Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-01-1996 - IX-D 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 1. 1996 Action Agenda Item# =—D SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS - FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PROPOSAL DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: Draft Flexible Development Provisions Planning Director X2592 11/27/95 Public Hearing Minutes/Written Comments 1/4/96 Staff Memorandum TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 1/17/96 Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181 2/7/96 Planning Board Minutes _ Chapel Hill 967-9251 2/19/96 Planning Board Minutes Durham 688-7331 3/6/96 Commissioners Meeting Minutes (Draft) Mebane 227-2031 3/21/96 Commissioners Work Session Minutes(Draft) PURPOSE: To consider proposed Flexible Development open space preservation strategies presented at public hearing on November 27, 1995. BACKGROUND: OPEN SPACE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT: For almost nine years, a variety of meetings, work group sessions, and/or public hearings has been held for the purpose of developing a set of rural character/open space preservation strategies. The activities associated with this goal are summarized below: • January, 1987-Rural Buffer zoning district adopted. • June, 1987 - Assembly of Governments consensus on preserving open space in Rural Buffer. • November, 1987-Rural Character Study Committee appointed. • May, 1990 - Rural Character Study Committee adopts Conc=UW Guidelines for Rural Buffer. • September, 1990 - Rural Character Study Committee initiates work on Conr=UW Guidelines for Rural Orange. 2 • January, 1993 - Rural Character Study Committee completes work on Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange. • December, 1993 - At a work session involving the governing boards of Orange County and Hillsborough, agreement is reached to establish the University Station Planning Group. • January, 1994 - Meetings are held in the northern, central, and southern portions of the county to present alternative rural character preservation strategies. • January-April, 1994 - The University Station Planning Group completes its work and presents its recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. • May, 1994 -A proposal to create an Open Space Development Area Land Use Plan category is presented at public hearing. The proposal also includes its application to the University Station property. • May, 1994 - A proposal to create an Open Space Development zoning district category is presented at public hearing. • June, 1994 - A proposal to rezone the remaining portion of the county to require two-acre minimum lot sizes is presented at public hearing. Citizen comment is also requested on the desirability of clustering, mandatory open space requirements,and density bonuses. • September, 1994 - October, 1995 - The Planning Board reviews all materials/evidence received, including the Rural Character Study Committee recommendations(January, 1993),and prepares recommendation. The Planning Staff has reviewed the material produced and/or received, including comments provided by citizens through township meetings and public hearings. While a variety of approaches and options exist, the three basic approaches which have been recommended to date include: • The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations; • The "Status Quo"; and • A "Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space requirement and density limits based on the carrying capacity of the soils. SUMMARY OF STAFF PROPOSAL: In an effort to focus the discussion and "balance"the many interests expressed to date,the Planning Staff has prepared this proposal which consists of three parts. The first section contains "Goals and Action Strategies" (as recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee). a 3 The second section contains a "Flexible Development" option which contains the following provisions: • The existing one-acre minimum lot size requirement would be retained. • The provision of open space would be optional, however, a developer would be required to submit two concept plans - one for a conventional subdivision and another for a"flexible" or open space subdivision. • If a Flexible Development option is chosen, at least one-third (33%) of the land within a subdivision must be preserved as open space which may be preserved through: 0 An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot, and the open space outside such limits is preserved through restrictive covenants and/or conservation easements;or 0 A "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open space is preserved through the use of conservation easements held by the County or a land conservancy; or 0 A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is dedicated to the County or a land conservancy, or owned and maintained by a homeowners'association;or 0 A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded by open space;or 0 Some combination of the above, including the use of"density averaging" to allow flexibility in areas where two-acre minimum lot size requirements exist. • Density bonuses, while limited by the type of water supply/sewage disposal service available to the development,may be achieved by: 0 Providing greater amounts of open space than required; or 0 Providing affordable housing units either as part of the development or at an off-site location;or 0 Purchasing the development rights on farm or forest lands, natural areas, and similar resources; or 4 • r 0 Some combination of the above. Water supply/sewage disposal service may include: 0 Individual wells and septic systems on each lot or located off-lot within a recorded easement, including subsurface disposal or spray irrigation on open land; or 0 A community water and/or sewage disposal system, including subsurface disposal or spray irrigation on open land, designed, constructed, and maintained in conformity with all applicable state, federal, and local rules and regulations; or 0 Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a municipality, association, or water or sewer authority. As part of such service provision,public water and sewer extensions would be permitted to defined "transit corridors" and "transition areas". The "Flexible Development" option has been prepared in the format of an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. The basic strategy is to substitute it for the current "Cluster Development" standards. Associated with the amendment would be the preparation of a Design Guidebook to illustrate, through a case study approach, how to use the options in designing open space or "flexible" developments. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS: Public Information Meetings were held on November 16,20,and 21 at the Orange Grove Community Center, Walnut Grove Methodist Church, and New Hope Elementary School, respectively. Prior to the meetings, flyers were distributed at country stores and community locations, and approximately 250 notices were sent to advisory boards and subcommittees, and interested citizens.Approximately 30 citizens attended the three meetings. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS: A public hearing was held on November 27 at the New A. L. Stanback Middle School for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on the "Flexible Development" proposal. Minutes of that hearing are provided as an attachment. COMMENTS RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO PUBLIC HEARING: Section VII-D4 of the Subdivision Regulations permits evidence not presented at the public hearing to be submitted in writing at or prior to the meeting at which the Planning Board prepares a recommendation on the proposal. Written comments received since the public hearing as well as a Staff memorandum responding to issues raised at the public hearing are provided as attachments. i 5 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Board considered the Flexible Development proposal are its January 17, February 7, and February 19 meetings. Rather than prepare a recommendation on the entire proposal, the Planning Board elected to focus on the specific issues raised at the public hearing and provide recommendations to the Commissioners concerning them. Those issues and the actions taken by the Planning Board are summarized below. 1. Affordable housing applicability. The specific issue is whether it is discriminatory to allow developers of affordable housing to submit a conventional subdivision plan only. Planning Board Decision: That both conventional and flexible development plans be required of all subdivisions, including those which are to provide affordable housing. Vote: 8-2. 2. Groundwater resources - quantity and quali . The specific issue is whether cluster lots will be subject to well failures because of the number and proximity of wells. No decision - The Planning Board asked that it be kept advised of the status and findings of the USGS groundwater resources study so that this concern may be addressed in the future. 3. Community sewage disposal systems. The specific issue is whether community sewage disposal systems should be allowed, given problems encountered with such systems in the past. Planning Board Decision: That the Planning Board is generally supportive of the use of community sewage disposal systems to encourage open space development. However, the Planning Board has specific concerns about the financial security of such systems and asks that the appropriate staff be directed to deal with such issues as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Planning Board wishes to stress that a"yield plan" is a determining factor in terms of how many units or house lots may be served. Vote: Unanimous. Planning Board Decision: That the number of lots permitted in a subdivision be based on a "yield plan" (e.g., conventional subdivision plan) as the Flexible Development proposal permits. Furthermore, that the staff continually evaluate the use of the soil survey and the effect on"yield plans" prepared using survey data. Vote: 8-2. 4. Higher administrative costs. The specific issue is whether the adoption of the Flexible Development provisions will require additional staff and whether developers will incur additional cost to adhere to the standards. r 6 r No decision- discussion only. 5. Interdepartmental coordination/communication. The specific issue is how to insure that adequate communication between County departments is established so that approvals by one department are not held up by the requirements of another. No decision-discussion only. 6. Development plan exceptions. The specific issue is whether allowing a developer to submit QnX a Flexible Development plan is discriminatory. No decision - discussion only. 7. Rural Buffer applicability. The specific issue is whether land within the Rural Buffer should be subject to the Flexible Development provisions. No decision- discussion only. 8. Open space percentage. The specific issue is whether the percentage of open space required (e.g.,33%) is too low. PlanningBoard Decision: That 33% be accepted as the minimum open space requirement. Vote: 7-4. 9. Exclusion of unbuildable land. The specific issue is whether floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes should be counted as open space because they are considered unbuildable. The alternative suggested is to apply the required open space percentage after subtracting such features from the total site area. Planning Board Decision: That unbuildable land be counted in determining the amount of open space; e.g., that open space would be calculated on the basis of the total tract area. Vote: 7-4. 10. Mandatory open space. The specific issue is whether the provision of open space should be voluntary or mandatory. Planning Board Decision: That the provision of open space be voluntary rather than mandatory. Vote: 10-1. 11. Incentives vs. disincentives. The specific issue is whether more disincentives should be added to discourage conventional development and fewer incentives provided to encourage more open space set asides. s 7 Planning Board Decision: That the incentives included in the Flexible Development proposal be retained, at least for the first year to determine their effectiveness. Vote: 8-3. 12.Village option. The specific issue is whether to hold another public hearing on the Village option, since it is complicated and has not received a lot of attention. Planning Board Decision: That the Village Option be removed from the Flexible Development proposal, be elaborated on, and be sent back to public hearing as soon as possible. Vote: 6-5. 13. Conservation easement credit. The specific issue is whether land protected through a conservation easement prior to development application can be counted toward satisfying the open space requirement. Planning Board Decision: That conservation easements, the terms of which are consistent with the Flexible Development guidelines in effect at that time, be allowed to count as credit toward open space. Vote: 9-2. 14.Minor subdivision applicability. The specific issue is whether to make Minor Subdivisions subject to the Flexible Development standards. Planning Board Decision: That the Flexible Development requirements not apply to minor subdivisions but that applicants be encouraged by staff to use the options in the submission of the single required plat. Vote: 8-1. 15. Consistency with goals. The specific issue is whether the Flexible Development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of rural character preservation. No decision-discussion only. REPORT -BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 3/6/96 MEETING: At its March 6, 1996 meeting, the Board of Commissioners offered the following comments. Staff comments are provided in(italics). • A "yield plan" may not be necessary if a developer is not planning to maximize the number of lots in a subdivision.(Staff agrees) • Affordable housing projects should fall under the Flexible Development standards. (This is consistent with the Planning Boards recommendation) a 8 • A "tracking system" for individual subdivisions should be included as part of the annual report. (Staff agrees.) • Should the review of the Flexible Development proposal include a review of the Design Guidebook? (The Design Guidebook is simply a "how to" document which shows how to apply the standards through the use of case studies. It is not part of the ordinance provisions and can be revised to reflect changes in the ordinance without having to take it to public hearing to implement each revision) • Where applicable, the permitted "one-acre" density may force people into using community wastewater systems to carry out a cluster development. (The cost of designing/installing a community wastewater system acts as a disincentive in this scenario. The inclusion of a provision which allows off-site septic easements permits clustering without the use of community systems. Another option, the "conservation option", was included to encourage the preservation of open space through the use of conservation easements without the necessity of clustering.) BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 3/21/96 WORK SESSION: At its March 21, 1996 work session, the Board of Commissioners offered the following comments. Staff comments are provided in(italics). • The annual report should be inclusive enough to provide a continuous,tracking system of each development and the option selected; e.g., conventional vs. flexible development,to pursue in the preliminary plan stage. (Staff agrees.) • Concerns were expressed about the use of wells and the impact on groundwater supplies,particularly where homes were clustered closer together. (The study being conducted by the U. S. Geological Survey will provide information through which to evaluate groundwater yield and impacts of development. That study is due to be completed in one year.) • The goals of farmland and forestland preservation may compete with each other in terms of where to locate housing units. (There will be instances where, because of the location and types of resources, goals are in competition. Each site's resources must be evaluated carefully to determine which goal should have priority; e.g., a stand of mature hardwoods vs. a stand of 10 year old pines or prime farmland vs. other land. Where resources are equal, the design may seek to balance resource preservation while attempting to locate housing units in the least intrusive manner possible) a 9 RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends consideration of the following implementation schedule: April 1, 1996 Board of Commissioners continues discussion of Flexible Development proposal; staff directed to revise proposal based on discussion to date and present revisions at May 1, 1996 meeting. May 1, 1996 Administration recommendation is presented; Board of Commissioners adopts proposal; sets effective date for July 1, 1996. May 15, 1996 Board of Commissioners receives Orange County Open Space Design Guidebook; comments received are to used to prepare final version. May 21, 1996 Planning Board receives Orange County Open Space Design Guidebook; comments received are to used to prepare final version. June, 1996 Training workshops are held for land owners, surveyors, developers, etc. on use of Design Guidebook and Flexible Development approval process. July 1, 1996 Effective date of Flexible Development standards. 10 r IV-B-10. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section A PURPOSE 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 development approaches. To accomplish this goal, greater flexibility and creativity in the design of such developments is encouraged and allowed. Specific objectives are as follows: • To preserve areas of the county with productive soils for continued agricultural and forestry use by preserving blocks of land large enough to allow for efficient operations. • To encourage the preservation and improvement of habitat for various forms of wildlife and to create new woodlands through natural succession and reforestation where appropriate. • To minimize site disturbance and erosion through retention of existing vegetation and avoiding development on steep slopes. • To preserve open land, including those areas containing unique and sensitive features such as natural areas and wildlife habitats, steep slopes, streams, wetlands, and floodplains. • To preserve scenic views and elements of the county's rural character, and to minimize perceived density by minimizing views of new development frorp existing roads. • To preserve and maintain historic and archaeological sites and structures that serve as significant visible reminders of the county's social and architectural history. • To provide for the active and passive recreational needs of county residents, including implementation of the Master Recreation& Parks Plan. • To provide greater efficiency in the siting of services and infrastructure by reducing road length, utility runs, and the amount of paving for development. • To create compact neighborhoods accessible to open space amenities and with a strong identity. Section B APPLICABILITY Flexible Development is permitted in all residential zoning districts except the Rural Buffer(RB) zoning district, but only upon approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning Department or a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat by the Board of County Commissioners. All Flexible Development subdivision plats shall comply with the requirements and standards 11 specified herein and in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances to the extent that they are not in conflict with these provisions. Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS CA 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. Such open space shall meet these standards unless the developer chooses to seek approval of a conventional subdivision as specified herein. C.2 Types of Open Space The types of open space conserved through Flexible Development shall be consistent with the following standards: a. Open space shall be comprised of two types of land: "Primary Conservation Areas" and "Secondary Conservatiop Areas". b. Primary Conservation Areas consist of the following site features: • Wetlands, including, but not limited to, streams, creeks, ponds, reservoirs, stormwater management facilities for watershed. protection purposes, and adjoining land areas identified as part of- 0 The National Wetlands Inventory Maps for Orange County, N.C. prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 0 The Orange County. N.C. Soil Survey prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service; 0 The Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats as prepared by the Triangle Land Conservancy; 0 LANDSAT satellite data collected and analyzed under the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study; 0 A required Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement; and/or 0 A site analysis conducted by a registered engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect, architect or land planner using data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • Floodplains(100-year)and alluvial soils identified as part of. 0 The Flood Insurance Study: Orange County, N.C. prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and 0 The Orange County. N.C. Soil Survey prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 12 • Steep slopes, defined as those greater than 25 percent, identified as part of: 0 The Orange County. N C Soil Survey prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service; and/or 0 A site analysis conducted by a registered engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect, architect or land planner and calculated using topographic maps from an actual survey or from the U.S. Geological Survey. • Natural areas, and wildlife habitats and corridors identified as part of- 0 The Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats as prepared by the Triangle Land Conservancy; 0 A required Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement; and/or 0 An independent site study conducted by a trained botanist and/or biologist. • Historic and archaeological sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places or included on the State's National Register study list, designated as a local historic landmark, designated as a local historic district, and/or identified as having a high potential for archaeological remains as part of 0 The Chapel Hill Township Architectural Survey: Final Report; 0 The Orange County Multiple Propea Documentation Form: Historic Resources of Orange County; 0 An Archaeologi . l Survey of Portions of Orange County_N.C.; 0 A required Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement; and/or 0 An independent site study conducted by a trained architectural historian or archaeologist. Where a historic or archaeological site is to be set aside as a separate lot, and preserved and/or restored as part of a Flexible Development,the entire area within the lot may be credited toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. Because they represent sensitive environmental features and/or significant cultural resources considered unbuildable in a legal or practical sense, Primary Conservation Areas are to be the first type of open space designated on a Flexible Development Concept Plan to satisfy the minimum open space requirement. C. Secondary Conservation Areas consist of the following site features: • Woodlands, including forest land for the planting and production of trees and timber, where management practices such as selective timber harvesting and wildlife enhancement are employed. Such woodlands may consist of hardwood, pine, and/or mixed pine-hardwood forests identified as part of. 13 0 LANDSAT satellite data collected and analyzed under the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study; 0 A site analysis conducted by a registered engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect, architect or land planner using aerial photographs and/or satellite imagery; 0 A required Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement; and/or 0 An independent site study conducted by a trained botanist and/or forester. • Farmland, especially prime agricultural land as identified by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service in Important Farmlands: Orange Comly. N.C. and which is in active use for the production of crops and/or raising of livestock. Farmland also includes space on individual lots used for gardens, ponds, horse paddocks and barns, and similar uses. • Slopes of 15% to 25% which require special site planning due to their erosion potential, limitations for septic tank nitrification fields, and terrain or elevation changes. Such areas may be suitable for building but higher site preparation and construction costs are to be expected. • Other historic and/or archaeological sites identified fmm the same sources as for Primary Conservation Area sites. • Public and/or private recreation areas and facilities, including: 0 "Active recreation areas" such as public recreation areas, including district and community parks as identified in the Master Recreation and Parks Plan; and private recreation facilities, including golf courses, playing fields, playgrounds, swimming pools, and courts for tennis, basketball, volleyball, and similar sports. Because they represent uses in which natural lands are cleared, graded, and managed for intensive activities, only half(50%) of the land in this category may be credited toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. 0 "Passive recreation areas" such as pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails, picnic areas, community commons or greens, and similar kinds of areas, whether public or private. Land in this category receives full credit toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. • Scenic views, especially of natural and cultural features from designated scenic road corridors, including "views from the road" as well as views outward from potential home sites. Landscape buffers which screen the view of development and preserve the character of rural public roads are also included in this category. M 14 Secondary Conservation Areas may be comprised of any of the remaining open space uses identified above, and, unless specified otherwise, receive full credit toward meeting the minimum open space requirement in Flexible Developments. C.3 Ownership of Open Space Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be permanently restricted from further subdivision. • Open space areas and/or easements may be dedicated to a governmental unit or owned by a homeowners association. • Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local 'government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. • Dedication of conservation easements to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners association and/or to all or portions of individual lots owned by one or more property owners. • Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and restrictive covenants. • Ownership by individual property owners, especially estate lot owners, where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation easements applicable to such lots. CA Maintenance of Open Space Natural features shall be maintained in their natural condition, but may be modified to improve their appearance, functioning, or overall condition, as recommended by experts in the particular area being modified. Permitted modifications may include: • Reforestation; • Woodland management; • Pasture or cropland management; • Buffer area landscaping; • Stream bank protection; and/or • Wetlands management. Unless accepted for dedication or otherwise agreed to by Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy, the cost and 15 responsibility of maintaining open space and any facilities located thereon shall be borne by the property owner and/or homeowners association. Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or more of the following development options. D.1 Estate Lot Option For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply: • Each estate lot shall have a lot size of at least four(4) acres. • For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. • The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas. • Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. • A septic system and/or well site may be located outside of a building envelope provided it does not occupy more than half of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area. • Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing standards: Building Envelope Spacing Standards for Estate Lots Minimum spacing between building envelopes on adjacent lots 80 feet Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision boundary 75 feet or off-site public street right-of-way Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public or 40 feet private street right-of-way Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot line 20 feet Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or water 100 feet bodies (lakes,ponds, streams, etc.) • Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas; provide convenient access for emergency 16 service vehicles; and satisfy all building envelope spacing standards, estate lots may platted in accordance with following standards: 0 The minimum required lot width may be reduced to 100 feet. 0 The minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds. • Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary Development Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted against further development through conservation easements and/or deed restrictions. D.2 Conservation Option For lots created as part of a conservation development, the minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article 4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall apply except as permitted below. • For each conservation lot, buildable and conservation areas must be defined. The buildable area must be of sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. • The use of the conservation development option is best suited for sites which front on arterial and collector roads, and/or are characterized by limited sewage disposal sites, especially areas with floodplains and alluvial soils, wetlands, and steep slopes (e.g., 15% or greater). As such, the conservation area of each lot; e.g., that portion of the lot to be preserved as open space, shall include designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas which seek to preserve these features. • A septic system may be located in a conservation area provided it does not occupy more than half of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area. • Only the conservation area designated for each lot may be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. Lots and tracts designated exclusively as conservation area may also be counted toward meeting the open space requirement. • Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of conservation lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas; and satisfy all building/conservation area standards, conservation lots may platted in accordance with following standards: 0 The minimum required lot width may be reduced to 100 feet. 17 0 The minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds. 0 Public and private street rights-of-way may be included in the calculation of the lot size, provided the lot size is of sufficient size to accommodate an adequate building site. Only one-half of the street right-of-way fronting on each lot may be counted for this purpose. • Conservation lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or conservation easements. Primary and Secondary Development Areas located in portions of lots designated for conservation shall be restricted against further development through conservation easements and/or deed restrictions. D.3 Cluster Option A cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract. Smaller lots than those required in conventional subdivisions are permitted, provided such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following standards: • Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas. • The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall comprise at least thirty- three percent(33%) of the total land area in the subdivision. • Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly to create larger conservation units than may be enjoyed by all residents of the subdivision. Such undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided open space to provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas vulnerable to human disturbance. • Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels,no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have a length-to-width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands, watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife corridors; or trail links. 