The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 11-01-1995 - X-B ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 1. 1295 Agenda Abstract Item # X—B SUBJECT: FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION STRATEGIES DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _Yes—X—No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 Flexible Development Proposal; including: • Arendt Comments; and PHONE NUMBERS: • Joyner Comments Hillsborough 732-8181 Advisory Board Comments, including: Mebane 227-2031 • Planning Board; Durham 688-7331 • Agricultural Districts Board; and Chapel Hill 967-9251 • Historic Preservation Commission Draft 10-11-95 Planning Board Minutes PURPOSE: To receive a report on open space preservation strategies, including a staff- generated Flexible Development proposal. BACKGROUND: OPEN SPACE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT: Since December, 1993,a series of meetings, work group sessions, and/or public hearings has been held for the purpose of finalizing a set of rural character/open space preservation strategies. These meetings are summarized below: • 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. { 2 • 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. • July-October, 1995 - The Planning Board reviews all materials/evidence received, including the Rural Character Study Committee recommendations (January, 1993), and prepares recommendation. The Planning Staff has reviewed the material produced and/or received, including comments provided by citizens through township meetings and public hearings. While a variety of approaches and options exist, the three basic approaches which have been recommended to date include: • The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations; • The "Status Quo"; and • A "Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space requirement and density limits based on the carrying capacity of the soils. SUNEViARY OF STAFF PROPOSAL: In an effort to focus the discussion and "balance" the many interests expressed to date, the Planning Staff has prepared this proposal which consists of three parts. The first section contains "Goals and Action Strategies" (as recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee). 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: • 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 • 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 • 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 3 • 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, 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: • Providing greater amounts of open space than required; or • Providing affordable housing units either as part of the development or at an off-site location; or • Purchasing the development rights on farm or forest lands, natural areas, and similar resources; or • Some combination of the above. • Water supply/sewage disposal service may include: • 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 • 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 • 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 option in designing open space or "flexible" developments. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: Since September of 1994, the Planning Board has been involved in a review of open space issues and providing responses to the staffs Flexible Development proposal. Summaries of the Planning Board's discussion are provided as attachments and include the following meeting dates: u 4 • October 10, 1995 • July 11, 1995 • May 11, 1995 • November 11, 1994 • October 11, 1994 • September 8, 1994 At its October 10, 1995 long-range meeting, the Planning Board finalized its discussion, and, while it could not reach consensus on every issue, voted unanimously to recommend that the proposal be presented at public hearing for citizen comment. Both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board have supported the proposal (see attached correspondence from Board Chairs). RECOMMENDATION: Among the options available to the Board of Commissioners are the following: • Schedule the Flexible Development proposal for the November 27, 1995 public hearing as recommended by the Planning Board. If this option is chosen, the following schedule could apply: November 1 Report to BOCC November 8 BOCC/Town of Hillsborough Work Session November 10 Deadline for submission of notice to newspaper November 16 Publish 1st notice November 23 Publish 2nd notice Distribute public hearing agenda November 27 Conduct public hearing The November 8 Work Session is mentioned because it could be used to review/approve a draft notice of public hearing concerning the proposal. • Review/discuss the Flexible Development proposal with a goal of scheduling the proposal for the February 26, 1996 public hearing. If this option is chosen, the following schedule could apply: November 1 Report to BOCC November 14 BOCC discussion December 4 BOCC discussion December 19 BOCC discussion January 11 BOCC Work Session February 5 Commissioners approve public hearing notice February 9 Deadline for submission of notice to newspaper February 15 Publish 1st notice February 22 Publish 2nd notice Distribute public hearing agenda February 26 Conduct public hearing 5 SUMLARY OF PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL OCTOBER 10, 1995 On October 10, 1995, the Planning Board concluded 16 months of work on the "Flexible Development" proposal for preservation of open space and protection of rural character in rural Orange County. Before forwarding the proposal to the Board of Commissioners for public hearing, the Planning Board asked staff to create a list of primary issues for discussion. These issues were taken from the draft proposal,the comments and critiques of Randall Arendt and Ann Joyner,and previous comments from the Planning Board. Staff identified five primary issues, and the Board used these issues as the format for a roundtable discussion on October 11. Rather than taking a vote on each issue, Planning Board members were asked to state their position on the issue and provide any comments to be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners with the final draft of the proposal. The following is a summary of the positions and thoughts of the Planning Board,preceded by background comments from the presentation of Planning Director Marvin Collins. Underline and boldface are used to highlight key issue positions. ISSUE# 1:PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE TO BE REQUIRED FOR FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENTS In presenting this item, Planning Director Marvin Collins noted that there were two questions: 1) what should be the amount of open space for Flexible Developments, and 2)what percentage and type of open space should be allowed in the Estate Lot option. Collins noted that the Flexible Development proposal calls for 33% of the tract to be left in open space, and that the Estate Lot option allow lots of four acres and up, where 50%of the lot is kept in open space. Comments from both Randall Arendt and Ann Joyner addressed this issue. Arendt indicated that he thought the overall open space percentage for Flexible Developments should be increased from 3391o,and argued that the buildable portion of the estate lot option be decreased from 50% to 2596. At the same time, Joyner indicated that more uses should be allowed in the unbuildable open-space portions of estate lots,such as ponds,gardens and stables. Collins noted that if Joyner's ideas of allowing more open-space uses were incorporated, then a change to 25%buildable for estate lots could be accomplished. Arendt and Joyner also noted a preference for no maximum lot size for estate lots,rather than the current 10-acre limit. Collins indicated that no maximum could allow flexibility in a wide range of lot sizes. Collins concluded by restating that the basic issue is whether 33% or 50% should be the open space minimum for Flexible Developments. He added that Arendt had suggested a combination approach - trying one open-space percentage, monitoring it and re-evaluating in three-to-five years. Joan Jobsis: Stay with 33% open space. 33% open space should be calculated from the total tract size. Elizabeth Walters: Stay with 33%,come back and review.33%open space should be calculated from the total tract size Margaret Brown: Support 50% open space. Need educational forums. 33% open space should be calculated from the buildable land Karen Barrows: Support 33%,maybe up to 50%.Need to see how it goes.Open space should be calculated from total tract size. 6 ' Arnie Katz: Minimum of 50% open space to get incentives, up to 70%. Open space should be calculated from buildable land only. Leo Allison: 33% more reasonable. Open space should be calculated from total tract size. Paul Hoecke: Prefer 33%, but need "weighting" provision to ensure quality open space. Open space should be calculated from the buildable land only. Cheryl Howie: Prefer 50%, but would meet resistance - no less than 33%. Need workshops. Work upward at a future date. Open space should come from total tract size. Cherie Rosemond: 50% should be the starting point. Open space should be calculated from the buildable land only. Bill Waddell: 33%minimum,but full set of incentives should not come into play until around 66%. After X number of plans, review program. Open space should be calculated from total tract size. ISSUE # 2: DISINCENTIVES VERSUS INCENTIVES Collins noted that there were a number of different components that the Planning Board could consider as either incentives or disincentives for the proposal. In his comments, Arendt proposed use of a disincentive for conventional development - allowing only 70% of the lot yield if a conventional development is to be created, but 100% (what the land would allow)for Flexible Developments. Collins noted that this type of disincentive will likely be perceived as "downzoning"by many. Collins then noted another type of disincentive which addresses economics - the allowance of private roads. Currently, if certain rural character and design criteria are met,private roads may be justified for developments. One disincentive to encourage Flexible Development might be to require paved roads for conventional development, but allow private roads for open-space developments. A second incentive for consideration was suggested by the Rural Character Study Committee - an expedited review process for Flexible Developments.In this approach,if Flexible Development criteria are met, approval is handled by Staff. Collins noted that this approach could be controversial, and that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners may take issue with the idea. A third incentive for discussion involves waiving fees for Flexible Development proposals.Related to this is the issue of increasing payment-in-lieu for recreational open space, and whether the provision of open space should be linked with this program. Other incentive possibilities to be considered involve relaxing road design standards to allow greater design flexibility in road design (T-turnarounds instead of cul-de-sacs, for example) for Flexible Developments; and allowing water and sewer service in Transition Areas and other designated areas could also be a substantial incentive. Finally, the use of density bonuses as an incentive is an issue. Collins noted that the current proposal would allow density bonuses if open space greater than 33% were created, and a bonus for the creation of affordable housing would also be available. In concluding, Collins added that any or all of these incentives could be combined into an incentive package. 2 7 Rosemond: An options deserve consideration as incentives/disincentives. Public/private roads a powerful incentive.Do not support water/sewer extension beyond areas currently served. Howie: Like incentives for 33%and above Prefer roads and fee waivers for 50%open space and up. No benefit to extending water and sewer - individual systems okay. Questions about staff approvaL Hoecke: Need whole range of incentives to kick in gradually. Don't use water/sewer, lack of control in intervening areas. Like private vs. public roads. Allison: Like density bonuses.Start incentives at 4090,allow roads and fee waivers at 50%and up. Agree with previous water/sewer comments. Katz: Incentives must be large enough to make it happen. Disincentives for old ways, incentives for the new. Like density disincentive - don't think it's dowrizoning Like roads. start substantial incentives at 50%plus.Like low-cost housing incentives. Concern about water/sewer, need well-supervised community systems. Barrows: Provide density bonuses for 50% open space plus. Like roads and staff approval, but cutoff at certain level.Avoid off-site nitrification fields-prefer on-site unless do something different. Brown: Not in favor of density bonuses, prefer disincentives. Prefer no bonuses or incentives until 50%open space plus.Private roads need thought.Do not favor staff approval,but favor approving open-space plans in one meeting. Not in favor of fee waivers/relaxed standards except in high open space cases. Favor on-site systems for conventionaL If water/sewer, require open space. Walters: Can't support downzomng Open to paved roads in conventional developments. Need to stagger density bonuses. Provide some incentive at 33%, but don't stop from doing more. Jobsis: Open space not automatically a good thing. Disincentives make it costly option. Like density bonuses,don't take away. Road preferences okay, but need more info. Like staff approval as incentive. Escalating scale for incentives with open space okay. Judiciously use water/sewer, if clusters happen near cities, water/sewer reasonable Waddell: Favor some density bonuses at 33%,but must do 66%plus to get full scope Use sliding scale for incentives.Like incentives for decreasing road cost.Prefer staff approval at 50-66% open space only. Like gradation for fee waivers - none at 66%. Allow water/sewer, development will cost less if lines exist. Perhaps have County help provide water/sewer if 66% open space plus. Support affordable housing bonus. Allow relaxed standards at higher open space percentages. 3 8 ISSUE #3: MANDATORY VERSUS OPTIONAL OPEN SPACE In outlining the issues under this topic, Collins noted that staff had recently attended workshops on conservation easements. In the workshops, staff learned that Federal and State tax benefits are available for voluntary use of conservation easements, and that a mandatory program of open-space development might result in the loss of those benefits. The optional approach offers the opportunity for education on the advantages of doing open-space developments.Having to draw out an open-space design would allow landowners/developers to see the potential benefits.Arendt's idea of trying an approach,monitoring it and then evaluating the result could be implemented with an optional approach. Collins added, however, that there may be certain places where a variation of the mandatory approach should be considered. One situation could include an area where residents support such an approach, such as in a small area plan process.Another situation might be where there is no reasonable recourse to preserve an identified significant natural area, wildlife habitat or historic site. Jobsis: All should be o do evaluate over time. Concern about allowing small area plans to make mandatory - who should decide? Obligation to maintain existing sense of community. Walters: All should be optional. Look at requiring open space where small areas desire. Brown: Make mandatory over a period of time, with education program.Phase in over five years. Need to develop monitoring and evaluation program.Allow to be mandatory in certain areas, like small area plans. Need to discuss possibility in Joint Planning Area with Towns. Barrows: Make open space o do but allow small areas where majority of residents want it not to have to fight to get. Katz: Consider making mandatory in Transition Areas. Make optional for most of County, if disincentives for conventional. Need to find status quo to be able to monitor. Renee Price: Establish a baseline and let rest be op Tonal.Need baseline or guide to build upon.Allow small area plans to go further if desired. Need a vision in place to evaluate. Allison: Make open space o tp ional.Small area plans should have flexibility.Need to evaluate in the future. Hoecke: Make open space on mandatory will scare people off.Mandatory may be okay in some cases.If no other way to preserve character,a"floor"should kick in.Education key. Howie: Make open space optional now, but phase in mandatory. Have incentives and education in place. Set a reasonable date to phase in mandatory, working with other task forces. Mandatory now okay in certain areas. Rosemond Need options that will enhance number of open-space developments.Make it olotionaL but allow mandatory if small area plan groups desire - empowers communities. Need to re-evaluate after X number of developments. Waddell: Tax issues are compelling to make it op ionaL Review program after three-five years, or X number of developments, whichever comes first. Consider allowing mandatory for small area plan groups that desire it. 4 w 9 ISSUE #4 VILLAGES Issues relating to the Village option include discussion of the maximum land area for the village proper (currently 125 acres), the location of villages in the transit corridor, and how conservancy lots in the village open space function. Collins noted that it is unlikely that there will be many villages developed in Orange County, but that this option provides the means to create such a community in locations where villages are deemed appropriate. Howie: Allow villages around transit corridors, but define them. Don't allow just anywhere in County. Need to keep some open space within villages. Concern about complete TDR. Hoecke: These are artificial villages. May work for transit areas. Will need urban-type services. Concern that will be creating mini inner-city, with service needs for clusters of people. Allison: Can see some use for village s.although unnatural in some ways.Need some open space in villages. Price: Like idea of village with open space, may help support rural economic development picture. Most villages around transportation of some type. Apprehensive about transfer of development rights in different areas -need to tie to local area. If allowed elsewhere, need to look at village impacts on rural areas. Katz: Don't expect there will be many villages. Need to be based around an economic activity, a vital asset for villages. Barrows: 125-acres for village core a lot of land, mind-boggling in northern Orange. Need to have a lot more open space, at least 600. Wait and see what Chapel Hill villages look like. Concerns about service provision, wildlife displacement. Brown: 125-acre should be the maximum. Like villages along transit stops - need to carefully evaluate sites. Need open space and buffers in villages. Walters: Support villages in transit corridor but have a problem with them in rural areas-restrict them to transit corridor.Support TDR/density bonus to preserve rural areas.No need to restrict land to the same Township.Need to develop list of property owners interested in TDR. If allow villages in rural areas, keep them small. Waddell: Allow villages anywhere in the County. Rural villages will not be very dense.Allow TDR in transportation corridor and water/sewered areas - but not in Rural Buffer. Rosemond: Need to better define transportation corridors.In favor of putting villages closer to towns. Need some provision for public open space. 5 r a 10 ISSUE #5 ACTIVE RECREATION (GOLF COURSES, ETC) AS OPEN SPACE An issue that has been discussed since the Rural Character Study is the role of active recreational uses within open space, and whether or to what degree active recreation satisfies open-space needs for Flexible Developments. In particular, golf courses have often been singled out among active recreational uses, although the Rural Character Study and the current Flexible Development proposal do not make such a distinction among active recreation uses. Katz: Uncomfortable singling out one use.If it's a mitigation issue,address that way.Some golf courses do fine - deal with environmental impacts of open space, it's how land is treated. Barrows: Stick with 50%provision for active recreation. Walters: Keep golf courses at minimum 50% provision, but reconsider if a park site. Waddell: Active recreation areas set aside for one use only-different type of use.50%provision or thereabouts okay. Rosemond: Prefer golf courses and public recreation to more houses. If more than 33% open space, then allow some to count toward open space requirement. Howie: Stick with 50%provision,but don't single out golf courses.Treat all active recreation equally. Hoecke: All active recreation sites should count at 50%. Maintenance and pesticides also an issue. Don't single out golf courses. Allison: Agree with&0% provision for active recreation. Price: Okay with 50%provision,would consider more.Golf courses do provide type of open space for some. Need to focus on land use. Jobsis: Agree with 50% provision for active recreation. 6 11 SLWMARY OF PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL JULY 119 1995 At its July 11 special meeting, the Planning Board provided the following comments regarding the staff proposal: • The Board agreed to consider the item again on August 21 and receive, two weeks prior to the meeting, a summary of comments from Randall Arendt, Ann Joyner, and the Board's July 11 discussion. The Board also set August 3 as the deadline for any other comments from parties wishing to comment on the proposal. • Regarding the "perpetuity" item (Section H, page 10), the Board indicated that it preferred requiring conservation easements to deed restrictions for estate lot open space. The Board added that it could support language requiring near-unanimous agreement of property owners to change open space status for any situations where perpetuity is not "concrete" (as opposed to current deed restrictions requiring unanimous agreement of property owners to extend open space provisions). • There was substantial discussion of the Village Development Standards/Public and Civic Areas "At least 10% of the area..." provision, which expanded into a full discussion of the village option altogether. Although the Board did not recommend a change to the 10% provision, some members expressed concern at requiring a certain percentage of the village proper for these uses. Discussion of "what went wrong" in Southern Village was initiated, and the Board discussed what this option would contain and where villages would be located. o Larry Reid felt that there would be no place in the County where these could realistically be built, and that we were going to mislead developers. o Margaret Brown was concerned about an option that would not turn out the way it was planned, and that SCS and Erosion Control were not prepared to handle development of this type. O Arnie Katz stated that he felt an economic base was important to the purpose of villages, and asked that feasibility of working this option into the EDD's be considered. The Board asked for a report on the differences between what was planned for the Southern Village south of Chapel Hill, and what is actually being built. Although there was considerable discussion about the reasons for doing/not doing the village option, the Board asked for the following information for August 21 - a map showing where villages could "realistically" be located in the County, given the locational guidelines on page 16. Staff and some Board members provided information about where these locational attributes were likely to overlap, but the Board wanted to r 12 • see something graphic and more definite. • On the subject of the off-site provision of open space and affordable housing for density bonuses (page 28), the Board recommended a compromise. If off-site dedication is needed, the Board recommended that the road be easier for off-site provision within the same Township, by somehow "streamlining" the means of approval. If the off-site "in- lieu" land is in another Township, the Board recommended that it be allowed, if some (unspecified)parameters are met- but not be "automatic." The Board felt that this might provide an incentive to provide land within the same Township. Larry Reid indicated that he didn't think the affordable housing density bonus section was feasible. • In Section III(page 34); regarding the Public Information meeting, Arnie Katz expressed a concern (echoed by others) that notification of property owners within 500 feet was not sufficient for developments that could have a profound impact on the area. He suggested a larger radius of 2000 feet or more. After some discussion of the purpose of the Public Information Meeting (and Black Walnut Farms), staff proposed that instead of recommending a 2000 feet radius that staff explore other means of notification and report back at the August 21 meeting. The Board agreed. 