Agenda - 11-07-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

04, Pg.! Gordon inquired as to why the zero lot line approach could not be handled through Planned Development. Pearson noted there were no provisions in the ordinance to handle party lands thri Planned Development. Gordon continued she would hesitate to into the ordinance provisions for handling zero lot lines out Planned Development. Collins stated this could be handled un, special use permits. Smith emphasized this provision if appri would allow staff to pursue consideration of this approach. .VOTE: Gordon moved to delete the statement "Review the applicabilit zero lot line and maximum floor area ratio" development stand to Orange County." Seconded by Pilkey. Discussion followed. Allison asked for an example of where it would apply and Smit responded any urban transition area. Allison furhter inquire what deletion would do. Smith responded it would only allow such proposals to be considered as Planned Development. Alli was concerned with the contradiction. Gordon was still concerned with handling these proposals out; the Planned Development process. Pilkey reviewed Zoning Ordinance Planned Development section 7.4.5. Shanklin commented that this action only recommends the nevi' of the applicability of zero lot line and maximum floor area ratio to Orange County. Pearson commented that to develop at high density R-13, the developer must have 14.9 acres to be considered under planne development. Smith clarified that you do not need 5 acres t do Planned Development in response to Board members concern about minimum acreage. The Board reviewed dimensional requirements. VOTE: For Pilkey, Alp son, Greenberg, Walters, Irvin, Gordon Opposed: Bacon, Pearson, Shanklin Gordon inquired what "development" standards at the bottom o 4, page 21 under Transportation recommended actions meant: Smi explained it meant guidelines-for minimal road improvements. After discussion of standards requirements for development, ',;. .. • . ..r-tir.H tr. r.t.7A IIf'