Agenda - 05-26-2015 - C-2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

271 shall range from 1 to 4 bedroom homes clustered around a pedestrian trail in the middle of the property surrounded by identified open space /farm areas. A common house, a shared facility approximately 3,000 sq. ft. in area, shall be developed as a place where residents and their guests can meet for community meals, entertainment, and mail pick- up. Meeting Highlights: Staff reviewed the permitting process for the project and reminded all in attendance the applicant was not proposing a subdivision of property but rather a large planned community where individual property owners would own their homes outright but only have an ownership interest in the property as a whole. With 34 planned residences this would mean an individual owning a house would have a 1/34 interest in the property. As a result of the proposed ownership model the project was not required to be processed through the Class A Special Use Permit process for a major subdivision over 20 lots as would normally be required by County regulations. Staff indicated the applicant was still required to provide information consistent with this process, specifically by completing an environmental assessment of the project and a transportation impact analysis, but that review of the project was going to proceed as a rezoning request. An attendee questioned this point and did not understand why a subdivision was not being proposed /required. The applicant reviewed the development and ownership model again. At this point the site plan was reviewed again with the housing locations. Staff reiterated that individual residential lots were not being proposed and that the developer would ultimately retain ownership of the property. The question was asked if the units constructed on the property would be considered tiny houses. The applicant indicated the goal for the development was an affordable co- housing community where smaller houses sizes were encouraged but that it could not be said this was going to be a tiny house development. There was a question asked about the farm activities that would occur on the property. The applicant indicated there would be crops grown on the parcel but that a final determination had not been made as to what this would entail. Further, the applicant indicted there would be some livestock but that farming activities would be kept at least 100 feet from common property lines. There were general comments made over the potential smell emanating from the livestock on the property. Staff reminded all in attendance that farm operations were exempt from zoning regulation by State law. There was general discussion on the limits on the regulation of farming operations. A question was asked if the project would involve the clear cutting of the property and harvesting of timber. The applicant indicated while there may be some additional clearing of property for pasture /crop land the majority of existing wooded area along the eastern property line would be maintained. Staff identified the presence of streams and floodplain in this area and reviewed County stream buffer regulations with those in attendance.