Agenda - 11-01-1995 - X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11 SLWMARY OF PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL JULY 119 1995 At its July 11 special meeting, the Planning Board provided the following comments regarding the staff proposal: • The Board agreed to consider the item again on August 21 and receive, two weeks prior to the meeting, a summary of comments from Randall Arendt, Ann Joyner, and the Board's July 11 discussion. The Board also set August 3 as the deadline for any other comments from parties wishing to comment on the proposal. • Regarding the "perpetuity" item (Section H, page 10), the Board indicated that it preferred requiring conservation easements to deed restrictions for estate lot open space. The Board added that it could support language requiring near-unanimous agreement of property owners to change open space status for any situations where perpetuity is not "concrete" (as opposed to current deed restrictions requiring unanimous agreement of property owners to extend open space provisions). • There was substantial discussion of the Village Development Standards/Public and Civic Areas "At least 10% of the area..." provision, which expanded into a full discussion of the village option altogether. Although the Board did not recommend a change to the 10% provision, some members expressed concern at requiring a certain percentage of the village proper for these uses. Discussion of "what went wrong" in Southern Village was initiated, and the Board discussed what this option would contain and where villages would be located. o Larry Reid felt that there would be no place in the County where these could realistically be built, and that we were going to mislead developers. o Margaret Brown was concerned about an option that would not turn out the way it was planned, and that SCS and Erosion Control were not prepared to handle development of this type. O Arnie Katz stated that he felt an economic base was important to the purpose of villages, and asked that feasibility of working this option into the EDD's be considered. The Board asked for a report on the differences between what was planned for the Southern Village south of Chapel Hill, and what is actually being built. Although there was considerable discussion about the reasons for doing/not doing the village option, the Board asked for the following information for August 21 - a map showing where villages could "realistically" be located in the County, given the locational guidelines on page 16. Staff and some Board members provided information about where these locational attributes were likely to overlap, but the Board wanted to