Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNSN ORD-1996-010 Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments - Flexible Development-Open Space Proposal 1 t9C HIV G ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 1, 1996 Action Agenda Item # =— A SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS - FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PROPOSAL DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 4/1/96 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Planning Director X2592 (included in summary form as part of this abstract) Draft Ordinance Proposals TELEPHONE NUMBERS: (including recommended revisions) Hillsborough 732-8181 1/4/96 Staff Memorandum Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PLEASE REFER TO THE FOLLOWING: November 27, 1995 Public Hearing Minutes April 1, 1996 Commissioners Agenda Abstract Flexible Development Notebook 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 Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Buffer. z • September, 1990 - Rural Character Study Committee initiates work on Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange. • 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 matenals/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 3 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 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 4 0 Purchasing the development rights on farm or forest lands, natural areas, and similar resources;or 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 Rural 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 `Tlexible Development" proposal. Minutes of that hearing are provided as an attachment. COMMENTS RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO PUBLIC HEARING: Section VII-D-4 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. 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 on. Planning Board Decision: That both conventional and flexible development plans be required of all subdivision, including those which are to provide affordable housing. Vote: 8-2. 2. 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. 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 `Meld 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. 6 No decision- discussion only. 5. Interdepartmental coordination/communication. The specific issue is how- insure that adequate communication between County deprtments 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 only 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. Planning Board 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. 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 COMNIISSIONERS 3/6/96 MEETING: At its March 6, 1996 meeting,the Board of Commissioners offered the following comments. Staff comments are provided in(italics). • Yield Plan: A`yield plan'may not be necessary if a developer is not planning to maximize the number of lots in a subdivision. Staff agrees 8 • Affordable Housing: Affordable housing projects should fall under the Flexible Development standards. This is consistent with the Planning Board's recommendation. • Tracking System: A "tracking system" for individual subdivisions should be included as part of the annual report. Staff agrees • Design Guidebook: 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. • Community Wastewater Disposal Systems: Where applicable, the permitted "one-acre" density may£once people into using community wastewater systelm to carry out a cluster development. The cost of designing/installing a community wastewater system acts as a alisincentive 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 COMIVIISSIONERS 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). • Annual Report: 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- , Groundwater Impacts: Concerns were expressed about the use of wells and the impact on groundwater supplies, particularly where homes were clustered closer together. 9 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 Competing Goals: 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 kwd Where resources are equal, the design may seek to balance resource preservation while attempting to locate housing units in the least intrusive nuumer possible. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APRIL 1, 1996 MEETING: At its April 1, 1996 meeting, the Board of Commissioners offered the following comments. Staff comments as provided at the meeting are highlighted in italics • Design Guidebook: Provide copies of the Design Guidebook for review and comment as soon as possible but no later than the Board's May 14 meeting. Provide copies to the Planning Board for comment, preferably before presenting to the Board of Commissioners. • Relationship of Goals to Open Space Percentages: Whether 33% or 50% is applied is somewhat arbitrary unless you know how the percentage relates to a specific goal. It appeared by the vote of some of the dissenting members of the Planning Board that the open space percentage would serve as a surrogate for density. Density is best addressed through zoning, because the off-site impacts of development are the same whether open space is preserved or not. Not sure what open space percentage should be if try to relate to goals. Concern of the Planning Board with density appeared to be with case where 50% of the land consisted of unbuildable areas (floodplains, etc.) and only 33% open space required. Would result in greater density, particularly when density bonuses were allowed for providing more than 33%open space. Two Commissioners expressed no desire to change the percentage of open space(e.g., 33%) as contained in the proposal. • Groundwater Concerns: Appears that both the Planning Board and Commissioners have concerns about groundwater resources that could be addressed partially by the groundwater report being prepared by the USGS. There were also concerns about alternative and community systems, and the need to work out the rest of the monitoring program. Given these concerns, io could we break it down into a phased approach which avoided those concerns, namely Phase I consisting of estate lots, conservation lots, and cluster lots where the lot size was at least one acre. Phase U could then consist of cluster lots of less than an acre and the village option, and could be implemented after the issues of groundwater availability and sewage disposal were resolved. We should also couple this approach with the educational programs as planned and get developers on board with the less complicated approaches first and see how they work. Concerns about those problems can be addressed with the first plan because it provides the test case and the current "health-safety-welfare" clause provides the basis for how we deal with those issues. Would like for staff to evaluate whether we have the ability to turn down a proposal based on the availability of groundwater. Applicants should be determining whether sufficient groundwater is available and present evidence to that effect, particularly in cases of cluster development before investing a lot of money in the project. • Public Information Meeting: Would like for some wording changes to be made so that it becomes a"neighbor" information meeting. Otherwise, it will become a public hearing. Needs to be made clear that it is an information meeting and not a hearing. If neighbors have concerns, should be voiced at a higher level; e.g., Planning Board and