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

Browse Search

6 r The Planning Group relied extensively on the Flexible Development Options in making their recommendations and suggest the following modifications to Flexible Development to make it specific to the Stoney Creek area: 1. Flexible Development allows a density bonus of an additional housing unit for every acre of open space preserved above 33%. For Stoney Creek: Up to 50%open space allows half of the bonus to be used in the area;and open space in excess of 50%permits use of the bonus units wherever desired. 2. Where density bonuses can be used: The lower intensity area is a sending area for density bonuses; the intermediate intensity area is a sending and receiving area; the higher intensity area is a receiving area;and density bonuses created in the Stoney Creek area can be utilized as stated above,but density from other areas cannot be transferred into the area. 3. In the lower intensity areas,50%of active recreation land will not count toward open space,although such uses will continue to be permitted. 4. Expedited review and approval of projects that preserve large amounts of open space and enhance rural character should be included as an incentive. Two areas in which the group has consensus regarding expedited review are for: Developments that preserve 70%open space;and Rural subdivisions with lot sizes averaging five acres or more that follow the Flexible Development Rural Design Guidelines and ensure against further subdivision of lots. The proposed Stoney Creek Small Area Plan will modify the 1988 plan for the area by introducing the three land use intensity levels discussed above.However,these will only apply where a landowner/developer chooses to use voluntary Flexible Development Options. Since no zoning changes are proposed,the zoning patterns as established by the current plan will remain in effect. The above was presented at the quarterly public hearing on May 28, 1996.Two Planning Group members spoke in reference to the draft plan.Lee Rafalow noted last minute changes in the Flexible Development Package adopted by the County Commissioners that were not considered by the Planning Group;these had direct implications on the implementation recommendations.Curtis Bane raised the issue of affordable housing. Because of the changes to Flexible Development,the Planning Group requested another meeting before Planning Board consideration of the draft plan/recommendations to submit written comments consistent with Article 20.7.1 in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Group met on July 2 with 13 members in attendance to discuss issues relative to implementation. Two key issues were: 1. Village Option(included in the adopted Flexible Development package,but not covered in the draft plan and recommendations);and 2. Expedited Review(the Planning Group had endorsed this idea for certain developments based upon their understanding that the Flexible Development Design Manual would be regulatory rather than advisory in nature).