18 • Each lot must contain a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. A septic system and/or well site may be located in an open space area provided it does not occupy more than half of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area. • Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas, minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article 4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth below. 0 Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%) but shall be no smaller than 5000 square feet. Public and private street rights-of-way may be included in the calculation of the lot size, provided the lot size is of sufficient size to accommodate an adequate building site. Only one-half of the street right-of-way fronting on each lot may be counted for this purpose. 0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by twenty percent (20%) but shall be no less than fifty (50) feet. 0 Minimum front, rear, and side setback requirements may be reduced by twenty-five percent,(25%)but shall be no less than ten(10)feet. 0 Minimum lot frontage requirements may be reduced to twenty(20) feet. • Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or a homeowners association. DA 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 location, size, and composition of each village will be a function of the development potential of the land associated with the settlement, including,but not limited to: • The zoning of the site, including the maximum allowable number of dwelling units; 19 • The method of water supply and sewage disposal, including the number of approved disposal sites; • The presence of Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas, including contiguous areas located on adjoining properties; • The presence of existing and/or proposed transit routes and corridors, and areas of future urban growth; e.g., Transition Areas; and • The presence of protected watersheds, including defined critical areas. To this end, villages must meet the following general standards: • The village proper is the village, comprised of residential units with associated commercial, office, and service functions. 0 The village proper may not exceed 100 acres in size and shall be built in a compact manner so as to permit pedestrian accessibility to its center within a five minute walk. 0 The village proper is to be distinguished from the village conservancy by a well- defined "edge" of closely spaced buildings in contrast with the open space of the conservancy. 0 A village proper may not be located closer than one-half mile from the edge of another village proper, and every effort shall be made to keep the separate settlements visually distinct. 0 The village proper is to be built in a generally rectilinear pattern of interconnecting streets, defined by buildings, street furniture, and landscaping, as places to be shared equally by pedestrians and automobiles. 0 A hierarchy of parks and squares is to be provided and distributed strategically throughout the village and culminate in a central civic space called the Village Green. 0 Village lots shall be restricted from further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. 0 The village proper may be composed of four uses: Storefront Uses, Townhouse Uses, single-family detached Residential Uses, and Workshop Uses. These uses and the standards applicable to each are described on the following pages. • The village conservancy is a continuous open space area surrounding the village proper, representing the land from which dwellings have been transferred to the village proper. In 20 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.1. 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 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 are described on the following pages. 21 Village Development Standards GENERAL PROVISIONS • Land within a village shall be available for uses as provided herein. Mixed uses of Land Use buildings is encouraged in central areas of the Village Proper, and single-story, single-use buildings is discouraged. • Similar land use categories shall generally front across streets, and dissimilar categories Land may abut at rear property lines. Allocation • Corner lots which front on streets of dissimilar use categories shall be designated the category with the greater intensity of use. • Lot design and building placement within each area of the village proper should be varied to create a distinct character,and permit a range of activities and intensities of use. Lots • All buildings, except outbuildings, shall have their main entrance opening to a street or & square. Buildings • Stoops,open colonnades,and open porches may encroach into the front yard setbacks. • Buildings placed less than five(5)feet from a side property line shall windowless on those sides(does not apply to front and back);provided,however,small ventilation windows and clerestory windows are permitted. • All lots and tracts within the village proper shall have access to pedestrian and vehicular routes. • Every village proper shall have two access points to paved roadways designated as collector and/or arterial streets. • There shall be a continuous network of alleys to the rear of the lots in the Village Proper. Alleys shall be 16 feet in paved width if two-way; 12 feet in paved width if one-way. Streets • Every village proper shall provide a pedestrian network which includes parks, squares, & sidewalks along streets, alleyways through blocks. The network shall link all parts of the Alleys village proper, making walking easier than driving. Wherever practicable, streets shall be aligned in such a way that they provide terminal vistas of parks,greens,commons,squares, and large buildings of a public,semi-public or civic natutl;. • No block face shall have a length greater than 500 feet without an alley providing through access. • Streetlamps, between eight (8) and 15 feet in height, and equipped with incandescent or metal halide lights,shall be installed on both sides of streets at all street intersections and at mid-block where block lengths exceed 400 feet. • On-street parking directly fronting a lot shall count toward fulfilling the parking requirement. • The number of required off-street parking spaces may be reduced by demonstrating the availability of shared parking. Parking • Parking lots shall be located at the rear or at the side of buildings. Such lots shall be screened from the sidewalk by a masonry wall or wood fence, no less than 75% opaque, built along the property line at least three(3)feet in height. • Street trees shall be installed within four(4)feet of the property line abutting a street at no more than 40 foot intervals. They shall be deciduous and of varieties that obtain a mature height of at least 50 feet. • Adjacent parking lots shall have internal vehicular connections. 22 Village Development Standards PUBLIC&CIVIC USE PROVISIONS Land designated as part of Public and Civic Uses may include the following: • Parks and squares;and • Community buildings and facilities, including meeting halls,libraries,post offices,schools, Land Use day care centers, churches, civic clubs, police and/or fire substations, recycling centers, maintenance facilities,and similar uses. Large scale recreational uses shall be located outside the village proper within the village conservancy. At least ten percent(10%)of the land area in the village proper shall be set aside for Public and Civic Areas. • Each village proper shall contain a central civic space or"village green"of at least one (1) acre in size. The village green shall be surrounded on at least three(3) sides by Storefront and/or Townhouse Areas which may include closely spaced, detached row houses, and storefront buildings or"shops". • Each village proper shall contain a "meeting hall" located adjacent to the village green, designed and sized to accommodate a village meeting, constructed in the early stages of village development, and owned and operated by the residents of the village; e.g., the homeowners association. • The requirement of providing a "meeting hall" may be satisfied through assurances that a community center, school or church may be used for and is of sufficient size to Land accommodate a village meeting. Allocation • At least five percent(5%)of the land area in the village proper shall be arranged in a series of parks and squares designed to serve as focal points for residential neighborhoods, and linked together by a system of pedestrian sidewalks and avenues. Wherever possible, they shall be positioned to form "terminal vistas" at the ends of streets or along bends in the street alignment. • At least two percent(2%)of the land area in the village proper shall be designated for other permitted public and civic uses such as schools, day care centers, churches, and similar uses. Land included in the village green, parks, and squares, may be counted toward satisfying the thirty-three percent(33%)open space requirement. Lots Buildings located in Public and Civic Areas shall be subject to the same setback and height & standards of uses on adjacent lots.For example,a meeting hall located adjacent to a Townhouse Buildings Area shall meet the same setback and building height standards as required for buildings in a Townhouse Area. • Streets fronting on Public and Civic Area lots shall conform to the same standards as land uses across from or adjoining the lots. For example, the streets fronting a meeting hall Streets located adjacent to a Townhouse Area shall meet the same standards as required in a & Townhouse Area. Alleys • Street trees shall be installed within four(4)feet of the property line abutting a street at no more than 40 foot intervals. They shall be deciduous and of varieties that obtain a mature height of at least 50 feet. • The number of parking and loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking • No fewer than 75 percent of the parking spaces shall be located to the rear of the building being served. The remaining spaces shall be accommodated in curbside parallel spaces and/or in side parking lots screened from the street. 23 Village Development Standards STOREFRONT USE PROVISIONS Land designated for Storefront Uses may be used for the following purposes: • Personal service shops, including,but not limited to,barber and beauty shops,tailors, shoe repair,dry cleaners,and similar uses. • Specialized retail stores, including, but not limited to, the sale of gifts, novelties, flowers, books, antiques, jewelry, apparel, toys and crafts, stationery, and similar uses. Corner Land Use groceries,general stores,hardware stores,and drug stores are also permitted. • Restaurants,excluding fast food and/or drive-in establishments. • Business and professional offices, including, but not limited to, real estate and insurance offices, travel agencies, medical and dental offices, opticians, banks and financial institutions(excluding drive-in windows), lawyers,engineers,and similar uses. • Studios for art,dance,music,and photography. • Accessory residential apartments built over stores and offices. Where provided, at least 25 percent of the floor area shall be designated for residential use. • Not more than five percent(5%)of the land area in the Village Proper shall be designated for Storefront Area use. Land • Storefront Area lots shall have a lot frontage of 16 feet. Allocation • A maximum of five (5) lots may be combined for the purpose of constructing a single building. • Setback requirements on combined lots shall be the same as for single lots. • Buildings lots shall have their front facade; e.g., building wall facing the street, built to within five(5)feet of the front property line along at least 70 percent of the lot frontage. • The unbuilt portion of the lot frontage shall have a masonry wall or wood fence, no less Lots than 75%opaque,built within five(5)feet of the property line,and at least three(3)feet in & height. Buildings • Buildings shall have no setback from at least one (1) side property line except on corner lots where the side yard setback adjacent to the street shall be five(5)feet. • Building coverage may not exceed 70 percent of the lot area. • Buildings may not exceed three(3)stories in height. • Lots shall front on a street with a maximum right-of-way width of 70 feet, consisting of at least two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parallel parking on both sides, and 12-foot sidewalks on both sides. Streets • Lots shall have their rear lot lines coinciding with the right-of-way of a 24-foot alley, & containing a vehicular pavement width of at least 12 feet if one-way or 16 feet if two-way. Alleys • Street trees shall be planted on both sides of the street at no more than 40-foot intervals. They shall be deciduous and of varieties that obtain a mature height of at least 50 feet. • Provision shall be made for service delivery, utility poles (if any), and trash collection at the rear lot line. • The number of parking and loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking • Not less than 75 percent of the parking spaces shall be located to the rear of the building. The remaining spaces shall be accommodated in curbside parallel spaces and in side parking lots screened from the street. 24 Village Development Standards TOWNHOUSE USE PROVISIONS Land designated for Townhouse Uses may be used for the following purposes: • Attached dwellings including townhouses and apartments. • Day care centers. Land Use • Bed and breakfast establishments. • Retirement centers. • Home occupations of a professional and/or office nature when located on the second floor of a permitted outbuilding. • An accessory residential apartment when located on the second floor of a permitted outbuilding. • Not more than five percent(5%)of the land area in the Village Proper shall be designated for Townhouse Area use. Land • Townhouse Area lots shall have a lot frontage of 50 feet. Allocation • A maximum of 12 lots may be combined for the purpose of constructing a single building containing apartments. • Setback requirements on combined lots shall be the same as for single lots. • When attached,townhouses shall generally not comprise more than 15 percent of the street frontage in a residential district. • Buildings shall be set back either five(5)feet or 15 feet from the front property line. • The lot frontage shall have a masonry wall,wood fence or hedge,no less than 50%opaque, Lots built within five(5)feet of the property line,and at least three(3)feet in height. & • Buildings shall have no required setback from side property lines except on corner lots Buildings where the side yard setback adjacent to the street shall be five(5)feet. • Building coverage may not exceed 70 percent of the lot area. • Buildings may not exceed three(3)stories in height. • One (1) outbuilding is permitted on each lot, provided its ground floor area does not exceed 450 square feet, it does not to exceed two (2) stories in height, and it is located within 30 feet of the rear property line and at least four(4)feet from one side property line. • Lots shall front on a street with a maximum right-of-way width of 60 feet, consisting of at least two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parallel parking on both sides, and 6-foot sidewalks on both sides. Streets • Lots shall have their rear lot lines coinciding with the right-of-way of a 24-foot alley, & containing a pavement width of at least 12 feet if one-way or 16 feet if two-way. Alleys • Provision shall be made for service delivery, utility poles (if any), and trash collection at the rear lot line. 0 Street trees shall be planted on both sides of the street at no more than 40-foot intervals. They shall be deciduous and of varieties that obtain a mature height of at least 50 feet. • The number of parking and loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with Article 10 Parking of the Zoning Ordinance. • All off-street parking spaces shall be located to the rear of the building,with access through an alley only.On-street parking shall be provided in parallel spaces. 25 Village Development Standards RESIDENTIAL USE PROVISIONS Land designated for Residential Uses may be used for the following purposes: Land Use • Detached single-family dwellings. • Home occupations of a professional and/or office nature when located on the second floor of a permitted outbuilding. • An accessory residential apartment when located in a permitted outbuilding. • At least 40 percent of the land area in the Village Proper shall be designated for House Area use. • Densities within Residential Use areas should decrease as distance from the Village Center Land increases. Allocation • House Area lots shall have an average lot frontage of 75 feet. • A maximum of two(2)lots may be combined for the purpose of constructing a single building. • Setback requirements on combined lots shall be the same as for single lots. • Buildings shall be set back between 15 feet and 25 feet from the front property line. • On at least 30 percent of all Residential Use area lots,the lot frontage shall have a masonry wall, wood fence or hedge, no less than 50% opaque, built within five (5) feet of the property line,and at least three(3)feet in height. Lots • Buildings shall be set back from the side property lines equivalent(in total)to no less than & 20 percent of the lot width.The entire setback may be allocated to one side. Buildings • Buildings shall be set back no less than 30 feet from the rear property line. • Building coverage may not exceed 50 percent of the lot area. • Buildings may not exceed two(2)stories in height. • One (1) outbuilding is permitted on each lot, provided its ground floor area does not exceed 450 square feet, it does not to exceed two(2)stories in height, and it is located at least four (4) feet from one side property line. There is no setback requirement for outbuildings from the rear property line. • Lots shall front on a street with a maximum right-of-way width of 60 feet,consisting of at least two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parallel parking on one side,and a 5-foot sidewalk on one side. Streets • Lots shall have their rear lot lines coinciding with the right-of-way of a 24-foot alley, & containing a vehicular pavement width of at least 12 feet if one-way; 16 feet if two-way. Alleys • Provision shall be made for service delivery,utility poles(if any)and trash collection at the rear lot line. • Street trees shall be planted on both sides of the street at no more than 40-foot intervals. They shall be deciduous and of varieties that obtain a mature height of at least 50 feet. • The number of parking and loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking • All off-street parking spaces shall be located to the side or rear of the building. When access is through the lot frontage, garages and carports shall be located a minimum of 10 feet behind the front building wall line.Front-facing garage doors shall be painted to match the color of the main house. 26 Village Development Standards WORKSHOP USE PROVISIONS Land designated for Workshop Uses may be used for the following purposes: • Farm service support establishments. • Building and landscaping contractors. Land Use • Establishments involved in the repair, assembly, and/or manufacture of products which require only hand or table mounted electrical tools. • Automotive service uses, including the servicing and repair of automobiles, and sale of automobile parts,but excluding body repair shop and automobile storage. • Warehousing and distribution establishments, provided all storage is conducted entirely within a building. • Not more than two percent(2%)of the land area in the Village Proper shall be designated for Workshop Area use. • Workshop Area lots shall be grouped together, located at the edge of the Village Proper, Land and be no closer than 500 feet to the Village Green. Allocation • Workshop Area lots shall have a maximum lot frontage of 150 feet. • A maximum of two (2) lots may be combined for the purpose of constructing a single building. • Setback requirements on combined lots shall be the same as for single lots. • Buildings shall not be required to provide setbacks from front or side property lines. Lots • Workshop Area lots shall be separated from other types of use categories at the side or rear & property lines(except an entry onto an alley)by a continuous masonry or wood wall of not Buildings less than 10 feet in height or by a landscaped buffer of 100 feet in width. • Building coverage may not exceed 70 percent of the lot area. • Buildings may not exceed two(2)stories in height. • Lots shall front on a street with a maximum right-of-way width of 60 feet, consisting of at least two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parallel parking on one side, and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. Streets • Lots shall have their rear lot lines coinciding with the right-of-way of a 24-foot alley, & containing a vehicular pavement width of at least 12 feet if one-way; 16 feet if two-way. Alleys * Provision shall be made for service delivery,utility poles(if any)and trash collection at the rear lot line. • Street trees shall be planted on both sides of the street at no more than 40-foot intervals. They shall be deciduous and of varieties that obtain a mature height of at least 50 feet. • The number of parking and loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with Article 10 Parking of the Zoning Ordinance. • All off-street parking spaces shall be located to the side or rear of the building. • On-street parking spaces shall be curbside,and parallel to the curb. 27 D.5 Street Standards All streets in Flexible Developments shall conform to the standards contained in Section IV-B-3 of this Ordinance,provided, however, private roads will be permitted as follows: • The number of lots served by a private road shall be limited as follows: Road Number Class of Lots Class C 1 to 3 Class B 4 to 9 Class A 10 to 25 Class AA 26 to 50 • Where a Flexible Development has 25 lots or less, the street system may consist of different classes of private roads provided a logical hierarchy of private roads is planned, with those of lower classification connecting to those of higher classification; • Where a Flexible Development has more than 25 lots, the street system may consist of public streets and private roads provided: 0 The street system in the development forms a logical hierarchy of thoroughfares with streets of lower classification connecting to streets of higher classification; 0 The development contains no more than 50 lots; 0 All entrance roads serving the development are public or paved,private streets; 0 All streets which stub-out at property lines to provide for the extension of or connection to future street systems are public streets; and 0 Private roads are not proposed as part of a Village (Section D.4) except in the Village Conservancy portion of the development. • Private, dead-end roads may be terminated in a cul-de-sac or "T" turnaround. Where a "T" turnaround is used as the terminus for a private road, the dimensions (e.g., turning radius) of the "T" shall be sufficient to allow emergency service and trash collection vehicles adequate room to turn around. • Existing street rights-of-way may not count toward the minimum thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement. However, new street rights-of-way may be counted but only to the extent that they are required to pass through or by open space uses as defined herein to link one buildable portion of a site with another; and they are located and/or 28 constructed so as to have no adverse impacts on Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas. D.6 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities Water supply and sewage disposal facilities to serve Flexible Developments may be provided 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 and regulations; or • Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a municipality, association, or water or sewer authority. System extensions are 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 Overall density shall be based upon the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district in which the Flexible Development is to be located and on the basis of a Conventional Subdivision or "Yield" Plan conforming to the regulations governing lot dimensions, land suitable for development, and street design. Although such plans shall be conceptual in nature and are not intended to involve significant engineering or surveying costs, they must be realistic. Potential building lots and streets must not be shown in areas that would not ordinarily be permitted in a Conventional Plan. For example, such plans would include, at minimum, basic topography, wetland locations, 100-year floodplains, and slopes exceeding 25 percent in defining areas unsuited for development. On sites not served by public sewerage or a centralized private sewage treatment facility, soil suitability for individual septic systems shall be demonstrated either by a preliminary soil suitability analyses of ten to fifteen percent (10%to 15%) of the proposed lots; or provision of a map showing the location of soil types suited for septic systems as based on the Orange County, T.C. Soil Survey. The map shall be prepared in consultation with the Soil Scientist of the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department. 29 E.2 Design Process Flexible Development subdivisions shall be designed around both the Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas, which together constitute the total required open space. The design process should therefore commence with the delineation of all potential open space, after which potential house sites are located. Following that, access road alignments are identified, with lot lines being drawn in as the final step. This "four-step" design process is further described below. • Open Space Designation: During the first step, all potential Conservation Areas, both Primary and Secondary, shall be identified using a Site Analysis Map. Primary Conservation Areas shall consist of those features described in Section B.2.b. above. Secondary Conservation Areas shall comprise at least half of the remaining land and shall include the most sensitive and noteworthy natural, scenic, and cultural resources as described in Section B.2.c. above. Guidance as to which parts of the remaining land to classify Secondary Conservation Areas shall be based upon on-site visits; and the Evaluation Criteria contained in Section F below. • House Site Location: During the second step, potential house sites are tentatively located. The proposed location of houses within each lot represents a significant decision with potential impacts on the ability of the development to meet the Evaluation Criteria contained in Section F below. Generally, house sites should be located no closer than 100 feet from Primary Conservation Areas. Such sites may be situated 50 feet from Secondary Conservation Areas to permit the enjoyment of scenic views without negatively impacting Primary Conservation Areas. • Street and Lot Layout: The third step consists of aligning proposed streets to provide vehicular access to each house in the most reasonable and economical manner. When lots and access streets are laid out, they shall be located in such a way that avoids or at least minimizes impacts on both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas. To the greatest extent practical, wetland crossings and streets traversing slopes over 15 percent shall be strongly discouraged unless such streets link one buildable portion of a site with another and no other means of access is available. • Drawing in the Lot Lines: The fourth step consists of drawing in lot lines around potential house sites. Each lot must contain a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. Individual wells and septic systems, where these are to be provided, may be located within the undivided conservation lands if sufficient space is not available on the lots. 30 Section F EVALUATION CRITERIA For any given site, resources may vary widely in importance; e.g., a natural area compared to a historic site. Likewise, for each type of resource, there may be examples of greater or lesser significance; e.g., a notable example of local vernacular building traditions compared to a much altered older home. Priorities for conserving such resources should therefore be based upon a thorough site analysis and an understanding of what is more special, unique, noteworthy, environmentally sensitive, and/or historic as compared with other similar features or different types of resources. In evaluating the layout of lots and open space, the following criteria will be considered as indicating design appropriate to the site's features and meeting the intent of the Flexible Development standards. Whereas diversity and originality in lot layout are encouraged, it is recognized that not all objectives may be achieved on a given site. Each applicant must therefore to achieve the best possible relationship between development and preservation objectives. F.1 General Criteria The following criteria apply to 411 Flexible Development projects: • The shape of the open space shall be reasonably contiguous, coherently configured, and shall abut existing or potential open space on adjacent properties. Long narrow segments must be avoided except in the case of trail or stream corridors, or landscape buffers adjoining street rights-of-way and/or neighborhood boundaries. • The pedestrian circulation system shall be designed to assure that pedestrians can walk safely and easily on the site, between properties and activities or special features within the neighborhood open space system. All roadside footpaths should connect with off-road trails, and link with existing or potential open space on adjoining parcels. • Protect and preserve all wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes from clearing, grading, filling, or construction except as may be approved by the Board of Commissioners. • Landscape common areas (neighborhood greens), cul-de-sac islands, and both sides of new streets with native specie shade trees and flowering shrubs with high wildlife conservation value. F.2 Forest Land/Natural Areas Conservation Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to conserve forest land and/or natural areas and wildlife habitats,the following criteria apply: • Dwellings should be located in unwooded parts of the site away from mature forests, natural areas, and/or wildlife corridors. 31 • When any woodland is developed, care shall be taken to locate buildings, streets, yards, and septic disposal fields to avoid mature forests, natural areas, and/or wildlife corridors. • To the greatest extent practicable, development should be designed around existing hedgerows and treelines between fields or meadows. The impact on larger woodlands (greater than five acres), especially those containing mature trees, natural areas, and/or wildlife corridors, should be minimized. F.3 Farmland Conservation Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to conserve farmland, the following criteria apply: • Locate building lots in forested areas away from existing pastures, cropland, feedlots, and similar uses. • If development must be located on open fields or pastures because of greater constraints on other parts of the site, dwellings should be sited in locations at the far edge of a field, .as seen from a public road. • Identify the most productive portions of existing fields, pastures, and cropland, and locate building lots on less productive land. • Provide buffers of at least 75 feet in width between building lots and cropland and pastures to reduce the potential for conflict between residents and farming activities. FA Conservation of Scenic Views Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to conserve scenic views, the following criteria apply: • Leave scenic views and vistas unblocked or uninterrupted, particularly as seen from public roadways. Consider "no-build, no-plant" buffers along public roadways where views or vistas are prominent or locally significant. In wooded areas where enclosure is a feature to be maintained, consider a "no-build, no-cut" buffer created through the preservation of existing vegetation. • Where development is located in unwooded areas clearly visible from existing public roads, it should be buffered from direct view by a vegetative buffer or an earth berm constructed to reflect the topography of the surrounding area. • Protect rural roadside character and scenic views by providing larger lots (e.g., two acres or more) adjacent to existing public roads. 