The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 06-30-1994 - C-1 03 ORANGECOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:June 30. 1994 Agenda Abstract Item# C 1 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT -AR/R-1 ZONING DISTRICTS (TWO-ACRE MIlJIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT/DENSITY AVERAGING) DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: —X—Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 Proposed Amendments PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688.7331 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would establish a minimum required lot size of two acres throughout the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction. BACKGROUND: At its May 17, 1994 meeting,the Board of Commissioners received a report on proposed Rural Character Strategies. Discussion was continued to the May 26, 1994 budget presentation meeting. At that meeting, the Commissioners decided to conduct a special hearing at the end of June to consider the following items: 1. Rezoning of the remaining 37% of the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction from one dwelling unit per acre to one dwelling unit per two acres to establish a "baseline"from which to implement rural character strategies; and 2. Receipt of citizen comment on the following open space preservation issues: a. Whether clustering was a desirable and marketable form of development; b. Whether a 50 percent open space requirement was appropriate,and how should open space be defined; and C. Whether density bonuses should be provided as incentives for preserving open space. The proposed amendments listed below seek to establish a"base-line" minimum lot size requirement of two acres throughout the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction from which proposed Rural Character Strategies may be implemented. 1. Article 5.1.1 - Schedule for Residential Develovment. Single and Two-Family. Multi-Famihr. Residential Hotels. Rooming Houses. Etc. A Proposal to change the minimum required lot area per dwelling unit from 40,000 square feet(0.92 acres)to 87,120 square feet(2.0 acres)in AR Agricultural- Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts. 04 A 2. Article 5.1.2 - Schedule for Non-Residential Development Lot-By-Lot Planned Development Same as #1 above except the minimum required lot size of two acres would be applied to nonresidential uses permitted in AR and R-1 zoning districts. 3. Article 6.2.4 - Density Averaging in AR and R-1 Districts A proposal concerning "density averaging" to allow developments to provide varying lot sizes so long as the overall density does not cxeed one dwelling unit per two acres(after excluding street rights-of-way)and no lot is less than 40,000 square feet in size. 4. Article 6.23.2 -Residential Densities A proposal to insure consistency with Protected Watershed Overlay Districts,e.g., the minimum lot size requirement in the Hyco Creek and Flat River watersheds are increased from 40,000 square feet to two acres. The area affected by the proposed amendments are shown on the attached map. Tracts and parcels located in watersheds with a minimum required lot size of two acres or larger would not be affected. A list of subdivisions with lots (or project densities) which not conform to the proposed two-acre standard and which have already been submitted for approval is provided Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance defines a lot as being"created"at the time of Preliminary Plat approval in the case of a Major Subdivision,and Final Plat approval in the case of a Minor Subdivision. Unless the Board adopts a policy which allows the subdivisions to continue through the approval process, redesign to comply with the new standard(s) may be necessary.Such a policy was adopted at the time that the two-acre standard was put into plane in the Rural Buffer. R.ECON MW,NDATION: Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance by an individual or agency are treated in the same manner;e.g.,the public hearing is the time for the presentation of the Zoning Officer's analysis and recommendation.Such are also bound by the time limits contained in Article 20.7 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of preparation of a Planning Board recommendation. Amendments initiated by the County, including amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text, are not bound by the same procedure. Although the Zoning Officer normally presents a recommendation in such cases, the only time limitations are those specified by the Board of Commissioners during the public hearing Process. Zoning Officer Recommendation As embodied in the proposed amendments, a'baseline"from which to implement rural character strategies is being presented for citizen comment. Thus, no recommendation is being presented by the Zoning Officer. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 8, 1994. The Administration further recommends that all recommended revisions to the proposals be reviewed by the County Attorney to insure compliance with statutory requirements concerning public hearing procedures. W Orange County, North Carolina n'; i, w." • ::#`� '.^f .i•� '"fir; b.' t• y` ::'��' iJl """�.�' sue} >gd," ..•:its'' .xa: ::':. : .,.:s. ;': ..vim•.}4. } M.8 d e5 o:•r General areas affected by proposed two-acre minimum lot .a size requirement t 5inai Rd M � M 4 � ,ia. MArS jZd. Old 86 Rd. Eubanks \\ \\ LEGEND ,a Rd. • Horn ` Water Supply Watershed o y C \` Water Quality Critical Area a Please refer to larger-scale township map on opposite side for more detailed location of watershed boundary and critical area boundary where applicable. SUBDIVISIONS IN PROCESS p WITH LOTS SMALLER THAN TWO ACRES C' Status Subdivision Name No. Lots No. Lots <2 Avg. Lot Size ac. (acres) Concept Pending Brower Creek (7/18/94 PB) 10 3 3.4 Habitat for Humanity 3 2 2.7 Concept Hardscrabble Phase III 40 40 1 Approved Wagon Farm Trails 46 46 1 Major Hannah Creek 42 27 2 Subdivisions New Hope Springs (Section Two) 26 25 1 Preliminary Mt. Willing Summit (6/20/94 PB) 15 1 2.2 Pending Sunset Ridge Section II (6/20/PB) 24 24 1.1 Wyngate Lakes (7/18/94 PB) 13 11 1.9 Minor Concept Pending Fred Brooks 2 1 3.6 Subdivisions Habitat for Humanity 4 4 1 Concept Mark & Teresa Hocutt 2 1 3.8 Approved Murray & Patricia Lynch 4 4 1.1 Grady & Janie McNeil, & 5 5 1.0 Jennifer Hall-Tilley Lee Settle 3 2 43.3 Wagner, Wilkerson & Williams 4 1 6.5 Final Pending None I • Project Status as of June 24, 1994. • 07 PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT ORDINANCE/PLAN. Zoning Ordinance R&FZIUWCZ& Article 5.1.1 Schedule for Residential Development, Single and Two-Family, Multi-Family, Residential Hotels, Rooming Houses, Etc. Article 5.1.2 Schedule for Non Residential Development Lot-By-Lot, Planned Development Article 62.4 Density Averaging in AR and R-1 Districts Article 6.23.2 Residential Densities See "Existing/Proposed Ordinance/Plan Revisions"below. ORIGIN OF ANXNDMRNT.- Staff Planning Board X_BOCC Citizen Other: STAFF PRIORn7RECO1CWXNDAT1ON X High Middle Low EXPECTED PUBLIC BXARING DATA June 30, 1994 PURPOSE OF AAffNDMEN7 The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance seek to establish a "base-line" minimum lot size requirement of two acres throughout the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction from which proposed Rural Character Strategies may be implemented. IMPACTSIMUBA The Board of Commissioners received a report on proposed Rural Character Strategies at its May 17,1994 meeting.Discussion was continued to the May 26,1994 budget presentation meeting.At that meeting, the Commissioners decided to conduct a special hearing at the end of June to consider the following items: 1. Rezoning of the remaining 37% of the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction from one dwelling unit per acre to one dwelling unit per two acres; and 2. Receipt of citizen comment on the following open space preservation issues: a. Whether clustering is a desirable and marketable form of development; b. Whether a 50 percent open space requirement is appropriate, and how should open space be defined; and C. Whether density bonuses should be provided as incentives for preserving open space. Summmy of Provosed Amaebnaits: The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance seek to implement item #1 above by changing the minimum required lot area per dwelling unit from 40,000 square feet (0.92 acres) to 87,120 square feet(2.0 acres)in AR Agricultural-Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts.A related amendment concerning "density averaging"allows developments to provide varying lot sizes so long as the overall density does not exceed one dwelling unit per two acres (after excluding street rights-of-way)and no lot is less than 40,000 square feet in size.Another amendment is also proposed to insure consistency with Protected Watershed Overlay Districts,e.g., the minimum lot size requirement in the Hyco Creek and Flat River watersheds are increased from 40,000 square feet to two acres. 08 -The rationale for the proposed amendments is threefold. First, in its January 21, 1993 report Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange the Rural Character Study Committee recommended that a minimum average lot size of 80,000 square feet(1.84 acres)be established as the basic zoning density for the rural portions of the county. The proposed amendment would implement this recommendation but sets a higher standards,e.g., 2.0 acres. A second reason for the two-acre standard is that studies of development between 1987 and 1994 have shown that lots created through the mgjor subdivision approval process in rural portions of the county, excluding those served by public wager and/or sewer, have averaged 2.09 acres in size. This finding is identical to studies conducted in the early 1980's and is a reflection not only of zoning standards but the variable soil conditions found in the county. A final reason for the two-acre standard is the comments received at a series of community meetings held in January, 1994.In each of the three meetings(northern, central, and southern), support was voiced for a two-acre standard. In some cases, suggestions were made to couple the two-acre standard with other provisions to allow flexibility, e.g., higher impervious surface ratios, five one-acre lots (for children/relatives), density averaging, etc. Only the density averaging concept has been included as part of the amendments. Other amendments may be presented at subsequent public hearings to"fine-tune"the development options. 1XISTDVG1PR0P0SBD ORMNANCRIPLAN RBVISION3: 1. Amend Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements (Schedule forResidential Development,Single and T;wo-Family,Multi Family,Residential Hotels, Rooming Houses,Etc.)by changing the required"Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit"in AR- Agricultural Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts as follows: Existing Proposed Lot Individual Lott in Canum inal Subdivisions 40,000 SgFt 87,180 SgFt PD-1 Planned Development w/o Low-Lwame Housing 40,000 SgFt 87,120 SgPt PD-2 Planned DevelWment wl Low-h oome Housing 48000 SgFt 87,120 SgFt PD-MHP Planned Dievelopmait/F(obik Hone Pe A 40,000 SgFt 87,120 SgFt The required "Minimum Gross Land Area (Planned Development's OWyf is also proposed for change from 80,000 square feet to 172,240 square feet for PD-1 and PD-2 developments, and from 400,000 square feet to 871,200 square feet for PDMHP developments. g Ordinanceprovisions andproPowd ameadmmu are summarized on the attadjed gable. 2. Amend Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance - Establishment o/f Dimensional Requirements (Schedule for Non-Residential Development, Loot-By-Lot,Planned Development)by changing the required'Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit"in AR-agricultural Residential and R-1 Rural Residential zoning districts as follows: Lot Individual Lots in Canventrional Subdivisions 40,000 SgFY 87,120 SgFft PD All Planned Ddxlapments 40,000 SgFt 87,120 SgFt The required "Minimum Gross Land Area (Planned Development's Onlyf is also proposed for change from 80,000 square fret to 172,240 square feet for all PD Planned Developments. Existing ordinaunoe provisions and the proposed amendments are summarised an the attached 09 3. Amend Article 6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (Modification of Dimensional Requirements) by adding a new subsection to read as follows. 6.84 Density AvMM&g in the AR and R-1 Districts Within the AR Agricultural Real and R-1 Rural Resider al inning disaicts, individual lots in conventional subdivisions mw have lot areas less than dw- bu uwm Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit"of 87,120 square fat(2.0 awn)as required by Article 5.1.1 of this Ordnance. In such situadws, the movIl loudly►of dawhpnent in the subdivision map►not exceed one(1)dwelling unit per sup(2) aver excluding proposed new sired rights,*f ay. In addition,no lot map►be less 40,000 square fed(0.92 acres)unless mwmied as part of a'cluster daxdopmene pursuant to Article 6.8.2 or as part of a'planned daulopmene pursuant to Arfick 7. 4. Amend Article 6.23.2 of the Zoning Ordinance - Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Ouerlay Districts (Residential Density) by changing the "Maximum Density" permitted in the HYCO-PW Hyeo Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District and FLAT-PW Flat River Protected Watershed Ouerlay District from "1 du 140,000 square feet(0.92 acres)'to "1 du 12 acres". Existing ordinance prouisions and proposed amendments are summarized on the following table. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION& D NAXIalU3[DENSrff CANE-CA CANE-PW 1 du 12 acres U-ENO-CA LITTLE-PW HYCO-PW 1 du/40,000 square feet(0.92 acres) II FLAT-PW PROPOSED ORDINANCE Ab[END�NT& DI.4TRICT MAMUM DENSITY CANE-CA CAN&-PW U-ENO-CA 1 du/2 acres LITTLE-PW HYCO-PW FLAT-PW ORDLT�I A l�NCK p �iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii R VL W X10 RKVL9W. PLANNJNG BOARD REVIEW BOCC REVIEW O 5.1.1 SCHEDULE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY,RESIDElVTIAL HOTELS,ROOMING HOUSES,ETC. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS ' Alin Lot Area Per Mm Msa Mm Mm Gross Mar Req Min Req Min Req Min Dwelling Lot Front Side&Rear Mar Bldg Land Area LUI Floor Ar.Open Space Liveability Recreation Unit Width Setback Setback Hemet (PD's Only) Rating Ratio Ratio Space Ratio Space Ratio LOT 40,000 150 40 20 25 — — — — — .028 AR PD-1 40,070 — — — 25 80,0710 22 .058 .84 .75 .031 PD-2 40,000 — — — 25 80,0710 22 .058 .84 .75 .034 PD—MHP 4000 — — — N/A 400,000 22 .058 .84 .75 .031 LOT 40,000 130 40 20 25 — — — — — .028 R1 PD-1 40,000 — — — 25 80,000 22 .058 .84 .75 .031 PD-2 40,000 — — — 25 80,000 22 .058 .84 .75 .034 PD—MHP 40,0710 — — — N/A 400,0010 22 .058 .84 .75 .031 -► \ • PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Min Lot Area Per Min Min Min Min Gross Mar Req Min Req Min Req Min Dwelling Lot Front Side&Rear Max Bldg Land Area LUI Floor Ara Open Space Liveability Recreation Unit Width Setback Setback Height (PD's Onl) Rating Ratio Ratio Space Ratio Space Ratio LOT 87 — ,120 150 40 20 25 -- — — — — .028 AR PD—I 87,120 — — — 25 174,240 22 .058 .84 .75 .031 PD-2 87,120 — — — 25 174,240 22 .058 .84 .75 .034 PD—MHP 87,120 — — — N/A 871,200 22 .058 .84 .75 .031 LOT 87,120 130 40 20 25 — — — — — .028 R1 PD-1 87,120 — — — 25 174,240 22 .058 .84 .75 .031 PD-2 87,120 — — — 25 174,240 22 .058 .84 .75 .034 PD—MHP 87,120 — — — N/A 871,200 22 .058 .84 .75 .031 5.1.2 SCHEDULE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTLOT BY LOT,PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS Mm Lot Req Min Area Per Ma Mi Mm Mm Gross Max Gross Req Min Pedestrian Dwelling Lot Front Side &Rear Max Bldg Land Area Land Area LUI Max Floor Open Space Landscape Unit Width Setback Setback Height (PD's Only) (PD's Only) Rating Area Ratio Ratio Ratio LOT 40,000 150 40 20 25 — — 22 .088 .84 .21 AR PD 40,000 150 — — 25 80,070 — 22 .100 .84 .21 LOT 40,000 130 40 20 25 — — 22 .088 .84 .21 R1 PD 40,000 130 — — 25 80,000 — 22 .100 .84 .21 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mm Lot Req Min Area Per Mm Mm Mm Mm Gross Max Gross Req Min Pedestrian Dwelling Lot Front Side &Rear Max Bldg Land Area Land Area LUI Max Floor Open Space Landscape Unit Width Setback Setback Height (PD's Only) (PD's Only) Rating Area Ratio Ratio Ratio LOT 87,120 150 40 20 25 — — 22 .088 .84 .21 AR PD 87,120 150 — — 25 174,120 — 22 .100 .84 .21 LOT 87,120 130 40 20 25 — — 22 .088 .84 .21 RI PD 87120 130 — — 2S 174,120 — 22 .100 .84 .21 MAJOR SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY Rural Orange County Excluding Subdivisions Served By Public Water and Sewer 1987 through June 1994 Township Number of Total Street Open Acreage in Number ;C:era ge Lot Subdivisions Acreage ROW Space Lots of Lots Acres) Acreage Acreage Gross• Litt le River 13 314.49 17.30 0.00 297.1911f 161.00 1.85 1.95 Percent of Total Acreage 100.00% 5.50% 0.00% 94.50% Average Acres per Subdivision 24.19 1.33 0.00 22.86 12.39 Cedar Grove 17 412.20 20.96 6.98 384.26 199.00 1.93 2.07 ------ ------- Percent of Total Acreage 100.00%-5.09% 1.70% 93.22% Average Acres per Subdivision 24.24 1.23 .41 22.60 11.70 Cheeks 11 318.06 17.96 11.21 288.89 120.00 2.41 2.65 Percent of Total Acreage 100.00% 5.60% 3.50% 90.80% ��_��---------- --------- --------- -------- --------- ------- Average Acres per Subdivision 28.91 1.63 1.02 26.26 11.00 1lillsborough 9 193.05 9.64 0.00 183.41 77.00 2.38 2.51 ------- ------- Percent of Total Acreage 100.00% 5.00% 0.00 95.00% Average Acres per Subdivision 21.45 1,07 0.00 20.38 9.00 Eno 14 273.57 14.95 0.92 256.70 148.00 1.73 1.85 Percent of Total Acreage 100.00% 5.47% 0.03% 93.83% ------------------------------------------ -------- --------- -------- --------- ------- Average Acres per Subdivision 19.54 1.07 0.07 18.34 10.57 [Average ingham (outside JPA) 25 624.58 52.62 30.74 541.22 229.00 2.36 2.74 ---- --------- ------- Percent of Total Acreage 100.00% 8.38% 4.90% 86.23% Acres per Subdivision 25.11 2.11 1.23 21.65 9.16 Chapel Hill (outside JPA) 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------��_��_ --------- --------- -------- --------- ------- Percent of Total Acreages 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --------------------------------------------------- Average Acres per SubdivW= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .. :.. ..::.:......:.... . : .. 1951:6 93 Rural Orange::... , .,...: :. .. 4385 ' 4:00 ".2..09; , 2.30 Percent of Tatal:.Acreage: IOQ:Q 9�r 6 ZS::9 ' 2:3 .9 : 3F.3Z96 ------------ - :s: : - -.----- --- --- ------- -------- ------ Averager Acres.p W-.Sitlidivisioa 24:00 1.50: 0:56s 21.93 10.49 *Net Average Lot Size is the average lot size excluding open space and right of way (acreage in lots divided by number of lots). **Gross includes open space and right of way in calculating average lot size (total acreage divided by number of lots). 1, Excerpt from Conceytual Guidelines for Rural Orange Development Option 2: Two-Acre Lot Development DEVELOPMENT OPTION 2: Conventional Two-Acre Lot Development AVERAG3. LOT SIM, 80,000 SQUARE FEET 1.84 ACRES OPEC: SPACR'MQUIRM 'BONE POTEIi'1!IJ1L:.LO!1!:.ESBLD+ric UP TO 51 LOTS PER 100 ACRES :;:..:. �:..... . . .... :.. (Density 0.51 PERNr1M'ED' ?um,usksr: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONLY 1NCBNTIVES;t ''' PRIVATE ROADS * - Without site constraints. Traditional development consisting of lot sizes of one to two acres in size without open space reserves does little to preserve rural character unless situated in wooded areas so that significant amounts of tree cover are preserved to screen the view of homes. However, there is reason to maintain an option that allows this development style. A development option which permits lot sizes of approximately two acres is the closest fit to the prevailing average lot size in rural portions of the county. While current zoning and/or subdivision standards allow lots as small as 40,000 square feet, lots created through the major subdivision approval process in Rural Orange have averaged 1.9 acres in size - or twice the minimum required lot size during the five-year period 1987-1991. The pattern of larger-than-required lot sizes is the result of several factors, including soil suitability for ground absorption sewage disposal systems, the market demand for larger lots, and changing development regulations. As an example of the last factor, the precedent for larger lot sizes in Orange County was established in 1984 when the Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) zoning designation and a 1.84-acre lot size requirement was first applied in areas near existing and proposed water supply reservoirs. Later, in 1987, the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning designation and a two-acre lot: size requirement was applied to 38,000 acres surrounding Chapel Hill and Carrboro. More recently, in 1990, a five-acre lot size requirement was put into effect to protect University Lake watershed. For any open space development option to work; e.g. , for a developer or land owner to cluster units and set aside permanent open space, there must be some real incentive to do so. The system of density bonuses proposed in the development options which follow seeks to provide such an incentive. Thus, the 80,000-square foot development option is proposed as a "base line" for those who wish to retain traditional subdivision patterns. The most significant aspect of this development option, though, is that it establishes the basic zoning density for the rural portions of the county. Instead of a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, 80,000 square feet would be required as the minimum average lot size for any 1. 4 development. For a property owner or developer to achieve a higher density, he/she would have to utilize one of the development options which require open-space set-asides. The lot size of 1.84 acres (80,000 square feet) is consistent with the current average of 1.90 acres and consistent with the lot size standards applied in both the WQCA and RH zoning districts. Lot sizes can be decreased if enough permanent open space is set aside to maintain the same density of development (clustering) . Site studies conducted to examine the application of this option indicated that the buildable part of a tract (excluding road rights-of-way) is approximately 93 percent of the total site. Thus, this development option could optimally yield 51 lots on 100 acres. Compared to conventional two-acre lot developments, open-space developments generally offer more opportunity to achieve the goals of preserving rural character. However, these techniques are somewhat new to development in Orange County. Experimentation with open-space techniques is encouraged as a means of discovering the potential for environmentally-sensitive development. Therefore, to provide opportunities for property owners and developers to visualize the possibilities of open-space development, it is recommended that all conventional development projects under Option 2 creating more than 15 residential lots/units must submit two concept plans for subdivision: 1) a conventional subdivision plan under the appropriate option, and 2) an open-space subdivision plan under one of the open-space development styles below. The choice of development style would be voluntary for' the property owner/developer.