ORC minutes 070517 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 Tony Blake asked for confirmation that the Village Option and the Flexible Development Option - the clustering - is not the 54 same thing. 55 56 Patrick Mallett answered that they are not the same thing. 57 58 Tony Blake said that the two sections, in application to the Rural Buffer area, are confusing. 59 60 Patrick Mallett replied that Staff did not address the Village Option, but rather the focused on the text change, mostly in take 61 Sections 7.12 and 7.13 of the UDO and combined them into something called Flexible Development, in order to give two 62 minor subdivision options that encourage open space. He said that you could either do a traditional, Plain Jane subdivision 63 with large lots, or you could cluster them down to have smaller lot sizes with proportional amounts open space. A Village 64 Option has some of those elements, but the two options are like an apple and an orange. 65 66 Tony Blake said that he understood the difference between the two options. 67 68 Michael Harvey gave a brief background of the Village Option. He explained that the Village Option is a classification of 69 Flexible Development. This classification allows for a multitude of housing development options from single to duplex to multi-70 family. The Flexible Development option also can allow for non-residential activity, as part of the project, to be developed. The 71 Ordinance provides very specific examples of what those non-residential land uses are as part of this whole process. Mr. 72 Harvey said that it was his considered opinion that the reason that the Village Option is expressly prohibited from the Rural 73 Buffer is because the development, as currently is allowed, is inconsistent with the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and 74 Agreement because the proposed uses do not fit in with the Rural Buffer Zoning District concept as embodied within that Joint 75 Land Use Plan and Agreement. So, it was easier to recommend prohibition than to tailor. Further, there are specific 76 requirements in the Joint Land Use Plan and Agreement, which dates back to the late ‘80s. The Joint Land Use Plan and 77 Agreement is an agreement between Chapel Hill, Orange County, and Carrboro for the physical development of the General 78 Zoning land use category known as the Rural Buffer, which surrounds Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The Agreement specifies 79 acreage minimum for lots; two acre minimum lot size that can only be clustered down to one acre. The Village Option allows 80 for the further clustering as an entity and as such, would violate the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. This is why the prohibition 81 has existed for as many years as it has. As a general note, Mr. Harvey reminded the Committe that Planning Staff was 82 authorized to create what can best be described as a Rural Master Plan District. Some may be familiar with the Master Plan 83 District we have in urban areas, Hart’s Mill as the prime example. A developer can come to the County to petition for the 84 development of a site-specific project imposing conditions, land uses, and whatnot, and the BOCC has latitude as embodied in 85 the UDO, to work with that developer to permit the project, but also to impose reasonable conditions designed to enforce 86 provisions of the UDO. Planning Staff were coming up with a Rural Master Plan Concept and it was suggested by two BOCC 87 members that Staff look at the Village as the model. Mr. Harvey thinks that within the next calendar year, Staff will be looking 88 at an Ordinance amendment to come before ORC and Planning Board for recommendation that will take the Village concept 89 as it currently exists and make it a Rural Master Plan project. Subsequently, this would have to be reviewed with the BOCC to 90 get authorization as part of the standard operating procedure, but the last time this came-up, there was a recommendation of 91 some BOCC members to create Rural Master Plan District, and Planning Staff supports that. The possible benefit, from 92 Planning Staff’s standpoint, is to help accentuate development in certain nodes within the County where we want a more 93 centralized non-residential option for development alongside residential. 94 95 Randy Marshall asked for a clarification on the example of the Rural Master Plan District Michael Harvey provided. 96 97 Michael Harvey answered that the example he gave is a Master Plan called Hart’s Mill. Hart’s Mill is a single family residential 98 development off of Frazier Road on a110+ acre parcel where they proposed 36 individual residences on lots ranging from 99 15,000 – 25,000 square feet with one dwelling unit every three to four acres, with 80 acres of protected open space (inclusive 100 of several acres of flood zone), some of which was intended to be used as farmland. It is an intentional community where the 101 developer wanted to establish “small homes” all geared towards farm activities. If you purchase one of these lots, part of the 102 requirement is to be involved in the farm. 103 104 Randy Marshall asked if Hart’s Mill has a community septic system. 105 106 Michael Harvey replied that yes, they do. 107