Meeting 030496 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

'ilia: Like to come beck to it. Lee: If somebody is doing a major development where they are puttin`, a concentrated kind of development on 30% of the land that they have and tell them the,., don't have to go before the public, they Nvill jump on it. 4' ria: Is there any discussion on point six? Group: Yes! Bob: Very much opposed to anything that differs from the FDO. Think if you have open space, regardless of the type, has value to someone. Don't know if any the yellow area would ever have a golf course, but it bothers him to restrict the opportunity. Dan: Is a park considered active recreation land? Gene: Generally, a park is going to be public property. Discussion by several group members concerning FDO allowing 50% of active recreation land being allowed to count toward open space and bonus units and that this would not apply in the yellow area if the subcommittee recommendation was adopted. Bob: He worked for years to try to get recreational areas for County residents and cannot see penalizing somebody willing to do it on their own and doesn't see it as being insane to give that person some building space somewhere else. Verla: Assuming that your objection is that you view number six as a disincentive to property in the yellow area? Bob: Yes. Judd: How are roads and power line easements included in open space calculations and at what ratio do they count? Lee: To Curtis, keep hearing you say that taxes are a key point of this equation, but they have nothing to with how you calculate density bonuses. Curtis: If you're paving taxes on a piece of land, regardless of where it is, e.g., under a road, in a creek, it ought to be part of the calculation. Verla: Don't know if the current conversation is relevant to getting through the subcommittee proposal. Judd: Only analogy he is trying to make is for similar sorts of land use, whether it's paved or whether it's cleared, how does that relate to another part of the credit which is the road? Lee: When we started out, our first subcommittee worked very hard on trying to come up with very concrete statements about what our objectives were and we came up with two; we've had some creep on one of them and the other seems to have evaporated. The one that has crept is the one that said we are going to do everything in our power to preserve the value of the land. The creep that has occurred over the intervening months since we defined objective; it has been translated into everything that is economically possible as an opportunity is being endorsed by this group. Conversely, the other objective we agreed upon is that we would preserve rural character and that's gone. Verla: Very important for the people on this committee to feel committed to the outcome or there won't be an agreement. Is the work of the subcommittee resulting in anything better than what the current proposal is? Is there anything that we're doing in the incentives that would make you want to develop differently than what the current option is? Would you choose any of these other options over the current option? Curtis: Depends on the nature of the piece of land.