ORD-2003-133 Amendments to Open Space Standards for Flexible Development Subdivisions

Browse Search

v 4K A -aoo3 - ~.~~~ io - ~/ - ~. ~ .3 b. Amendments to Open Space Standards for Flexible Development Subdivi ~ ns The Board closed the public hearing and considered proposed amendments to the Open Space Standards in subdivisions following the Flexible Development option. Craig Benedict said that this amendment would further help in the review process to ensure that open space is distributed throughout sites to the highest degree possible. He made reference to some changes that were made by Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon. He said that they did anticipate questions about pedestrian open space areas and whether they are paved pathways or mulch. These areas are not required to be paved. Geof Gledhill said that the amount of the pedestrian open space areas can be greater than 5%, but they only count for 5% of the 33% total open space. Commissioner Gordon asked if making this more restrictive is a problem. She said that when this went to public hearing, the public was not told that there would be this limitation concerning the amount of pedestrian open space that could be counted as total open space. She believes that provision should go back to the public hearing. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 10 and said that her point is that right now we are requiring either 300 feet or 600 feet between access points to open space. This means that a lot of land must be devoted to pedestrian paths which access open space. She is saying that this is too much to require. She said that, in comparison, a common standard for walking to bus stops was one quarter of a mile, or approximately 1300 feet. She said that where the proposed ordinance says 300 feet between access points, it should be moved up to 600 feet and where it says 600 feet, it should be moved up to 1200 feet. She explained some other changes, which were outlined on her handout. She would like to make it more flexible for the developer to design and not have so many access points. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to approve the staff recommendations, with the changes on her handout. There was no second. The motion failed. Commissioner Jacobs said that on page 10, the Board changed it to make it more flexible. It says approximately 300 feet and approximately 600 feet. He would rather leave it alone. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the ordinance as recommended by the staff, with the revisions (blue sheet). VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1(Commissioner Gordon -she thinks it is too restrictive with respect to the points she raised) c. Buckhorn EDD -Proposed Amendments to Permitted Use Table The Board considered correction of a text error in the EDD Design Manual and to Consider adoption of proposed amendments to the Permitted Use Table for the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District (Buckhorn EDD). Craig Benedict said that the correction of the text error was mentioning that class A goes to the Board of Adjustment. Class B actually goes to the Board of Adjustment. The more substantive correction to the EDD was adding additional uses to the I-85/Buckhorn Road EDD. These were discussed at a public hearing, and it included the addition of schools into the district as a class A special use permit. Also, allowing golf driving and practice ranges as a permitted use. Other uses were deleted such as water freight terminals, storage of petroleum products, and body shops. Also, the Planning Board did not unanimously approve this as it was stated. The Planning Board approved the special use standards for schools within the Buckhorn EDD. They approved this on a 6-3 vote. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proposed amendments consistent with the Planning Board recommendation. Chair Brown asked about the motor vehicle maintenance body shops and why they are going to be eliminated. Craig Benedict said that the existing use category for this is a class A special use permit. Chair Brown asked if our design standards for the EDD are strong enough or sophisticated enough to allow these types of businesses to have a good design. Craig Benedict said that our standards are elaborate and good. He thinks that any project like this would be scrutinized enough.