Meeting 012596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Curtis: Would think that golf course might be an inducement to promote clustering homes around it. Lee: Feels that active recreation uses like golf courses are not rural character and should not count as rural character preservation, not to say it should not be allowed, but that it shouldn't count as preserving rural character; and since intent in yellow area is to make that the area we really want to preserve rural character in, propose that golf courses not be permitted there, but that they be permitted in rust and pumpkin areas, but as a conditional use with the intent that conservation easements be bought elsewhere to preserve rural character. There might be a different formula for this, maybe that you only have to 50% of conservation easements and 50% of use counts toward open space. Personally, feels that active recreation uses should be eliminated from counting as open space because they are not natural and don't look anything like farm or woodlots. Elio: Are there any major objections to this now that Lee has explained? Lee: Next section is kind of a mixed bag of controversy and incentive. Intent of first sentence is that conventional R -1 development not be allowed in yellow zone, that if what you want to achieve is full build -out capability, you would have to do that with a modified version of open space; you could build up to five conventional one acre lots (this came directly from Rural Character Study recommendations). Idea is recognizing that if a landowner wants to create a small number of conventional one -acre lots for children /family or to sell, this is an OK thing to do, but if he wants to develop land and achieve full buildout potential based on current zoning /yield plan he will have to achieve that density as an open space development (there is no downzoning going on here). Elio: This is strongest proposal yet; will probably meet opposition. At this point we have a serious decision to make. Everything discussed to this point can probably be adjusted up or down. Afraid that some group members will interpret it as having gone back on agreement not to take away anything. Although as you point out, density can still be achieved, but it has to be done by a certain type of development. Some people will interpret this as being told what to do. If we're going to lose all we've gained because of this, should seriously consider including it. Lee: If five isn't right number, maybe go to 10, but it could get too big. Reason he wrote it this way was because of something Bob Strayhorn said about disincentives and that was if you really don't want something then don't permit it and so, that's what he did. Elio: Have a suggestion to take this and make it separate, i.e., have two documents, one without this provision and the other with it. This may be the thing one or two people may focus on and Offs