The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 09-29-1999 - 9bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. 9-b SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENTS: FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1) Administration Recommendation -- Karen Lincoln, Extension 2583 2) Planning Board Recommendation Craig Benedict, Extension 2592 3) 5-24-99 Public Hearing Notice TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 4) 8-23-99 Public Hearing Notice Hillsborough 732-8181 5) 5-2499 Draft Public Hearing Minutes Chapel Hill 968-4501 6) July 13, 1999, Planning Board Minutes Durham 688-7331 7) Ordinance Amending Subdivision Regulations Mebane (336)227-2031 Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations provisions for flexible development and companion amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Request Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, Section II (Definitions), Section II-D-3 (Preliminary Plat Approval), and Section IV-B-10 (Flexible Development) propose changes to delete undesirable aspects of the conservation approach, to enhance preservation of rural character in flexible development subdivisions, and to provide incentives for using the estate lot approach. Proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Orolinance define "flexible development" and "open space" in a manner that is consistent with existing and proposed provisions of the subdivision regulations Location The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety of Orange County lying outside of the Rural Buffer and outside the municipalities and their extra-territorial jurisdictions, if any. Existing and Proposed Conditions Existing: • Flexible development conservation option subdivisions have not demonstrated creativity in design to preserve open space as intended by the flexible development provisions and do not reserve/protect any natural areas that would not be protected by other existing provisions in the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. • The definition of "Flexible development" includes four approaches to preserving open space in flexible development subdivisions: an "estate" lot approach; a "conservation" approach; a "cluster" approach; and a "village" or modified cluster approach. • "Open space" in the zoning ordinance is defined with respect to calculating land use intensity ratios for zoning applications and does not include a definition that compliments required g:\bctamend\flexdev\ccabs.doc\8-18-99Uc1 2 d "open space" in a flexible development subdivision. Proposed: Proposed amendments: • correct inadequacies of the conservation option to provide subdivisions with intended features of flexible development; • clarify other flexible development provisions including estate lot provisions; and address inadequacies of the conservation option that are common for other flexible development approaches. An attached document giving existing ordinance language and proposed amendments contains staff annotation for each proposed amendment. In summary, proposed amendments to Orange County Subdivision Regulations, Section II Definitions, Section IV-B-10 Flexible Development and to Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Article 22 Definitions: • A. Delete undesirable elements of the conservation approach and combine the desirable elements of that approach with the cluster approach to create the conservation-cluster (cc) approach; - • B. Clarify that any transfer of density within a cluster development may not increase density allowed by the zoning ordinance within protected watersheds and their critical areas • C. Clarify and define configuration and placement of open space (i.e. contiguous stretches); • D. Add provision fora 100'( cc approach) or 150'( estate approach) buffer along adjacent public roads to enhance preservation of rural character; • E. Modify setbacks and percentage of open space allowed for placement of septic systems (25% allowed for repair area); • F. Reduce minimum lot size of estate lots from 4.0 acres to 3.0 acres with average lot size of 3.5 acres; • G. Provide for Internal access for all lots in the estate approach; and • H. Add a definition to the Article II of the zoning ordinance for "Open space (flexible development)". Development Process. Schedule. and Action • Public Hearing May 24, 1999: Major comments were that flexible development would not be used if those options did not offer some incentive to the developer Draft minutes are attached. • Public Hearing August 23, 1999: Additional amendments addressing comments from the May 24, 1999, Public Hearing were brought back for public comment. • First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: Planning Board reviewed the amendments July 13, 1999, including the proposed amendments presented at the August 23, 1999,. Public Hearing. Minutes are attached. • Final Action: Board of Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not Applicable. g:\txtamend\flexdevlccabs.doc\&1 &991k1 3 RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning Board Recommendation: Approval of the proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section II, Definitions, Section III-D-3, Preliminary Plat Approval, and Section IV-B-10, Flexible Development, and to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Article 22, Definitions, per the attached PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION beginning on page 19. Administration Recommendation: • Approval per the attached ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION (in Strike-through =Delete; highlight =add format) on pages 5 -17. Amendments to the Orange County SUBDIVISION REGUL4TIONS: AMENDMENT CORRESPONDS WITH b ~ b BULLET STRIKE THROUGH = _- ON PAGE DELETE FORMAT 2 PAGE S AMENDMENT 1 SECTION II DEFINITIONS: AMEND DEFINITION OF A 6 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT 2 SECTION IV-B-1 O, SECTION C, AMEND SUBSECTION C.3 C 7 OPEN SPACE STANDARDS AMENDMENT 3 SECTION N-B-10, SECTION D, AMEND SUBSECTION D.1 D, F, G, 8 - 9 ESTATE LOT OPTION E AMENDMENT 4 SECTION IV-B-1 O, SECTION D, DELETE SUBSECTION D.2 A, E 10 -11 CONSERVATION OPTION AMENDMENT 5 SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D, AMEND SUBSECTION D.3 A, B 12 - 14 CLUSTER OPTION Amendments to the Orange County ZONING ORDINANCE: AMENDMENT CORRESPONDS WITH U b b BULLET STRIKE THROUGH = ON PAGE DELETE FORMAT 2 PAGE S AMENDMENT 1 ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS: AMEND DEFINITIONS OF H 16 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN SPACE. Note: the Administration does not recommend the following amendments proposed in the Planning Board Recommendation: A. proposal for only Planning Board approval of estate lot preliminary plats (pages 21 - 22); B. proposal to decrease the proposed buffer along estate lot boundaries adjacent to public roads from 150' to 100' (50' ROVI~ or 125' (60' + ROV1n (pages 25 - 26). A CLEAN COPY OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS begins On page 53 and A CLEAN COPY OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IS included on pages 61 -62. g:\bttamend\flexdev\ccabs.doc\8-18-99Uc1 5 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION; Proposed Amendments SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. SECTION 11 DEFINITIONS SECTION tV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are shown in-etfil~e~# print.) g:~bctamendvlexdevladminn3c.docl8-17-99Uc1 6 AMENDMENT 1 AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN SECTION II DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10. A. CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND ADD LANGUAGE TO DEFINITION OF THE ESTATE LOT APPROACH THAT CLARIFIES PROVISIONS FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDABLE LOT AREA. B. DELETE THE DEFINITION FOR THE CONSERVATION APPROACH AND ADJUST . C. MODIFY THE NAME OF THE CLUSTER APPROACH TO PRESERVE THE CONNOTATION OF "CONSERVATION" AND ADD LANGUAGE TO THE DEFINITION TO SPECIFY THE CONFIGURATION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN SPACE. SECTION II. DEFINITIONS Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and 7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through: (A) (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots few-(4} three 3 acres e~ and greater in size, building Is(~A~ lot area including setbacks are established on 50% #ef of each lot, and the land area outside such I'ia~its area is preserved as open space arovided that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement except as scecified by provisions of Article IV B 10 Section D 1: or (c) (s ~ A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners association. anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local government; or (d ~ 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 (e ~ Some combination of the above. g:\bctamend\flexdev\adminrec.doc\8-17-99Uc1 7 ZQAMENDMENT 2 AMEND SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION C.3 (OPEN SPACE STANDARDS) OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND TO MAKE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CHANGES THROUGHOUT BY A) SPECIFYING THAT OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION RESTRICTIONS CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY THE LANDOWNERS AND B) CLARIFYING THAT THE ESTATE OPTION tS THE ONLY OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT WHICH ALLOWS THE INDIVIDUAL .OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE (AND INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING OPEN SPACE.) SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS C.3 Ownership of Open Space Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shalt be permanently restricted from further subdivision. • Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. Dedication of conservation easements to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners association and/or to all or portions .of individual lots owned by one or more property owners. Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and as irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants. Ownership by individual property owners;-espesiail~} of estate lots ewfle~-~ only, where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation easements applicable to such lots. Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of a Flexible Development proposal, the sand subject to the easement may be counted toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33°!0} open space requirement provided it is a portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided. g:~bctamendVlexdev~adminrec.d°c18-17-991k1 8 a? AMENDMENT 3 AMEND SECTION D.1 ESTATE LOT OPTION TO A) REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FROM 4 ACRES TO 3 ACRES WITH AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 3.5 ACRES; B) CLARIFY WHAT MAY BE COUNTED AS OPEN SPACE; C) REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE AREA IN THE OPEN SPACE THAT MAY BE USED FOR SEPTIC EASEMENTS FROM 5O% OF THE AREA IN OPEN SPACE TO 25% WITH AND ADDITIONAL 25% FOR REPAIR AREA ONLY, IF NEEDED; D) INCREASE SPACING REQUIREMENTS TO ENHANCE RURAL CHARACTER; E) DELETE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; F) PROVIDE INTERNAL ACCESS TO ALL LOTS; AND G) PROVIDE A 150 FT. BUFFER ALONG FRONTAGE OF EXISTING STATE ROADS ADJACENT TO THE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY. SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or more of the following development options. -- D.1 Estate Lot Option For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply: (A) • Each estate lot shall have a minimum lot size of at least #et~-(4~ three 3 acres with an average lot size of three and one-half (3.5) acres for all lots. • For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. • The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas. (B) • Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area shall be contiguous to open space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and shall not include required front yard and side yard setbacks unless the front or side yard contains significant primary or secondary conservation areas. (c) • Aseptic system and/or well s~i#~- can only be located e~welepe within the secondary conservation area provided +~-~#ees the land designated for the septic system and/or well site is not essupy-more than t~al# one uq arter of the secondary conservation area of the lot. A repair area may be located outside of a building lot area provided it does not occuav more than one quarter of the conservation area nor any Dart of a Primaryr Conservation Area. No septic svstem, repair area and/or well site can be located in the primary conservation area of a lot. g:\bctamend\flexdev\adminrec.doc\5-17-99\kl 9 AMENDMENT 3(CONT.) (D) (E) Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing standards: Buildin Envelo a Spacin Standards for Estate Lots Minimums acing between buildin envelo es on adjacent lots ~ 100 feet Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision ~b 150 feet bounda or off-site ublic street ri ht-of-way Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 4A- 50 feet or private street ri ht-of-wa Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot 29 30 feet line __. Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet water bodies (lakes, ponds, streams, etc.) • Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the preservation of designated Primary and/or .Secondary Conservation Areas; provide convenient access for emergency service vehicles; and satisfy all building envelope spacing standards, #el{ewiaQ-stares= 0 The minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and 'T' turnarounds. • Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted against further development through conservation easements and/or deed restrictions. (F) • Estate lot subdivision road(s) shall be designed to provide internal access to all lots in the subdivision Private driveways shall access existing state maintained roads only via subdivision roads providing internal access to lots in the subdivision. (G) A 150 foot Tvoe F buffer meeting the requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be arovided along the frontage of all existing state maintained roads adjacent to the subdivision boundaries In areas of dense mature forest. existingt vegetation may be used to fulfill the buffer reauirements If additional alantina is required new plant materials that satisfy the buffer requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be installed and maintained in accordance with provisions of Article IV-B-8-f g:lbctamend~flexdevladminrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1 10 AMENDMENT 4 DELETE SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D.2 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) CONSERVATION OPTION. SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DELETE ENTIRE SECTION > , •, ~ ; •, , ~~ g:~txtamendlflexdevladminrec.doc~8-17-99Vc1 11 g:lCctamendWexdevladminrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1 12 b? AMENDMENT 5 AMEND SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D.3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) CLUSTER OPTION BY A) CHANGING THE NAME TO "CONSERVATION-CLUSTER"; B) CLARIFYING CONFIGURATION AND PLACEMENT OF OPEN SPACE; C) REDUCING ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE THAT CAN BE USED FOR SEPTIC OR WELL EASEMENTS FROM 5O% TO 25%; D) CLARIFYING MINIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED IN WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS; E) REDUCING MINIMUM LOT WIDTH TO ENCOURAGE CLUSTERING; F) CLARIFYING LANGUAGE REGARDING REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE; G) PROVIDING FORA 100 FT. SETBACK ALONG SUBDIVISION BOUNDARIES; AND H) RENUMBERING SUBSECTIONS D.4, D.S, AND D.6. SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (A) D.2 Conservati6n-Cluster Option A (conservationL-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract provided the transfer of density within the subdivision does not increase the average density in and overlay zoning district In aconservation-cluster subdivision designed with density transfer. lots Ssmaller lets than the minimum lot size permitted in the zoning district are allowed provided such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following standards: • Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas. • The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the subdivision. (B) • Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly to create larger conservation units tqa~ that may be enjoyed by all residents of the subdivision and. if possible. enjoyed visually by the general aublic.. Such undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided open space to provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas vulnerable to human disturbance. The design must meet Section F Evaluation Criteria which sets forth conservation area desis~n characteristics. Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels, no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have alength-to- g:lbctamend~flexdevladminrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1 13 AMENDMENT 5(CONT.) (c) (D) (E) width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands, watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife corridors; or trail links. Each lot must contain a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. Aseptic system and/or well site may be located in an open space area provided it does not occupy more than half- one quarter of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area. Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the preservation of designated Primary andlor Secondary Conservation Areas, minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article 4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth below. 0 Minimum fot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%) of the minimum lot size Qermitted by the zoning district including anv overlay district requirements ; however. minimum lot area may not be smaller than 40.000 square feet within a watershed protection overlay district where lots are served by individual seQtic systems. 0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced to 100 feet in the AR and R1 Districts. Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by 30% in all other zoning districts. 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. (F) 0 Minimum lot frontage requirements may be reduced to twenty (20) feet for lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds. . (G) 0 Minimum saacing between building envelopes and the subdivision boundary or off-site public street right-of--way shall be 100 feet and may be counted as open space. • Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shat{ 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. g:ltxt8mend~flexdevladminrec.docl8-17-99Uc1 14 AMENDMENT 5(CONT.) (H) S:4 D.3 Village Option H) D.4 Street Standards H) D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities g:ltxtamend~flexdevladminn3c.dx~8-17-99Ut1 15 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Proposed Amendments with Staff Notes to the ZONING ORDINANCE, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS (Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are shown in-s#ik~at#+Feag#~ print.) g:ltxtamendlflexdevladminrec.doc~8-17-99Uct 16 AMENDMENT 1 A)AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; B~ TO DEFINE OPEN SPACE IN THE 20NING ORDINANCE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF "OPEN SPACE" IN THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AND C) TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFININTION OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR LAND USE INTENSITY CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE APPLICABLE TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS. ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and 7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and ~- forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through: . . (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots #et*-(~} three 3 acres sf and greater in size, building lits~/e} lot area including setbacks are established on 50% #eF of each lot, and the land area outside such limits area is preserved as open space arovided that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10. Section D.1: or ~ ~~ ~~ (s ~ A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local government; 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 (e ~ Some combination of the above g:lbdamend~flexdev~adminrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1 17 AMENDMENT 1 (CONT.) (B) ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS Open Space - flexible development) "Primary Conservation Areas" and "Secondary Conservation Areas". as defined in Section IV-B-10, C.2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, which are areserved through conservation easements or other restrictions in a flexible develoament subdivision. (~I Open Space - bland use intensity) 1) Open space is the total horizontal area of uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject to limitations set forth below. 2) Uncovered open__space is total gross- residential land area not covered by buildings, plus open exterior balconies and roof areas improved as recreation space. 3) Covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky, but having two clear unobstructed open or partially open sides. Partially open sides is to be construed as fifty percent or more. Examples of covered space are covered balconies, covered portions of improved roof areas, or space under buildings supported on columns or posts or cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open space shall not exceed the square footage of the open space sides. g;ltxtamendwexdevladminrec.docl8-17-99Uc1 19 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Proposed Amendments SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. SECTION II DEFINITIONS SECTION III-D-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are shown in~~eeg# print.) g:~bctamendlflexdev\pbrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1 zo AMENDMENT 1 AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN SECTION II DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10. A. CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND ADD LANGUAGE TO DEFINITION OF THE ESTATE LOT APPROACH THAT CLARIFIES PROVISIONS FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDABLE LOT AREA. B. DELETE THE DEFINITION FOR THE CONSERVATION APPROACH AND ADJUST . C. MODIFY THE NAME OF THE CLUSTER APPROACH TO PRESERVE THE CONNOTATION OF "CONSERVATION" AND ADD LANGUAGE TO THE DEFINITION TO SPECIFY THE CONFIGURATION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN SPACE. SECTION II. DEFINITIONS Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and 7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through .conventional development approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through: (a) An "estate IoY' approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building I~~~;s(~8s/a} lot area including setbacks are established on 50% #ef of each lot, and the land area outside such i~i#~s area is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open saace requirement except as saecified by provisions of Article IV-B-10. Section D.1: or ~ ~~ ~, (s ~ A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners association, anon-arofit land conservancy or unit of state of local government; or (~ c) 