PB Agenda Packet 5-6-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 700 701 Tom Altieri: The rural activity nodes would be an additional area where these systems could be 702 applied, potentially to serve a mix of land uses, so residential and non-residential, but 703 those nodes located where they are generally at crossroads are more or less intended for 704 service-type businesses and non-residential uses than to serve rural conservation 705 subdivisions that we've been discussing. 706 707 Charity Kirk: Okay. So, there's nothing really about trying to get a new, smaller community area, kind 708 of developing with different property owners and hooking into it? Because that's very 709 much about land use, and we just don't have the density stuff to, I think, help support that 710 on a larger scale. 711 712 Tom Altieri: And, yeah,just to take a little bit of a step back, the reason why we're talking about these 713 rural conservation neighborhoods and these types of systems is to achieve some density 714 so that we can preserve a higher percentage of open space within these subdivisions to 715 meet some of our other goals. You know, connecting wildlife corridors, and protecting 716 environmentally sensitive areas, and potentially preserving areas that have prime 717 agricultural soils. So, that's really the impetus for this idea. 718 719 Charity Kirk: That's true. Yeah. Thank you. 720 721 Beth Bronson: So, is it acknowledged that, like, those prime farmland soils are also the prime community 722 septic soils? I don't know, is that something that was addressed during the retreat? 723 724 Tom Altieri: It has been discussed that we're kind of competing for the same good soils. That the soils 725 that are good for agriculture are also those that are best to build on. 726 727 Cy Stober: There was quite a lengthy 15, 20 minute discussion between Commissioners McKee and 728 Green about that very point, and what direction the county should take in supporting land- 729 use change or not on those soils. 730 731 Charity Kirk: Yeah. 732 733 Lamar Proctor: I have a question about the conservation subdivisions versus flexible development. 1 734 didn't really have the bandwidth to go back, but are there examples of subdivisions that 735 we've seen that utilize the flexible development option? Isn't that how it's written in the 736 UDO? 737 738 Cy Stober: Yeah, you recommended approval of two of them in the last 6 months; the Rigsby and 86 739 North. The Commissioners approved Rigsby on 54, and they did not approve 86 North. 740 741 Lamar Proctor: Okay, and the flexible development differs from the standard subdivision in what way? 742 743 Cy Stober: Right, Jack might know this better at this point than me. He's in the trenches every day 744 doing this. So, flexible developments allow for reduction of lot sizes that's offset through 745 open space, commonly held open space that's dedicated to be permanently preserved. 746 So, you can reduce the lot size from .92 acres, 40,000 square feet, down to as much as 747 66 percent in some cases, but generally it's 33 percent or more. 33 percent is the 748 minimum that's required, and then you can get, there's actually some density bonuses you 749 can get if you do much more than that, which Taylor's gone over in her presentations;