Agenda - 04-05-2011 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 530 Samantha Cabe: A transition area in a comprehensive plan, let's say there's an area that is currently zoned in the green zone 53 ~ but it is an the edge of urban development, this change would require someone Who wants to do a Master Planned Development 532 there to l•[rst have it rezoned to something that would then allow them to apply far a master planned development? . 533 534 Craig Benedict. if it was not in a transition area an the Land Use Plan, they Would have to ask to change the Land Use Plan first 535 to expand that area. This, MIPD, could only be rcqustcd in a transition area on our Land Use Map. We're suggesting that in 536 Phase ~ to understand, the MPD construct I would say isn't completely new but it hasn't been used much and we think far Phase 537 ~ and for a time period this would definitely help our economic development zones and other urban transition area. if that's 53 $ where you want to focus activity this Will not hurt. 539 , 540 Larry Wright: Can you address this in terms of pramofiing, not promoting, or not even affecting sprawl? 54~ 542 Crai Benedict; pith the suggested amendment, it Would be ark anti-sprawl device. It would be limited in area and focus in ~ e MPD can be a little more s eculative and you want speculation in growth 543 areas where we expect higher infiensity. Furth r, p 544. areas. You don't want speculation in rural areas. It does hold together that these.Wauld be better suited in your urban transition 545 areas. This definitely does not promote sprawl. It would probably bemore ananti-sprawl. 546 547 Larry Wright. Does the existing content here promote sprawl? 548 549 Crai Benedict.. No, def nitely not. We have a very strong Land Use Plan, urban growth boundaries, limitations on our water and 9 55~ sewer. As I said in my presentation on Monday, we have a lot of layers of planning here in orange County and the faces of 55 ~ activity, based on our water and sewer management planning and boundary agreement, is a major anti-sprawl device, 552 553 Larry Wright. So then what we are discussing here and what Samantha Was addressing, there is not much difference? That is 554 the difference between this and sprawl (NavemberPublic Hearing Drab U~Oj and this with sprawl ~A~rendmenf-Affachmenf 2j? 555 556 Craig Benedict: The addition would be stronger anti-sprawl. The way l taped to staff about it.was planning can be push and 557 pull. You can push it away from an area and you can pull to an area. This pulls it to a growth area. That's what'it does, the way 55 $ it is naW... 559 560 LarryWright~ This meaning the change here? 56~ 562 Craig Benedict: The MPD, yes. This pulls it to a growth area because it's the only area that,..indirectly it pushes it out of the rest 563 of the green area. !t's a pull mechanism. 564 565 Larry Wright: But in practice? 566 567 Craig Benedict: In practice We have a very good document there. It Was before, it will be better when adopfied. This is just 568 being suggested because there were some unknowns that the public was not as comfortable with regarding Master Planned 569 Developments sa We thought we would narrow down [ts location at least in Phase 1. 57~ 571 Larry vVr[ght; Thank you. 572 573 Judith Wegner I Want to put a motion forward to adopt the language in Attachment 2 as revised to strike `Rural Activity Nodes' 574 and instead put `Rural Community Nodes', [f there is mare discussion I can wait an it. 575 5'16 Alan Campbell. Is this the extent of the amendment? It can just go in? 577 578 Craig Benedict: That's correct, . 579 58~ Samantha Cabe Was there a purpose, did staff have a purpose in allowing MPD-CZs to be throughout the County When they 5 $ ~ drafted it that way or was it just that you made it that way Without really thinking about ifi needing fio be limited? The reason I'm 582 asking is that if there was a purpose for allowing it throughout the County 1 want to know what that is to know whether it's a good 583 idea to limit it or not. 584 585 Craig Benedict Relatively simple. PDs were allowed all aver and PDs were our weak explanation of what now is three different 586 things and so we didn't want to start wandering too far from the PD but PD did not explain as clearly as uue would have liked in 587 the past these Conditional Zoning Districts, Conditional Use Districts so We threw it there because it was kind of where it Was 5 $ $ placed before. 10