32 • Protect rural roadside character and vehicular carrying capacity by avoiding development fronting on existing public roads; e.g., limiting access to all lots from interior rather than exterior roads. • Unless buildings can be effectively screened or buffered with trees, avoid siting new construction on or close to prominent hilltops or ridges where rooflines are seen above the horizon. F.5 Historic and Archaeological Features Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to conserve historic and archaeological sites and structures,the following criteria apply: • Design around and preserve sites of historic, archaeological or cultural value so as to safeguard the character of the feature(s), including fences and walls, farm outbuildings, burial grounds, abandoned roads, and earthworks. • New streets, driveways, fences, and utilities must be sited so as not to intrude unnecessarily on rural, historic landscapes. Wherever possible, streets and driveways are to follow existing hedgerows, fence lines, and historic farm drives. • New developments must include plantings which incorporate native species and historic landscape materials so as to harmonize with the character of the area. • Building designs and styles used in new construction should be compatible with the architectural style of historic buildings located on or adjacent to the site, especially in terms of scale, height, roof shape, and exterior materials. F.6 Recreation Provision Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to provide recreation and parks facilities for neighborhood residents and/or the general public,the guidelines contained in Section IV-B-7- B shall apply. 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 standard of the zoning district or districts in which the parcel is located. However, increases in the number of building lots or dwelling units are permitted through one or more of the following options: 33 G.1 To Encourage Additional Open Space A density increase is permitted where more than thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area 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. In lieu of providing additional open space in the Flexible Development, the applicant may purchase in fee simple or less than fee (e.g., development rights) land separate from the Flexible Development which is comprised of Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas as defined in Section B.2. Land purchased in fee may be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local government,the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. For land purchased in less than fee, a conservation easement shall be recorded which restricts the development potential of the land. The conservation easement shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local government,the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. a G.2 To Encourage Affordable Housing A density increase is permitted where the Flexible Development provides on-site or off-site housing opportunities for low or moderate-income families. The amount of the density increase shall be based on the following standard: For each affordable housing unit provided in the Flexible Development, one (1) additional building lot or dwelling unit is permitted. Affordable housing is defined as units to be sold or rented to families earning less than the Orange County median income, adjusted for family size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In lieu of providing affordable housing units in the Flexible Development, the applicant may donate to Orange County land separate from the Flexible Development with suitable soils or access to public water and sewer for the purpose of developing affordable housing. The donated land shall contain at a minimum the land area needed to develop the total number of bonus units in accordance with the zoning requirements of the district in which the donated land is located. G.3 To Encourage Maintenance Endowments The County may allow a density bonus to generate additional income to the applicant for the express purpose of endowing a permanent fund to offset continuing open space maintenance costs. Spending from this fund would be restricted to expenditure of interest, in order that the principal may be preserved. Assuming an average interest rate of five (5) percent, the amount designated for the Endowment Fund should be twenty (20) times the amount estimated to be needed on a yearly basis to maintain the open space. On the assumption that additional 34 dwellings, over and above the maximum that would ordinarily be permitted on the site, are net of development of development costs and represent true profit, 75 percent of the net selling price of the lots should be donated to the Open Space Endowment Fund for the conservation lands within the subdivision. Such estimates should be prepared by an agency or organization with experience in open space management acceptable to the County. This fund shall be transferred by the developer to the designated entity with ownership and maintenance responsibilities, such as a homeowners' association, a land trust, or a unit of local government. GA Location of Bonus Units Density increases as permitted above are limited to Flexible Developments proposed in the following locations: • Within Transition Areas as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Within such areas, the maximum permitted density is two and one-half (2.5) dwelling units per acre unless the applicant obtains approval of a zoning district classification which permits a higher density. • Outside of Transition Areas but within an area designated for service by a utility provider as part of an adopted long-range water and/or sewer extension plan. Within such areas, the maximum permitted density is one and one-third (1.3) dwelling units per acre. • Outside of Transition Areas but within three-fourths (3/4) of a mile of an interstate corridor or a major thoroughfare designated as a high occupancy vehicle (HOV)/busway route as part of an adopted regional transit plan. Within such areas, the maximum permitted density is two and one-half(2.5) dwelling units per acre. • Outside of Transition Areas but within one-half(1/2) mile of a transit station designated as part of an adopted regional transit plan. Within such areas, the maximum permitted density is five(5) dwelling units per acre. Within these locations, public water and sewer service may be extended, provided the applicant can demonstrate that such service is necessary to serve the density increases achieved through the use of the bonus option(s)described above. 35 III. APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES Section III-D-1. CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL a. Pre-Application Review: To promote better communication and avoid unnecessary expense in the design of acceptable subdivision proposals, each subdivider is encouraged to meet with the Planning Department staff prior to filing an application for Concept Plan approval. The purpose of this informal meeting is to introduce the applicant to the provisions of this Ordinance and discuss his/her objectives in relation thereto. b. On-Site Visit: Prior to the submission of a Concept Plan, the applicant shall schedule a mutually convenient time to walk the property with the Planning Department staff. The purpose of this visit is to familiarize the Planning Department staff with the property's special features, and to provide them an informal opportunity to offer guidance to the applicant regarding the tentative location of Secondary Conservation Areas, and potential house locations and street alignments. Prior to scheduling the on-site visit, the applicant shall have prepared the Site Analysis Map as required in Section V-13-2 below. If the on-site visit is not scheduled before the Concept Plan submission, it should occur prior to the Public Information Meeting described below. C. Application Requirements: Applications for Concept Plan approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the submission of a Preliminary Plat and shall contain the following information: • An Orange County Tax Map showing the location of the parcel to be subdivided. • Sixteen (16) copies of a Concept Plan of the proposed major subdivision prepared in accordance with the specifications for Concept Plan drawings as contained in Section V-B of this Ordinance. A Concept Plan shall consist of three parts, including: 0 A Site Analysis Map; 0 A Conventional Development Option; and 0 A Flexible Development Option. In lieu of a three-part Concept Plan, one Concept Plan may be submitted if: 0 The applicant is seeking approval only of a Flexible Development Plan. The applicant may also combine the Site Analysis Map and the Flexible Development Option into a single plan, provided the information required in Section V-B is displayed in a clear and legible form. 36 0 The applicant is seeking approval only of a Conventional Development Plan in which all lots are to be developed with affordable housing units. In such instances, it is not necessary for an applicant to submit a Site Analysis Map and a Flexible Development Plan, provided, however, nothing in this section is meant to discourage an applicant from submitting a Flexible Development Plan. For the purposes of this Ordinance, affordable housing is defined as units to be sold or rented to families earning less than the Orange County median income, adjusted for family size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Comment: Revisions to this section are based on the recommendation of the Planning Board that both conventional and flexible development plans be required of all subdivisions, including those which are to provide affordable housing. Comment received from the Board of Commissioners indicated this preference as well. • Concept Plan application form as prescribed by the Planning Department in a form which provides: 0 A comparison of the impacts of the Flexible Development Option to those that would result from the Conventional Development Option. 0 A checklist identifying consistency with applicable design guidelines as set forth in Section IV-B-10-G. • Stamped envelopes addressed to each owner of property within 500 feet of the property proposed to be subdivided. The names and addresses of property owners shall be based on the current listing as shown in the Orange County Land Records System. d. Public Information Meeting: Upon receipt and acceptance of the Concept Plan application, the Planning Department shall schedule a Public Information Meeting and mail notices of the meeting to each owner of property within 500 feet of the property proposed to be subdivided. The Public Information Meeting shall be held within 15 days of acceptance of the application, and notices shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the meeting. At the meeting, the Planning Department staff will explain the County's subdivision approval process, and the applicant will be available to answer questions about the proposed subdivision. 37 e. Planning Department Review Procedures: Within thirty (30) days of the date of the Public Information Meeting or within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant, the Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board its recommendation, including a written analysis of the Concept Plan; its general compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable codes and ordinances; and the concerns of citizens expressed at the Public Information Meeting. If the Planning Department fails to prepare a report to the Planning Board within the specified time period, or extension thereof, the Concept Plan is recommended without conditions. f. Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures: After receiving the Planning Department's report or, if applicable, the expiration of the time period prescribed in Section III-D-1-b,the Planning Board shall consider the Concept Plan, including both the Conventional Development Option and the Flexible Development Option, and take action on the proposals. The Planning Board shall base its action on its findings as to the conformity of the proposals with all applicable regulations and shall: • Approve the Development Options; • Approve the Development Options subject to conditions; or • Deny the Development Options. If the Planning Board approves the Development Options either with or without conditions, it shall recommend to the subdivider which Development Option that it considers most appropriate, based on the characteristics of the site, its suitability for development, and the intent of the Flexible Development standards as specified in Section IV-B-10-A. The Planning Board's recommendation shall be non-binding on the subdivider. If the Planning Board approves the Development Options subject to conditions, such conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek to insure compliance with applicable regulations. If the Planning Board approves with conditions or denies the Development Options, the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to the applicant and entered into the minutes of the meeting at which such action was taken. The Planning Board shall take action within forty-five (45) days of the meeting at which the Planning Department's report is submitted to it or within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant. If the Planning Board fails to take action within the specified time period, or extension thereof, the Planning Board shall be deemed to recommend approval of the Concept Plan Development Options without conditions. g. Action Subsequent to Approval: If the Concept Plan Development Options are approved or approved with conditions, the Planning Board Chair shall endorse his/her approval on two (2) copies of each Development Option. One (1) copy of each 38 Development Option shall be retained by the Planning Department, and one (1) copy shall be returned to the subdivider or his/her authorized agent. Upon approval of the Concept Plan Development Options by the Planning Board, the subdivider may then elect which Development Option he/she wishes to pursue and then proceed with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat. From the date of approval of the Concept Plan Development Options by the Planning Board,the applicant shall have one(1)year in which to prepare and file an application for Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan Development Options shall become null and void. h. Appeal Procedures: The decision of the Planning Board regarding Concept Plan Development'Options may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. If appealed, the Development Options shall be placed on the next regular meeting agenda of the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and, where applicable, all Concept Plan Development Options shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners in all such appeals shall make findings of fact in support of its decision. The applicant shall be notified, in writing, of the Board of Commissioners' decision within ten(10) days after said decision is made. 39 V. SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLAT DRAWINGS Section V-B. CONCEPT PLAN The Concept Plan required by Section III-D-1 for Major Subdivisions consists of three parts: • A Site Analysis Map; • A Conventional Subdivision Option; and • A Flexible Development Option. The Concept Plan shall be prepared according to the "four-step" process for designing Flexible Development subdivisions described in Section IV-13-10-E. It shall be drawn in black ink or pencil to a scale of not less than two hundred (200) feet to the inch. The scale chosen shall be large enough to show all required detail clearly and legibly. 1. General Information: Each Site Analysis Map and Development Option shall contain the following general information: a. A sketch vicinity map showing the location of the subdivision in relation to the existing street or highway system; b. The plotted boundaries of the tract from deeds or maps of record and the portion of the tract to be subdivided; C. The total acreage to be subdivided, including tax map, block and lot number reference; d. The name, address and telephone number of the subdivider or owner and the person responsible for the subdivision design; e. Scale, approximate north arrow and date of plat preparation; and f. Name of subdivision. 2. Site Analysis Map: As determined from readily identifiable on-site inventories, aerial photographs, maps of record, State/Federal resource maps, and local planning documents and inventories,the Site Analysis Map shall contain the following information: a. Primary Conservation Areas: Identification of physical resources associated with the site which restrict its development potential or contain significant natural and/or cultural resources, including: 40 • Topographic contours at ten-foot intervals, showing rock outcrops and slopes of seven and one-half percent (7-112%) to fifteen percent (15%), and more than fifteen percent(15%). • Soil type locations and characteristics relating to seasonal high water table and depth to bedrock. • Hydrologic characteristics of the site, including drainage tributaries, surface water bodies, floodplains,and wetlands. • Natural areas, and wildlife habitats and corridors. • Historic and mchaeological sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places or included on the State's National Register study list, designated as a local historic landmark, located in a local historic district, and/or identified as having a high potential for archaeological remains. b. Secondary Conservation Areas: Identification of significant site elements on buildable portions of the site, including: • Vegetation of the site, defining approximate location and boundaries of woodland areas, and, wherever possible, vegetative association in terms of species and size. Information from aerial photographs shall be acceptable at the Concept Plan stage. • Current land use and land cover (cultivated areas, pastures, etc.), existing buildings and structures, and burial grounds. • Scenic views onto the site from surrounding roads as well as views of scenic features from within the site as determined by field survey. • Other historic and archaeological sites and structures. C. Transportation and Utility Systems: Identification of facilities associated with the movement of people and goods, or the provision of public services, including: • Railroad and street rights-of-way. • Easements for vehicular access, electric and gas transmission lines, and similar uses. • Public and private water and sewer lines,and storm drainage facilities. 41 3. Conventional Subdivision Option: The Conventional Subdivision Option shall contain the following information: a. The proposed street layout within the subdivision, including travelway and right- of-way widths, and connection to existing streets; b. The location of soils suitable for individual septic systems as determined by: • Preliminary soil suitability analyses of ten to fifteen percent (10%to 15%) of the proposed lots; or • Provision of a map showing the location of soil types suited for septic systems as based on the Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey. The map shall be prepared in consultation with the Soil Scientist of the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department. C. The proposed arrangement of lots within the subdivision, including size and number, as based on soil suitability analysis. 4. -Flexible Development Option: The Flexible Development Option shall contain the following information: a. The proposed arrangement of lots within the subdivision, including size and number. b. The proposed street layout within the subdivision, including travelway and right- of-way widths, and connection to existing streets. C. The location, type, and area of the open space proposed in the subdivision, including open space to be preserved: • In a separate lot or lots under the ownership.of a homeowners association. • As part of individually owned lots through a conservation easement applicable to multiple lots. • As part of individually owned estate lots through designation of buildable areas and the use of restrictive covenants. • In a separate lot or lots through dedication for public use, such as a park site, to a unit of local government, state government or a private land conservancy. 42 d. The location of proposed water supply and sewage disposal facilities, including: • Well sites for individual and community water systems. • Nitrification fields and land application areas for community sewage disposal systems employing subsurface disposal and spray irrigation, respectively. • Nitrification fields and land application areas for individual on- and off-lot sewage disposal systems employing subsurface disposal and spray irrigation, respectively. • Public water and sewer lines, where such facilities are available or capable of being extended. Where the applicant is seeking approval only of a Flexible Development Plan, he/she shall submit information showing the location of soils suitable for individual septic systems as required in Section IV-B-3-b. T 43 RELATED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The following ordinance amendments are proposed to provide consistency between the Flexible Development proposal and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Wording to be deleted is indicated with strikethrough text, and wording to be added is indicated with boldface text. ZONING ORDINANCE 6.2.2 QusteF Flexible Developments Minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article 4.1.2 of this Ordinance may be reduced for lots created as part of a CIusteF Flexible Development subdivision as provided in Section IV-10-B of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 6.23.8 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to UNIV-CA individual wells and on-site septic systems or individual on-site UNIV-PW alternative disposal systems; provided, however, off-site systems shall CANE-PW be permitted in the Cane Creek Protected Watershed (CANE-PW) CANE-CA and Critical Area (CANE-CA), and the Upper Eno Critical Area U-ENO-CA (U-ENO-CA) when located in a Flexible Development subdivision approved in accordance with Section IV-10-B of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. No new treatment system will be permitted where effluent disposal occurs on a separate lot from the source of wastewater generation; All Watershed provided, however, off-site systems shall be permitted in all Overlay Districts Watershed Overlay Districts except the University Lake Protected Watershed (UNIV-PW) and Critical Area (UNIV-CA) when located in a Flexible Development subdivision approved in accordance with Section IV-10-B of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 22 Definitions(Cluster Flexible Development) ri—ivs1@F-Development A subdivision in whieh buildings lots .& o grouped tegether_+1...,.,.g .. ef allewable density m4uh—iii ah-ve si; divided tmt. Cluster- development pefmits more- °n vier* development by er-ea6ag lets , *h bra 1.n a .11er *w *Less required by *l. bmi- i e,i * ..e* ,hole by a theA land area saved by lot .a *' 1. cra—aa r-az-cr=� �si�c�cc�.rcr�oa vT—rv�i���°ccrccosrvz 44 Flexible Development - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through: • An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot, and the land area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or • A "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open space is preserved through the use of conservation easements applied to portions of individual lots; or • A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space; or • A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded by open space; or • Some combination of the above SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS II. Definitions(Cluster-Flexible Development) See definition of"Flexible Development" under Zoning Ordinance amendments above. Draft November 27, 1995 Public Hearing Minutes 45 III. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PROPOSALS This item was presented by David Stancil to receive citizen comment on open space development strategies, including a staff generated Flexible Development Proposal. He reviewed the timeline for this project which began in December of 1993 with a work session between the governing boards of Orange County and Hillsborough. At that meeting it was agreed to establish the University Station Planning Group. As a result of the work by citizens and staff , three basic approaches have been recommended. They are: The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations; The "Status Quo"; and A "Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space requirement and density limits based on the carrying capacity of the soils. The Planning Staff has prepared a proposal which consists of three parts. The first section contains "Goals and Action Strategies" (as recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee). The second section contains a "Flexible Development" option. The "Flexible Development" option has been prepared in the format of an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. This entire report is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS David Stancil replied to a question from Commissioner Gordon. He stated that the convention and flexible development proposals would be considered together and either both of them would be approved or both of them would be denied. This will assure that the process is not used'to mandate flexible development. Mary Willis noted that Concept Plan approval is the Planning Board's commitment that, if the Preliminary Plan comes in essentially the same as the Concept Plan, then the Planning Board will recommend approval. Commissioner Gordan asked if it would be necessary for developers to submit two plans, or could they submit only a flexible development proposal. If that happens, how would staff know how many lots to approve. David Stancil replied that if the developer intends to submit only a flexible development proposal there is no need to prepare a conventional concept plan. There is also an exemption for developments that involve affordable housing units. The development of a "Yield Plan", using either a soil survey or random site testing of 10-15% of the site, is still a part of the process and determines the number of lots permitted. The Yield Plan also utilizes existing zoning. The options available are to use existing soil maps developed as part of the Soil Survey, or actual site testing, working with the soil scientists in Environmental Health. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING BOARD 46 Planning Board Member Karen Barrows commented that she is disappointed by the provisions concerning low and moderate income housing. She felt that it sent the wrong message and was perhaps even discriminatory to allow developers of such projects to submit only a conventional plan. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS BY CITIZENS John Roger, a resident of Hideaway Drive, felt that the Flexible Development Plan does not give an adequate attention to sources of water. He mentioned his concern to Commissioner Gordon earlier in the year, and she said that staff was studying water resources in the County to clarify the status of the aquifers that exist in the area. He noted, in particular, that the proposal does not give enough attention to water resources. Attention is given to how to dispose of the water after it is used but not to where the water is going to come from. He is concerned that cluster development will result in well failures. Jay Zaragoza spoke against the portion of the proposal ( which would allow multiple homes to be connected to a community sewage disposal system. He stated that the history of these systems is one of failure, and often necessitates-bailout by the County. He spoke in support of the overall plan but asked that this portion be eliminated. Nick Tennyson, Executive Vice-President of the Home Builders Association of Durham- Orange County, stated that he was impressed with the positive tone of the document. He asked that the County keep in mind that the complexity of rules could result in higher costs. He also asked for assurance that the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Staff will stay in communication with other county departments, especially Environmental Health, who oversee different aspects of the regulation process. Bob Strayhorn stated that he was 100% in favor of the proposal. He commended staff on the good work that they did. He felt that the rural landowners will accept the plan, and it would encourage protection of open space as well as affordable homes. John Hartwell, spoke in support of the plan. He likes the voluntary nature. He commended the Commissioners on their leadership in this matter. Vic Knight commended the staff people and volunteers who worked on the plan. He indicated that that he supports 80% of the plan. He would like to see more clarification on the issues. He commented that much of what is currently required by the Subdivision Ordinance is static. He approves of the flexible development concept but feels that there are still many unresolved issues. Some of the open space may be static as are the number of lots that are going to come out of that. He mentioned that there are bonuses, other than density bonuses, that developers are willing to use, and for which the public is willing to pay. He felt that allowing a developer to present only a flexible development plan was discriminatory. He was disturbed by the statement that Flexible Development pertains everywhere in the County except the Rural Buffer Zoning District. Mary Willis mentioned that the Planning Board uses the Concept Plan to identify issues 47 that are likely to come up in the Preliminary Plan. Approval with conditions would continue in a similar fashion. The Planning Board would look at both plans and would approve both plans. That approval could be "with conditions" for both Conventional and Flexible Development options. Lee Rafalow commented that good work has been done here. However, he felt that the proposal would create different and possibly better suburban sprawl. A 33% requirement of open space is inadequate. It will not achieve the objectives that he sees as necessary for promoting agricultural, wildlife habitats, and conservation. He mentioned a November 10 Wall Street Journal article which discussed conservation oriented development. The article discussed open space developments ranging from 68% to 98%. He asked that options continue to be explored and provided to encourage flexible development. However, he also requested that the importance of zoning regulations not be forgotten. Bob Hall, a member of the Economic Development Commission, spoke in support of the proposal to encourage open space. He spoke in support of requiring an open space concept plan, and limited density bonuses for affordable housing. He also supported the concept of higher design standards or disincentives for conventional subdivisions, including paved streets with bike lanes, sidewalks, construction setbacks, and tree lined buffers for major roads. He asked for caution regarding expanding the menu of land development options for building in rural Orange County. Too many options could create incentives and cause it to be more profitable to develop. He also questioned the bonus options which allows off-site land to be protected through conservation easements and used to increase the number of homes being built. He asked that the density bonus.section be written so that it can be used only to create the kind of homes that the County wants and needs. Another issue he addressed was setting the minimum open space at 33% of all land. Carrboro's standard is 40% in their Urban Transition Area. For the County to accept 33% invites a developer to build deeper into the County. The standard is based on all land, not just buildable land. The 33% would allow for steep slopes, wet lands, and flood plains to be counted toward open space. He stated that Randall Arendt recommends 50% of buildable land. He asked that this percentage be reviewed and revised. He asked that the concept involving the "Village Option" be pulled from this plan and sent to public hearing separately for further discussion and input. Dan Bromal, an Eno Township resident, asked that the County consider the cost of administering the additional standards. Marty Mandell, a Carrboro resident, spoke in support of mandatory open space. Carrboro has mandated 40% open space. They do not give density rewards for the open space. Rural Orange County should increase the amount of open space by not including unbuildable land in that percentage. Clear cutting needs to be prohibited. She also requested that the issue of open space continuity be addressed. Dolly Hunter, Chair of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board, mentioned that the Advisory Board is teaching the Planning and Agricultural staffs, and the public, the process of establishing conservation easements and land protection for tax benefits. If open space 48 becomes mandatory whenever land is subdivided then conservation easements could not be counted toward meeting the open space requirements. If open space becomes mandatory, then incentives for dedicated conservation easements would be lost in this county. A motion was made by Commissioner WiIlhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to forward the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners is scheduled for December 4, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk To: Orange County Planning Board 49 Attention: Marvin Collins From: Dolly Hunter As Chair of the Orange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board, I wish to make the following observations about the Flexible Development Proposal: 1. The Agricultural District Advisory Board supports the proposal because it is voluntary. We encourage Primary and Secondary Resource delineation by Orange County to enable landowners to better meet IRS criteria for conservation easement tax benefits. 