Agenda - 11-20-2012 - 6b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

19 • A BOCC member asked about flexible development projects within the Rural' Buffer zoning district. Staff Comment. As staff indicated during the public hearing the flexible development subdivision option involves the preservation of a minimum 33% of the total tract's land area as protected open space. Development of individual lots is allowed consistent with 3 `flexible development' subdivision classifications, namely: • Estate Lot Option: Characterized with lots having a minimum area of 4 acres where the building envelope does not exceed 50% of the total lot area, • Conservation Cluster Option: Characterized by lots clustered together with a potential minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet. Allowable lot yield is based on compliance with density limits denoted within Section 4.2.4 of the UDO or as required by the underlying zoning district, • Village Option: Allows for mixed use development including various residential options (i.e. single-family, multi-family, townhome, etc.) as well as public/civic areas and non-residential development. This option is expressly prohibited within the RB zoning district as detailed within Section 7.13.2(C)of the UDO. The clustering of lots down to 40,000 square feet in not permitted on this property based on language contained within the UDO and the Joint Planning Land Use Plan requiring lots 2 acres in size or greater' (i.e. Section 6 — Future Use—Joint Planning Area). While it is true the applicant could cluster lots, with a minimum 2 acre lot size, and provide the required 33% open space typically associated with the flexible development process, there is no incentive for the developer to do so. As a result they chose to abide by the conventional subdivision design standards. No further comment necessary, the applicant concurs with the responses providing by the Planning Staff and is of the opinion that the initial comment has been adequately addressed. • A BOCC member expressed support over a potential re-assessment of the Joint Land Use Plan seeking to revise language clarifying the ability to have flexible development subdivisions on property located within the Rural Buffer-Rural Residential Joint Plan land use category. Another BOCC member indicated she felt the aforementioned re-assessment was not in order. No firrther comment necessary. • A BOCC member expressed frustration over requiring subdivisions to go through a land use development process and suggested the UDO be revised to not require a Class A Special Use Permit for subdivisions proposing more than 20 lots. No further comment necessary. • A BOCC member asked staff to separate explanation, discussion, or review of land use buffers and open space areas in future memorandum on this and all other similar projects.No further comment necessary.