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 (e ~ Some combination of the above. g: Wctamend~flexdev~pbrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1 21 AMENDMENT 2: AMEND A) SECTION III-D-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL; B) SECTION 1V- B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT, SECTION B APPLICABILITY; AND C) SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D.1 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) ESTATE LOT OPTION TO MODIFY MAJOR SUBDMSION APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR THE ESTATE OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT BY PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BY THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD (NO APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.. THIS WOOD SHORTEN THE TIME REQUIRED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION. (A) SECTION III-D-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL *111-D-3-c. Planning Board Review Procedures *Amended 1/8/90 The Planning Board shall review the application and the Planning Department's report and shall prepare a written recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. All interested persons shall be given the opportunity to speak and-ask questions regarding the application. The Planning Board may place reasonable and fair limitations on comments, arguments and questions to avoid undue delay. The Planning Board shall take action on the application solely on its findings as to compliance with applicable regulations and conditions and shall: (1) Recommend approval of the application; (2) Recommend approval subject to conditions; or (3) Recommend denial. of the application. Preliminary slat applications using the estate lot option of flexible develoQment shall be approved by the Planning Board and do not require approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Board shall take action on an apalication usina the estate lot option of flexible develoament preference Section IV-B-10, Section D.1) solely on its findings as to com,.pliance with applicable regulations and conditions and shall: - L.1 Recommend approval of the aaalication: jZj Recommend approval subject to conditions; or u Recommend denial of the application. g:lbctamendlftexdev\pbrec.docl8-17-99Uc1 22 AMENDMENT 2: (cont.) The Planning Board shall prepare its recommendations within forty-five (45) days of the meeting at which the Planning Department's report is submitted to it or within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant. If the Planning Board fails to prepare its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners within the specified time period, or extensions thereof, the Planning Board shall be deemed to have advanced the application without recommendation. If the Planning Board approves the application subject to conditions, such conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek to insure compliance with applicable regulations and the provision of utilities and/or other facilities needed to serve the proposed development. If the Planning Board recommends approval of the application with conditions, the applicant may amend his/her application to conform to all or some of the conditions, provided the Planning Department reviews the amended application for compliance with applicable regulations and certifies that the amendments conform to the conditions of the Planning Board recommendation. In such cases, the Planning Department may amend its report to conform to any or all of the Planning Board's recommendations. The Planning Department shall then forward its report and the Planning Board's recommendation to the Board of Commissioners at its next available regularly scheduled meeting. (B) SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section B APPLICABILITY Amended 6/2/97 Flexible Development is permitted in all residential zoning districts except the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district, but only upon approval of a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat by the Board of County Commissioners or approval by the Plannin~t Board for subdivisions develoaed using the estate lot option. 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, provided, however, that Flexible Developments located within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District shall comply with provisions of Article 6.30 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Applicants seeking approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning Department are encouraged to work with the Planning Department staff in identifying and preserving open space areas as part of such developments. g:\txtamendlflexdevlpbrec.doc\8-17-99Uc1 23 '<QAMENDMENT 3 AMEND SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION C.3 (OPEN SPACE STANDARDS) OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND TO MAKE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CHANGES THROUGHOUT BY A) SPECIFYING THAT OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION RESTRICTIONS CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY THE LANDOWNERS AND B) CLARIFYING THAT THE ESTATE OPTION tS THE ONLY OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT WHICH ALLOWS THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE (AND INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING OPEN SPACE.) SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS C.3 Ownership of Open Space Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any of the following methods, either individually or in combination. A11 open space shall be permanently restricted from further subdivision. • Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local govemment, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. Dedication of conservation easements to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners association and/or to all or portions of individual lots owned by one or more property owners. Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and as irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants. • Ownership by individual property owners; es~eeially of estate lots ewflers only, where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation easements applicable to such lots. Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easemgnt may be counted toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement provided it is a portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided. g: Wctamendwexdev\pbrec.docl8-17-99Uc1 24 AMENDMENT 4 AMEND SECTION D.1 ESTATE LOT OPTION TO A) REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FROM 4 ACRES TO 3 ACRES WITH AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 3.5 ACRES; B) CLARIFY WHAT MAY BE COUNTED AS OPEN SPACE; C) ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO OPEN SPACE FOR REPAIR AREA FOR SETIC SYSTEM IF THE BUILDING LOT AREA DOES NOT CONTAIN A SUFFICIENT AREA OF SUTIABLE SOILS FOR BOTH SEPTIC DRAINFIELD AND REPAIR AREA. D) INCREASE SPACING REQUIREMENTS TO ENHANCE RURAL CHARACTER; E) DELETE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; F) PROVIDE INTERNAL ACCESS TO ALL LOTS; AND G) PROVIDE A 100 FT. BUFFER ALONG FRONTAGE OF EXISTING STATE ROADS HAVING A 50 FT. RIGHT-0F-WAY THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY; PROVIDE A 125 FT. BUFFER ALONG FRONTAGE OF EXISTING STATE ROADS HAVING A 60 FT. OR GREATER RIGHT-0F-WAY THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY. SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or more of the following development options. D.1 Estate Lot Option For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply: (A) • Each estate lot shall have a minimum lot size of at least #ea~-f4} three 3 acres with an average lot size of three and one-half (3 5) acres for all lots. For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. • The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas. (B) • Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area shall be continuous to oven space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and shall not include required front.yard and side yard setbacks unless the front or side vard contains significant primary or secondary conservation areas. (c) • A repair area for a septic system and/or well site may be located outside of a building e~eleye-lot area provided it does not occupy ~aefe-##~a~ ~e any part of a Primary Conservation Area. g:\txtamend\flexdev\pbrec.docl8-17-99Vc1 25 AMENDMENT 4(CONT.) (D) • Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing standards: (E) Buildin Envelope Spacin Standards for Estate Lots Minimum spacing between building envelopes on adjacent lots X8100 feet Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision ~ 150 feet boundary or off-site public street ri ht-of-wa Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 4& 50 feet or private street ri ht-of--way Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot ~8 30 feet line - Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet water bodies (lakes, onds, streams, etc.) • Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas; provide convenient access for emergency service vehicles; and satisfy all building envelope spacing standards, #eNeywegss: 0 The minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and 'T' turnarounds. • Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted against further development through conservation- easements and/or deed restrictions. (F) • Estate lot subdivision road(s) shall be designed to provide internal access to all lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall not have access to existing state maintained roads. ' (G) • A 100 foot buffer shall be provided along the frontage of all existing state maintained roads having a 50 foot right-of--way that are adjacent to the subdivision boundaries. A 125 foot buffer shall be provided along the frontage of all existing state maintained roads having a 60 foot or greater right-of-wav that are adjacent to the subdivision boundaries In areas of dense mature forest, existing vegetation may be used to fulfill the buffer requirements. If additional planting is required new plant materials that g:~bctamend~flexdev\pbrec.docl&17-99Uc1 26 satisfy the buffer requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be installed and maintained in accordance with provisions of Article IV-B-8-f g:lbctamend~flexdev~pbrec.docl8-17-99Uc1 27 AMENDMENT 5 DELETE SECTION IV-B-1O, SECTION D.2 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONSERVATION OPTION. SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS > , E ---r--~.. ~..~~~ . -.,..+v..-..~ .