2. Careful consideration and encouragement should be given to the landowner who puts property into a conservation easement and to the developer who develops the remaining land so that open space credit is given for the original conservation easement. 3. Minor subdivisions should have the option to submit an open space plan. Planning staff may assist such landowners in recognizing primary and secondary resources on subdivided portions in relation to remaining property. 4. Off site septic systems assist in better lot design and use of better soils. 5. The use of Flexible Development should be carefully monitored to account for what works, and what doesn't work should be revised. 6. With many fearful of change and many others fearful of the status quo, it might be constructive to make an effort toward voluntary flexible options from which we can all learn and in the future, perfect. Sp 4512 Powder Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514-9641 December 10, 1995 Orange County Board of Ccmmussioners Orange County Planning Board P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Flexible Development/Open Space Proposals This letter is to reiterate and expand upon my testimony at the public hearing on November 27th. Although I believe the terms of the debate over rural character preservation have shifted in a positive direction in the last several years, there are still significant issues that need to be resolved. Both this proposal, and the Rural Character Study Committee report upon which it is loosely based, use words like "conserve," "preserve," "agriculture" and "wildlife habitats" to state achievable quality of life and environmental objectives as we manage development in Orange County. The proposal, however, falls short of its objectives. There are two underlying assumptions in this proposal that need to be made explicit and carefully examined. The- first premise is that building "better" suburbs will help achieve rural character preservation and that to attempt to do more would be too much. In a recent article published in the Wall Street Journal ("New CaTmmities Make it Easy Being Green," 11/10/95, pg B14), one can quickly conclude that conservation-oriented development is not experimental, it is. not even cutting edge, it is an emerging market. Enlightened developers are quoted in the article saying they are not engaged in philanthropic projects, but rather business ventures. "In a survey last year. . .78% of 800 consumers who bought or shopped in planned communities cited 'lots of natural, open space' as essential or very important" (emphasis added). Although the article draws heavily on examples fran the very high-end market segment most interesting to the Wall Street Journal audience, there are examples of lot and home prices that are consistent with those found in Orange County today. Interestingly, the examples given have between 68% and 98% set-asides for conservation, not the 33% suggested in the current County proposal. In one case, with house prices in the $200,000 to $400,000 range, the development is concentrated on 20% of the land; "the rest is devoted to farmland, organic gardens, a nature preserve and commit ity space:" that's 80% natural open space. This development gets about 100 prospective buyers a week. Randall Arendt's Rural ly Desicm guidelines suggest eliminating primary conservation areas from the calculation and then preserving an additional 50% of the remaining land in open space. Although any figure chosen will be somewhat arbitrary, it's clear that the currently proposed 33% doesn't came close to the preservation and conservation objective; Carrboro has a higher open space requirement for its transition area than this proposal has for exurban and rural areas of the County. The "Flexible Development" proposal would consider 98 acres divided into 16 4 acre lots and 34 conventional 1 acre 51 lots as meeting the objectives of rural character preservation: it does not. I suggest that we begin with the Arendt guideline and adjust it over time as we determine appropriate instead of beginning with something that doesn't attempt to achieve the objective. Another aspect of the proposal that is inconsistent with the objectives and, instead, aimed at building better suburbs is the notion that active recreational uses help preserve rural character. This is not to suggest that active recreational uses aren't important, but let's not confuse that goal with the rural character preservation objectives. The County already has provisions for establishing active recreational uses; if they are insufficient, they should be amended. But recreational needs and conservation needs are different and should not be traded off against one another. There should be no allowance, and definitely not 50%, for active recreational uses as a substitute for natural and agricultural spaces. The second underlying premise in the "Flexible Development" proposal is that the only barrier to achieving rural character preservation is that the zoning ordinances prevent developers from doing what they would otherwise be eager to do. Although there is certainly a need to improve the ordinances, the fact of the matter is that we have sane provisions for cluster development on the books today. The same Wall Street Journal article notes that "while same (conservation-oriented) projects spring from principle, more often than not they're spawned by legal battles." Clearly, we don't want a development atmosphere that is poisoned by battles like Meadowmont or University Station. Like any business person, every developer wants to know what's allowed so they can manage their time and money effectively. Let's avoid future battles in Orange County, let's tell developers what's expected: we want rural character preservation, not conventional suburban sprawl, not even improved suburban sprawl. Although we need to make sure there are a range of options from which to choose, we should be clear a limit permitted uses to those that meet the objectives. Although we need to respect the property value rights of our citizens and not reduce permitted densities, we should be clear about how to achieve those densities so as to meet the rural character preservation objectives. This can be done, without downzoning, by determining densities based on a yield plan but only allowing those densities with the open space suggested above. Lower densities, in a conventional layout, might be permitted as in the "Estate Lot" proposal, but conventional subdivisions at full buildout might be by special use permit only. Density bonuses are not required and are not consistent with rural character preservation. In addition to the above broader issues, I also have a number of questions and concerns about the proposal. 1. Several aspects of the proposal point to other designations for guidance on what appropriate uses might be. So, for example, a change in the scenic road designation or a transportation corridor designation would change the definition of appropriate uses for a particular development. I am particularly concerned about turning any more land use authority over to the DOT than absolutely necessary, but it is important that any of these changes get adequate public review before they create de facto land use plan changes. 52 2. There are places in the proposal that have more regulation than appears to be necessary. For example, it appears that the Estate Lot Option prohibits a gazebo outside the building envelope and would prohibit a dock on a lake. 3. The proposed change to include street right-of-ways in lot size is an upzoning of up to 8%. If we are attempting to achieve density neutrality in these changes, why are we giving away higher density? 4. The Village Option is ccnplicated and needs further discussion and review by the public. The inclusion of village greens in the calculation of open space is inconsistent with the rural preservation objectives. Why does the proposal permit 1 side of the village core to be on a major road; this encourages exterior rather than interior orientation. I have other questions, but would prefer that this option get more public education and opportunity for comment. I am concerned about the use of density bonuses to encourage open space. Fitting more units into less space does not make a convincing argument for either rural character preservation or, for that matter, increased profits for the developer or landowner. Lastly, there are a number of related issues that need further development in this proposal. TDRs are discussed, but the County Commissioners should ask the State for authority to use then. Our current tax laws provide lower taxes for farm uses, but they impose a severe penalty on the farmer when the land is sold, regardless of its use by the new owner; this is farmer preservation, not farmland preservation. The County Commissioners should take steps have these laws changed as well. I look forward to the outcome of your deliberations. Sin rel ee Rafa ow HEHOME F N O N 7 B14 THE w` L SEE'J0UR.'4,1,I,FRIDAY, NOVE-, 53 New Communities Make It Easy Being Green . By Sr�err Felsts forests,mountain lions,eagles and other species. Staff Reporter of THE w.., TSIS Jot;avu. "IResidentsl must understand the risks and the joys and the possibilities of living in a wildlife habitat—and definitely have their eyes open,"says Jeffrey Froke,president of the GRAYSI AlCE,ILL Santa Lucia Conservancy and a onetime park ranger. THE EGRETS COME RIGHT UP THERE,"Carol Sonnenschein says,gestur- On Dewees Island near Charleston, S.C.,654.of the in toward the prairie ses and sedges that roll into the lake a few feet 1,uses re island is held in permanent rnuyers must s g p grdS g Houses can't exceed 5.000 square feet,and buyers from her porch. Off to the right, she points to where red-winged blackbirds analyze the topography, solar orientation, prevailing winds,soil and tree stands before building.Residents zip blanketed a marsh in summer. Geese use the wetlands as a flyway, she notes around unpaved roads in electric golf carts.Lots fetch up proudly,and at night coyotes can be to$475,000,and 11 homes are up so far,the heard baying at the moon. priciest for x800.000. Yl g ��� / While eco-friendliness boosts construe Contrary to this bucolic picture, ,/ : tion costs, it also cuts long-term expenses. y though, Ms. Sonnenschein's home .0 �. �. "when you don't build all these golf courses isn't some rural retreat but a new community t and don't have all these manicured land- under construction in the increasingly — w ` scapes and don't have all these paved roads, crowded suburbs north of Chicago.The reason you end up with enormous reductions in in- for the unspoiled views of native flora and frastructure investment"and lower mainte- fauna is simple: In Prairie Crossing, as the / nance costs, says John L. Knott Jr., chief community is known,the environment is king. l executive of Island Preserve Partnership, Across the country,a growing number of the Dewees Island developer. residential communities are seeking to bal- / It pays in other ways,too.The develop- ance development and conservation. The ers of Wildcat Ranch near Aspen. Colo., market ranges from trillion-dollar lots at a where 989.of 6,800 acres will remain unde- California ranch set in a nature preserve to , veloped,changed its land use plans from 35 * an"open-space subdivision"outside Philadel 1 lots of about 160 acres to 14 lots of about 500 phia where homes on half-acre tracts start acres. While the number of sites dropped, around 5200 000 �, .' overall revenue increased,with lot sales av- While environmentally correct communi- f . eraging$4.1 million.Farmview,a clustered- ties aren't new—think Walden—only recently ---u housing development with 200 acres of pro- have they become a bona fide market. The tested farmland in Bucks County,Pa.,has reasons:growing disillusionment with sabo outsold conventional subdivision-style t mes that otter larger lots. ban sprawl and a willingness to pay a pre- • ho mium to live in a place that protects the land. In other words,people will sacrifice peF "This is not a philanthropic project.It's a sonal space for protected land they share business venture,"says George A.Ranney j with neighbors. In a survey last year by Jr., the president of Prairie Crossing's de- American Lives Inc.of San Francisco,7896 velopment company."It will have social out- of 800 consumers who bought or shopped in comes we hope will be noteworthy and affect • planned communities cited"lots of natural. public policy and business practice.We hope open space"as essential or very important: other builders will say, 'Someone else has "Our lot size isn't big,but when you look at done it,let's get into the market.'" • the overall development you've got a Igt-df Calling itself a "conservation commu- rrwe space,"says 36 yearoid Bob Flanary,the ex nity,"Prairie Crossing plans to develop just organic- meat wholesaler,who with wife Lisa, one-fifth of its 667 acres. When completed, 33,moved from Worthington,Ohio,to a four all 317 single-family homes,priced from around$200,000 bedroom house in Prairie Crossing. to 5400,000,will have long views.The test of the property Eoo-Developments "We can wean people away from the idea that they is devoted to farmland, organic gardens, a nature pre Same environmentally sensitive home projects: need a large lot when they want to be in the country," serve and community space.The Washington-based Con says Randall Arendt of the Natural Land Trust.a land servation Fund holds an easement that will keep 150 acres ■EAGLE ROCS(RESERVE:Where:Bozeman,Mont; conservancy in Media, Pa. "Ultimately, if they have a in farm use forever. Sin:800 acre;Price:39 lots from$150,000-5200,000 large lot,there's no country left." More than 100 prospective buyers visit Prairie Cross- each;houses from 5300.0004750,000 Still,the trend isn't spreading like prairie grass.Most ing weekly.By year's end, 18 families will have settled developers. especially in high-end communities in the in—including an agronomist,a biologist, two landscape E FARMV EIM:Where:Low Makefiekt Township'Pa., West.remain addicted to miniestates of fenced-in proper architects, a former organic-meat wholesaler and Ms. Sin:330 homes on 500 acres;Price:Homes for ties with big lawns and long driveways."The major mar- Sonnenschein,a Loyola University sociologist whose dis- $250,000-5500,000 keting tool used by developers here is own your own little serration concerned growth on Chicago's urban fringe. E PRESERVE AT HUff LAKE;Whom Attawa,Wis.; Piece of heaven," says Michael Scott of the Wilde Hess R3 The 19thtentury-farmhouse-style homes are linked by 10 She;285 acres;price 41 lots,580,000$130,000: Society in Bozeman,Mont."What we tend to see is more miles of crushed-limestone trails,not sidewalks.Residents homes 5500,000-S1 million caofd d while single-acre m projects development." can receive a basket of organic produce weekly or grow their And while some projects spring from principle,more own. Yards must be landscaped only with native plants. ■SPRING ISLAND:Where:Near Hilton Head,S.C.;Size: often than not they're spawned by legal battles.Prairie Storm water drains naturally,not through pipes. 500 homes an 3.000 acres;Price:Average lot,$280,000 Crossing's land was purchased by a group of wealthy "Where you have peer presstue,particularly on the East Soutar Dneftowit=Ma r farm LAW nWama families in 1987 after a 15-year tight over its develop- Coast.to have the best lawn,here you're going to have peer ment.In Washington's pristine Methow Valley.environ- pressure to be the most responsible homeowner," says mentalists and citizens persuaded developers to forsake Michael Sands,Prairie Crossing's environmentalist ters and other creatures were mapped and protected. a downhill-skiing center for a lower-impact cross-country Not all ecodevelopments are as tightly focused as One of the biggest—and ritziest—eco-projects is Santa skiing and golf resort;1.5%of property sales will support Prairie Crossing.But such principles separate those that Lucia Preserve near Carmel, Calif. The 32-square-mile an environmental center. practice environmentalism from those that just use site was purchased by a group of investors for x70 million That's the sort of deal today's new-breed environmen- Mother Nature as a marketing tool. in 1990. Rather than inundate the old cattle ranchland talists are happy to make.The philosophy:Not all devel- At 800-acre Eagle Rock Reserve outside Bozeman, with houses.the owners intend to develop just 109c of the opment is bad,and influencing development beats stand- Mont., homes are banned from ridge tops and elk property—about 300 moderately clustered homes,a small ing idly by while the bulldozers roll. ranges. At Rocking K Ranch next to Saguaro National hotel,a low-impact golf"trail"and a village center. "You can't save it all,"says Patrick F.Noonan,chair Park near Tucson. Ariz., a nonprofit environmental Lot prices will start at $1.million and should climb man of the Conservation Fund,which holds the Prairie group monitors development. On Spring Island near quickly. The remaining land, scarred by 200 years of Crossing easement."You can't stop growth.You have to Hilton Head,S.C.,the habitats of eagles,quail,river ot- overgrazing,will be set aside as a preserve of redwood understand it and work with it." 54 3615 Windy Hill Rd. Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 December 3, 1995 Orange County Planning Board P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Members of the Planning Board, I have been following with interest the progress of your proceedings regarding Flexible Development/Open Space. I am quite pleased that Orange County is looking ahead. I am sure that you saw the recent estimates that the triangle now has a population of 1 million. When you picture Orange County on the edge of a metropolis area of that size, you can see the growth pressure that exists. In general I like the proposals created by the planning staff. I would like to see either a 50% open space standard or exclusion of unbuildable land from the calculations as I think that the proposed standard is not really going to preserve much open space. In order to encourage developers to opt for open space development I would recommend that a special open space category be defined such that developments of that type either be given a lower property tax rate (if that is legal) or have discounted county fees during the development and building process. Thank you for your efforts with this very important issue. Sincerely, Robert A. Harrell 55 Bob Hall 5706. 01d Stony Way Orange County Durham, NC 27705 489-1931 December 14, 1995 Dear Planning Board Member, I serve on the Orange County Economic Development Commission and the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan, and have followed many of the hearings on development and rural character. Here are a few thoughts on the Flexible Development Proposal you are reviewing again on December 18 . I support the overall goal of promoting Open-Space Flexible Developments . I support requiring conventional subdivision developments to submit an Open-Space concept plan. I would encourage you to develop higher design standards than currently in place for conventional subdivision, such as paved streets with bike lanes, sidewalks, and wider construction setbacks or tree-lined buffers from major roads . AFFORDABLE HOMES>> I support the concept of awarding limited density bonuses -- but only for building affordable housing, using the state's median family income as the standard to calculate "affordable" rather than the Triangle's inflated salary scale. This area's median income means an "affordable house" in Orange County can cost up to $97, 000 . While I support the Flexible Development concept, I think we must be cautious about expanding the menu of options for building in the rural part of the county. We could provide so many options or incentives that we wind up making it easier and more profitable to build in rural Orange county, and wind up sucking development away from the urban and transition areas -- which is exactly the opposite of the goal expressed in the county's Land Use Element. We won't really know what we'll get for what we're giving until. we try it, and I definitely agree that we should review the consequences of these changes after several plans come forward. But let me offer a couple of horror stories that I think are avoidable if the plan is adjusted now. DENsITY BONUSES>> Under the plan as written, I could easily add 100 lots with $300, 000 homes to my Flexible developments by simply paying a small amount for conservation easements on 100 acres of wetlands or stream floodplain or steep slopes scattered across the county's northern edge. That's not much a benefit for the added density going into rural areas. That's the way the Density Bonus and Purchase of Development Rights section now reads -- add 1 unit per 1 acre of "primary conservation area protected. " I think it should change. Density bonuses are a financial reward to developers -- real wealth created from public policy -- and they should be used to get the kind of homes the county needs. Consider 56 lowering the 1-per-1 bonus ratio, make the developer save land that z-= be developed, and permit only affordable housing in the additional density awarded. OPEN SPACE>> Another major. problem is setting the minimum amount of Open Space at 33% of all land. First, Carrboro's standard is 40%, and that's in an urban-transition area. For the county to accept a 33% standard just invites me, as a developer, to go deeper into the county to build a subdivision. Second, the standard is based on Bil land, not just the buildable land. Under the plan, the 33% could consist entirely of steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplain -- i.e. , unbuildable "primary conservation areas. " Contrary to Section II, page 2, this is not what experts consider preserving Open Space. All through this document, you have Randall Arendt pointing out that the 33% figure is way too low (for example, see his comments on pages 58, 65, 71, and 77] -- he recommends 50% of buildable land. Contrary to Section II, page 2, the Orange County commissioners recommended setting aside 30% of buildable land in the University Station work group, which means not counting the wetlands or floodpla_ ins as Open Space. The standard should be a minimum of 30-33% of buildable land or at least 50% of Au land. Carrboro's 40% standard of all land is a conservative compromise. To highlight the consequences of going with the present proposal, remember that we have a defacto "open space" policy now with the soil suitability (perc) standard. Based on history, it lowers density by nearly half, to about 1 unit per 2 acre -- meaning its keeps about 50% of the land in R1 zoning undeveloped. Requiring that only 33% of the total tract be set aside is not much progress . And then if you're liberal about adding density bonuses and permitting multi-lot common sewage systems, you could easily increase density well beyond our current standards. The current policy may protect rural character better than the new liberal proposals. T�iE VILLAGES» Finally, the detailed village section is a new proposal for a complicated development package that has not received public discussion in public hearings or town meetings. Most discussion has focused on questions about Open Space quality and amount, and Incentives and Density Bonus. But now we have many pages of details about building little towns -- building design, road grids, site location, density, commercial activity, storefronts, and a Village Green. You have to imagine all the varieties that might be built in different parts of rural Orange, perhaps using package sewage plants or other devices to increase density. The multiplicity of comments by Arendt and Joyner illustrate the lack of consensus on this plan. It would be nice to have a standard for what a "rural village" is, but because of its significance, impact, and lack of public consensus, I urge you to specifically limit these to current Transition areas and/or require a full public hearing on any village development that a developer proposes. Thank you for your hard and conscientious work. Bes/w' hes, B b� 57 TOWN OF CARRSORO NORTM CAROLINA December 28, 1995 Mr.Jobe Linn County Manager Orange Co u ty P.O.BOX 8181 )IRSbalrl USk N.C.27278 Dar John: The Mayor and Board of Ahdermen asked me to thank you and the County Conmria>aoan for Moving David Stanch to our December 19th Board meeting. He did an aoalle at job in preaaxing the County's de xilAe development proposal. The Mayor and the Board of Aldermen have also requested that I convey to the County Conunimonm and the County Pleruvng Board comments and quaaans raised by members of the Caftm Board so they might be considered by each body as it 4diberates on the ficable development proposal.They were as follows: 1- The plan does not seem to have any effective erlfocre mcnt proviaim or overall power to effectivellr preserve the C=#s dwindling nan"reaourm and 8rm kads. 2. Are there any statiocs to show the success or inure rate of smnihar voknewy progania using hventives? 3. Does the Estate Plan tally Provide opal space?What is and who is not open space, per are,as a desbabl i societal and eentheticel~ 4. To achieve the gosb of the plan,as evaluation process should be in p1m prior to impknreaitatioer osf the plan with a set period Sot the evahadon to take place. Again,dwk you for the proantmon on this proposal and for conveying these remarks to the Orary County Planning Board and the County Commisaiooas at the appropriam times. The Board looks forward to than response and attention to its con c e, v Yours tr„ly►, by Robert w Morgan Town Manager ►.O.BOX 030 • 201 WENT 14AIN GYNCIT•CAII*&***,NC 27010 • (010)842-0041 PAX t0t0>000.7707 • TOO 10101 000.7717 AN ENUAL OP/ORTUNItT LM►LOTER 58 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD �Ca-3�c9t,c� FROM.• MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE. JANUARY 4, 1996 SUBJECT: FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL COPIES: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY A public hearing was held on November 27 at the New AL. Stanback Middle School for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on the "Flexible Development" proposal. Section VII-D4 of the Subdivision Regulations also permits evidence not presented at the public hearing to be submitted in writing at or prior to the meeting at which the Planning Board prepares a recommendation on the proposal. Specific issues and/or concerns raised during the public hearing and/or through written correspondence subsequent to the hearing are summarized below in boldface type. Staffs response is provided following. Affordable housing applicability. The specific issue is whether it is discriminatory to allow developers of affordable housing to submit a conventional subdivision plan oniv. Staff Response. The provision of affordable housing is a goal of Orange County, and a concern about "open space" or 'Texible development" designs is that they result in "high-end" housing. Two provisions were added to the Flexible Development proposal to address this concern specifically. The first provision is contained in Section IV-B-10-G.2, Density Bonuses/To Encourage Affordable Housing, and was added as an "incentive" to encourage developers to provide such housing as part of a Flexible Development proposal. The second is contained in Section III-D-1-c, Concept Plan Approval/Application Requirements, and was added to allow developers, whose goal was singularly the provision of affordable housing, to forego the requirement of submitting a Flexible Development plan. As part of the Planning Board's discussion of this provision,wording was added to"encourage"applicants to submit such as plan. Groundwater resources - quantity and quality. The specific issue is whether cluster lots will be subject to well failures because of the number and proximity of wells. Staff Response. At the request of the Water Resources Committee, the Board of Commissioners has provided matching funds through which to finance a study of the groundwater resources of the county. The study is being jointly funded and undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey, and is scheduled for completion by the end of this fiscal year. The study will provide information about the availability, quantity, and quality of groundwater as well as guidance concerning well 59 placement. However, the Environmental Health Division staff has indicated that under current standards governing separation of wells from homes, septic systems, property lines, and other wells are met, few problems associated with well failures have been encountered. Where such situations have occurred, they have resulted from failing septic systems. Community sewage disposal systems. The specific issue is whether community sewage disposal systems should be allowed, given problems encountered with such systems in the past. Staff Response. A "monitoring and maintenance" program for community systems has been approved by the Board of Health and the Board of Commissioners. Yet to be completed are provisions concerning "financial security" to insure that funds will be available to adequately maintain the system and correct any problems. The provisions are to be prepared by the County Attorney and will require a significant time commitment. Hisher administrative costs. The specific issue is whether the adoption of the Flexible Development provisions will require additional staff and whether developers will incur additional cost to adhere to the standards. Staff Response. There will be some additional cost to the applicant in terms of preparing two concept plans. However, the provisions have been drafted in an attempt to keep these costs to a minimum. Staff will also work with applicants in providing site information and developing concept plans in an effort to eliminate and/or reduce plan revisions. No additional staff will be needed, however, some reorganization within the Planning Department may be necessary to provide "hands-on" assistance to applicants. If any additional cost is incurred, it will be for GIS hardware through which to develop/maintain a resource database to benefit staff landowners, and developers. Interdepartmental coordination/communication. The specific issue is how to insure that adequate communication between County departments is established so that approvals by one department are not held up by the requirements of another. Staff Response. Discussions with some departments and/or divisions have occurred, particularly the Environmental Health Division. The purpose of the discussions has been to alert other agency staff of the need to establish a more formalized "development review" process through which to identify/address agency concerns and eliminate project approval delays. The inclusion of a"Public Information Meeting" as part of the approval process is also intended to provide the applicant and staff with information from adjoining property owners about concerns/issues which may be addressed prior to Planning Board consideration. Development plan exceptions. The specific issue is whether allowing a developer to submit only a Flexible Development plan is discriminatory. 