Agenda - 08-05-1996 - IX-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11 s - The Village Option as currently constituted in the Flexible Development Options is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan, but the Planning Group will take up the issue for possible future inclusion of a modified version. Density Bonuses The Planning Group recommendations on page 4-20 (attached) of the draft small area plan addresses density bonuses. The Planning Group felt that clarification was needed relative to the term "off-site" as used in the adopted FDO. There was group consensus to add the following to the fourth bullet under item 2 in the recommendations on page 4-20 of the draft plan: Therefore, as referenced in the Flexible Development Standards Design Manual (page A-23), references to "off-site" pertains only to (land) within the Stoney Creek planning area. Expedited Review On page 4-21 (attached) of the draft small area plan, the last recommendation dealt with expedited review for developments preserving 70% open space and/or developments with lot sizes averaging five acres or more that follow the Flexible Development Rural Design Guidelines (emphasis added)..... When the Planning Group was formulating its recommendations in the spring, there was an expectation that the "Design Guidelines" would contain "mandates" rather than suggestions as in the Flexible Development Standards Design Manual. In the absence of stricter language, the Planning Group reached consensus on recommending that expedited review be withdrawn for further study. Recommendation Assuming concurrence on the part of the Planning Board and County Commissioners, and on-going staff support, the Planning Group expressed the desire to reconvene (two meetings suggested) to address: 1) the village option; . and 2) expedited review issues (relative to this they requested a compilation of current ordinance standards regarding buffers between developments, protection of scenic views, etc.)