+. ...... ...... nvv... ~.rrca f f •~ i ~~ ~ r ~ r ' u ~ g:\bctamend~flexdevlpbrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1 28 AMENDMENT 5 (CONT.) g:uxtamendlflexdevlpbrec.docl&17-99Uc1 29 AMENDMENT 6 AMEND SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D.3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) CLUSTER OPTION BY A) CHANGING THE NAME TO "CONSERVATION-CLUSTER"; B) CLARIFYING CONFIGURATION AND PLACEMENT OF OPEN SPACE; C) REDUCING ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE THAT CAN BE USED FOR SEPTIC OR WELL EASEMENTS FROM 5O% TO 25%; D) CLARIFYING MINIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED IN WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTR{CTS; E) REDUCING MINIMUM LOT WIDTH TO ENCOURAGE CLUSTERING; F) CLARIFYING LANGUAGE REGARDING REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE; G) PROVIDING FORA 100 FT. BUFFER ALONG SUBDIVISION BOUNDARIES; AND H) RENUMBERING SUBSECTIONS D.4, D.S, AND D.6. SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (A) D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option A (conservation-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract provided the transfer of density within the subdivision does not increase the average density in anv zoning district inciuding overiay districts Smaller lots than those required in conventional subdivisions are permitted, provided such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following standards: • Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas. • The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas sha11 equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the subdivision. (B) • Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly to create larger conservation units #~ that may be enjoyed by all residents of the subdivision and, if possible. enioYed visualy by the general public.. Such undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided open space to provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and convenient pedestrian access to the open space from .all adjoining houselots shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas vulnerable to human disturbance. The design must meet Section F Evaluation Criteria which sets forth conservation area design characteristics. • Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels, no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have alength-to- width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for g:\txtamend\flexdev\pbrec.doc\&17-99Uc1 30 neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands, watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife.corridors; or trail links. (~) • Each lot must contain a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. A septic system and/or well site may be located in an open space area provided it does not occupy more than #~- one quarter of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area. • Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the preservation of designated Primary and/or- Secondary Conservation Areas, minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article 4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth below. - (o) . 0 Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%) of the minimum lot size permitted by the zonina_ district including any overlay district requirements ; however. minimum lot area may not be smaller than 40.000 square feet within a watershed protection overlay district where lots are served by individual septic systems. (E) 0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced to 100 feet in the AR and R1 Districts. Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by 30% in all other zoning districts. 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. (F) 0 Minimum lot frontage requirements may be reduced to twenty. (20) feet for lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds. (G) 0 Minimum spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision boundary or off-site public street right-of-way shall ~e 100 feet and may be counted as open space. • Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or a homeowners association. g:~bctamendlflexdev~pbrec.docl8-17-99Uc1 31 AMENDMENT 6 (CONT.) (H) 0-4 D.3 Village Option H~ ~b D.4 Street Standards H) ~6 D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities g:~bctamend~flexdevlpbrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1 32 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Proposed Amendments ZONING ORDINANCE, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS (Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are shown in-s#~r~l~~ print.) g:uxtamendlflexdev~pbrec.docl&17-99Uc1 33 AMENDMENT 1 A)AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; B) TO DEFINE OPEN SPACE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF "OPEN SPACE" IN THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AND C) TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFININTION OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR LAND USE INTENSITY CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE APPLICABLE TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS. ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and 7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development .approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through: (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building ii~its~~6} lot area includinsr setbacks are established on 50% #ef of each lot, and the land area outside such Ids area is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10. Section D.1; or ~ ~~ ~~ (s ~ A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local government; or (d ~ A "village" or mod~ed cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded by open space; or (e dJ Some combination of the above g:ltxtamendlflexdev~pbrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1 34 AMENDMENT 1 (CONT.) (B) ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS Oaen Saace - (flexible development) "Primary Conservation Areas" and "Secondary Conservation Areas", as defined in Section IV-B-10. C 2 of the Orange Countv Subdivision Regulations, which are preserved through conservation easements or other restrictions in a flexible development subdivision. (c) Open Space - (land use intensity 1) Open space is the total horizontal area of uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject to limitations set forth below. 2) Uncovered open space is total gross residential land area not covered by buildings, plus open exterior balconies and roof areas improved as recreation space. 3) Covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky, but having two clear unobstructed open or partially open sides. Partially open sides is to be construed as fifty percent or more. Examples of covered space are covered balconies, covered portions of improved roof areas, or space under buildings supported on columns or posts or cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open space shall not exceed the square footage of the open space sides. g:ltxtamendlflexdevlpbrec.docl8-17-99Uc1 35 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, May 24, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS 1. Z-02-99 Johnny Cates Johnny C. Cates requests that a 2.8 acre (121,968 SF) portion of his 5.1 acre property at 3102 West Ten Road, Cheeks Township, be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. The property is approximately 2,200 feet east of Mt. calling Road interchange with I-40/85 and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9854-14-8385. 2. Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom Emie McBroom requests that his 10.01 acre (436,036 SF) parcel in Cedar Grove Township be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. The property is located on the south side of Sawmill Road West (SR 1545) approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road, SR 1507) and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9868-43-4251. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. The Orange County Planning Board proposes an amendment to Article 22, Definitions, to modify the definition of Flexible Development to maintain consistency with proposed amendments to Section IV-B-10 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The amendment proposes to delete (b) a "conservation" approach for-preservation of open space from the definfion of Flexible Development and to rename (c) a "cluster approach" to a "conservation-cluster" approach which will include certain conservation approaches for open space. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. The Orange County Planning Board, in addition to planning staff, proposes amendments to Section IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT to allow open space within a flexible development to be held by individual property owners only within developments using the 36 estate option whereby lot size must be a minimum of 4 acres. The proposed amendments will amend Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space and will combine development standards under Section D.2 Conservation Option and Section D.3 Cluster Option into one section as the Conservation-Cluster Option. Proposed amendments to several sections of Section IV B-10 will clarify provisions of open space and buildable lot area. Proposed amendments to Section D Development Standards will increase building envelope spacing standards for estate lots, reduce the amount of conservation area that may be used for septic systems, and provide for minimum spacing of 100 feet between building envelopes and the subdivision boundary and/or off-site public street right-of--way for cluster developments. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. -- Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306E Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald May 12, 1999 May 13, 1999 May 19, 1999 May 20, 1999 37 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, August 23, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS 1. Z-02-99 Johnny Cates Johnny C. Cates requests that a 2.8 acre (121,968 SF) portion of his 5.1 acre property at 3102 West Ten Road, Cheeks Township, be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts.. Permitted uses within the AS District that are not permitted in the AR District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is approximately 2,200 feet east of Mt. Willing Road interchange with I-40/85 and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9854-14-8385. 2. Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom Emie McBroom requests that his 10.01 acre (436,036 SF) parcel in Cedar Grove Township be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, sitvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. Permitted uses within the AS District that are not permitted in the AR District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is located on the south side of Sawmill Road West (SR 1545) approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road, SR 1507) and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9868-43-4251. - ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. Orange County Planning Staff and NC Child Care Commission propose amendments to Article 4, Section 4.3 (Permitted Use Table), Article 6, Section 6.27 (Large Day Care Homes), Article 8, Section 8.8.16 (Day Care Facility), and Article 22 (Definitions) that change language in ordinance provisions for child care facilities to conform with language in North Carolina General Statutes regarding licensing provisions for child care facilities. g:UclincolnW899phad.doc18-4-99Uc1 38 2. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to revise the time constraints in Article 2 (The Board of County Commissioners and its Administrative Mechanisms), Article 3 (Establishment of ,Zoning Districts and Atlas), Article 6.29.3 (Development Standards for Economic Development Districts), Article 8 (Special Uses), and Article 20 (Amendments). Proposed amendments will: • Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable agencies prior to completing reports to boards; • Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and • Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations if processing time cannot be met. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to revise the time constraints in Section III (Application and Approval Procedures), Section IV-B-7 (Sites for Public Use), and Section VII-D-4 (Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing). Proposed amendments will: - • Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable agencies prior to completing reports to boards; • Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and • Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations if processing time cannot be met. • Revise process for appeal of staff decisions concerning subdivision classification (minor vs major) and approval of minor subdivisions. 2. Orange County Planning Board and planning staff propose amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section IV-B-10 Flexible Development: a. to amend D-1 Estate Lot Option to 1. reduce minimum lot size from 4.0 acres to 3.0 acres with average lot size of 3.5 acres; 2. provide a 150 ft. buffer along state maintained roads adjacent to subdivision boundaries; 3. restrict lot access to internal subdivision roads; and b. to amend D.3 Cluster Option to clarify that any transfer of density within a cluster development will not result in a greater density within any specific zoning district than the average density allowed by zoning restrictions within that specific district including overlay districts (eg. flexible development proposals spanning the critical area (CA) and the balance (PV11) of a protected watershed cannot shift density from a higher density zoning (PVV) to a lower density zoning (CA)). All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard: Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306E Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. g:Uclincoln~0899phad.doc18-4-99Uct 39 Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. PUBLISH: News of Orange Chanel Hill Herald August 11 1999 August 12, 1999 August 18, 1999 August 19, 1999 g:UclincolnW899phad.doc18-4-99Uc1 ®RAFT 40 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 2 AND 3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 4 MAY 24, 1999 5 MINUTES 6 7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board 8 met in joint session on Monday, May 24, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge F. Gordon Battle 9 Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, 10 for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing. 11 12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Alice M. Gordon, and 13 Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs 14 15 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows 16 and members Leo Allison, Nell Andrews. Barry Katr, Howard McAdams, Jr., Robert Strayhorn 17 and Runyon Woods 18 19 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M. Brooks, James 20 Selkirk, ,and Elizabeth Walters 21 22 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. 23 24 STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict, 25 Planners Robert Davis and Karen Lincoln and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. Other 26 staff members present will be identified in the minutes as appropriate. 27 28 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR 29 Chair Gordon convened the meeting. She indicated that both of the items on the 30 agenda would be chaired by Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows. 31 32 B. PUBLIC CHARGE 33 Chair Gordon dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. 34 35 Ms. Barrows indicated that a letter of support for both the proposed Subdivision 36 Regulation Text Amendments and the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments was received from 37 Dan VanderMeer, Chair of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. Mr. 38 VanderMeer stated that "Orange Water and Sewer Authority recognizes that the County's. 39 Flexible Development provisions are an important component of the Creative Open Space 40 Design - or Clustering -approach that we have recommended as a development option in the 41 Cane Creek Watershed. Orange Water and Sewer Authority believes that the proposed 42 amendments would appropriately strengthen some of the current open space requirements for 43 cluster developments in ways that will more adequately protect the Cane Creek water supply. 44 Although our Board of Directors has not had sufficient opportunity to review the proposed 45 amendments in detail, we generally support their adoption and look forward to providing 41 1 additional written comments before the hearing record is closed." A copy of this letter , in its 2 entirety, is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. 3 4 Ms. Barrows introduced Planning Director Craig Benedict and asked him to present Items 5 C1 and C2. Mr. Benedict introduced the newest member of the Planning Department's staff, 6 Robert Davis of Kernersville, North Carolina. Mr. Davis has ten years of experience in 7 municipal engineering. 8 9 ~ C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 10 1. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS 11 (a) SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT 12 (1) Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space 13 (2) Section D.1 Estate Lot Option 14 (3) Section D.2 Conservation. Option 15 (4) Section D.3 Cluster Option 16 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT 17 AMENDMENTS 18 (1) Flexible Development 19 (2) Open Space 20 Planning Director Benedict indicated that the Flexible 21 Development Standard regulations are in two sections of the Code. One has to do with 22 subdivision regulations and the other has to do with zoning regulations. The Flexible 23 Development Standards have been reviewed since December of 1998 and the Ordinance 24 Review Committee (ORC) of the Planning Board has discussed the pros and cons of these 25 regulations in depth. For example, the intent of the Flexible Development Standards is to 26 preserve open space and to orient open space in certain locations. However, when the 27 developers use the regulations they sometimes use them in a way that does not align itself with 28 that vision. The objective over the next year is to look at the regulations and make sure that 29 they are used as guidelines for implementation in a way that does align with the vision of the 30 Board of Commissioners. He said that he intends to present the regulations as they currently 31 exist and explain the suggested changes. There are four issues that are being reviewed. 32 33 The first issue is the four different approaches for flexible development. They are 1) 34 conventional, 2) conservation, 3) cluster and 4) estate. Beginning with the estate approach he 35 stated that this is a four acre lot minimum which would cause a subdivision to be divided into 36 lots four acres in size. For example, a 100 acre subdivision would be divided into twenty-five 37 4-acre lots. There have been no estate requests in the time that Flexible Development 38 Standards have been in existence. A modification is being suggested to this option. However, it 39 is obviously not the most critical area to address due to lack of interest in this type of 40 development. He stated that, at this meeting, the conservation and cluster approaches would be 41 focused upon. The problematic point concerning the conservation approach is that the area 42 being designated for the conservation area was included on the buyer's deed in fee simple. 43 Property owners then felt that they could build as they wished on the entire lot, when in fact, 44 part of that land was in a conservation area. That is the biggest undesirable effect of the 45 conservation approach. In order to monitor the use of the conservation areas it would require 46 an extraordinary amount of independent work on the part of county staff. Because of this 47 concern the Planning Board and Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) have recommended that 42 the provision be removed. Homeowners would no longer have on-site conservation land included on their deed in fee simple. Anew approach, called the conservation cluster approach, would replace the current conservation designation. He presented a visual example of the conservation cluster option which has smaller lots with the land to be preserved being clustered in one area. This approach leaves significant amounts of land undeveloped and available for the community to enjoy for recreation and for its visual effect. The conservation land would be controlled by a homeowners association, a conservancy or by the county, if the county had a corridor planned in the general area. He indicated that perimeter buffers is a new requirement being suggested in the Flexible Development Standards. This refers to perimeter buffers which would allow more buffer for the adjacent properties. Part of the Flexible Development Standards was an offshoot of the Rural Preservation goals that were completed in 1994/1995. Roughly one-half of the property would be iri the conservation areas. The committee also considered where the conservation areas should be located and agreed that it made sense to locate them along stream buffers, wooded areas and/or meadows which would preserve the general character of the area. The conservation areas need to be contiguous so that they can be enjoyed by the majority of the people. He mentioned that they are now beginning to research the landscape section of the code and will be presenting new landscape requirements to the Board of County Commissioners to help augment the roadside buffers. That section of the code is scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners sometime in the fall. 22 Although the estate option has never been used, it states that two acres of each estate 23 could be placed in a conservation area and two acres of that area could be used for septic 24 fields. That meant that one acre of the two acre conservation area could be encroached upon 25 for septic fields. It does not seem necessary to encroach upon a conservation area for this 26 additional 40,000 square feet given that there are already 80,000 square~feet_on the 27 unencumbered part of the lot. The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) is suggesting that the 28 encroachment of septic fields on conservation areas be decreased to 25% of what would 29 normally be allowed in the lot. That is being suggested in both the estate option and the 30 conservation cluster option. Currently the code allows a 50% encroachment upon all of the 31 conservation easements. The Planning Staff will continue to research the question of how 32 much encroachment, if any, is actually necessary within the conservation area. Depending on 33 what size lot is being considered, it may be possible to scale the encroachment back even 34 further. The conservation cluster option is a much smaller lot which results in a high degree of open space. This option would most likely be used in areas where public water and sewer were already available. The lots would be approximately'/Z acre in size and would not be expected to serve a septic field. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Brown asked if the village cluster approach was going to be discussed. Mr. Benedict stated that they were not suggesting changes to the village cluster approach. This is another approach which would require public water and sewer and there have been no applications requesting this approach. 43 1 2 Commissioner Carey asked what types of uses were being considered for the open 3 space in its new form under the ownership of quasi-public organizations. 4 5 Mr. Benedict stated that if it were controlled by the homeowners association the 6 regulations would be in the covenants which would establish and describe allowable uses, for 7 example, jogging/hiking trails, open playground use, private recreation uses, etc. The 8 enforceability provision between homeowners associations and the county is much stronger 9 than dealing one on one with a private property owner. If the land were transferred to another 10 organization, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, homeowners would be aware of the fact 11 that those portions of the land were not owned by them and their options for using that portion 12 of the land was restricted. Those restrictions could include that the trees could not be cut down 13 and that public use would, or would not, be available. The Triangle Land Conservancy is 14 looking at standardizing agreements. The most important issue is that by having the 15 conservation area as a separate tract the homeowners would be more clear that it is not theirs 16 in fee simple. 17 18 Commissioner Jacobs asked if any consideration was given to reviewing the 33% open 19 space that is required in the conservation cluster options to determine if that amount of open 20 space is sufficient. 21 22 Mr. Benedict stated that they did look at that issue. Staff is in the process of 23 developing a model which would show how much open space is necessary for a buildable lot. 24 That is determined by the size of the septic field versus the buildable lot. He commented that he 25 felt we should wait until the soil suitability analysis is completed prior to changing this number. 26 He stated that if the lots were smaller there would be a tighter open space constraint. Staff will 27 be looking at this over the summer and present their findings in the fall. 28 29 Chair Gordon asked Mr. Benedict to compare the cluster option and the conservation 30 cluster option in terms of the number of lots allowed. 31 32 Mr. Benedict indicated that in both the original cluster option and the new conservation 33 cluster option the number of lots allowed is-the same. The only change is that the ownership of 34 the conservation areas would not rest with the landowner. However, it is possible that the 35 conservation cluster option would result in a slightly smaller number of lots. He mentioned that 36 the Planning staff will be looking at the minimum lot size standards. Over the course of the 37 summer many standards will be reviewed. These include the Protected Watershed Standards, 38 Critical Area Watershed Standards, and the Cane Creek Reservoir~Regulations. They want to 39 make sure that those regulations being implemented on top of the minimum lot size work in the 40 manner in which they are intended. They wilt present various scenarios to see how the different 41 standards actually impact the different options. 42 43 In response to a question, Mr. Benedict stated that the 5,000 square foot lot option 44 was deleted because in any scenario they came up with, it would not be possible to use. 45 46 Planner Karen Lincoln stated the majority of the county where the subdivisions would be 47 located is zoned either A-R or R-1 and the minimum allowed lot size in both of those districts is 44 1 40,000 square feet. The minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet would be allowed only in ~ 2 R-8 3 zoning which is unlikely in efaflge the County. Also, within the protected watersheds, the 4 septic facilities must be on the lot where the residence is located. That requires approximately 5 40,000 square feet for the residence, septic system and repair area. The land would have to be 6 in a transition area or an area that already has water and sewer if the lot size was reduced to 7 5,000 square feet. ¶For developments that are not in a protected watershed, off-site wateF septic easements are permitted. ~gefe#efe; The pfepesal amendment proposes is to reduce the amount of open space fec~ir~d which can be used for an off-site septic system. Currently, ' So% of the required open space may be used for off- site septic easements, and pes+Ag the amendment proposes that the amount of open space allowed for septic easements be reduced to 25%. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD None. 18 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 7, #3 and asked if a carport would be 19 considered open space. After some discussion it was determined that it could be interpreted to 20 mean that a carport could be considered open space. There was a consensus that the Board 21 of Commissioners did not intend for carports to be considered open space. 22 23 ¶Planning staff explained that the Zoning Ordinance defines open 24 space with respect to calculating land use intensity. The amendment adds a 25 definition with respect to open space in flexible development subdivisions. 2s 27 Attorney Gledhill suggested that rather than changing the definition it would work to 28 have a separate definition of Open Space for Flexible Development purposes. This would 29 protect the land use intensity system by making sure that the overall definition of open space, 30 which does not pertain to Flexible Development issues, is not changed inadvertently. 31 32 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Board of County Commissioners look at the 33 overall definition of open space as it is used throughout the ordinance. Some of the original 34 language came from regulations being used in more urban areas and this might be a good time 35 to review that language. 36 37 Mr. Benedict indicated that they will be sure that the definition of open space refers only 38 to Flexible Development Subdivision Open Space. He indicated that they would also review 39 the definition of open space throughout the ordinance. 40 41 Ms. Barrows referred to page 3, bullet 3 and asked if the 100 foot buffer referred only 42 to Flexible Development. 43 44 Mr. Benedict indicated that the 100 foot buffer referred only to Flexible Development, 45 however, in the future the possibility of including this buffer for other areas will be considered. 45 1 This needs to be approached carefully so that a unexpected burden is not created on 2 conventional developments. Also, in the future, the Planning Staff will review roadside buffer 3 requirements in the~future. 4 5 Commissioner Carey referred to page 5, Article 22, Definitions (a) and asked if there 6 had been cases where developers attempted to use front and side yard setbacks as open 7 space. 8 9 Mr. Benedict stated that developers have, in fact, attempted to use those setbacks as 10 open space. He indicated that open space is supposed to be located in contiguous open 11 stretches, however, developers have attempted to use areas not intended to be considered 12 open space. Hopefully, some of those loopholes have been closed. 13 14 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 16, 3ro -bullet "...house lots should abut 15 undivided open space..." and suggested that the phrase "where possible" be included. A 16 significant natural area could exist which would be situated in such a way that it would not be 17 possible to design the subdivision with the majority of the lots abutting it. He also asked- if there 18 is a requirement that utility lines be buried. 19 20 Mr. Benedict indicated that they could reword this section to include Commissioner 21 Jacobs comments. With regard to the utilities, he thought that they are all required to be 22 underground. He indicated that they would double check this and report back to the Board of 23 County Commissioners. 24 25 Chair Gordon referred to page 11, bullet #4 and asked how developers could make 26 sure that their open space is contiguous to that located'on adjacent lots. 27 28 Mr. Benedict stated that this can be accomplished during the lot layout design by 29 making sure that resources are not isolated. He mentioned that they expect the developer to 30 come up with several different options so that they can see which works best for the 31 circumstances. This will not be a mandate. It will be worded so that it is clear that this will be 32 accomplished wherever possible. 33 34 Chair Gordon agreed that the phrase "where possible" should be included in this 35 bullet. 36 37 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS 38 39 Mr. Steve Yuhasz spoke in opposition to these amendments. He commented that there 40 was no incentive for a developer to build a Flexible Development. The goals of flexible 41 development are reasonable, however, these amendments are designed to discourage using 42 these standards. He stated that the estate option which requires 50% open space, none of 43 which can be used as side or rear setbacks, actually requires 73% of the lot be open space. He 44 stated that there was no incentive to use this options. He referred to Section C.3 and 45 commented that it was not clear if the intent was to make all restrictive covenants irrevocable or 46 just those parts that refer to the ownership of the common areas. 47 46 1 Attorney Gledhill stated that this refers only to the area that the County actually 2 regulates. 3 4 Mr. Yuhasz referred to the conservation cluster option which addresses the length to 5 width ratio of four-to-one. He asked who determines if a specific area is to be designated a 6 wildlife corridor or a neighborhood common? There needs to be guidelines which make this 7 more clear. He mentioned that the issue of using setbacks as open space could be resolved by 8 prohibiting the use of fences. If the land was not subdivided by fences it would then be 9 contiguous open space area. 10 11 Chair Barrows asked Attorney Gledhill if another public hearing would need to be held if 12 the wording in the proposed amendments was changed prior to being returned to the Board of 13 County Commissioners. 14 -- 15 Attomey Gledhill felt that would not be necessary, however, he indicated that he would 16 look at that question more specifically prior to the Planning Board's recommendations being 17 retumed to the Board of County Commissioners. If, at that time, he determined that another 18 public hearing is necessary, he will advise the Board of County Commissioners. 19 20 Planning Board member Katz stated that the conservation option as it currently exists 21 has been a failure. Side yards were used by almost all of the developers as open space. The 22 proposal being presented does present clear conservation areas. Developers using this new ~23 options would be creating beautiful open space for recreation. Under the plan in place now it 24 was hit or miss as to whether that would happen. 25 26 Commissioner Jacobs commented that a logical solution to this situation is to decide if 27 Flexible Development should be mandatory. He asked staff and the Planning Board to consider 28 this as an option. 29 30 Mr. Benedict agreed that the new standards are not going to have developers lining up 31 to use the conservation cluster options, however, it does delete an option that was 32 dysfunctional. He hoped to come forward with a Flexible Development option later in the year 33 after full consideration of the issue. This proposal will be both feasible, from the development 34 standpoint, and attractive with regard to the preservation goals. 35 36 Commissioner Jacobs said that if the proposal being suggested this evening does not 37 generate, even in the short term, more flexible open space application, he would argue that we 38 have gone in the wrong direction. Possibly requiring flexible development in the short term, 39 while the issue is being further researched and improved, might result in some flexible 40 .development. 41 42 Commissioner Brown commented on Commissioner Jacobs suggestion that the 43 Planning Department staff return with more recommendations on flexible development, 44 including making flexible development mandatory. She asked if Mr. Benedict would return with 45 those suggestions in the fall. 46 47 1 Mr. Benedict indicated that he would return in the fall with those recommendations. He 2 will research this issue and solicit input from the public and developers. Also, they will take 3 various properties and put them through the processes that they will be suggesting prior to 4 presenting them to the Board of County Commissioners. The soil suitability analysis and 5 minimum lot size will be carefully reviewed. They will hopefully return with standards that would 6 be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in such a way that developers would 7 actually use them. 8 9 Commissioner Brown stated that if Flexible Development is implemented in such a way 10 that it achieves the goal of rural character and preservation of open space, she would want to 11 see it become the development option for the county. 12 13 Chair Gordon referred to Section F, Evaluation Criteria and asked how it would be 14 decided which goal would be pursued. For example, under forestland in Natural Areas, the goal 15 is to preserve forestland and within farmland conservation the goal is to preserve farmland. 16 She pointed out that with forestland preservation the development would be in the open space. 17 However, in farmland preservation, the development would be in the forest area. The question 18 is, does the staff complete an analysis and then steer the developer? 19 20 Mr. Benedict stated that Dave Stancil's area is developing maps will be used by the 21 planning staff to identify conservation areas. For example, developers will be made aware of 22 where wildlife conservation corridors, etc., are located. When developers initially approach the 23 Planning Department, they will be made aware of all areas of importance which will need to be 24 given consideration. To date, a prioritization for environmentally sensitive areas has been 25 developed. What they have not yet developed is a comparison between the areas and a 26 ranking of what is more important. That comparison will guide the decision when there are 27 conflicting areas to be preserved. That ranking system will include items such as "how rare is 28 the resource in the county, is it in the path of development, and what is the integrity of the 29 resource" 30 31 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to 32 refer the proposed amendments to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning 33 Ordinance and to Section IV-B-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision 34 Regulations to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County 35 Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 1999. 36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 37 38 ADJOURNMENT: 39 A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to 40 adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on 41 May 27,1999 in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Old Court House, Hillsborough, North 42 .Carolina. 43 ~ Alice M. Gordon, Chair 45 Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk 46 48 PLANNING BOARD NIINUTES JULY 13, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Barrows (Chair), Lynn Holtkamp, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Bob Strayhorn, Runyon Woods. Leo Allison (arrived at 8:50 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Nell Andrews, S.A.M. Brooks, Onie Lea, Jim Selkirk, Elizabeth Walters. STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Gene Bell, Karen Lincoln, Robert Davis, Debra Graham. AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Barrows called the meeting to order at approximately 7:40 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF D'IIN[JTES Jnne 2,1999 MOTION: Katz moved approval. Seconded by McAdams. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #4: COMNIISSIONERS' BRIEFS -Not available. AGENDA ITEM #5: PUBLIC CHARGE AGENDA ITEM #6: CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA ITEM #7: COA~IlViTTTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS a. Board of Adjustment No meeting. b. Agricultural Districts Advisory Board No report available. c. Historic Preservation Commission No report available. d. Ordinance Review Committee No report available. e. Shaping Orange County's Futare No report available. 49 AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (MAY 24,1999) a. Subdivision Regulations Teat Amendments (1) Flexible Development Provisions PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations provisions for flexible development. These amendments are proposed in conjunction with companion amendments to the zoning ordinance. BACKGROUND: Request: Amendments to Section 11 (Definitions), Section N-D-3 (Preliminary Plat Approval), and Section IV-B-10 (Flexible Development) propose changes that will: • delete undesirable aspects of the conservation approach; • enhance preservation of rural character in flexible development subdivisions; and • provide incentives for using the estate lot approach. The Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee initiated proposed changes to address issues regarding the conservation approach. Staff proposes additional changes to preserve buffers along subdivision boundaries and to make the estate lot approach a more viable option for development. Location: The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety of Orange County lying outside of the Rural Buffer and outside the municipalities and their extra territorial jurisdictions, if any. Existing and Proposed Conditions Existing: Flexible development subdivisions developed using the conservation option have not demonstrated creativity in design to preserve open space as intended by the flexible development provisions and do not reserve/protect any natural areas that would not be protected by other existing provisions in the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. Proposed: Staff has expanded the purview of the proposed amendments to clarify other flexible development provisions including estate lot provisions and to address inadequacies of the conservation option that are common for other flexible development approaches. An attached document giving existing ordinance language and proposed amendments contains staff annotation for each proposed amendment. Planning staff recommends amendments to Orange County Subdivision Regulations, Section IV-B-10 Flexibie Development that will: 1. Delete undesirable elements of the conservation approach and combine the desirable elements of that approach with the cluster approach to create the conservation-cluster (cc) approach; 2. Clarify and define configuration and placement of open, space (i.e. contiguous stretches); 3. Add provision fora 100' (cc approach) or 150' (estate approach) buffer along adjacent public roads to enhance preservation of rural character; 4. Modify setbacks and percentage of open space allowed for placement of septic systems; 5. Provide for Internal access for all lots in the estate approach; 50 6. Reduce the number of estate lots allowed on a private road; and 7. Provide for Planning Board approval of the estate approach. The proposed changes will necessitate amendments to Section II, Definitions and Section III-D- 3, Preliminary Ptat Approval. Deve{oament Process. Schedule, and Action • Public Hearing May 24,1999: Major comments were that flexible development would not be used if those options did not offer some incentive to the developer Draft minutes are attached. • First Action: Planning Board to consider amendments: Option 1. Action to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Option: 2. Action to recommend denial of the proposed amendments. Option: 3. Action to recommend changes to the proposed amendments that is not significant in nature. Recommendations to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 17,1999. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation: Planning Board to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section II, Definitions, Section III-D-3, Preliminary Plat Approval, and to Section IV- B-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. b. Zoning Ordinance Tezt Amendments (1) DeSnitions Regarding Flexible Development PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. These changes to the zoning ordinance are proposed as companion amendments with proposed amendments to subdivision regulations. BACKGROUND: Reauestt Amendments propose changes to the zoning ordinance to define "flexible development" and °open space' in a manner that is consistent with existing and proposed provisions of the subdivision regulations. Proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations (initiated by the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee in December, 1998, to address issues regarding flexible development) necessitate the amendments to the zoning ordinance. Location: The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety of Orange County lying outside of the Rural Buffer and outside the municipalities and their extra-territorial jurisdictions, if any. Existins~ and Proposed Conditions Existing: • "Flexible development" is defined according to the definition of flexible development in the subdivision regulations. The definition includes four approaches to preserving open space in flexible development subdivisions: 51 an "estate" lot approach; a "conservation" approach; a "cluster" approach; and a "village" or modified cluster approach. • "Open space" in the zoning ordinance is defined with respect to calculating land use intensity ratios for zoning applications and does not include a definition that compliments required "open space" in a flexible development subdivision. Proposed: • Proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations will necessitate changes to the definition of "flexible development" to eliminate the "conservation" and "cluster" approaches for preserving open space and to include the "conservation-cluster" approach. • Proposed amendment will add a definition of "Open Space - (flexible development)." Development Process. Schedule and Action • Public Hearing May 24, 1999: Draft minutes of the public hearing are attached • First Action: Planning Board to consider Amendments Option: 1. Action to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Option: 2. Action to recommend denial of the proposed amendments. Option: 3. Action to recommend changes to the proposed amendments that is not significant in nature. Recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 1999. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation: Planning Board to recommend approval of the proposed amendmenrts to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Benedict stated that these items were presented at public hearing a few months ago. He discussed the different options of development (estate, conservation, cluster and village). He noted that the amendments should help to clarify the placement of open space. He stated that an increased buffer along the. roads is also suggested to help the rural character of the areas. He noted that the amendments will also help clarify a lot of regulations and definitions for consistency. Strayhorn expressed concern with allowing water and sewer into the setbacks. Allison asked about the septic system being in the open space. Benedict responded that the system will not be in the stream buffer but in the setback. Woods asked if this would endanger the neighbor's well. Strayhorn stated that a well could not be put in within 100 feet of the septic system. Barrows asked about underground utilities. Lincoln responded that there is nothing in the regulations that require underground utilities. Benedict stated that the Board can make a recommendation to that effect. Strayhorn noted that it is extremely expensive to maintain power lines with trees there. 52 Lincoln then explained the proposed and existing definition of open space in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Allison questioned the requirement on page 125 which states: "Estate lot subdivisions of fifteen (15) or fewer lots may contain private road(s) provided the private road(s) can be justified as provided for in Section IV-B-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Private road(s) may be justified in estate lot subdivisions of more than ten (10) lots provided all lots are four (4) acres or larger." Benedict stated that this section is to be deleted from the recommendation. Lincoln noted that much of the proposed amendments is just wording changes for clarity and does not change existing ordinance provisions. Benedict noted that on page 115 of the agenda packet, number 6, which states: "Reduce the number of estate lots allowed on a private road; and" should be deleted from staff recommendation. Lincoln continued that the abstract lists how the amendments affect the ordinance provisions and that the Board does not have to vote on each change. MOTION: Katz moved to approve the proposed amendments to Section II, Definitions, Section III- D-3, Preliminary Plat Approval, and to Section IV-B-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations per the Planning Staffs recommendation with the exception of #6 as noted above. Seconded by Woods. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Katz moved to approve the proposed amendments to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and that the approval process should require approval by the Planning Board. Seconded by Allison. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #11: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS AGENDA ITEM #12: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Monthly Reports AGENDA ITEM'#13: ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Woods moved to adjourn. Seconded by Katz. VOTE: Unanimous. 53 AN ORDINAINACE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION II AND SECTION IV-B-10 TO CLARIFY AND ENHANCE THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS TO MEET OBJECTIVES SPECIFIED IN SECTION IV-B-10, SUBSECTION A PURPOSE THE BOARD OF GOUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS: Section II Definitions is amended by changing the definition of flexible development to read as follows. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through: (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots three (3) acres and greater in size, building lot area including setbacks are established on 50% of each lot, and the land area outside such area is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10, Section D.1; or (b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local government; or (c) 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 (d) Some combination of the above. 54 Section IV-B-10, Subsection C Open Space Standards is rewritten to read as follows. Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS C.3 Ownership of Open Space Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be permanently restricted from further subdivision. • Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. • Dedication of conservation easements to-flrange County, another unit of local govemment, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy. Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners association and/or to all or portions of individual lots owned by one or more property owners. • Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and as irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants. Ownership by individual property owners, of estate lots only, where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation easements applicable to such lots. Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easement may be counted toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement provided it is a portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided. 55 Section IV-B-10, Subsection D Development Standards is rewritten to read as follows. Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or more of the following development options. D.1 Estate Lot Option For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply: • Each estate lot shall have a minimum lot size of at feast three (3) acres with an average lot size of three and one-half (3.5) acres for all lots. • For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. • The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas. • Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area shall be contiguous to open space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and shall not include required front yard and side yard setbacks unless the front or side yard contains significant primary or secondary conservation areas. • Aseptic system and/or well site can only be located within the secondary conservation area provided the land designated for the septic system and/or well site is not more than one quarter of the secondary conservation area. A repair area may be located outside of a building lot area provided it does not occupy more than one quarter of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area. No septic system, repair area and/or well site can be located in the primary conservation area of a lot. No septic system and/or well site can be located in the primary conservation area. 56 Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing standards: Buildi Envelo e S acin Standards for Estate Lots Minimums acin between buildin envelo es on adjacent lots 100 feet Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision 150 feet bounds or off-site ublic street ri ht-of-wa Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 50 feet or rivate street ri ht-of-wa Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot 30 feet line Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet water bodies lakes, onds, streams, etc. • Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas; provide convenient access for emergency service vehicles; and satisfy all building envelope spacing standards, the minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and 'T" turnarounds. Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted against further development through conservation easements and/or deed restrictions. Estate lot subdivision road(s) shall be designed to provide internal access to all lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall access existing state maintained roads only via subdivision roads providing internal access to lots in the subdivision. • A 150 foot Type F buffer meeting the requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be provided along the frontage of all existing state maintained roads adjacent to the subdivision boundaries. In areas of dense mature forest, existing vegetation may be used to fulfill the buffer requirements. If additional planting is required, new plant materials that satisfy the buffer requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be installed and maintained in accordance with provisions of Article IV-B-B-f. 57 D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option A conservation-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract provided the transfer of density within the subdivision does not increase the average density in any overlay zoning district. In aconservation-cluster subdivision designed with density transfer, lots smaller than the minimum lot size permitted in the zoning district are allowed provided such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following standards: • Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas. • The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the subdivision. • Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly to create larger conservation units that may be enjoyed by all residents of the subdivision and, if possible, enjoyed visually by the general public.. Such undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided open space to provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas vulnerable to human disturbance. The design must meet Section F Evaluation Criteria which sets forth conservation area design characteristics. • Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels, no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have alength-to- width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands, watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife corridors; or trail links. • a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. A septic system and/or well site may be located in an open space area provided it does not occupy more than one quarter of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area. • Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas, minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article 58 4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth below. 0 Minimum fot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%) of the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district including any overlay district requirements; however, minimum lot area may not be smaller than 40,000 square feet within a watershed protection overlay district where Pots are served by individual septic systems. 0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced to 100 feet in the AR and R1 Districts. Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by 30°lo in all other zoning districts. 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 for-lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds. 0 Minimum spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision boundary or off-site public street right-of--way shall be 100 feet and may be counted as open space. • Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or a homeowners association. 59 In accordance with combining subsections D.2 and D.3, subsections D.4, D.5 and D.6 are renumbered as follows: D.3 Village Option D.4 Street Standards D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, UPON MOTION BY AND SECONDED BY ,THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED. AYES: NAYS: 61 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS TO DEFINE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN SPACE IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION IV-B-1 O OF THE SUBDIVISION AND TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFININTION OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR LAND USE INTENSITY CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE APPLICABLE TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS: ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS is amended by changing the definitions of flexible development and open space to read as follows: - FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural -and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through: (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots three (3) acres and greater in size, building lot area including setbacks are established on 50% of each lot, and the land area outside such area is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10, Section D.1; or (b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space on separate Tots owned and maintained through a homeowners association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local government; or (c) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered around a village green and supportitlg shops, and the village is surrounded by open space; or (d) Some combination of the above 62 Open Space - (flexible development) "Primary Conservation Areas" and "Secondary Conservation Areas", as defined in Section IV-B-10, C.2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, which are preserved through conservation easements or other restrictions in a flexible development subdivision. Open Space - (land use intensity) 1) Open space is the total horizontal area of uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject to limitations set forth below. 2) Uncovered open space is total gross residential land area not covered by buildings, plus open exterior balconies and roof areas improved as recreation space. 3) Covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky, but having two clear unobstructed open or partially open sides. Partially open sides is to be construed as fifty percent or more. Examples of covered space are covered balconies, covered portions of improved roof areas, or space under buildings supported on columns or posts or cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open space shall not exceed the square footage of the open space sides. AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, UPON MOTION BY AND SECONDED BY ,THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED. AYES: NAYS: