Agenda - 03-06-1996 - X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

15 lots as meeting the objectives of rural character preservation: it does not. I suggest that we begin with the Arendt guideline and adjust it over time as we determine appropriate instead of beginning with something that doesn't attempt to achieve the objective. Another aspect of the proposal that is inconsistent with the objectives and, instead, aimed at building better suburbs is the notion that active recreational uses help preserve rural character. This is not to suggest that active recreational uses aren't important, but let's not confuse that goal with the rural character preservation objectives. The County already has provisions for establishing active recreational uses; if they are insufficient, they should be amended. But recreational needs and conservation needs are different and should not be traded off against one another. There should be no allowance, and definitely not 50%, for active recreational uses as a substitute for natural and agricultural spaces. The second underlying premise in the "Flexible Development" proposal is that the only barrier to achieving rural character preservation is that the zoning ordinances prevent developers from doing what they would otherwise be eager to do. Although there is certainly a need to improve the ordinances, the fact of the matter is that we have some provisions for cluster development on the books today. The same Wall Street Journal article notes that "while same (conservation-oriented) projects spring from principle, more often than not they're spawned by legal battles." Clearly, we don't want a development atmosphere that is poisoned by battles like Meadowmont or University Station. Like any business person, every developer wants to know what's allowed so they can manage their time and money effectively. Let's avoid future battles in Orange County, let's tell developers what's expected: we want rural character preservation, not conventional suburban sprawl, not even improved suburban sprawl. Although we need to make sure there are a range of options from which to choose, we should be clear a limit permitted uses to those that meet the objectives. Although we need to respect the property value rights of our citizens and not reduce permitted densities, we should be clear about how to achieve those densities so as to meet the rural character preservation objectives. This can be done, without downzoning, by determining densities based on a yield plan but only allowing those densities with the open space suggested above. Lower densities, in a conventional layout, might be permitted as in the "Estate Lot" proposal, but conventional subdivisions at full buildout might be by special use permit only. Density bonuses are not required and are not consistent with rural character preservation. In addition to the above broader issues, I also have a number of questions and concerns about the proposal. 1. Several aspects of the proposal point to other designations for guidance on what appropriate uses might be. So, for example, a change in the scenic road designation or a transportation corridor designation would change the definition of appropriate uses for a particular development. I am particularly concerned about turning any more land use authority over to the DOT than absolutely necessary, but it is important that any of these changes get adequate public review before they create de facto land use plan changes.