Commissioners. • Estate Lots: Why couldn't the four-acre lot size be an average over the whole development rather than four acres for each lot? Why are estate lots required to provide 50% open space? Because of their larger size, there is opportunity to provide more open space. Such lots would generally be found in areas where there are poor soils or other constraints, or where the developer is developing such lots to meet a specific market. • Affordable Housing: Is there a definition of affordable housing? Yes, at or below 80%of the median family income. • Relationship to Small Area Planning Process: Can the results of a small area planning process add to or take away from the Flexible Development approach if the area residents wish to do so? Yes, through an zoning overlay approach. • Roads: Think that allowing more than 25 lots to be served by a private road is excessive, particularly when no justification is required as is now for conventional subdivisions. Also think that the right-of-way should not be counted as part of the lot size - should be consistent for all types of developments and not be counted. • Expedited Review: Wondered why such an approach was not included as had been discussed by the Rural Character Study Committee? Think that Chapel Hill has such a process. Details have never been given as part of any discussion. Staff perception is that there is a reluctance on the part of the Planning Board and Commissioners to give staff this option. Staff approval is what the developers want, not expedited review that still requires Planning Board and Commissioners approval. • Density Bonuses: Better for bonuses to occur on-site except for affordable housing. • Major vs. Minor Subdivisions: Was there ever any intent to establish threshold based on acreage rather than major-minor subdivision split; e.g., five lots or more?Could a 15-acre threshold be established? Using 15 acres as a threshold creates a dilemma because 15 acres (or lots) is about the average size subdivision that the County deals with. The dilemma is that a large number of lots would be excluded from even considering open space plans through such a threshold Because properties change so dramatically from one to the next, we are uncertain as to what kind of results we will get. That uncertainty is why the one year evaluation period and the evaluation of each project is so important - to determine whether the approach will be used and what needs to be changed • Yield Plan: Just a question - the number of perc sites as determined by the use of individual systems and wells; e.g., the yield plan, determines the number of lots, and the use of alternative systems is limited by that number? Yes, the "yield plan" represents the number of perc sites or lots possible under a conventional subdivision plan and is indicative of the "carrying capacity" of the land. The use of alternative systems is limited by the number of such sites or lots. • Maintenance Endowments: Just a comment - seems that granting density bonuses for the purpose of creating maintenance endowments is the least defensible of the bonus provisions and have my doubts about that. • Affordable Housing: Is it settled that everyone is subject to the flexible development standards, including affordable housing projects? 12 At the Commissioners' Work Session, there were a couple of us who didn't feel that affordable housing projects should be required to submit two plans, that that was also a goal of the County; e.g., to provide that type of housing. Question raises the issue of whether the Board should vote now on each of the issues that have been noted. Rather than deciding on each issue, staff will provide a list with recommendations for consideration at the Board's May I meeting. Board consensus was that was reasonable approach. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: Based on a review of the recommendations of the Planning Board as well as comments received from citizens and the Board of Commissioners, staff recommends consideration of the following revisions to the proposed ordinance amendments. Staff comments concerning the revisions are highlighted in italics The proposed changes are also highlighted on the attached ordinance proposal in boldface and stf*et4e type. • Revise Section D1-D-1-c, Application Requirements,to eliminate provision which allows applicant seeking approval of affordable housing project to submit conventional subdivision plan only(see page 45 of this abstract). Elimination of this provision is consistent with the Planning Board's recommendation as well as the discussion of the Board of Commissioners • Revise Section IV-D-10-G, Density Bonuses, to clarify that affordable housing projects include those which provide dwellings to families earning 80% or less than the median family income(see page 42 of this abstract). This revision provides consistency with the definition of affordable housing currently contained in the Zoning Ordinance. • Revise Section IV-D-10-G, Density Bonuses, to eliminate subsection G.3 which permits a density bonus in return for creating a endowment to maintain open space areas created as part of a Flexible Development (see page 43 of this abstract). This provision was added to the Flexible Development proposal prior to the November public hearing based on Randall Arendt's recommendation and review of the proposal. The provision has been eliminated since it is a bonus provision which neither serves as an incentive nor implements other County policies 13 • Revise Section III-D-1-d, Public Information Meeting, and e, Planning Department Review Procedures, to provide wording changes which clarify that the meeting is a Neighborhood Information Meeting (see pages 45-46 of this abstract). This provision has been revised to reflect the concern expressed about an "informational"meeting being treated as a 'public hearing". • Revise Section IV-D-10-B, Applicability, to eliminate Minor Subdivisions from the requirement of complying with the Flexible Development standards. Wording has been added to encourage working with staff to identify/preserve open space areas(see pages 19-20 of this abstract). Revision of this provision is consistent with the Planning Board's recommendation as well as the discussion of the Board of Commissioners • Revise Section IV-D-10-D.5, Street Standards, to eliminate the proposed Class AA Private Road which would permit more than 25 lots to be served by a private road. Also, revise Sections D.2, Conservation Option, and D.3, Cluster Option, to eliminate the provision which allows right-of-way to be counted as part of the lot size(see pages 26,27,and 36 of this abstract).. Revisions to these provisions have been made to address Commissioner concerns and provide consistency of stanaardr for all types of development. • Revise Section IV-D-10-C.3, Ownership of Open Space, to add a provision which allows land protected through a conservation easement prior to development application to be counted toward satisfying the open space requirement(see page 23 of this abstract). This provision is consistent with the Planning Board's recommendation and reflects discussions involving the staff, Triangle Land Conservancy representatives, and the County Attorney. • Revise Section IV-D-10 by adding a new subsection H entitled"Annual Report' which provides for a continuous tracking system and the development option selected; e.g., conventional vs. flexible development, to pursue in the preliminary plan stage(see page 44 of this abstract). The need for an annual report has been noted by the staff as well as the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners Although preparation of such a report could be handled through direction from the Board, the proposed amendment would formalize the requirement in ordinance format. 14 • Revise Section N-D-10-E.1,Determining Density or Lot Yield, by clarifying that the number of lots permitted in a subdivision is based on a `field plan" or conventional subdivision plan and that the number of lots may not be increased through use of a community wastewater treatment system (see pages 37-38 of this abstract). Given the number of questions regarding the proposed language, additional wording has been added to clarify the intent of this section. • Revise Section N-D-10-G.1, To Encourage Additional Open Space, by clarifying that the amount of additional open space which may be provided off- site to qualify for density bonuses varies according to the type of open space as well as the zoning of the property. In addition, the provisions regarding land and/or conservation easement dedications are clarified to recognize only dedications to the County(see page 42 of this abstract). Discussions with the County Attorney have indicated that legislation (either general or a local act) exists which permits density bonuses in return for preserving off-site open space. However, it is only permissible if the land or a conservation easement is dedicated to the County. Enabling legislation must be sought for those situations where such dedications are to be made to land trusts and/or units of governments This situation only exists when density bonuses are being sought. Clarification of the provisions concerning the amount of additional open space, by type, stems from a similar standard in both the current card proposed provisions related to affordable housing. Donated land for such housing must contain the land area needed to develop the number of bonus units consistent with the zoning of the donated lam As an example, if the donated land requires two-acre lot sizes, and the developer wants 10 bonus units, he/she must donate 20 acres (10 units x two acres). Instead of an "acre for a unit" approach, the open space standard should be revised to reflect not only the zoning of the off- site kard but the type of open space to be preserved;e.g., Primary vs Secondary. OTHER CONCERNS: Several other concerns were noted by the Planning Board and/or Board of Commissioners. However, staff does not feel that additional public hearings and/or phased implementation are warranted. The concerns as well as the staff rationale for retaining the provisions related to them are listed below. Groundwater Impacts and Community Wastewater Disposal Systems: Concerns were expressed about the use of wells and the impact on groundwater supplies, particularly where homes were clustered closer together. A suggestion was also made to phase implementation of the Flexible Development standards with Phase I consisting of estate lots, conservation lots, and cluster lots where the lot size was at least one acre. Phase 11 would consist of cluster lots of less than an 15 acre and the village option, and would be implemented after the issues of groundwater availability and community wastewater disposal systems were resolved. A question was asked as to whether the County has the ability to turn down a proposal based on the availability of groundwater. Staff Comment: One way of approaching the issue of cluster developments is to think about how a cluster can be designed without utilizing community wells and community wastewater disposal systems. Shown on the following page are sketches of a one-acre and a half-acre cluster. In the one-acre cluster, a well site and septic field is shown on each lot. In the half-acre cluster, a well site is shown on each lot but the septic field is located in an off-site easement. The half-acre lot arrangement is based on the provisions of Section IV-D-10-G.3, Cluster Option, which permits a septic system and/or well site to be located in an open space area provided it does not occupy more than 50% of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area It is an arrangement advocated by Randall Arendt; e.g., off-site septic systems, and one which has precedent in the county, e.g., Windy Hill Subdivision on University Station Road It is also an arrangement which produces practically the some pattern of well sites as the one- acre cluster, suggesting that the impact on groundwater supply is no different than that of a one-acre cluster. With regard to the issue of whether a subdivision can be turned down based on groundwater availability, the answer is not unless the Board changes current policy. There are provisions in place, however, which achieve the same goal. As an example, the Board recently approved the preliminary plan for University Manor Subdivision, including the proposed location of a community well Before final plats may be approved for recording, the developer must drill a test well to insure that an adequate water supply is available. If the test well produces sufficient water, the final well is installed in accordance with state and local standards If the test well does not produce, another well site must be selected and tested and may result in some rearranging of lots to provide the needed site. In the case of lots served by individual wells, e.g., the cluster examples, the developer is not required to insure that an adequate well site is located on each lot before the final plat is recorded This practice differs from the requirements applicable to sewage disposal systems wherein the developer must insure the presence of a satisfactory septic field Nevertheless, because a potable water supply is required by both building and health codes, an adequate well site must be available before a certificate of occupancy for a home will be issued With regard to the issue of community sewage disposal systems, the Board could adopt a policy prohibiting the use of such systems in "small-lot" cluster developments until the financial security aspects have been addressed by the County 16 Well Sites ` ONE-ACRE CLUSTER _ _ 1 40,000 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Sizes 1 i J Septic Fields, including primary and back-up areas , Well Sites 1 1 - HALF-ACRE CLUSTER s 20,000 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Sizes 1 1 Off Site Septic Easements, including primary and back-up areas V -J 17 Attorney. Such an approach would achieve the same purpose without delaying ."small-lot"cluster options implemented through other means. Village Option: Concerns have been expressed about the complicated nature of the Village Option and the need to conduct additional public hearings. Staff Comment: Staff does not feel that additional public hearings are warranted The Village Option was available five months prior to the November public hearing when the Planning Board was reviewing the Flexible Development proposal, and public comment could have been received(in writing) until mid-February when the Planning Board prepared its recommendations. Concerns about the Village Option were addressed in a January 4, 1996 memorandum, a copy of which is provided as an attachment. Part of the difficulty with the Village Option is that aliscussions about it have always focused on University Station, Southern Village or similar projects, and while such projects would certainly fall within the provisions, they would also be subject to greater open space requirements As an example, Southern Village contains approximately 350 acres. Because the Village Option sets a limit of 100 acres on the size of the Village Proper, the densely developed portion of the community, a Southern Village would be required to provide over 70%open space. This concept is detailed in Attachment D of the Jamimy 4 memorandum and sets a simple standard for villages of more than 150 acres-the greater the size of the village, the more open space that must be provided Another misunderstanding about the Village Option is the permitted density. The same limitations than c*ply to any Flexible Development cpply to villages, e.g., preparation of a "yield plan" to determine the allowable_ number of units. Furthermore, density bonuses are limited to certain locations, e.g., utility service areas, transit corridors, and transition areas Thus, a 300-acre "rural" village outside these areas must provide 67%open space and would not quay for density bonuses Finally, there may be many pages of standards for various portions of a village, but they are based on widely used and recognized standards for "traditional" communities They give substance to the Village Option and have been used by Randall Arendt in the model ordinance contained in the Albemarle Pamlico Region Open Space Design Guidebook Mr. Arendt also applied such standards to the Craven County (New Bern) case study where a portion of a historic plantation site was designated for village development to create an endowment to maintain the site. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed Flexible Development ordinance amendments, including the recommended revisions outlined above. Should the Board of Commissioners wish to is adopt the proposals, the Administration recommends approval of the following implementation schedule: 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. Per the Board's direction, copies of the Orange County Open Design Guidebook will be provided for review and comment as soon as possible but no later than the Board's May 14 meeting. Copies will also be provided to the Planning Board for comment, every effort will be made to accomplish this before presenting the Guidebook to the Board of Commissioners. Orange County's guidebook is to be modeled on the Open Space Design Guidebook for the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine (APES) Region and will include case studies to illustrate how to use the `four-step" open space design process in preparing plans for each of the Flexible Development options. The Guidebook is a "guide" on how to apply the ordinance provisions. It is not an ordinance, but the Flexible Development provisions as adopted will be included as an appendix. The APES Open Space Design Guidebook is undergoing final review by the planning branch of the N.C. Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). Upon receipt of the NCDEM comments, the final version of guidebook will be prepared, with publication and distribution occurring in May. Publication and distribution is being handled by the N.C. Association of County Commissioners, with distribution to all 100 counties in the state. 19 IV-B-10. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section A PURPOSE The purpose of Flexible Development is to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural an d 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 from 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 DepaAmeFA e a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat by the Board of County Commissioners. All Flexible Development subdivision plats shall comply with the requirements and standards specified herein and in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances to the extent that they are 20 not in conflict with these provisions. Applicants seeking approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning Department are encouraged to work with the Planning Department staff in identifying and preserving open space areas as part of such developments. 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 Conservation 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 21 0 The Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. • 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 Property Documentation Form: Historic Resources of Orange County; 0 An Archaeological 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 22 wildlife enhancement are employed. Such woodlands may consist of hardwood, pine, and/or mixed pine-hardwood forests identified as part of 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 County, 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 from 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. 23 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. Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easement may be counted toward satisfying the thirty-three percent(33%) open space requirement provided it is a portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided. C.4 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. 24 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 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 Minimumspacing 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 Minimumspacing 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. 25 • 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 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 buildingiconservation area standards, conservation lots may platted in accordance with following standards: 26 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. size, pr-evided the let size is of suffieient size te aeeeaffaedate an adequate building site. OrAy one half of the street tight ef-way fr-enting en eaeh let may be eounted fe f t :s pu ��-Purpvse, • 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. 27 • 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. O--Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%) but shall be no smaller than 5000 square feet. Pub he and p,�vatte st feet ri ht � � _���_4� r l4llY 11♦ J41VV{. 11.�.114J Vl {'�II�—lII6rC)G elu ed the ealeulatien of the let size, d •7 t 1 + l ./t J 4 aeeefwnedate an ade"a4e building site. OpAy one half of the street right ef-way Y'�IT u �aV avc JiT..V 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; 28 • 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. In 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 29 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. 30 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 . Comer 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. 0 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 nature. • 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 falfi mg 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. 31 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, Land Use schools, 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 1/6) 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 1/o) 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 1/6)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 Buildings Townhouse 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. 32 Village Development Standards STOREFRONT USE PROVISIONS Land designated for Storefront Uses may be used for the following purposes: • PersonaLservice 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 comer 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. 33 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 1/6)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% Lots opaque,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 comer 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 pernutted 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. • 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. 34 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 Land Center 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 0 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. 35 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%o)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 heigbt • 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. 36 D.5 Street Standards All streets in Flexible Developments shall conform to the standards contained in Section fV-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 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 DA) 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 37 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, N.C. Soil Survey. The map shall be prepared in consultation with the Soil Scientist of the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department. The number of lots achieved through the preparation of a Conventional Subdivision or "Yield" Plan is the number of lots which must used in preparing the Flexible Development Plan. The number of lots may not be increased through the proposed use of an alternative 38 or community sewage disposal system. Increases are permitted, however,at the Preliminary Plan stage where a more detailed soils analysis clearly demonstrates that a greater number of lots is achievable than shown on an approved Concept Plan. 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. 39 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 all 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. ao • 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 treeUnes 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. F.4 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. 41 • 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: 42 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. The amount of the density increase shall be based on the following standards: For each five (S) acres of Primary Conservation Area preserved off-site, one (1) additional building lot or dwelling unit is permitted For each two (2) acres of Secondary Conservation Area preserved off-site in areas which require a two-acre minimum lot size, one (1) additional building lot or dwelling unit is permitted For each additional acre of Secondary Conservation Area preserved off-site in areas which require a one-acre minimum lot size, one (1) additional building lot or dwelling unit is permitted Land purchased in fee may be dedicated to Orange County,-aw er- .n of le al gevem ent, the 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,—L ei-=urAt of leeal 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 80% or 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 43 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. dwellings,G.3 To Eneourage Maintennnee Endowments needed en a yeafly basis to maintain the open spaee. On the assumpfien that additional 1 abeye-the inw6fmin +tom.,+ would er-dkmi-Ay—ve peffnitted en c the site, afe net of the lets sh uld be denated to the Open Spaee Eadewment Fund fer-the eensefveAien !ends vAtWo the subdivisien. Sueh estimates should be prepared by an ageney er- er-ganizMien with experie +:vv wiiva u asuuvvautzez'};'aZLiIIdISC!"st,VT'CCuiII'C'prLpGCLfgVTGTIII'IIGiIy; G.3 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. 44 Section H ANNUAL REPORT A report shall be made to the Board of County Commissioners each year showing the number of major subdivisions submitted for Concept Plan approval under these standards, including, but not limited to, a description of the conventional and Flexible Development plans submitted, and the subdivision plan chosen for submission for Preliminary Plan approval. The report shall also include an evaluation of these standards, including their effectiveness in achieving the stated purpose of preserving agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character. The Board of County Commissioners shall review the report to determine if these standards are achieving the stated purpose, and, if it determines that adjustments and/or changes are required, then it shall direct the County Manager and staff to prepare a report which outlines recommended changes for its consideration. M.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-B-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. 45 • 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; or wWeh all + afe + be a ele„ea with .,sac dab e i hosing units T., M * r > > nedfing in this seefien is to r-wAed to fanifies p less dw the n,•.,na e Ge nty e er-adjusted rf9r-farnily size, Uban-Bevelepment. • 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. die Neighborhood Information Meeting: Upon receipt and acceptance of the Concept Plan application, the Planning Department shall schedule a lie Neighborhood Information Meeting and mail notices of the meeting to each owner of property within 500 feet of the property proposed to be subdivided. The Pub fie Neighborhood Information 46 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 applicant will be available to answer questions about the proposed subdivision, and comments from neighboring property owners for the purpose of improving the proposed subdivision design may be made. The Planning Department staff will explain the County's subdivision approval process and identify meeting dates of the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners at which neighboring property owners may speak with regard to specific concerns and/or issues. e. Planning Department Review Procedures: Within thirty (30) days of the date of the Iie Neighborhood 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 eeneems comments of ei&ens neighboring property owners expressed at the %blie—Neighborhood 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 N-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 fiuther time consented 47 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 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. 48 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-B-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: 49 • Topographic contours at ten-foot intervals, showing rock outcrops and slopes of seven and one-half percent (7-1/2%) 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 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, 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. 50 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. d. The location of proposed water supply and sewage disposal facilities, including: 51 • 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. 52 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 Duster-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 Elust 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 individual UNIV-CA wells and on-site septic systems or individual on-site alternative disposal UNIV-PW systems; provided, however, off-site systems shall be permitted in the CANE-PW Cane Creek Protected Watershed (CANE-PW) and Critical Area CANE-CA (CANE-CA), and the Upper Eno Critical Area (U-ENO-CA) when U-ENO-CA 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) Cluster- Development A subdivisien in whieh bWdings lets me grouped together- thFeugh--a effteient de el„ etA by .,6 lets with , ress i,,,,a „nom dm "se e ,ea by eeavefffieaW let by let development, yet maiatains applieation of nemud lot density standards te the subdi-vided trea as a whole by fequkiag that land am swved by lot size r-eduefiens be msefv Flexible Development - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural 53 features,and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development approaches. At least one-third (33°/x) 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 H. Definitions (0aster-Flexible Development) See definition of"Flexible Development" under Zoning Ordinance amendments above. 54 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLAT i G B FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNNG DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 4, 1996 SUBJECT.• FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL COPIES: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIO'N`ERS JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY 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 `Teeble Development" proposal. Section VII-D-4 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 only. Staff Response. The provision of affordable housing is a goal of Orange County, and a concern about "open space" or "flexible 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 N-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 55 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. 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. 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 PIanning 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 stall; 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. DeveloRment Ulan exceptions. The specific issue is whether allowing a developer to submit only a Flexible Development plan is discriminatory. 58 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 5 1,13 1 acres, or an area twice the size of the city limits and ETD'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(downcutting 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. • Wetlands coed the quality of water Aquatic plants change inorganic nutrients into organic material, storing it m their leaves The stems, leaves, and roots of these plants also slow the flow of water through a wedwig allowing the silt to settle out Consequently, wetlands protect downstream water resources from siltation anal pollution. • Wetlands byluence the quantity of water. They act as a sponges, retaining water wing dry periods and hold it back during floods, thus 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 mcM forms offish and wildlife. These factors have the value of providing general environmental health by creating recreational, research, and educational sites, and adding to the aesthetics of the community. 58 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 unbuidable 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. a� 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 goals. 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: 60 • 98 acres divided into 16 four-acre lots and 36 one-acre lots does not meet the objectives of rural character preservation. 0 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. 61 • 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 Iocations, 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 801/o 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 '62 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. 63 Minor subdivision applicability. 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 64 COMPARISON OF OPEN SPACE PERCENTAGE STANDARDS Acreage Requirements/Densities for Development/Open Space Standard 100-Acre Tract w/Unbuildable Area of 0 Acres 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 40 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 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 0.75 0.75 0.75 DEVELOPMENT AREA DENSITY @.-ONE UNIT PWGROSS ACRE 50% open space after deducting unbuildable land 2.00 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% open space 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 space 3.33 3.33 3.33 33% open space 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 65 _ 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$52 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. 66 Rocking K Ranch Rocking K Ranch is a 4,400-acre desert development near Tucson, Arizona. A tnixed-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. 67 O C O p O O U _r Cq C14 N 00 Y Y N 00 w O O Q V1 O O U N N O N v1 N N h V'1 N `xf 3 Y i \ M ^ O O O Q O 'n in O O Q v1 O U N V .,q v1 N N v1 v1 N V 3 p O O O Q O ° O O Q i h C ^ N N N In Q L J d 7 O �- M �„� O l� l� O t'1 M O M t1 t•'1 O a 4 z O O Wi N Z O O NR W O O[ O t� d ri O t� O C� (� t� �' O K en 3 o O p d o n w Ei Wi O N N O O V j o o ;� o 0 0 0 ° z fn z ci � a d O It L > y O is O 3 e LL L U �.. S — o. a• o y U c o a� go ce C3 C en \° cu O s `1 Q y U �>, y v [ O O y 000 La i;i �. p" v cn E°- > so 00 Ga 68 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) 310% 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% L _ O .,eA7 - /994C - el/U .. 1 - 9 1 Appropriation- Public School Building Funds (93-94) $ 1,224,693 /X- A 2 The following amendment is anticipated to complete this transfer 3 Transfer to New Chapel Hill-Carrboro Elementary School $ 100,000 4 Chapel Hill High School Phase II (100,000) 5 6 E. SETTING DATES REQUIRED LEGALLY FOR LOG PUBLIC HEARING 7 8 The Board approved June 13 or June 19 as possible dates to hold a statutory required 9 public hearing on the potential siting of a new landfill in Orange County. 10 VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 11 12 ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 13 C. 1996 GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION 14 Commissioner Crowther asked that the Board consider, at a later time, for inclusion in 15 the County's Zoning Ordinance, provisions for obtaining timber deeds for all timber cut in Orange County. 16 17 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the 18 resolution as presented and authorize the County Attorney to transmit the resolution to Orange County's 19 legislative delegation and authorize the Chair to send a letter from the Orange County Commissioners to the 20 County Commissioners of Person and Caswell Counties requesting the support of those two counties for 21 legislation to establish the boundaries between and among Caswell and Person Counties and Orange 22 County. 23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 24 25 26 IX. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 27 A. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS 28 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PROPOSAL 29 Marvin Collins presented for consideration a list of recommended revisions to the 30 proposed Flexible Development open space preservation strategies which were presented at public hearing 31 on November 27, 1995. These revisions are a result of comments from members of the Board of 32 Commissioners, Planning Board members and citizens. He also mentioned that other items under discussion 33 were groundwater impacts, community wastewater disposal systems and the village option. Information on 34 both of those concerns indicates that in terms of densities in clusters, part of the flexible development 35 provisions allow off-site septic easements. As those provisions are utilized, the same dispersion of well sites 36 as with one acre clusters will occur. The concerns regarding groundwater withdrawal and cluster 37 developments with 1/2 acre lots could be addressed in much the same manner as conventional subdivisions. 38 Staff feels that ample opportunity has been given for citizens and the Planning Board to comment and that it 39 is not necessary to solicit further comment on the village options. The village option, if used, would require 40 more than 33% open space. The larger the development the more open space would be required. The 41 Administration's recommendation is to approve the proposal, including the revisions that have been 42 recommended. The presentation was completed and he requested questions from the Board of 43 Commissioners and Planning Board members. Responses to those questions follows: 44 45 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about locational provisions for villages, Marvin 46 Collins said that villages are one of the flexible development options and as such are allowed anywhere in 47 the County. However, in rural areas which rely on septic systems, the yield plan would determine how many 48 units would be allowed in the village. A village which intended to take advantage of density bonus provisions 49 would be allowed only in transit corridors, utility service areas, etc. There is a ceiling on the density in terms 50 of how many units a village would have. It is structured that way so that a "University Station" could not be 51 located in Cedar Grove Township. The ceiling is controlled by the Zoning Ordinance in the Density Bonus 52 provisions. 53 54 Commissioner Gordon asked if a developer would be allowed to ask for water and sewer if they had 55 sufficient density. Marvin replied that would be permitted only if the development was located in the 1 transition area or utility service area. He indicated that page 37 of this proposal states that "Systems are 2 permitted only in accordance with applicable water and sewer, and land use policies...." 3 4 There was a question concerning whether the groundwater study initiated by the Water Resources 5 Committee would give information about adequate groundwater capacity. Commissioner Gordon stated that 6 the study being conducted by USGS is somewhat generalized and will not give data about specific sites. 7 8 Commissioner Crowther thanked Marvin Collins for working on the neighborhood public meetings. 9 He felt that the wording was appropriate. He asked if the County had received any conservation easements. 10 Marvin indicated that the County had not received a conservation easement but it is being worked on now. 11 Commissioner Crowther asked how the median income is established for affordable housing. Marvin Collins 12 indicated that HUD establishes that figure based on local figures which are updated annually. 13 14 Chair Carey asked why a provision was being added to count land already dedicated under 15 conservation easement as open space. Marvin Collins stated that it is counted as open space only if it 16 remains in the ownership of the person developing the property. If it is subdivided it could not be counted. 17 The assumption is that if a piece of property has something significant enough on it to lead to the approval of 18 the conservation easement, then the owner should continue to be given credit for it. The further assumption 19 is that this is fair because they have already limited the amount of development that can occur on that 20 property. 21 22 Chair Carey supported the idea that developers who create affordable housing projects could 23 submit only one plan. He asked if the provision under discussion could enforce that. 24 25 Geof Gledhill referred to page 45 of the proposal. He mentioned that the second bullet"In lieu of a 26 three-part Concept Plan, one Concept Plan may be submitted if' is being recommended for deletion. This is 27 because of the staff's recommendation, following the Planning Board's vote, not to exempt affordable 28 housing projects from the requirement to submit a Flexible Development Option. Geof Gledhill suggested not 29 including an exception to the requirement to submit a Flexible Development Option until after the Ordinance 30 is revised to require review of those projects after the plat is required. He then referred to pages 42 and 43 31 where affordable housing was also discussed. He recommended that Page 42, G.2, 1 st paragraph be 32 changed to read "A density increase is permitted, pursuant to Section 6.28 of the Zoning Ordinance". He 33 suggested that developers interested in affordable housing be required to go to the Zoning Regulations which 34 will explain how affordable housing can be accomplished with density bonuses. At the time the Zoning 35 Regulations were adopted not all of Orange County was zoned. That might have explained the necessity of 36 having affordable housing provisions in the Subdivision Regulations. The County is now entirely zoned and 37 the Zoning Ordinances applies throughout the County. He also commented that there may be questions 38 about whether the provisions do what the Board of Commissioners want. Further consideration of them in 39 the future could be accomplished. However, his current recommendation is to leave out the reference to 40 affordable housing. Page 43, G.3 should be changed to read "Location of open space bonus units only: 41 Density increases as permitted above to encourage additional open space are limited to flexible development 42 proposed in the following locations......" 43 44 Commissioner Gordon questioned whether the Board of Commissioners wanted to follow Mr. 45 Gledhill's recommendation. 46 47 A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to 48 adopt the County Attorney's recommendation to change the language as stated above. 49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 50 51 Commissioner Willhoit mentioned his desire for a mechanism which would require that housing 52 which is approved as "affordable housing"stay affordable. He referred this to the staff and Planning Board 53 for recommendation to this Board. 54 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey, to address the 2 question of"how to assure that affordable housing remains affordable" for a recommendation to be 3 returned to this Board. 4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5 6 Commissioner Willhoit referred to the Yield Plan. He stated that he understands what the Yield 7 Plan is but questions what is meant by"not needing a conventional plan if a flexible plan is being done". It 8 states that there is no need to do the Yield Plan if they are not going for the maximum. He asked if going for 9 the maximum means only one lot less than the maximum? Marvin Collins replied that it could be one lot less. 10 The Yield Plan could reflect characteristics of the soil and of the site. If the developer is attempting to get the 11 maximum number of units, they could be pursuing the limit in terms of the permitted zoning. If however, the 12 developer is providing lot sizes for specific markets, it could be less than what would be allowed by the Yield 13 Plan. Commissioner Willhoit again questioned if this would include a developer who wants to develop 99 out 14 of 100 allowed lots. Marvin replied that the Yield Plan is basically the conventional subdivision plan and they 15 would need to know how many lots could be developed doing a conventional development. Commissioner 16 Willhoit's concern was that a developer would not know how many units were allowed unless they did a yield 17 plan. 18 19 Marvin Collins and Geof Gledhill agreed to clarify this matter in the proposal. Marvin Collins said 20 that page 45 could be revised to read "the applicant may also combine the yield plan and site analysis with 21 the flexible development option into a single plan." Another sentence could be added that reads "if an 22 applicant uses this options they shall comply with the provisions for determining density in Section E.1. 23 24 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, that 25 page 45 be modified to read "the applicant may also combine the yield plan and site analysis with the 26 flexible development option into a single plan and "if an applicant uses this option they shall comply 27 with the provisions for determining density in Section E.1." 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 29 30 Chair Carey suggested reviewing each bulleted option on page 12 and 13. 31 32 a Revised Section III-D-1-C: There was consensus on this recommendation. 33 • Revised Section IV-D-1-G: There was consensus on this recommendation to refer back to the Zoning 34 Ordinance in this item. 35 a Revised Section IV-D-10-G: There was consensus on this recommendation to eliminate subsection G.3 36 a Revised Section III-D-1-d: There was consensus on this recommendation 37 • Revised Section IV-D-10-B: There was consensus on this recommendation. 38 Commissioner Willhoit voiced his concern that the Minor Subdivision process includes a 39 requirement that there not be dedicated roads. This encourages having each lot empty onto the main road 40 so that the road does not have to be dedicated. He asked that the procedure be reversed so that the Minor 41 Subdivision is exempted if they have only one entry point to a major road. Those that have multiple entries to 42 the major road would then require review. He referred this to the staff for review and recommendation to be 43 returned to the Board of Commissioners. 44 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to ask 45 County staff to review potential issues associated with changing the requirements for access to 46 major roads to read "Minor Subdivisions are exempt if they have only one entry point on the major 47 road. Those that have multiple entries to the major road would require review." 48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 49 • Revised Section IV-D-10-D-5: There was consensus on this recommendation 50 • Revised Section IV-D-10-C.3: There was consensus on this recommendation 51 • Revised Section IV-0-10: There was consensus on this recommendation 1 Commissioner Willhoit asked that a tally be kept which would track this information. Marvin Collins 2 indicated that this would occur. 3 Revised Section IV-D-10-E: There was consensus on this recommendation. 4 Commissioner Gordon referred to the top of page 38 regarding the detailed soil analysis. She 5 asked what could cause a greaten number of lots to be allowed at the Preliminary Plan stage. Marvin Collins 6 indicated that initial work with Environmental Health and Planning Staff could indicate that only 75 lots could 7 be developed out of 100. After the Concept Plan is approved, it could be that the perk tests show that 85 lots 8 are developable. 9 Revised Section IV-D-10-G.1: There was consensus on this recommendation. 10 Commissioner Gordon asked if this was intended to be more restrictive_ Commissioner Willhoit 11 indicated that qualifying for the density bonus by dedicating land off-site is contingent on the County 12 accepting dedication of that property. The County is not required to accept the land. If it does not meet the 13 County's needs, it can be refused. Commissioner Gordon asked for further clarification regarding the 5 14 acres (primary) and 2 acres (secondary). She asked where the numbers come from. Marvin Collins referred 15 to page 42 G.I. He mentioned that studies have shown that the market value vs. the use value is generally 16 five to one. This Section IV-D-10-G-1 states that this 5 to 1 ratio must be used to preserve Primary 17 Conservation Areas. Five (5) acres would have to be preserved to get one unit. 18 A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve 19 the proposed Flexible Development Ordinance amendments, including the recommended revisions, to be 20 effective July 1, 1996. 21 Commissioner Gordon mentioned the issue of conventional systems vs. the alternative community 22 systems; problems are more likely with the latter system. It was her understanding that approval could be 23 delayed until the financial arrangements are worked out by the attorney using the Wastewater Treatment 24 Monitoring Program. She noted that this does not seem to be included in this proposal. 25 Marvin Collins replied that he felt that if this was a concern it would be appropriate to have the 26 Board of Commissioners adopt a policy stating that flexible development proposals which use alternative 27 systems would have to have the financial security arrangements finalized prior to approval. 28 Commissioner Gordon asked how it would be handled. 29 Chair Carey stated that his understanding is that this could be handled by policy rather than 30 Ordinance. 31 It was suggested that page 37, D.6, 2nd bullet, be revised as follows "A community water and/or 32 sewage disposal system designed, constructed, and maintained in conformity with all applicable state, 33 federal and local rules, regulations and policies" Geof Gledhill indicated that he felt this could be reviewed 34 by the Board of Health and adopted by the end of the summer. 35 Commissioner Gordon felt that the village option did not have sufficient locational criteria. For 36 example, she felt that a village should be required to be on public water and sewer. In our Zoning Ordinance, 37 changes with comparable or even smaller impact generally include locational criteria. 38 Marvin Collins indicated that a 100 acre village could use wells and septic tanks. It is not true that 39 the village option would require a community system or public water and sewer. The village could be 40 clustered, surrounded by open space, and the septic field could be off-site in the woods or meadow. 41 Commissioner Crowther amended his motion, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to read "approve 42 the proposed Flexible Development Ordinance amendments, including the recommended revisions, and 43 policies on Section D-6, to be implemented on July 1, 1996. 44 VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: AYES, 4; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) 45 46 Commissioner Gordon stated her concerns about the Flexible Development Ordinance. She 47 opposes off-site easements for sewage disposal in critical water supply watersheds, such as University Lake 48 and Cane Creek. She also believes it is a mistake to allow the village options without specifying locational 49 criteria for villages. 50 VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED: AYES, 4; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)