60 Staff Response. The provision contained in Section III-D-1-c, Concept Plan Approval/Application Requirements, was added as an incentive to allow developers to reduce costs by foregoing conventional plan preparation and focusing specifically on a Flexible Development plan. Rural Buffer applicability. The specific issue is whether land within the Rural Buffer should be subject to the Flexible Development provisions. Staff Response. The Rural Buffer is located in the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area. When the Rural Character Strategies for the Rural Buffer were prepared, a joint public hearing was held with Chapel Hill and Carrboro to provide an opportunity for review/comment consistent with the Joint Planning Agreement. Application of the Flexible Development provisions within the Rural Buffer has not been proposed, so that a similar process might be undertaken with the two municipalities. Open space percentage. The specific issue is that the percentage of open space required (e.g.,33%) is too low. Staff Reaponse. Suggested alternatives to the open space percentage contained in the Flexible Development proposal are as follows: • 50% open space requirement, applied to buildable land only, after subtracting out Primary Conservation Areas or"unbuildable"floodplains,wetlands, and steep slopes; or • 50% open space requirement, applied to total tract, or • 40% open space requirement, applied to total tract, as adopted by the Town of Carrboro;or • 33% open space requirement, applied to buildable land only. To provide some basis for comparison,the Flexible Development standard was compared to each of above mentioned options, applied to a 100-acre tract with: no unbuildable land; 25 acres of unbuildable land; and 50 acres of unbuildable land. As shown on Attachment A, one obvious conclusion is that as the percentage of open space required increases so does the amount of land. For those persons advocating a 50% (or 33%) open space requirement after deducting unbuildable land, it is also obvious that that standard results in a higher percentage of open space, depending upon the amount of unbuildable land present on the site. As an example, when one- fourth of the tract is unbuildable, the 50% standard actually becomes a 63% open space requirement, while the 33% standard becomes a 50% requirement. Where one-half of the tract is unbuildable, the 50% standard becomes a 75% open space requirement, while the 33% standard becomes a 67% requirement. Likewise, as the permitted density increases, so does the density of the development area(e.g.,buildable area), reaching levels under one- and two-acre zoning which would require the use of community systems or access to public sewer to be feasible. The issues of density and water and sewer availability, as well as housing cost, are also evident from review of a November 10 Wall Street Journal article, provided by a citizen and cited as 61 justification for a 50% open space standard. The focus of the article is the growing number of new communities across the country seeking to balance development and conservation. One source for the article was Urban Land magazine, and staff was able to collect (from Urban Land and the ULI Project Reference File) information concerning five of the 10 developments cited in the article. Summarized on Attachment B is the information pertaining to those five developments. One model suggested for use was the open space provisions adopted by the Town of Carrboro on June 27. The Carrboro provisions require every residential development containing 15 or more dwelling units to set aside at least 40% of the total area as open space subject to the following conditions: • One or more areas suitable for play fields must be included in every development with at least 50 lots. Each area must contain a minimum of 20,000 sq.ft., and the total area must be at least 400 sq.ft. per lot or dwelling unit. • All area within 60 feet of the edge of mapped floodway (or center of stream if there is no mapped floodway) if a development contains any portion of a stream designated on Carrboro's stream classification map. • Areas identified in the Carrboro Natural Constraints Map or the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats in Orange County. If the area included in the features listed above is more than 40% of the tract, then the amount of area set aside in one or more categories may be reduced so that the total open space is not more than 40%. If the area included in the features listed above is less thin 25% of the tract, then the following areas must be included to make up the remaining 15%of the required open space: • Wooded areas; • Entranceway vistas; • Streams, ponds, wetlands, floodplains; • Slopes>15%; • Unusual natural features(e.g., rock outcrops); and/or • Other environmentally, historically or archeologically unique areas. On December 19, a staff member presented the Flexible Development proposal to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. In a December 28 letter, the Town Manager has provided a list of comments and questions from the Board of Aldermen(copy attached). Each of the alternatives described above represent a continuation of the discussion which preceded the preparation of the Flexible Development proposals. Each was considered, but within the context of competing interests of "no open space" or "20% open space", the standard contained in the current Cluster Development provisions. As noted at the public hearing, the Flexible Development proposal represents an attempt to strike a "balance" between many diverse and competing interests. 62 Related to the Carrboro provisions, suggestions have been made that a 33% standard in the county and a 40% standard in Carrboro would drive developers deep into the county. Such a scenario is unlikely, for the higher densities permitted in Carrboro and the availability of public water and sewer provide developers with more opportunity for satisfying the 40% open space standard and achieving a financially feasible project. Furthermore, a higher open space standard may be more desirable in an urban setting like Carrboro where the area in which additional growth can occur is limited. As an example, the approximate area in Carrboro's ETJ is 2,240 acres. If 40% of that area were preserved as open space, the total land area would equal 896 acres. In contrast, the area of Orange County's jurisdiction, outside the JPA and municipal jurisdictions is approximately 154,944 acres. If 33% of that land area were preserved as open space, the total land area would equal 51,131 acres, or an area twice the size of the city limits and ETJ's of all the county's municipalities combined. Exclusion of unbuildable land. The specific issue is whether floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes should be counted as open space because they are considered unbuildable. The alternative suggested is to apply the required open space percentage after subtracting such features from the total site area. Staff Response. The Flexible Development proposal recognizes floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes as valuable resources, e.g., Primary Conservation Areas. As an example, the riparian zone of a river, stream or other body of water is the land adjacent to that body of water that is, at least periodically, influenced by flooding. The flooding of the riparian ecosystem is important for the maintenance of that system for several reasons. The flooding water and subsequent ground water levels are the main determinants of the type and productivity of vegetation found in the riparian zone. Flooding waters also bring nutrient-rich sediments to the floodplain, export organic and inorganic material from the floodplain, and serve as a primary agent for long-term aggradation (deposition of alluvial material)and degradation(down cutting of surface geology)of the floodplain. As another example, wetlands comprise one of the Earth's most productive natural ecosystems and have a set of common natural functions that make them valuable resources. • Wedands affect the quality of water. Aquatic platrts change inorganic nutrients into organic material, storing it in their leaves The stems, leaves, and roots of these plants also slow the flow of water through a wetla?g allowing the silt to settle out. Consequently, wetlands protect downstream water resources from siltation and pollution. • Wetlands MjhW We the quantity of water They act as a sponges, retaining water during dry periods and hold it back during f loods, dw keeping the water table high and relatively stable. • Wetlands are important resources for overall environmental health and diversity. They provide essential breeding, nesting, and feeding grounds and cover for marry forms offish and wildlife. These factors have the value of prowling general environmental health by creating recreational, research, and educational sites, and adding to the aesthetics of the community. 63 As stressed previously, it is because of these natural and valuable functions that such features are credited toward meeting the open space requirements. A related reason, however, is the association of these features with others, such as natural areas, wildlife corridors, etc. In developing a Comprehensive Resources Map for the county, a "corridor" system resulted, comprised of Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas which overlapped. For example, steep slopes are generally associated with major stream channels and prominent topographic features such as hills and mountains. Associated with the major stream channels are floodplains and wetlands, as well as many identified natural areas and wildlife corridors. Also associated with steep slopes and prominent topographic features are identified natural areas such as Pickards Mountain, McCauley Mountain, Blackwood Mountain, Currie Hill, and others. Additionally, the greatest potential for archeological sites is in major stream corridors. Thus, the overlapping nature of multiple features makes it difficult to draw a distinct line and say one feature may count but other may not. A final reason for crediting "unbuildable" areas (e.g., Primary Conservation Areas) toward meeting the open space requirement is that a common open space standard (e.g., 33%) applies to all land owners. As noted previously, deducting unbuildable areas first, then applying the open space standard will result in some land owners providing 33% open space while others must provide 50%, 67% or more (see Attachment A). A common standard provides a level playing field. Mandatory open space. The specific issue is whether the provision of open space should be voluntary or mandatory. Staff Response. This issue is also a continuation of the discussion preceding the preparation of the Flexible Development proposal. Those persons who advocate mandatory open space argue that open space will not be provided unless it is required. Some developers and surveyors have argued that unless the financial incentives are high enough, a voluntary approach will not be used. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen has also asked the question, what is the success or failure rate of jurisdictions which have tried a voluntary approach. Information concerning success/failure rates is not available, and, even if it were, there is no guarantee that the same results would hold true in Orange County,just as there is no guarantee that a highly successful open space project in Bucks County, Pennsylvania will have the same success in Orange County. Again,the Flexible Development proposal attempts to strike a balance, mandating only that two concept plans be submitted, one for a conventional subdivision and another for an open space subdivision. Combined with educational workshops for land owners, developers, and surveyors, a voluntary approach, evaluated for success, is considered a better way to encourage open space design. Consistency with Foals. The specific issue is whether the Flexible Development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of rural character preservation. Staff Response. Several examples are cited to illustrate that the proposal is inconsistent with the goals and objectives, including the following: 64 • 98 acres divided into 16 four-acre lots and 36 one-acre lots does not meet the objectives of rural character preservation. Recreational (active) needs and conservation needs are different and should not be traded off against one another. The goals and objectives of rural character preservation do not advocate that open space design be the only mechanism for preserving rural character. Like Randall Arendt, the Rural Character Study Committee viewed open space design as "one tool in the tool box". Arendt recognizes purchase of development rights and transfer of development rights, as well as other options, as supporting elements to an area-wide program of conservation and development that is most logically based upon the flexibility and advantages offered by open space development design. Likewise, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board has recognized the linkage between these elements, supporting the Flexible Development proposal while recommending that the Board of Commissioners pursue enabling legislation through which to implement a transfer of development rights program. With regard to the illustrations above, the "98-acre" scenario may very well meet rural character preservation objectives if the 16 four-acre lots (and the house sites on each) are so located to preserve a scenic road corridor or are located within a wooded area. With respect to the issue of trade-off's, there have to be, otherwise nothing will be accomplished. As an example, a site covered equally by woodlands and farmland presents competing objectives. Housing units could be placed in the woodlands and the farmland preserved, or vice versa. As Arendt has noted, "politics" and "planning" represent the "art of the possible". The same flexibility built into the Flexible Development proposal must also exist in approaching the goals and objectives of rural character preservation. Incentives vs. disincentives. The specific issue is whether more disincentives should be added to discourage conventional development and fewer incentives provided to encourage more open space set asides. Staff Response. One concern is the increased density which may achieved through bonus provisions. The example given suggests that 100 acres of wetlands could be purchased in the northern part of the county and 100 units added (one unit for one acre) to a flexible development project. The example also suggests that 100 acres of wetlands is not much of a benefit for the added density going into rural areas. If one accepts the value of wetlands, then one realizes the benefit achieved through preserving 100 acres of wetlands. The example implies, however, that the additional density would be shifted to rural areas and does not recognize the locational standards governing bonus units. Such units could only be placed in one of the locations listed in Section IV-B-10-G.4, including: • Within Transition Areas designated in the Land Use Element, subject to a maximum permitted density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. 65 • Outside Transition Areas but within an area designated for service by a utility provider as part of a long-range water and/or sewer extension plan, subject to a maximum permitted density of 1.3 dwelling units per acre. • Outside Transition Areas but with 3/4 mile of an interstate corridor or a major thoroughfare designated as a HOV/busway route as part of an adopted regional transit plan, subject to a maximum permitted density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. • Outside Transition Areas but with 1/2 mile of a transit station designated as part of an adopted regional transit plan, subject to a maximum permitted density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. Outside of these locations, the use of density bonuses would not be permitted. Another concern about density bonuses involved affordable housing and the use of the median family income for defining "affordable" units. Associated with this concern was the suggestion that the median family income for the state as a whole be used as the measure of affordable housing rather than that for Orange County. In 1995, the median family income for a family of four in Orange County was $47,900. Based on 25% of the family income being used for the mortgage payment, a 30-year loan, and an 8.5% interest rate, the family would be able to afford a home valued at $129,750. For the state as a whole; the median family income was $36,100. Based on the same assumptions, the family could afford a home costing $97,800. If the concern is over the price of the home which qualifies as "affordable housing", a better approach than using the state median income is to use a percentage of the county median income. A threshold of 80% of the median family income is generally recognized by DHUD as the upper limit of low and moderate-income families. By applying that percentage to Orange County, the median family income would be $38,320, and the family would be able to afford a house valued at $103,800. Village option. The specific issue is whether to hold another public hearing on the Village option, since it is complicated and has not received a lot of attention. The Village option has received considerable attention over the life of the rural character initiative, including public hearings. In its initial stages, the Village option was the "Rural Village" concept first proposed by the Rural Character Study Committee. During the development of the Flexible Development proposal, the Village option was given more substance using the model developed by Loudoun County, Virginia. The suggestion has been made that there is lack of consensus on the standards because of the comments of Arendt and Joyner. The number of comments by them should not be considered as lack of consensus but suggestions for improvement. Most of these comments were taken into 66 account in revisions to the standards, and, if they weren't, it was because they reflected the same concerns about percentage of open space, etc. expressed about the other options. Villages are simply another flexible development option and are subject to the same limitations as the other options, including the locational standards governing density bonuses. The difference between the Village and other options is that more detailed design standards must be met by Villages. To illustrate this point, Attachment C compares several Village scenarios, including the following: • A 50-acre Village, with and without commercial uses; • A 100-acre Village, with commercial uses; • A 200-acre Village, with commercial uses; and • A 400-acre Village, with commercial uses, and with and without bonus units. A couple of points should be remembered: • The wording "at least" means that minimum acreage or percentage must be provided. The wording "not more than" places a limit, but it also means that the applicant does not have to provide any townhouse, storefront, and/or workshop uses. In such situations, a Village would consist of residences, a village green or commons, parks and squares, and space for churches, day care, etc. • The ceiling placed on the Village Proper creates the requirement for more open space as the size of the Total Village increases. This is best illustrated on Attachment D which shows that, beginning at a size of 150 acres, the open space requirement increases, resulting in 75% open space in the case of a 400-acre Village. Additional public hearings are not necessary for the Village option. If changes are warranted, they should be recommended as part of the overall recommendation concerning the Flexible Development proposal. Conservation easement credit. The specific issue is whether land protected through a conservation easement prior to development application can be counted toward satisfying the open space requirement. Staff Response. The answer to this question is yes, but only if the applicant purchases the entire parcel, including the acreage protected by the conservation easement. As an example, suppose a farmer, as part of estate planning purposes, conveyed a conservation easement to Triangle Land Conservancy on 100 acres of his/her 300-acre farm. One year later, a developer offers to purchase the total farm. Given the existence of the conservation easement on 33% of the tract, the developer could submit plans for a Flexible Development project which show the "conserved" area as satisfying the open space requirement. If the developer had purchased only the 200 acres (excluding the conserved area), he/she would have had to meet the 33% open space standard on the 200-acre portion. 67 Minor subdivision aaulicability. The specific issue is whether to make Minor Subdivisions subject to the Flexible Development standards. Staff Response. During the period 1987-1994, the Planning Department processed a total of 461 minor subdivision applications which encompassed 3,705 acres and 1,065 lots. On an annual basis, 58 minor subdivisions were processed, the average size of each subdivision was 8.0 acres, the average number of lots was two per subdivision, and the average lot size was 3.5 acres. During the same period, the Planning Department processed a total of 89 major subdivision applications which encompassed 1,952 acres and 934 lots. On an annual basis, 11 major subdivisions were processed, the average size of each subdivision was 22.0 acres, the average number of lots was 10 per subdivision, and the average lot size was 2.1 acres. While the number of lots created through both major and minor subdivision processes is similar, the visual impact of "minor" lots is much less evident because they are so widespread. Nevertheless, over the long term, the impact on rural character and resource protection could be just as great as for major subdivisions. Minor subdivision lots do serve a purpose, however, in that many of them are created for family members, and, in many instances, do provide a source of affordable housing. For this reason, staff recommends that one of following options be approved: • That minor subdivisions be excluded from the Flexible Development standards, but applicants encouraged to work on a voluntary basis with staff to address open space preservation concerns through the approval process; or • That up to five (5) minor subdivision lots be allowed for each lot of record as of the effective date of the ordinance, and that thereafter, all lots created from the tract in question be subject to the Flexible Development standards. The second option is similar to a provision proposed by the Rural Character Study Committee which would have allowed up to five one-acre lots to be created. That proposal, of course, was coupled with the application of two-acre minimum lot sizes across the county. No rezoning is proposed as part of the Flexible Development proposal, but the five-lot provision certainly could have applicability. ATTACHMENT A 68 COMPARISON OF OPEN SPACE PERCENTAGE STANDARDS Acreage Requirements/Densities for Development/Open Space Standard 100-Acre Tract w/Unbuildable Area of 0 Acres T 25 Acres 50 Acres OPEN SPACE 50% open space after deducting unbuildable land 50 63 75 50% open space 50 50 50 33% open space after deducting unbuildable land 33 50 67 40% open space 1 40 1 40 40 33% open space 33 33 33 DEVELOPMENT AREA 50% open space after deducting unbuildable land 50 38 25 50% open space 50 50 50 33% open space after deducting unbuildable land 67 50 33 40% open space 60 60 60 33% open space 67 67 67 DEVELOPMENT AREA DENSITY @ ONE UNIT PER TWO GROSS ACRES a 50% open space after deducting unbuildable land 1.00 1.33 2.00 50% open space 1.00 1.00 1.00 33% open space after deducting unbuildable land 0.75 1.00 1.54 40% open space 0.83 0.83 0.83 33% open space 10.75 0.75 0.75 DEVELOPMENT AREA DENSITY @ ONK 1TPER GROSS ACRE 50% open space after deducting unbuildable land 2900 2.67 4.00 50% open space 2.00 2.00 2.00 33% open space after deducting unbuildable land 1.49 2.00 3.08 40% open space 1.67 1.67 1.67 33% open space 1.49 1.49 1.49 DEVELOPMENT AREA DENSITY TWO UNITS PER'GROSS ACRE 50% opens ace after deducting unbuildable land 4.00 5.33 8.00 50% open space 4.00 4.00 4.00 33% opens ace after deducting unbuildable land 2.99 4.00 6.15 40% open s ace 3.33 3.33 3.33 33% open s ace 2.99 2.99 2.99 EXAMPLE For a 100-acre tract with 25 acres of unbuildable land and a 50% open space requirement (after deducting unbuildable land), the calculation is as follows: 1. 100 acres less 25 acres of unbuildable land=75 acres of buildable land 2. 75 acres of buildable land x 50% open space requirement= 37.5 or 38 acres 3. Total open space=25 acres(unbuildable)+ 38 acres (50% standard)=63 acres 69 ATTACHMENT B Provided with correspondence received from a citizen was a November 10 Wall Street Journal article concerning conservation oriented development. The focus of the article is the growing number of new communities across the country seeking to balance development and conservation. One source for the article was Urban Land magazine, and staff was able to collect (from Urban Land and the ULI Project Reference File) information concerning five of the 10 developments cited in the article. Summarized below is the information pertaining to those five developments. Wildcat Ranch Wildcat Ranch is a 6,500-acre development near Aspen and Snow Mass, Colorado, with 13 500-acre single-family lots proposed. Each lot would have a building envelope restricted to eight acres (2% of the lot area), and all improvements except driveways must be located within the envelope. As of March, 1995, eight of the 13 lots had been sold for an average price of $4.0 million. The development also includes a 34-acre commons and a ranch management and maintenance center with equestrian facilities. Total open space in the development is 98%, with most of it comprised of the land in individual ownership located outside the building envelope (98% of the lot area). Prairie Crossing Prairie Crossing is a 667-acre development located in Lake County, Illinois near Chicago. Original plans for a 2,200-acre development were rejected by Lake County, and litigation following the decision resulted in a neighborhood group purchasing 667 acres for$5.2 million. A total of 317 homes are to be clustered on 132 acres (2.4 units/acre), with lots ranging from 7,700 to 24,300 square feet. Homes will range from 1,500 to 3,500 square feet, with costs varying from $190,000 to $400,000. Community amenities will include an animal barn, a farm market, a community center, tennis courts, a fitness center, a swimming beach, a village green, a six-acre community organic garden, and 25 miles of interior trails. Overall density is 0.5 units/acre(1 unit/2 acres) with approximately 75% of the development preserved as open space, including 350 acres of open land and 150 acres of working farm. Spring Island Spring Island is a 3,000-acre island development located near Hilton Head, South Carolina. 500 single-family home sites are proposed, consisting of 125 cottage sites, 300 estate sites, and 75 golf course sites. Lots vary in size from one to 10 acres, and sell for an average price of $280,000. Community amenities include an 18-hole, 7,200-yard, par 72 golf course, and tennis courts. 1,000 acres or 33% of the island area is to be preserved as a nature preserve. 70 Rocking K Ranch Rocking K Ranch is a 4,400-acre desert development near Tucson, Arizona. A mixed-use resort and residential community is proposed, consisting of four resort complexes, 9,000 to 10,000 housing units, and related commercial uses. The development plan calls for over half the total site to be preserved as protected open space, with an overall density of 2.0 to 2.3 units/acre Densities within developed areas (approximately 2,200 acres) will range from 4.1 to 4.5 units/acre. Farmview Farmview is a 418-acre development in Bucks County, Pennsylvania near Philadelphia. 332 houselots are clustered on 204 acres (1.6 units/acre), with an average lot size of 22,000 square feet. Overall density (0.79 units/acre) was determined by a `,yield plan" showing the number of lots achievable under a conventional layout. Approximately 51% of the entire site was preserved as open space, including 68 acres of woods and wetlands, and 145 acres of farmland. Homes will range from 2,600 to 3,700 square feet, with costs varying from $261,900 to $356,900. All lots are served by public water and sewer. 71 0 O U 7 N N O^ 7 'A h O � ^� h N N U1 V3 N N O O O O O O 000 _r N 00 y� O O ¢ v) O O � o G 0 0 O N ❑ O O ° OUQ N N .-� V1 01 O ^ V•1 N N V1 V'1 N n F 3 n O C j 0 0 O oQ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C .. N V ..r C rr v1 N N h h N t2,0 6> h z O O o ° A o Z d = O � � � O M M O M M M Z U M M N M rr C1 M •-w O 3 d W) in F �\ z O E r O o d O o V O N N z O O N A-. � e�j• M O � O O Q O �n C 3 z Wi O U N N O O U > "Ir kn d O ° AI V L s. to fY V CIO w > O o y w y i c ma o U V w S = > y a s o V � � w ar ° cc > 4. H ►a a u4 V t�i A `+ N d Q ^R as H > > > H z 72 ATTACHMENT D COMPARISON OF ACREAGE/OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR VILLAGE CONSERVANCY AND VILLAGE PROPER Village Site Village Village Village Area Conservancy Conservancy Proper Village Proper (Acres) (Acres) as % of Site Area (Acres) as % of Site Area 50.0 16.5 33.0% 33.5 67.0% 60.0 19.8 33.0% 40.2 67.0% 70.0 23.1 33.0% 46.9 67.0% 80.0 26.4 33.0% 53.6 67.0% 90.0 29.7 33.0% 60.3 67.0% 100.0 33.0 33.0% 67.0 67.0% 110.0 36.3 33.0% 73.7 67.0% 120.0 39.6 33.0% 80.4 67.0% 130.0 42.9 33.0% 87.1 67.0% 140.0 46.2 33.0% 93.8 67.0% 150.0 50.0 33.0% 100.0 67.0% 160.0 60.0 37.5% 100.0 62.5% 170.0 70.0 41.2% 100.0 58.8% 180.0 80.0 44.4% 100.0 55.6% 190.0 90.0 47.4% 100.0 52.6% 200.0 100.0 50.0% 100.0 50.0% 210.0 110.0 52.4% 100.0 47.6% 220.0 120.0 54.5% 100.0 45.5% 230.0 130.0 56.5% 100.0 43.5% 240.0 140.0 58.3% 100.0 41.7% 250.0 150.0 60.0% 100.0 40.0% 260.0 160.0 61.5% 100.0 38.5% 270.0 170.0 63.0% 100.0 37.0% 280.0 180.0 64.3% 100.0 35.7% 290.0 190.0 65.5% 100.0 34.5% 300.0 200.0 66.7% 100.0 33.3% 310.0 210.0 67.7% 100.0 32.3% 320.0 220.0 68.8% 100.0 31.3% 330.0 230.0 69.7% 100.0 30.3% 340.0 240.0 70.6% 100.0 29.4% 350.0 250.0 71.4% 100.0 28.6% 360.0 260.0 72.2% 100.0 27.8% 370.0 270.0 73.0% 100.0 27.0% 380.0 280.0 73.7% 100.0 26.3% 390.0 290.0 74.4% 100.0 25.6% 400.0 300.0 75.0% 100.0 25.0% DRAFT 73 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 17, 1996 and Hillsborough should be different from rural areas. Katz asked if the other instances that Willis referred to had been addressed through the Board of Adjustment. Willis responded that the others had withdrawn their requests. She continued that if the issue had not been one of a stream buffer, the criteria for a variance would have been very difficult to grant. The other cases would not have met the criteria for a variance. Katz agreed that a more comprehensive review of the issue should occur, however, he did feel it would be appropriate to address this issue now. Allison agreed that this amendment seemed to be more appropriate than having the applicant present a variance request to the Board of Adjustment. VOTE: 7 in favor. 2 opposed (Brown - comments already made, Rosemond - more comfortable with the Board of-, Adjustment continuing with the variance requests) . a. Flexible Development/Open Space Proposal Presentation by Marvin Collins. (A copy of the Planning Staff's response to citizen comments from the November 27, 1995 public hearing is an attachment to these minutes on pages . ) Affordable housing applicability. The specific issue is whether it is discriminatory to allow developers of affordable housing to submit a conventional subdivision plan only. Collins stated that the provisions regarding affordable housing, including the option to pursue a conventional plan only, as well as density bonuses for affordable housing, were in response to a request by Commissioner Willhoit. Collins noted that Commissioner Willhoit had emphasized that affordable housing is a goal of Orange County. Collins continued that he did not feel it is discriminatory if it is recognized that there are more goals than just the provision of open space. He noted that previous Planning Board discussions had indicated a desire to change the wording to encourage applicants to submit the flexible 74 development plan, but not require it if the singular goal was the provision of affordable housing. Collins stated that another issue is "what is affordable housing?" The proposal as worded allows those earning 100% of the median family income to be considered as eligible for affordable housing. It has been suggested that the State median income rather than that of Orange County be used. The HUD definition of low and moderate income housing is 80% of median family income, and Collins suggested that figure be used. Use of that figure (80% of median) would mean that a family of four could afford a house costing $100,000 or less. The average house constructed in Orange County at the present time ranges between $135,000 -$140,000. , In response to a question by Katz regarding median income, Collins noted that HUD has a breakdown by jurisdictions, including rural and urban Orange. The figure being used is that those for rural Orange. Brown expressed concern that the housing cost figure quoted by Collins only included the structure, not the land. Brown continued, asking the value of mobile homes and double wides in the County. Collins responded $38,000 - $40,000. She noted this seemed to be considered affordable. Collins continued that Farmers Home Administration housing costs would range from $80,000 to $100,000. Katz asked if the Board of Commissioners had defined affordable housing. Collins responded that the Commissioners generally use HUD criteria employed by the County's Housing and Community Development Department. He continued that Donna Dyer of Orange Housing Corporation works with affordable housing projects, and she follows the same criteria. Those who Habitat works with would fall in the same category or range. Brown stated that she felt it was more reasonable to consider $40,000 - $60,000, including the cost of the land, as affordable housing. She suggested that additions be made to this section in the Flexible Development proposal to address the other types of housing that qualify as affordable housing. This would better define the issue of affordable housing. Allison agreed that he felt the figures noted by Brown were more in line with affordable housing. Waddell noted that the 80% figure from HUD was the 75 most recent he had heard relating to affordable housing. He continued that this document may not be the right place to further define the issue of affordable housing. Katz stated that he felt it is important how affordable housing is defined and if the desire is to encourage other levels of affordable housing, it should be stated. Otherwise, there would be no possibility of getting it. Barrows stated that she felt everyone should present a flexible development plan as well as a conventional plan. Brown agreed with Barrows. She emphasized again that all levels of affordable housing should be supported and encouraged by Orange County. Jobsis stated that if -the goal is to encourage affordable housing, efforts should be made to reduce the cost of providing that housing. Rosemond agreed with Barrows, noting that the issue is whether to submit one or two plans and asked the additional expense of a second plan. Collins asked surveyor, Steve Yuhasz, the cost of submitting a concept plan. Yuhasz responded that for a 10 to 15 lot subdivision, the cost would be approximately $1,000. The addition of a second plan would increase the overall cost of plan preparation by 75%. MOTION: Katz moved that presentation of two plans be mandatory. Seconded by Brown. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed (Walters - felt that, if the intent is to provide affordable housing, even an extra $100 per lot is too much; Waddell - felt the need to help Habitat and others working on affordable housing rather than increasing the burden) . Katz stated that he felt there was as much potential to reduce the cost as to increase it particularly with the provision for density bonuses. Groundwater resources - quantity and quality. The specific issue is whether cluster lots will be subject to well failures because of the number and proximity of wells. Collins stated that a study of groundwater resources of Orange County is in process, jointly funded and 76 undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey. The study is scheduled for completion by the end of the year. Until the study is completed, there is no definitive data. However, the Environmental Health Division Staff has indicated that when current standards governing separation of wells from homes, septic systems, property lines, and other wells are met, few problems associated with well failures have been encountered. Where such situations have occurred, they have resulted from failing septic systems. Brown expressed concern that there was no way to determine problems such as wells going dry. She noted that "we really don't know what our groundwater situation is" . Stancil responded that information by watershed would be determined, but he did not know whether it could be determined by subdivision lots. Brown continued, expressing concern that the groundwater usage is not known. She stated that her concern was, with such a dense concentration of wells- being proposed, who would be responsible if the water supply fails and who would provide water. Collins responded that the Utilities Service Area Task Force is working on this issue to • define service areas. It is hoped that the report will be completed this year. Walters responded to the concern voiced by Brown regarding wells going dry. She noted that a permit is required by Environmental Health before drilling another well and Stancil noted that a permit is also required for abandoning a well. Jobsis stated that she has never been an automatic supporter of open space because of clustering. She noted also, that she does not have as much concern as others do regarding the traditional method of development of homes in Orange County. She noted also that she felt clustering would create more problems with wells and septic tanks. Price asked if it would be incumbent upon the developer to verify water supply. Collins responded that subdivision lots can be platted and recorded. The availability of sufficient water is determined lot by lot. If a well permit cannot be obtained, then there can be no building on the lot. Price asked for clarification for clustering and whether an individual property owner or the developer would be responsible for wells. Waddell emphasized that availability of a well site must be determined prior to issuance of a building permit. Discussion indicated that the Planning Board must be 77 kept informed of any information provided by the groundwater study in order to address this concern. Community sewage disposal systems. The specific issue is whether community sewage disposal systems should be allowed, given problems encountered with such systems in the past. Collins stated that a monitoring and maintenance program for community systems has been approved by the Board of Health and the Board of Commissioners. The provisions for financial security to adequately maintain the system and correct any problems have not been completed. These provisions are to be prepared by the County Attorney and will require a significant time commitment. It may not be possible to use community systems until the County Attorney completes the work on these provisions. Katz asked if the issue. is whether recognition of community systems is explicitly in the Flexible Development proposal. Collins responded that community disposals systems are advocated by Randall Arendt and other open space proponents because they will allow cluster development and provide open space. Such systems are expensive and a financial analysis must be done to determine whether the system will pay for itself. If there are acceptable standards at the State and local level to govern design, construction, and maintenance and adequate provisions are made for financial security, there should be no problem with such a system. Katz asked if those provisions should be a part of the Flexible Development proposal. Collins responded that the use of community systems involved decisions ay the Board of Health and the Board of Commissioners. The issue of allowing such systems is not a Flexible Development issue but one which applies to all development. Brown asked about the timeframe for completion of the provisions by the County Attorney. Collins responded that while it could take a substantial amount of time, the Commissioners could request that the Attorney "speed up the process" so the financial security issue could settled. Rosemond expressed concern that the yield plan is not addressed with regard to clustering. Collins responded that one of the provisions does require a yield plan. Price expressed concern again with responsibility. 78 Collins responded by emphasizing that what is being discussed is a concept plan. Once a concept plan is approved, then work begins on all of the concerns and issues that have been discussed. All of the issues must be addressed when the preliminary plan is presented. Then, prior to issuance of building permits, the community system has to be engineered and constructed. A community well system must meet the same requirement; it must be constructed and proven. Price asked about the same protocol for individual wells. Collins responded it is too cost prohibitive to require a developer to drill every proposed lot to determine adequate water supply. Collins noted that there have been few problems with individual wells. Any problems are usually solved by recombining lots, changing lot layouts, etc. MOTION: Jobsis moved that the Planning Board recommend to the Board of Commissioners that they allow community sewage disposal systems and that efforts to complete the financial security proposals be increased. Seconded by Allison. Katz suggested an amendment clarifying that the community systems be allowed to provide open space development. The amendment was accepted by the first and second to the motion. Brown stated that she would prefer not to accept the community systems until the safeguards are in place. Rosemond expressed concern that there was no reference to the yield plan. Waddell responded that the yield plan is addressed in the provisions. Collins offered the following: The Planning Board is generally supportive of the idea of using community disposal systems to encourage open space developments. However, the Board has a specific concern about the lack of provisions related to assuring the financial security of such systems and asks that the Staff deal with those issues as soon as possible. Also, the yield plan is a determining factor in terms of how many units or house lots could be served. The revised wording by Collins was accepted by the first and second to the motion. VOTE: Unanimous. Higher administrative costs. The specific issue is whether the adoption of the Flexible Development provisions will require additional staff and whether 79 developers will incur additional cost to adhere to the standards. Collins stated that there will be some additional cost to the applicant in terms of preparing two concept plans. The provisions have been drafted in an attempt to keep these costs to a minimum. Staff will also work with applicants in providing site information and developing concept plans in an effort to eliminate and/or reduce plan revisions. No additional staff will be needed, however, some reorganization within the Planning Department may be necessary to provide "hands-on" assistance to applicants. There will be additional cost for GIS hardware through which to develop/maintain a resource database to benefit staff, landowners, and developers. This has been addressed through the Capital Improvement Program and would involve a one- time expense. Waddell clarified that the increase to developers would be an on-going expense. Collins agreed, but, indicated that the Staff will be working with the developer to keep that cost as low as possible. Rosemond noted that the Planning Board had discussed an up-front educational program on flexible development and a tracking/monitoring program over the next 2-5 years and asked if that was built into the provisions. Collins responded that a tentative schedule had been prepared (an attachment to these minutes on pages ) which includes educational workshops. In regard to tracking and monitoring, everyone will be involved in that process. Price expressed concern with the impacts on GIS. Collins responded that the only impact of flexible development on GIS is time. The cost of equipment will simply occur sooner than later. Price also asked about Planning Board time involved in reviewing flexible development projects. Collins responded that he did not feel it would take any more time than it already does for subdivision applications. Jobsis asked for Collins' response to Mr. Yuhasz's comment of an increase of 75% in plan preparation. Collins responded that Mr. Yuhasz is very concise in his concept plans. Collins indicated that he felt in a large development, the cost could be much less. This would be the area where GIS could provide savings to landowners and developers. Katz asked if the yield plan is a conventional subdivision plan. Collins responded that what a 80 yield plan tells is how many building sites are on a piece of land. It is the basis for preparing a conventional plan. Then, an open space plan is developed, indicating how open space is preserved with smaller lots. Collins noted this is the method used by Randall Arendt. Waddell indicated that a motion was not needed noting that the Board recognizes the additional cost in regard to GIS. Collins clarified the concept of a yield plan, stating that the number of perc sites located on a property is the "yield" . A conventional plan simply draws the lot lines around the location of the perc sites. The yield plan is not a new concept, it is used to define the carrying capacity of the land. Lee Rafalow, from the audience, stated that the yield plan was to be based on GIS, not on actual site testing. Collins responded that what was being discussed for flexible development, in the terms of a yield plan, is no different than it is for conventional development. Collins continued that what is being considered is a concept plan, and actual verification of perc sites by Environmental Health occurs at preliminary plan stage. Mr. Rafalow continued that there is a built-in assumption in the yield plan process in flexible development that says "whatever GIS says, is what it is" . Collins emphasized again that we are dealing with the concept stage. The actual yield plan is determined by Environmental Health at the preliminary plan stage. He noted that if the Planning Board wished to do so, it could require that a certain number of lots be perked at the concept stage. However, he felt this was an unnecessary expense for the owner/developer. Rosemond noted confusion between yield plan and allowable density. Collins responded that will always be an issue. It is assumed that a developer or landowner is allowed the density provided by the zoning, but that is not realistic. Rosemond continued, noting confusion with yield plan and buildable land. Brown asked about the density of Piney Mountain Subdivision, and Collins responded one unit per two acres. Brown stated that subdivision was a good example of how the community is not based on a yield plan. Collins responded that under flexible development provisions, a yield plan must be done based on a conventional plan. 81 ' Discussion continued regarding the yield plan being based on GIS and nothing else. Waddell and Collins emphasized again that, prior to preliminary plan approval, actual perc sites must be located and approved. MOTION: Brown moved that the issue of carrying capacity of the land be addressed when proposing community sewage disposal systems and not rely entirely on GIS at the concept plan stage. Motion failed for lack of second. Rosemond suggested that enough time be allowed to determine the accuracy of GIS. Jobsis indicated that she felt there has been an attempt to give some benefit to those willing to do open space development. She felt that too many restrictions would wipe out the purpose which is to promote open space development. Price clarified that a concept plan should be very basic -and she felt GIS information would be sufficient. All of the other options, restrictions and/or requirements should be addressed at preliminary plan stage. Walters stated that she felt the soil survey information used by GIS is current and has been updated as necessary. Price stated that placing a lot of restrictions at the concept plan stage would encourage conventional development rather than open space development. Collins indicated that, if the County wishes to encourage open space development, efforts must be made to keep front-end costs as low as possible. However, if the Board wants to have a percentage, or all, of the lots perked at concept plan stage, then make it a requirement. MOTION: Jobsis moved to leave this provision as stated. Seconded by Barrows. Katz recommended an amendment to continually evaluate the use of soil survey data and the effect on producing yield plans. The amendment was accepted by the first and second to the motion. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed (Brown, Price) a2 Brown left the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Interdepartmental coordination/communication. The specific issue is how to insure that adequate communication between County departments is established so that approvals by one department are not held up by the requirements of another. Collins noted that this comment was made by Nick Tennyson of the Homebuilders Association. The comment refers specifically to Planning and Environmental Health. Discussions with Ron Holdway, Environmental Health Supervisor, had indicated this issue has been resolved. Efforts toward a more formal development review process with Holdway's staff are to be proposed. Collins noted that "public information meetings" are not public hearings. They are for the benefit of developers, property owners, and adjacent property owners. Such meetings must be used to voice concerns and address those concerns prior to presentation of plans to the Planning Board. Barrows asked if some of the meetings would be disorderly. Collins responded that, in some cases, the lines have already been drawn prior to the meeting. The public information meeting is to occur immediately after the application is presented so the developer will know the concerns and issues up front. Collins noted that, if there is already animosity in a community, there is nothing that the Staff or developer can do or say that will address that. Development plan exceptions. The specific issue is whether allowing a developer to submit only a Flexible Development plan is discriminatory. Collins indicated he did not feel it is discriminatory, but, rather an incentive. Rural Buffer applicability. The specific issue is whether land within the Rural Buffer should be subject to the Flexible Development provisions. The Rural Buffer is located in the Orange County- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area. When the Rural Character Strategies for the Rural Buffer were prepared, a joint public hearing was held with Chapel Hill and Carrboro to provide an opportunity 83 for review/comment consistent with the Joint Planning Agreement. Application of the Flexible Development provisions within the Rural Buffer has not been proposed so that a similar process might be undertaken with the two municipalities. Katz asked if there was anything in the Joint Planning Agreement that would preclude open space development. Collins responded that it could be done under the current duster provisions. Open space percentage. The specific issue is that the percentage of open space required (e.g. ,33%) is too low. Collins reviewed the suggested alternatives (a copy an attachment to these minutes on page ) . Barrows noted that public hearing comment seemed to indicate a desire for a higher percentage than 33%. Allison asked how the 33% open space requirement applied to buildable land compares to the Carrboro Plan. Collins responded by reviewing the Comparison of Open Space Percentage Standards (an attachment to these minutes on page ) . Rosemond referred to a letter from Bob Hall in the agenda attachments which indicates the carrying capacity of land in Orange County is about one unit to two acres. Thus, requiring 33% is not much progress. If density bonuses are added and multi-lot sewage systems are allowed, density could be increased beyond the current standards. She asked for discussion of this concern noting that if the assumptions are correct, this would address her greatest fear. Collins commented that some of these issues were discussed by the Planning Board on October 10, 1995. He assured the Board that, if the decision is 50% of buildable area, not one developer will pursue an open space plan. All developers will choose a conventional plan except those who are truly altruistic. Collins continued that if the Board wants 50%, then the issue of mandatory versus option must be considered. He noted that developers and surveyors have indicated to him that the only way to achieve 50% of buildable area then, it must be mandatory. Waddell noted that, while a lot of progress was not made, the Board had been given much information to consider. 84 It was determined that the January 22 agenda was already full. Chair asked that an item to determine the process for completing review and discussion of flexible development be added to that agenda. Meeting adjourned 10 :30 p.m. Prepared By Approved By Date 85 DRAFT SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Joan Jobsis (Chair) , Leo Allison, Karen Barrows, Margaret Brown, H. Paul Hoecke, Cheryl Howie, Arnie Katz, Larry Reid, Cherie Rosemond, Bill Waddell, Elizabeth Walters. MEMBERS ABSENT: Renee Price - excused. STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, David Stancil, Joanna Bradshaw. AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEM #3: PUBLIC CHARGE AGENDA ITEM #4: CHAIR COMMENTS Chair thanked Board members for attending an extra meeting. She noted that attachments to the agenda materials included Planning Board discussion from October 10. and draft minutes from the Long Range Planning Board meeting January 17, 1996. AGENDA ITEM #5: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING - 11/27/95 a. Flexible Development/Open Space Proposal Chair noted that there had already been considerable discussion and debate on every issue. She continued, that unless there was some specific need for Staff presentation on any of the issues, such as a major change, she would prefer to discuss each issue and hopefully vote on a recommendation for the Board of Commissioners. She noted that recommendations, votes, along with Planning Board comments and discussion, will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners. Collins provided a summary of issues on which Planning Board recommendations have been made. Chair quickly reviewed the summary noting that there were eight issues which remain to be discussed. Walters made the following statement: 86 Flexible development does not affect the Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Carrboro area or the Rural Buffer. It affects the rest of the rural part of the County exclusive of the Rural Buffer. The minutes of the last public hearing indicate that only one or two people in the affected area attended the public hearing. When Walters asked residents why they did not attend the hearing, the response was, "Why should we bother, they didn't pay attention to us before, they're not going to pay attention to us again. " Walters continued that the previous public hearing on 2-acre minimum lot size and 50% mandatory open space, the majority of the people were opposed to 50% open space. One comment made to Walters was, "We don't go to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, or Hillsborough and tell them how to run their area, we very much resent people from the municipalities and areas not affected telling us how to run our section of the county. She noted that, while she did not always agree with those residents, she felt that some consideration should be given to the rural residents and landowners opinions. She continued that none were in favor of 50% open space. She felt that the Planning Board should start with open space gradually. If that does not work, then there could be a gradual increase. Allison stated that he felt Issue #2 - Exclusion of unbuildable land - should be considered before Issue #1 - Open space percentage. The decision regarding the percentage of open space would be greatly affected by the decision of whether to exclude unbuildable land or whether it would be a percentage of the entire tract. Rosemond commented that her understanding of this process is to try and preserve rural character and asked that Board members remember this. She continued that if that is really the mission, there are many strategies to achieve that, but preserving rural character is fundamentally what it is about. By consensus, the Board agreed that it made more sense to discuss Issue #2 first. 2. Exclusion of unbuildable land. The specific issue is whether floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes should be counted as open space because they are considered unbuildable. The alternative suggested is to apply the required open space percentage after subtracting such features from the total site area. Howie stated that she felt the open space percentage should be calculated on the total tract site/size. 87 It would be very cost prohibitive to keep reducing the total tract size. The floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, etc. are automatically preserved because of the nature of that area. To exclude any more, it does preserve rural character, but it "flogs in the face of affordable housing" , which is also a goal of Orange County Board of Commissioners. She continued that Orange County is already one of the more expensive places to buy land. Brown asked for clarification that wetlands and steep slopes are already considered "set aside" . Stancil responded that there is a category in the Land Use Plan, Resource Protection Areas, which identifies those and signifies them as important areas. They include 100-Year Floodplains, areas of steep slopes and alluvial soils. Those areas are already protected through the category, Resource Protection Areas. Brown continued, that if they are excluded, because they cannot be built on anyway, it would seem that we should be dealing with whatever percentage of buildable area. Stancil referred to a table in a memo from Collins titled Comparison of Open Space Percentage Standards. He noted that the table illustrates how a 100-acre tract with different types of unbuildable area might function in some of the options. Provision of a certain percentage of open space will actually yield more than that percentage. For example, a required 33% subtracting out the unbuildable land could result in 57% open space requirement. Rosemond noted that it could also go the other way. If someone has 33% unbuildable land there would be the possibility of density bonuses on land that, under conventional methods, would get no bonuses. That would provide rewards for greater density. Stancil responded that if they were in the transition areas or transit corridors that might be a possibility. Rosemond emphasized, depending on the site, it could go either way. Brown noted that there would then be no open space applicable in the flexible development plan to the rest of the land because it would already be taken up. Stancil responded that if there were 33% primary open space, then the requirement would be satisfied. Brown continued that the development would then be under no flexible development plan providing open space. Stancil responded that it would depend on how the Board wishes to value unbuildable land. In the Plan it is given a value by stating that it is a Resource Protection Area; it is recognized as a valuable resource. Brown responded that this would 88 seem as if no progress is being made in the plan. Nothing is being- achieved. Waddell stated that in previous discussions he had agreed with Howie that the open space should be a percentage of the total tract size. He noted agreement that unbuildable areas should be excluded before calculating the open space requirement and gave the following reasons: if we wish to protect and preserve agricultural activities in Orange County, then there should be areas where that would be practiced. One of those would be open fields and those cannot exist on steep slopes nor wetlands. We also want to preserve the woodlands. Therefore, he felt the areas that are unbuildable be excluded prior to computing the percentage of open space. Katz stated that he felt the issue was what people would be rewarded for. The whole point is creating a series of incentives that are worth money to people so that they will provide open space development. He continued that it seems we are going to reward people for what they are already required to do in the current ordinances. He felt that there was no, logic in that. It must go beyond what is already required. If we are satisfied that the status quo is already preserving sufficient open space and rural character, then why not leave it as it already is. The incentives should go beyond the current regulations. Barrows noted that Randall Arendt's comments on the plan already in place indicated many times that unbuildable land should be excluded. She asked whether it was wise to ignore those statements by Arendt. Jobsis stated that she felt excluding unbuildable land would make the process so costly that the results the Board would like to see would not be achieved which is to encourage landowners to buy into the idea of open space. She felt it would drive people away. She continued that even though the wetlands and steep slopes are already somewhat protected, they are as worthy of being protected and called open space as any farm tract or wooded areas. Some prefer wetlands as wildlife habitat, some prefer open fields and others prefer wooded areas.It is all open space that is to be protected. She noted her greatest concern was in creating something so difficult to work with that people will be driven away from the idea of providing open space. Reid agreed with Jobsis. He noted that he felt the wetlands already created problems for landowners. 89 He felt that 25 to 33% was a workable percentage and still preserve what he felt is rural character. He noted that previous hearings had indicated the rural landowners considered 33% too stringent. He noted that the maps that have been prepared indicate there are large amounts of wet areas and steep slopes in Orange County. He continued that, in totality, the amount of buildable space, as it stands now, in comparison to what would be open space, as the rules are now, the proportions set fine in his mind. Until such time as someone presents numbers that prove the buildable land, by current guidelines, outweigh the 33% to the point that it would push it back to 10%, then he could understand increasing the percentage and including the unbuildable land. However, if the unbuildable land is included, then you are driving the cost of buildable land higher. He felt this would take away any opportunity to provide affordable housing in rural areas. Rosemond, in response to comments by Jobsis, stated that she did not see the issue of buildable or unbuildable land choice as valuing or not valuing the land. She felt there is value to wetlands and steep slopes and it does go a long way in preserving rural character. Her concern in this particular issue is that people will be rewarded with density bonuses for preserving open space and she felt bonuses should be granted for areas that could not be built on anyway. Jobsis asked Staff if density bonuses are automatic once the 33% is achieved or, if there are other conditions. Stancil responded that there are other conditions. Density bonuses can only be permitted in transition areas, areas that are designated for water/sewer service, and areas within 3/4 mile of transit stops or 1/2 mile of transit corridors. Basically, it is limited very closely to I-85 corridor with a few watershed areas removed. Stancil emphasized again that these areas are the only ones where density bonuses are permitted. Stancil clarified that density bonuses for affordable housing also are only permitted in these same areas. Lee Rafalow noted that the designated areas for water/sewer service referred to by Stancil are part of a long range plan for Hillsborough. The Town of Hillsborough has a long range plan to cover a significant portion of northern Orange County. He continued that OWASA has a long range plan to cover a significant portion of southern Orange County. Stancil stated that the Water/Sewer Boundary Task Force is continuing to meet to resolve some of those 90 issues. There has been a draft map identified which would identify Hillsborough service area and OWASA service area. That has been adopted on a tentative basis until they resolve some other objectives. Katz continued with the concern regarding affordable housing as expressed by Reid. He noted that the number of units that could be built is based on a yield plan based on the underlying zoning. The percentage of required open space is irrelevant to that. It limits where the units can be placed, but it does not limit the number of units and therefore it shouldn't have any impact on the cost of each of those units. In fact, it would tend toward making them more affordable in some ways because it is going to cut down on road and infrastructure development costs. He noted a lack of evidence that increasing the amount of required open space will increase the cost of a house. Reid responded that once you get out of the transition areas, out of the Rural Buffer, the density bonuses does not apply. He continued that in the rural areas, the majority of the land is still in ownership of families who will be applying in the future for subdivisions to provide housing for family members. Katz stated that this would not have any impact on the cost of the unit. Reid responded that it is not only the cost of the unit. It also involves the cost of acquiring land. Katz responded that the amount of land being purchased is the same; the only difference is how the units would be placed on the tract. Jobsis stated that if 33% of the land is already in wetlands and must be preserved, and an additional 33% is required, that reduces the buildable acreage to 34%. Waddell clarified that based on the yield plan with conventional development, there would be a certain number of houses that could be built on a tract of land. If the applicant chose to make an open space development, he would still be permitted the same number of houses that he would be permitted with a conventional development. It would not be fewer houses, but, smaller lots. He felt that would make them less expensive. Vic Knight, developer, stated that because of the limited locations available for density bonuses, those bonuses could only be achieved if water and sewer are extendable to those sites. Because of the soil constraints in most of Orange County, density 91 bonuses could only be achieved with public water and sewer. For every percent that the open space is increased, it will drive up the end cost for the consumer. Katz noted again that he did not understand the comment regarding increased cost if there is no increase in the number of units. Mr. Knight responded that the nature of soil conditions can create costly complications for sewage disposal systems as much as $5,000 - $6,000. Katz responded that he could accept that there are and could be situations where that would be true but there are also situations where it would not be true. Howie stated that the transition areas are clearly defined because those have also been identified as economic development areas. She stated that the Planning Board is charged with rural character preservation and also with representing the landowners. These landowners don't seem to be the ones who come to public hearings and let their voice be heard. She suggested that there be two flexible development plans with one percentage in the transition areas and another in the rural areas. Then it could be determined if, outside the transition areas, whether it includes the total tract or just the buildable portion of the tract. She continued that the transition areas are not going to preserve the rural character or Orange County. She noted that the County does not seem to attract commercial businesses except in those particular areas. It would almost be beneficial to encourage some density bonuses in the transition areas if you were a developer. Perhaps these should be reviewed/studied separately. Jobsis noted that she felt it was already separated out since density bonuses only apply in those areas. Howie responded that she was referring to the percentages. Brown indicated this was an interesting idea. However, she could not support the idea until water and sewer districts are defined. Howie responded that she felt it would all eventually prove itself out. Wherever the water lines would be placed, development would come. Reid asked what the Board has in mind for the rural areas where density bonuses do not apply. He felt that what was explained for the transit areas will happen almost automatically. Howie responded that she felt affordable housing would not occur in the 92 rural areas of the county. Reid indicated disagreement noting that affordable housing as described in the transition areas would fall under the jurisdiction of the municipalities very quickly so that affordable housing would then fall in the range of $120,000 to $180,000 and he did not feel that could be considered affordable housing. He felt that a house in the rural area would come more in the range of $120,000. Affordable housing is most needed for families and he felt it more likely that would occur in rural areas rather than the transition areas. Jobsis alerted the Board that an hour had already be spent on this one issue and encouraged them to stay focused in order to consider a motion. MOTION: Allison moved to include the unbuildable land when making a decision to determine the percentage of open space. Seconded by Howie. VOTE: 7 in favor. 4 opposed. 1. Open space percentage. The specific issue is whether the percentage of open space required (e.g. ,33%) is too low. Katz asked if Staff had figures of what the current open space in subdivisions that have been approved in the last year. Collins responded that all of the subdivisions approved between 1987-1994 had been surveyed and Stancil has updated the report for 1995. The amount of open space is so small that it may as well be considered zilch. It has only been during the last six months that there has been any attempt to address the open space issue through methods already permitted in current ordinances. However, there have been no cluster developments presented. Rosemond stated that, particularly in the face of the motion just made and passed, 33% is a step backwards in preserving rural character. She noted that had been supported by Randall Arendt and numerous people in the public hearings and 50% has been the percentage heard time and time again. Brown asked about the zilch number and Reid asked where the statistics came from. Stancil responded to the question of where the statistics came from noting that Staff did research on all major and minor subdivisions and exempt plats from 1987 - 1994 for another project in 1994 to determine the average 93 lot size. He continued that with very few exceptions, there have been no subdivisions with designated open space. Brown asked if the steep slopes and wetlands were taken out and Stancil responded no. Reid asked if that included transition areas. Stancil responded that it included everything in the County's jurisdiction. Brown stated that the exclusion of unbuildable land and the "zilch" figure do not really reflect what is being discussed. Stancil responded that the open space determined from the survey was only that designated on the plats as open space. Jobsis stated that the County residents have attended many public hearings, TAC meetings, Planning Board and Board of Commissioners' meetings and have heard presentations and discussions many times. The rural residents have indicated many, many times that they feel that they have been the preservers of the open space and do not want the people from the towns telling them that they don't know how to preserve open space and being forced to do so by the government so that the people from the towns can ride out and look at the land. They value the land and have maintained what is beautiful about it much more than those who live in towns have done. They have been out in force for many years saying that they want the minimum restrictions; that they basically believe in a beautiful countryside and they want to maintain a beautiful countryside. They do not think that the only way to do that is by cluster developments and open space as defined by the County, but, they are willing to consider that as an option not a mandate and would like to keep the percentages around 33%. Jobsis continued that the plan that came from the latest public hearing indicated that and so, the rural residents did not feel compelled to come out in force. She felt that they had spoken loud and clear and it would not be wise to assume that they have no opinion on these issues; they have a very strong opinion. Bob Strayhorn, rural resident and farmer, spoke from the audience in appreciation of the comments made by Jobsis noting that she was correct in her belief of how the rural community felt and how it had spoken. Barrows, representing Little River Township, stated that she had heard some of the same statements as 94 Jobsis. However, she had also heard some ambiguity. There are people in the township who don't want the development that is coming in, they prefer to keep the area as it was. They say that on one hand and on the other do not want many restrictions. She felt it was simplistic to say that there is only one voice from rural Orange County and it is also simplistic to say that the same person knows what they want. They want it the way it has always been and they also want to be able to. sell it and have no restrictions. Nobody is going to have everything they want. The issue is how does the Planning Board mesh all of this together and make it look like a place where their desendents want to continue to live. Hoecke stated that he felt there must be a compromise position and he saw 33% as such a compromise. He continued that when the 33% is applied to an area with 100% buildable area, there will be considerable more open space than there is at the present time. He felt that 33% will be more acceptable and more appealing to the business community who will be developing that land. Otherwise, they will be driven away, or, into high priced development. While not "wedded" to 33%, either that figure, or something very near it should be the percentage used. Waddell stated that he was torn toward making the percentage higher, particularly when offering incentives. However, he also felt the Board must make it start somewhere. If it is set too high, the risk will be that it will never happen. If it is determined, after some experience, that it is too low, the Commissioners can increase the number. We should start low, so that, at least we start. Barrows agreed that there must be a starting point and felt this would a good one to make people aware of the options and, hopefully they will choose open space development. MOTION: Reid moved to accept 33% as the minimum open space requirement. Seconded by Waddell. Lee Rafalow, from the audience, stated that there is a point of order and that is whether or not this achieves the goals. He felt that leaving that item until the end of the meeting was not in order. He continued that it has already been stated that the objective is the preservation of rural character and he felt this does not meet that 95 - objective. He stated that the County has hired a world class expert to try and tell what must be done to achieve that objective. The growth pressures in the Triangle Area at this time are tremendous and to start out erring on the side of not achieving the objectives means you will not achieve those objectives. What you will do will be to establish a precedent stating that open space is 33% including whatever primary conservation areas there are. The results will be urban sprawl and in three years it will be too late to remedy the situation. There is conflicting information about the open space that already exists. He encouraged the Board to take a stand and 33% is not it. Katz stated he would have to vote against the motion in good conscience because he did not believe it was going to have any positive effect and the only purpose of passing this would be to "pat ourselves on the back and say we passed Flexible Development" . Howie stated that she felt "the longer we wait, the more we err" . She continued that the project of University Station has now come in and been approved in pieces and no open space. This will keep happening. If this Board recommends to the Commissioners and they approve something more than the public will accept, nothing will be accomplished. She continued that she would rather have 33% and know that was acceptable. To go with too much and have it rejected will waste another year and allow for more urban sprawl to occur. Hoecke stated that "If the time to act is now, then 33% will give us more open space than we have now or will have under current regulations" . Collins suggested that if the Planning Board approves 33%, they may wish to include a recommendation for an annual report. This would provide for evaluation every year. If, at the end of the first year, the Planning Board doesn't feel that it has worked, then tell the Board of Commissioners. Reid stated that he felt Issue #3 would address the concern of an annual report. VOTE: 7 in favor. 4 opposed. MOTION: Barrows moved that an annual report be prepared by the Planning Staff for reassessment of the entire open space/flexible development proposal. Seconded by Reid. 96 Katz expressed concern that the Planning Board is setting up an evaluation procedure but is not providing the criteria for the evaluation. He felt it would be useless exercise. Collins noted that he had discussed this concern with Roscoe Reeve Insko and that he is unable to provide the benchmark at this time. Once Land Records completes the property mapping, it will be possible to determine the benchmark. That may occur as soon as within the next two months. He continued that he felt everyone, the development community as well as the Planning Board, Commissioners and general public would be in favor of an annual report. Walters agreed that it should be evaluated. She felt ' such a motion should be made once all of the issues have been discussed and voted on so that it is clear that the evaluation includes every issue. Stancil pointed out that there is language within the Flexible Development document in each of the goals-that refers to an annual report to the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board evaluating impacts. VOTE: Unanimous. 3. Mandatory open space. The specific issue is whether the provision of open space should be voluntary or mandatory. Waddell stated that there have been numerous signatures on petitions to make open space voluntary rather than mandatory. While there have been many speakers in favor of a provision for mandatory and an expert who stated that it works best if mandatory, the people of Orange County made it very clear they wanted it to be voluntary. They did not like the idea of it being forced on them at all, but if it is to be, they want it to be voluntary. Rosemond stated that she has always felt that mandatory has many negative connotations. However, she indicated she was finding it more acceptable. The reason for that is that, if the objective is preserving rural character, the votes tonight have left it so watered down that the County will lose a real window of opportunity even waiting a year to evaluate. She continued expressing concern that if development continues as it has in the past ten years, there will be no change, only more of the same. She felt the Board was falling far short of 97 the mark of preserving rural character. She added that she felt developers and landowners can be creative enough to it work. Brown stated that she had always felt that the open space requirement should be mandatory. She also felt it should be a phased in program with a very significant educational process to help developers understand how to re-design development for open space protection. She noted that she would like for the end result to be mandatory. An education process is very important for all concerned; developers, Board members and Staff. She also noted that there would not be much results unless people understand how to do it. It will take time for everyone to understand the concept of open space. Walters reminded the Planning Board that the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board has been working on many farmland preservation techniques. The item that the Board is currently working on is donation of conservation easements which allows for some State and Federal inheritance tax benefits. If the open space requirement is made mandatory, it would totally eliminate any State and Federal tax benefits. Brown asked for clarification on the statement made by Walters regarding the elimination of Federal and State inheritance tax benefits. Waddell responded that since open space is not mandatory at this point, it is allowed by Federal and State Statutes for an individual to deed open space rights to a conservation group and receive tax benefits. Working with individuals on such a project provided the information that the Statutes are clear that a mandatory open requirement would preclude those benefits. Lee Rafalow, from the audience, stated that unless North Carolina has a specific statute on this issue, the loss of benefits is incorrect. Collins responded that there is a specific statute that addresses the issue. Reid asked for clarification of phased in mandatory open space. Hoecke asked if something was being discussed that would be a part of the annual review anyway. Jobsis stated that Orange County citizens have spoken loud and clear in TAC meetings, in Rural Character special work sessions, and previous public 98 hearings that the only way that this is reasonable for them to try is if it is voluntary. If this comes across as a mandatory decision by County Government on the people of the county there will be a tremendous reaction. Bob Strayhorn, from the audience agreed noting that open space, if mandated, would be completely changing the way of life that rural people would want their families to live. There are no objections to it being an option, but it is not a way that rural people wish to live. Katz agreed with Mr. Strayhorn that making open space mandatory at this time would be a very negative thing to do, but, he felt the suggestion made by Brown regarding an education process should be used. He felt that the County must provide a very substantial technical assistance program for landowners and developers or open space development will not occur. Jobsis agreed that education and technical assistance could be provided to try and persuade landowners and developers to try this type of development, but the idea of mandatory would not work. Vic Knight, developer, spoke from the audience that the landowners are the ones who control the sale of land, not the developers. He continued that the way to meet the goals and objectives is to create the right set of incentives. Even though education is provided, if there are not sufficient incentives to get people, landowners and developers, to go in that direction, it simply will not happen. He emphasized that he felt this is the key to achieving the goal desired by the Board. MOTION: Reid moved that open space be voluntary rather than mandatory. Seconded by Barrows. Reid, referred to Issue #8 regarding goals, noted that he felt through annual review of the items being voted on tonight, the goals and objectives would be met. VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 opposed (Brown - without having in place, along with this, some sort of educational process that developers understand that this is not a punitive or density reduction ordinance, that it is a design difference; she did not feel that goals and objectives would be achieved. ) 4. Incentives vs. disincentives. The specific issue 99 is whether more disincentives should be added to discourage conventional development and fewer incentives provided to encourage more open space set asides. Rosemond asked that Mr. Knight comment more fully on what he felt would be incentives for landowners and developers. Mr. Knight responded that he felt the overall concept of the proposal is good; a skeleton that needs some meat to make it work. He used estate lots as an example. Instead of mandating 4-acre lots, he felt the objectives would be met with 4- acre average lot size. These are the kinds of incentives that would appeal to landowners and developers. Developers are only going to invest their money in an area where they can get a return on it and there is a market for that product. He felt there would be no problem with the educational aspect. He noted that he did not feel that landowners and developers are opposed to the concept of the proposal at all. It has to make physical sense; if it does not, they will not be interested in making it happen. Barrows stated that she would rather accentuate the incentives rather than "piling on" more disincentives. It is important that people see this as a positive. Katz asked if there are any disincentives currently in the ordinance. Waddell responded that nothing really changes for traditional subdivisions. The incentives are to go the other way. Jobsis asked about the disincentive/incentive regarding private roads. Collins responded that there are incentives in flexible development that would allow more lots accessing private roads. Waddell noted that the only disincentive is the one requiring two plans. Katz noted that there could be a disincentive in regard to density bonuses. There could be a mid- point, where, if a plan goes below that point, the applicant would be allowed less than the yield plan. Brown asked that Collins review the incentives and how they apply to each category. Collins responded that there are incentives for each option. As an example, in estate lots, the minimum required lot width can be reduced to 100-feet from 130-feet, T- turnarounds could be used instead of cul-de-sacs, the minimum required lot frontage could be reduced to not less than 20 feet for flag lots from 50 feet. 100 These are some of the specific things that developers asked for. Collins continued that some of the incentives are the same for the conservation option. An additional incentive for the conservation option is that public and private streets rights-of-way may be included in the calculation of lot size. That was also a specific request from developers. In terms of cluster development, you have the maximum flexibility/incentives in terms of modification of dimensional requirements, the minimum lot area could be reduced by 65% but no smaller than 5,000 square feet. The current cluster provisions are 50%. Also, public and private streets rights-of-way can be included in the calculations. Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by 20%, but no less than 50-feet. Minimum setbacks can be reduced by 25% but shall be no less than 10-feet. There is a different incentive for village development and that is the allowance of more non- residential uses. There is a ceiling percentage that you cannot exceed the village proper. For all the flexible development options, one of the big provision is that the cutoff for private streets goes to 50 lots (currently 25 lots) . However, there are conditions. Collins continued that density bonuses are not an incentive. They are included to encourage more open space, not to encourage people to do open space either in the development or somewhere else. Brown asked for clarification of providing open space somewhere else. Collins responded that is the issue of going offsite to provide open space. He noted that issue was discussed at the public hearing. He continued that the discussion the Planning Board has had about this issue is whether it should be within the same township. This is included in the minutes in the agenda materials. This was also the discussion regarding affordable housing; whether or not that should be provided within the same township. Barrows asked about off-site septic systems. Collins responded that is also an incentive but they are sometimes incentives for different purposes. Not necessarily an incentive to do open space, but to allow the flexibility of doing open space 101 development. An example of this would be an area that has 2-acre zoning and this would probably be a watershed. There are real opportunities in such an area to do 50% open space. If off-site systems could be used, there could be half-acre lots which could provide 75% open space. It is an incentive in the sense that it gives the flexibility to design an open space development that does, in fact preserve more open space. Mr. Knight stated that if the process that developers must go through could be shortened that is an incentive in itself. The next biggest expense to developers is the road issue. He asked if the private road justification and the Staff evaluation of that justification would still be required. Collins responded that if one of the flexible development options is used and the 33% open space is provided, and stay with the 50 lot cutoff, then private roads are allowed. The plan would be the justification, additional justification would not be required. Mr. R&falow asked for clarification of the statement • regarding the purchase of land in one township and using those development rights in another township and whether it was a form of Transfer of Development Rights. Collins responded with an example. If a developer wanted to get 50 additional units in a project in Hillsborough Township and a landowner in Cedar Grove Township has 50 acres of qualifying open space land he is willing to sell, then that has to be dedicated or protected in some way as open space and have a conservation easement recorded on it. If a developer does that, then he would get credit at one unit per acre and that credit could be used in the project in Hillsborough Township. Another way to get this same credit would be to provide 50 more acres of open space than is required on the same tract on which the project is located. Mr. Rafalow stated that apparently he had missed this and noted that the County must be very clear and careful regarding the Transfer of Development Rights. By allowing any place in the County to be a sending or receiving area, you will be creating areas around the County where there is no development potential for the next fifty years. However, you will be creating more suburban sprawl in the core of the County instead of having development that is preserving open space on site in such a way that it preserves rural character everywhere in the County. Collins emphasized that there are designated receiving areas; transition 102 areas, water/sewer service districts and transit lines. Mr. Rafalow responded to be very careful about the water and sewer service areas. Collins responded that Stancil had already addressed that issue and it is to be determined by the Utilities Service Areas Task Force. Collins commented that the term sprawl has many definitions. Any development option that allows a developer or landowner to achieve the same number of units that is allowed under conventional development is sprawl. It is simply a change in development pattern and mixing of some open space with the sprawl. The impacts are the same. Mr. Strayhorn stated that he felt that there is merit to a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. He noted that there is very little agricultural land in the transition areas and he felt this is an option that would allow for more preservation of more agricultural land. There are more positives than negatives to such a program if the receiving areas are those that can provide water and sewer services. Rosemond noted that the comments regarding TDR raise many more questions. She noted that she did not recall voting on this concept as part of the package. She would like more discussion on what she saw as a very large issue. Stancil noted that this issue was discussed at the October 10, 1995 meeting and the Board determined to send those comments forward and not take votes. Jobsis noted that there would be more opportunities to discuss some of these issues because the Board would be reviewing and discussing the design manual. She asked that the Board stick to this issue of whether to have more disincentives. MOTION: Katz moved to include both incentives and disincentives. Seconded by Reid. Brown stated that she felt the Board is dealing with specific incentives and she had concerns with some of them. One area of concern is conservation areas. She felt that should be taken out because there is no definition for conservation areas. Building can occur in conservation areas. Brown continued expressing concern with TDRs. That is a whole separate issue. She also noted a very serious problem with the undefined water and sewer 103 service areas. She felt that she was not sure the Board could do what Katz wanted to do with his motion because of dealing with very specific things. Waddell asked for clarification of the motion. Katz stated that there is currently a proposal that provides for a series of incentives. He believed that, given the minimal requirements or level of open space and the definition of open space, if the Board wants substantial open space to happen, he would like to see a series of incentives for making it happen and a series of disincentives for not making it happen. As an example, he suggested reducing the yield plan for conventional development and increasing it for open space development when 50% rather than 33% is met. Waddell indicated he felt this would. put more burden on landowners and developers should they choose to do open space development. He felt that it had been stated in public hearing that open space development would not put more burden on developers and landowners. � a Rosemond stated that she felt there should be more review and discussion on the specifics and she would like to table this issue. Jobsis stated that she could not support the motion by Katz because she felt disincentives are another form of mandatory and it would be viewed by rural landowners as down zoning and taking their land rights. They would see this as being done in a "back door" manner rather than an "up front" manner. In response to a question from Brown, Katz stated that he felt the Board could do better in getting developers and landowners to go the route of open space development if incentives are added as more open space than required is provided. He felt that including disincentives would help to discourage the current development pattern. He continued that there has been broad dissatisfaction across the County with the current development pattern and the purpose of this whole exercise is to change that pattern. Jobsis stated that the plan as presented to the people has been to make it voluntary and this would be viewed by the public as mandatory. Katz disagreed noting that he felt it was still voluntary. Collins noted that the concerns expressed by Katz 104 and Jobsis had been discussed by Staff. If the Planning Board wants to take the approach recommended by Katz that is your perogative. However, if you do that, the whole thing will have to go back to public hearing. He noted that if it goes back to public hearing, it will be very different in that the rural property owners will be expressing their concerns. Barrows noted she understood the concerns presented and was unsure how to mesh all of these together. Jobsis responded that she felt the Board could move ahead on the concept of whether to include disincentives or keep it as an incentive oriented program. Another issue could be to reduce the number of incentives. However, she did not feel that each incentive should be debated at this point. VOTE: 4 in favor. 7 opposed. The motion failed. MOTION: Walters moved to stay with the incentives as presented at public hearing for at least the first year. Seconded by Howie. VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed (Katz - reasons already stated, Brown - specifically concerned with water and sewer issue and creating TDRs without a clear definition, and no definition of conservation easement and concern with the yield plan, Rosemond - felt it was a mistake not to vote on each incentive and disincentive) . Reid added that the Planning Board should be very specific about the incentives in order to address the issue of meeting goals and objectives. 5. Village option. The specific issue is whether to hold another public hearing on the Village option, since it is complicated and has not received a lot of attention. Mr. Rafalow stated that he felt there had not been sufficient education of the public on the village option. There is very little understanding of the option. He noted that a public hearing is not a very educational process and felt another public hearing was not the answer. Brown expressed grave concerns with the village option citing the Southern Village in Chapel Hill as 105 ` an example. She felt that the village option must be very definitely defined. She indicated it would be preferable to have a Village Ordinance such as that presented by Andre Duany. Barrows agreed with Brown's concerns. MOTION: Brown moved that the village option be pulled from the flexible development proposal, to be elaborated on and sent back to public hearing as soon as possible. Seconded by Rosemond. VOTE: 6 in favor. 5 opposed. 6. Conservation easement credit. The specific issue is whether land protected through a conservation easement prior to development application can be counted toward satisfying the open space requirement. Stancil stated that it is Staff's position that this amendment should be added to the flexible development proposal. Rosemond asked if land purchased to remain in open space in another area would be considered a conservation easement. Stancil responded if they chose that route to protect it, yes. Rosemond continued that she was concerned with the possibility then of double credit for the same tract as open space. Stancil responded that this issue specifically regards conservation easements that are created to receive Federal and State inheritance tax credit. This would be a recorded conservation easement. Brown asked if this referred to the generic term of conservation easements noting that easements could simply be considered open space. Stancil stated that he felt it was spelled out in the proposal that easements would be for open space uses. Belk stated that conservation easements are tailored to the desires of the landowner so each one is different. No conditional part of the preserved area could be used for something else. Rosemond continued to express concern that land created for open space for density bonuses might later be used again when the lot that contains the open space is developed. Stancil responded that once 106 land has been credited toward a density bonus it could not again be used to qualify as open space. If a tract with open space that was credited elsewhere was later developed as a Flexible Development, additional open space would be required because the previous land had already been used to satisfy open space requirements. Waddell noted that there were some uses such as farming that the Board would wish to encourage in conservation easements. Stancil stated the design guidebook would likely address the concerns that have been expressed regarding uses in conservation easements. Allison asked if the conservation easement would go with the sale of the land. Belk responded yes. Those conditions would always be attached to the property. Adjournment time was reached. MOTION: , Reid moved to extend the meeting to get the vote on Issue #6 and leave remaining issues for the next Planning Board meeting. Seconded by Brown. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Waddell moved to allow conservation easements to count as credit toward open space. Seconded by Allison. Barrows asked if open space and conservation easements are in perpetuity. Stancil responded yes. Walters noted that State and Federal laws regarding conservation easements for estate purposes state that the easement is in perpetuity. Katz proposed an amendment to the motion that: conservation easements, the terms of which are consistent with the flexible development guidelines in effect at the time. The first and second to the motion accepted the amendment. VOTE: 9 in favor. 2 opposed (Rosemond - still has questions regarding conservation easements, Brown - reasons already stated) . Meeting adjourned 10:35 p.m. Planning Board 2/19/96 Meeting Minutes 107 The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Phase 2 Charles, Woods Subdivision per the Resolution of Approval (an attachment to these minutes on pages .717-,3,o) . Barrows asked about the remaining 200 acres. Using the Concept Plan, Kirk indicated the area under discussion and noted that there has been no discussion of development on the remaining acreage . He felt there was the possibility of road extension and development at some future time . Walters asked about the location of the open space . Kirk responded that the open space was in phase 1 and there will be a payment-in-lieu for this phase. Katz asked about the total acres . Kirk determined © f1 n that 17 . 30 is the correct acreage . U"Uj Llf�til Barrows noted that St . Mary' s Road is a scenic road and expressed concern with the . increase of traffic on such a narrow two-lane road and the desire to protect it as a scenic road. Howie asked about construction in Phase 1 . Kirk responded that Phase 1 is in the recording process, so construction has not yet begun. Howie continued, asking if the developer had given any thought to having a walkway to connect the neighborhood. Kirk responded that there is a pedestrian open space area on the concept plan that will be shown in future phases. He continued that there was open space in Phase 1 of . 97 acres . In later phases the open space and pedestrian easement will be continued. MOTION: Barrows moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff . Seconded by Reid. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (11/27/95) a. Flexible Development/Open Space Proposal Chair reviewed the summaries of issues that had been discussed and voted on and recommendations already prepared with the votes and Planning Board comments . She noted the two remaining issues : Minor subdivision applicability and consistency with goals . 108 The specific issues for Minor subdivision applicability is whether to make minor subdivisions subject to the Flexible Development standards . Waddell stated that he felt minor subdivisions usually involve lots for family members, most often children of the landowner. He felt it should be as simple as possible for someone to create a lot for family members . He stated that he did not favor having minor subdivisions subject to the requirement for two plans . Reid asked for clarification of the number of lots permitted prior to becoming a major subdivision and the answer was five (5) lots . With that clarification, Reid agreed with Waddell that minor subdivisions not be required to submit two plans . Waddell suggested that if the owner could come up with a plan that would provide some open space, encourage them to do so, otherwise, still require only one plan for a minor subdivision. Reid asked if Staff felt it would be more cumbersome to deal with landowners on a minor subdivision with two plans . Stancil responded that it would involve more time and, even though such subdivisions are widespread, there would be some impact . Katz asked the source of this issue. Collins responded that the issue has arisen several times over the years. One concern was, as identified by Waddell and Reid, that minor subdivisions are many times simply the creation of lots for family members . On the other side is a concern of visual impact because of the number of lots, particularly those located on public roads. Some Commissioners have expressed the concern that if the desire is to preserve rural character, particularly scenic character, then minor subdivisions created along major roadways, disrupt the visual scene. Katz stated that it was his understanding that one major reason for building houses near a public road was a requirement by Farmers Home Administration that they must be within fifty feet of a State-maintained road. Collins agreed that is still a requirement . Collins continued that another concern is that it is easier to build houses near a public road and not have the 109 expense of constructing private or public roads . Jobsis responded that the Planning Staff had made a recommendation on this issue and it is included in the January 17, 1996 agenda materials (rescheduled from January 9 due to inclement weather) . Jobsis read the recommendation: "That minor subdivisions be excluded from the Flexible Development standards, but applicants be encouraged to work on a voluntary basis with staff to address open space preservation concerns through the approval process; or That up to five (5) minor subdivision lots be allowed for each lot of record as of the effective date of the ordinance, and that thereafter, all lots created from the tract in question be subject to the Flexible Development standards . " Jobsis commented that these options go back to the Rural Character Study, and there was a great deal of support for such options . Collins clarified that the second option should read five lots . The lots could be created one at a time; however, once 5 lots had been created then Flexible Development standards would apply. Barrows expressed concern with the number of minor subdivisions that have already been processed and the expectation that there would be many more without the requirement of Flexible Development standards . She indicated that she did understand the concern with trying to assist families with such a problem. Waddell expressed concern that it was a question of rich and poor and landowners who have sufficient land and/or money, can create lots over ten acres and avoid the subdivision process . Those who do not have sufficient land to create the larger lots do as best they can. He emphasized that the average lot size reported for minor subdivisions was 3 .5 acres. Reid asked about adjusting ordinances to add restrictions to address the concern raised by Barrows . He continued, asking if greater setbacks could be required and addressed through ordinance amendments. Collins responded that it could be dealt with thru design standards . He continued that the minor subdivisions that have been processed during the last two years have been 110 more sensitive about house location. Attempts have been made to place the houses farther back from the road and in wooded areas where they cannot be seen from the road unless it is during the winter when leaves are off the trees . He noted that there are many minor subdivisions that already address the issue of visual impact . Reid commented that he felt that if there is a way to make the public aware of the overall intent then, they (landowners) are willing to do the right thing. MOTION: Waddell moved that the Flexible Development requirement for two plans not apply to minor subdivisions . Further, that the Planning Staff encourage use of the open space/flexible development options in the submission of one single plan. Seconded by Jobsis . Howie asked for clarification of the amount of land in a minor subdivision. Collins responded that five (5) lots is the maximum. If it is an area where 40, 000 square feet is the minimum lot size, than it is possible that it may be only 5 acres . VOTE: 8 in favor. 1 opposed (Brown - since the plan is voluntary, it seems that developing two plans is a good educational process) . Consistency with goals . The specific issue is whether the Flexible Development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of rural character preservation. Howie stated that she understood that all of the Planning Board concerns were to forwarded to the Board of Commissioners with the Planning Board recommendation on each issue. Jobsis stated that she recalled that the Planning Board was to ask for a report at the end of one year to give feedback on how the voluntary program is or is not meeting the goals . Reid commented that he remembered that it was requested that there be space available in the report for the Planning Board to make adjustments after the one year period. He felt that the report would provide the information needed to address concerns and make adjustments. Barrows expressed concern about the amount of 111 open space that would be preserved with TDR. She felt it was still vague and may not provide open space that would meet the goals . Jobsis asked if including it and how much the process was used in the report at the end of the year would address Barrow' s concern. Barrows continued, noting that her main concern was not knowing what the exact process is and how it would work. She asked if legislation is in place that would allow for TDR. Collins responded that one of the things being studied by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board is TDR. That Board, as well as Staff, have determined that it is not difficult to find sending areas; the difficulty is in locating receiving areas . He continued that was one of the issues presented by Pearson Stewart at the retreat . Stewart asked that the Agricultural Districts Advisory work on the process for defining receiving areas as well as the need for enabling legislation and then present that to the Board of Commissioners . Collins noted that the Agricultural Board will be discussing that at its meeting on February 21 . Jobsis noted that the Design Manual is to be presented in April and this will enable the Planning Board to address other concerns . Katz asked if part of the problem was that the receiving areas may not be in Orange County' s jurisdiction. Collins responded that those working on this concept are limiting receiving areas to Orange County' s jurisdiction. If it is a successful program, there may come a time when some municipality may express interest . Brown expressed concern that the Flexible Development proposal will increase the present density options. She expressed more concern with not having a defined water and sewer area. If this plan does increase the density already in place, the she felt this would be total failure in the preservation of rural character. She supported phasing in mandatory and having an educational program to assist developers in creating open space development . Thus, she felt that the proposal does not meet the goals of rural character preservation because of the possibility of density increases. She continued, that TDRs had not been defined. How much is conceptual and how much is real. It seemed to be a mish mash. She was concerned whether the plan will achieve the goals of eight years of work. 112 Reid expressed agreement with concerns listed by Brown but indicated he felt it was a guideline to get to the ultimate goals . He continued that he had concerns that everything could be done up front . Amendments could be made later that would address some concerns . Brown responded that everything could and should be done up front . She was concerned with density bonuses and not having a baseline. She felt this was not a way to preserve rural character, farmland and natural resources . Reid responded that he was in agreement with a baseline; however, he was concerned that if something was not established, how would a baseline be established. Brown noted again that she felt the plan would increase density. Jobsis stated that she felt the Planning Board had made a major step forward after eight years of discussion and debate, and sometimes having to start over because of changes in the Board. She felt the Planning Board had come up with at least a position of some movement toward trying to achieve what the Commissioners and Planning Board have indicated they wanted which is flexible development that provides some movement toward open space preservation. This may not be a perfect plan but it is a plan that gets us moving. Furthermore, we will start to get some feedback as to what does actually happen when we try to put in a plan. She continued that she felt it promotes open space design. That' s the intent of it and the clear message to the public. It is also a voluntary plan which she felt was a very progressive thing to do. She felt that trying to do anything other than voluntary would have very sad consequences in the County. She also felt that this will give the data needed to provide the information of how many actual developments attempted to use open space. The report would also provide information on whether the incentives worked and whether the applicants attempt to make use of the incentives in the plan. It would also determine which incentives applicants most like and whether more incentives are needed. Other information provided would be the densities that are created in open space development and traditional development . Jobsis continued that she felt this was a chance to finally get some real information, a chance to move forward in a way that is not going to alienate the people in the rural parts of the 113 County who are the people most involved in what' s going to happen in the places where they live, where they own the land, where they have to live side by side with their neighbors in the style that they want to live in, not some style that is imposed upon them. She noted again that she felt this was a great step forward. Price asked if a baseline will be established to provide comparisons after a one year period. Collins responded that it may be possible to establish a baseline within the next two to three months . It is contingent upon Land Records completing the parcel data for the entire county. Chapel Hill, Bingham and Cheeks Townships have been completed. Once the parcel data is completed in the GIS system, subdivisions that have taken place within a certain period of time can be "flagged" and floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes can be entered and the system will calculate how much has been protected in those subdivisions . The percentage of open space in those subdivisions could then be compared to the 33% required. Collins emphasized again that it will take some time, but it can be done. Other information can also be provided through the GIS system within the next year. Price asked about density and census data. Collins responded that working with the school boards would provide better figures . The school boards have the students in their information system by address . The County also has that information, and, if related to specific subdivisions, then we will know exactly what has happened in terms of density. Katz stated that he felt the Flexible Development Proposal will have a very minimal effect on preserving rural character. It is not necessarily because of flaws in the proposal, but because the tools that we have are limited in what they can do to preserve agriculture. Barrows reiterated Jobsis comments that it is a good compromise and agreed that it should go to the Board of Commissioners . Waddell expressed respect for Katz' s concerns . He noted that, being a longtime resident of Orange County, he had seen the disappearance of farms in Southern Orange County. There are only two dairy farms remaining on Dairyland Road. He continued that what is done with the Flexible 114 Development Proposal will not save various farms . With the realization that this is not the final word, but, will have to be refined over time, he noted that he was glad to see something going forward. In the future, he would like to be able to say that he had done something toward preservation. Jobsis stated that one thing that rarely gets discussed is that it is an option of the County to consider raising bond money if they truly value open space. It is hard for farmers to maintain enough income on farming to keep the farm going. It has been individuals who have been holding that open space for the County, paying taxes, and dealing with all the inconveniences to keep the open space . The problem gets to be that people want it always at someone else' s expense. Those issues should be addressed more honestly and openly. If people really wanted this, they could start sharing in the cost of having it . It is there now because a few individuals are paying the costs to have the open space. She felt this should be studied very carefully. Brown stated that she has maintained a farm for twenty-six years . There are six farms on Smith Level Road, and she felt they were still there because of five-acre zoning. She noted there were concerns six years ago about five-acre zoning, but everyone is now pleased. She stated that there are a lot of people in Orange County who wish to remain in farming, and it would be easier if the zoning were better. She continued that she felt this plan does not provide that . Thus, her interest in having "phased-in- mandatory" . Howie expressed appreciation for the opinions both Jobsis and Brown, but felt that the majority are saying that farming is going away. She continued that she felt this was an excellent first start because of, a report by Stancil at the last meeting that only 116 open space had been dedicated in a review of previous development . At least this requires 33% and this is a long way from anything previously dedicated. In response to a remark by Katz, Howie agreed that it was determined that there was no way to monitor the exact amount but emphasized again that she felt this was an excellent place to start, noting the report that was to be made in a year. 115 Lee Rafalow, from the audience, commented on two items that have been discussed for several years . He stated that he felt the Board should have figured out the goals and how to achieve them before making a decision. The County had brought in an expert who stated that a 50% minimum open space is required if the goal is to preserve rural character and the unbuildable land should be set aside before making the 50a calculation. As a result, you will find the opportunity to have farmland intermixed with developed spaces goes away. This cannot be accomplished with 33% open space. He referred to a seventeen-acre tract in his area that contained cattle noting that the owner of the cattle was not a farmer and did not depend on farming for his primary income . This was a good example of intermixing farmland and developed spaces, yet retaining a rural character. Mr. Rafalow continued, the TDR program is a program that is going to increase density in the County because land that will never be built upon because it is unbuildable will be purchased and development rights transferred somewhere else in the county where land is buildable. This is not the definition of rural character. Walters commented on the reference Mr. Rafalow made to the tract of land with cattle in his area. She reported on the destruction of fences, cattle being herded out of pastures by dogs, horses traveling through wet fields, and farms animals mangled just within a three week period. She continued that the small parcels of farmland referenced by Mr. Rafalow do not work well with farmers, and farmers eventually give up on them. The people riding the horses through wet, muddy fields should have known better. This is one of the type of situations that is presently causing so many problems for farmers. Price stated that she felt the Flexible Development proposal is more reactionary and needs to be more pro-active by getting more land use tools in place that will help farmers . She felt that placing a subdivision next door to a farm is the worst thing that could be done. She felt that regulations, whether or not they be zoning, could be put in place to help save the farmland. Jobsis stated that she felt many Board members would like to provide some help for the farmers . 116 She agreed with Walters on the difficulties of farming next to a subdivision. Jobsis stated that she felt the Planning Board had done its best in discussions and deliberations with some very diverse opinions while trying to hear everything. She asked Collins if a vote was necessary since the Planning Board would be sending the minutes to the Board of Commissioners, or if it would be forwarded to them automatically. Collins responded that it would automatically be forwarded. Jobsis expressed appreciation to all Board members for the hard work, noting it was very difficult to review and discuss issues where there is such diversity. However, she felt the Board had accomplished this superbly. AGENDA ITEM #11: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2/26/96) a. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment (1) Recreation Sites Presentation by Marvin Collins . This item is to consider a report on proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to recreation dedication/payment-in- lieu provisions. The proposed amendments will be presented for public hearing at the February 26 , 1996 public hearing. At the Board of Commissioners June 26, 1995, meeting, a status report was presented concerning Concept Plans approved in the Stoney Creek basin area. The Board directed Staff to study the dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions of the Subdivision Regulations and prepare amendments, if needed, for public hearing. At its December 9, 1995 goal-setting retreat, the Board of Commissioners reiterated its desire to have the provisions addressed as soon as possible. A report which identifies the statutory basis for enacting such provisions, the origins of the current standards, concerns about the application of the standards, and changes through which to address those concerns is provided as a separate enclosure and is on file in the Planning Department . f D (� 117 Uu !U1 BOCC 3/6/96 Regular Meeting Minutes x A. ! 94SPEC3M PROGRAM FEES (8:55-9:10) Rod Visser provided a report on current fire inspection program fees and suggestions for reviewing the sdie"of fees as outlined in the agenda. Commissioner HaNdotis said he supports the recommendations. His concern is with small businesses paying the full fee. He feels that the 10%fee that Hillsborough has added is not fair. His other Concern is that, because of doing the fire inspections for the Town of Hillsborough, the County does not get around to inspections in the County. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Rod Visser indicated that the Town would need.8 of a person to do their own inspections. Mr.Jack Davis made reference to the fire inspection at his place of business on July 13, 1994. The inspec dorh took 20 minutes and they found two violations. He does not feel it is fair to charge him 5165.00— Vw same as it cost to inspect WalMart or a larger facility. He told about his ordeal with the Magistrate's offke. He asked that the County Commissioners rescind the contract with Hillsborough and charge a reasonable amount for the inspection. Commissioner Gordon said she wants the program to be self-supporting through fee revenue. Commissioner Wiillholt said he does not want to charge a fee to schools or public entities. He feels On feels should be realigned with the time it takes to do the inspection or the square footage to be inspected. Ri. RFT;BMBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. Planner David StanW presented a report on the Planning Board's recommendations concerning proposed Flexible Development open space preservation strategies that were presented at a pubic hearing on November 27, 1995. He summarized the recommendations as listed on pages 5,6 and 7 of the agenda abstract He presented an implementation schedule for the Board's consideration of approval. Commissioner Wilthoit noted that the Planning Board discussed having an intensive orientation to distribute the information and asked if June 17 through June 28 workshops address this issue. David Stencil said that the intent is to do these initial training workshops and then to provide ongoing workshops once a month or as often as necessary. Commissioner Willhoit made reference to the issue of the yield plan and asked if it was necessary to do a conventional design in order to get a yield plan. David Stencil said that the basic yield plan would be to do a conventional design to see how many lots could be created on the site and then to e than in accordance with the open space provisions. Commissioner Willhoit said he feels that affordable housing should be a flexible option rather than a separate category. He feels that if a developer comes in with a flexible plan that provided affordable housing or one that provided open space and met a criteria of 40 or 50%open space, they should not have to do a yield plan. David Stencil stated that, as it now stands,they would still need to do a yield plan. Commissioner W iillhoit feels that if a plan cones in which more than meets the level of open space required that it may be desirable to eliminate the yield plan. He made reference to the annual review and said he preferred a system where each time a development comes in it is tracked instead of waiting for a year to accumulate the data. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to accept the report and approve continuing the discussion on this item at a work session scheduled for March 21. 1996 at the Government Services Center in Hftborough at 7:30 p.m. After the work session the Board will consider the timeline for implementation of the flexible development proposal. VOTE: UNANIMOUS TOTAL P.01 r w MINUTES 118 BI-MONTHLY WORK SESSION ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MARCH 21, '1996 The Orange County Board of Commissioners hell their bi-monthly work session on March 21, 1996 at 7:30 P.M.in the meeting room of the Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina. CQUNTY COMMt&SIONERS PRESENT:Chair Moses Carey,Jr., and Commissioners William L Crowther, Stephen H. Halkiatis and Don WIlhoit COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner Alice M. Gordon COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link,Jr.,Assistant County Manager Rod WTsser and Cleric to the Board Beverly A. Blythe(Ail other staff members will be identified appropriately below) AGENDA 1 Flexible Development Proposal Planning Director Marvin Collins made reference to the Planning Board recommendations which were included as part of the agenda on March 6, 1995 and highlighted some of the major issues they discussed. Marvin Collins showed on a map the orient levels of densities. If the JPA was excluded,there are many areas where the 50%open space would be a viable option. By making the open space requirement 50%instead of 33%,the Planning Board felt that many developers would choose the conventional option instead of fle4ft. Two concept plans will be required. After they are approved, ' the developer will have the option of going with the flexible plan or the conventional plan. In terms of development plan exceptions,the developer could submit only a flexible plan. Marvin Collins listed the incentives vs. disincentives which are listed on pages 28 and 29 or the agenda. He showed on a map where density bonuses would apply and what those levels would be. The last major issue was the village option and the Planning Board voted 6-5 to send this back to public hearing in May, 99%. With regard to the yield plan, he illustrated the process the development would need to follow. In answer to a question from Commissioner Wdlhoit,Marvin Collins indicated that the summary of developments could be a continuous process showing the information as developments are approved. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the use of wells and septic tanks along the river and was told that Planning had talked with Environmental Health who indicated that they would monitor the use of wells and septic tanks to be sure they are environmentally safe. They do not feel there will be a problem. Commissioner W►Nhoft noted he attended a session at the NACo which focused on ground water resources and how critical it is to protect these resources. He feels as the County becomes more developed it will be Important to know the yield. Commissioner Crowther noted that the goal for farmland and forestland are in competition with each other. In the farmland goal, it is encouraged that houses be built in the field and in the forestland goal, it is encouraged that houses be built against the forest The timetable for the Flexible Development Standards is for the Board of Commissioners to receive the draft Design Guidebook for reviewicomment by May I. 1996. The Planning Board will receive the final Design Guidebook by May 20, 1996 and'the Board of Commissionecs,will receive the final Design Guidebook by June 6, 1996. During June 17-28 training workshops will be held for land owners, surveyors, developers,eta on use of the Design Guidebook and Flexible Development 119 " approval process. The effective data of Flexible Development standards will be July 1, 1996. 2. Process and Timetables for Reviewing Long Term School Capital Needs, Financing Options, and Construction Standards John Link made reference to a memo he distributed outlining a possible timetable for major aspects of school capital issues. He noted that two are four things that need to be considered. 1. School Capital Needs Assessment-on April 16 both school systems vm'N make a presentation at the regular County Commissioners meeting. On June 28, the County Con Wssioners will be asked to approve the School CIP based on feedback from public dialogue, including need for, timing of,and cost of new school facilities. 2. School Construction Standards-in mid April, all three elected boards will provide feedback to the School Construction Standards Work Group eoneeming preliminary vemnirmidations on standards. At the May 14th meeting and at the bimonthly work session on May 18,the Board of Commissioners,with participation from Boards of Education will conduct a public dialogue on school construction standards and consider adoption of the standards. At the May Quarterly Public Hearing, the Board of Commissioners will receive an updated impact fee technics( report and decide what changes, if any, to make in current impact fee schedule. 3. School Capital Needs Financing Options-in late June,the Board of Commissioners will formally adopt the 1996-2000 CIP. in mid August, the Board of Commissioners w(N receive a report on long-tens financing options and also consider decisions on capital needs and finance approaches to be pursued. The Board of Commissioners will make a final decision about ronducting a possible election to expand permissible uses of Chapel Hill-Carbone district tax. 4. Changes in Permissible Uses of Chapel Hie-Carrboro City Schools district Tax Proceeds-during August- November, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District win conduct public education Mort on reasons to expand the use of the district tax. The election concerning district tax changes will be hold on November 7, 19%. This Item was presented for Information only. 3. Innovation and Efflclenc Committee Update John Link prsserited a one page summary of the preliminary recommendations of the innovation and efficiency eomrnittee. The full committee w(N make its final recommendations at the County Commissioners meeting on April 18, 1996. 4 Update 2n_ft Master Plan for hag Southern Human Services Center This item was removed and vAu be considered at a subsequent meeting. It will be placed on a regular agenda. S. Small Area Plan Petition from 13in� a=IMship Advisoll Council Chair Caney made mforerice to a resolution regarding a small area plan for the White Cross Community and salted about the possibility of this being done. Marvin Collins noted that one of his goals is to begin this process in August, 199th rm4h April, 1997. This wiN be a joint staff effort on the Pon of Planning and Economic Development Departments. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to consider, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on April 1, 1996 at 5:30 in the Pleasant Green Community Center in Eno.Township. TOTAL P.02 iUn�Sj ((lltf��jj