13 SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL MAY 119 1995 At its May 11 special meeting, the Planning Board provided the following comments regarding the staff proposal: • Foreword, page 1, last bullet: Add "If a Flexible Development option is chosen," to the beginning of the bullet. • Section I, page 2, strategy #7: Drop or update - funding problems and lack of land? 7 Support construction of the planned Rural Education Center to serve as an Educational facility for county-based rural agencies, and enhance agribusiness opportunities in the county. • Section I, page 3, #2: Put first paragraph in past tense to signify that interim map has been created. • Section II, page 10, Second bullet: Address questions of: 1) Can these be protected in perpetuity; and 2) is there a time limit for restrictions? Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions. Primary and Secondary Development Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted against further development through conservation easements and/or deed restrictions. • Section H, page 13: Explain why "Typical Yield" in table is 72 lots per 100 acres/1.38 acre average? • Section H, page 17, fourth bullet: Question - Do Public/Civic Areas count as part of Village Proper, especially toward 125-acre maximum listed on Page 16? • Section II, page 19: Village Development Standards/Public and Civic Areas (Land Allocation): Change "At lest 10% of the land area..." to "No more than 10% of the land area...". • Section H, page 28: • For both Open Space and Affordable Housing, consider tying in-lieu off-site provision of land to Township within which Flexible Development project is to be located. • Under #2 (Affordable Housing), consider adding sentence that "The Planning Board shall review the applicability and appropriateness of proposed in-lieu affordable housing property dedication". 14 • Section II, page 29, first and second bullet: Should "light rail" corridor be added to first bullet, or should first bullet apply within 3/4 mile of bus/HOV "stations" rather than corridor - consistent with second bullet? • Section II, page 33: • Under three-part concept plan bullets, specify that affordable housing is not required to submit all three parts. • Add to "affordable housing bullet" a sentence stating that the exemption for Affordable Housing proposals is not meant to discourage them from pursuing Flexible Development if they so desire. • Section II, page 34: Under "c", specify time frame for setting Public Information Meeting. • Section II, page 35: • Re-letter "d", "e", "f", to "e", "f', "g'• • Under current "d" (new "e"), general comment: phrase carefully so that Planning Board can accept or deny concept plans based on the merits of the plans and their particular standards. • What about a tiered approach to open space? • Maintenance issues of private roads? 15 SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS FLERIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL NOVEMBER 11, 1994 At its November 7 special meeting, the Planning Board provided the following comments regarding the staff proposal: • Request funding from Board of Commissioners with which to complete inventory of natural areas, especially in northern portions of county. • Need to determine what features or resources are important and link incentives to their preservation. • Concern over eliminating wetlands and steep slopes "automatically" since such features were environmentally important and, in some cases, scenic. • Need to develop a package with simplicity and that is attractive in terms of incentives in order to get desirable development. • Develop a three-tiered classification system, including Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Conservation Areas. Allow 100%, 75%, and 50% of the land in the three classes, respectively, to count toward satisfying the 33% open space requirement. t 16 SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL OCTOBER 11, 1994 At its October 11 meeting, the Planning Board provided the following comments regarding the staff proposal. • Current proposal gives bonus for protecting unbuildable land that would be protected anyway (Rosemond). • Need to find a compromise approach to open space that doesn't penalize people for having unbuildable land, but doesn't reward either. Emphasize quality open space. (Waddell, Rosemond, Hoecke). • Put OS uses into three categories of open space: • Unbuildable land • Otherwise buildable land • Intensive recreation • Develop a formula on how much of each type, along lines of current primary/secondary approach. Perhaps all of unbuildable, 25% of"otherwise buildable, some % of"intensive recreation". (Waddell) • Develop a weighting system for open space uses (Hoecke, Waddell). • One idea: concept of "matching" in open space types/uses. If 10 acres of unbuildable, another 10 acres of "otherwise buildable".(Burklin) • Need to devalue intensive recreational uses relative to others. (Rosemond, others?) • Fear that proposals have become too watered down, result will be that no one will choose flexible development. (Rosemond) • Need to focus not so much of amount or % of open space, but on ensuring that the open space is "quality" (Burklin - consensus agreement). • Use the Comprehensive Resource Map to prioritize and protect areas we want protected. Need to ensure that natural areas protected, and include best farmland as resource on map (Brown). • Do Small Area Plans in areas where interest exists or growth pressures warrant (Brown, Rosemond. Considerable discussion, members agreed SAP a useful tool, although Walters, Waddell and Burklin stated that some areas may not be appropriate and that whole County need not be addressed through SAP'S). 17 • Do basic framework of rural character plan to set parameters for rural development, then use small area plans in prioritized to refine what people want in their community. (Barrows, Burklin, Waddell - general agreement as long as plans not done everywhere.) • Let the Small Area Plans define the open space quality issues - provide local definition that could vary from place to place (Hoecke, others agreed). • Small Area Plans will need support from other County agencies, fire departments, etc - not just Planning (Burklin). • Points of agreement and/or additional ideas expressed by Planning Board members included the following: • Off-site septic easements (Barrows, Walters) • T-turns/road design alternatives (Barrows) • Density averaging will be popular and help (Walters) • Use a formula to differentiate between quality open space and other open space uses (Waddell, others in agreement) • Need to look at carrying capacity (Brown) • Need a "How to" section spelling out donation of open space to a land conservancy - make it easy and clear (Rosemond, Barrows, Hoecke) • Primary/Secondary Conservation Areas (Rosemond, Brown, others?) 18 SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 At its September 8 meeting, the Planning Board provided the following comments regarding the staff proposal. • Request for decisions/recommendations of the Utility Service Area Committee. • Clarify that the 33% open space requirement applies only if the developer chooses to pursue a Flexible Development design. • Revise Water/Sewer Policy to clarify that "cluster" or "flexible" development is as defined in Subdivision Regulations. • Clarify that if developer chooses to pursue only approval of a Flexible Development plan, the submission of two concept plans is not required. • Clarify whether "yield plans" based on the availability of sewage disposal sites is still part of the proposal. • Mention off-site sewage disposal easements in "Foreword" as well as "Standards" section. • Clarify whether density bonuses should be linked to amount/quality of open space, availability of water/sewer, and/or compliance with design guidelines. In addition, consider allowing lower percentages of open space to be linked with design incentives, and density bonuses where higher percentages of open space were set aside. • Retitle the box in the "Goals & Strategies" section and add a fifth goal entitled "Flexibility for Rural Residents". • Retitle the fourth goal from "Managing Growth" to "Enhancing the Quality of Growth while Protecting Rural Character". • Clarify whether farmers would be allowed density bonuses on developed portions of their property in return for keeping other land in cultivation. • Clarify the wording regarding the applicability of the standards to the Rural Buffer zoning district; e.g., use "exclusive of". • Clarify that the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats was prepared by the Triangle Land Conservancy. • Consider the design aspects of slope, including a high percentage; e.g., 35-40%, as a cutoff for "steep slopes". 19 • Clarify the language concerning "above-ground utility rights-of-way" to indicate that this refers to easements for overhead power transmission lines. • Clarify the language concerning "active and passive recreation areas" by breaking the broader heading into three sub-categories: (1) Public Recreation; (2) Active Recreation; and (3) Passive Recreation Areas. 20 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 21 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 R p •1 MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Planning Board FROM: Dolly Hunter, Chair rA"A Agricultural Districts Advisory Board SUBJECT: Flexible Development Proposal DATE: October 2, 1995 COPIES: Marvin Collins,Planning Director Gene Bell,Planner III/Comprehensive Planning Don Belk,Planner IUSpecial Projects At its September 20, 1995 meeting, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board received a report from the Planning Staff concerning the Flexible Development proposal. While not considering each aspect of the proposal in detail, the Board voted to submit the following general comments for your consideration: • The Board recognizes that the Flexible Development proposal does not provide the only method of preserving farmland. It does, however, represent one option available for landowners and farmers to use in preserving prime farmland in active use. In particular,the Board appreciates the inclusion of General Guidelines for Farmland Preservation as well as the inclusion of farmland as part of the Comprehensive Resources Map. • The Board supports the concept of requiring the submittal of two subdivision plans, one conventional and one open space, and providing the landowner with the option to choose which to implement. • The Board encourages you to complete your review of the proposal and, even if consensus is not reached on all provisions, recommend that it be presented to public hearing for citizen review. If this is not possible,the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board requests that you consider updating two sections of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. They include Section 2.2 Natural Environment and Section 2.5 Agriculture in Orange County. Section 2.2 should be amended to include the basic concepts of the Comprehensive Resources Map;e.g.,the identification of Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas. The amendment would focus attention in the County's Comprehensive Plan on significant resources warranting protection and would provide a basis for conservation specialists working with farmers to justify tax credits for farmland preservation purposes. With regard to Section 2.5, that section should be updated to include more current information;e.g.,the latest Census of Agriculture data ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 22 . 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 5, 1995 William J. Waddell, Jr., Chair Orange County Planning Board 6513 Meadow View Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Flexible Development Proposal Dear Mr. Waddell: At its meeting of October 3, 1995, the Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to endorse the Flexible Development proposal. The Historic Preservation Commission received a report on the Flexible Development proposal from the Planning Department staff at our meeting of August 8. We have continued to study Flexible Development and query staff on various aspects of the proposal. We offer the following comments: • The Historic Preservation Commission of Orange County supports offering developers and landowners the voluntary choice of Flexible Development. • We enthusiastically support the adoption of the Comprehensive Resources Map. The Commission appreciates the inclusion of National Register,National Register Study List,and locally-designated historic landmarks,districts,and archeological sites as Primary Conservation Areas,with remaining Historic Inventory sites listed as Secondary Conservation Areas. • The Historic Preservation Commission considers Flexible Development to be a positive tool for meeting Orange County's preservation goals. Furthermore, the proposal will provide great opportunities for private landowner initiatives and voluntary strategies to preserve historic and archeological sites and viewscapes. We urge the Planning Board to approve the Flexible Development proposal Sincerely, Todd Dickinson aw Chair cc: Marvin Collins, Planning Director Gene Bell, Planner III/Comprehensive Planning Don Belk, Planner II/Special Projects i ' • i ' .< � _ R' � a o aa'•t7`r 2x` 'i�>'w 2 \`4 �.. a,ra s a y� �s"s�r i .�"'r :.,,<. �. ,�2 a..�- 4'iy°. x+' �"..,,3�,N.� �1>,�ji`E cZA�=�.Y `"• "'Y4` � �st��' �u�y.�=e � ✓ �F ��.Lr•.�wF ` ;v�"iF > _ �zL�;F �d�'�a ��Yjp?�A1.1�•t�< o.E1�`'2A'<"�,x,Cr�✓9 �� '� .�y� r� �� CO2� �._ ) .'..Fp. /.\ �.�� 3`wy<ak•r• .� r�ofMM'4 'fl 22.a"\J�Q��yyp- yi,•py� - t Y��`t�j�1 >,�.��r+��„,�,� �'`.'r�,,.w'e?�„o"�z�e c:•n�s�1-� _�"° '��c -� s /� ti u'n e Vi. fl\ q .1l �\" �f�S,�6."� fF�'��^L.MN•��,�f�� yh`�`yZ�� F�2'�if�;> (! «.X t q�Y � � Vii`>i of •, a .E� �"� ,3- k` 1�. 4��A y3 � o ,2 24 25 CONTENTS � P } Y} i tii •':1�2,.`''Y:viir Y.x.4:G �:: ��'-'!> wN:�::�.:'yf'r.YiniC,.�'•JOi:.wJ}�v`:`1.ei:G%'? .4•Ak::i•.+ 4::v}. .✓ ":z�„eirp:f;St•'�.i•. y:q�•, S":: "!1�+>N..•Yi:... y.C'r,•;yr. ?ryl..}�!, l�C:? Y::{i:f•' •iR}v?>;rJ::M:i:4>..4:::iw" «C{.�.�.�;:ii:i.^l.ii,vi• ' :fix.,{� ._• � • � 1 L� � '1 .r,•;y?: Vr�..�r •;•ri:` ....;'•:. �•• u`�4+ III o Foreword Section I: Goals & Action Strategies Section II: Flexible Development Proposal 26 27 FOREWORD Since December of 1993, a series of meetings, work group sessions, and/or public hearings has been held for the purpose of finalizing a set of rural character/open space preservation strategies. These meetings are summarized below: • 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. • July-October, 1994 - The Planning Board reviews all materials/evidence received, including the Rural Character Study Committee recommendations (January, 1993), and prepares recommendation. The Planning Staff has reviewed the material produced and/or received, including comments provided by citizens through township meetings and public hearings. While a variety of approaches and options exist, the three basic approaches which have been recommended to date include: • The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations; • The "Status Quo% and • A "Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space requirement and density limits based on the carrying capacity of the soils. In an effort to focus the discussion and "balance" the many interests expressed to date, the Planning Staff has prepared this proposal which consists of three parts. The first section contains "Goals and Action Strategies" (as recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee). The second section contains a "Flexible Development" option which contains the following provisions: Foreword 1 • The existing one-acre minimum x would be retained. Arendt Comment: Change highlighted wording to "density per dwelling unit",based on the presumption that the density of one dwelling unit per acre would be "net", after deducting street rights-of-way, wetlands and steep slopes (plus a percentage of floodplains) or at least deducting a percentage of land in each highly-constrained category. • .,..: . :x ..:.:.:... . :': .::: :.. ..::....:.:: �vt� . , .,,.,.:...ti�i <':`;lt: :�utxir.....;><��': `•:; :: :�> `••Id;:...,:::. .. ...:�.:.:_.: t�:::::x �u�:<::�:::::�.�.•. .. . ::::..� �:::»:::::��e::>f�r<::�:::: :��er�� ::::s�� s�a�::>:: d::<:: t�:::: � Arendt Comment: Consider leaving as optional but applying a density disincentive to conventional layouts-say 33% fewer units if not clustered as compared to current conventional by-right one-acre density. • At least one-third (33%) of the land within a subdivision must be preserved 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, are established for each lot, and the open space outside such limits is preserved through restrictive covenants and/or conservation easements; or Arendt Comment: This only works well when estate lots are very large - as least 5 acres. Even then, enforcing the restrictions against clearing for suburban lawns pose a huge problem. Ask Ben Hutchinson, Planning Director for Lower Merian Township near Philadelphia. Additionally, would reduce "building limits" to 1 acre, possibly 1.5 acres at most, at this low density. • 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 • 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 • 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 Arendt Comment: Should mention protection and ownership of open space here. Foreword 2 • 29 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: • Providing greater amounts of open space than required; or • Providing Of units either as part of the development or at an off- site location; or Arendt Comment: I favor double density bonuses (only) to guarantee good building design as well as affordability. • Purchasing the development rights on farm or forest lands, natural areas, and similar resources, and transferring them to the development; or Arendt Comment: Consider new item - offer density bonuses to encourage "landowner compacts" or to create endowment funds for the open space management entity, especially if it is a land trust - which cannot raise "homeowner dues" to pay for maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc. • 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 option in designing open space or "flexible" developments. Foreword 3 30 The final section contains the current "Cluster Development" provisions as well as the current "Private Road" approval criteria of the Subdivision Regulations. They are provided for purposes of comparison, since the Flexible Development proposal is intended to replace and/or amend them. Foreword 4 z3� `iz• s` �t^S.Or'? �2��' q v�""�^{�'7f� 's` �S`v.T. "'%`",4" .-C'K:'4c f��T/ -i� z.� T 5.� ��"�' " v<5...nxY 7�,:a7::�i �� e'S° �91 i .�'�! P o � C� '.Sp� i •,Aiajy > .l`�C6� s .\ X c `i tw•»--w�r.'k�d?�AM�'t'.S1 ac „� O•E� � c, ; \ Y , 5,� a / i. .:;;,r '`C •�R,G, k/a : 1�,,�epR ywR e,. T�7�" y7� s TY '�' J •- � . ?�7`:1Q`- 'mil' 0b > �„ �� $.�`-` .N'\� 5✓:��i��\,3. .. 4 ice. .,' d. gyp' •F.• �5,. D �, 3 r��.,\`x,`i, :'` r�'?�G"3, gz�zsYi. x,35: �;i:.�:` zg•-��Y'3� is }� �'. V. On NX nN 32 • 33 SECTION I: GOALS & ACTION STRATEGIES CONTENTS Page GOALS & ACTION STRATEGIES 1 GOAL 1: PRESERVE &PROTECT AGRICULTURE&MANAGED FORESTRY 1 Action Strategies 1 GOAL 2: PRESERVE &PROTECT NATURAL& CULTURAL RESOURCES 3 Action Strategies 3 GOAL 3: PRESERVE&PROTECT VISUAL RESOURCES 5 Action Strategies 5 GOAL 4: MANAGE GROWTH WHILE PROTECTING RURAL CHARACTER 6 Action Strategies 6 34 „ 35 SECTION I. GOALS & ACTION STRATEGIES Rural Character means different things to different people. As such, defining rural character and setting goals for the protection of that character are no simple task. To adopt goals,meetings were held involving Rural Character Study Committee members and residents from each portion of the county to discuss needs and interests. Additional considerations were the natural and cultural resources, land use activities, and long-term plans for the county and its townships. From this work, goals for protection of rural character were developed as identified below. RC)RA ,:'CIIARACTER PRQTECTION GOALS 1. PRESERVE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURE/MANAGED FORESTRY 2. PRESERVE AND PROTECT NATURAL/CULTURAL RESOURCES 3. PRESERVE AND PROTECT VISUAL RESOURCES 14. ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF GROWTH WHILE PROTECTING RURAL CHARACTER The following section explains these goals, including action strategies recommended to accomplish each. GOAL 1: PRESERVE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURE AND MANAGED FORESTRY. Agriculture is Orange's County's oldest economy and is the source of much of the area's "rural character". References to dairies, tobacco farms, and livestock operations can be found in the earliest colonial records of the county. While active agricultural operations exist in Rural Orange today,the amount of land involved in agriculture has declined dramatically. Between 1950 and 1992, farmland acreage has decreased by almost 62 percent. Even so, in 1992,almost 26%of the county land was in farm use. Of this amount,approximately 60%was cropland or pastureland. Forest land managed for timber production and/or the provision of wildlife habitats is also a crucial component of the county's rural character. Forest resources, both private and public,provide homes for a wide variety of plant and animal species. ACTION STRATEGIES Strategies recommended for the preservation of farms and forest lands include the following: 1. Implement Flexible Development options that permit residential subdivisions, and farming and forestry operations to co-exist. Encourage development options that allow farming to occur within open space set-asides and enable farmers to realize a return on portions of their land without converting all land for development purposes. Where developers use open-space options to keep farmland in cultivation,pasture ":...'. 1E .':` allow them to utilize density bonuses elsewhere on the tract. Encourage the County staff to provide design assistance and model covenants to landowners/developers willing to utilize this approach. Arendt Comment: Add wording highlighted above, and consider mentioning adaptive strategies of "metro farmers" who farm "in the shadow of the city", discussed in RWAJ By Des . Also, in the Goals & Action Strategies 1 36 • cluster design standards, open space buffers should be required between new houses and existing farms. This would be subdivision open space such as playing fields, woods, meadows, hayfields or former fields used for such robust and non-irritating agricultural practices as Christmas tree farming, nurseries, etc. 2. Pursue voluntary Transfer of Development Rights(TDR) legislation for Orange County. TDR can be an important tool in protecting critical masses of agricultural land by creating receiving areas where concentrations of employment and residences occur along future transit corridors. Direct the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board to cooperate with regional efforts to lay appropriate groundwork for implementing this tool when legislation is adopted. Further study should be given to a regional program with other Triangle counties. 3. Encourage property owners interested in managed forestry to preserve forest lands through participation in the N.C. Forest Stewardship Program. This program is designed to improve tree management and enhance wildlife habitats, while offering the potential for tax breaks and/or cash payments to landowners who actively pursue management practices such as selective timber harvesting and who enhance wildlife habitats. 4. Promote participation in the Voluntary Agricultural Districts program in the county. Participation will enhance general public knowledge of farm activities, thus minimizing potential nuisance suits. S. Encourage the Economic Development Commission to pursue its Strategic Plan objective of promoting agriculture as an industry, including assistance in product diversification i N40504 ': Arendt Comment: Add highlighted wording. 6. Support the proposed Purchase of Development Rights program as a tool to preserve "critical masses" of i " farmland,including the prioritization of sites for rights acquisition through the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system. Arendt Comment: Add highlighted word. 7. Support construction of the planned Rural Education Center to serve as an educational facility for county- based rural agencies, and enhance agribusiness opportunities in the county. 8. Following implementation of Flexible Development options, prepare an annual report for the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board evaluating the impact of such options on agricultural operations, including an assessment of additional development strategies as needed. Goals etc Action Strategies 2 • 37 GOAL 2: PRESERVE AND PROTECT NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES. Orange County is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, including clear streams and rivers, a wide variety of plant species, and wildlife habitats of significant animal species, including some which are rare and endangered. Many of these resources have been identified, while others have yet to be discovered. Protection of these resources often eenfliets rivate P Property rights. OCi'. !"'> e'': 90 tot dpi+?4'�#jOEw��' #>�E#iF'':>:;>;:.:>:E;( BalaIICing eaVlronmeatal P rotection with Prepe -�igks through voluntary programs and incentives is encouraged as an effective approach to insure the continued existence of Orange County's natural resources. ACTION STRATEGIES Strategies recommended for the preservation of natural and cultural resources include the following: 1. Create Flexible Development options that can protect identified natural resource sites by placing them within open space. Such options should use the resource as an opportunity for innovative development rather than as a means of penalizing landowners for having sites on their property. 2. To facilitate natural resource protection, a Comprehensive Resources Map should be compiled to identify and overlay critical environmental, natural, wildlife, cultural, historic, archaeological, biological, and geological resources. The map should be used tom show landowners and developers the location of sites on their Property #'> t ..:.:. `. s?'# '`::1 J i ; and (b) encourage the volunta protection of such sites through , iaeludin the use of conservation easements which allow seeh--sites t to remain in private ownership. Arendt Comment: Recommend highlighted changes above. Using available data, maps have been prepared to identify the location of natural and cultural resources referenced above. These maps have been combined into a composite map to serve as an interim Comprehensive Resources Map until data collection concerning potential archaeological sites, woodlands, and scenic roads and views is complete. 3. During the development approval process, facilitate the protection of natural and wildlife habitats by continuing current County policy of initiating dialogue between developers and land conservancy organizations. While such dialogue provides an opportunity for mutual protection of such sites, continued discussion should be at the discretion of the developer and conservancy. 4. Prepare a Rural Orange Design Guidebook to provide written and illustrative guidelines to show property owners and developers how to voluntarily develop sites in an environmentally-sensitive manner. A draft outline for a Rural Design Guidebook is provided at the end of this section. Preparation of the Guidebook should involve the County staff, design professionals, citizens,citizens,and advisory board representatives. The Guidebook should provide examples of how innovative site designs Goals & Action Strategies 3 38 may be used to protect areas of special natural or cultural significance. Use of the Guidebook is to for Flexible Development options and E 6A for conventional development, with :+.tMH... :.i:•}}}'.}v . { s environme'}nincentives provided to to :{vt:a:?l?).:{{•}-}}se??ns{x i{t•}i}v:??e????techniques :{;::is{}:p}:r: i ;{}}{. "}Y.; } . }}}}}: ::.:::::::rte,..}.:.:.:.. ::.::.:::.::::::::.::::::.:.....:.:..:........ �:: Arendt Comment: Recommend highlighted changes above. 5. Study the feasibility of designating portions of the Eno and Haw Rivers as North Carolina Scenic Rivers to promote recognition of these critical river resources. The N.C. Scenic Rivers program may provide a means of recognizing these critical resources without limiting the development potential of riverside property- 6. Use the approach employed in the New Hope Creek Corridor Study to protect other strategic stream corridors as well as wildlife habitats and natural areas contained therein. Such stream corridor studies should result in wildlife corridors and not greenways, i ;;::; otair ';;' ;.;.:.;....:; tsaei r::..r:::::::::::::................................ ...:.........::..........:...::..::. ...AY...4.44:....:v A:n.N.......... :....i....... ....:....... /.,.►..,�...i �:A!iR:•,.Mi::}.. rill\{N` :ii.`1fIF':7IAf/F.•::v'::r::n;•yn :}}j��i: �i:•:ti ...{{iJ}:i4.'••:C.•. ..Y....:4}:{i•}%.}}:v.�ry.. m::::n............. ''.ypy.� :::::::: n::..:.. ...............:..:.:.: m::::: Arendt Comment: Recommend highlighted changes above. See also discussion of greenways in Redding, Connecticut, in Rural by Design. 7. Following implementation of Flexible Development options, prepare an annual report for the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board evaluating the impact of such options on natural areas and wildlife corridors, including an assessment of the possible need for additional strategies as needed. 8. Support potential connection of Orange County's wildlife corridors with a proposed Triangle-wide system. Such inter-connection is important for wildlife movement along inter-basin corridors across the Triangle region. 9. Support the proposed Purchase of Development Rights program,including its use to preserve natural areas, wildlife corridors, and historic sites in association with farms and forest lands. Use the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to rank/compare sites for development rights acquisition. 10. Pursue local voluntary Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) legislation and direct the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board to cooperate with regional efforts to protect natural areas, wildlife habitats and corridors, and historic/archaeological sites. Goals& Action Strategies 4 • 39 GOAL 3: PRESERVE AND PROTECT VISUAL RESOURCES IN RURAL ORANGE. The county's visual resources, farm fields and forests, are an often seen but forgotten component of rural character. When considered as a resource, what is visible to the human eye represents a great deal of what makes up rural character". In many cases, however, the importance of scenic views and rural landscapes are not dissevered until they no longer exist. A program that encourages innovative techniques to balance development with visual resource protection is of critical importance. Arendt Comment: Add highlighted words. ACTION STRATEGIES Strategies recommended for the preservation of visual resources include the following: 1. Implement Flexible Development options that protect and preserve existing visual resources. Produce a series of educational brochures to illustrate how open space set-asides enhance the value of property to be developed as well as MW adjacent properties which benefit from "borrowed" open space. Arendt Comment: Recommend addition of highlighted words. 2. Promote the importance of scenic vistas and landscapes in maintaining rural character through completion of the Scenic Roads Study. Provide incentives for developers who use the Rural Design Guidebook and the standards of the Scenic Roads Study to preserve scenic vistas along selected roads, ridge lines, and areas adjacent to open fields. 3. Evaluate the feasibility of a Viewshed Overlay Zoning District to be used in conjunction with the Scenic Roads Study to protect special rural landscapes and travel corridors where visual resource protection is of the utmost importance. The travel corridors vistas represent Orange County's "first impression" for visitors. 4. Support efforts the proposed vo unta Purchase of Development Rights program, including its use to protect scenic roads and vistas in association with farms and forest lands. Prioritization should be accomplished through the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system with which to rank sites for development rights acquisition. 5. Pursue local voluntary Transfer of Development Rights (MR) legislation and direct the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board to cooperate in regional efforts to protect scenic roads and vistas. 6. Following implementation of Flexible Development options, prepare an annual report for the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board evaluating the impact of such options on the county's visual resources, including an assessment of additional strategies as needed. Goals&Action Strategies 5 40 GOAL 4: MANAGE GROWTH WHILE PROTECTING RURAL CHARACTER Growth management is often misunderstood and thought of as a concept that means "no growth". However, all cities and counties practice growth management in some fashion.If growth management is balanced withfa# '`':".:`e % ! .;.Y; :. fights and a long-term vision of the future, it can discourage poorly-planned urban expansion, as well as subdivision sprawl along rural roadsides. Arendt Comment: Add highlighted wording. ACTION STRATEGIES Strategies recommended for managing growth to protect rural character include the following: 1. Create Flexible Development options that manage growth by encouraging the creation of open space developments that enhance efficient service provision and discouraging environmentally destructive and costly forms of"rural sprawl" such as new lots created in "cookie cutter" fashion along rural roadways. 2. Link rural character preservation efforts to other County goals and programs. Specifically, acknowledge that protecting rural character may also enhance watershed protection,the creation of agricultural districts, future transit corridor creation, and more cost-efficient infrastructure and services for rural and urban residents. 3. Recognize long-term land stewardship efforts by rural landowners,and communicate their needs and rights to the county's urban officials. 4. Continue to pursue cooperative planning efforts between urban and rural areas to insure rural involvement in planning for areas likely to experience future urban expansion. These efforts should be guided by past efforts such as the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Caffboro Joint Planning Area and the New Hope Corridor Master Open Space Plan. Long-term planning efforts are also recommended in the future with the Town of Mebane and the City of Durham. 5. Promote"grassroots'planning efforts in rural areas, such as the Efland Area Study,the Pantry Area Study, and other similar community plans. The importance of citizen involvement in creating a "vision" for their community should be stressed. 6. In conjunction with other county and/or Research Triangle communities, pursue a vision of growth management which recognizes that the region is bound together geographically, economically, culturally, and in quality of life. The proposed "Shaping Orange County's Future" initiative is an example of such a study. 7. Following implementation of Flexible Development options, prepare an annual report for the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board evaluating the impact of such options on the management of growth in rural areas and the need for additional development strategies. Goals&Action Strategies 6 41 DRAFT OUTLINE -RURAL DESIGN GUIDEBOOK FLEXIBLE.DEVELOPMENT: Residential Development Standards & Design Guidelines for Preserving Rural Character A. Purpose of the Guidebook B. Orange County: Defining Rural Character C. Conventional vs. Open Space Designs: Comparisons & Contrasts D. Advantages of Open Space Design • Economic • Environmental & Ecological • Social & Recreational E. Roles and Responsibilities of Various Parties • Land Owners • Developers & Realtors • Site Designers • Planning Staff& Board • Governing Board • State & Federal Agencies • Conservation Organizations F. Creating A Comprehensive Open Space Network • Mapping Resource Conservation Priorities • Linking Small Area Plans G. Designing Open Space Developments • Mapping Significant Site Features • Combining Information Layers • Prioritizing Objectives • Applying Design Guidelines H. Case Studies in Open Space Design I. Management Techniques • Conservation Easements • Homeowners Associations APPENDIX: Ordinance Provisions Arendt Comment:Might consider add sections pertaining to"Economic Benefits"and"Sample Hone Plans" (+ others?) from Designing Opp,Soace Subdivisions. Goals&Action Strategies 7 42 COMPREHENSIVE RESOURCES MAP -INTERIM- Site features shown on the Comprehensive Resources Map have been grouped together based on the following open space classification system: Primary Conservation Areas • Wetlands Source. National Wetlands Inventory Maps for Orange County, NC and Orange County. NC Soil Survey • Floodplains(100-year) and alluvial soils Source. Flood Insurance Study: Orange County. NC and Orange County. NC Soil Survey • Steep slopes Source: Orange County, NC Soil Survey Arendt Comment: Not a great source for slope information. • Natural areas, and wildlife habitats and corridors Source. Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County,NC Secondary Conservation Areas • Prime Farmland Source: I Mrtant Farmlands: Orange County. NC • Woodlands (completion pending) Source. USGS topographic maps and aerial photographs. • Historic inventory sites Source: Chanel Hill Township Architectural Survey•Final Report•and Orange County Multiple Properly Documentation Form: Historic Resources of Orange Country • Potential archaeological sites (completion pending) Source: An Archaeological Survey of Portions of Orange County.NC • Proposed park sites Source: Master Recreation and Parks Plan Orange County,NC • Scenic roads and views(completion pending) Source. Scenic Roads Study, Orange County, NC The open space classification system is presented in detail in Section II: Flexible Development Proposal. Individual maps showing the location of specific site features are provided following the Comprehensive Resources Map. Goals&Action Strategies 8 • IF � cr AK- AM �i ,, . ,`►:�,�� '��.��"�+13�. f�� j .fit �,� A �• �. �'}� Lek 44 • HO,..�-, bak •r , � �"s : , ,fir a� - � � , ^l- �i �,i�� '• � , _' tea, �.�� 1. +w ,$► _ ,� 46 r✓�". I f\��,�,k„iFa'�2 � 'alb'^' �?. r ,e$� ;.a a, :<�,nr� �'•,� ��;. .fix,`\ J`<�.� .:r � .,-S. . -...St;�y ,3. . t b �> zaiy'f'r`c� \ yt+i` 34` i\�\,,22.` 2 S \ } ar r 48 a 49 SECTION II: FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT CONTENTS Page Section IV-11-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT 1 Section IV-B-10-A. INTENT 1 Section IV-B-10-B. APPLICABILITY 2 Section IV-B-10-C. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS 2 I. Permitted Uses 3 2. Location of Open Space 5 3. Ownership of Open Space 6 4. Maintenance of Open Space 8 Section IV-B-10-D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 8 1. Estate Lot Option 8 2. Conservation Option 11 3. Cluster Option 14 4. Village Option 17 5. Street Standards 30 Section IV-B-10-E. WATER SUPPLY&SEWAGE DISPOSAL 32 Section TV-B-10-F. DENSITY BONUSES 33 Section TV-B-10-G. DESIGN GUIDELINES 35 Section III. APPLICATION & APPROVAL PROCEDURES 38 Section III-D-1. CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL 38 Section V. SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLAT DRAWINGS 41 Section V-B. CONCEPT PLAN 42 R 50 51 SECTION II: FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT This Flexible Development proposal is modeled, in part,on standards used by other localities as well as open space design reference materials. It also reflects the many suggestions of Orange County citizens, interest groups, and advisory boards. A partial list of these sources includes the following: • Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange, Rural Character Study Committee • Flexible Development Bylaws, Grafton, Massachusetts • Land Preservation District Zoning Provisions, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania • Designing Open Space Developments. Sussex County,Delaware • Rural by Design, Randall Arendt • PEARL Design Manual,Livingston County, Michigan • Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley, Center for Rural Massachusetts • Open Space Development Alternatives, University Station Planning Group • Designing Open Space Subdivisions:A Practical Step-By-Step Approach, Randall Arendt • Towns and Town-Making Principles, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk • Seaside: Making A Town in America, David Mohney and Keller Easterling • Choices and Changes:Loudoun County General Plan 1990-2010,Loudoun County, Virginia The proposal has been formatted so that it may be substituted for the current Cluster Development provisions contained in Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations. After each major section or subsection, comments are provided to identify the source and/or explain the rationale for inclusion of specific standards or guidelines. IV-B-10. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section IV-B-10-A. INTENT The purpose of Flexible Development is to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might be lost through conventional development approaches. To accomplish this goal, greater flexibility and creativity in the design of such developments is encouraged and allowed. Specific objectives are as follows: • To preserve areas of the county with productive soils for continued agricultural and forestry use by preserving blocks of land large enough to allow for efficient operations. • To encourage the preservation and improvement of habitat for various forms of wildlife and to create new woodlands through natural succession and reforestation where appropriate. • To minimize site disturbance and erosion through retention of existing vegetation and avoiding development on steep slopes. • To preserve open land, including those areas containing unique and sensitive features such as natural areas and wildlife habitats, steep slopes, streams, wetlands, and floodplains. • To preserve scenic views and elements of the county's rural character, and to minimize perceived density by minimizing views of new development 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. Flexible Development 1 52 • To create compact neighborhoods accessible to open space amenities and with a strong identity. Comment. ?his purpose of this section is to convey to landowner and developer alike what aspects of the county's rural character are to be addressed through Flexible Development design. The broad statement of purpose and speck objectives are based on the goals and action strategies outlined in the preceding section. Section IV-B-10-B. APPLICABILITY Flexible Development is permitted in all residential zoning districts except the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district, but only upon approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning Department or a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat by the Board of County Commissioners. All Flexible Development subdivision plats shall comply with the requirements and standards specified herein and in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances to the extent that they are not in conflict with these provisions. Comment. A major aspect of this Flexible Development proposal is that existing zoning district designations would remain unchanged. In other words,minimum lot size requirements would not be increased. The only instance where minimum lot sizes may be recommended for change is in Protected Watersheds where a technical study has been completed and such increases are recommended for water quality protection purposes. Only one such study is underway, Cane Creek Watershed, and no others are contemplated at this time. This approach is modeled on the Grafton, Massachusetts Flexible Development Bylaws which applies a single set of development standards in most zoning districts. The same approach is currently used in the application of Orange County's Cluster Development standards. The wording is such that Flexible Development standards will not be used in the Rural Buffer zoning district until an amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement has been approved through which to implement the approach. Section IV-B-10-C. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS 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. Comment. During the debate/discussion of the amount of open space to be preserved, the possibilities ranged from a citizen-recommended low of 10 percent to a high of 75 percent in the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Land Preservation District. While the Rural Character Study Committee recommended a sliding scale of density bonuses and open space requirements, many reference materials and ordinances recommended or required that at least a certain percentage of the project area be set aside in open space. The requirement of setting aside one-third of the project area as open space represents a mid- range approach. It is slightly higher than one standard considered by the University Station Planning Group (30%) and is less than the 40 to 50 percent range cited in many reference materials. The requirement is considered feasible, based on a review of six Orange County subdivisions which provided or are to provide open space. Open space in these subdivisions ranged from 24 to 47percent of the total project area, with a median of 34 percent. The 'one-third'standard is also considered feasible,given the alternatives availableforsatisfying the open space requirement. The wording at the beginning of this section has been included to clarify that unless a developer chooses to seek approval�fa Flexible Development, he/she need not comply with the open space requirements. Flexible Development 2 53 1. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in open space areas: a. 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. b. Woodlands, including forest land for the planting and production of trees and timber, where management practices such as selective timber harvesting and wildlife enhancement are employed. Such woodlands may consist of hardwood, pine, and/or mixed pine-hardwood forests identified as part of: • A site analysis conducted by a registered engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect, architect or land planner using aerial photographs and/or satellite imagery; • A required Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement; and/or • An independent site study conducted by a trained botanist and/or forester. C. 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; • A required Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement; and/or • An independent site study conducted by a trained botanist and/or biologist. d. Historic and archaeological sites identified as part of: • The Chanel Hill Township Architectural Survey: Final Report; • The Orange County Multiple Property Documentation Form: Historic Resources of Orange County; • An Archaeological Survey of Portions of Orange County N.C.; • A required Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement; and/or • 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 count toward the minimum thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement. e. Steep slopes identified as part of: • The Orange Countv, N.C. Soil Survey prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service; and/or • 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. f. Floodplains(100-year) and alluvial soils identified as part of: • The Flood Insurance Study: Orange County, N.C. prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and • The Orange County. N.C. Soil Survey prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. g. Wetlands, including,but not limited to, streams, creeks, ponds,and reservoirs, identified as part of: Flexible Development 3 54 • The National Wetlands Inventory Maps for Orange County, N.C. prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • The Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service; • A required Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement; and/or • 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. h. Active and passive recreation areas, including, but not limited to: • Public recreation areas, including district and community parks, as identified in the Master Recreation and Parks Plan; and • Private recreation facilities, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails, picnic areas, community commons or greens, golf courses, playing fields, playgrounds, and courts. #' #'�i14ftEr Joyner Comment: The shaded provision is not appropriate for proposed transportation corridors and growth(Transition)areas. Need to provide Aglin recreation areas because of density. Even in rural areas, need active recreation areas, particularly where lot sizes are reduced to provide open space. Otherwise, parents will end up drivi children to parks. i. Public and private infrastructure improvements, including, but not limited to: • Community water supply and sewage disposal systems, provided that: 0 No more than fifty percent (50%) of the land area occupied by such systems may count toward the minimum thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement; and 0 Such systems are not located on portions of the site occupied by floodplains and alluvial soils; steep slopes; wetlands; natural areas, and wildlife habitats and corridors; and historic and archaeological sites. Off-site nitrification fields for individual lots are permitted in open space areas subject to the same limitations. 0 Stormwater management facilities for the proposed development,including those required for watershed protection purposes, provided such systems are not located on portions of the site occupied by floodplains and alluvial soils; steep slopes; wetlands; natural areas, and wildlife habitats and corridors; and historic and archaeological sites. 0 Existing above-ground utility rights-of-way,such as overhead power transmission lines, and existing street rights-of-way, except that their land areas shall not count toward the minimum thirty-three percent (33%)open space requirement. New street rights-of-way may be counted but only to the extent that: 0 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 Flexible Development 4 55 o They are located and/or constructed so as to have no adverse impacts on floodplains and alluvial soils; steep slopes;wetlands;natural areas, and wildlife habitats and corridors; and historic and archaeological sites. j. Estate lots, meeting the standards of Section IV-B-10-D-1. k. Villages, meeting the standards of Section IV-B-10-D-4. Comment. The list of permitted uses is consistent with the approach recommended by Randall Arendt, the recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee, and the model provisions of the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Land Preservation District. The estate lot option has been added to allow undisturbed open space on estate lots to be credited toward meeting the open space requirement. The village option has been added as a modified form of cluster development which allows dwelling units to be clustered around a village center, with open space preserved surrounding the village. The village option is based on standards contained in the Loudoun County, Virginia General Plan. The provisions regarding active recreation sites have been included, in pan, since the approach is consistent with the recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee. It is also consistent with the general recommendations of Randall Arendt, e.g., not more than 50 percent of active recreation areas should be counted. �ic�e `�� i�tit': rz?�asx There are four "community parks'fZ5 acresl48% active recreation) and four "district parks" (75 acres/16% active recreation)proposed in the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. These parks will occupy 400 acres or 1 110th of one percent of the total county land area. In comparison,the network of natural areas and wildlife corridors shown in Section I would encompass 21,147 acres or 8.3 percent of the county land area. Joyner Comment: Same comment as on Page 4. 2. Location of Open Space. The location 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; • Floodplains and alluvial soils; • Slopes greater than 25%; • Natural areas, and wildlife corridors and habitats; and/or • 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, and/or located in a local historic district. 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 thirty-three percent (33%)open space requirement. C. Secondary Conservation Areas consist of the following site features: • Woodlands; Flexible Development 5 56 • Farmland; • Slopes of 15% to 25%; • Other historic and/or archaeological sites; • Public and/or private recreation areas and facilities; • Public and/or private infrastructure improvements; and/or • Scenic views of preserved features and/or landscape buffers. Secondary Conservation Areas may be comprised of any of the remaining open space uses identified above.When permitted,such uses may provide the remaining land area needed to satisfy the thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement. d. When lots and access streets are laid out, they must be located so that those portions of the site proposed for disturbance and/or construction avoid Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas. Where access streets and/or utilities are required to pass through or by such areas so as to link one buildable portion of a site with another, they must be located and/or constructed so as to have no adverse impacts on Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas. Continent: The distinction between 'Primary' and "Secondary' Conservation Areas cited above is based generally on the system advocated by Randall Arendt in the Sussex County,Delaware open space design guidebook A similar methodology was used by the University Station Planning Group in attempting to define open space areas. Arendt's approach is to set aside Primary Conservation Areas first, since such features are considered unbuildable for legal or practical reasons. In addition to wetlands and floodplains,he suggests that the following features be included as part of designated Primary Conservation Areas: • Slopes of greater than 25%; • State-listed habitats of threatened or endangered species, and/or • National Register sites (improved or renovated with federal funding) and locally designated historic districts. Slopes of 15% to 25%, natural areas, wildlife habitats and corridors, and historic and archaeological sites would thus be classified as Secondary Conservation Areas. One difference between the Arendt approach and the Flexible Development proposal is that all habitats and corridors as identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats have been categorized as Primary Conservation Areas. Of 64 sites identified in the Inventory only eight contain threatened or endangered species. The inclusion of all sites as Primary Conservation Areas recognizes the limited number of such features as well as their diversity and significance. Another difference involves historic and archaeological sites. Recent inventories have identified 665 historic sites, including six National Register sites and 41 National Register study list sites. Of the study list sites, three are potential historic districts, and one is an archaeological site. No local historic district or landmark designations have been made. The inclusion of such sites as Primary Conservation Areas recognizes their existing or potential significance. The inclusion of scenic views of preserved features,e.g.,farmland and water bodies, as well as landscape buffers to screen the view of development from public roads is based on Arendt's approach to defining Secondary Conservation Areas. 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. Flexible Development 6 57 • Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina or a private non- profit land conservancy. Owned by o Homeowners • Dedication of conservation easements to .-� Association Orange County, another unit of local I government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. . •.. �_,T 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 r—110. where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are Dedicated to a included as part of its bylaws and local government or to a restrictive covenants. conservation t group-- • Ownership by individual property Open space areas and/or easements may be dedicated owners, especially estate lot owners, to a overnmental unit or owned g by a homeowners where specific development restrictions association (Montgomery County Land Preservation and maintenance requirements are District). included as part of restrictive covenants applicable to such lots. Comment: These provisions are based principally upon the recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee. The individual owner option has been added to allow undisturbed open space on estate lots to be credited toward meeting the open space requirement. 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. 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. Comment: This provision is based on similar wording contained in the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Land Preservation District model zoning ordinance and sets basic standards for the maintenance of open space. Flexible Development 7 58 Section IV-B-10-D.DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or more of the following development options. 1. Estate Lot Option. For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards ' apply: d-wre estate • Each estate lot shall have a lot size of at least four (4) and not more than ten:`{3� buildable area 1 0 a Arendt Comment:Why limit lot size to 10 acres? Why not 19.9? Total percent •.�/ '` 0;= • For each estate lot, a building envelope Spam (buildable area) shall be defined of sufficient size to accommodate a single- family detached dwelling and customa ry :: O •. .....,...•... accessory uses, including,but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, I_ swimming pools, lawns, R: t» 1 _. Ow'", and driveways. Setting aside at least one-half of the area of estate • The building envelope of an estate lot lots is one means of satisfying the 33% open space may not exceed # of the requirement(Montgomery County Land Preservation total lot area. District). Arendt Comment: The numbers shown in the sketch are not in proportion to the graphic. A one-acre maximum size for the buildable area would be closer and more appropriate. Another way of saying this would be to limit the building area to 25% of the lot area. • Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted toward meeting the ft'< .:' e3a';.::.:::::::>"open space requirement. Arendt Comment: Increase open space requirement. • The building envelope on an estate lot shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas. • Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing standards: Flexible Development 8 59 Building Envelope Spacing Standards for Estate Lots Minimum spacing between building envelopes on adjacent lots 80 feet Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision 75 feet boundary or off-site public street right-of-way Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 40 feet or private street right-of-way Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot 20 feet line Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet water bodies(lakes, ponds, streams, etc.) Joyner Comment: Does the text and table above mean that septic fields can't be located outside buildable areas and 20 feet apart; e.g., the current Environmental Health standard? If so, the provisions will make some perk sites unusable. • 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 Arendt Comment: Use 20-25 feet width for driveway provision. Joyner Comment:What are the current and proposed lot frontage requirements for flag lots,cul-de-sacs,and"T"turnarounds?Also,does the restriction against further development within building envelopes prevent the construction of barns, etc.? • Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions. Primary and Secondary Development Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted against further development through conservation easements and/or deed restrictions. Comment: 11w "estate lot' option is modeled in part on the Land Preservation District Zoning Provisions of Montgomery County,Pennsylvania. It is also based on the "conventional large lot development" option recommended as part of the Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange. The following table compares basic "estate lot" provisions with those of the "conventional large lot development*option. One difference is the lack of a specific open space set aside requirement for the"large lot*option,relying instead on the defacto provision of open space by the lot owner. Flexible Development 9 60 Comparison o,,f'Rural Character and Flexible Development Options Development Conventional Large Lot Standards Development Option Estate Lot Option Lot Size Required 4.59-acre average At least 4.0 acres and not ....................... more thanf'itti ....................... ....................... ..................... Open Space Required None At least of lot area must be set aside as open space Up to 21 lots per 100 acres Up to 25 lots per 100 acres Potential Lot Yield (Density = 0.21 units per (Density = 0.25 units per acre) acre) Front yard 40 feet See standards above and on Dimensional Standards Side yard 20 feet preceding page Rear yard 20 feet Lot width 150 feet Arendt Comment:75%open space is very adequate at this density. Same question-why 10- acre limit? Joyner Comment: Prefer the open space requirement under the "Conventional, Large Lot" option.As proposed, too many issues are raised regarding what use can be made of the land. For instance, can I put a horse (and stable) in the open space? Can I clear some of it for a garden? Could I build a pond? Also, why is the cutoff point for estate lots 10 acres? Another difference is the reliance on conventional building setback requirements in the "large lot" option. Estate lots must provide a "building envelope" which generally results in larger setbacks than achieved through conventional setback provisions. Provision is also made for relaxation of lot width and frontage requirements provided broad design standards are met. Flexible Development 10 61 00r-- E Ocn to >fn �+ N O d V 7 C7 S".O C0�3 -p Q C� cn -.< .-=a C]. O O t rn Q N CV N ` N C7,CT CU C7" d p O C al: C7 O C7.Q C N N v- Cl- C=T C i M fir+ �./ • C!`1 Q d Q Q »•~ C? a m •••••iiiili!liifiifilii! ••••••aii siiiifi i I•• f•*♦ r � ♦•a r � ! l r r t •• • • 62 63 K V _ C', 00 00 C'4 -� v i v .2 cn O O Cn U v v O G _ � + O �i N� O Q . U3 f cn C C C C v•+- O~1, p"N U O N p 0 O N N cn p v v�C D� O 07 C 1�-- -v C) CD .. �/� G� G� O G� p o` VJ � OL i i i- E O C 0= � •• v d _ W V c7¢Q¢¢ • ♦ O •• • • • a ■ • ■ • ��• i •'• �i • •i ■ • i • • z I 64 65 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 ConServneton d below. ea:mwc • For each conservation lot, buildable and p conservation areas must be defined. The buildable area must be of sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached Total 33 dwelling and customary accessory uses, Pb-d including, but not limited to, storage ; buildings and garages, swimming pools, lawns, and driveways. ; • The conservation area of each lot; e.g., Buildable that portion of the lot to be preserved as or*" open space, shall include designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation _ Areas. s` na#o # %`:`<:'>.s ::':::::::: :<::::::.:<:::::::<:•::. ': Under the conservation option, at least 33% of the i.. subdivision area is preserved as open space through a conservation easement applied to individual lots. Joyner Comment: This provision should be added to the "Estate Lot Option" to resolve the concern about making perk sites unusable. • 'L.::::.i}:'.i'.:C{'.: :' .%:.:i:;;:.i:tiniiiiiiiiii':tiiiiiii:iiii::::iiiiiiiiiiiii::�.i:::ip.•:w. vq..:::.�.::::.�..:::::.: .:::::.:..::.:::::n:..�..�:.:::::::::::::.�:::::w::..::.:::::.� ssvcuax....:: >:.; h' >sfititeici <vuic :ftiiyati;a #eri :a :<: t�et.>:...... .................... :............................................................ .::::.::::::.:::.::::::::::.1 .:: .:::::::::::: :::x::.............. .::.::::.::.. cj x:vac...... ...::..:: 1::...... :. a: ::1 :...::.:....:::::::..::.::::..: :.:..::.:::::.n.::::::. . :. ..�.�. �.: •:iL. ......::::.::•::: ::::.. ::........r t1 ..- .:::::::::::.::.... �.:::::::::::::::.::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: .::.::::::::::...:::::.:.::.:................. ..::.......................................................................................................................................... ......::..............:::::::: 1"... Joyner Comment: The above language should be taken as advice, not judgment. This is the type of development desired, so the wording should be in the form of commentary, not regulatory. • Only the conservation area designated for each lot may be counted toward meeting the thirty-three Percent open space requ►rement. �EtO� #6:1fi411 ?�.#:#1�:?�:�E �f:': : Arendt Comment: Too low, especially if it includes some Primary Conservation Areas. Joyner Comment:Need to rethink this because, as worded, provision does not permit parks, etc. to be counted as open space. • Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of conservation lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas; and satisfy all building/conservation area standards, conservation lots may platted in accordance with following standards: Flexible Development 11 66 0 The minimum required lot width may be reduced to 100 feet. O The minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 39 feet for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds. Arendt Comment: Same comment as provided previously. O The total number of lots in a subdivision may be calculated based on the total land area in the tract, provided, however, the total number of lots may not exceed the number of sewage disposal sites identified by the Health Department Division of Environmental Health. O Public and private street rights-of-way may be included in the calculation of the lot size, provided the lot size is of sufficient size to accommodate an adequate building site. Only one-half of the street right-of-way fronting on each lot may be counted for this purpose. Joyner Comment: The sentence above is more of a penalty than an incentive. One- half of all street rights-of-way should be counted in the calculation of lot size. Otherwise, an incentive is set up to create very small corner lots. Conservation lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions. Primary and Secondary Development Areas located in portions of lots designated for conservation shall be restricted against further development through conservation easements. Comment. Among the development options presented in the proposed Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange was a 'conventional two-acre development' option. That option suggested that the 'base line' zoning density in rural portions of the county be changed from 40,000 sq.ft. (0.92 acres) lots to 80,000 sgfft. (1.84 acres) lots. The proposed change in zoning density was based in part on the average lot size (1.9 acres) created through the major subdivision approval process (1987-1993). The change was also proposed to create an incentive for setting aside open space;e.g., density increases in return for open space. Subsequent studies of all subdivision activity during the 1987-1993 period indicated that the average lot size was three times larger;e.g., 6.0 acres. From such studies, arguments have been made that larger lot sizes and 'de facto"open space are more a product of consumer preference and/or soils limitations than increased lot size requirements associated with issues such as watershed protection. The 'conservation'option recommended as part of this Flexible Development proposal is similar to the 'conventional two-acre development' option in that it results in larger lot sizes than the minimum required 40,000sgft. lot.However, it differs significantlyfrom the 'two-acre'approach by relying on natural constraints to preserve open space instead of mandating a speck lot size standard. As an example, Primary Conservation Areas have been defined to include the following site features. • Wetlands, • Floodplains and alluvial soils; • Slopes greater than 25%;and • Natural areas, and wildlife corridors and habitats. Flexible Development 12 _ • i �hlr t 4- OW tow Wjt elm �` .. ,1 f ]� .y y��■►�r�� t. e.� 'tea., !► s``'. 17 X ,,for, all iA71."le 17 Alopli INV dot Now `tGis�. is.�ltw 3 �l �pC' F ItIol- a r� 68 69 0 ^ o 0o co r— rl 7 E • ^ N� � N p c v o O co i W H �-/ • cn G o-#.-,-C/5 '^ C C O -Z=) c > v 4 1 U C3 �'j/ • C.�C�C�C. �i� Ca y Q C C L I V3 V^ �1 U N N U CJ Q7 N C $S C 1 v N p O = U as c LLJ CD N F a� x 0 c v E �� U U U U _ Q> U V (!� QQQQ a�ZQ �� O o -G Oo e� r .',♦♦rrr�rfrrr�r�rrrrrrr �♦� rrtr ♦ 'W, I , f � 1 �+ f � ■ • 1 f ■ ♦1 ■ f �♦ 10 i 70 71 As shown on the following "Building Constraints Map', wetlands,floodplains and alluvial soils, and steep slopes are limiting factors for development. When combined with soils that do not perk well,the conservation approach produces lots which not only recognize the natural limitations of the land but contribute to the preservation of Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas. The following table provides a comparison of Rural Character and Flexible Development strategies. As noted in the table, it may be possible, on land that perks extremely well and has no Primary Conservation Areas, to achieve a density of 108 lots per 100 acres. Under the current regulations and ideal conditions,the maximum density is 100 lots per 100 acres. The difference between the two is accounted for by the incentive of counting street right-of--way as part of the 40,000 sq.ft. lot size. What one will generally see, however, is the typical situation where poor soils, separately or in combination with other building constraints, limit the density to 72 lots per 100 acres. Can;parison of Rurvt Character and Fkxibk Development Optaions . Development Conventional Two-Acre Lot Standards Development Option Conservation Lot Option' Maximum - 36,800 sq.ft. (0.84 acres) Lot Size Required 80,000 sq.ft. (1.84 acre) Current - 40,000 sq.ft. (0.92 average acres) Typica - 60,000 sq.ft. (1.38 acres) Open Space Required At least 39 of subdivision None must be set aside as open space Maximum - 108 lots per 100 acres (Density = 1.08 units per acre) Potential Lot Yield Up to 51 lots per 100 acres Current- 100 lots per 100 (Density = 0.51 units per acres (Density = 1.00 unit per acre) acre) ical- 72 lots per 100 acres (Density = 0.72 units per acre) Front yard 40 feet Dimensional Standards Side yard 20 feet < YEi#tfJrt Rear yard 20 feet Lot width 150 feet Arendt Comment: "33%" should be at least 50% (if not 60%) at the 2-acre base density. Didn't see standards for front yard or lot width. to minimum lot size of two acres (87,120 sq.ft.) is required in designated Critical Areas and some Protected Watersheds. If density calculations are based on the total land area, the potential lot yield in such areas is 50 lots per 100 acres. If lot area calculations include half the street right-of-way,the minimum permitted lot size is 81,900 sq.ft. (1.88 acres). Flexible Development 13 72 3. Cluster Option: A cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided Common tract. Smaller lots than those required in conventional area ; subdivisions are permitted, provided such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following standards: • Land saved through lot size reductions shall Total consist of designated Primary and/or 33 Secondary Conservation Areas. percent open • The total amount of land set aside as space Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in mum lot area and shall comprise at Building least thirty-three percent E3 of the total lots land area in the subdivision. Arendt Comment: Percentage too low. • Each lot must contain a buildable area of Under the cluster option, at least 33% of the sufficient size to accommodate a single- subdivision area is preserved as open space and family detached dwelling and customary may be owned in common by all of the lot owners. accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, swimming pools, lawns, and driveways. • 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 The total number of lots in a subdivision may be calculated based ut:t#a provided, however, the total number of lots may not exceed the number of sewage disposal sites identified by the Health Department Division of Environmental Health. Arendt Comment: Consider basing density on yield plan for Conventional Design approach instead, which is realistic for developers to live with. O A sewage disposal site may be located in an open space area provided it does not occupy more than fifty percent (50%)of the land area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area. o Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by€rk persom(-594&) # :# but shall be no smaller than 5000 square feet. Public and private street rights-of- way may be included in the calculation of the lot size, provided the lot size is of sufficient size to accommodate an adequate building site. <'tl €E 'eli3r1": Arendt Comment: See table on next page. Joyner Cormnent:Same concern as expressed previously under"Conservation Option". Flexible Development 14 73 rn �rn oO�-,.t v �� c o CO Cn c F. • U O Cn W N V -O cn O� W C C C O _.�_+ O -G cii .� �•—•— —•——� ,V p U c I � o v v o v Q. � cu E _ �+ •c ` fy$.r 74 . 75 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. 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. Comment. The above provisions are based generally on the current Cluster Development standards. On the following table,a comparison of Rural Character and Flexible Development strategies is provided. Under the Rural Character proposal's sliding scale of density bonuses, the provision of# open space would be equivalent to a potential lot yield of 93 lots per 100 acres. Arendt Comment: Too low-increase by reducing lot size. See table below. Flexible Development 15 76 Comparison of Rural Character and Flexible Development Options Development Open Space Standards Development Option Cluster Option' Where minimum lot size requirement is... As small as 10,000 sq.t. 40,000 sq ft. 20-OA9-ems : Lot Size Required "; 20,000 sq.tT. 40,GOO .......................... 10,000 sq ft: 5,000 sgft. Open Space Required From 20% to 70% of total At least "of subdivision tract, including entry roads must be set-avidet`? as and other permitted uses open space Maximum - 108 lots per 100 acres (Density = 1.08 units per acre) Current - 100 lots per 100 Potential Lot Yield Up to 80 to 130 lots per 100 acres (Density = 1.00 unit per acres (Density = 0.80 to 1.30 acre) units per acre) ical- 72 lots per 100 acres (Density = 0.72 units per acre) Dimensional Standards Reductions permitted but not See standards above and on specified preceding page Joyner Comment: What about density bonuses for providing more open space? Does the section shaded above mean that I can't do a small-lot duster in AR or R-1 with lots smaller than half an acre? Why not? Particularly if public water and sewer are available. 2A minimum lot size of two acres (87,120 sq.ft.) is required in designated Critical Areas and some Protected Watersheds. Under the cluster provisions, lots of approximately one acre could be created, with land saved through lot size reductions being preserved as common open space. If density calculations are based on the total land area, the potential lot yield in such areas is 50 lots per 100 acres. If lot area calculations include half the street right-of-way, the minimum permitted lot size in a cluster development would be approximately 40,000 sq.ft. Under this scenario, approximately 50%of the land area would be preserved as open space. Flexible Development 16 77 4. Village Option. Villages represent a modified _ form of cluster development intended to serve '--_--� as physical,social, and economic focal points �+ + in rural portions of the county. Consequently, r�`__, •1_i.• _ ' villages are appropriate locations for civic . " i• '�. < I •`�....'. uses, such as schools and churches, as well as a variety of economic functions, including ' /= stores and workshops,and residential building !� ,� �•��1 f types designed to accommodate a range of NI. '-- socioeconomic groups. �I The location, size, and composition of each;� ,• r_ �+ „ r" village will be a function of the development potential of the land associated with the !e t� r settlement, including, but not limited to: • The zoning of the site, including the I / maximum allowable number of _ s dwelling units; Under the village approach, housing units are clustered • The method of water supply and around a center, including a commons or green, all sewage disposal, including the surrounded by open space (Loudoun County General number of approved disposal sites; Plan). • l s....iy......: :::.�ltlil� TSf 1t t 78 0 Joyner Comment: One mile too much! If you have one village proper on Efland- Cedar Grove Road near U.S. 70, means you can't have another down the road across the street? To what end is this standard aimed? Yes, to "visually distinct" provision. 0 The village proper is to be built in a generally rectilinear pattern of interconnecting streets, defined by buildings, street furniture, and landscaping, as "WOOS to be shared equally by pedestrians and automobiles. Joyner Comment: What does this mean? Need illustrations. 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 M - Joyner Comment: Depends on the size - not appropriate in a small-scale kind of place. 0 Village lots shall be restricted from further subdivision through deed restrictions. 0 The village proper may be composed of four a Storefront Area, a Townhouse Area, a single-family detached House Area, and a Workshop Area. These areas and the standards applicable to each are described on the following pages. Joyner Comment: Substitute "uses" for "areas". Does this mean that can't have apartments over storefronts or offices? Why not? Don't over-regulate,just require mixed use. This builds in usage obsolescence otherwise, and is less integrated than optimal. • 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 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 IV-B-10-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 ( of the total land area in the subdivision and shall be no less than 100 feet in width at any place, Arendt Comment:33% too low-reduce lot to village size and increase open space. Also, recommend adding highlighted wording. 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. Flexible Development 18 79 c C-4 ri 00 cn O (V O E C) C) O cn cn W, co cn QJI C5 ce- cn w CD cl � Cl- w cl C5, p IV 45 6 p w <V W W w C" Z75 --j err O wwwwrrrrr ............ • Ib"lk ■ ■ www 80 - f1' _ - , v \ i\ r r♦ - �, + ,,�7 - �._•,4�� as \�\, y V\\\V.A�v� ♦A" v v � �\_ �� :-�'�4+.�''.4 ; 1 v v A��-_ v`'�♦vwv v v v V A tiv g2 Comment: The 'village option'is based, in part,on an earlier recommendation of the Rural Character Study Committee;e.g., the 'rural village' concept. This concept has been given more structure using standards developed as part of Loudoun County, Virginia's 'rural village' strategy. Further structure was given to the proposal using the neo-traditional town-making principles of Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk Flexible Development 19 83 Village Development Standards GENERAL PROVISIONS Land Use • Land within a village shall be availble for uses as provided herein. • Similar land use categories shall generally front across streets, and dissimilar Land categories 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 Lots of use. & • All buildings,except outbuildings,shall have their main entrance opening to a street Buildings or square. • Stoops, open colonnades, and open porches may encroach into the front yard setbacks. ii iY fi'!i}n+X'ii:::::.i:.i:ti.ti. :ti:�::Q:+.•.wviii.? t:..:::} .'4,:• :L v:•.% <L:.:::::v v.:iii:<•:•.:::::i.?: .. ....1-4i�.....i '.i + tgS; I E' ;GSS; Iki:: '1ri :<ti!" f#1t::SE; ...: ...... UM go • All lots and tracts within the village proper shall have access to pedestrian and vehicular routes. • Every village proper shall have two access points to paved roadways designated as collector and/or arterial streets. + There shall be a continuous network of alleys to the rear of the lots in the Village Streets Proper. & • Every village proper shall provide a pedestrian network which includes parks, Alleys squares, sidewalks along streets, alleyways through blocks. The network shall link all parts of the village proper, making walking easier than driving. + No block face shall have a length greater than 500 feet without an alley providing through access. • Streetlamps, between eight(8)and 15 feet in height, and equipped with incandescent or metal halide lights, shall be installed on both sides of streets at all street intersections and at mid-block where block lengths exceed 400 feet. • On-street parking directly fronting a lot shall count toward fulfilling the parking requirement. • The number of required off-street parking spaces may be reduced by demonstrating the availability of shared parking. • Parking lots shall be located at the rear or at the side of buildings. Such lots shall be Parking screened from the sidewalk by a masonry wall or wood fence, no less than 75% opaque, built along the property line between A" and 14 feet in height. : 01"MMMO <' • Street trees shall be installed within four (4) feet of the property line abutting a street at not less than 4 4. foot intervals. • Adjacent parking lots shall have internal vehicular connections. Arendt Comment:Alleys(pavement)should be 12 feet in width if one-way; 16 feet in width if two-way.Also, see Nelessen's book, Visions for A New American dream. Joyner Comment: So it's all or nothing for the mined use? Go with Duany or forget it? Why not add rural village for some mixed use like discussed for Hannah Creek? Without sewer, can't do this. It's not appropriate for 30,00040,000 sq.ft.lots.Why not allow clerestory windows?Why the standard for fence/wall height? Cars aren't 8 feet high. Why deal with gates? They will always be left open. Flexible Development 20 84 Village Development Standards PUBLIC & CIVIC AREA PROVISIONS Land designated as part of Public and Civic Areas may be used for the following purposes: • 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%)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 bi surrounded on at least three(3) sides by Storefront and/or Townhouse Areas. t t s1 taX#5 <0 ae:< tr £ n::bilclx s :s::>::> a :> SCr ire tet : • 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 Land early stages of village development, and owned and operated by the residents of the Allocation 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 accommodate a village meeting. • At least two percent (2%) 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. • At least two percent (2%) of the land area in the village proper shall be designated for other permitted public and civic uses such as schools, day care centers, churches, and similar uses. Land included in the village green, parks, and squares, may be counted toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%)open space requirement. Buildings located in Public and Civic Areas shall be subject to the same setback and height Lots standards of adjacent lot types. For example, a meeting hall located adjacent to a Townhouse & Area shall meet the same setback and building height standards as required for buildings in a Buildings Townhouse Area. Streets fronting on Public and Civic Area lots shall conform to the same standards as land Streets uses across from or adjoining the lots. For example, the streets fronting a meeting hall & located adjacent to a Townhouse Area shall meet the same standards as as required in a Alleys Townhouse Area. • The number of off street 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. fte"remFa ::..... s:::sE ;:[: xsi,; :?_ .. ..::....:.....:.::.:.::.............. ............... �:it114; pi�l#t:�set #1i�df��p�t<t ;st' Flexible Development 21 n 85 Arendt Comment:See the village examples from New Jersey in Nelessen's book. Under "Lots & Buildings", consider a "build-to" line with limited variation allowable. Also, allow on-street parking to count; e.g., as shown above. Flexible Development 22 86 u r W 87 Village Development Standards STOREFRONT AREA PROVISIONS Land designated as Storefront Area may be used for the following purposes: • Personal service shops, including, but not limited to, barber and beauty shops, tailors, shoe repair, dry cleaners, and similar uses. • Specialized retail stores, including, but not limited to, the sale of gifts, novelties, flowers, books, antiques,jewelry, apparel, toys and crafts, stationery, and similar uses. Corner groceries, general stores, and drug stores are also permitted. • Restaurants, excluding fast food and/or drive-in establishments. Land Use • Business and professional offices, including, but not limited to, real estate and insurance offices, travel agencies, medical and dental offices, 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 facade; e.g., building wall corresponding to the lot frontage, 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 Lots less than 75% opaque, built within five (5) feet of the property line between eight & (8)-and-14-feet C t f4j in height. Any openings shall be gated. Buildings • Buildings shall have no setback from at least one (1) side property line except on corner lots where the side yard setback adjacent to the street shall be five(5) feet. • Building coverage may not exceed 70 percent of the lot area. • Buildings may not exceed three (3)stories in height. • Lots shall front on a street with a maximum right-of-way width of 70 feet, consisting of at least two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parallel parking on both sides, Streets and 12-foot sidewalks on both sides. & • Lots shall have their rear lot lines coinciding with the right-of-way of a 24-foot Alleys alley, containing a vehicular pavement width of at least eight(8) J2 feet 3' • Street trees shall be planted on both sides of the street at no more than;5-feet intervals- . • Provision shall be made for service delivery, 0010"W", and trash collection at the rear lot line. • The number of ef€-sheet 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 buildw , T :: ' ' M Flexible Development 23 88 Y Areadt Comment: What about opticians? Why limit to "specialized" stores? Are hardware stores allowed? N not, why not? An 8 to 14 foot fence height seems forbidding. Remember that side yard parking is permissible and requires walls much lower (say 3-4 feet in height). Why not provide a "build-to" line with zero setback under"Lots&Buildings"instead of proposed setback provision?Why not allow on-street spaces to count? Flexible Development 24 89 Village Development Standards TOWNHOUSE AREA PROVISIONS Land designated as a Townhouse Area may be used for the following purposes: • Day care centers. Land Use • Bed and breakfast establishments. 0 Retirement centers. 0 Home occupations of a professional and/or office nature when located on the second floor of a permitted outbuilding. • An accessory residential apartment when located on the second floor of a permitted outbuilding. • Not more than five percent (5%) of the land area in the Village Proper shall be designated for Townhouse Area use. Land • Townhouse Area lots shall have a lot frontage of 50 feet. Allocation • A maximum of 12 lots may be combined for the purpose of constructing a single building containing apartments. • Setback requirements on combined lots shall be the same as for single lots. • Buildings shall be set back either five (5) feet or 15 feet from the front property line. • The lot frontage shall have a masonry wall, wood fence or hedge, no less than 50% opaque, built within five(5) feet of the property line between three(3)and five(5) feet in height. Lots • Buildings shall have no required setback from side property lines except on & comer lots where the side yard setback adjacent to the street shall be five (5) Buildings feet. • Building coverage may not exceed 70 percent of the lot area. • Buildings may not exceed three(3) stories in height. 0 One (1) outbuilding is permitted on each lot, provided its ground floor area does not exceed 450 square feet, it does not to exceed two(2)stories in height, and it is located within 30 feet of the rear property line and at least four(4) feet from one side property line. • Lots shall front on a street with a maximum right-of-way width of 60 feet, consisting of at least two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parallel parking on both sides, and 6-foot sidewalks on both sides. Streets • Lots shall have their rear lot lines coinciding with the right-of-way of a 24-foot alley, containing a pavement width of at least sigh! (9) fees Alleys Provision shall be made for service delive and trash collection ry, at the rear lot line. • Street trees shall be planted on both sides of the street at no more than 7-11;-feet #04 intervals meamfed diagonally a@Fess the sifeei. • The number of and loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking • All off-street parking spaces shall be located to the rear of the building, with access through an alley only. Flexible Development 25 M 90 Arendt Comment: 0 Under "Land Use", allow up to 30% of frontage to be occupied by closely spaced detached row houses. • Note recommendations concerning alley width, tree spacing, utility poles, and sidewalk width. • Under"Parking",on-street parking should be provided and counted foward the total. " Flexible Development 26 91 Village Development Standards DOUSE AREA PROVISIONS Land designated as a House Area may be used for the following purposes: • Detached single-family dwellings. Land Use • 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 WWWWW" • At least 40 percent of the land area in the Village Proper shall be designated for House Area use. • Residential densities within House Areas should decrease as distance from the Land Village Center increases. Allocation • House Area lots shall have a lot€eetege W of.7- • 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. • llatv6 ttly1i? y ! 1 •'"ra:.:::>.."ai��;:�+ii�i>1e? • ; gal shall be set back from the side property lines equivalent (in total) to Lots 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 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 parrallel parking on one side, and a 6-faet 5 sidewalk on one side. Streets • Lots shall have their rear lot lines coinciding with the right-of-way of a fi & M=A;�= ement width of at least eight(9) feet Alleys • Provision shall be made fo r service delivery, ry, �ti'lt#", and trash collection at the rear lot line. • Street trees shall be planted on both sides of the street at no more than 7.5 Meet intervals- meawnd diagesally aefess the stmet. • The number of off-street parking and loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking • All off-street parking spaces shall be located to the side or rear of the building. When access is through the lot frontage, garages and carports shall be located a minimum of 20 feet behind the front building wall line. Flexible Development 27 92 Arendt Comment: • Under "Land Use", allow a traditional "dependency", including ground floor. • Under "Land Allocation", allow 75-foot lot width on average to allow variety. • Under "Lots & Buildings", consider applying "wall/fence/hedge" standard to a percentage of lots, not all, to provide variety. • Under "Lots & Buildings" and "Streets & Alleys", consider garages - setback standard for buildings from rear lot line may exclude. • Note recommendations concerning alley width, tree spacing, utility poles, and sidewalk width. • Under "Parking", note recommended 10-foot setback. Also, consider requiring front-facing garage doors to be painted to match the body of the main house. Flexible Development 28 ' 93 Village Development Standards WORKSHOP AREA PROVISIONS Land designated as Workshop Area may be used for the following purposes. • Farm service support establishments. i Building and landscaping contractors. • Establishments involved in the repair, assembly, and/or manufacture of products Land Use which require only hand or table mounted electrical tools. • Automotive service uses, including the servicing and repair of automobiles, and sale of automobile parts, but excluding body repair shop and automobile storage. • Warehousing and distribution establishments, provided all storage is conducted entirely within a building. • Not more than two percent (2%) of the land area in the Village Proper shall be designated for Workshop Area use. • Workshop Area lots shall be grouped together, located at the edge of the Village Land Proper, 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. • Workshop Area lots shall be separated from other types of use categories at the side Lots or tear property lines (except an entry onto an alley) by a continuous masonry or & wood wall of not less than 10 feet in height or by a landscaped buffer of 100 feet in Buildings width. • Building coverage may not exceed 70 percent of the lot area. 0 Buildings may not exceed two(2)stories in height. • Lots shall front on a street with a maximum right-of-way width of 60 feet, consisting of at least two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parallel parking on one side, Streets and 6-foot sidewalks on both sides. & • Lots shall have their rear lot lines coinciding with the right-of-way of a 24-foot Alleys alley, containing a vehicular pavement width of at least 20 feel ....:.:.:...:::...:......:.::... ?± * • Provision shall be made for service delivery and trash collection at the rear lot line. • Street trees shall be planted on both sides of the street at no more than 36 feet M intervals- • The number of off-street parking and loading spaces shall be provided in accordance Parking with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. 0 All off-street parking spaces shall be located to the side or rear of the building. Flexible Development 29 w 94 5. Street Standards: All streets in Flexible Developments shall conform to the standards contained in Section IV-B-3 of this Ordinance, provided, however, private roads will be permitted as follows: • The number of lots served by a private road shall be limited as follows: 14 Lots Class A Private Road Road Number Class of Lots Class C 1 to 3 Class B 4 to 9 Class A 10 to 25 J Cl Lou ! Cltss A ! Private Road • Where a Flexible Development has 25 J� lots or less, t `:`'::`.`:'":;:`'tie .X — pr CUss B %' Total Lots-45 .... ... Private Road �� Public Entrance Road ... NCDl7C Standards • Where a Flexible Development has more than 25 lots, the street system may public streets and private roads are permitted in consist of public streets and private roads large developments where they form a logical provided: hierarchy of streets. • .:i::i'.:�i::iiitiiiiii::i�ii::•:i i';«i+ii:;i�:{:{:i'::iii::iiiXi:}.::.ii: i•i:�,i::':i:ii�iiii'Ji>iiiY i:•ii':4ii:?i«: Arendt Comment: The "New Urbanists" propose a non-hierarchical network maximizing the alternative number of ways one can get from point A to point B. Arendt Comment: Why? Joyner Comment:Requiring all entrance roads to be public is big disincentive.Can't do flexible development with 12 to 20 lots without paving a road? Why? This standard will lead to conventional development. o All entrance roads serving the development are public streets; Arendt Comment: Why the concern? Simply set private street standards at a minimum safe level. o All streets which stub-out at property lines to provide for the extension of or connection to future street systems are public streets; and o Private roads are not proposed as part of a Village(Section IV-B-10-D-4)except in the Village Conservancy portion of the development. • Private, dead-end roads may be terminated in a cul-de-sac or "T" turnaround. Where a "T" turnaround is used as the terminus for a private road, the dimensions(e.g., turning radius)of the Flexible Development 30 95 "T" shall be sufficient to allow emergency service and trash collection vehicles adequate room to turn around. Arendt Comment: Might want to refer to Residential Streets, Second Edition. Comment. A recommended strategy of the Rural Character Study Committee as well as several citizens was to allow the use of private roads as an incentive to encourage open space developments. That strategy has been incorporated into this proposal and is based on the assumption that a developer who uses one or more of the Flexible Development options is "entitled"to private roads subject to the limitations set forth above. Flexible Development 31 96 Section IV-B-10-E. WATER SUPPLY & 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 on each lot or located off-lot within , a recorded easement; or Comment. The use of off lot easements for nitrification fields is ��,,; specifically mentioned as an allowable option, because it has been used successfully in an existing 'open space' subdivision - Windy Hill. Because some property owners wanted to build more bedrooms than on-lot fields were capable of handling, septic easements were approved for r use in common open space. }-- From a cluster design standpoint,the off-lot option enables a lot sizes to be reduced and nitrification f elds to be provided _ on adjoining open space, subject to the 50% limitation L -'?•: noted previously. Off-lot fields are recommended by AWQA40"and are included in the -- Land Preservation Zoning o ng District Provisions of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. • A community water and/or sewage disposal system designed, constructed, and maintained in conformity with all applicable state, /�•� . : � i� . federal, and local rules and regulations; or ' Comment: Community systems are also recommended by–Ramdal —.. and included in the Montgomery ` c. ................................. County Land Preservation Zoning District Provisions. r.:. Effluent is normally collected by way of gravity lines and r carried to a pre-treatment facility. Treated effluent is then dispersed into the ground through nitrification lines, or sprayed on fields or forests. Such systems would be subject to the design, construction, operation,and management standards and criteria specified �-.. in the County's Wastewater Treatment Management Program. ' • 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 open space development for which the system is extended. Comment. Connection to or extension of public water and sewer systems is currently permitted within Transition Areas designated on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The County's Water&Sewer Policy also favors such connections/extensions where their provision will enhance the rural character and provide for open space through cluster development(see Section IV-B-10- G Density Bonuses for additional provisions). Flexible Development 32 97 Section IV-B-10-F. DENSITY BONUSES .. iY..:. ... r. ?.C\ .}:1.�•.{.I.,:. ..::r :.v..:...:....:.1�ii�iy:. ;$......iyi!i�::�..:.. ?pr`i(iii:• •iiii:9i:':i?:::v'-:i i:':h;;..'::;Y.•{::?:.:{:i:Y:?i•:i^:•i:;:'i;.:;•iii i{i►iyi...�....(�....: ..i% A..+..�... :} T�9..i:�#R?:}!i: XV�ii1M;!✓..;7,.;. At:}�i: iY .. :::i1gTP.::7�\7Mf1!i!R• :6r:::::ii:•:i:{::i::ia.;.i':.'+•ir?:ini:. ... v.:r::.v::?::..............:::::::::•.::::::..............::•::::::::•::.....:::::...•...... ?: r {. ;•:v•: x.'{:•:::::: :ti':'rii::ii:::: :::.i:::::.i: ::::: :i: .i'U x.x.4:ni:::!{p:::::::4:0:.i:::? .w.:..:: .....:.. ..:..::..::.:.•:.:::.................. ...iR.:...ii:.i.::;:,i:.i...i+::::::::..:::.:..:::.::.::.:>:;.:;:-:«:.;::: :::.i::::-:>:.::::•.::.i;•::.i::.i ::>:::. asl:€ < ta € t:> arw :i�t�etas: a:lbc;a� ; s :I ......:........... ...... 4:vtiv:«::i:?Siii'lbiiiiy:•:4;•i'i;•:•i:4;??^Ftiiiiviiii:i::::::::::::::::::::.::w:'::::::�v:•;:v:�:::n�:::::.�n:�:•:::::::;.:::n.::..::::.......::::::::::::::::.�::.�.�:::::::::::.�:................ ;:.� ii:•.;:.::..::i> ,,.>.>::::::::::,#s�#�v►#::. �':yotie«ar':�air�� :?f#i�f�t •:::.::�"f'to:::::. Arendt Comment: In general, prefer density disincentives for large lot subdivisions with no open space. Award full density onl for Flexible Development. Joyner Comment: These sentences seem to be in direct opposition. Need to clarify. 1. Open Space Provision. 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: ..:,:..:..:::::..:.:::.......... ..:..:::...................................:::. tefet3tii 'lle� o..i:::::.,:;.:::Aii Joyner Comment: Great! ae:>zn::tei;ilk€ 1:::::iizifi° t €e its>ma.<:: ..:: ias : o : :- t .::::::::. ..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::..::..:::::.:::.::::::.c:::.:.:::. . :::::::.:.::::.:::.: :: :.:............................ ::....:n.......... ..:.: .. : a >> h:> :::::::::::.:.1.:::::::::::::1 ?.::::::::::: t.::::::.:.:.::.:::::::::.:.::::..:..:..:::...::.:..:...... .............................. .:::::i:•:iii:«::?:.i ::�••: ;:} •:.4:}::•:\.::.•i i.w�...:.i.::: .:::.:::.�:.:.::::'{:i'y.:::::::::::::.::4:::::.:ii..i':::::::.i;ry:::.i;..::: .:::::, iM.::.}.r .::::A::::::::::..':i `i:: :i' i.i::ii.i:::v:. •.::.;::>::::?•ii .>:??.;:???.:::?.::?,:.ii:?.iii;:-i:................................................................................................................................................. 1? ' .::::><:»:i: ><>:::::»>:::?»»>�:>.i::::>:i:;:::?::>:<::?:.:.::•i;i;ii•::.;;;;;;:;:.::.;:.:.:.:?.i:<.:;.i:<?.iii:................................................................................................................... ....:.:................. Arendt Comment: The above wording allows one to buy 100% wetlands in lieu of providing decent open space in his/her development. Joyner Comment: Can any of the 33% be off-site? Discussed this for transportation corridors and in rings around towns. For land purchased in less than fee, a conservation easement shall be recorded which restricts the development potential of the land.The conservation easement shall be dedicated to Orange County,another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. 2. 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: li::•T•?+??:..+ •:i:.:•>:•ii;?;i i:.i:.i:«'•.:;'iii::iii:-mac.:'-: •>:«>:-i:;�... .i:.:•.•:- :•-K-:>:->:::-: <: t ? :.:>;:.R' ::;per;::: >4t11�R� . >X.:rr.::r..r:.:.:.:.:.:.:..ky;i.,..C..:r?r��+:,:.yy!?:��s>:i::.;•'.A.••?•:::,>••.>:.«...::::>.•:..'.:.;.:,:.i.i:i:.�:.i:...i:.::.i::::::::::::??:..;.:<.•:•.::.::`..::.:.::..:..::.:.•:.::.:::.:.::?.:�:.:.:�W t: � ..-.;•.:.;.::.:...:;.:'::'.:.�::.:::::.::.:.:.:.:::..::::::....::.::-.:.:.'...:.....:..:y...:.....:...•..iyi '::.i.::.i..::.: > :. i :::...::: :i.'r:a�a::y::,'.�..... �:::;; >; ::• >l'tta::fatxtRl';:: ::::Os::: eier'tztlti1 `<':t <>II ' 3 #> d: : Arendt Comment:This could be very low-income housing. Consider limiting range-say 70%to 90% of median-and addressing very low-income through other means. Joyner Comment: What happens when families earning 100% of median and still can't buy or rent in county? What are the current numbers on this? In lieu of providing affordable housing units in the Flexible Development, the applicant may donate to t land separate from the Flexible Development with suitable soils or access to public water Flexible Development 33 98 ` and sewer for the purpose of developing affordable housing.The donated land shall contain at a minimum the land area needed to develop the total number of bonus units in accordance with the zoning requirements of the district in which the donated land is located. Joyner Comment: Or...Habitat for Humanity? Need resolution by County to actually use the land for affordable housing. 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. 0 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. Comment. The provisions related to density bonuses are based, in part, on existing regulations applicable to affordable housing, the recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee, and the proposed Prelimina,rte+Recommendations for a Regional Transit Plan as prepared by the Triangle Transit Authority. Both affordable housing and open space bonus options have similar provisions, e.g., affordable units or additional open space may be provided on-site or off site. In terms of density limits, the ceiling set for locations outside of Transition Areas and transit corridors/stops is based on the 1.3 dwelling unit per acre limit recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee. The location is tied,however, to designated utility service areas. Density limits established for transit corridors/stops represent the low end of densities recommended in the Regional Transit Plan. Flexible Development 34 • _ yt1 r� Oft � -'fir►, ��, � � � , ! %Iii, MAN MEMO 11" RX a IN � / �t� �` i/��i ,.� - � ► ►1�� ,yea �� 1 -� � , 1 rigi Mb h►�Ri► �IL R T�`�rf�tr=' t44 �4 1 r •� w a ' 4 r Y� ys�� ""�'� �Fh} • ' 100 ' 101 Section IV-B-10-G. DESIGN GUIDELINES 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 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, 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. 1. General Guidelines. The following guidelines apply to all Flexible Development projects: • 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. i • 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 • '_'. Woodlands/ . street rights-of-way and/or neighborhood a Natural r a boundaries. • • The pedestrian circulation system shall be _ designed to assure that pedestrians can ,:; r walk safely and easily on the site, between properties and activities or special features within the neighborhood open space Where forest land or natural areas are to be system. All roadside footpaths should preserved, locating development in open areas at connect with off-road trails, and link with the far edge of a field is preferred (Montgomery existing or potential open space on County Land Preservation District). adjoining parcels. • 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. Z. Forest Land/Natural Areas Preservation. Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to preserve forest land and/or natural areas and wildlife habitats, the following guidelines apply: • Dwellings should be located in unwooded parts of the site away from mature forests, natural areas, and/or wildlife corridors. • To the greatest extent practicable,development should be designed around existing hedgerows and treelines between fields or meadows. The impact on larger woodlands(greater than five acres), especially those containing mature trees, natural areas, and/or wildlife corridors should be minimized. Flexible Development 35 102 • 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. 3. Farmland Preservation. Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to preserve farmland, the following guidelines 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 pastures and cropland, and locate building lots on less productive land. Arendt Comment: Need buffers between dwelling lots and crops/livestock. 4. Preservation of Scenic Views. Where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to preserve scenic views, the following guidelines apply: • Leave scenic views and vistas unblocked or uninterrupted,particularly as seen from public ; roadways. Consider "no-build, no-plant" —= buffers along public roadwys 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" �` q buffer created through the reservation of Farmland/ g p ` 'Scinic View = e existing vegetation. • Where development is located in unwooded areas clearly visible from existing public a roads, it should be buffered from direct view by a vegetative buffer or an earth berm constructed to reflect the topography of the \ o J surrounding area, or located out of sight on slopes below existing ridge lines. • Protect rural roadside character and vehicular Where farmland or scenic views are to be carrying capacity by avoiding development preserved, locate lots in forested areas away fronting on existing public roads; e.g., from pastures and fields (Montgomery County limiting access to all lots from interior rather Land Preservation District). than exterior roads. • Protect rural roadside character and scenic views by providing larger lots(e.g., two acres or more in size) adjacent to existing public roads. • Avoid siting new construction on prominent hilltops or ridges. Flexible Development 36 4 103 5. Historic Preservation. where the goal of the Flexible Development project is to preserve historic and archaeological sites and structures, the following guidelines 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,and burial grounds. • New streets, driveways, fences, and utilities must be sited so as not to intrude 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 reflect natural and historic landscape materials, and are in harmony 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. 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. Comment. Thu proposed design guidelines are based on criteria recommended by RamdaU,4 in several decent sources, including Designing Open Space Developments. Sussex County,Delaware;and Designing Open Space Subdivisions•A Practical Step- -Step Approach,the Natural Lands Trust. Flexible Development 37 104 M. APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES The major aspect of revisions to this section of the Subdivision Regulations is the requirement that a subdivider submit two plans-one for a conventional subdivision(Conventional Development Option)and another for an open space subdivision(Flexible Development Option). While the submission of two plans is required,the choice of which plan to pursue remains that of the subdivider. 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 prior to filing an application for Concept Plan approval. b. 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. • Twenty-five (25) 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: o A Site Analysis Map; o A Conventional Development Option; and o A Flexible Development Option. In lieu of submitting 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 o The applicant is seeking approval only of a Conventional Development Plan in which all lots are to be developed with affordable housing units. •:�.;::��:.::++.:::..r�::.:;.:.p...�:y:::�.y:�:.:.�:::.�::....��y.::yy:.:.;}.:p::�:�;t:�.:y:�::::„::;;;;;.:r#';.>2:if`:i;.:;;:•:-'>"r.:;:..:....:i-::::>::::,`}`:+:;i`...::y%:...`.:'::',:y:`,:"':•:r�:y::;:k•':,:,::;::}:.:t;:;:::;: k�fifr�:�t�:r:itNt::1W:F':�{y'�:y ,J�Ii/.�:i"l ti:::Ai{iT•I�il.�ti�::: ::�'y:�..{.....:::.......yy�::> 4,Y,::'<11F'<��]►R��G!:; :[;.�i,.l7J(y►.�.y�.�... -::::::::..i:!•i:i1:•�yi:•;(.:•:i:;•i::•.i};. :.>•::::.;:>::.s:::.::.»:.>:::.:::.::::::::.:::::.::.::::.:::::is•,.,.,.�.,.,,.,.,•L,.,::•.:_•:::•;:::::::.:s::::::.:::.:::..:........i:::::::.�.. For the purposes of this Ordinance, affordable housing is defined as units to be sold or rented to families earning less than eighty percent (80%) of the Orange County median income, adjusted for family size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. • Concept Plan application form as prescribed by the Planning Department in a form which provides: O A comparison of the impacts of the Flexible Development Option to those that would result from the Conventional Development Option. o A checklist identifying consistency with applicable design guidelines. Flexible Development 38 105 ...:{.i:{•ii'�i••:i :::i:.:.i:::;•i::.i:i;!tiii:•;{.::.::.?•i:?•iii;.i:?:is�'i:.::i:{•i;.;.;.:4:}i.:.:.:':i:.:?;;•;.;.i;•;•;{.: •i:i:::ti:;•i:iv;:�:;•i;:•ii:i"::::::. .:.::.::::.:::::.:..:::.:::::.::.::::::.::..:................. • ::::< . . :: :.::::.::::.: Jay, :..•:.v ::::::::::.:.i::.r.• ;;..... ......................�:::::::.:::..:::.::::::::............:ii;.•'.•,'.•,.•,:�•,'.:,..,'.•,::ii:::i':i:::::i:i::i:'..iii iiiX::iiiiiiiiiJiiiiiiii:�i:•+ ::�t. :.i:i�::......y::.�:•n':ii'::.:::::.vi:ii::i',','y..i,:,:;.....�.fy..:;i��iT,.::y••i:i�i�}-},:�.}r.i;:iiii:::i::•.;.y;. • !SN,f3X '� t ;; 6SS@SL:::: (�.:.:.:.{.,i� l'•�:4 nii;^•::{:;•n.::::.:::n.::: .::::ii:•;•;•i;ti4}•: .............:.v:::;.•:..::.:.::..`�::.:..:.iii. :;.f,:::::::.:::::::.v:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::4:i;•iw:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::: ................................. Joyner Comment: This is a major change. Has it had any major discussion? Comment: The application requirements shown above are essentially the same as currently required for Concept Plans with several notable exceptions. First, the subdivider must submit an Optional Plan for a Conventional Development (as currently required) as well as a Site Analysis Map and an Optional Plan for a Flexible Development. This requirement represents a "balance'between mandatory open space design and the o tional approach currently allowed and is based on the Grafton, Massachusetts Flexible Development ByLaws. Second, the subdivider has the option of submitting a Flexible Development Plan only, and combining the Site Analysis Map and the Flexible Development Option into a single plan. tiv er '' cfi aa' ::>:rho:::o..:.rtn..::;: ...... n€lztretptea !lttx>;: : 'eat Joyner Comment: This implies surveyor or other must do plan. Infoemal, to scale, plans must be allowed as currently do. The subdivider also has the option of submitting a Conventional Development Plan, provided all lots are to be developed with units to be sold or rented to families earning less than eighty percent (80%)of the Orange County median income. Such families have incomes of$32,548, can afford a mortgage payment of approximately$680 per month, or a mortgage of about$88,000(8.5% interest for 30 years). Finally, the subdivider is required to provide stamped, addressed envelopes for use in notifying adjacent property owners of the Public Information Meeting described below. C. tbf .:........ :: .:....`tcce :.::: : ix....:tiitte<:if: t?:lttut:€a.:. ....... ........... ::::.::::::::::::. .:::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::........ ................. atitixx.: ........... •:•::•::ip:4}'ri;{.:nom+ i' i:•iii'!ii?:n.::::;.::.:::::::..:i}>::;•.�.:�::.:_:::::.::::::.�:::.:�:::.::::�.�: �:��I�:a:�?u��:€: �c�t��:.: Wit......,_;..... :....... ,..:.:�i.:....::. ., .:...:..:..:...::;::,....:::::i•;::::....:.:.::...:.::.;':::: ... ...... ••• .Y. is .: .. :�•:•.:: .:..�::�:.�.:.�:.>':::v..,v..:::.::.:.::.�.: �y.:.r.:::..�.:.::..::.5..:�;:..:.::::.:: ::: "•:is.»'..: ::.: '.??iiiiii::�f?:::.::�,iry:{:Vii.::r::.�'{::ii... ...i:.i:.:::v;;;•iin••ii:..ri';:::�i;':;•i••ii:.:{�:.::::.�ni:.iii;•i;•:;•:i:iii}ii}ii;•iiiii�'.i:'::.ii:�:.i:.i:.,:.�:.i:;::i::i isi' :.i:.: i::•i'viiii}:•i:•:•i:.:{•:{.i:.:.i:.ii:.iiii:�ii'�iiii:.i:::::.�::::.�:::::i:.ii............... ! �#. :::�: ::: �:0�:: .>... c�:::��: ::.. ..��gtti?tti�•>�u€:::�ott .i... <: >: :: ...... .:: ::: :::at kf �•::�: <iA.;.>;:':'».tom> '' ':'°::;>.:::;>::,i;i;i::;,::i:i>,, Joyner Comment: This is probably premature at Concept Plan stage. Haven't perked or surveyed yet. Major changes likely. At the meeting, the Planning Department staff will explain the County's subdivision approval process, and the applicant will be available to answer questions about the proposed subdivision. Comment: This provision has been added to address the concerns of citizens who felt they should have been notified of pending subdivision applications. The Public Information Meeting process is similar to that used by the Town of Chapel Hill. The process benefits the applicant by being able to present his/her design concept and hearing the concerns, if any, of adjoining property owners. Adjoining owners have the opportunity of hearing about the proposal at the beginning of the subdivision approval process from the applicant. d. Planning Department Review Procedures: Within forty-five (45) days of the date of the Public Information Meeting or within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant, the Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board its recommendation, including a written analysis of the Flexible Development 39 106 Concept Plan; its general compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable codes and ordinances;and the concerns of citizens expressed at the Public Information Meeting. If the Planning Department fails to prepare a report to the Planning Board within the specified time period, or extension thereof, the Concept Plan is recommended without conditions. Comment ........................ A.......................... .- W a . .. . .... . ... W . .. ..... 4 Und "i ..... .. ... -Y i" W.0 .............. ...... . . ............ ... .......... N M .............. Joyner Comment: So this is an exchange? I guess we're throwing out the whole idea of expedited review? e. Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures: After receiving the Planning Department's report or, if applicable, the expiration of the time period prescribed in Section III-D-1-b, the Planning Board shall consider the Concept Plan, including both the Conventional Development Option and the Flexible Development Option, and take action on the proposals. The Planning Board shall base its action on its findings as to the conformity of the proposals with all applicable regulations and shall: • Approve the Development Options; • Approve the Development Options subject to conditions; or • Deny the Development Options. If the Planning Board approves the Development Options either with or without conditions, it shall recommend to the subdivider which Development Option that it considers most appropriate, based on the characteristics of the site, its suitability for development, and the intent of the Flexible Development standards as specified in Section IV-B-10-A. The Planning Board's recommendation shall be non-binding on the subdivider. If the Planning Board approves the Development Options subject to conditions, such conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek to insure compliance with applicable regulations. If the Planning Board approves with conditions or denies the Development Options,the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to the applicant and entered into the minutes of the meeting at which such action was taken. at which the Planning The Planning Board shall Department's report is submitted to it or within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant. If the Planning Board fails to take action within the specified time period, or extension thereof, the Planning Board shall be deemed to recommend approval of the Concept Plan Development Options without conditions. Joyner Comment:Citizens meeting should be within a minimum of 10 days after application receipt. Then, Planning Board acts within 90 days after citizen meeting...then start survey and perks...then apply for preliminary approval. Comment.- The only difference between the above provisions and those currently in effect is the addition of the requirement that the Planning Board approve both the Conventional Development Option and the Flexible Development Option. Another addition is the requirement that the Planning Board recommend to the subdivider which Development Option to pursue. This approach is based on a similar concept contained in the Grafton, Massachusetts Flexible Development Bylaws. Flexible Development 40 107 E 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. Comment. The only significant difference between the above provisions and those currently in effect is the addition of a provision which gives the subdivider the choice of which Development Option to pursue. This provision is also based on the Grafton, Massachusetts Flexible Development Bylaws. g. 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. Comment. No changes have been made in this provision other than to denote that the Planning Board's decision regarding the Development Options may be appealed. V. SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLAT DRAWINGS This section outlines the content of a Concept Plan map. Whereas the current ordinance provisions only require the features and information described in Sections V-B-1 and V-B-3 below, this Flexible Development proposal would require the additional information specified in Section V-B-2 (Site Analysis Map) and Section V-B-4 (Flexible Development Option). The inclusion of these provisions is necessary forplan specifications to be consistent with the requirement that a subdivider submit two plans - one for a conventional subdivision and another for a Flexible Development or open space subdivision. Though not included as part of this section, one item to consider is the question of application fees. During its deliberations, the Rural Character Study Committee considered the possibility of eliminating or reducing fees for certain types of subdivision development. The current Concept Plan application fee is$80 + $1 per lot for a Major Subdivision.By eliminating the fee, it would help offset the cost associated with the 'two-plan'requirement. Based on application fees projected in the FY 1994-95 budget, the cost would be approximately 130 per capita. An extension of this concept is to the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat fees ($350 + $5 per lot). Permitting a waiver of these fees if the subdivider elects to pursue a Flexible Development plan could also serve as an incentive for open space development. Based on application fees projected in the FY 1994-95 budget, the cost would be approximately 9C per capita. Flexible Development 41 108 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. 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 Wormation: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. Comment. This provision is based on the current Concept Plan requirements but has been expanded to require that the information appear on each map or plan. 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: • Topographic contours at ten-foot intervals, showing rock outcrops and slopes of seven and one-half percent (7-1/2%) to fifteen percent (1596), 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, and/or located in a local historic district. Flexible Development 42 109 b. Secondary Conservation Areas: Identification of significant site elements on buildable portions of the site, including: • Vegetation of the site,defining ptOE`11fidE locations and boundaries of woodland areas, and, wherever possible, vegetative association in terms of species and size. Joyner Comment:If have to have tree line surveyed for Concept Plan,too expensive. Allow use of aerial photographs. • Current land use and land cover (cultivated areas, pastures, etc.), existing buildings and structures, and burial grounds. • auE :: xsas:: :: s>:ts> zf?: nie:: atitres ...............................:..... Joyner Comment: How is this accomplished? • 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. Comment. The above provisions are based on the current Cluster Development requirements. The separation of site features and resources into "Primary" and "Secondary" Conservation Areas reflects the open space design strategies of Randall Arendt as reflected in the University Station Planning Group work and the Sussex County, Delaware open space design guidelines. 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 ; : . :: >:>' The map shall be prepared in consultation with the Soil Scientist of the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department. Joyner Comment:How does Environmental Health feel about this?Can they use soil maps or do they have to perk? Flexible Development 43 110 C. The proposed arrangement of lots within the subdivision,including size and number, as based on soil suitability analysis. Comment. This provision is based primarily on the current Concept Plan requirements. However, the inclusion of a provision regarding a soils suitability analysis is intended to address suggestions that a "yield plan" be submitted as part of the Concept Plan application. 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: • 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. Comment. The above provisions reflect the current Cluster Development requirements. Some provisions,however, have been expended to be consistent with the proposed amendments to Section IV-B-10 and Section 111. Twenty-five(25)copies of the Concept Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval in accordance with Section III-D-1 for major subdivisions.A copy of the appropriate Orange County Tax Map shall accompany the Concept Plan. Flexible Development 44 111 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES LONG RANGE MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Waddell (Chair) , Leo Allison, Karen Barrows, Margaret Brown, Paul Hoecke, Cheryl Howie, Joan Jobsis, Arnie Katz, Renee Price (9:20) , Cherie Rosemond, Elizabeth Walters. MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Reid - excused. STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Mary Willis, David Stancil, Gene Bell, Don Belk, David Stancil, Joanna Bradshaw. AGENDA ITEM #2: ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Waddell distributed a copy of a "North Carolina Scenic Byways" application provided by Howie. AGENDA ITEM #4: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS a. Flexible Development Proposal Waddell noted that Staff had provided a flipchart which listed the major issues that had been determined in previous discussions. He suggested that these issues be discussed and all Board members comments be listed. He felt there would not be a consensus on many, if any of the issues. Waddell continued that once comments on these issues had been completed, any other issues relating to flexible development could be discussed. He noted that he would like for the comments, with Planning Board discussion, to be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for their decision/determination for presentation at public hearing. (A copy of the abstract with background information is an attachment to these minutes on pages . Copies of comments from Randall Arendt, Ann Joyner, Agricultural Districts Advisory Board and Historic Preservation Commission are in the permanent agenda file in the Planning Department. ) 112 Presentation was made by Marvin Collins and recording of comments to the specific issues were recorded by David Stancil. Collins stated that the public hearing notice could be structured to include the diversity of opinions and/or ranges of discussion and comment by the Planning Board. Collins continued that some basic issues had been pulled from comments provided by Randall Arendt and Ann Joyner. The issues are also those that have been discussed extensively by the Planning Board. Once those issues have been addressed, the comments are mostly those of standards clarification. He noted that the majority of the comments from Arendt and Joyner could be addressed by the Planning Staff. Unless there was a specific standard that the Planning Board wanted to discuss, Collins suggested that Staff be allowed to make the changes as recommended by Arendt and Joyner to be placed on the public hearing agenda materials for citizen comment. Issue #1: Percentage of Open Space To Be Required For Flexible Developments Collins noted that Arendt's comment was that the percentage should be increased; thus, this is probably the central issue. Related to this issue is Arendt's comment about estate lot buildable area. Staff had proposed estate lots of 4 or greater acres in size with building limits of 50%. Arendt proposed changing to 25%. Collins continued that this would be workable if there were permitted uses in the open space area such as ponds, gardens, stables, etc. If those are accepted as legitimate uses and accept off-site septic easements, then 25% is workable. The open space conserved would be 75% open space with individual lots. Both Arendt and Joyner asked why the limitation to ten-acre lots. Collins noted that 10+ acre lots are exempt from the subdivision approval process according to the General Statutes. If there is a mix of less than 10 acres, then the entire tract is subject to subdivision approval. Staff has no problem with having no maximum because a property owner might want to do a combination of 5-acre and 25-acre lots and use the 25-acre lots to meet the open space requirement. Once these are shown on the plat 113 with the smaller lots, they are subject to County approval. In terms of the estate lots issue, if off-site septic easements and wells are allowed, if uses listed by Joyner are permitted such as ponds, gardens, stables, etc. , then it is feasible. What remains is the basic question; 33% or 50% or what number for open space. Collins indicated that Arendt's opinion was that if a number cannot be agreed upon, at least try it, monitor it and re-evaluate in three to five years. At least get something started. Collins reminded the Board that this issue only concerns the amount of open space, not whether it should be mandatory or optional. That is another issue. Jobsis noted that she had felt the issue of mandatory versus optional had been discussed and it had been determined that a majority of the Board favored optional. She asked if this issue is being brought back to the table. Collins responded that he felt that issue is still out there. He noted that Arendt did not specifically say "go mandatory"; but the way he had his comment worded was: "Optional is okay, if it is tied to disincentive" . Waddell stated that he would like to get views and thoughts from all Planning Board members. If there appears to be a consensus on some issues, a vote could be taken. If that is not the case, then he suggested that all the comments and thoughts be compiled to pass on to the Board of Commissioners. Brown asked for a review of the definitions for primary and secondary conservation areas. Collins responded that primary conservation areas include wetlands, 100-year floodplains, alluvial soils, steep slopes (in primary areas greater than 25%) , natural areas and wildlife corridors, National Register Sites, locally designated historic landmarks, and any locally designated historic districts. Collins continued that secondary conservation areas would include prime farmlands, other historic sites, proposed park sites, scenic vistas identified on the scenic road survey, and woodlands. Hoecke asked for a definition of natural areas. Collins responded that natural areas are botanical and/or zoological. 114 Brown asked if the discussion is a combination of primary and secondary open space. Collins responded that the focus is first on primary. If the 33% can be met entirely with primary, then secondary does not have to be considered. If not, then it must be a combination of primary and secondary. Katz asked if the discussion is of a percentage of the total property that includes everything that is unbuildable anyway under the current Subdivision Regulations. Collins responded that steep slopes can be built on; the limitations are with septic systems. Natural areas could be built on, but they are subject to an environmental assessment and possibly a full environmental impact study. Collins continued that for wetlands, a permit may have to be obtained from the Corps of Engineers. Building on a historic site that had federal funding would require a higher level of federal review. Hoecke asked if the County operates under the federal definition of wetlands and Collins responded that the County does not have any specific delineation of wetlands other than the National Wetlands Inventory that was done by the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Bottomland Hardwood Forest that was picked up from the land satellite data. If there are further questions about wetlands, then, we refer to the Corps of Engineers. Katz asked if there is data available that would indicate the percentage of open space in existing subdivisions if the proposed standards should be applied. Collins responded no. Brown asked about the reference Collins had made regarding building/disturbing land in wetlands. Collins responded that the Corps of Engineer may have mitigation provisions which means they may allow one to build in the wetlands but in return for that they have to provide/protect wetlands in another location. Brown continued asking about building in wildlife corridors. Collins responded that generally you can build in the corridors; however, the problem usually encountered is that the corridors follow major tributaries and floodplains. Natural areas may subject one to an environmental impact statement. If there is no way for an individual to build on a piece of property at all, there may be involvement in a mitigation situation. 115 Brown stated that she felt the County should determine a more sophisticated definition of wetlands so there would be better evaluation. Katz asked for clarification of the issue being discussed noting the difficulty in separating the issue of percentage of open space and incentives/disincentives. Waddell responded that he would be interested in discussion of the relationship of percentage of open space to incentives/disincentives. Discussion of actual incentives can occur later. Jobsis stated that she would like to stay with 33% open space and have it be optional. She referred to the long history of rural character study noting that she felt public opinion was for optional open space and a percentage no higher than 33%. She noted that there was not a lot of support in northern Orange County for a lot of open space plans. The desire seemed to be for a limited amount of open space. She felt it made good sense to keep it open and review it to see if it is working. She also felt the open space calculation should be from the total tract size. Walters agreed with Jobsis. She noted that the majority of the landowners in northern Orange want to keep the open space requirement low, not go to 50%. She supported 33% and stated she would like to get something to the Commissioners for public hearing and on the books. While we are waiting and debating this, it is already too late in many areas. The longer we wait the worse the situation will be. Try 33% and re-evaluate in a year or two years, but let's get something on the books and calculate it from the total tract size. Brown expressed support for a higher percentage of open space noting that her interpretation of the public hearing that there was strong support for 50%. She felt there was misunderstanding about how the open space is obtained. It is not taken away, it is re-designed. There seems to be the feeling that the open space will diminish the value of property and what needs to be shown is how it will increase the value of the land. It will be very valuable at time of sale. She continued that people need to understand that open space is not something to be feared. The effort is to redesign development so that the more open space one has, the more valuable properties in developments will be. She felt it 116 would also require a lot of assistance from the Planning Staff and expressed concern that there was not sufficient Staff or knowledge of open space development design. She asked that the Planning Staff address her concern of educating developers and property owners to the fact that developing property with 50% or more open space is more profitable. She suggested that two or three times a year an educational session be held for developers and property owners desiring to subdivide property. She expressed support for more open space than even 50% and that it should be calculated from the buildable land only. Waddell informed the Board that there had been some training sessions for staff on conservation easements and suggested that training be expanded to include various aspects of open space development. Collins agreed with the idea of workshops and noted that GIS could be used to help property owners in the subdivision process. Brown referred to Arendt's book, "Open Space by Design" and the statements that someone in the Planning Department can help a developer or property owner with an open space design plan or will designers in the community be recommended. Collins responded that there are Planning staff who are very capable of preparing open space designs. However, the Planning Department cannot recommended outside designers. Collins continued that the way to address that concern is through education and workshops as suggested by Brown. Brown asked that the education process be included as a component of the proposal. Barrows noted her long involvement in the Rural Character Study and expressed support for 33% to 50% but that it remain optional at least in the phasing stage. She continued that there should be heavy incentives to make it optional and heavy disincentives not to have open space. She felt it should be calculated from total tract size. Katz noted that he was very impressed with Arendt's presentation and felt it was a very logical process. He expressed agreement with Brown noting that Arendt was describing a process for overcoming the fear that people have about the loss of money by providing open space development. Katz continued that he felt there is a massive market for open space development. There should be a minimum of 50% open space 117 before allowing incentives and he felt it should be calculated from buildable land only. He felt it would make property more valuable for many people. Allison stated that he could be supportive of 50% open space requirement but felt that 33% would be more reasonable for everyone. He felt that it should be calculated from the total tract size. Hoecke stated that open space development is something that we would like to make acceptable and yet achieve our objectives. He expressed support for 33% but very doubtful about a mandatory 33%. He continued that there should be a weighting provision to ensure quality open space and that open space should be calculate from the buildable land only. He continued to express concern about quality open space. Perhaps should begin with 33% standard and work up to a greater percentage. He did note the concern that adding a weighting provision, rather than being beneficial, would it create more problems by adding another formula. Howie stated support for no less than 33% but would like to see 50%. She felt that in initiating open space for the county, there would be a lot of resistance if it is started at 50%. She felt it must be made attractive to the developers and landowners since they will be the ones immediately affected financially. They must be informed of what 50% could mean. We could begin with 33% and set a date to adjust up to 50%. She felt working with developers one-on-one in the Planning Department to help them see what a 50% open space- development would look like would be very helpful. Rosemond stated that she felt 50% is a starting point and then go higher. She expressed concern that with 33% the end result could be worse than with conventional development. She felt that the fears about wells and septic and tax base issues could be addressed with a greater percentage of open space. She noted that a strong start toward educating everyone about the concepts of open space development would help address the fears. Waddell stated that he felt a 33% minimum was acceptable for open space development but the full set of incentives should not apply until around 66%. Only a few incentives should be provided for the 33% minimum. He felt there 118 should be a statement that the primary and secondary conservation areas have value to the people of Orange County. He felt there was some tradeoff that must be recognized. He expressed support for a re-evaluation and felt that 3 to 5 years was a reasonable time for that re-evaluation. He suggested also, that after a certain number of plans occurs, such as 25, if that was less than 3 years, would be the time to re-evaluate. Waddell continued that it should be optional. He noted he had heard that statement many, many times from citizens since discussions on open space began. By consensus, the Board approved sending all of these comments to the Board of Commissioners. Bob Hall stated that he had attended many of the meetings regarding rural character. He asked for clarification of buildable land area and its correlation to primary and secondary. Waddell responded that the Board had previously discussed total land area. Other Board members indicated they felt it was percentage of buildable area and this was added to those comments from Brown, Howie and Katz. Jobsis, Walters, Barrows, Allison and Waddell asked that their comments include total land area. Issue #2: Disincentives Versus Incentives Collins cited an example presented by Arendt regarding disincentives. On a hundred acre tract, allow 70% for a conventional subdivision and if using an open space plan, allow use of all 100 lots (what the land will give you) . This is a very real disincentive. He reminded the Board that this will be perceived by the public as down zoning. Density is being taken away without going through the rezoning process. Collins continued with another form of disincentive which is more economic, financial. The current regulations regarding roads assumes that all roads are to be public. However, if a subdivision meets the criteria being proposed for flexible development, most of the criteria concern rural character strategies and design standards, then the subdivision could qualify for private roads. He noted that flexible development does not address the issue of private roads standards. Thus, a disincentive could be, if the development is to be a conventional subdivision, 119 it must have paved roads. The only way to have private roads would be if the developer does an open space development. It becomes a 'pocketbook' issue. He noted that there would be a lot of comment on such a statement, but, it is a different kind of disincentive that deals with basic road standards as opposed to taking away density. Collins continued with an incentive that he indicated would also be controversial; expedited review. He noted that the Planning Board as well as the Board of Commissioners, may take issue with this. The Rural Character Study Committee also discussed expedited review. Collins gave the example - if you have a 100-lot subdivision and you do an open space development and forget about conventional, the only people you have to deal with are Staff. Another incentive that has been discussed a lot is fee waivers which could include several things such as application fees for subdivision approval. If an open space development is done, major subdivision fees could be waived. Collins noted that he could not address Environmental Health fees and indications have been that those fees are the "big ticket items" particularly when having perc tests on so many lots. The Board of Commissioners have also asked that the dedication, payment-in-lieu provisions relating to recreation sites be reviewed. In particular, the Board has asked that the standards that are the starting point for the amount of land that must be dedicated. The land and the standards then determine the amounts of the payment-in-lieu. These are very low. The funds collected during the last 8 to 10 years will not come close to the amount that would be needed to purchase a 25-acre community park site. They have asked that the standards be reviewed to determine whether open space should be factored in. This would cause a dramatic increase in the payments-in-lieu. Thus, some people might then find it desirable to do an open space development and bypass the necessity of making fairly high payments-in-lieu. This is another financial incentive. There was also discussion about relaxed standards. One of those standards could relate to roads; it would be a real incentive if private roads are allowed in open space subdivisions. t • 120 Other items such as T-turnarounds instead of cul- de-sacs are also examples of relaxed standards. In certain cases, transition areas and designated service areas, the ability to have public water and sewer is also an incentive. The optimum form of incentive is bonuses. If open space greater than 33% is provided, the density could be increased but there are ceilings on the density. Another form of bonus is affordable housing, provided on or off site, also with a ceiling. He noted that Arendt had suggested that bonuses should be provided and tied to creating funding for homeowners, associations and land trusts for maintenance of the open space. Collins indicated he felt this would be a good option for a bonus. Any or all of the incentives reviewed by Collins could be combined into an incentive package. Katz asked if one assumption is the minimum lot size of 1-acre density whatever the zoning. Collins responded that the minimum is 40,000 square feet; however, with constraints, factoring and perc tests, the yield will not be 1-acre density. It could be much higher. Whatever you can get for perc sites is what the yield is. Brown asked if all the assumptions are being made using the yield plan and Collins responded yes. Continued discussion reminded Board members that the number of lots was dependent upon what the land would support (perc sites) . Rosemond stated that she felt all the options deserve consideration; they all have merit to promote open space. She felt that private roads was a powerful financial incentive. She was not in favor or extending water and sewer over areas not currently being served. Howie indicated that she felt density incentives and relaxed standards for 33% and above. She preferred roads and fee waivers for 50% and above open space. She expressed agreement with Rosemond regarding water and sewer extensions. She expressed concern with staff approval indicating she would like more interpretation regarding public notification and a cutoff point. Hoecke stated that he would like to have a whole range of incentives to "kick in" gradually. He expressed agreement with statements already made regarding water and sewer extensions. He also • 121 indicated he liked the idea of private versus public roads, particularly with the amount of right-of-way that would have to be disturbed. Allison stated that he was in favor of density bonuses beginning at 40%. He felt that special bonuses for roads and fee waivers should begin at 50%. He agreed with statements already made regarding water and sewer extensions. Katz stated that his basic concern was that the incentive gap between conventional and open space development must be great enough to make developers willing to do open space plans. This means that there must be some disincentives for the old way (conventional) and some substantial incentives for the new way (open space) . He did not feel it was downzoning but that open space development must be attractive if we want developers to be interested. He liked the idea of private roads as an incentive and felt that the substantial incentives should begin at 50% and up. He also liked the idea of density bonuses for low-cost housing. He expressed concern regarding water and sewer noting the need for well- supervised community systems in rural areas. Barrows stated that she would like to see density bonuses above and beyond the yield plan for 50% and above. She was also in favor of private roads. Staff approval could be a good idea but must have a cutoff, beyond that regular process. She felt offsite septic easements should only be allowed with open space development. For conventional, everything pertaining to the septic system, nitrification field, easement should be on the individual lot. Brown stated that she was not in favor of density bonuses; felt that disincentives to get the process going was better. There should be no bonuses or incentives until after 50%. The private roads disincentive for conventional seemed to be good but needed more thought. She was not in favor of staff approval but did favor approval of open space plans in one meeting. She was not in favor of fee waivers/relaxed standards except in very high open space developments. For conventional development wanted on-site systems. Off-site systems should only be allowed in an open space development. Walters stated that she could not support downzoning. She agreed with paved roads in a 122 conventional development. She also favored staggering the bonuses. She favored some incentives at 33%, and encourage more open space with more incentives. Jobsis stated that she had never been convinced that open space is automatically a good thing. She continued that public comment, particularly from northern Orange County, indicated there were still many questions from the public as well. She felt it should be optional, not imposed upon landowners. She noted that she felt disincentives would make it a very costly option. She supported density bonuses. She felt the road preferences were okay but needed more information on this issue. She noted that she was in favor of staff approval as an incentive. She 'felt that an escalating scale for incentives with open space was reasonable. If cluster development occurred near cities, she water and sewer would be a logical pattern. She continued that Orange County is a beautiful county and she is not automatically offended by what has been referred to as "cookie cutter" development. She felt one and two acre lot development was acceptable. She did not feel a great need to force a change, many people prefer that their privacy be protected rather than having a great deal of open space. Waddell stated that he favored very slight density bonuses at 33%; however, there should be 66% or greater, to get the full scope. A sliding scale should be used for incentives and he supported the incentives for decreasing road cost. In regard to staff approval, he felt it should only occur with 50-66% open space. He liked gradation for fee waivers - none at 66%. He indicated that water/sewer should be allowed when development will cost less if the lines exist and suggested the County help provide water/sewer if open space was 66% open space plus. He also supported an affordable housing bonus for not only open space development, but regular development as well. He felt there could be some relaxed standards with higher open space percentages. One of those that would be acceptable would be landscaping and buffering. Waddell noted again that all of these comments would be sent forward to the Commissioners rather than a motion and vote. 123 Issue #3: Mandatory Versus Optional Open Space Collins stated that there has been some staff training workshops on the use of conservation easements. One topic of discussion has to do with voluntary set aside of open space. There are tax benefits at the Federal and State level for the voluntary conservation easements. Thus, a great disadvantage for a mandatory system would be the lose of those tax benefits. He noted also that Triangle Land Conservancy will be continuing work to complete the Wildlife Corridor Study. Collins continued that he agreed with Brown and other Board members that perhaps there should be some variation of mandatory. A possibility would be to allow only where the residents support it such as small area plans or where there was no other reasonable option to preserve significant natural area/habitat or historic site. Collins stated that the advantage to using an optional approach would have educational value. It would not be forcing landowners to provide open space, but, to have them design out an open space plan which would allow them to see the benefits. Arendt's plan - to try, monitor and evaluate could then be implemented. Howie stated that she felt mandatory with guidelines was an excellent approach. However, she expressed concern that, another item is being added (small area plans) the amount of time before the Triangle Land Conservancy study is completed and something in place would be increased greatly. Collins responded that it would be at least a year before the Wildlife Corridor Study is complete. He continued that an option such as a small area plan where residents are in favor of an open space plan could be put into place fairly quickly. Citizen generated small area plans are the best. Price expressed concern with mixing two areas such as natural areas and historic sites. She felt these were different categories and should be preserved in ways other than through open space. Collins responded that would have to do with the reason for the preservation, and whether it was to be open space available to the public or open space controlled by a homeowners' association. Jobsis stated that all open space plans should be t 124 optional and be evaluated over time. Walters agreed that all should be optional and look at mandatory open space where small area plans are desired. Brown felt open space should be mandatory, phased in, so that everyone would know that at some point it would be mandatory. This would allow for a strong educational program. She indicated that there were many designs of clustering. She emphasized again that it should be mandatory for the entire County and suggested that it be phased in over a period of five years. If it is determined that open space will be optional, Brown felt that the component of education, monitoring and evaluation should be very clearly presented at public hearing. She felt it should also be an issue discussed with Chapel Hill and Carrboro for the Joint Planning Area within a year. She felt that Carrboro would be very interested in the JPA and transition areas since they have adopted a mandatory 50% open space. Barrows stated that she would like open space to be optional. She agreed with Jobsis and Walters regarding small areas where the majority of the residents want open space development and felt they should not have to fight for such a plan. Katz expressed agreement with most of the statements already made. He suggested that consideration be given to making it mandatory in Transition Areas. He felt it should be optional for most of the County. He continued that there must be strong incentives and disincentives to make it workable at all. Price expressed support for the concept of mandatory, establishing a baseline. She felt there must a baseline or guide to build upon and allow small area plans to go further as they desired. She noted a vision must be in place in order to evaluate. Allison stated open space should be optional. If a group of residents wants a small area plan, they should the flexibility for an open space plan. He also agreed with evaluation. Hoecke open space should be optional both as a matter of principle and the fact that making y 125 everything mandatory will scare people off. He felt it should be an invitation rather than all or nothing. He felt that there may be areas where mandatory is right and should be applied. He felt education is very important; it must be made understandable and prove that it adds value rather than taking away. Howie felt it should be optional phased into mandatory. She felt incentives and education should be in place. She felt a a reasonable date should be set to phase in mandatory, working with other task forces. Rosemond stated that the concept of open space has a lot of merit for a lot of reasons. Options are needed that will enhance a • number of open space developments. She agreed it should be optional but, allow mandatory if small area plan groups desire - it empowers communities. She felt re-evaluation should take place after X number of developments. Waddell stated that the tax issues are extremely compelling to have open space be optional. He suggested reviewing after three-five years, or after a number of developments, whichever comes first. Even though he had some questions regarding small area plans, he would consider allowing mandatory for small are plan groups that desire it. Rosemond felt that three-five year monitor would be too late and stated she would prefer to establish a certain number of developments. In regard to monitoring, Katz stated that a baseline was needed against which to check. Price noted that a reasonable basis must be in place in order to monitor. Collins stated that there is a baseline - the open space design guidebook. Bob Hall, from the audience, reminded the Board that the Rural Character Study Committee had suggested several options. The idea of "all or nothing" for open space was never suggested by that committee. Issue #4: Villages Collins noted that the issue of villages was 126 a concern by the Planning Board from the July 11 Special Meeting. Using a drawing of a village plan, Collins presented and described the village concept. He explained the variety in the types of villages noting the maximum land area involved in a village is 125 acres. It is a very deliberate standard that sets the size. He explained that the percentage of open space relates to the density in the village. The larger the lot size, the more open space and the higher density in the village. It is not expected that there will be a lot of the village development in Orange County. Collins continued that if there is to be a transit system with designated transit stops, there must be development to support the transit stops/system. Brown asked for clarification of conservancy lots. Collins responded that conservancy lots should be better defined. He continued that open space could be just one solid land area dedicated to the public or controlled by a homeowners' association; or it could be conservancy lots which Arendt has suggested be at least ten acres in size. Thus, the end result could be a tightly knit village surrounded by ten, twenty-five, fifty acre lots, or small farms or a mix of a large and several small farms. Allison asked for clarification of the village boundaries and Collins indicated the boundaries. Rosemond asked about road access if there were to be large lots around the village. She was concerned that it would disrupt the feel of the open space. Collins responded that unpaved roads and cul-de-sacs could be used. Barrows asked if Collins felt the transit stops would be good targets for villages. Collins responded that if the concept that transit means higher density is accepted, then it makes a lot of sense to locate villages near transit stops. The farther out, the lower the density. To provide the density that would support a transit stop, would require preserving open space elsewhere such as purchase of development rights, donation to a land conservancy or transfer of development rights. Provision of affordable housing units could also achieve density bonuses. Brown asked for clarification of size of 127 conservancy lots. Collins responded that they should be large lots, probably 10+ acres. Brown asked if the density bonus was acre for acre and Collins responded yes, but that could be varied if the Board desired. Howie stated that she felt transit areas are appropriate for villages but that they must be defined. She noted concern with complete TDR for open space. Some open space should remain within villages. She suggested that it be kept in proportion with a higher ratio of landscaping. Hoecke stated that this is an idealistic idea. He continued that villages in the past grew up because they needed to grow up. He expressed concern that we are trying to create artificial conditions for them. In some places they may work and transit may be one of those places. He continued expressing concern that mini inner- cities would be created with service needs for clusters of people. Allison stated that he could support the village concept but felt there would not be a need for many such developments. He felt there should be some open space within the villages but was not sure what amount there should be. Price stated that she liked the idea of a village with open space noting that it may help support the changing economics in a rural area and help maintain some farmland. They should be around transportation of some type. She expressed concern with TDR trading off in another area; it should remain tied to the local area. Katz agreed with Allison that there may not be a great need for villages in Orange County. He felt it is vital that a village be based around an economic activity. Barrows expressed concern with disturbing such a large area noting that the open space should be 60 acres or more. She would like to wait and see what the Chapel Hill villages look like. She was also concerned with service provision and wildlife displacement. Brown stated that she thought it was a good idea to have a village along a transit stop but the sites should be carefully evaluated. She noted the need for open space and buffers within the villages. 1 r 128 Walters expressed support for villages in transit corridors, but not in the rural areas of the county. She indicated support for TDR/density bonuses to preserve rural areas/farmland. She saw no need to restrict land to the same township. Walters also suggested that a list of property owners interested in TDR be generated. If villages are to be allowed in rural areas they should be kept small. She felt that this concept was not as easily understood as some of the other options. Jobsis stated that she had a hard time envisioning how a village would develop in Orange County except near towns and along transit corridors and there are not yet enough transportation corridors to make it happen. She also felt the village concept is difficult to get a handle on and somewhat vague. Waddell stated that villages should be allowed anywhere in the county. He felt that rural villages would not be very dense. He felt TDRs should be allowed in the transportation corridors where water and sewer are available but not in the Rural Buffer. Rosemond agreed with Jobsis that transportation corridors are not yet well defined. She was in favor of encouraging villages in closer proximity to towns rather than randomly in the county. She also wanted some provision for public open space. Adjournment time was reached. NOTION: Jobsis moved extension of the meeting to discuss the remaining issue. Seconded by Barrows. VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 opposed (Brown) . Issue #5: Active Recreation (Golf Courses, ETC. ) as Open Space Collins stated that this issue centers around the whole concept of what active recreation is. He noted that this issue was brought out by Ann Joyner and her concern with not being able to count public recreation toward satisfying requirement for open space. Active recreation can only count 50% of the open space requirement. Collins reminded the Board of the recreation y v 129 dedication/payment-in-lieu provision adopted as part of the Master Recreation Plan and that the Commissioners have been discussing reworking this. It is a real goal of the Planning Department for acquisition and development of park sites. Collins noted that he almost felt as if we were "shooting ourselves in the foot" by not allowing the public parks to count toward the open space requirement particularly when the property is dedicated to the County. He noted also that Arendt, in his presentation, had talked about playing fields being considered open space. After hearing that presentation, he questioned whether or not the Board might have any change of opinion about the 50% limit. Collins asked if golf courses was the only active recreation that the Board wanted to apply the 50% limit to and/or if this was something the Board would rather deal with at a later time. Katz asked for clarification why golf courses wouldn't count and active agriculture does. Collins responded that the golf course issue was a result of the University Station proposal. The concern was the environmental damage that golf courses do. Yet, golf courses do satisfy certain open space needs. He noted that Arendt had stated in his presentation that a high percentage of people who live in golf course developments do so because of the open space rather than the golf course itself. He continued that golf courses have become the center of attention because of the pesticides, fertilizers, etc. used to maintain them and the environmental damage from those materials. He noted that extensive studies have been done and efforts are being made to address those concerns by professional golfers associations and golf course developers nationwide. Katz asked where agriculture fits. Collins responded that agriculture has not been viewed in the same light, even though farm uses such as pesticides and fertilizers are used. He indicated that information presented at public hearing stated that use of those products was much more intent on golf courses. Katz responded that would depend on the crop. Hoecke stated that there is no single agricultural use in the United States, outside of some very, very susceptible specialty crop that sees as intensive use of pesticides as golf courses. He continued that the only other 130 intensive use are the homeowners and they are worse than golf courses. He did note that since golf courses have been "under the gun for some time" the amounts that they use are no where near as intensive as in the past. He indicated any information as much as ten years old would be out of date. Price asked for clarification of the issue. Waddell responded that it was how would active recreation be counted in terms of open space toward incentives. Katz stated that he was uncomfortable singling out one use. He felt the environmental impacts of open space should be dealt with separately. Barrows stated she would like to stick with the 50% provision for active recreation. When there is active recreation, it has a specific designation and cannot usually be used for passive recreation such as picnics and walks. Walters stated she preferred golf courses stay at 50% but she would reconsider if the area was one designated by the County for a community park. Waddell agreed that active recreation areas are usually set aside for one use only and he felt a 50% provision was acceptable. Rosemond stated that her preference would be to have a golf course and public recreation area rather than more houses. She continued that the active recreation should not count toward open space if the percentage was to be 33%. If it was to 50% or greater, then allow some to count toward open space. Howie stated she wanted to stick with the 50% provision but don't single out golf course. She was willing to give golf courses more percentage because when you involve a golf course in a community the standards of the green picture is increase significantly. By sectioning golf courses out, they are automatically made a target. Treat them equally and give them 50%. Hoecke stated that he felt all active recreation does not deserve more than 50%. With active recreation there is always something going on, the use and/or maintaining. He noted everything would have an impact on the land, they all needed to be treated the same. r 131 Allison expressed agreement with the 50% provision for all the reasons already stated. Price expressed agreement with the 50% provision but would consider more noting that golf courses do provide a type of open space for some people. She felt the need was to focus on land use. Jobsis expressed agreement with the 50% provision for active recreation. Katz asked the percentage that agricultural uses count and the response was 100%. MOTION: Allison made a motion that all of the comments be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for presentation at public hearing. Seconded by Price. VOTE: Unanimous. Meeting adjourned 11:05 p.m. Prepared By Approved By Date 132