C, ' Lawrence Road Sub ,ion = K ` \ F • 12 KCAL \ \ \\ Applicant: East West Partners, Inc. CL AW 21 -j0 rw,a_{ \\� Owner: Meadowmont Farms, LLC Current Zoning: Rural Residential � C Proposed Zoning: Low and Medium Intensity Residential (R -2 and R -4) OR / O cg (/ �•K Planned Development R -3 (PD- H -R -3) w •� = K Land Use Element: Twenty Year Transition -ce _ Scale: one inch = 1000 feet CAL ... ' ; •." j .- I.t. 15o•7�/r �-_ .'v I \ \ - s� 117-- }}s::zJJs II 1 12406 A. \ • i{3K .a* Ias• w K I Ir•K • Olaf t0{r 5W AC 10uK r r• \ •7 • c•L.� ]• wee 0 F r , -..o .f ,� .. l ( �• w, .gyp \ SITS : ` 2fK ~~ •0,{3 K• AAA \\��� \\ • �' .• .. .._ ^`': .-7:c[n_ ✓ �O rr K - O W ZJAC sr ic 6 CAC 214{t{K \ �� 1'1 aof"e aeI O s.{e p'• '= woMAPaal21-.cIS c" IM{ OI{{ f3ft - - _ - � , 7C � G 4 f Y 7-- s I T n•• - _ -. _ I{�K {{IK to AC am am 36 AC At- 33 AC CAL �1Fto �• - � - -- sf 111' a- .- � -�z'` _- - � - - __. F I It - M �I�l • Y�r.3 rfs f I I C r t I � ai' - •4 sue_• =aa�A � 1 1 i JAI nT 33 j►J/ Q _ v I ,r a @.. 1 s4 Lr- 01 r r — a ut I ® ® ®® ® ® ®® ® / I LC j _S2 fit ,--�. a a E� �! 7t3I �6n� I �N E. • IT- for, I N} p t { 1 t LAWRENCE ROAD ISION '" R auOOSCOUMtG 'S lOSYIL 1118 CIiMw�A14rM. 4 ..- .; 4 .' ��i�axx ;�Om� � = t �{''. imm ....... ® 0 Q 1p Cr �T lot nu t/i ' Q sQ s ­g4: . it I I -- i■ y Y #Fe i 1 F� 999 w a- a I i. _.._ –.�- , ` •© i I � —�� j,, rig r...' it it s 7 t 9a 1� I i4 � ? E z i 3 a € €€ F I .,, f IL € j- 9 - - -— ' LAWRENCE ROAD CLUSTER PIAN u inn %'RWCE q;¢aoo.,nxr uc ..:" '. E:f„ ,.:!:. ' §fq S % ,'f CO. IMIT: %:'PY{s. OI nJlMU 1 ..::: .. .:: NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Lawrence Road Subdivision Concept Plan March 17,1998 In Attendance: Applicant: George Krichbaum and Scott Murray, East -West Partners; Scott Radway, John R. McAdams Company, Durham, NC; Michelle Beauchemin, Kimley -Horn and Associates. Staff: Emily Cameron, Don Belk, Slade McCalip. Citizens: 20 citizens in attendance (sign -in sheet attached) Ms. Cameron opened the meeting with a background on the Flexible Development Concept Plan process and the development review procedures. She explained the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting. The Planning Board will consider the Lawrence Road Subdivision Concept Plan at their April 1 meeting. She noted that a summary of the Neighborhood Information Meeting will be included with the staff report to the Planning Board. The Lawrence Road Subdivision will require a rezoning from Rural Residential to Low and Medium Intensity Residential (R -2 and R -4) or a Planned Development R -3 (PD- H -R3). The site is located within the 20 -Year Transition Area. A citizen asked why the applicant would propose a rezoning. Ms. Cameron explained how rezoning is appropriate within Transition Areas. There were a number of questions from citizens about the price range, size, and type of housing to be built in the Lawrence Road subdivision. A citizen expressed concern about the potential for mobile homes to be placed on the lots. Ms. Cameron reminded the audience that mobile homes and manufactured housing are allowed in all residential zoning districts in the County. Individual developments, however, may contain covenants that would prohibit mobile or manufactured housing. Mr. Krichbaum stated that houses would be in the $115 -120K range, with some units approaching $170K. Lot sizes will average 7,000 ft2 range. Houses will range from 1600 -1700 ft2 in size, with some units approaching 2300 square feet. A citizen asked about potential annexation of the Lawrence Road Subdivision. Ms. Cameron stated that annexation is a matter to be determined by the Town of Hillsborough. Several citizens had questions about traffic impacts and water quality impacts from the proposed development. Slade McCalip, County Transportation Planner, stated that the applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). Planning Staff has made a number of recommendations to the TIS consultant that will be addressed later. Regarding water quality, Ms. Cameron indicated that the next stage of the development application process, the Preliminary Plat, will require a stormwater management plan which will be reviewed by the County's Erosion Control Division. Ms. Cameron turned the meeting over to Scott Murray, Landscape Architect. Mr. Murray reiterated the preliminary nature of the Concept Plan stage. To prepare the Concept Plan, he evaluated the land to determine the best development `treatment' and the type of housing to be located in relation to the adjacent uses. Mr. Murray stated that the Lawrence Road Subdivision will enhance pedestrian access with sidewalks. Frontages of lots will create a streetscape, and `pocket parks' will create points of destination for residents. The Planned Development standards require recreation areas, and the developer has decided to focus on small parks to provide them. Mr. Murray pointed to a drawing of the concept plan and showed the 100 ft. -wide landscape buffer that will be created. In some places, the buffer is wider than 100 ft. A citizen expressed her concern about the density of the development and the large number of lots. She stated that she and others had moved to Hillsborough for its small town atmosphere. This proposed development, she said, is a threat to that, and she stated her opposition to the development. Another citizen was concerned about the variation in architecture. The citizen asked, will this look like Levittown [Long Island, NY]? Mr. Murray replied that the Lawrence Road Subdivision will have strict architectural controls but will emphasize diversity in the house designs. Another citizen asked if the developer would consider building fewer, but larger houses on bigger lots. She was concerned about the impact of this development on property values. Mr. Murray suggested to the citizens in the audience that they look at the Downing Creek development in Chapel Hill. This will be similar to what is proposed for the Lawrence Road subdivision. There was some discussion of drainage issues. Concerns were expressed about drainage into the dry detention area. A citizen wanted to know where the sewer line for the Lawrence Road Subdivision is being connected. Mr. Murray said that pump station will be built in the lower area of the tract. The Lawrence Road Subdivision Concept Plan is the seventh Flexible Development Concept Plan presented in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1997, and the fourteenth Concept Plan submitted since the Subdivision Ordinance was revised in 1996. Ms. Cameron and Mr. Belk thanked everyone for attending this Neighborhood Information Meeting. 2 I .. • 1 • aJL r :.`.:.r 4 - Village of the Oaks, Section Five Zoning: Agricultural Residential (AR) Cane Creek Protected Watershed I L7 AWL. • Rachel T. Best • ,,,; °` '•�: .,,p • C Applicant. Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet *' Not CTN w � w • w 7JIC. • A K •w V N at. MK w N \ IC ! -- -- -- - I1..• K TO / \ r.• K •C. / / • k� � .ice / .MI O `` �... ( 1 f.M � \ ��-.•. 1.l .0 or K \ \\ \ ssu r w ��. MJM K \ tt Kw If-• 1f \ NOQ7 AC / �! `• JlI © leWL. + 1. I: 71 aC. I+ 11 r K C I _ j M[ O fLC• TW �.0 US I•" /C.~ 1w10iw4 4.. A Ir► K O s \ .r �.4 sFC. ' See..It• As 1 \ j0 � \ 4EC • FeuR w.aJe. lass .t % • Joe 4 Ir � tAG aa• K A Is "46 *'M`4 / aw+e. . w.s r INS • suJz- • u \ �, L1M Jt • i III.-C Q MISM O •!M .` 1•M �f. IO t•t // i Ii \r LJI \_ f Li \ & J.V• \L aL `- �JJ 1 „-LL l J "� fa \ f �- SECTION FIVE VILLAGE OF THE OAKS I 2.817 Ac —± 20.51 AC.± TOTAL 1 2.00 Acf I .00 AZT-\ SECTION FIVE - x.70 Ac.t AL COUNTY / I 2.00 Act / 2-0o Alc\ \ 50' RIGHT-0 \ I8' TRAVF.#.W 2.00 Act A\ c* CONV,&TIONAL CONCEP-r' PLAN �- o SgCTION VE 2.0 Ac ,, 1 VILLA F i 2. Act ,� I THEd S ► _� \�? v A COUNTY I I LOCATION ON USGEIF tM7NED BY u 0 tLtAlbLh (-UN(-r,r 1 PLAN Y SECTION FIVE VILLAGE OF THE OAKS \ \ __ \ \ I 1 • � Sri \ \ CONSERVAT"ON\AREA'S.\ \\ sr pima \ 5.11\AC'Rkst \ OSS- HACIJURE � \ \\ a\ 17.97 AC.± TOTAL SECTION FIVE / 1.3o Act 1.30 Act \ \ vzl 11 1 I 1 9 +10 1.30 Act \ // , - -ice . 0Act I I O III 111 \ \ 3.19 AC /t MAN \ALA E // \I O co � / / 1.�i0 Act 50' GI�T -0;1- / / Y' I� \ 1.30 Act 8 T?-AV AY /EL 1.30 Act, ' FL *Cllk� 1 COICEP'� PLAN 1. 9A t / / I �1 I/ SkTION VE ' T �1 .30 ct VILLAG F I \ THE T I I COUNTY LINE DEITRNIR4ED BY ►FF'��'++'+11 LOCATION ON USGS MAPS 1 U p \ (i; FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX B PARTICIPANT COMMENTS Flexible Development Annual Report #1 July 1998 Appendix B 06/24/1998 11:48 9197836937 MICHAEL D BARR RLS PAGE 01 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE On May 1, 1996, the Board of Commissioners adopted flexible Development Standards to encourage subdivision designs that provide open space to protect natural and cultural resources. The regulations include a requirement for an annual report to be made to the Board of Commissioners evaluating the effectiveness of the standards. The purpose of this questionnaire is to document comments from major subdivision applicants for inclusion in the annual report on Flexible Development. Your feedback will help the Planning Department gauge the effectiveness of the current regulations and identify potential changes which would better achieve the intent of the ordinance. Please keep your comments specif<c to your exde►iPnces with this subdivision and attach additional sheets if needed. Subdivision Name Wi o o oho_► ree- Y-1 Were you were involved with subdivision development in Orange County prior to the adoption of flexible development regulations? yes / no If so, please compare the relative costs of the flexible development approval process with the costs which you encountered under the prior regulations. Was the Neighborhood Information Meeting helpful to you? (Please state reasons.) YE4' tT G kkrE v► s 1410 opeletw&.,t 1-1 +o gt,�,d e cAT W OOWr 4iCr A6 nJ o A. i4-r I m p¢0v6 01VA .04a:: /e-*1 001AId/ For flexible Developments Only: Would you likely have provided open space in the absence of flexible development regulations? yes no If so, how much? If not, what factors influenced your decision to pursue an open space design? R 0 AU.Ce Lo-r w % V-r4S 06/24/1998 11:48 9197836937 MICHAEL D BARR RLS PAGE 02 For Conventional Subdivisions: What influenced your decision to pursue a conventional subdivision design? (complete this question only if you were required to submit two (2) concept plans) For all applicants: What do you like about the flexible development regulations? A)V3 aN pn&L%, at•+cJ 4 6tfr76t= LeT - t>"ttoa What do you dislike about the flexible development regulations? dlimr�Sitf4.t �tI►ta "1P w—,-; t`a io 'P*YAli -I�c� wtrt� 'TAE Nis ~t1h fl-�- 5 k t. \j b � a N 17 mosque end +7- What specific changes would you - recommend? moms ><t -ext b,Ltt,- Z— KV-o t>ctaS 1t7i fl�9 7har-rr o p-re>a -thy VVQM cpAzr. LtioEg �.bT Com�»�JT To b /...4� Gl N r�'G Ale- �i /OU> 5 Aolh %Y7- 1 S6Lt�e� ntF6d � k�voul 3'a� 6. PPAJ� the rrd r, ZIANVise JA) oX AF e- T eE'a:cr,'vE THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT!