Planning Board agenda 060519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T 385 Tim Smith: I apologize. I forgot to introduce the developer who is here tonight, Mr. Jim Parker. I’m not sure there’s 386 any direct market that they’re targeting. 387 388 Jim Parker: The builder for these lots will be Drees Homes who has built a lot of homes in Orange County. The 389 homes will be similar to those that they have been building here. I would estimate your price range is about right.390 391 Jessica Aguilar: That’s my concern. People in my situation, my socio-economic strata, are being edged out. We’re 392 looking for a home right now and we can’t find anything affordable in this area. We are at risk of having to move after 393 being here for almost two decades because these kinds of developments are coming in and taking up lands that we394 can’t even dream of being a part of. 395 396 Patrick Mallett: I would like to add on to the school comments. We have a fairly regimented system, database, and 397 tracking system to verify if a project will or will not have an impact on school capacity issues. Our system, a copy of 398 the report is contained within your packet, tells us if we are getting close to having a capacity issue. In this case, that 399 CAPS form, and data is submitted to the school board for their review and processing as well. Bottom line is this 400 project does not increase school capacity beyond what can be handled within existing facilities. There is no 401 anticipated impact to the Orange County school system. We’ve done this prematurely to let them know this is being 402 moved through the process and as they move through, this would get adjusted and tracked over time. The main 403 point is the dashboard isn’t showing a red light or even yellow light yet.404 405 Randy Marshall: Is there anything in the Orange County UDO that requires affordable housing since I don’t see any 406 reference to it? 407 408 Patrick Mallett: No, we don’t. What we’re focused on at this level is the process for the subdivision part of it. We 409 cannot compel a developer to develop what is defined as affordable housing. There are incentive programs in the 410 UDO to encourage the development of affordable housing, primarily through increases in allowable density, but this 411 is not applicable to this project.412 413 Randy Marshall: Municipalities often require payment in lieu of recreational facilities. I don’t see any mini play 414 grounds or recreational facilities within this development.415 416 Patrick Mallett: That we can require and we do collect. We still collect a Park and Recreation fee based on the park 417 district that they are in. It’s in the $455 range times each lot. Most jurisdictions have realized that it doesn’t pay in 418 the public sense to put hundreds of little parks that are public parks within smaller subdivisions. Park districts have 419 been created and then that money is collected. You would have the open space for the project and then you have 420 public recreation which is the park fee. 421 422 Michael Harvey: I wanted to expand on the answer of affordable housing. Orange County does indeed have a 423 program that allows for density bonuses for projects that provide affordable housing units. The problem is those 424 density bonuses are not applicable in watershed protection overlay districts. We establish density limitations as part 425 of our watershed management program to control overall development of property and to ensure we are effective 426 with managing water quality issues. You will recall from the concept plan meeting where we had discussed that the 427 applicant had investigated the potential to maximize the total number of lots that could be developed on these 428 properties, which would have been 27. The chief factors leading to the developer choosing not to develop the 27 429 individual lots were concerns about well and septic system development, potential traffic impacts, the preservation of 430 open space, and adjacent property owners concerns that 27 lots was too intensive of a development for the area.431 From my standpoint all of these factors go into the development cost and the ultimate price point for the homes that 432 will be developed on this property. There is not a lot of opportunity in the rural areas of the County where there’s not 433 easy access to water, sewer, public utilities to have intensely developed projects that might be able to have a price 434 point that could be construed as affordable based on applicable guidelines. Part of the duality in Orange County’s 435 planning program is the need to properly manage or protect the natural environment and the tradeoff for that 436 sometimes does result in projects that may not necessarily focus or factor on an addressing an affordability concern437 due to the low densities of the project, larger lot sizes, and need to rely on private well and septic systems.438 Ultimately this property will not yield sufficient density to make development of what some might construe an 439 12